A Basket of Summer Fruit

The book of Amos rages with disturbing images. Because of Israel’s harsh treatment of poor people, God’s judgment is coming with furious destruction. Toward the end of the book, just before describing a new round of horrors, God shows the prophet Amos a basket of summer fruit. Without explaining the fruit basket, the text jumps to God’s coming judgment. Here’s the passage:
 
This is what the LORD God showed me: a basket of summer fruit.

He said, “Amos, what do you see?”

I said, “A basket of summer fruit.”

Then the LORD said to me,

“The end has come upon my people Israel;

I will never again forgive them.

On that day, the people will wail the temple songs,”

says the LORD God;

“there will be many corpses,

thrown about everywhere.” (Amos 8:1-3 CEB)

 
Most English readers of this text are left confused. Why did God show Amos the summer fruit? How could that be terrifying? What on earth does it have to do with what follows?
 
The text actually makes perfect sense in Hebrew… This word is associated with the last crop to be picked during the agricultural calendar. In fact, one of the oldest inscriptions from Israel is a tenth-century BCE calendar that lists what farming activities take place during the year.
 
The last word in this inscription is what we have here: “summer fruit.” This word sounds similar to the Hebrew word for “end” that God uses to talk about Israel’s demise in this passage: This word evokes ideas of death not only here but also when it’s used to describe Noah’s flood (Gen 6:13) and the destruction of Jerusalem (Lam 4:18; Ezek 7:2-3).
 
So, although in English the words “summer fruit” and “end” look and sound nothing alike, in Amos the two are closely related. God shows Amos a basket of qayits as an ominous sign of Israel’s qets. English readers wonder what’s horrifying about a fruit basket, but Hebrew readers see the ominous potential in Amos’s vision. Together, qayits and qets make over one hundred appearances in the Bible.
 

--- Matthew Richard Schlimm, 70 Hebrew Words Every Christian Should Know. Abingdon Press.

 

Loving and Being Loved

Most of us are familiar with the three words in Greek that express three levels of love: agape (unconditional love), phileo (brotherly love, friendship), and eros (erotic love). The Hebrew language also has several different words that are rendered as “love.” There are basically four common words that are translated as various forms of love, although they also have other renderings: ’ahav (בהא), “love”; racham (םחר), “tender mercies”; dodi (ידוד), “beloved,” as in spousal love; and ra’ah (הﬠר), “brotherly love,” or “friendship.”
 
It would be wrong to try to make a parallel between the Greek words for love and the Hebrew words for love. However, this does create a real problem for translators, because love is at the very root and center of Scripture. The Septuagint* uses the word agape for the Hebrew word ’ahav (בהא). This is probably the closest word in the Hebrew to the meaning of agape, but it is far from a perfect match. I suppose we could say that ra’ah (הﬠר) is like phileo, since it is a word for friendship, and that dodi (ידוד) could, in a certain context, be like eros. Yet these definitions would not be accurate because they are too limited.

Ahav (בהא) is used in cases where agape would not fit, and ra’ah (הﬠר), although rendered as “friendship,” is also rendered as “shepherd” and “consuming passion” and was often used by David to express his love for God. Oddly, ra’ah (הﬠר) is also used for evil in the sense in which one has a consuming passion for something that is not of God (such as when people abuse drugs or alcohol). So, in many cases, it would be very inappropriate to consider ra’ah (הﬠר) as equivalent to phileo. Additionally, Solomon used the word dodi (ידוד) with his beloved to express a sexual desire, but this word does not carry the lustfulness or self-gratification of eros.
 
The fourth Hebrew word for love mentioned above is racham (םחר), which is often expressed as a romantic love or rendered as “tender mercies.” It is rarely used in the Old Testament, but it is frequently found in the Aramaic New Testament, where it has a similar spelling and sounds the same in Aramaic as it does in Hebrew.
 
Does God Have Favorites?
 
In the Greek New Testament, we find that the word used for “love” in “God so loved the world” (John 3:16) is agape. In the Peshitta—the Aramaic Bible—the word for love is chav (בח), which is similar to the Hebrew word ’ahav (הבא) and means “love.” However, in John 21:20, where we read about “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the Greek again uses the word agape, but the Peshitta uses the Aramaic word racham (םחר), which is identical to the Hebrew racham (םחר).
 
So, again, when Jesus said, “God so loved the world” (John 3:16), He used the Aramaic word chav (בח), but when John wrote the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20), he used the word racham (םחר). These are two entirely different words that both mean “love.” Initially, the most logical conclusion from all this would be that we are dealing with two levels of love, and this would suggest that God either loved the world more than He loved this disciple, or that He loved this disciple more than He loved the world. In other words, we face the old dilemma of whether there are degrees to the love of God.
 
Note that John 21:20 does not merely say “the disciple whom Jesus loved” but “the disciple whom Jesus loved following.” In Greek and Aramaic, this phrase is more properly rendered as “the disciple whom Jesus loved who followed Him.”
 
