An idiom is a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words. (Source Google)

If an idiom was established four thousand years ago, in a difficult language to translate into English, would we understand its meaning? Usage is key in establishing the understanding and since its meaning was in use in a different language, we lose the clarity of understanding that comes along with being part of that original conversation.

“Although we do not have any of the original manuscripts today, we do have thousands of ancient and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages.  And from these original languages, the Bible has been translated directly into English (and into many other languages) for our benefit.  In the ancient world, one of the most well-known and respected translations was the Septuagint (often abbreviated LXX).  This was a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew into the common Greek language of the day.  The work began as a translation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) by roughly seventy scholars (hence the Roman numeral: LXX) in the third century B.C.  The rest of the Septuagint was translated in the second century B.C.”

Source biblicalscienceinstitute.com

Given that these seventy scholars were two thousand years closer to the original usage of the idioms within the Old Testament, it is possible they had a better understanding of those spoken words than we do today. I don’t know that for a fact but trust that they knew more about translations than I ever will.

So why am I bringing this up today? It is because there was an idiom used in yesterday’s devotional on the use of the word must. Here is the idiom.

 מוּל מוּל or Muwl Muwl as it would sound in English.

They are the same word and have the same meaning if used alone in the spoken language but together form a common use understanding called an idiom. The idiom is “must needs be circumcised”.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

John 3:3,7 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

This morning I took exception of an author’s use of the word must. I said it in a group study and few who read this will have seen it. Must I explain myself? No, but I choose to do so because the issues of what we must do and what we should choose to do are two distinctly different things.

I have set these two lines of scripture to try and distinguish differences in the use of must. In the first verse Abraham is told he must circumcise all males within his household as a sign of keeping covenant. That symbolism was to be a reminder of who they were and to keep covenant. Did they? No.

According to Joshua 5 those born in the wilderness were not circumcised and were circumcised before they crossed over the Jordan to enter into the Promised Land. They followed God for forty years without keeping covenant and were told to rededicate themselves. Their failure to keep covenant by the sign of the flesh did not hinder God from leading them nor in protecting them those forty years.

The second example is one of exception. It is not an effort of the flesh, it is not a try if you can. You will not enter into the Kingdom of God without being born again. Denial of Christ is a nullifier.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There is that must again. Jesus and Jesus alone and no other.