14. Synthetic Grasp of Life

You may have gathered that this topic was put off until there was some more basic understanding, thus it is a good sign that you are making progress in having learned many of the basics and are now moving to a bit higher level.  Some foundational understanding was necessary prior to this topic, but it really fits best in the section of “Hebrew Thought.”  So reconsider the points we talked about in that Post, that we must try to shut off our modern-day, Greek-thinking minds (especially prominent in the U.S.).  This writer believes that this is one of the most critical posts that should help one large segment of God’s people understand the nature of who God is as a compassionate, long-suffering, merciful God rather than Who is often painted as an ogre in Christian society.

Much in this chapter will be a reinforcement of what this writer has related earlier in the book, giving “another witness” to support that already given. In addition, the concept will be carried even further than that shared earlier. The quotations come from one reference book, written initially in German in two volumes, translated into English and combined into one volume*. It is a large book and covers many topics from the HS, only intermittently tying into the GS. This writer is selectively choosing from the book the discussion that relates to this one topic, which appears is small segments in several different areas of the book. The following discussion, as with any of the other authors quoted, is not an endorsement of their entire works.

von Rad lived from 1901 to 1971, teaching תַּנָךְ (HS) Theology at Heidelberg University until his death. The 2005 publish date of the book quoted is the date of translation to English (original publication 1957 and 1960). His influence revived interest in the Torah and oral traditions in the 1950’s and 1960’s, in the aftermath of two world wars. His understanding and frequent teaching was in the “documentary hypothesis,” not pertinent to this discussion. His background is Lutheran. His work is quoted in the writer’s trusted references, particularly in the area we are discussing, and his presentation adds much depth, thus the choice to cover this material from his book. His statements on this topic are in line with the TWOT and CWSBD, dictionaries quoted here frequently. The use of his work on this topic indicates, among other things, respect for a man who helped change perspectives in the world at a critical time. [As a visiting professor at Princeton, he took an American understudy who also went on to teach and publish.]

The terminology for this grasp of life that is the title of the Post are simplified from those of von Rad. He calls it actually by four names, and the one that seems to fit the rest of the understanding in this book is the first, which will be used, in addition to similar terminology of this writer’s own.

1. Synthetic Apprehension of Life
2. Synthetic View of Life
3. Immanent Material Law (see Immanence – von Rad’s wording) 
4. “Sphere of Action which Creates Fate”

“Immanence refers to those philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence in which the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the mundane. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world.” [In other words, God is here and is active in everyday life. Some of this concept will be sorted out in the Post following this one. (italics added)]

The way von Rad uses the word “Apprehension” is in terms of one of Webster’s several definitions of the word, “the act or power of perceiving or comprehending something.”  To simplify the wording the writer is using “Grasp,” in terms of one of Webster’s definitions of that word, “to lay hold of with the mind: comprehend.” If Apprehension works better for the reader, since it is von Rad’s term, by all means use it.  But know the same is intended by using Grasp.  The reason for the choice of Apprehension/Grasp from those listed above is that these are words similar to a Hebrew way of thinking.  

(http://www.lazerhorse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Vestigial-organs-palmar-grasp-reflex.jpg)

Though we are clearly using them to relate a more abstract concept, they are very concrete words.  To grasp means to really hold onto something.  This is a photo of something we have all experienced, a very primitive reflex built into our design, called the grasp reflex.  Keep “grasp” and this photo in mind as we discuss this “synthetic grasp of life.”

Compare with these four descriptions of the view of life from von Rad with some current terminology that hints at “related” thoughts. Some Current Terminology

1. “What Goes Around Comes Around”
2. Karma कमर् – spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect)
3. Law of Natural Consequences
4. Law of Cause and Effect

The parts of the current terminology that apply to this perspective is that God, in his creative wisdom, incorporated the basic structure within Creation, that demonstrates cause and effect. The part that this current terminology misses is one aspect of “immanence” above, that in spite of the structure being in place, God himself remains constantly interactive with Creation. This will only become

apparent as we move through this chapter and the next. Think of Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.        Newton’s Third Law:

(teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html accessed 03232017) 

This writer has chosen to use the word Grasp/Apprehension rather than view, in line with what the reader already knows of the Hebrew use of “action words.” Their world was seen as actions rather than concepts or appearances. [recall the pencil example] Typical of Hebrew usage, the “view” is an “Action,” thus a “Grasp of Life” indicating the “Worldview” [Grasp of how Life truly functions] that impacts all their choices and action.

