Hebrew Word: Religion
Rabbeinu Nissim ben Reuven (Ran) of Gerona was a Spanish rabbi, Talmudic commentator, and philosopher. He said it very well: “The religions of all times promise rewards destined for the soul after its departure from the body, so as to distance the proof of their claims. Because they are not in possession of the truth, they cannot promise an imminent and tangible sign… But our Torah makes promises that can be confirmed in the here and now—something that no other teaching can do”.
Agreeing with this statement by Rabbeinu Nissim ben Reuven, in the following, we would like to posit another way to look at this, specifically in reference to religion. If we want to understand what the Hebrew word for “religion” means, we must pay attention to how the Hebrew language and culture defines “religion”. But the reader may become disappointed, for there is no Hebrew word for “religion”. The Hebrew language does not have the concept of “religion”, as we know it today and does not allow an alternative translation and interpretation, which will make more sense to the critical reader, as we will explain below. The matter will become clear once we understand why there is no Hebrew word for “religion”. Yet, we have something to say about religion below.
“Serving the Eternal is not religion but way of life”. Navah
There are several issues we need to address in the course of this whole study. In the issue of religion, there is a common mistake made when it is asserted that religion is about God. But religion is what people believe about a god. Thence, many religions came along: Christianity teaches the shortcut of how to go to heaven. Islam is about the same thing with this caveat: one must first become a martyr by blowing himself in the midst of the infidels in order to get to the 72 rewards. Hinduism and Buddhism are how to achieve the state of “nirvana” through the beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation to a place of complete bliss and delight and peace. “Religion”, therefore, is about the way to go to “heaven”, about what the people need from “God”, and about what people say about this “God”. Hence, to fill in the void, this “God” needed to be created, and the people created “God” in their own image.
But our Torah says that Elohim created mankind in His own image. And the Torah is not about people going up to heaven but about the Creator coming down to earth, as he came down on the summit of the mountain, when He spoke to the people at Sinai, and as it is further said: “Your kingdom come, Your will be done in earth, as it is in heaven”. If someone wants to go to heaven, while the Eternal is coming down to earth, they may pass one another.
Our Torah is not a religion. Our Torah is a guidance, a teaching about what YHVH Elohim says about Himself, what He had done, does, and will do, and what He wants from us to do. Torah brings the studious scholar to a close relationship. Intimacy with the Creator means: “I know to whom I belong and who my Master is”, for He said from the mountain, “I am the Eternal Your Elohim”. Those who were there became His through the Covenant He made with them, and those of the future generations, who entered this Covenant afterwards, also became His. The covenantal relationship between the Eternal and Israel is thus likened to a marriage, and the Torah is a meeting with the Eternal in revelation.
“It is not good enough to learn all the dos and don’ts but not the whys”. Navah
Torah is not a religion; it is not a collection of “dos” and “don’ts”, but His Will for mankind how to live a righteous life here on the earth; a life set apart to Him alone. Contrary to the common teaching, at Sinai Elohim did not tell us what we must or must not do but what He wants from us. There is a difference. He revealed Himself through His Covenant by telling us what he desired from us, and thus he became knowable to us. Now, everything makes sense: He wants us for a purpose, and what man needs is to know why his Maker has made him. This will be further explained in the interpretation of these verses.
But where did religion come from? The concept of “religion” is a Greco-Roman dualism that divides a social life into religious and secular. However, this form of dualism is foreign to the Torah, which instead sees all aspects of life as one and the same: a righteous life. The word “religion” is actually the Latin word “religione”, which is of obscure etymology. The Latin term religio is first recorded in the 1 BC, in Classical Latin at the rise of the Roman Empire, notably by Cicero, and used in the sense of “scrupulous or strict observance of the traditional cultus”. Religio among the Romans was not based on “faith”, but on knowledge, including and especially correct practice. Julius Caesar used religio to mean “obligation of an oath” when discussing captured soldiers making an oath to their captors. In that sense, religio means bondage to a slave-master. The Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder used the term religio to describe supposed veneration of the sun and the moon. Hence, religio (plural religiones) was the pious practice of Rome’s traditional cults. But the Latin religio perhaps comes from the unattested verb religo (to observe, to venerate) plus the suffix –io, wherein –io is added to a verb to create a feminine abstract noun.
Another explanation of the etymology of the Latin word religione is that it may derive from re- (again, back) and ligio (servile); in Latin, ligio means “submissive, loyal, servile”: these are all attributes to a vassal. Hence, the Latin ward religione means “submissive service”, and within the system of beliefs of the Roman culture and empire, the term religio or religione originally meant and still means an obligation to the authority or to the gods of Rome. Therefore, when the time came, the Emperor Constantine proclaimed to the Romans that he had a new religion for them, and they knew exactly what he meant, namely, “back to the bondage”. Constantine created nothing new; he just renamed the existing gods of Rome to the gods of the new religione. It would be advantageous for the reader to study this issue, as it is all explained in our brief commentary in TORM Q&A: Why was Christianity accepted so easily in Rome?
Constantine the Great wanted one religion, and the Romans accepted it right away.
The studious reader knows that the word “religion” does not appear anywhere in the Hebrew Scripture (Tanach), except in the Apostolic Writings. The two occurrences of “religion” (Jas 1:26-27) is found in the translation of Apostle Ya’akov’s letter (whose Hebrew name the translators changed to “James”), as we read thus from King James’ version of the Bible,
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (Jas 1:27 KJV)
The choice of this word poses a difficulty. This does not appear to us to be correct, for the idea of “religion” is a foreign concept in Tanach, and therefore we do not agree with this translation. Besides this translation is without merit, for this translation is not grounded well in the Hebrew text of Tanach, as the connection to “religion” is never raised or even hinted at. And what sense is there in their saying, “Pure religion”, since the word religion does not appear anywhere in the “Old Testament”, even in their own translation. What problem is there in translating the word according to its plain sense and meaning and in the proper Hebraic context? The reason why we find this important to emphasize will be made clear further on.
