Being completely ignorant of Hebrew I am extremely grateful for your incisive exegesis here. This is a passage I’ve thought about often since my conversion. (There’s a similar problem with the Eucharistic “epiousion” of the Lord’s Prayer being translated in English as “daily” bread. “Daily” obliquely touches the meaning, but seems to miss the heart of the matter entirely. Interestingly in that case, the word epiousion is a hapax legomenon in the NT, so the kind of comparative analysis you ran here is not possible and it can only be parsed etymologically.)
I’m still at a bit of a loss here, though. You make an extremely strong case for why “honor” is a platitudinous import of dualistic moralism. But I don’t quite understand the *imperative* of “to make heavy,” as “accelerate” in the context of the commandment. You explain it along the lines of obedience within reason while adhering to God’s law within one’s own conscience: “accelerating/catalyzing” the good and the bad yet with an awareness of the freedom and responsibility of each individual soul before God.
I can appreciate the distinction you’re making, trying to carve out a clear meaning juxtaposed to morally incestuous “honor” of the hypothetically (and all too often) despicable moral evil of parents toward their offspring. (Believe me do I understand *this* problem.)
I guess I’m not sure what it means still, however. It is astonishing to me that the imperative we are given by God is of a verb (at least according to your list) generally if not exclusively operative in the uniquely divine act of “spiritual catalysis”/“hardening the heart of”.
It seems that alternatives to “honor”—which, if read rightly isn’t of necessity utterly egregious, as one *can* “honor” someone without mindlessly obeying and conforming to their sick desires—can tend towards inappropriate apotheosis of the recipient of the command. “Accelerate thy father[‘s] and mother[‘s sin],” for example seems to imply that we ourselves could sort of “harden the hearts” of our parents just as God did Pharaoh.
“‘Make heavy’ thy father and mother [in your own heart],” would seem to imply—beyond mere obedience or an imperative to “harden their heart”—that one must intensify as much as possible one’s moral relation to one’s parents, which in the case of wicked parents would be the sort of serpent/dove alternating resistance/acquiescence path of correction, as you describe—and in the case of good parents would be “making abundant as possible.” Maybe this is what you’re saying.
But simply “accelerating” their evil just rings as sourly as “honoring” their sinfulness.
It seems to me upon reading your article that the spiritual law here is about lovingly seeing someone who is inherently flawed (“for behold in sins did my mother bear me”) nevertheless as richly important through the eye of faith in God’s mercy and justice. If one loves someone who is unrepentantly sinful, I don’t think “to make them heavy” means simply to do amplify their wickedness, but rather to have the “heavy” feeling of love guide one’s actions in relation to them, rather than simply enacting mere custom or habit or some other mindless or Godlessly-fearful mode of interaction.
I don’t know if my distinction is all that clear as a reply to your post. But I like this “corrective” style of analysis even more than your formal chiastic exegesis, because it is more accessible for those of us who are slightly less literate but still love the word of God and the philological dimension of our religion.
I wonder what other important passages/terms you could elucidate with a close reading of the Hebrew.
Absolutely wonderful to receive your shared input of thoughtful detail, Robert. You have no idea just how much it means to me, brother.
Okay, so in order to grasp exactly what “heavification” entails in its fullness, one must understand first and foremost that the worldview overarching “format” ingrained into the mainstream perceptual framework—that we are embroiled in—is inextricably defined by dualist corruption to the point that the fullness of the ancient Semitic-Hebraic covenantal glory in its implications of harmonious unity can easily appear jarringly atavistic, even for those of us Christians sincerely yearning for a wholehearted understanding of Jehovah's precepts.
Here is another example at hand: H-7200 (what is commonly listed as its “root”—רָאָה—is really just its Qal perfect form, a.k.a. z8804, in 3rd-person masculine singular, as apparently most listed “roots” of verbs are) in its Qal stem means “to see,” whereas its Niphal stem means “to appear.” In English, the notions of “see” and “appear” are translated, read, and understood as separate concepts, but in Biblical Hebrew, they are two sides of the same coin: the vision that is shown by God unto a prophet appears (Niphal) unto the prophet, and the prophet sees (Qal) the vision. Because Niphal is the passive/reflexive of Qal, normally one would expect the Niphal stem of a verb to be associated in its effected implication with the receiving end of an action, whereas here in the case consideration of H-7200, because the Qal “doing” action is literally to see and behold a particular thing, its Niphal counterpart by implication is to appear. (http://www.lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/7200.html)
Now then, to then understand what means to “heavify” one’s parents, we must grasp that all the specific stem/mood variants of H-3513—כָּבַד (kāḇaḏ)—revolve around the same underlying theme of making heavy. Perhaps last sabbath I did write a bit too hastily amidst an impulsive rush of wishing to “get it over with” since I wasn’t exactly in any inclination for continuing these weekly sabbath biblical expositions due to how little reception they usually receive (which only compounds why I this gratefully appreciate your comment here, Robert), and—in retrospect—could have phrased my points better. You do raise a very robustly concise point about how interpreting “heavify” in an overly direct sense of ACTIVELY encouraging evil could be objectively seen as mirroring the same problems of the simplistic misreading of “honoring” albeit from the other side of the same coin.
