• Heaven
    Aid to Bible Understanding

    • second presence of Christ Jesus that members of his congregation are resurrected and ascend to heaven, while “the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” (1 Thess. 4:15-17) It may be noted that the “air” (Gr., a·erʹ, as at Acts 22:23) in which the surviving Christians meet the Lord is not the same as the “heaven” (ou·ra·nosʹ) and hence allowance must be made for something other than a literal ascension to heaven of these ‘surviving ones’ at this point. The text does not mention their dying, which is a prerequisite to their resurrection to spirit life.

      It is also true that even where the expression “heavenly places” is used, this may have a meaning other than literal. The context provides the key to understanding. Thus, the apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians speaks of Christians then living on earth as though already enjoying such heavenly position, being raised up and “seated . . . together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 1:3; 2:6) The context shows that anointed Christians are so viewed by God because of his having ‘assigned them as heirs’ with his Son in the heavenly inheritance. While yet on earth, they have been exalted or ‘lifted up’ by such assignment. (Eph. 1:11, 18-20; 2:4-7, 22) These points may also shed light on the symbolic vision at Revelation 11:12. Likewise it provides a key for understanding the prophetic picture contained at Daniel 8:9-12, where what has previously been shown to represent a political power is spoken of as “getting greater all the way to the army of the heavens,” and even causing some of that army and of the stars to fall to the earth. At Daniel 12:3, those servants of God on earth at the foretold time of the end are spoken of as shining “like the stars to time indefinite.” Note, too, the symbolic use of stars in the book of Revelation, chapters one through three, where the context shows that such “stars” refer to persons who are obviously living on earth and undergoing earthly experiences and temptations, these “stars” being responsible for congregations under their care.

      The way to heavenly life

      The way to heavenly life involves more than just faith in Christ’s ransom sacrifice and works of faith in obedience to God’s instructions. The inspired writings of the apostles and disciples show that there must also be a calling and choosing of such one by God through his Son. (2 Tim. 1:9, 10; Matt. 22:14; 1 Pet. 2:9) This invitation involves a number of steps or actions taken to qualify such a one for the heavenly inheritance, many of such steps being taken by God, others by the one called. Among such steps or actions are the declaring of the called Christian righteous (Rom. 3:23, 24, 28; 8:33, 34); bringing him forth (‘begetting him’) as a spiritual son (John 1:12, 13; 3:3-6; Jas. 1:18); his being baptized into Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3, 4; Phil. 3:8-11); anointing him (2 Cor. 1:21; 1 John 2:20, 27); sanctifying him (John 17:17); the called one must maintain integrity until death (2 Tim. 2:11-13; Rev. 2:10); and, the Christian having proved faithful in his calling and selection (Rev. 17:14), he is finally resurrected to spirit life.—John 6:39, 40; Rom. 6:5; 1 Cor. 15:42-49; see ANOINTED, ANOINTING; DECLARE RIGHTEOUS; RESURRECTION; SANCTIFICATION.

      THIRD HEAVEN

      At 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 the apostle Paul describes one who was “caught away . . . to the third heaven” and “into paradise.” Since there is no mention in the Scriptures of any other person having had such an experience, it seems likely that this was the apostle’s own experience. Whereas some have endeavored to relate Paul’s reference to the third heaven to the early rabbinical view that there were stages of heaven, even a total of “seven heavens,” this view finds no support in the Scriptures. As we have seen, the heavens are not referred to specifically as if divided into platforms or stages, but, rather, the context must be relied upon to determine whether reference is to the heavens within earth’s atmospheric expanse, the heavens of outer space, or the spiritual heavens. It therefore appears that the reference to the “third heaven” indicates the superlative degree of the rapture in which this vision was seen. Note the way words and expressions are repeated three times at Isaiah 6:3; Ezekiel 21:27; John 21:15-17; Revelation 4:8, evidently for the purpose of expressing an intensification of the quality or idea.

