TR: Word, Lamb, and Truth
Some of these ideas may cause controversy in Evangelical circles, particularly among those who emphasize Greek over Hebrew, follow traditional linguistic scholarship, or rely on systematic theology rather than inductive study. Below are the potential points of contention and responses from our hermeneutic:
1. Equating "Word" (אמר), "Lamb" (אמר), and "Truth" (אמת) through Hebrew wordplay
Controversy: Many Evangelicals are unfamiliar with Hebrew word formations and rely on Greek-based theological definitions. Some might argue that "Lamb" (אמר, emeer) is Aramaic, not Hebrew, and thus unrelated to amar ("Word").
Response: Aramaic is a dialect of Hebrew, much like "Bostonian" is still English. The biblical languages were fluid, and linguistic connections should not be dismissed. More importantly, the inspired text contains these patterns—whether the scholars acknowledge them or not. The connection between the Word and the Lamb is not a scholarly construct but a prophetic riddle embedded in Scripture.
2. Truth (אמת) as the "Final Word"—Jesus as the Incarnate Completion of the Word
Controversy: Some might see this as an overreach, claiming that emet ("truth") is a common word with no inherent theological implication of finality. Others might argue that defining "truth" through Hebrew letter formations is speculative.
Response: The Hebrew language was divinely crafted, and its letter formations reveal deeper meanings. The tov (ת) is formed by a rosh (ר) with a vav (ו) returning, symbolizing revelation completed with new life returning. This aligns perfectly with Jesus as "the way, the truth (emet), and the life" (John 14:6). This is not random speculation but a pattern embedded by God for those with eyes to see.
3. Rejecting 2,000 Years of Scholarly Assumptions in Favor of Inductive Reading
Controversy: Evangelical scholarship often emphasizes historical theology, relying on established interpretations from church history. Suggesting that we bypass 2,000 years of scholars—some of whom were hostile to Scripture—could be seen as radical or dismissive.
Response: Many scholars were indeed hostile to divine inspiration, filtering their interpretations through human philosophy. The best way to understand Scripture is not through the lens of tradition but by engaging with the text itself, letting Scripture interpret Scripture. The disciples did not rely on later theologians; they read the Old Testament with Christ as the key. We follow their example.
4. Implication That Some Theological Traditions Suppress This Connection
Controversy: The statement about scholars not wanting people to connect "Word" and "Lamb" might provoke pushback from those who see this as an unfair accusation. Many Evangelicals hold to theological traditions influenced by modern scholarship.
Response: Whether intentional or not, historical theology has often obscured the Hebrew roots of Christian doctrine. Theological traditions shaped by Greek philosophy have disconnected Jesus from His Old Testament identity. Recognizing these patterns is not about attacking scholars but about restoring the inductive approach that Jesus Himself modeled on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:27).
Conclusion:
While these ideas challenge mainstream Evangelical thinking, they are grounded in the biblical text and the inspired structure of Hebrew itself. Instead of relying on theological systems, we let Scripture speak for itself—just as Jesus taught His disciples to do. Those who resist these insights should ask themselves: Are we following inherited traditions, or are we truly seeing Christ in all of Scripture?
