COMPARISON BETWEEN GRECO-ROMAN AND HEBREW THOUGHT

SUB TOPIC: WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH

TABLES OF CONTENT

1. Introduction
2. Hebrew Thought
3. Greek Thought
4. Biblical Contrasts Between Greek and Hebrew Thought
5. Hebrew Thought v/s Greco-Roman
5.1. Abstract v/s Concrete Thought
5.2. Appearance v/s Functional Description
5.3. Impersonal v/s Personal Description
6. Walter Rauschenbusch
6.1. View of Christianity
6.2. Social Responsibility Over Individual Responsibility
6.3. Criticism of Walter
 INTRODUCTION
In the world, past and present, there are two major types of cultures; the Hebrew
(or eastern) culture and the Greek (or western) culture. Both of these cultures
view their surroundings, lives, and purpose in ways which would seem foreign to
the other.

In this piece of project I will be dealing each one it in detail along with its
differences. The sub-topic which I choose is the Walter Rauschenbusch, in which
I will be focusing upon his philosophy or his views on religion and in the end I will
throw some light upon his criticism as well.

The type of research which I have concluded is mainly a doctrinal research along
with I have taken help from some of the articles which were available on the
internet.

This piece of project is fully based on RLR Format. It has divided into six parts
and sub-parts which have been properly mentioned above in the form of index or
table of contents.
 Hebrew Thought

Hebrew is the language of the law, the prophets, and the writings, the three
divisions of the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures themselves are
predisposed to a certain sort of thinking that is not binary, not either/or. Actually,
the recorders and Pharisees, of whom Saul (Paul) of Tarsus was one, had
somewhere around four different ways of translating the Bible, which they
revered in somewhat memory helper devise called Pardes, the word for patio
nursery (from where we get our "heaven"). The P represents Pshat ("basic"), the
exacting, clear significance of the content of the Bible on which all else depends.
No further dimensions of elucidation can negate the exacting sense, however
they can expand upon it. The R represents Remez ("clue"), which is the inferred
significance of sacred text, where you expand on the suggestions that sacred
writing forgets adherents to figure for themselves yet gives the insights for. The D
represents Derush ("seek") which is the analogical or moralistic importance of the
Bible. For instance, when we take sacred text, (for example, a prescience or the
Song of Solomon) and apply it to physical or otherworldly Israel in general, we
are participating in this kind of understanding. At last, the S represents Sod
("mystery") the concealed dimension of translation. The concealed nature is the
means by which something that appears to be basic and clear and futile in
sacred text (for instance, cloud laws and stories and lineages) applies to us by
and by.

Presently, it ought to be evident that you can go exceptionally far away the
reservation with Hebrew idea. See a precedent here [1]. You can turn out to be
so snared in covered up and mystery implications that you disregard the clear
one (like the spiritualists do) or so inebriated with the forces of your own instinct
and expertise that you neglect to value the God in paradise who is the supplier of
every single great blessing and the person who gets the opportunity to make the
principles (as would in general occur with the recorders and Pharisees of Jesus'
day, as can be checked whether one peruses the Talmud).

In any case, in spite of these debasements of Hebrew believed that one must be
exceptionally mindful so as to keep away from, the basic idea of Hebrew idea in
the Bible is to abstain from painting an either/or polarity. Is the Song of Solomon
suggestive love verse celebrating appropriate sexuality inside marriage? Totally.
Is it about Israel and the Church too? For sure it is. Are the poor that the Messiah
will think about and lecture great greetings for in Isaiah 61:1 (cited in Luke 4:18)
physically poor or the profoundly poor (humble) in soul? Both. It is anything but
an either/or thing. Just on the grounds that a section of the Bible applies to strict
issues does not mean it doesn't make a difference to Israel or the Church or
professors in their profound state. A similar prediction can apply to the fall of
Jerusalem in 586BC or 70AD or to the intermittent ascent and fall of the Church
since forever or the last days. The Bible has a setting that we should be critical to
12see, however it isn't constrained to our tight blinders about what we may think it

implies. It can mean various things,which gives it richness and great applicability,
assuming one knows how to handle it.