This is such an important concept that it may change or consolidate your understanding of Scripture, Creation, and YHWH himself. However, it requires stepping back from your current “worldview,” being willing to set aside temporarily assumptions upon which you base your view of the world, and discerning to what extent your assumptive reasoning is “real” and to what extent it is not “real.” As it is a challenging process to step back for the moment and question, this chapter will go in a slow, stepwise fashion.  Think of what we are describing as consisting of two parts:

1. God is the Creator/Designer of everything, having set into place the underlying structure and function of all that exists (which of course includes all laws of physics,, etc.). The universe is the way it is, perfectly balanced, exquisitely designed, because the One God spoke it into being just this way.
2. Nevertheless, God did not simply create it and stand back to watch the entropy that is built into the system, all the workings of the natural laws (this is both physical and spiritual laws) work until all once again returned to chaos, but he is involved in the everyday functioning of His Creation.

The reader is already familiar with Hebrew verbs that display this characteristic of multiple meanings from a “sense” to an “action,” the best known being ‘shama‘. ESD h8085. שָׁמַע šāma‘ verb; to hear, to listen, to understand, to obey; to publish, to teach. Another similar word is ESD – “h7200. רָאָה rā’āh, ראֶֹה rō’eh: verb; basic meaning to see with the eyes.” TWOT “Also, derived meanings, requiring seeing physically ‘outside of self:’ to know, to heed, to understand, to experience, to visit, to select, to inquire, to distinguish, to see visions.” These are not foreign concepts in English:

• A parent may ask a child, “Do you hear?” meaning understand and intend to obey.

https://englishwithkim.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Five-Ways-to-Show-Active-Listening-During-Conversations-in-English-1.png

• We may say “I will see the doctor tomorrow,” meaning to visit her office.

Here, however, we are talking about a Worldview, a “Grasp of Life,” that is quite different from our Western, more worldly, way of thought, which will be reflected in some of the aspects of the Hebrew language, especially nouns we will review. As we progress through some examples, the goal is to recognize of the competing Worldviews we encounter, between today’s American culture and the Synthetic Grasp of God’s chosen people, at least to get the reader to think about their grasp of life. We will walk together through a number of examples of Hebrew nouns and their meanings, some words being more familiar than others [definitions from CWSBD].  The point of the discussion to follow, looking at several Hebrew words, is to give  witnesses to this perspective.  Then, after understanding the perspective, we can see how the people relate to God as the only one who can save them from the inevitable consequences of the underlying “cause and effect” nature of Creation.  With this brief introduction, bear with the writer as the witnesses are given a chance to “testify.”

The reader will note a pattern regarding these examples: we will both “שָׁמַע and רָאָה ,” perceive and understand, and choose whether to respond or not. Through the pattern seen in these words, some conclusions will be drawn, which will lead to a broader discussion.

The writer has chosen to call this obvious line of reasoning, “The Act AND the result of the Act.” The reader will see why. Each word and definition has Scripture references to help with grasping this usage. The verses will not be published here, but the reader is, as always, strongly encouraged to read them and discern for yourself. Most of the reference verses are given in the CWSBD, along with the definition. One or two verses were added by the writer in cases where the evidence was more sparse. Please notice the general topic of these words.  All of these words have something to do with the concept of sin that we have brought up before, something that our “modern society” doesn’t much like to talk about.  The basic word for “sin” is h2403. חַטָּאָה ḥaṭâ’â; from the root h2398. חָטָא ḥâṭâ’, which means to miss.  It is an archery term, meaning to miss the mark, to miss the target one is aiming for. That is the physical sense, the concrete meaning of the word.  The understanding of the spiritual sense of it is best shown in the definition given in the EDBH: “remove from source of life; sin.” The source of life is obviously God, thus, sin was seen as separating one from God.  The next four words (one of which is h2403. חַטָּאָה ḥaṭâ’â) are the most common words for sin or sin-like concepts.  Notice the range of meaning of each one.  Please look at the usage in Scripture – Scripture is the witness, not von Rad, and not this writer.

• h0817. אָשָׁם ’āšām: noun used to express the concept of guilt or offense.

1. Can connote the deeds which bring about guilt Nm 5:7-8; Ps 68:21
2. Can express the condition of being guilty, that is, the results of the actions Gn 26:10; Jr 51:5
3. Can also refer to the restitution that the guilty party was to make to the victim Nm 5:7
4. Can designate the guilt offering, the offering which is presented to YHWH in order to absolve the person guilty of an offense against God or man Lv 5:6, 5:15-19, 6:6, 6:17, etc.

• h6588. פֶּשַׁע peša‘: noun meaning transgression, rebellion.

1. Transgression Gn 50:17; Ex 22:9, 34:7
2. Can also be used for the guilt that comes from the transgression Job 33:9; 34:6; Ps 59:3
3. Can mean the punishment for the transgression Dn 8:12, 13; 9:24
4. Can mean the offering that is presented to atone for the transgression (Dn 9:24; Mic 6:7).

