THE SYNDROME OF EMETH, SHALOM, AND HESED
AMONG the various theories of truth which occupy epistemological inquiry, the one closest to common sense is the theory of correspondence. According to it, a judgment is true if it corresponds to the fact to which it refers. We certainly do find that truth, emeth, in the Bible does have the common sense meaning of correspondence to a fact. In the case of certain inquiries which had to be made, the Bible says: “if it be emeth, truth, and the thing certain.” The queen of Sheba tells Solomon that the report she heard in her land about the king’s wisdom was emeth, true. The king of Israel enjoins on Micaiah, the prophet, to speak to him in the name of God nothing but emeth, the truth. Isaiah and Jeremiah use the word in the same sense. According to Proverbs, a witness of emeth, truth, saves lives. It is easy to find numerous other examples showing that truth in the Bible is correspondence between judgment and the object of which the judgment is predicated.1Deut. 13:15; 17:4; 22:20; I Kings 10:6; 22:16; Jer. 23:28; 26:15; 28:9; Isa. 43:9; Prov. 14:25; Dan. 8:26; 11:2; etc. But neither is it difficult to appreciate that the correspondence theory of truth is far from exhausting the meaning of the biblical concept of emeth. It is hard to believe that God’s promise to his people was that he will be their God “in truth [b’emeth] and in righteousness.”2Zech. 8:8. What could it mean, to be their God in truth? To understand it as meaning that the promise will correspond to the fact, that God will really be their God, verges on the banal. It is even more difficult to believe that the psalmist prayed to God that He may answer him “with the truth of Thy salvation.”3Pss. 69:14. It is hardly possible to associate any significance with the concept of the truth of God’s salvation. God either answers a prayer with his salvation or he does not. The suggestion however that there is a truth aspect to God’s salvation, as if his salvation could also be untrue, is preposterous. The concept of emeth seems to have an important place in the life of King Hezekiah. It is said of him that “he wrought that which was good and right and emeth before the Lord his God.” Obviously, emeth here is not the intellectual idea of truth, but something in the nature of an ethical deed. Immediately after this passage, the invasion of Judah and the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib is introduced with the words: “After these things and this emeth.…”4II Chron 31:20; 32:1. Undoubtedly, emeth here is not the abstract idea of truth, but an event that occurred or a deed which was performed, to which one may refer with the adverb of time, after. When Isaiah predicted to him the downfall of his dynasty after his death, Hezekiah’s words were: “If but there shall be peace and emeth in my days.”5Isa. 39:8. It would be hardly meaningful to say that Hezekiah was looking forward to peace and truth in his lifetime. Only if emeth has a social and ethical significance similar to that of shalom may the two be associated with each other in the manner in which it was done by Hezekiah. The association between shalom and emeth is, of course, found in other places of the Bible as well. Zechariah, for instance, calls on the people: therefore love ye emeth and shalom.6Zech. 8:19. The juxtaposition of truth and peace offers a fine excuse for a preacher to prove his homiletical skill. The truth, however, is that emeth here is a virtue which belongs in an ethico-social category as much as peace itself.
That emeth means something quite different from the abstract and intellectual concept of truth becomes quite clear as one compares the numerous biblical passages in which emeth is associated with hesed, love (or lovingkindness). It is most unlikely that what Abraham’s servant said to Rebekah’s family about the God of his master was that He did not forsake “His mercy (hesed) and His truth (emeth) toward my master.” What indeed could that truth be and what bearing may it have on guiding the servant to the place for which he set out? Similarly, when the servant requested the decision of the family in his suit on behalf of his master’s son, he could not have said to them: “And now if ye will deal kindly and truly with my master.”7Gen. 24:27, 48. What on earth could dealing truly with someone mean? And especially, what could it mean in the situation in which the expression was used by Abraham’s servant? What the servant really said was: “And now if you are [willing] to do hesed and emeth with my master.” Had Jacob really prayed: “I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which Thou hast shown unto Thy servant,” we would not know what he could have meant. What was “all the truth” which God had shown to Jacob, of which Jacob was not worthy? What Jacob said was: “I am not worthy of all the hasadim [acts of love] and the emeth, which Thou hast done unto Thy servant.”8Ibid. 32:11. As in the previous example, emeth is here action, something that is done to someone just as hesed. As in its association with shalom, so in its connection with hesed, emeth is an ethical virtue that is to be practiced toward others. Hesed and emeth are also associated with each other as divine attributes. Of God it is said that he is long-suffering and abundant in hesed and emeth.9Exod. 34:6. For the talmudic interpretation see T. B., Rosh Hashanah, 17b. There is a rich biblical tradition for which the association between hesed (love, lovingkindness) and emeth is most natural. As the other examples which we have discussed earlier, this association leads us to the conclusion that the biblical concept of emeth is not to be found in the realm of abstract ideas of pure rationality, but in that of values of practical reason. The biblical emeth is not an epistemological idea, but an ideal of ethics.
THE MEANING OF NE’EMAN
In order to analyze the meaning of the idea of emeth, we may do well to examine at first the adjective, ne’eman, and the noun, emunah, which have the same root as emeth. The adjective ne’eman is often applied to objects. Of Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, the prophet says that God will establish his rule firmly. The idea is, however, expressed symbolically in the words: “And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place.” The sure place is the maqom ne’eman. The peg is set in a ground that holds it firmly. Yet, according to the prophet, the day will come on which even “the peg that was fastened in a place ne’eman gives way.”10Isa. 22:23, 25. The giving-way of the place which is sure is the unexpected. Ne’eman is then that which does not give way, which holds firm; it is something that endures, lasts. In this sense, the term is often applied to the Davidic dynasty. Abigail, for instance, is convinced that God will make for David a bayith ne’eman, which is “a sure house” in the same sense in which Isaiah spoke of the peg in “a sure place,” i.e., a house that does not give way, a lasting dynasty. In God’s explicit promise to David, the idea of ne’eman is applied to the dynasty in its verbal form. God’s words are: “And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made ne’eman for ever before thee; and thy throne shall be established for ever.”11II Sam. 7:16; cf. also I Kings 11:38. Ne’eman was here quite obviously the meaning of enduring, lasting. But whereas in the example from Isaiah, ne’eman means firmness in space, in its application to the house of David it stands for endurance in time. There are other passages, too, which show a usage which comprehends both significances. In one of those moving passages in which Jeremiah calls out in his loneliness for God’s help against his persecutors, he turns to God with these words of bitterness: “Wilt Thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook as waters un-sure.”12Jer. 15:18. Un-sure waters are waters which are not ne’emanim; they are the parallel to the deceitful brook. They are not reliable. At times, they are found; at others, they disappear. The meaning of the prophet’s simile is self-explanatory. Will God’s help be forthcoming for the prophet in the same unsteady fashion in which waters, which are not ne’emanim, disappoint a thirsty wanderer? In a country in which water is always a problem, the concept of mayim ne’emanim, sure, reliable water, presents itself readily to the mind. It seems to have been a familiar idea. Isaiah uses it, too, when he describes the lot of the person who walks righteously and speaks uprightly. Among other things, he says of him: “His bread shall be given, his waters shall be ne’emanim [sure].”13Isa. 33:16. Reading these words in the light of Jeremiah’s complaint, what Isaiah asserts concerning the righteous is that his water resources will not be deceiving; they will be steadily available. In this sense of steady availability, ne’eman encompasses both meanings, that of firmness in space and endurance in time.