  • Hebrew, I
    Aid to Bible Understanding

    • HEBREW, I

      The designation “Hebrew” is first used for Abram, distinguishing him thereby from his Amoritish neighbors. (Gen. 14:13) Thereafter, in virtually every case of its use, the term “Hebrew(s)” continues to be employed as a contrasting or distinguishing designation—the one speaking is of a non-Israelite nation (Gen. 39:13, 14, 17; 41:12; Ex. 1:16; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9), or is an Israelite addressing a foreigner (Gen. 40:15; Ex. 1:19; 2:7; Jonah 1:9), or foreigners are mentioned.—Gen. 43:32; Ex. 1:15; 2:11-13; 1 Sam. 13:3-7.

      As the above texts show, the designation “Hebrew” was already familiar to the Egyptians in the eighteenth century B.C.E. This would seem to indicate that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had become quite well known over a wide area, thus making the appellative “Hebrew” a recognizable one. When Joseph spoke of the “land of the Hebrews” (Gen. 40:15) to two of Pharaoh’s servants, he doubtless referred to the region around Hebron that his father and forefathers had long made a sort of base of operations. Some six centuries later the Philistines still spoke of the Israelites as “Hebrews,” and King Saul and the writer (or writers) of First Samuel show that “Hebrews” and “Israel” were then equivalent terms. (1 Sam. 13:3-7; 14:11; 29:3) In the ninth century B.C.E. the prophet Jonah identified himself as a Hebrew to sailors (possibly Phoenicians) on a boat out of the seaport of Joppa. (Jonah 1:9) The Law also distinguished “Hebrew” slaves from those of other races or nationalities (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12), and, in referring to this, the book of Jeremiah (in the seventh century B.C.E.) shows the term “Hebrew” to be then the equivalent of “Jew.”—Jer. 34:8, 9, 13, 14.

      In later periods Greek and Roman writers regularly called the Israelites either “Hebrews” or “Jews,” not “Israelites.”

      ORIGIN AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM

      The views as to the origin and significance of the term “Hebrew” generally can be resolved into the following:

      One view holds that the name comes from the root word ʹa·varʹ, meaning “to pass over.” The term would then apply to Abraham as the one whom God took “from the other side of the River [Euphrates].” (Josh. 24:3) The translators of the Septuagint Version so understood the term and thus at Genesis 14:13 referred to Abraham as “the passer” rather than “the Hebrew.” This theory is quite popular, yet not without problems. The ending for the term ʽIv·riʹ (“Hebrew”) is the same as that used in other terms that are definitely patronymics, that is, names formed by the addition of a prefix or suffix indicating relationship to the name of one’s father or parental ancestor. Thus, Moh·ʼa·viʹ (“Moabite”) denotes primarily one descended from Moab (Moh·ʼavʹ) rather than one from a geographical region; so too with ʽAm·moh·niʹ (“Ammonite”), Da·niʹ (“Danite”), and many others.

      Additionally, if “Hebrew” were to apply to Abraham solely on the basis of his having ‘crossed over, the Euphrates, the term might seem to be a very general one, applicable to any person who did the same—and likely there were many such emigrants in the course of the centuries. With such an origin, the term could be distinctive only if Abraham’s crossing of the Euphrates was recognized as being by divine call. That this fact should be acknowledged by the people of the pagan races using the term is a matter for question, but cannot be deemed impossible.

      A second view, endorsed by some scholars, is that the name denotes those who are sojourners, that is, ‘passing through,’ as distinguished from those who are residents or settlers. (Compare the use of ʽa·varʹ at Genesis 18:5; Exodus 32:27; 2 Chronicles 30:10.) While the Israelites did lead a nomadic life for a time, this was not the case after the conquest of Canaan. Yet, the name “Hebrew” continued to apply to them. Another objection to this concept may be that it is so broad that it would include all nomadic groups. Since Jehovah is Biblically identified as “the God of the Hebrews,” it is evident that this does not mean ‘all the nomads,’ inasmuch as many nomadic peoples were worshipers of false gods.—Ex. 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3.