So in a nutshell—as far as I’ve come to understand it—to “heavify” a wicked parent does not mean literally to ACTIVELY encourage their evil behaviors outright, but rather to more so tacitly allow themselves to chart out their self-destructive paths for themselves. If it helps, this is the case example of my own current life: I intensely loathe my dad because of his toxic behavior toward me throughout my formative years (and he’s an atheist, just as the rest of my family are), and I know that his lifestyle habits are self-destructive (he drinks wine every day, exercises insufficiently, eats unhealthily, does not wash his hands clean, etc. etc.), and at the same time, if he asks me to mow the lawn, I will do it. I COULD say that for the sake of his health, he ought to do it himself and get more exercise, and thereby offer an excuse to argue with him, but instead, I don’t argue and just do it as he asks me. He wants to live his unhealthily lazy life whose corollaries include shifting the responsibility of mowing the lawn unto me, and so I facilitate the corollaries thereof. I’m not actively promoting him to pursue an unhealthy lifestyle (in fact, I have mentioned before to him—as I recall—that his wine-drinking is unhealthy and not good for his health, and on occasions I’ve given him some fresh berry juice I’ve squeezed), just that so long as he continuously pursues that for himself, I’m not going to bother trying to diametrically counter/curb it.
I hope this provides some valuable clarification helping edify your understanding of the matter, Robert? Please do forgive me if I gave any off-putting impressions in the post itself, and once again, thank you for your comment here, brother. May Jehovah Almighty be with you in truth and spirit now and unto the end of the ages verily!
Being completely ignorant of Hebrew I am extremely grateful for your incisive exegesis here. This is a passage I’ve thought about often since my conversion. (There’s a similar problem with the Eucharistic “epiousion” of the Lord’s Prayer being translated in English as “daily” bread. “Daily” obliquely touches the meaning, but seems to miss the heart of the matter entirely. Interestingly in that case, the word epiousion is a hapax legomenon in the NT, so the kind of comparative analysis you ran here is not possible and it can only be parsed etymologically.)
I’m still at a bit of a loss here, though. You make an extremely strong case for why “honor” is a platitudinous import of dualistic moralism. But I don’t quite understand the *imperative* of “to make heavy,” as “accelerate” in the context of the commandment. You explain it along the lines of obedience within reason while adhering to God’s law within one’s own conscience: “accelerating/catalyzing” the good and the bad yet with an awareness of the freedom and responsibility of each individual soul before God.
I can appreciate the distinction you’re making, trying to carve out a clear meaning juxtaposed to morally incestuous “honor” of the hypothetically (and all too often) despicable moral evil of parents toward their offspring. (Believe me do I understand *this* problem.)
I guess I’m not sure what it means still, however. It is astonishing to me that the imperative we are given by God is of a verb (at least according to your list) generally if not exclusively operative in the uniquely divine act of “spiritual catalysis”/“hardening the heart of”.
It seems that alternatives to “honor”—which, if read rightly isn’t of necessity utterly egregious, as one *can* “honor” someone without mindlessly obeying and conforming to their sick desires—can tend towards inappropriate apotheosis of the recipient of the command. “Accelerate thy father[‘s] and mother[‘s sin],” for example seems to imply that we ourselves could sort of “harden the hearts” of our parents just as God did Pharaoh.
“‘Make heavy’ thy father and mother [in your own heart],” would seem to imply—beyond mere obedience or an imperative to “harden their heart”—that one must intensify as much as possible one’s moral relation to one’s parents, which in the case of wicked parents would be the sort of serpent/dove alternating resistance/acquiescence path of correction, as you describe—and in the case of good parents would be “making abundant as possible.” Maybe this is what you’re saying.
But simply “accelerating” their evil just rings as sourly as “honoring” their sinfulness.