Ne’eman, in its application to the world of objects, means then, enduring, lasting, steady; it is something on whose presence one may count.14In Deut. 28:59 it is said even of plagues and sicknesses that they would be ne’emanoth, i.e., steady, enduring, to be counted upon. It is not difficult to see how the idea is broadened when applied to human beings and to qualities of human character. Steady availability in man is an ethical concept. It is reliability. A witness, who is ne’eman, is one who is reliable.15Isa. 8:2. However, when in Proverbs it is said of a messenger that he is ne’eman, the idea encompasses even more than reliability. It is said of such a messenger that he is “as the cold of snow in the time of harvest, for he refresheth the soul of his master.”16Prov. 25:13. Ne’eman here expresses the quality of the relation between two people. The messenger is ne’eman to the one who sent him. This is more than objective reliability; it is trustworthiness, faithfulness. Reliability of a witness in court is objective trustworthiness; reliability as a quality of relation between two people is subjective loyalty and faithfulness. It is in this sense that in Nehemiah it is said of Abraham that God found his heart ne’eman before Him.17Neh. 9:8. In the relation between God and Abraham, Abraham was unquestioningly reliable; he was faithful to God. Occasionally, ne’eman expresses the mutuality in the relation. The one who is trustworthy is trusted. Thus God says of Moses that he is ne’eman in all God’s house. The context shows that there exists a certain intimacy between God and Moses. God entrusts Moses with certain mysteries of “His house” with which others could not be entrusted. In one of the prophecies sent to Eli the priest, God says: “And I will raise Me up a priest who is ne’eman, that shall do according to that which is in My heart and in My mind; and I will build him a house that is ne’eman.”18I Sam. 2:35. For the purposes of our discussion, this is a most interesting passage. It uses the concept of ne’eman twice; once, applied to an object, a house, and once, as a bond between God and the priest God is to raise unto himself. As in all other similar examples, here, too, in its application to an object, ne’eman means, enduring, lasting. God promises to raise up a priest whose house, or dynasty, will be an enduring one. But the priest, too, will be ne’eman, he will be “enduring” in the relation with God. He will be reliable; he will do as required of him by God. Since he will be trustworthy, he will also be trusted by God. As a sign of God’s trust in him, his house will be established enduringly. Of Samuel it is said that, when it became clear that God was with him and all Samuel’s words were fulfilled as prophesied by him, all Israel knew that Samuel was ne’eman to be a prophet of God.19Ibid. 3:20. Prophecy is a relation between the prophet and God. The prophet is God’s ne’eman in a two-fold sense. He is faithful to God and because he is faithful, he is trusted by God.
Ne’eman may also qualify an abstract idea. Of the guidance that the fathers are to give the children it is said: “that they might put their confidence in God … and might not be as their fathers … a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not ne’emanah with God.”20Pss. 78:7–8. In keeping with what we have found thus far, the meaning may well be that their relation to God was one of unreliability; their loyalty was unsteady, lacking in consistency. Since, however, ne’eman also expresses the mutuality in a relation, that of being trustworthy and trusting, what the psalmist says here of the stubborn generation of the fathers is that their spirit was not trusting in God; they were not relying on him wholeheartedly. This seems to be supported by the distinction that is made between the two generations. Let the children be so taught that they may put their confidence in God, not forget the works of God, and thus be led to the keeping of God’s commandments. The memory of God’s works on behalf of Israel inspires reliance on God and trust in him. It is what the generation of the fathers were lacking. They were rebellious because they forgot God’s work. Having forgotten what God had done for them, they did not put their confidence in him. Their spirit was not trusting; it was not ne’emeneth with God. One may also be ne’eman or not in a covenant. It is said of Israel that they were not ne’eman “in His covenant.” As the context shows, they proved to be not ne’eman in that “they beguiled Him with their mouth, and lied unto Him with their tongue.”21Ibid., vss. 36–37. They were not trustworthy, they did not keep the covenant in loyalty to the Partner in the covenant, to God. God keeps his covenant rather differently. His promise to King David is: “For ever will I keep for him My hesed [love], and My covenant will be ne’eman to him.”22Ibid. 89:29. Here, ne’eman seems to possess all the riches of meaning that we have found in it. The covenant will be lasting and enduring. As such, the phrase is the parallel to God’s love, which God will keep for him for ever. It is for this that the psalmist continues: “His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” It is a reliable covenant, one which God will keep faithfully. Undoubtedly, Isaiah was bearing in mind this passage when he let God exclaim:
Incline your ear, and come to Me;
Hear, and your soul shall live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
Even the sure ne’emanim [acts of] hesed of David. (55:3)
The psalmist spoke of God’s everlasting love for David and of His covenant, which was ne’eman to David. The prophet varies the application of the attributes and calls the covenant everlasting and the hesed, ne’eman. This is an indication that ne’eman, qualifying hesed, is enduring love. Hasde David ha–ne’emanim are lasting acts of divine lovingkindness assured to David. It is hesed of the kind on which one may rely, which will never let one down.
We know that a city, too, may be called ne’emanah. This is what Isaiah calls Jerusalem in a famous passage. First there is the plaint:
How is the faithful [ne’emanah] city
Become a harlot!
She that was full of justice,
Righteousness lodged in her,
But now murderers. (1:21)
One does not expect faithfulness from a harlot. She is not ne’emanah. But Jerusalem used to be ne’emanah; her inhabitants kept faith with each other. She was ne’emanah, because her government could be relied upon to practice mishpat and sedeq. There is, however, also the promise that this is not to be the lasting condition of the holy city. God will yet restore the judges and the counsellors of the city “as at the beginning”:
Afterward thou shalt be called The city of righteousness [sedeq], The faithful [ne’emanah] city (Isa. 1:26)
A city is ne’eman if its inhabitants may trust to live in it without fear, relying on the faithful observance of its laws and the loyal preservation of its social ideals.23An interesting comparison is Deut. 28:59 with Prov. 27:6. In Deut. ne’eman, qualifying an object, plagues, means: enduring; in Prov. referring to the action of a friend which wounds, it stands for faithful wounds.
THE ETHICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EMUNAH
We shall now consider the noun emunah, which is formed from the same root as the adjective ne’eman, and the noun emeth. As ne’eman, it too may apply to the world of objects. On one occasion in the Bible it describes the hands of Moses. When in the battle of the Israelites against Amalek, Moses’ uplifted hands tired and were held up by Aaron and Hur, the Bible says: “and his hands were emunah until the going down of the sun.”24Exod. 17:12. As all other nouns of the same grammatical form, emunah, too, is an abstract noun. Thus it causes some problems of interpretation. One would expect here the adjective, ne’eman, meaning that the hands of Moses, once supported, held firm, they endured in their position. A literal translation of “his hands were emunah” would be: his hands were steadfastness, reliability. In the English language, steadfastness and reliability are qualities of human character. In biblical Hebrew, it would seem, one may say for the sake of emphasis that a thing is all steadiness and durability. In this sense, it could be said of the hands of Moses that they were emunah rather than ne’eman. They were so firmly held up that they were not just steady but steadiness itself. A most interesting use is made of emunah in this connotation by Isaiah, who employs it in a construct with time, when he says: “And wisdom and knowledge shall be the emunah of thy times, [and] strength of salvation; the fear of the Lord [is] his [i.e., man’s] treasure.”25Isa. 33:6. We follow here the R.V. which is based on Kimhi’s interpretation. Hosen is parallel to emunah in the sense of steadiness, firmness, strength. Emunah of the times as firmness and reliability of the days of man on earth is security, the very opposite of such uncertain conditions when in the morning a man wishes for the night and at the night he longs for the morning because of the fear that fills his heart.26Cf. Deut. 28:66–67. Such security of the times is synonymous with the strength and stability of man’s salvation. According to the prophet, it can only be had as the result of wisdom and knowledge and the fear of God. The comparison of the fear of God to a treasure further underlines the idea of security. Usually a man puts his trust in his treasures. But it is not material treasures which constitute the emunah, the reliability and security of man’s time on earth, but the fear of God together with wisdom and knowledge.
In its application to man’s character and behavior, emunah seems to have the same significance as a noun as we found the adjective ne’eman to have. During the rule of King Jehoash, funds were raised for the repair of the temple. No accounting was demanded of the officials whose task it was to pay the workman, for—as the Bible puts it—they were acting in emunah.27II Kings 12:16; 22:7. In other words, the temple officials were trusted with the funds. In our opinion, nothing is said here about the actual manner in which these officials carried out their responsibilities, whether they were in fact honest or not. Emunah was the basis of the understanding between the officials and the king or the temple government. The officials were trustworthy people and were trusted. Emunah here is indicative of the relation that prevailed between the officials and society; it was one of mutual reliability and faithfulness. The term “in emunah” means that the officials were acting in a condition of mutual trust. Emunah may, therefore, be rendered as reliability, faithfulness, trust. A most interesting use of the word is found in I Chronicles. In the genealogies of the families of Israel, it is said of those who were chosen to be “porters in the gates,” that “they were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did establish in their emunah.”28I Chron. 9:22. The context suggests that emunah here is an established office. Now the aspect of lasting and enduring was, of course, present, since the office was hereditary; it was passed on from generation to generation. This alone, however, would hardly justify calling an office emunah. But an office to which one is chosen is also a matter of trust. These men were entrusted with their offices. Emunah, in this context, signifies an enduring trust.29It may also be that emunah stands for a hereditary office in the sense of its meaning as security or stability, as in the earlier discussed combination with “times.” Emunah, in this sense, would correspond to a hereditary sinecure.