All things considered, the Bible incorporates two distinct records of the time of
the government of Israel (the Former Prophets from Joshua to 2 Kings and the
compositions of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, one composed from
the perspective of rulers and the other from the perspective of clerics, however
both extremely legitimate points of view). In like manner, the Bible gives us four
unique records of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which, intriguingly enough, appear
to compare with both the four dimensions of scriptural translation investigated
above just as the four distinct kinds of personalities– SJ's, "watchmen" or the
gathering of people of Jewish professors in Christ of Matthew's record; SP's,
"craftsmans," or the handy and sober minded Romans of Mark's record; NF's,
"optimists," or the systematic record concentrating on ladies and untouchables
given by Luke, or the NT's "levelheaded" record of the astronomical extent of the
interminable fight among light and dimness given by the wildly educated however
cherished messenger John. Each methodology has some portion of the entire
story, yet like the visually impaired men attempting to portray an elephant by
feeling its tail, middle, leg, and nose, just a section.

Greek Thought

Having seen what Hebrew idea resembles, with its layers of layers of
conceivable significance, let us look at Greek idea. As can be normal, Greek idea
is to some degree less wealthy in plausibility than Hebrew idea, yet impressively
increasingly exact. I should concede that a specific piece of me appreciates the
exactness of Greek logic, however insufficient to incline toward it to the
lavishness of potential significance given by Hebrew idea. As somebody who will
in general use words definitely yet in addition expect a wide assortment and
appropriateness of significance, I guess I am somebody who has stayed in the
two domains of thought inside my very own life. Greek idea is something that is
nailed down, that implies precisely and just a single thing.

1
Dorien, Gary. Soul in Society: The Making and Renewal of Social Christianity. Minneapolis: 1995 Fortress
Press.
2 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Walter_Rauschenbusch#cite_note-11

(last accessed on : 11/feb/2018)

It ought to be noticed that it is an open discussion whether any piece of the Bible
was itself written in Greek initially or not. It isn't inside the extent of this specific
note (however it is something I might want to expound on in the long run), yet
there is an open inquiry about whether the first reestablished contract sacred
writings were initially written in Aramaic or Greek– and the Aramaic has a solid
case that I accept is deserving of more full examination. The kind of Greek
imagined that I am alluding to isn't that of the roused creators of the restored
contract sacred writings, who were for the most part all of Hebrew-thinking
foundations (none were especially prominently "Hellenistic"– Matthew, Mark,
John, James, Jude, and Peter were all Jews, generally Gallileans (with the
exception of Mark), Luke was obviously Syrian, and Paul was out of Tarsus
however had clearly been prepared by Gamaliel, positively no companion to
Hellenistic logic). They would in general observe the Bible in typically "Hebrew"
ways, something that appears even in the Greek.

Greek idea alludes to the compositions of Plato and Aristotle just as their
scholarly beneficiaries the Gnostic blasphemers. From Greek idea we have the
entire dualistic blasphemies that attempt to pit everything into dark/white or
either/or thinking as opposed to perceiving the more full parity. Greek reasoning
pits the physical against the profound, driving either to parsimony where the
polluted and filthy physical is rebuffed while the illuminated otherworldly is
produced or to gratification, where the debasement of one's physical body
through wantonness or ravenousness is irrelevant in light of the fact that it is just
the psyche and soul and not the body that issue in any case. In Hebrew idea, the
body, heart, psyche, and soul are each of the an interconnected entire, none of
which can be disregarded.

In spite of our best aims, it is too simple some of the time for Greek idea to slip in
to our reasoning propensities when we are ill-equipped. For instance, we can try
to isolate individuals into two camps– the individuals who are edified or
advantaged and for whom the typical guidelines don't have any significant
bearing (Plato's "Savant lords" or the pastoral elites of hierarchial associations)
and the extraordinary mass of mankind who are under servitude to domineering
and harsh administration. This kind of division of what is extremely one brought
together entire under the equivalent genuine standard is the depravity of
scriptural truth because of degenerate Greek reasoning. In like manner, it is
Greek reasoning (as opposed to Hebrew reasoning) that loves youth and
excellence and the sexy hungers, giving these corrupt desires a bodily,
philosophical defense that just applies to favored delinquents in places of high
specialist and not to the unprivileged masses.

Biblical Contrasts Between Greek and Hebrew Thought

Give us a chance to look at two complexities set in the Bible among Greek and
Hebrew idea, one which serves to support Hebrew idea and the other which
denounces the negative parts of the two kinds of reasoning. In the first place, let
us go to Matthew 20:25-28: "Yet Jesus called them to Himself and stated, "You
realize that the [Hellenistic] leaders of the Gentiles rule over them, and the
3individuals who are extraordinary exercise expert over them. However it will not

be so among you; yet whoever wants to end up incredible among you, let him be
your worker. Also, whoever wants to be first among you, let him be your slave–
similarly as the Son of Man did not come to be served, however to serve, and to
give His life a payment for some." We see here the populist attitude of Hebrew
idea positively contrasted with the dictator bowed of Greek believed that prevails
the way of life of the rapscallion.