      A third view that accords well with the Biblical evidence is that “Hebrew” (ʽIv·riʹ) comes from the name Eber (ʽEʹver), that of the great-grandson of Shem and an ancestor of Abraham. (Gen. 11:10-26) It is true that nothing is known about Eber aside from his family relationship as a link in the chain of descent from Shem to Abraham. There is no outstanding act or other personal feature recorded that might form the basis for Eber’s name being used so prominently by his descendants. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that Eber is specifically singled out at Genesis 10:21, Shem there being spoken of as “the forefather of all the sons of Eber.” That the name Eber was applied centuries after his death to a certain people or region is evident from Balaam’s prophecy in the fifteenth century B.C.E. (Num. 24:24) The use of the name as a patronymic would also link the Israelites with a particular one of the “family descents” from Noah, as recorded at Genesis 10:1-32.

      As with the other views already discussed, the question arises as to why “Hebrew,” if derived from the name Eber, should be applied so specifically and distinctively to the Israelites. Eber had other descendants, through his son Joktan, who were not in the line of descent to Abraham (and Israel). (Gen. 10:25-30; 11:16-26) It would seem that the term ʽIv·riʹ (“Hebrew”) would apply to all such descendants who could lay rightful claim to Eber as their ancestor. Some scholars suggest that originally this may have been the case, but that, in course of time, the name came to be restricted to the Israelites as the most prominent of the Eberites or Hebrews. This would not be without some parallel in the Bible record. Although there were many non-Israelite descendants of Abraham, including the Edomites, the Ishmaelites and the descendants of Abraham through his wife Keturah, it is the Israelites who are distinctively called the “seed of Abraham.” (Ps. 105:6; Isa. 41:8; compare Matthew 3:9; 2 Corinthians 11:22.) Of course, this was because of God’s action toward them in connection with the Abrahamic covenant. But the very fact of God’s making them a nation and giving them the land of Canaan as an inheritance, as well as giving them victories over many powerful enemies, would certainly distinguish the Israelites, not only from other descendants of Abraham, but also from all other descendants of Eber. There is the possibility, too, that many of such other descendants may also have lost their “Eberite” identity by intermarriage with peoples descended from other racial stocks.

      It may well be, then, that Eber is singled out in the genealogical lists as a divine indication that the Noachian blessing pronounced upon Shem would find its fulfillment especially in the descendants of Eber, the subsequent facts showing the Israelites to be the prime recipients of that blessing. Such specific mention of Eber would also serve the purpose of indicating the line of descent of the promised Seed mentioned in Jehovah’s prophecy at Genesis 3:15, Eber thereby becoming a specific link between Shem and Abraham. Such a connection would also harmonize well with the designation of Jehovah as “the God of the Hebrews.”

      Balaam’s prophecy

      The understanding of Balaam’s prophecy at Numbers 24:24 depends upon whether Eber is there used as a geographical term indicating the ‘land (or people) on the other side,’ or as a patronymic applying especially to the Hebrews (Israelites). Most commentators recognize Kittim, from whose coast ships would come to afflict Assyria and Eber, according to the prophecy, as being primarily the ancient designation of Cyprus. However, as the articles on CYPRUS and KITTIM show, Cyprus came under heavy Greek influence; also, the name Kittim may have a broader application, beyond the island of Cyprus, perhaps allowing for a further connection with Greece. So, most scholars consider the prophecy to relate to the Greek or Macedonian conquest of the Near Eastern nations, including Assyria. Those holding that Eber is here used geographically consider the affliction upon Eber to mean that not only Assyria but all the Mesopotamian powers (the people ‘on the other side’) would be brought under Western domination. Those considering Eber as designating the Hebrews, suggest that the foretold affliction came upon them after the death of Alexander the Great and under the line of Seleucid rulers, particularly Antiochus Epiphanes. Even as the name “Assyria” in this text is actually the name “Asshur” in Hebrew, so too it appears that “Eber” is indeed a patronymic designating the Hebrews rather than merely a geographical designation.