Loving and Being Loved
 
The key difference between chav (בח), as used in John 3:16 as God loving the world, and racham (םחר), as used in John 21:20 of the disciple whom Jesus loved, is that chav (בח) is a love that is not necessarily returned. Chav (בח) speaks of a love that flows from just one person and is not always completed. For love to be completed, it must be returned. Racham (םחר) is a completed love. Love can be pretty lonely and painful if it is not returned.
 
God loves the world, but the world does not love Him in return. It is when we love Him in return that His love is complete; it is when we love Him in return that He is able to rejoice over us with singing. (See Zephaniah 3:17.) Salvation is not just about getting saved and going to heaven. It is about completing the love that God has for us, bringing joy and celebration to His heart—which has been loving us for years.
 
It is not that God loves one person more than another. He loves all equally. It is just that very few people will love Him in return and complete His love, bring Him the joy of His love, awaken Him in that love, and cause Him to sing with joy in that love. In my exploration of God’s heart, I believe the most defining element I have discovered is not only a passion in God’s heart to love, chav (בח), but also a longing to be loved in return, racham (םחר). You and I—humble, little, frail human beings—have the ability to bring joy to the heart of the God of the universe simply by saying to Him, wholeheartedly, “I love you.”
 

 - Chaim Bentorah, Hebrew Word Study, Vol 1

God Joins His Heart with Ours

“Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.” —Song of Solomon 4:9

Let us look at the words “Thou hast ravished my heart.” This is one of the most beautiful—and, at the same time, one of the most heartbreaking—words that I have ever run across in my forty years of studying biblical Hebrew. You see, this phrase is only one word in Hebrew: livabethini (יניבבל). It comes from the root word levav (בבל), which means “heart.” The first thing to understand is that this is one of the rare cases where the double beth (בב) is used. 

The ancient Jewish sages used to teach that the beth (ב) represents not only the home but also the heart. As the saying goes, “Home is where the heart is.” A double beth (בב) represents God’s heart and our hearts joined in a love relationship. It is a picture of two hearts opening up to each other and becoming equally vulnerable.

So, what is Solomon expressing when he says to his beloved, “Livabethini” (יניבבל), or “Thou hast ravished my heart”? He is saying that with just one glance from his beloved, he has fallen hopelessly in love with her. She has stripped him of the hard shell that he had built around his heart to protect it, and he has made himself vulnerable. He is a king with the most powerful security force in the world surrounding him to protect him, yet one little peasant woman, with a mere look, has caused him to open his heart and say, “I am giving you the ability to break this heart. You have my heart in your hands—please be careful with it. There is no one to protect my heart from you; only you can protect it.”

If we are the bride of Christ, and He is our Bridegroom, does it not follow that He is saying to us, “Livabethini” (יניבבל), “You have ravished My heart”? If He is saying that, He is also indicating, “Although I am God, and although I may be to you a towering giant who seems invulnerable, I am stripping the bark off My tree; I am voluntarily making Myself vulnerable to you; I am giving you My heart. You have the ability to deeply wound My heart; no one but you can protect it, so please be gentle with My heart.”

- Chaim Bentorah, Hebrew Word Study, Vol 1 . 

金融思维(3)比特币成为真正货币的可能性几乎不存在

 比特币将来有没有可能成为人民币这样真正的货币呢？这种可能性几乎不存在。
我们之前说过，比特币不是新黄金，也成不了新黄金。自1971年黄金与货币完全脱钩，世界上没有哪个国家还在用黄金作为货币。虽然一直有人主张应该用黄金作为货币，而且这些人中包括1974年诺贝尔经济学奖得主弗里德里希·哈耶克，但是几乎没有哪个国家认真考虑过这个主张。如果黄金不可能再次成为货币，那比特币就更不可能成为货币。
 
比特币成为真正货币的可能性几乎不存在。原因有很多，这里简单地说几个重要的。
 
第一，比特币的数量有限，这既是它的优点，也是它的致命缺陷。
到2140年，比特币的总数将永久性地限制在2 100万个，没有任何办法可以增加。这是它作为货币的优点，因为不可能通过滥发方式使比特币贬值，也就不会造成通货膨胀。但这也是比特币的致命缺陷，在经济稳定发展的情况下，货币的供应量要相应地增加，企业才容易找到资金进行生产，消费者也容易找到资金进行消费，否则就会阻碍经济的发展。还有一个问题，比特币是储存在电脑上的，万一电脑硬盘坏掉了，或者你把网络钱包的密码弄丢了，你就永久性地弄丢了比特币。所以，几乎可以肯定，比特币的数量会越来越少。市场上的货币越来越少，会导致什么后果？会导致通货紧缩，通货紧缩就是物价不但不上涨，反而不断下跌。通货紧缩的后果甚至比通货膨胀还严重，要解决通货紧缩比解决通货膨胀还困难。在通货紧缩的情况下，企业也更难找到生产所需要的资金，更容易破产倒闭。
 
第二，比特币本身没有任何价值，而且没有任何东西支撑它的价值。
现在各国都在使用法币，虽然法币本身几乎没有任何价值，但是法币有中央银行的信用做担保。例如，人民币是有中国人民银行的信用做担保的，而在国际上，人民币不仅有中华人民共和国整个国家的信用做担保，而且是以中国强大的经济实力为后盾的，所以大家才愿意使用人民币。
 