The second model focuses to the negative inclinations in the humanistic

variations of both Jewish and Greek suspected that we as a whole should
monitor ourselves against, since it is unblemished scriptural culture and not the
adulterated customs of either Jews or Greeks, that we wish to receive, as is
expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:22-25: "For Jews ask for a sign, and Greeks look for
after shrewdness; however we lecture Christ executed, to the Jews a hindrance
and to the Greeks absurdity, yet to the individuals who are called, the two Jews
and Greeks, Christ the intensity of God and the astuteness of God. Since the
silliness of God is smarter than men, and the shortcoming of God is more
grounded than men." Here we see that humanly Jews need a sign (a type of
magical, marvelous evidence appearing as King conveying the Jews from
outside servitude, without looking for liberation from the transgression which
oppressed them) while Greeks look for after intelligence (a consistent verification
that draws in them mentally, without trying to test their whole method for living
and carrying on), however God gives something that fills in as an obstruction to
the ruined, sin-drove audience members of any social foundation. God wanted to
make a reestablished scriptural culture, requiring the penance of His child Jesus
Christ to open the way to His position of authority with the goal that all could
precede Him as His own one of a kind posterity.

Hebrew thought v/s Greco-Roman

1) Abstract vs. concrete thought

Greek idea sees the world through the psyche (dynamic idea). Antiquated
Hebrew idea sees the world through the faculties (solid idea).

3
Rauschenbusch, Walter. Christianity Revolutionary 1868 Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Solid idea is the outflow of ideas and thoughts in manners that can be seen,
4contacted, smelled, tasted as well as heard. Each of the five of the faculties are

utilized when talking and hearing and composing and perusing the Hebrew
language. A case of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; "He resembles a tree
planted by surges of water, which yields its natural product in season, and whose
leaf does not shrivel." In this section we have solid words communicating
theoretical contemplations, for example, a tree (one who is upstanding, noble),
floods of water (elegance), organic product (great character) and an unwithered
leaf (flourishing).

Theoretical idea is the declaration of ideas and thoughts in manners that can not
be seen, contacted, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never utilizes conceptual
idea as English does. Instances of Abstract idea can be found in Psalms 103:8;
"The LORD is sympathetic and generous, Slow to outrage, possessing large
amounts of affection." As you saw I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not
extract contemplations, however here we have such dynamic ideas empathetic,
benevolent, outrage, and love in a Hebrew entry. In reality these are theoretical
English words deciphering the unique Hebrew solid words. The interpreters
regularly decipher along these lines in light of the fact that the first Hebrew has
neither rhyme nor reason when actually converted into English.

Give us a chance to take one of the unique words above to show how this
functions. Outrage, a theoretical word, is really the Hebrew word ‫( אף‬awph) which
truly signifies "nose", a solid word. When one is furious, he starts to breath hard
and the nostrils start to flare. A Hebrew considers outrage to be "the flaring of the
nose (nostrils)." If the interpreter truly deciphered the above entry "moderate to
nose", it would look bad to the English peruser, so ‫אף‬, a nose, is meant "outrage"
in this section.

2) Appearance vs. Functional Description

Greek idea portrays protests in connection to its appearance. Hebrew idea
portrays protests in connection to its capacity.

A deer and an oak are two altogether different items and we could never depict
them similarly with our Greek type of portrayals. The Hebrew word for both of
these items is ‫( איל‬ayil) on the grounds that the practical depiction of these two
articles are indistinguishable to the old Hebrews, in this way, a similar Hebrew
word is utilized for both. The Hebraic meaning of ‫ איל‬is "a solid head."

A deer stag is a standout amongst the most dominant creatures of the woodland
and is viewed as "a solid head" among alternate creatures of the timberland.
Likewise the oak tree's wood is extremely hard contrasted with different trees, for
example, the pine which is delicate and is viewed as a "solid pioneer" among the
trees of the backwoods.

4
Notice the two unique interpretations of the Hebrew word ‫ איל‬in Psalms 29.9. The
NASB and KJV deciphers it as "The voice of the LORD makes the deer to calve"
while the NIV interprets it as "The voice of the LORD bends the oaks." The strict
interpretation of this section in Hebrew idea would be; "The voice of the LORD
makes the solid chiefs turn."
5

While making an interpretation of the Hebrew into English, the interpreter

must give a Greek portrayal to this word which is the reason we have two
distinctive methods for deciphering this refrain. This equivalent word is
additionally deciphered as a "ruler" in 2 Kings 24.15, who is a man who is a
solid chief.