Most significantly, however, emunah is a character trait or a form of human behavior. Confronting Saul, David said: “And the Lord will render to every man his s’daqah and his emunah; forasmuch as the Lord delivered thee into my hand to-day, and I would not put forth my hand against the Lord’s anointed.”30I Sam. 26:23. We left the word s’daqah untranslated for reasons which will become obvious in Chapter 7. David believes that God will recompense him for the act of emunah which he rendered to Saul. Even though Saul was in his power, he did not put his hand on him. He was faithful to God’s anointed; he acted faithfully and reliably toward him. Emunah is loyalty to someone, which determines one’s behavior toward him; it is the quality of reliability in human relations. Jehoshapat, setting up judges in the land, enjoined them saying: “Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, in emunah, and with a whole heart.”31II Chron. 19:9. The judges should be reliable, faithful to their charge, execute their duties in emunah, in loyalty. Here, too, emunah is an inner attitude of reliability which determines human action in the area between man and God and man and man. The other passages in the Bible which connect the dispensation of justice with emunah should be read in the light of Jehoshapat’s injunction to the judges. Isaiah’s plaint is not that “none sueth in truth,” but that “none is judged in emunah.”32Isa. 59:4; cf. Kimhi’s interpretation there. The judges, in pronouncing judgment, do not act in faithfulness. Similarly, Jeremiah has the judges in mind when he lets God say:
Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem,
And see now, and know,
And seek in the broad places thereof,
If ye can find a man,
If there be any that enacts justice,
That seeketh emunah;
And I will pardon her.
And though they say: As the Lord liveth,
Surely they swear falsely [literally, lyingly].
O Lord, are not Thine eyes upon emunah?
Thou hast stricken them, but they were not affected;
Thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction. (5:1–3)
The emunah that the judges do not seek is reliability and faithfulness; they do not seek to establish it in the arguments of the parties or in the testimony of the witnesses. As in the passage we quoted from Isaiah, the statement that none is judged in emunah is followed by the explanatory remark: “They trust in vanity, and speak lies,” so here, too, the complaint that they seek no emunah is elaborated by the observation that they swear la’sheqer, to a lie. The judge, who does not seek emunah, trusts lies; he who does not judge in emunah relies on vanity. The theme is appropriately continued by Jeremiah in the exclamation: “O Lord, are not Thine eyes upon emunah?” Unlike the judges who do not, God does seek emunah. He watches man to see whether he acts reliably and in faithfulness. As He is willing to pardon man for the sake of emunah, so is He ready to punish him because of man’s betrayal of emunah.
In the last example, emunah and sheqer (lie) appeared as opposites. As emunah is not just truth in the sense of objective conformity with a fact, but reliability and loyalty, so is its opposite sheqer not just objective disagreement with a fact, but unreliability in the ethical sense. The passage we have quoted from Isaiah is preceded by the words: “Your lips have spoken lies, your tongue muttereth wickedness.” The lie is a manifestation of moral corruption; as wickedness toward a fellow man it is unreliability and disloyalty. The contrast between sheqer in this sense and emunah comes to clear expression in the following words of Jeremiah:
And they bend their tongue, their bow—sheqer [falsehood];
And they are grown mighty in the land, but not for emunah;
For they proceed from evil to evil,
And Me they know not,
Saith the Lord. (9:2)
They are mighty, but they do not use their might for the sake of emunah, to establish a society based on loyalty and faithfulness. Their weapon is sheqer and their purpose is “to proceed from evil to evil.” Sheqer is the rejection of emunah in the service of evil. Because of the nature of the contrast between sheqer and emunah do we read in Proverbs:
Lips of sheqer are an abomination to the Lord;
But they that practise emunah are His delight. (12:22)
The practicing of emunah is acting in a reliable manner, keeping trust with others. To speak sheqer is the opposite; it is the betrayal of a trust.
THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF EMUNAH
The ideas of ne’eman and emunah receive their theological significance through their application to God. God Himself is ne’eman, He is loyal to man; He is a God of emunah, one Who keeps faith with man and His creation. Thus it is said of him in Deuteronomy: “Know therefore that Y thy Elohim, He is the Elohim, the El [God] who is ne’eman, who keepeth covenant and love [hesed] with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations.”33Deut. 7:9; for the fuller interpretation of the relation between Y and Elohim and El in this verse, see what was said on the subject in Chapter 1. As a man who keeps a covenant preserves love for another human being is ne’eman, faithful, so is God, too, ne’eman, reliable and loyal, for he, too, keeps a covenant and preserves his love for a thousand generations. In this passage we also meet the association between the concept of ne’eman and the idea of hesed in one of its clearest formulations. God is loyal because He keeps His love for many generations. To be ne’eman to someone is in itself a form of hesed. But whereas love as such may be momentary, it may even be fickle, of short duration and, therefore, not altogether reliable, the love of one who is ne’eman is enduring, it may be relied upon. In this sense, God is ne’eman in the keeping of covenant and the practicing of hesed. The thought is underlined by the qualification that he does it for “a thousand generations.” Isaiah makes use of the same thought, when— prophesying about Ebed Y, the servant of God—he promises his elevation in the name of the “Redeemer of Israel, his holy One.”
Kings shall see and arise,
Princes, and they shall prostrate themselves;
Because of the Lord that is ne’eman,
Even the Holy One of Israel, who hath chosen thee. (49:7)
Notwithstanding Israel’s humiliation and degradation by the nations, God keeps his covenant with, and his love for, his people. He will yet make himself known as Israel’s Redeemer, for he is ne’eman, everlastingly reliable and loyal.
God is also himself a God of emunah, of loyalty and faithfulness. In the great song of Moses, He is called “a God of emunah and without iniquity.”34Ibid. 32:4. Iniquity is, as we saw, the work of sheqer, which is the opposite of emunah, trustworthiness and reliability. According to Hosea, God betroths Israel unto himself in emunah, which, of course, means that God will keep faith with Israel. A most revealing passage is the one in Psalm 33, which reads as follows:
For the word of the Lord is upright;
And all His work is done in emunah,
He loves s’daqah and mishpat [justice];
The earth is full of the lovingkindness [hesed] of the Lord. (vss. 4–6)
The passage is of great interest to us because it further illustrates the validity of our findings in our discussion of the biblical concept of justice.35Cf. Chapter 5. Not only is mishpat here associated with s’daqah, which—as we shall yet see—is a good deed rendered freely to another person, and hesed, but God’s love for it elaborates the earlier statement that all His works are done in faithfulness. As we saw, the love of justice is not adherence to an abstract principle, but must be understood as a form of divine concern for man. We found it to be that which was appropriate in a given situation. We learn now that God’s love for justice, just as his love for s’daqah, is a manifestation of his emunah. Because he keeps faith with man, he loves justice and s’daqah. As the psalmist puts it in another place, God judges the peoples in emunah.36Pss. 96:13. Even God’s judgment is an act of faithfulness toward man. The thought is most clearly expressed in the words of the psalmist when he says:
I know, O Lord, that Thy judgments are righteous,
And that in emunah Thou hast afflicted me. (Pss. 119:75)
Even when afflicting a person with His judgment, God acts in faithfulness; even then, He is to be relied upon. One is reminded of the verse in Proverbs, which says that wounds of a friend are ne’emanim, faithful, whereas the kisses of an enemy are importunate.37Prov. 27:6. A friend, even when he hurts us, may have our interest in mind; so God, too, even when he executes judgment, he acts in faithfulness.