It seems to me upon reading your article that the spiritual law here is about lovingly seeing someone who is inherently flawed (“for behold in sins did my mother bear me”) nevertheless as richly important through the eye of faith in God’s mercy and justice. If one loves someone who is unrepentantly sinful, I don’t think “to make them heavy” means simply to do amplify their wickedness, but rather to have the “heavy” feeling of love guide one’s actions in relation to them, rather than simply enacting mere custom or habit or some other mindless or Godlessly-fearful mode of interaction.
I don’t know if my distinction is all that clear as a reply to your post. But I like this “corrective” style of analysis even more than your formal chiastic exegesis, because it is more accessible for those of us who are slightly less literate but still love the word of God and the philological dimension of our religion.
I wonder what other important passages/terms you could elucidate with a close reading of the Hebrew.
Absolutely wonderful to receive your shared input of thoughtful detail, Robert. You have no idea just how much it means to me, brother.
Okay, so in order to grasp exactly what “heavification” entails in its fullness, one must understand first and foremost that the worldview overarching “format” ingrained into the mainstream perceptual framework—that we are embroiled in—is inextricably defined by dualist corruption to the point that the fullness of the ancient Semitic-Hebraic covenantal glory in its implications of harmonious unity can easily appear jarringly atavistic, even for those of us Christians sincerely yearning for a wholehearted understanding of Jehovah's precepts.
Here is another example at hand: H-7200 (what is commonly listed as its “root”—רָאָה—is really just its Qal perfect form, a.k.a. z8804, in 3rd-person masculine singular, as apparently most listed “roots” of verbs are) in its Qal stem means “to see,” whereas its Niphal stem means “to appear.” In English, the notions of “see” and “appear” are translated, read, and understood as separate concepts, but in Biblical Hebrew, they are two sides of the same coin: the vision that is shown by God unto a prophet appears (Niphal) unto the prophet, and the prophet sees (Qal) the vision. Because Niphal is the passive/reflexive of Qal, normally one would expect the Niphal stem of a verb to be associated in its effected implication with the receiving end of an action, whereas here in the case consideration of H-7200, because the Qal “doing” action is literally to see and behold a particular thing, its Niphal counterpart by implication is to appear. (http://www.lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/7200.html)
Now then, to then understand what means to “heavify” one’s parents, we must grasp that all the specific stem/mood variants of H-3513—כָּבַד (kāḇaḏ)—revolve around the same underlying theme of making heavy. Perhaps last sabbath I did write a bit too hastily amidst an impulsive rush of wishing to “get it over with” since I wasn’t exactly in any inclination for continuing these weekly sabbath biblical expositions due to how little reception they usually receive (which only compounds why I this gratefully appreciate your comment here, Robert), and—in retrospect—could have phrased my points better. You do raise a very robustly concise point about how interpreting “heavify” in an overly direct sense of ACTIVELY encouraging evil could be objectively seen as mirroring the same problems of the simplistic misreading of “honoring” albeit from the other side of the same coin.
So in a nutshell—as far as I’ve come to understand it—to “heavify” a wicked parent does not mean literally to ACTIVELY encourage their evil behaviors outright, but rather to more so tacitly allow themselves to chart out their self-destructive paths for themselves. If it helps, this is the case example of my own current life: I intensely loathe my dad because of his toxic behavior toward me throughout my formative years (and he’s an atheist, just as the rest of my family are), and I know that his lifestyle habits are self-destructive (he drinks wine every day, exercises insufficiently, eats unhealthily, does not wash his hands clean, etc. etc.), and at the same time, if he asks me to mow the lawn, I will do it. I COULD say that for the sake of his health, he ought to do it himself and get more exercise, and thereby offer an excuse to argue with him, but instead, I don’t argue and just do it as he asks me. He wants to live his unhealthily lazy life whose corollaries include shifting the responsibility of mowing the lawn unto me, and so I facilitate the corollaries thereof. I’m not actively promoting him to pursue an unhealthy lifestyle (in fact, I have mentioned before to him—as I recall—that his wine-drinking is unhealthy and not good for his health, and on occasions I’ve given him some fresh berry juice I’ve squeezed), just that so long as he continuously pursues that for himself, I’m not going to bother trying to diametrically counter/curb it.
I hope this provides some valuable clarification helping edify your understanding of the matter, Robert? Please do forgive me if I gave any off-putting impressions in the post itself, and once again, thank you for your comment here, brother. May Jehovah Almighty be with you in truth and spirit now and unto the end of the ages verily!