      USE IN THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES

      In the Christian Greek Scriptures the term “Hebrew” is used particularly in designating the language spoken by the Jews (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; Acts 21:40; 22:2; Rev. 9:11; 16:16), the language in which the resurrected and glorified Jesus addressed Saul of Tarsus. (Acts 26:14, 15) At Acts 6:1 Hebrew-speaking Jews are distinguished from Greek-speaking Jews.—See GREECE, GREEKS.

      Paul described himself as, first, a Hebrew, second, an Israelite, and third, of the seed of Abraham. (2 Cor. 11:22) ‘Hebrew’ may here be used to show his racial origin (compare Philippians 3:4, 5) and perhaps language, ‘Israelite,’ his natural membership in the nation God had originally established as His name people (compare Romans 9:3-5), and ‘seed of Abraham,’ his being among those inheriting the promised blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.

      THE “HABIRU”

      In numerous cuneiform records discovered in several Near Eastern lands, the Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) term Habiru (or Hapiru) occurs. At Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, a quantity of letters were found that had been written by vassal Canaanite rulers to the Pharaoh of Egypt (then their overlord) complaining, among other things, of the attacks against their cities by certain rulers in league with the “Habiru.” Whereas some have endeavored to link this up with the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the evidence does not seem to support such view. Professor T. O. Lambdin says of the Habiru: “Although many features of the Habiru problem remain obscure, it is clear from numerous references that they consisted mainly of unlanded vagrants who entered into a dependent status as agricultural laborers or soldiers in exchange for maintenance.” (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, P. 532) Professor Kline also states: “The term ha-BI-ru is usually regarded as an appellative denoting nomads, dependents, or foreigners. . . . the phonetic equation of ʽibri [Hebrew] and ha-BI-ru is highly improbable. Moreover, the extant evidence suggests that the ha-BI-ru were professional militarists with a non-Semitic nucleus. . . .”—Douglas’ The New Bible Dictionary, p. 511; see EGYPT, EGYPTIAN (History).

      So, too, with the Egyptian term ʽApri or ʽEpri. While attempts have been made to apply it to the Hebrews, the evidence shows that it continued to be used in Egyptian inscriptions long after the Hebrews had left Egypt. As Professor A. Lukyn Williams states (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 326): “. . . the identification is, to say the least, very precarious.”

  • Hebrew, II
    Aid to Bible Understanding

    • HEBREW, II

      The Hebrew language was used for the writing of the major part of the inspired Scriptures—thirty-nine books in all (according to the division of material as found in many translations), composing some three-quarters of the total content of the Bible. A small portion of these books, however, was written in Aramaic.—See ARAMAIC.

      In the Hebrew Scriptures, the name “Hebrew” is not applied to the language, the name there being applied only to individuals or to the people of Israel as a whole. Reference is made to the “Jews’ language” (2 Ki. 18:26, 28), “Jewish” (Neh. 13:24) and the “language of Canaan” (Isa. 19:18), which, at that time (the eighth century B.C.E.), was primarily Hebrew. In the Christian Greek Scriptures, however, the name “Hebrew” is regularly applied to the language spoken by the Jews.—See HEBREW, I.

      ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE

      Secular history does not reveal the origin of the Hebrew language—or, for that matter, of any of the most ancient languages known, such as Sumerian, Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian), Aramaean and Egyptian. This is because these tongues appear already fully developed in the earliest written records men have found. (See LANGUAGE.) The various views advanced by scholars concerning the origin and development of Hebrew—such as those claiming that Hebrew derived from Aramaic or from some Canaanite dialect—are therefore conjectural. The same may be said for attempts at explaining the derivation of many words found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Scholars frequently assign an Akkadian or an Aramaic source for many of these words. However, as Dr. Edward Horowitz comments: “In the field of etymology [the study of word origins] there are wide differences of opinion among scholars, even among the very best of them.” He then cites examples of explanations by renowned scholars of the etymology of certain Hebrew words, in each case showing that other prominent scholars disagree, and then adds: “And so we have these never ending differences between equally highly respected authorities.”—How the Hebrew Language Grew, pp. xix, xx.