It is extremely interesting to note that just as we have found mishpat to be a cosmic principle, by which God sustains the harmonious balance in the universe, so is emunah, too, a cosmic principle. God maintains the entire creation in emunah. God’s faithfulness to his creation seems to be the guarantee of its stability. In fact, at least in one passage both terms are used in their cosmic significance. We find them so used in the words of the psalmist, who says:
For ever, O Lord,
Thy word standeth fast in heaven.
Thy faithfulness [emunah] is unto all generations;
Thou hast established the earth, and it standeth;
They stand this day according to Thine ordinances [mishpatim];
For all things are Thy servants. (Pss. 119:89–91)
The theme of these words is the idea of firmness, of standing lastingly, of being established enduringly. However, the thought is elaborated not in its limited application to the world of man alone, but in its comprehensive meaningfulness in heaven and earth and in relationship to “all things.” “All generations,” which are mentioned, are not the generations of men, but the generations of all creation. The word of God, which “standeth fast in heaven,” is the word of creation which sustains the heaven. The universe is reliably established because of God’s faithfulness to “all generations.” They stand, of course, by the laws of nature which are God’s “ordinances,” his “mishpat,” for the creation. The world is not Tohu vaBohu because its existence is based on mishpat, on the principle of harmonious balance between its manifold powers and parts; the world endures in such mishpat because God so maintains it in emunah, in faithfulness to its needs. Without God’s emunah by his creation, there would be no reliance even on the laws of nature. Without God’s emunah, without divine loyalty toward the universe, God’s cosmic mishpat, the orderliness of the universe itself might come to an end at any moment and all may return into some aboriginal chaos. The passage is a further illustration of what is meant by the statement that all God’s work is done in emunah.
We have already observed the connection between hesed and emunah. We shall take a closer look at it now. The two concepts are coordinated in numerous passages. According to the psalmist, when God redeems Israel, he remembers “His hesed [love] and His emunah” toward them.38Pss. 98:2. As we noted earlier, in a passage like this, emunah reinforces hesed through its aspect of consistency. The meaning of the psalmist may adequately be rendered by saying that God saves Israel by means of the consistency, the faithfulness of his love toward them. Calling it “a good thing” to praise God and to give thanks to Him, the psalmist continues saying: “to declare Thy hesed in the morning and Thy emunah in the night season.”39Ibid. 92:3. The explanation suggests itself that the change in the times of the day is guided by the difference between hesed and emunah. In the morning, during the day, people are awake; night is the time of sleep. An act of lovingkindness one experiences in a state of consciousness. On the other hand, when one is asleep, one must be able to trust someone, some order, society, neighbors, that one will not be harmed in one’s state of unconsciousness. So it is with God’s hesed and His emunah toward man. His acts of lovingkindness we experience consciously, thus we declare his hesed in the morning. At night, however, we entrust our lives to God’s faithfulness; we rely on him because he is reliable, for he is a God of emunah.40For the midrashic explanation, which is rather close to our analysis, see Midrash Ekha, 3, 21; cf. also Yitshaki’s interpretation on Pss. 92:3; see also Tosaphot, T. B., B’rakhot, 12a, l’haggid, etc. It is of the very essence of loyalty that one may count on it, even when its visible manifestations are absent. As we heard earlier in our discussion, even in affliction, if it comes from a friend, one may discern the marks of faithfulness toward one.
The relationship between hesed and emunah comes to most emphatic expression in Psalm 89. It is the psalm from which we have quoted the qualification of covenant by the adjective ne’eman. God’s covenant with David is an enduring (ne’emeneth) one; it will be reliably kept with David’s descendants to the furthermost generation. The theme, however, is introduced with the words: “But my emunah and my hesed shall be with him.” It is the direct consequence of God’s love and faithfulness for David that the covenant concluded with him is an enduringly reliable one. A covenant concluded in emunah is one which is ne’emeneth; it is lasting for ever. The full import of the idea is expressed in the following statement:
If his children forsake My law,
And walk not in Mine ordinances;
If they profane My statutes,
And keep not My commandments;
Then will I visit their transgression with the rod,
And their iniquity with strokes.
But My hesed will I not break off from him,
Nor will I be false to My emunah.
My covenant will I not profane,
Nor alter that which is gone out of My lips.
Once have I sworn by My holiness:
Surely I will not be false unto David;
His seed shall endure for ever,
And his throne as the sun before Me.
It shall be established for ever as the moon;
And be ne’eman as the witness in the sky. (Pss. 89:31–38)
Notwithstanding the sinfulness of David’s progeny, they will endure for ever. God’s emunah guarantees God’s everlasting love for David’s seed. Withdrawing this love, God would betray his own emunah; it would be an act of disloyalty. Because of his hesed and emunah, God will not dissolve his covenant, because of his faithful love, he will not alter his word. God’s love may be relied upon. It is the essence of the combination of hesed and emunah as divine attributes. Because of it, God will never be false to David. David’s throne will be established for ever. Through God’s emunah, David’s throne, too, will be ne’eman; it will be as enduring as the sun and the moon in the sky. Hesed and emunah together, thus, become practically the one attribute of enduring, faithful love. But whatever is lasting with God is eternal. God’s emunah is forever to be relied upon. It is for this reason that, in the same psalm, the psalmist may well complain: “How long, O Lord, wilt Thou hide Thyself for ever?” God cannot for ever hide his faith from his anointed and from his people, his servants. For what would become of His former hasadim which He swore unto David in His emunah? God’s promise of lovingkindness to David may never be withdrawn, for they were made in emunah, in everlasting divine loyalty to David. A careful reading of Psalm 89 will show that its theme is altogether based on the combination of the two concepts of hesed and emunah. The opening words, given in the second verse, should be read as a title to the entire psalm:
I will sing of the hasadim of God for ever;
To all generations will I make known Thy emunah with my mouth.
One may sing of God’s hasadim for ever because they are everlasting. They are everlasting because God is a God of emunah. Because His faithfulness endures for ever, can it be made known to all generations. This enduring love of God does the psalmist identify with His goodness, saying:
For the Lord is good;
His hesed endureth for ever;
And His emunah unto all generations. (Pss. 100:5)
God’s hesed combines with his faithfulness to become everlasting.
Since God is a God of emunah, his Torah, the testimonies and commandments, share in his faithfulness and are, therefore, ne’eman.41Cf. Pss. 19:8; 93:5; 111:7; 119:138. The word, in this context, is usually translated as sure. While ne’eman, as we saw, does have that meaning, to say that God’s commandments are sure does not impress us as too significant a statement. It would seem to us that “reliable” and even “faithful” would be a more appropriate rendering of the Hebrew original. God’s testimonies and commandments have a purpose and one may rely on them as serving that divine purpose. They are meant for man and are given to him in his own best interest. In this sense they keep faith with man, they do not let him down. They are faithful. It would seem to us that this meaning of emunah in its application to God’s law comes to expression in a passage in Psalm 119. “All Thy commandments are emunah; they persecute me for nought; help Thou me”; by itself this verse does not seem to make much sense. What connection is there between God’s commandments which are “faithfulness” and the fact that the psalmist is being persecuted without a cause? In order to understand it, one must read the verse in its fuller context. Read in this manner, it runs as follows:
The proud have digged pits for me,
Which is not according to Thy law.
All Thy commandments are emunah;
They persecute me for nought;
Help Thou me.
They had almost consumed me upon earth;
But as for me, I forsook not Thy precepts. (Pss. 119:85–87)
We believe that the key phrase for the understanding of the human situation in which the psalmist found himself is: “not according to Thy law.” It suggests that those who were persecuting him were really judging him in the name of the law, but not in the name of God’s law. Or perhaps, he was condemned in the name of God’s law, which, however, was distorted for the special purpose of digging a pit for the man. That is the reason why the psalmist exclaims that he is being persecuted in the name of the law, which, however, cannot be God’s law since all “Thy commandments” are emunah. It is a sign of the passion in the exclamation that not the adjective ne’emanim is used here, but the noun emunah. As if to say, surely God’s commandments must not be used for such nefarious purposes, since they are all a manifestation of God’s emunah, of his faithfulness to man and man’s vital interests. Now, a person who is mistreated unlawfully might easily fall upon the idea that he was justified in defending himself by any means available, in his turn disregarding the law, too, completely. But the psalmist seeks God’s help against his persecutors; in God alone does he wish to find his salvation. For even though they have almost “consumed” him, he himself would not forsake God’s precepts in dealing with them.