第三，比特币价格的波动性实在太大了。
货币的基本特性就是它的价值必须相对稳定，必须具有保值的功能，这样才能确保同一件商品的价格至少在短期内不会发生过于激烈的变动。虽然各国的货币几乎每天都在贬值，但是因为每天的贬值幅度很小，不容易察觉。所以，商场里同一件商品，它明天的价格跟今天的价格相比，不会有明显的变化。
 
比特币则完全不一样，其价格往往暴涨暴跌，经常发生一天的涨跌幅超过10%的情况。例如，2018年4月12日，比特币的价格上涨了950美元，涨幅达到14%；2019年5月17日，比特币暴跌20%，一小时之内跌掉了大约1 400美元，但5月19日，它又大幅度上涨了大约10%。比特币这样暴涨暴跌，用它作为货币的话，商品的价格不可能保持稳定。如果一个国家的货币如同比特币一样暴涨暴跌，这个国家的经济很可能垮掉。
 
 

—— 李国平，《金融思维》，货与币必须平衡。中信出版社，2020

金融思维(2)比特币到底是不是新黄金

 比特币不是新黄金，也成不了新黄金。
 
首先，比特币是一种虚拟资产，本质上它不过是电脑游戏而已，而黄金是实物资产，可以进行实物交易。
 
其次，任何东西，不管在市场上值多少钱，都需要有实际用途来支撑它的价格。比特币没有任何实际用途，而黄金有实际用途，现在全世界的黄金中，50%用于制作珠宝首饰，10%用于生产高科技产品，包括用于挖比特币的电脑芯片。还有，几千年来人们一直相信黄金，这种心理作用也相当重要。
 
最后，黄金有一个巨大的市场，能够在全球各地的交易所进行交易。仅在伦敦，每天交易的黄金实物的价值就达到大约180亿美元。因此，黄金是最具流动性的资产之一。所谓流动性，就是变现的能力。黄金的流动性很好，就是说很容易把黄金变成现金。比特币的市场虽然迅速扩张，但还远远没有达到这样的规模。而且，比特币的总数限制在2 100万个，即使到2140年比特币还没有死掉，比特币的市场规模也很难比得上黄金。比特币的市场规模小，会导致什么后果？一旦有人抛售，就可能引发暴跌。
 
比特币不是货币，未来成为真正货币的可能性也几乎不存在。
 
明朝为什么会灭亡？明朝的灭亡与货币有关。明朝中后期，今天江浙一带的经济已经相当繁荣，丝绸等手工业已经相当发达。明朝使用白银作为货币，但问题是中国一直就不是一个产银大国，明朝的白银主要来自欧洲与日本。后来欧洲与日本都断绝了对明朝的白银供应，江南的手工业找不到生产所需要的资金，于是纷纷倒闭，明朝的经济就垮掉了，最后明朝灭亡了。
 
这件事跟比特币有什么关系呢？关系在于，明朝以白银作为货币是一个极大的错误，如果各国现在以比特币作为货币，也将重蹈明朝的覆辙。
 

—— 李国平，《金融思维》，货与币必须平衡。中信出版社，2020

金融思维(1)区块链到底是泡沫还是新机遇

区块链是一个技术，而且如同20世纪90年代时的互联网技术一样，区块链也是基础技术或者叫底层技术。基础技术就好像是地基，把地基打好了，做什么都可以。作为一个基础技术，区块链是靠谱的，这是没有什么问题的。比特币、以太币等，都只是区块链的应用，所以，比特币不等于区块链。如果哪天比特币出了问题，那是区块链在应用过程中出了问题，并不是区块链本身出了问题。这就好像阿里巴巴、百度、腾讯等都使用了互联网这个底层技术，但这三家公司本身并不是互联网技术，要是这三家公司出了问题，那是公司自己的问题，不是互联网本身出了问题。

其次，区块链包含很多个层级与应用，有做基础技术的、有做数据处理的、有做智能合约的，等等。但是，目前区块链好像只是用于数字货币，比如比特币、以太币等，其他的应用还没有很好地开发出来。

再次，现在的区块链就如同1995年前后的互联网。1995年前后，互联网刚出现不久，也是被炒作得相当厉害，导致了1999—2000年的互联网泡沫。在互联网泡沫期间，很多公司只要用上dot.com，股价立即暴涨，AOL（美国在线）就是一个非常典型的例子。到2001年，互联网泡沫破灭，很多互联网企业倒闭了。大浪淘沙之后，留下了亚马逊等真正有价值的互联网企业。

在商业领域，很多时候先驱会成为先烈，即最先创建的企业往往倒闭，从而为后来的企业提供经验教训。例如，MySpace（聚友网）成为互联网社交领域的先驱与先烈，而Facebook（脸书）则在MySpace的基础上发展成为一个垄断型的网络社交公司。区块链现在还没到起飞的阶段，而现在创建的区块链企业、区块链项目很可能成为先烈。
 

—— 李国平，《金融思维》，货与币必须平衡。中信出版社，2020