      The Bible, then, is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of “Abram the Hebrew” (Gen. 14:13), who, in turn, was descended from Noah’s son Shem. (Gen. 11:10-26) In view of God’s prophetic blessing on Shem (Gen. 9:26), it is reasonable to believe that Shem’s language was not affected when God confused the language of the disapproved people at Babel. (Gen. 11:5-9) Shem’s language would remain the same as previously, the “one language” that had existed from Adam onward. (Gen. 11:1) This would mean that the language that eventually came to be called “Hebrew” was the one original tongue of mankind. As stated, secular history knows no other.

      QUESTION OF THE LANGUAGE’S STABILITY

      History is replete with examples of languages changing over long periods of time. The English spoken in the time of Alfred the Great (of the ninth century C.E.) would seem like a foreign tongue to most English-speaking persons of today. It might, therefore, seem likely that the language originally spoken by Adam would have changed substantially by the time the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures began with Moses. The long life-spans enjoyed in that 2,500-year period, however, would be a definite factor operating against such change. Thus, there was only one human link, namely, Methuselah, needed to connect Adam with the Flood survivors. Additionally, Shem, who was evidently a pre-Flood contemporary of Methuselah for a number of years, lived well into the lifetime of Isaac. And less than one hundred and fifty years elapsed from the death of Isaac (1738 B.C.E.) until the birth of Moses (1593 B.C.E.). This overlapping of the lives of individuals several generations apart would serve to maintain uniformity of speech. Of course, the extent to which these human links, such as Shem and Abraham, lived in close geographical proximity is not always known. Regular communication is an important factor in language stability.

      That not all of Shem’s descendants continued to speak the “one language” of pre-Flood times in its pure form is evident from the differences that developed among the Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, and the various Arabic dialects. In the eighteenth century B.C.E. (about the year 1761 B.C.E.), Abraham’s grandson and grandnephew used different terms in naming the heap of stones they had set up as a memorial or witness between them. Jacob, the father of the Israelites, called it “Galeed,” while Laban, a resident in Syria or Aram (though not himself a descendant of Aram), used the Aramaean term “Jegar-sahadutha.” (Gen. 31:47) The dissimilarity of these two terms, however, need not indicate a major difference between Aramaean and Hebrew at this point, inasmuch as Jacob seems to have faced no particular problem in communication there in Syria. Undoubtedly, as new circumstances and situations arose and new artifacts were produced, certain words would be coined to describe such developments. Such terms might differ from place to place among geographically separated groups of the same language family, even while the actual structure of their language remained very much the same.

      Among the Israelites themselves, some small variation in pronunciation developed, as is evident by the different pronunciations given the word “Shibboleth” by the Ephraimites during the period of the judges (1473 to 1117 B.C.E.). (Judg. 12:4-6) This, however, is no basis for claiming (as some have) that the Israelites then spoke separate dialects.

      In the eighth century B.C.E., the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic had become wide enough to mark them as separate languages. This is seen when King Hezekiah’s representatives requested the spokesmen of Assyrian King Sennacherib to “speak with your servants, please, in the Syrian [Aramaic] language, for we can listen; and do not speak with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.” (2 Ki. 18:17, 18, 26) Although Aramaic was then the lingua franca of the Near East and was used in international diplomatic communication, it was not understood by the majority of the Judeans. The earliest known non-Biblical written documents in Aramaic are from about the same period, and these confirm the distinction between the two languages.

      Had both Hebrew and Aramaic diverged from the