Another case of Greek idea would be the accompanying depiction of a typical

pencil: "it is yellow and around 8 inches in length." A Hebrew portrayal of the
pencil would be identified with its capacity, for example, "I compose words
with it." Notice that the Hebrew depiction utilizes the action word "state" while
the Greek portrayal utilizes the descriptors "yellow" and "long." Because of
Hebrew's type of useful depictions, action words are utilized significantly more
every now and again then modifiers.

3) Impersonal vs. Personal Description

The Greek culture depicts questions in connection to the article itself. The
Hebrew culture depicts questions in connection to the Hebrew himself.

As in the model above of the pencil, the Greek depiction depicts the pencil's
relationship to itself by utilizing "is." The Hebrew portrays the pencil in connection
to himself by saying "I compose." Because Hebrew does not depict questions in
connection to itself, the Hebrew vocabulary does not have "is."

A Greek portrayal of God would be "God is love" which depicts God in

connection to God. A Hebrew portrayal would be "God cherishes me" depicting
God in relationship to myself.

The Greek culture describes objects in relation to the object itself. The Hebrew
culture describes objects in relation to the Hebrew himself.

As in the example above of the pencil, the Greek description portrays the pencil's
relationship to itself by using the word "is." The Hebrew describes the pencil in
relation to himself by saying "I write." Because Hebrew does not describe objects
in relation to itself, the Hebrew vocabulary does not have the word "is."

5
McClendon, James. Doctrine: Systematic Theology.1994 Vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
A Greek description of God would be "God is love" which describes God in
relation to God. A Hebrew description would be "God loves me" describing God
in relationship to myself.6

Differences between the Greek and Hebrew World Views

Greek Hebrew

Spiritual means immaterial Spiritual means life-giving

From Plato, via Augustine From the Jews, via prophets & Jesus

Matter is sinful or, at most, Matter is God-made and holy

tolerated

One should limit pleasures Ecstasy is a gift of the Creator

Religion is private (God and me) Religion is political (God and us)
[I do not agree with this
characterization of Greek religion]

Centered around theological theme of Creation is good, and we say thank

the Fall and humankind's need for you for it by enjoying it, and sharing
redemption the enjoyment of it

Artists choose between sacred and Every experience of beauty is an

secular subjects, between spiritual and experience of God. Artistic expression
material expression shares the beauty of God

Humankind's relationship with God is Humankind's relationship with God is

vertical; God is up, humankind is horizontal. God as more pantheistic
below
7

7
http://philosophycourse.info/hebwislitsite/gk-hebwvs.html
 Walter Rauschenbusch
Walter Rauschenbusch was conceived on Oct. 4, 1861, in Rochester, N.Y., the
child of a German minister, and raised in a pietistic situation. Long stretches of
concentrate in his childhood in Germany furnished him with insightful scholarly
hardware and acquainted him with the then progressive thoughts breaking
customary creeds. On graduation from the Rochester Theological Seminary in
1886, he was appointed to the Baptist service.
Rauschenbusch's first pastorate was on the edge of New York City's scandalous
Hell's Kitchen region, and day by day recognition of the horrible neediness of his
square driven him to address both free enterprise private enterprise and the
pertinence of the old pietistic evangelism with its straightforward gospel. As he
saw amid the wretchedness of 1893, "One could hear human excellence splitting
and disintegrating all around." In these New York years he altered a brief work
paper; established the Brotherhood of the Kingdom, a band of prophetic priests;
and detailed a religious philosophy of Christian communism. In 1897 he left ward
work for a residency at Rochester Seminary, mostly in light of the fact that
deafness was diminishing his ecclesiastical viability.
A progression of books currently originated from Rauschenbusch's pen, most
remarkably Christianity and the Social Crisis, Christianizing the Social Order, A
Theology for the Social Gospel, and Prayers of the Social Awakening. These
volumes, generally interpreted, achieved many thousands. Entering in his
evaluate of society, firmly grounded in religious philosophy, he transcend over
the various prophets of the Social Gospel in the Progressive period.
Rauschenbusch trusted that men infrequently trespassed against God alone and
that the Church must place under judgment institutional indecencies just as
individual corruption. He held that men are condemned by barbaric social
conditions and that the Church must end misuse, neediness, voracity, racial
pride, and war. The Church must not deceive, as it had done since Constantine,
its actual mission of recovering countries just as men. In any case, he was no
idealistic. He perceived the evil in man, comprehended the intensity of settled in
intrigue gatherings, and anticipated no simple or early foundation of God's rule of
adoration. In this way his religious philosophy, not at all like that of such a
significant number of insipid innovators of the Progressive period, keeps on
representing contemporary deplorable conditions. Rauschenbusch kicked the
bucket on July 25, 1918, profoundly disheartened by World War I, by the
disappointment of pacifism to check the holocaust, and by the scorn spilled out
on everything German.8