One may also add that God’s emunah, which determines the quality of God’s commandments, is also the reason why a man turns to Him for help when he is persecuted “not according to His law.” For the sake of man, God gives man His law in His faithfulness. When His law is misused or misapplied, the persecuted turn to God for help for He is a God of faithfulness. As He gave the law, so may He also be appealed to for succor; both God’s law for man and His salvation are due to His faithfulness. It is thus natural that God’s emunah and His salvation should also be associated with each other. Thus the psalmist maintains: “I have declared Thy faithfulness [emunah] and Thy salvation.”42Ibid. 40:11. God’s salvation is a manifestation of His faithfulness. One may rely on Him.
The concept of emunah also determines the biblical idea of belief. To believe, he’emin, means to put one’s trust in someone or something, to rely on him or on it. This may be verified by numerous examples. It is interesting to note that the grammatical form of the verb, to believe, is the causative (hiph’il). To believe means to make someone or something trusted. By relying on a neighbor we make him a ne’eman, a trusted one. Our chief concern is to see how the idea of belief is used in the Bible when it is used as an expression of religious faith in God. One might say that belief or faith in the Bible is not a theological concept but a religious one. It is, for instance, never used as belief that God exists or as faith that his essential nature or substance is to be imagined in accordance with certain metaphysical ideas like infinity, omnipotence, absoluteness, etc. In the Bible, faith and belief are purely religious concepts describing a relationship of trust between God and man. When God promised Abraham that his descendants will be like the stars in the sky, the Bible says of Abraham that he believed in God.43Gen. 15:6. Even though he was childless and his wife was a barren woman, he relied on God’s promise. He trusted in God’s emunah, in God’s faithfulness. After the crossing of the Red Sea, the children of Israel “believed in the Lord, and in His servant Moses.”44Exod. 14:31. After experiencing the supernatural event of their deliverance under the leadership of Moses, they became convinced that God was with them and that Moses was his messenger to them. Now, they had confidence in God and trusted his servant. When the Bible says that the people of Nineveh believed in God,45Jonah 3:5. the meaning is not that under the impact of the prophet’s message they became frightened and now believed that God existed and could do with them as he pleased. “They believed in God” means: they put their trust in him. They turned to him in confidence, knowing that—even though the destruction of their city had already been decreed by God—they could still return to him, penitently relying on him. They remembered what Jonah knew all the time, i.e., that “Thou art a gracious God, and compassionate, longsuffering, and abundant in lovingkindness, and repentest Thee of the evil.”46Ibid. 4:2. They remembered it and were now willing to put all their trust in it. They had faith.
On the other hand, not to believe in God does not mean not to believe in his existence, but not to rely on him, not to trust his emunah, his faithfulness. When the spies, sent out by Moses, returned with evil tidings from the promised land, despair overtook the children of Israel. Joshua and Caleb, who spoke confidently of God, who would bring them into the land, were stoned by the people. At this moment God said to Moses: “How long will this people despise Me? and how long will they not believe in Me, for all the signs which I have brought among them?47Num. 14:11. This was a moment of crisis of trust in God. He had promised them the land. Can He keep his promise? It was unbelievable that it was so in view of the might of the inhabitants of the land. Yet, God had shown them His signs and miracles which should have been enough to convince them that He had both the intention and the power to fulfill His promise to them. But in spite of it all, they did not believe Him, they did not rely on Him.48Cf. also Deut. 1:32; 9:23; Num. 20:12; Pss. 78:32. Of the people of Samaria, who were carried away into captivity, it is said that “they would not hear, but hardened their neck, like the neck of their fathers, who believed not in the Lord their God; and they rejected His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies … and they went after things of nought, and became nought.”49II Kings 17:14–15. This passage is of special interest to us, because it makes mention of the statutes, the covenant, and the testimonies. We found earlier in our discussion that God’s commandments, his covenant, and testimonies were all called ne’emanim, trustworthy, and to be relied upon. Those, however, who do not believe in God, who do not rely on him, will of necessity not rely either on the covenant which was concluded with him, or on his commandments and statutes, which—as we saw—were in themselves given to Israel as an act of God’s faithfulness toward them.
There seems to be only one passage left which may require further elucidation. It is found in Isaiah:
Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord,
And My servant whom I have chosen;
That ye may know and believe Me, and understand
That I am He;
Before Me there was no God [El] formed,
Neither shall any be after Me. (43:10)
It would be a mistake to think that to believe is used here in the theological sense, i.e., as faith in the existence of God and his eternity perhaps. The entire passage speaks of the glorious salvation that God promises Israel. God calls to Israel not to be afraid for God has redeemed them; Israel is God’s. When they pass through water or fire, God is always with them. For He is Y, their Elohim, the Holy One of Israel, their Savior. We refer here to what we have said in earlier chapters on Y’s making Himself known as Elohim as well as on the concept of the Holy One of Israel.50See Chapters 1 and 4. Both concepts yield the idea of God as the Savior. Y makes the promises of His salvation because He is their Elohim, the Holy One of Israel. One may easily see the connection between these thoughts and the idea that God is a God of emunah. His manifestation as Elohim, or as Qadosh, as the One who is near and exercises providence, is identical with the practice of his emunah, of his faithfulness. Israel is a witness because it can witness to God’s faithfulness as their Elohim, the Holy One of Israel. They witness to his reliability as the Savior. They may so bear witness because God grants them the actual historic experience of his salvation. Thus they learn to know and they learn to believe. They learn to know Him as the One on whom to rely. In this manner the somewhat mysterious phrase, “that I am He,” becomes meaningful. “I” is the remote, transcendent Y. But Y reveals Himself as the familiar “He,” the one to whom man may point and say, He, because He is near through His acts of providential care. “I am He” means that the unknown, hidden, and mysterious Y is identical with Him, the familiar Elohim. This is now properly followed up with the words: “Before Me there was no El formed, neither shall any be after Me.” Purposefully, God is referred to here as El. What is said here is not that before God there was no God, which—theologically speaking—would be vacuous. It is Y who is speaking. What he says is that apart from Y there is no El or Elohim. To believe in Y means to place one’s full reliance on Him, for He is Elohim, the God of emunah, the God who is near and faithful.
If, however, emunah is reliability, loyalty, enduring faithfulness, how are we to understand the well-known words of the Habakkuk: “But the righteous shall live by his emunah”?51Hab. 2:4. Normally, the phrase is taken to mean that the righteous lives by his faith. But we have not found anywhere emunah to have the meaning of faith. Even when it is said of the Messiah that “emunah shall be the girdle of his veins”52Isa. 11:5. the meaning of emunah is not faith but faithfulness. Even here, as in all other cases, emunah means personal loyalty. As is required of the judge, so will the Messiah, too, in his capacity as a judge, act with faithfulness toward the people. What, then, is the emunah by which the righteous lives? It is what it always is—faithfulness. The righteous lives by the faithfulness that he practices toward men as well as toward God. To be reliable in one’s dealings with one’s fellow men implies not hurting them, respecting their rights, to be concerned about their welfare and their interest. All this, of course, does not apply to man’s relation with God. One cannot hurt God and one need not be concerned about God’s rights or his well-being. To be loyal to God means to have faith in God’s faithfulness, to rely on his word, to know that his laws and his testimonies are ne’emanim (reliable), to put one’s trust in him, being convinced that all his works are done in emunah. To have such faith in God is being faithful to him. The only thing man can give God is his trust in God. It is the essence of his loyalty to God.