So, what exactly is being described here, and to what question we are answering? If a reader does not know how to be careful with this idea of “religion” when reading translations from Greek but takes this verse by blind faith beyond its proper concept, he will inevitably become confused. The most pronounced example of this is KJV Bible. Keep this in mind whenever we state that the best way to misunderstand the Scripture is to read translations.
At this point in the discussion, it is necessary to understand how Hebrew language addresses the word from “religion”. The modern Hebrew language uses the ancient Hebrew word דָּת dat for the concept of “religion”, but this Biblical Hebrew word originally meant a royal edict, statute, decree, and law. The only occurrence of דָּת dat in the Torah is in Deuteronomy, and more particularly, in the blessing with which Mosheh the man of Elohim blessed Israel before his death. And he said,
The Eternal came from Sinai and rose from Se’ir for them. He shone forth from Mount Paran and came with ten thousand of set-apart ones – at His right hand a law of fire for them. (Deu 33:1-2)
Here the word in question is אֶשְׁדָּת eshdat, a compound word from אֵשׁ esh “fire” and דָּת dat “law”, translated as “law of fire” or “fiery law“. All other occurrences of the Hebrew דָּת dat are in the exilic writings of Daniel, Esther, and Ezra, wherein it is rendered as “decree”, “law”, or “order”, but never “religion”. A derivative of דָּת dat is דְּתָבָר dethabar, which is of Persian origin, meaning one skilled in law, i.e., a judge or counsellor.
In the classic Rabbinic writings, another Hebrew word is used that is translated in English as “religion”; this is the word דַּעַת da’at, which means “knowledge” and it is not to be confused with the modern Hebrew word דָּת dat for “religion”. The word דַּעַת da’at, knowledge (see Gen 2:9 and Gen 2:17) comes from the verb יָדַע yada, which means to “know” literally and figuratively. In its figurative application, יָדַע yada, means to “know” someone intimately (Gen 4:1, Gen 19:8, and Gen 24:16). Another derivative of yada is מַדַּע madda, which means “knowledge” in the sense of intelligence (2Ch 1:10-12 Dan 1:4), and “thought” or “mind” (Ecc 10:20), i.e., מַדַּע madda is the place of knowledge.
The “dividends” from good deeds are in this world, while the “capital” is reserved for the world to come. The Sages
So, what Hebrew word did the apostle use in his letter, which KJV translators saw fit to render as “religion”? Most likely, it is the Hebrew word עֲבוֹדָה avodah meaning “bond service” or “slavery”—all depends on whom is served. Those who adhere to the laws of the Creator are His bond servants and serve Him. Therefore, when we keep these considerations in mind, and if we are correct in our supposition we made above we will also understand the literal and plain translation of the apostle’s words bypassing the authorized translation of the king of England,
Pure bond service and undefiled before Elohim and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (Jas 1:27)
Why is the KJV verse not translated the way the apostle has meant it should be understood? Is changing the text to its opposite called “translation”? We can refute this translation by quoting many verses. But we will not prolong our argument, instead we will merely point to the following: It is because the KJV translators and others alike had approached the text with preconceived ideas.
Unlike Christianity and Islam, Torah is of deed not of belief. There are many beliefs, but what matters is what one does. Our translation is faithful to Ya’akov’s teaching in his epistle: “My brothers, what use is it for anyone to say he has faith but does not have works? This faith is unable to save him. (Jas 2:14) … But someone might say, “You have faith, and I have works”. Show me your faith without your works, and I shall show you my faith by my works. (Jas 2:18), and he concludes that the faith without the works is dead (Jas 2:20)”.
What kind of works is Ya’akov conveying to the reader? The works in the Torah, as he reiterated the Torah of the Eternal. The difference between “religion” and “bond service” will be better understood by what the apostle implies: If a brother or sister is naked and in need of daily food, but we do not give them the bodily needs, what use is it? If faith does not have works, it is dead (see Jas 2:15-18). And indeed, providing for the needs of the poor, widow, orphan and sick is the essence of the Torah. By doing this we serve the Eternal as bondservants (see also Deu 15:7, Deu 15:11, and Deu 24:14-15). The reason why we are forced to give this interpretation of the apostle’s words, which is quite clear, is that this is the essence of the Torah. It is for this reason that it was said in Torah, and we have no intention to use any commentary to refute such matters of religion, having been told by what the Torah clearly had stated in Leviticus,
And you shall guard My laws and My ordinances, which a man does and lives by them. I am the Eternal. (Lev 18:5)
And Leviticus goes on to state how this should be done:
And you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Eternal. (Lev 19:18)
At the end of this study, let us return to our immediate problem to bring light to what we already explained. The Eternal wants to impress upon the reader that man shall do and live by His Torah. The rest of the Torah is just a commentary to this. The observance of the Torah is to walk the walk, not talk the talk. The rest is religion—a lip service.
Knowledge known to only a few will die out. If you feel blessed by these teachings of Time of Reckoning Ministry, help spread the word!
May we merit seeing the coming of our Mashiach speedily in our days!
This page contains sacred literature and the Name of the Creator. Please, do not deface, discard, or use the Name in a casual manner.