(last accessed on:11/02/2019)

8 https://matthewgmccracken.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/walter-rauschenbusch-and-the-social-gospel-

movement/
(last accessed on: 11/02/2019)
 View of Christianity

Rauschenbusch's perspective on Christianity was that its motivation was to

spread a kingdom of God by substituting "love for self-centeredness as the
premise of human society."[6] The mission of the congregation was not
exclusively to get people into paradise, however to change life and society on
earth. In Rauschenbusch's initial adulthood, mainline Protestant places of
worship were generally aligned with the social and political foundation, in
actuality supporting the mastery by burglar noblemen, pay difference, and the
utilization of kid work. Most church pioneers did not see an association between
these issues and their services, so did nothing to address the misery. Yet,
Rauschenbusch considered it to be his obligation as a priest and understudy of
Christ to act with affection by endeavoring to enhance social conditions.

Social Responsibility over Individual Responsibility

In Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907), Rauschenbusch contended that to

isolate the life of confidence from the assignment of changing society is to
misjudge Jesus. Religious life asserts the expert to change society and any
social and monetary foundation that persecutes or supports the rich over poor
people. Social equity, not just individual salvation, speaks to the mission of the
Church. Rauschenbusch kept up a solid feeling of mission for an amazing
duration. In The Social Principles of Jesus, he composed that the kingdom of
God, he composed, is a genuine article, presently in task. It is inside us, and
among us, making strides in our scholarly life and in our social organizations. It
covers and interpenetrates all current organization.[7]

In his Theology for the Social Gospel (1917), he contended that for John the
Baptist, the absolution was not simply a characteristic of the beneficiaries' close
to home salvation, yet a commission to work for the kingdom.

Asking whether the Kingdom is a future demonstration of God or crafted by

people in the present, he answered that neither of these blocks the other. Or
maybe, "we are most solidly spared in putting in diligent work for the kingdom"[8]
In the battle to set up equity, any individual who has similar objectives is to be a
partner, regardless of whether their religion is unique. Rauschenbusch despised
bigotry, composing:

The man who keenly understands the Chinese and the Zulu as his siblings, with
whom he should share the earth, is an ampler personality, different things being
equivalent, than the man who can just think as far as pale faces.[9] 9

9
Minus, Paul M. Walter Rauschenbusch, American Reformer. 1988 New York: Macmillan
As supporter of Women's suffrage, he likewise called attention to that "For each
situation in which the interests of ladies preceded Jesus, he agreed with her
position… The demeanor of noteworthy Christianity," he proceeded, "has been a
blend between his soul and the soul of the Patriarchal family”.His The Social
Principles of Jesus, composed as an investigation control for school Sunday
School classes, was co-distributed by the Women's Press.10

10
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-political/
(last accessed on 11/02/2019)
 conclusion
What Rauschenbusch wanted to do was to “expand the notions of sin and
salvation” to embrace institutional sin as well as private, or personal sin. He did
not believe that perfection could be achieved but in constantly striving for
perfection.
His attitude towards the family, however, has been criticized as too conservative.
He tended to differentiate gender roles, upholding the traditional view that the
proper realm for women is the domestic, home-making sphere, while men earn
and govern[11] On the other hand, he believed that women possess superior gifts
for nurture and that their education would ‘increase beauty in our lives’.
Critics of Rauschenbusch also argue that he neglected the needs of the
individual as a moral and spiritual being in his fervor to reform society. In other
words, he failed to teach that a love for one's neighbor flows directly from and is
required by one's own love for God. However, Paul Rauschenbusch stresses that
God’s love was the primary motive for everything that his great-grandfather said
and wrote.
Others have argued that Rauschenbusch was too much a child of the
Enlightenment, too confident in human goodness, taking too little cognizance of
the sinfulness of humanity. On the one hand, Rauschenbusch did believe that
lives of faith in action can create a better world, on the other he held that the
church had taken insufficient account of institutional and social sin, which could
only be tackled by social action.