Correcting the Lens — How “Thinking Hebraically” Straightens Everything Out

Hebraic interpretation only works when you “Pin it on the Tree of Life,” because Hebrew meaning grows from the root upward — trunk, branches, leaves and fruit — and PaRDeS is simply the disciplined way of climbing that tree, precept by precept. You begin at Pshat (the surface), move to Remez (the hint), then Drash (the pattern), and finally Sod (the Meat), but you never jump levels and never assign meaning that the root letters cannot carry. The word PaRDeS means garden, and this is where you have that fellowship with the Father, of walking in the “cool of the day together”. 

Greek thinking treats words like static dictionary entries, one definition per word, so it jumps around, grabs whatever seems logical, and collapses the text into flat literalism. This is fundamentalism at its worst. In Hebrew when you know the semantic territory, you know which meanings are possible and which ones are impossible. This is how Hebrew keeps you in the right interpretive lane. Thinking is linear in context but layered in meaning: the root determines full range of meaning, the remez tells you which branch is active, and Pinning it on the Tree of Life keeps you in the right interpretive lane. Correcting the lens — shifting from Greek to Hebrew — straightens everything out because it forces meaning to stay anchored to the intended   meaning because they are built into the letters. This is the foundation that Paul talks about, and once people learn it, everything begins to align. And its way easier then you think. 

Take the word “new” in Jeremiah 31:31 “ Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Greek thinking sees “new” and immediately imagines replacement, novelty, discontinuity — a brand-new covenant that abolishes the old.  

But Hebrew pins the word to its root ,חדש which means “renew, restore, make fresh again”  Word Origin: [from H2318 (חָדַ ׁש - renew)]  it does not mean invent something that never existed before, hence “new”.” The remez then confirms the correct branch: “I will put My Torah within them.” That is not a new Torah; it is the same Torah renewed. Once you correct the lens, the entire theology straightens out: Jeremiah is not announcing a new religion, a new law, or a new people — he is announcing the renewal of the same covenant, the restoration of the same Torah, and the reunification of the same nation. Greek thinking creates discontinuity; Hebraic thinking reveals restoration. Correct the lens, and the confusion disappears. This single correction alone repairs centuries of theological drift. 

The same correction happens with Joshua/Yeshua in Haggai 1:1–2  “...the word of the LORD came through Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest,.”  T he text itself gives the remez if you read it Hebraically. And again in Zechariah 3:1–8, Joshua the High Priest stands beside Zerubbabel the Davidic governor during the rebuilding of the House of the Lord. Greek thinking sees an Aaronic priest named Joshua and stops at the surface, but Hebraic thinking sees the remez, a hint, something is not jiving in the name Joshua — a name that points to something different. Joshua was the son of Nun, an Ephraimite, not from the line of Aron, so he cannot be High Priest. It points  to the Melchizedek priesthood, not Levi’s. The root of the name carries   semantically salvation, deliverance  and the remez activates the branch that points beyond the Aaronic system. This is why Zechariah 6:11–13 crowns Joshua — something never done for an Aaronic priest — because the act is not about Joshua’s genealogy but about the prophetic level embedded in his name. The crown is placed on the head of “Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest,” and then the prophecy immediately shifts to “the Branch,” the Davidic figure who will build the Temple — showing that Joshua/Yeshua is functioning as a living remez, a symbolic stand-in pointing to the future Melchizedek priesthood. Correct the lens, and the entire pattern straightens out: Zerubbabel (Davidic king) + Joshua/Yeshua (Melchizedek priest High Priest) is the preview of the two messianic roles working together. Greek thinking collapses the text into literal genealogy; Hebraic thinking follows the root, sees the remez, and recognizes the pattern. Correct the lens, and the confusion disappears. 

And then there is the word “mind,” which has been almost completely hijacked by Greek thinking. Greek collapses “mind” into the emotional heart, treating

cognition (thinking) and feeling as the same thing. But Hebrew pins the word to its root לב (lev), which is equated with he brain, the organ for thinking in the human body, a decision-center based on rationality— not emotion, not ruach, but brain-cognition. The lev only functions correctly when it is fed by right thinking — study, weighing, pondering, comparing, testing God’s root-based words. In Hebrew, the will does not act independently; the will is the final output of a thinking process. You study, you discern, you evaluate, and THEN you choose truth, Based on very strict unchanging rules. Emotion belongs to the ruach, the Hebrew word for wind, the movement of the inner life; it is real, but it is not the place where truth is determined. When people make emotional responses their basis for theology, they sabotage the entire interpretive system. Correct the lens, and the lev returns to its rightful place: the executive center that chooses truth because it has thought deeply about God’s words. This one correction alone repairs the entire modern confusion between “heart” and “mind,” restoring the Hebraic distinction that keeps the interpreter anchored instead of drifting into Greek emotionalism. 

And finally, the word “divine” — the most dangerous Greek import of all. Greek uses theios and theiotēs to describe a “god-nature,” a metaphysical essence that can be shared, transferred, or possessed by created beings. Hebrew has no such category. The closest term, אֱֹלהּות (Elohut), refers only to God Himself and never to a creature. When teachers use “divine” in the Greek sense, they unintentionally open the door to a theology where a created entity can be made equal with God — a concept utterly foreign to Hebrew thought. Gen 1:1 clearly states “In the beginning GOD CREATED, pshat – 2 categories – God and creation. Go back and read the First Commandment!  Correct the lens, and the entire issue straightens out: Hebrew speaks of God’s presence, agency, holiness, authority and glory — but never of a transferable “god-nature.” Greek metaphysics creates confusion; Hebraic categories restore clarity. Correct the lens, and the word “divine” returns to its proper place: a description of God alone, never a creature born. This single correction shuts the door on centuries of doctrinal drift and restores the unity of God as the Hebrew Scriptures  teach it in the Shema prayer. Hear Oh Israel, the Lord your God, The Lord is ONE.