THE MEANING OF EMETH
If we now turn our attention to the examination of the concept with which we opened our discussion in this chapter, we find that emeth seems to be used in all the various contexts in which the concepts of ne’eman and emunah were employed. It is difficult to agree that the angel who spoke to Daniel said that he would reveal to him “that which is inscribed in the writing of Truth.”53Dan. 10:21. An affirmation by the angel that the mysterious script, whose contents he was revealing to Daniel, was true, would seem to us completely superfluous. Nor does such a translation correspond to the Hebrew original. The Hebrew makes no mention of “the writing of truth,” which describes the contents of the writing as truth. A more exact rendering would be: “inscribed in true writing,” which does not refer to the contents of the inscription but to the manner in which the script was executed. The technique, in which the inscription was done, was that of “true writing.” But what could “true writing” be? Recalling that ne’eman, qualifying an object, usually means sure, lasting, enduring, we may well translate here: inscribed in sure writing. Emeth is indeed used here as the adjective ne’eman. The inscription was sure in the sense of its being indelible, hard to erase, symbolizing that the meaning of its contents was meant to be lasting. The false prophets, who in the days of Jeremiah, misleading the people, prophesied that God would give them sh’lom emeth, did not speak of a peace of truth, but a sure peace and a lasting one; a peace that was ne’eman, on which one could count.54Jer. 14:13; cf. Kimhi’s interpretation.
Occasionally emeth has the same meaning as emunah. Translating the words of Hezekiah, upon receiving God’s message through Isaiah, as: “If but there shall be peace and truth in my days,”55Isa. 39:8. leaves one wondering as to the meaning of the juxtaposition of peace and truth. What could the king have meant by looking forward to truth in his days? We, however, recall another passage of Isaiah which we have discussed earlier in this chapter, in which emunah in reference to the lifetime of a man meant stability, security. Surely, it is exactly what Hezekiah must have meant with shalom and emeth in his days. He was hoping for peace and stability, at least, in his own lifetime. It is exactly in the same sense that Jeremiah, too, relates shalom and emeth. He did not say: “And I will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth.” Emeth, understood as truth in this context, would be without any meaning. We shall quote the entire passage with our translation of the concept of emeth:
Behold, I will bring it healing and cure, and I will cure them;
and I will reveal unto them the abundance of peace [shalom] and stability [emeth].
And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and I will build them, as at the first. (33:6–7)
Clearly, emeth in the sense of truth is completely out of place here. What is meant by it are conditions of stability and security which are the accompaniments of peace.
It would also seem to us most unlikely that the letters of Mordecai and Esther were sent to the Jews “with words of peace and truth [emeth].”56Esther 9:30. Here, too, emeth is used as we have found emunah so often employed, as steadfastness or faithfulness. The letters were sent with words of greeting, greetings of peace and encouragement or greetings of peace and expressions of loyalty.
In numerous places, just as emunah, so emeth, too, stands for reliability or faithfulness. The oth emeth, the true token57Jesh. 2:12. for which Rahab asked the two spies, was really a sure token, on which she and her family could rely; a token that could be trusted. This meaning of emeth finds one of its most moving expressions in the divine plaint over Israel:
Yet I had planted thee a noble vine,
Wholly a seed of emeth;
How then art thou turned into the degenerate plant
God called Israel into being as a sure seed, one that could be relied upon to grow and become the expected plant. But they let God down; they did not act toward him in emeth. God’s expectations were disappointed. They proved unreliable. Of the remnant of Israel Isaiah says that they “shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in emeth.”58Isa. 10:20. Since it is not possible to lean on God “in lie,” it is meaningless to say that anyone will lean on him “in truth.” The meaning of “in emeth” is indicated by the phrase, “they shall no more again.” The key word here is the little word, od, again. In the past, Israel was at times leaning on God; at others, relying on political alliances which proved futile and, often, treacherous. They were wavering between relying on God and relying on men. But, says the prophet, it will no more happen that they will again put their trust in allies, who ultimately betray them. They will lean on God b’emeth, with steadfastness, with unwavering loyalty. Abimelech was not quite sure that the men of Shechem acted in emeth when they appointed him king over themselves.59Judg. 9:15, 16, 19 He was not sure whether he could rely on them, whether they dealt with him faithfully. According to various biblical passages, one should serve God in emeth,60Cf. I Sam. 12:24; I Kings 2:4; 3:6; II Kings 20:3; Isa. 38:3. one should walk before him in emeth. It is much more meaningful to interpret such expressions as a call to serve God with steadfastness, to walk before him with constancy, rather than to render b’emeth with the hackneyed, “in truth,” or “truly.” Only because emeth means loyalty could it be coordinated with tob and yashar and, thus, it was said about Hezekiah that “he wrought that which was good and right and faithful (emeth) before the Lord his God.”61II Chron. 31:20; 32:1. And so the story of that king could be continued with the words: “After these things and after these acts of emeth.” Emeth is the comprehensive term. Acts of goodness and uprightness are themselves manifestations of reliability and loyalty. According to the Psalms, God is near to all who call upon him in emeth.62Pss. 145:18. Here, too, emeth loses much of its riches of meanings if it is translated as truth. What the psalmist meant was that God is near to all who call on him in trust, in a spirit of unquestioning reliance, which—as we have found—is the essence of man’s faithfulness toward God. The expression mishpat emeth reminds us of the injunction to the judges that they should dispense justice with emunah. Mishpat emeth is judgment arrived at in emunah, in loyalty to both parties.63Cf. Zech. 7:9; 8:16; Ezek. 18:8.
We shall now consider the application of the concept of emeth to God. At least in two places in the Bible, emeth, as a description for God, means, simply, true. Jeremiah says that “Y is Elohim emeth, He is the living Elohim, and the everlasting King.”64Jer. 10:10. The statement, as the context shows, distinguishes Y from other forces and powers which are so foolishly worshipped as Elohim. Y alone is the true Elohim. He alone is the living God. Only about Y is it true to say that He is Elohim. It is in the same sense that in II Chronicles it is said that “for long seasons Israel was without the Elohim of emeth.” The meaning is that they worshipped powers that they believed to be Elohim, who, however, were not Elohim. In these passages the idea of emeth is understood as correspondence with the facts. Y is the true Elohim because that as a fact is so; the idols, on the other hand, are false gods, gods of sheqer because—as a matter of fact—they are not Elohim. However, at least on one occasion the expression, God of emeth, is used much in the same sense as God of emunah. Because of its importance for our discussion, we shall quote the passage in its entirety. It reads as follows:
For Thou art my rock and my fortress;
Therefore for Thy name’s sake lead me and guide me.
Bring me forth out of the net that they have hidden for me;
For Thou art my stronghold.
Into Thy hand I commit my spirit;
Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord,
Thou God of emeth.
I hate them that regard lying vanities;
But I trust in the Lord. (Pss. 31:4–7)
Needless to say that emeth as truth, in its purely logical and intellectual sense, could hardly find a comfortable place in this context. The God of emeth is one’s rock and fortress, He is the One to whom one commits one’s spirit, Who redeems, in Whom one trusts. Quite obviously, He is the God of emunah, the God on whom one may fully rely, a God of faithfulness.
While God is the God of emeth, quite often the Bible also makes mention of God’s emeth. What is the emeth of God? Once again, we shall quote a key passage in full, one which is very similar in emotional and thought contents to the one which we have just discussed. The psalmist exclaims:
I will say of the Lord, who is my refuge and my fortress,
My God, in whom I trust,
That He will deliver thee from the snare of the fowler,
And from the noisome pestilence.
He will cover thee with His pinions,
And under His wings shalt thou take refuge;
His emeth is a shield and a buckler. (Pss. 91:2–4)
His emeth is his faithfulness, his protection. God’s truth is the sureness and the stability which he introduces into the world, that he delivers, that under his wings one may find refuge. Thus his emeth is a shield and a buckler to man. When on another occasion the psalmist declares that he will give thanks unto God for His emeth, he does not have in mind the truth of divine teachings or the theological truth of revelation. This emerges quite convincingly as one reads the phrase in the context in which it occurs.
Thou, who hast made me to see many and sore troubles,
Wilt quicken me again, and bring me up again from the depths of the earth.
Thou wilt increase my greatness,
And turn and comfort me.
I also will give thanks unto Thee with the psaltery,
Even unto Thy emeth, O my God;
I will sing praises unto Thee with the harp,
O Thou Holy One of Israel.
