Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No is yes, but only if no is a possibility
#2
Of course, the answer to the riddle: Israel in the first century AD.

Matthew 5:37-38 (“But your word should be yes, yes, and no, no.  Anything that is greater than these is from evil.  You have heard that it has been said that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”  Notice the wordplay of ܐܝܢ (yes) and  ܥܝܢܐ (eye).  Also  ܫܢ (tooth) can be translated as ‘go away’, which has a logical interplay with ܠܐ (no), the opposite of ܐܝܢ (yes).


Note also the Matthew 5:38 wordplay of ‘tooth’ (ܫܢܐ) with hate (ܤܢܐ) , which helps provide a transition to Matthew 5:39, which is commonly translated “do not oppose an evil one” -- but I think the literal is “do not rise to oppose in evil”.  So the literal meaning comports with the gospel message to not exchange evil for evil, but rather good for evil.  Yahshua provides literally the best answer!

Also catch this greater point of Matthew 5:21 – the example is about burning passion toward death, rather than correcting assumptions about what you have and what you don’t have or lose.  Thus, continuing the original point above, we find the word ‘cheek’ (ܦܟܟ) in Matthew 5:39 (“But he who strikes you upon your right cheek, turn to him also the other”), which is a play on the word ‘dull/fool’ (ܦܟܗ), as you’ll see below in a moment.  But first, a slap on the cheek is just a facial injury.  In Matthew 5:39 the word ‘also’ (ܐܦ) is the play on the word for ‘face’ (ܐܦ) because the injury is just a surface injury.  And the whole point of these examples in Matthew is seeing beyond the surface/face.  For example…

Matthew 5:24 – the offering comes from the holy heart, which is why we have to clear grudges (with ܖܥܐ) before we can ascend to the altar. And then we read in Matthew 5:26 ‘small copper coin’ (ܫܡܘܢܐ).  The temple in Jerusalem had a copper altar.  You see, an offering comes from the heart. Confirm this in the Torah as YHVH requests a free will offering. See e.g., Leviticus 23.


Back to the word ‘no’ (ܠܐ) here in Matthew 5, note the Matthew 5:31 wordplay of divorce (ܕܘܠܠܐ) with Matthew 5:22 fool (ܠܠܐ).  In this context, the Aramaic word ‘fool’ (ܠܠܐ) and the Hebrew word ‘if’ (ܠܐ) are a play on one another, and one of the greater contexts to explore here is separation.  Remembering back to John 1, how light and dark were separated…. the physics of light and dark is largely explained by probabilities which often seem absurd even in the most sophisticated laboratories – another reason to be careful not to call any brother a fool (ܠܠܐ). Matthew 5:22-24.  

In the words of a famous physicist describing the great ‘ifs’ of probability that describe light and matter in a laboratory, “The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.  So I hope you can accept nature as she is – absurd. I’m going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful.”  QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by Richard Feynman.

[Image: feynman1_strange.jpg]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: No is yes, but only if no is a possibility - by gregglaser - 01-06-2016, 06:17 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)