Greek-Hebrew style

There are days when puzzle pieces that have been in your head for a while suddenly come together and show you an image that you never suspected, but that gives you an aha experience that you will never forget. I had one of these this week and while the title suggests that I learned something about wrestling, it's more that I was able to apply what I knew from one science to other things. So that's kind of what I prefer to do: strengthen my faith by applying different truths to it.

This time I'm going back to my philosophy course. To be clear, the only time I really studied philosophy was when I took classes at the University of Leuven, because it was a compulsory subject. I learned the rest by reading, usually books that used philosophy somewhere, which piqued my interest and I started looking up random things and thus started collecting puzzle pieces. However, please forgive me if my explanation is short-sighted and needs further refinement.

In philosophy (and beyond) the concepts of “Greek thought” and “Hebrew thought” are known. Since Greek culture had quite penetrated Roman culture and the Romans have clearly left their mark here, Greek thinking is not unknown to us. Alexander the Great also contributed enormously to this. He was a student of Aristotle and with his conquests (those of Alexander, not Aristotle) ​​he also spread his teachings well.

Greek versus Hebrew thinking

Greek thinking is linear thinking. You are on one side of the line or the other. It's more black and white. You are either right or wrong and if you are right, everything else is wrong. Hebrew thought (and it is correct to take Hebrew and not Jewish) is much more almost like quantum mechanics: you are several things at the same time. A woman can be someone's wife, but at the same time she can also be someone's mother and is certainly also someone's daughter. There is much more room for nuance and also for open debate. The purpose of debate is much less to persuade someone to your side, but much more to give the other person insight into how you see things.

You also see this in the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Among the Jews you also have a lot of tendencies, but they don't necessarily have to bite each other's heads off. While within Christianity the different denominations have literally led to wars and are still fighting for the “one true church”.

However, if we realize that Jesus and his first followers were all Jews, raised in Hebrew thinking, where does Greek thinking come from? Quite simple: the Romans were the ruling society at the time and when Christianity spread beyond just Jews, it came into contact with Roman culture and therefore Greek thinking. By the way, just think: which apostle was primarily active in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles? Whose letters still form a very large part of the New Testament? Yeps, Paul, a Roman.

You immediately have the chicken or the egg question. Do Paul's theses have much influence because they are often found in the Bible or should we consider the fact that the Bible as we know it today was composed at a council that was already completely in the grip of Roman culture?

Influence of language

Linguistics also plays a role in this. Most of the Bible versions we use now are based on the Septuagint, being the  Greek translation. When translators have to choose words to capture nuances, they will, especially in ancient times, have chosen the words that best suited their way of thinking. So I think it's an interesting question that I would like to ask some biblical scholars who know more about the influence of linguistics on this matter.

In short, it is logical that an overview of Greek thought can be found in Christianity, although its origins are actually correlated with Hebrew thought. When I realized that this week, I suddenly started looking at a number of things differently.

So many layers

Now take the parable of the woman taken in adultery. We all know the beautiful saying that inspired this parable: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” A wise lesson, but I, like many other Christians, have wondered how Christ overcame her sin so easily. It was very clear that this woman was sinful. We then come to lessons that say “condemn the sin, but not the sinner”, but now I actually understand it better. That woman is not either sinful or not. She is just so much more. Regardless, she is still a daughter of our Heavenly Father, who loves her deeply.

The same for the discussion that is often had between atheists and believers: how can God be perfectly just if he is also perfectly merciful? That's where our Greek thinking comes to the fore. You are either one or the other. Too much of one ingredient will ruin the recipe for the other. But if you can no longer view it as an or situation, but as a and situation, like a cake with multiple layers, then it suddenly takes on so much more flavor (and therefore meaning).

A revelation

I am probably only at the beginning of a new journey of discovery and perhaps I have learned something here that has been known for a long time and has been much discussed, but I must say that I have not yet encountered it in the many books I have already read and certainly not in all the explanations I have already heard in those difficult situations. I wish I had known it longer, it would have allowed me to better understand that God is of course so universal, that He is more than yin or yang. He is so many things at the same time and that is exactly the divine that is also within us.

We are so much more than one thing that defines us. We are not just good or bad people. We do good or bad things, but we are made up of many more layers and the journey ahead is to get those layers arranged correctly.

Maybe I don't see it completely yet and I have a lot to learn about this, but if there are people who want to share their insights about this in the comments below, I'm really looking forward to learning more and hearing how you view this.