My lips shall greatly rejoice when I sing praises unto Thee;
And my soul, which Thou hast redeemed. (Pss. 71:20–23)
The emeth, for which God is thanked, is not a true idea but an act of providence and divine faithfulness. He quickened the man who saw “many and sore troubles,” He comforted him, He redeemed his soul. He acted with emeth, with loyalty toward him. God’s truth is God being true to someone. God’s emeth, thus, at times is practically synonymous with his help and salvation. This is its meaning in Hezekiah’s thanksgiving prayer after his recovery from sickness, saying:
But Thou hast in love to my soul delivered it
From the pit of corruption;
For Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back.
For the nether-world cannot thank Thee,
Death cannot praise Thee;
They that go down into the pit cannot hope for Thy emeth.
The living, the living, he shall thank Thee,
As I do this day;
The father to the children shall make known Thy emeth.
Emeth for which one hopes must be a saving truth. As long as a man is alive, one hopes for God’s emeth; one is grateful for it, if it is granted one; one praises God for it. Hezekiah may do all this because God delivered him from the pit. He may thank God for God’s emeth which was revealed to the king in God’s deliverance; he may tell about it to his children. He may continue hoping for God’s emeth, believing that God is ready to save him. In very similar words the psalmist expresses the same thought, when in his supplication, pleading for life, he says:
What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?
Shall the dust thank Thee? shall it declare Thy emeth?
The question is immediately followed by the words:
Hear, O Lord, and be gracious unto me;
Lord, be Thou my helper. (Pss. 30:10–11)
The psalmist asks for God’s help that he may be able to declare God’s emeth. If he were dead, God’s emeth would be of no use to him. Requesting that God deal graciously with him and be his helper, he pleads that God’s emeth be made known to him in God’s gracious salvation. The psalmist deals with the same subject in another passage, but there he uses the phrase that God’s emunah would not be declared “in destruction.” 65Pss. 88:12. It is the same thought. The use of emunah instead of emeth shows that the two are interchangeable. The emeth, for which only the living may hope, and for which they alone can be grateful, is God’s act of saving loyalty to man.
God’s emeth is often associated with a way or guidance along a path. It would, however, again be a mistake to interpret it to mean the abstract idea of some divine truth by which a person may be guided along his way in life. The Bible does not speak in such non-committal abstract homilies. A passage which might easily lend itself to such misunderstanding is the one in Psalm 25. David is praying:
Show me Thy ways, O Lord;
Teach me Thy paths.
Guide me in Thy emeth, and teach me;
For Thou art the God of my salvation;
For Thee do I wait all the day. (vss. 4–5)
One could, perhaps, think that “guide me in Thy emeth” is a request for some form of illumination by some divine truth, by which to guide the psalmist. Such an interpretation would hardly fit into the context of the prayer. The psalm begins as a plea for help against David’s enemies. He expresses his trust in God and asks that he be not put to shame by the triumph of his enemies. Immediately upon it follows the request that God teach him His ways and guide him in His emeth, as we have quoted it. The thought of our quotation is brought to a conclusion with the words:
Remember, O Lord, Thy compassions and Thy [acts of] lovingkindness;
For they have been from of old.
Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions;
According to Thy love [hesed] remember Thou me,
For Thy goodness sake, O Lord. (vss. 6–7)
Unquestionably, this is a prayer for help, for God’s mercies and love. There is no place here for the sophisticated prayer for divine guidance by divine truth. In a concrete situation of danger, David is asking for very real practical help against his enemies. But what are the ways of God and his paths which David desires to be taught? In the same chapter, only a few verses below, their nature is described explicitly. Pursuing his strain of thought further, David muses:
He guideth the humble in justice [mishpat];
And He teacheth the humble His way.
All the paths of the Lord are love [hesed] and emeth
Unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies. (vss. 9–10)
Why should God guide only the humble in justice? Once again we have to recall what we have said earlier about the biblical concept of justice. We have found it to be an idea which could very well associate with hesed. God guides the humble in justice by securing for him his right, by protecting him against those who attempt to wrong him. That is the way of God; along it the humble, the poor are safeguarded. God’s way is the way of God’s help. For all His paths are hesed and emeth. Hesed and emeth are coordinated in our text. Once again emeth has the meaning of emunah. God’s path is the path of emeth and emunah; along it people are guided by God’s love and his faithfulness. It is for this way and this path that David prayed. He never said: “guide me in Thy truth,” but “guide me by Thy faithfulness and teach me [i.e., Thy path].” The reason that he gives for his request becomes now much more meaningful: “For Thou art the God of my help; for Thee do I wait all the day.” It is natural for one to ask for help and protection from the God of one’s help. To wait for God all the day is hoping for his saving support.66Pss. 86:11 and 26:3 may well be explained in the same way.
We are now in a better position to interpret the passage in Genesis which caused us some difficulty in the opening section of this chapter in our discussion. Speaking to the family of Rebekah, Abraham’s servant describes the way, along which God has led him, as a way of emeth.67Gen. 24:48; cf. also ibid. 27. To render it as, a true way, would be rather empty; the translation, a right way, is an attempt to hide a difficulty of exegesis by a plausible version. We, however, recall that of the same way the servant said earlier: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who hath not forsaken His hesed [love] and his emeth toward my master; I am on the way the Lord hath led me to the house of my master’s brethren.” God has shown His love and His faithfulness toward Abraham by leading the servant along the way whither his master wanted him to go. This same way, which testifies to God’s love and faithfulness, is then called by the servant the way of emeth, along which God led him. This is not just the right way, in the sense of leading to the intended goal. It is the way of faithfulness; a way along which God, keeping faith with Abraham, led his servant.
The examples which we have just discussed lead us to a more thorough examination of the term, “hesed and emeth.” The combination between “hesed” and emeth is an indication of similarity between the two. It corresponds to the association between hesed and emunah, which we have discussed earlier. Indeed, “hesed and emeth” seems to have the same meaning as “hesed and emunah.” As we saw already, emeth, too, has the quality of sureness, of stability and enduring effectiveness. A striking example of such usage of emeth is what the psalmist says of God’s oath to David.68Pss. 132:11. It is near blasphemy to say that “the Lord swore unto David in truth.” What is more, such rendering is grammatically not justified. “In truth” occurs quite often in the Bible but always in the correct grammatical version, b’emeth. Of God’s oath to David the psalmist says: “The Lord swore unto David … emeth; He will not turn back from it.” The meaning of such an oath is then summed up in the promise that David’s descendants will “for ever sit upon thy throne.” God’s oath to David was an irrevocable commitment that, if his children will keep God’s commandment, his dynasty will be preserved through all generations. It is a somewhat different version of the idea with which we have met earlier in this chapter as we discussed the meaning of the term ne’eman. The “oath” is another way of describing what we have heard Isaiah sum up in the phrase of hasde David ha–ne’emanim, God’s enduring acts of love toward David. The oath was emeth, not true or truth, but an enduring commitment. It was not an oath with a validity limited to a certain time. The obligation undertaken by it was to last for ever. There was no turning back from it. If David’s children fulfilled the condition under which God made his promise, God’s commitment to them could not be terminated. “God swore unto David—emeth” means that God obligated himself irrevocably.
Emeth, like emunah, meaning sureness, steadfastness, reliability, faithfulness, also carries the connotation of enduring in time, continuously valid or effective. On many occasions emeth suggests lasting validity. Thus, the psalmist says:
The works of His hands are faithfulness [emeth] and justice [mishpat]:
All his precepts are sure [ne’emanim].69See our discussion of this idea earlier in this chapter.
They are established for ever and ever,
They are done in faithfulness [emeth] and uprightness.
(Pss. 111:7–8)
Since God’s works are executed in faithfulness, they are established for ever and ever. A loyalty which is not lasting is a contradiction in terms. What is the meaning of emeth when it qualifies the word or the law of God? Let us see. According to the psalmist:
The beginning of Thy word is emeth;70Our translation is guided by the syntax of the verse and by our discussion of mishpat. Mishpat sidkekha is just not “Thy righteous ordinance,” but “Thy mishpat of righteousness” or “the mishpat of Thy righteousness.” Cf. Concluding Notes in Chapter 4.
And all Thy order of righteousness endureth for ever. (Pss. 119:160)
Now to compliment God that his word is true seems to us rather unconvincing. Emeth, however, is here paralleled by “endureth for ever,” and that is indeed its meaning. The word of God is emeth, it is valid for ever. A similar parallelism between God’s righteousness and his Torah we find in the same psalm. The psalmist exclaims:
Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
And Thy law is emeth. (vs. 142)
That God’s law is true needs no affirmation. What is proclaimed here is that God’s law is valid for ever, just as his righteousness is everlasting. God’s commandments, too, are called emeth. The expression is found in this context:
Thou art nigh, O Lord;
And all Thy commandments are emeth.
Of old have I known from Thy testimonies
That Thou hast founded them for ever. (vss. 151–2)
Once again, the parallelism between “commandments” and “testimonies” and between emeth and “founded … for ever” proves our point. Needless to say that God’s commandments are true, but it is not self-evident that they were meant to be valid for ever. That does require explicit affirmation.
We are now enabled to appreciate the significance of a phrase which we were compelled to leave unexplained in the introductory part of our discussion of the concept of emeth at the beginning of this chapter. The phrase was found in the verse:
But as for me, let my prayer be unto Thee, O Lord, in an acceptable time;
O God in the abundance of Thy love,
Answer me with the emeth of Thy salvation. (Pss. 69:14)
We found it difficult to understand what the truth of God’s salvation might signify. B’emeth qualifies yish’ekha (Thy salvation) as b’rab (in the abundance) qualifies hasdekha, Thy love. We assume it therefore to have a meaning similar to abundance. But how can emeth bear such a connotation? It may very well if it qualifies God’s salvation as spread over a long period of time. That, too, would be “an abundance” of salvation. We interpret the psalmist’s prayer as: Answer me with continuous, lasting salvation.
Our last example is, at the same time, a good illustration for the meaning of the concept of “hesed and emeth.” Hesed is love or lovingkindness; emeth is sureness, steadfastness, reliability, enduring strength, lasting faithfulness. Hesed ve’emeth would then be lovingkindness that is sure, that is reliable, that endures and may be even irrevocable. When Jacob made Joseph swear that he would not bury him in Egypt, he asked his son to do with him hesed and emeth.71Gen. 47:29. Jacob could be fairly sure of the love of Joseph. However, his request involved a vital question of policy. How would returning the old father’s body for burial in the old homeland affect the position and political condition of the entire family in Egypt? Would it not be interpreted by the Egyptians as a proof that the children of Israel were strangers and were themselves looking for the time when they would leave the country? Considerations of political expediency might induce Joseph to feel justified in breaking the promise made to his father. It is, perhaps, for this reason that Jacob asked for an act of love and enduring faithfulness, for hesed ve’emeth, for lovingkindness in the form of an irrevocable commitment. The hesed ve’emeth that the spies promised to Rahab72Josh. 2:14. was such a promise of unqualified commitment. It was to be an act of hesed that was sure and could not be changed under any conditions.
The translation of emeth as truth in its association with hesed is most misleading in the famous passage in Exodus, where it appears as one of the divine attributes. “The Lord, the Lord, God merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in love [hesed] and emeth; keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.”73Exod. 34:6–7. What place could emeth, in the sense of truth, have in the midst of all these attributes of divine mercy and graciousness. The meaning of the relevant phrase, however, is: abundant in love and faithfulness. His lovingkindness is enduring, it is always sure. And indeed, God’s hesed ve’emeth are always represented as qualities of divine mercy. The very attributes, as they appear in Exodus, are also quoted by the psalmist, up to the one which describes God as “abundant in hesed and emeth,” and leads to the supplication:
O turn unto me, and be gracious unto me;
Give Thy strength unto Thy servant,
And save the son of Thy handmaid. (Pss. 86:16)
Now, one does not turn to God with such prayers because He is abundant in truth, but because He is plenteous in lovingkindness and faithfulness. So in all places. God’s hesed ve’emeth are attributes of mercy that preserve a man.74Pss. 61:8.
We direct now our attention to a verse in Isaiah which, requiring interpretation, further illustrates the point that we are making. We shall quote it first in the usual translation:
And a throne is established through mercy [hesed],
And there sitteth thereon in truth [be’emeth] in the tent of David,
One that judgeth, and seeketh justice, and is ready in righteousness.
(16:5)
We cannot help wondering as to the meaning of such words. How is a throne established through mercy? Is it the mercy that the king practices? If so, is it correct to say that a throne is established by mercy? What of all the other requirements that are needed for establishing a throne? And again, what could be meant by sitting on a throne “in truth”? It could, perhaps, mean that the king exercises his function, pursuing the truth. However, because of the close succession in which hesed and emeth occur in our quotation, we are inclined to apply to the exegesis of this verse the idea which we have found to be expressed by the concept of hesed ve’emeth. Once again, we have to recall the theme of hasde David ha–ne’emanim, which we had occasion to discuss so often. God’s relation to David was one of hesed ve’emeth, of love whose faithfulness endured through all the generations. We have heard God say of him in the words of the psalms: “For ever will I keep for him My hesed [love].”75Ibid. 89:29. See our discussion of the entire passage in the earlier parts of this chapter.
CHAPTER 7 Now, hesed, which is kept for ever, is love sustained by lasting faithfulness. It is exactly what is meant by God’s hesed ve’emeth. The throne, of which Isaiah says that it is established in hesed, is the throne of David established by God’s hesed, love, for David. The king who sits on the throne is an offspring of David. He sits on the throne of his ancestor because God’s covenant with David was an everlasting one, a brith ne’emeneth; or as the psalmist also put it, because of God’s oath, which was meant to be emeth, enduring without any possibility of its being annulled. Thus the king, who sits on David’s throne, sits there be’emeth, by God’s sure faithfulness toward David. We would render the verse from Isaiah as follows:
And a throne is established by [God’s] love [hesed],
And there sitteth thereon through [God’s] faithfulness [emeth] in the tent of David,
One that judgeth, and seeketh justice.
At least one verse in the Psalms suggests that an act of hesed promised becomes an act of emeth in its state of fulfillment. We refer to the verse:
Let Thy [acts of] lovingkindness come unto me, O Lord,
Even Thy salvation, according to Thy word;
That I may have an answer for him that taunteth me;
For I trust in Thy word.
And take not the word of emeth utterly out of my mouth;
For I hope for Thy ordinances. (119:41–43)
It is hardly conceivable that the psalmist prayed that the word of truth should not be taken away from him. Why would God do that and what danger was there that it might happen? Nor would it seem to make much sense. He prays for God’s lovingkindness and salvation, so that he might answer his enemies. What connection could there be between such a plea and the request that the word of truth should not be taken from his mouth? We recall, however, various passages which have a bearing on the elucidation of the thought in this verse. The most helpful is probably the following words of the psalmist:
I have not hid Thy righteousness within my heart;
I have declared Thy faithfulness [emunah] and Thy salvation;
I have not concealed Thy lovingkindness [hesed] and Thy emeth from the great congregation. (Pss. 40:11)
As the following verse shows, God’s hesed and emeth are what continually preserve David, the author of the psalm. God’s hesed and emeth are God’s enduring and steady acts of lovingkindness. Of it the psalmist says that he did not conceal it, but declared it in the midst of the multitude. Accordingly, we are justified in saying that the declaration of God’s faithfulness may well be called the word of emeth. It is in this sense that the phrase “Take not the word of emeth utterly out of my mouth” is to be understood. If God’s promise of hesed and salvation come true, then indeed man may declare God’s emeth; but if he is not granted help and redemption, if the promise of hesed is not realized, then man is unable to proclaim God’s faithfulness. In this case, the word of emeth, the word praising God’s emeth has been taken “out of his mouth.” That this may not happen is the prayer of the psalmist.
We may, therefore, say in conclusion that while emeth may well mean truth in the epistemological sense of correspondence to a fact, its foremost biblical meaning is ethico-religious. Very much like emunah, emeth is an attitude or an action whose meaning is steadfastness, reliability, enduring loyalty, saving and preserving faithfulness.