• h5771. עָוֹן ‘āwōn: noun meaning iniquity, evil, guilt, punishment.

1. One of the four main words indicating sin in the Old Testament. This word indicates sin that is particularly evil, since it strongly conveys the idea of twisting or perverting deliberately. 2S 22:24; Jr 11:10; 13:22
2. Carries along with it the idea of guilt from conscious wrongdoing Gn 44:16; Ex 20:5, 34:7; Nm 14:19; Jr 2:22, 50:20
3. Also indicates in some contexts the punishment that results from sin and guilt Gn 4:13; Ps. 31:10[11]; Jr 51:6; Ek 35:5; 44:10, 12

• h2403. חַטָּאת ḥaṭṭā’ṯ: A feminine noun meaning sin, transgression, sin offering, punishment.

1. Covers a ‘range of severity’ of sin from youthful indiscretion to a general state of sinfulness to idolatry Gn 50:17; Dt 9:21;; 2Ch 33:19; Ps 51:2[4]; Is 6:7; Ho 10:8; Am 5:12
2. Sin appears as a creature (guilt, punishment) ready to pounce, lurking “at the door” of Cain’s heart Gn 4:7
3. Punishment for sin Lm 4:6; Zch 14:19
4. And the sacrificial offering for sin Ex 29:14; Lv 4:3 Before discussing the implications of the findings regarding these words, a comment about the Greek, from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT] entry on: • g0265 ἁμάρτημα hamártēma [sin], ἁμαρτία hamartía [sin] “The LXX [Septuagint] with its summary use of hamartía, adikía, anomía, etc. hardly does justice to the rich and flexible Hebrew original and often misses the point, e.g., when ‘guilt’ is in view. The Hebrew terms translated by hamartía and the like do not have an exclusive religious use, so that it is easy in translation either to import this or to weaken it. No uniform or self-contained concept of sin is present in the OT [ תַּנָךְ ] authors, and detailed questions of linguistic history further complicate the matter.”**

Returning to our basic definitions, having pointed out “Synthetic” vs. “Analytic,” Greek is a more analytic language, more “precisely defining,” dissecting, analyzing, as compared to the Hebrew. As well, the Greek mind, reflected in their language, is more analytic, the Hebrew more synthetic [Greek more linear, Hebrew cyclical]. Thus the quotation from the TDNT, many nuances of the Hebrew can be “lost in translation” How does von Rad approach the discussion? He lays some groundwork, from which we will point out some highlights. The first thing to have noted from the earlier Scriptures is that some occurred before Israel received the Torah, the written form of God’s teaching***. Also, it is worth noting that von Rad points out several other “sin-related” words (which are not the topic of this discussion):

• h5766. עֶוֶל ‘ewel; or עָוֶל ‘avel; and (feminine) עַוְלָה ‘avlah; or עוֹלָה ‘owlah; or עלָֹה ‘olah – iniquity, perverseness, unrighteousness, wickedness

• h2555. חָמָס ḥâmâs – violence, wrong, unrighteousness, injustice

• h7562. רֶשַׁע reša‘; a wrong (especially moral): — iniquity, wicked(-ness)

• h5039. נְבָלָה neḇâlâ; feminine of h5036. נָבָל nâḇâl; foolishness (morally), wickedness; concretely, a crime; by extension, punishment

Having so many words dealing with aspects of sin reveals that the ancient Hebrews had no qualms about discussing the idea of sin. He asks, “Where did earlier Israel chiefly encounter the thing called sin?” (p263) “We have to picture her spiritual life in the days before the monarchy as a closed sacral one… every department of life found its equilibrium in an order which was regulated by the cult…” “… sin was any grave breach of this divine law which Israel knew both in the shape of the series of cultic commandments and in the shape of general ‘unwritten’ laws.” (p264, Jg 20:6, 10; 2S 13:12)

Please note that his terminology of “cult” and “cultic” is not the same as our modern usage, discussed in an earlier chapter. Here there is no negative connotation. We could use one of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of the word cult, “a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also its body of adherents.” von Rad references those believers in YHWH. [sacral = holy or sacred] von Rad says in every sphere of life, “where people had dealings with one another,” what applied was “that same group of sacral ordinances to which Israel as a whole knew herself to be unconditionally bound.” (Josh 7; Dt 27:20ff)

Sin was “an offence against the sacral order,” “a monstrous act,” and “a direct insult to God and his sovereign rights.” “Sin was also a social category. Through ties of blood and common lot the individual was regarded as being so deeply embedded in the community that an offence on his part was not just a private matter… wherever there had been a grave offence against the divine law, what loomed largest was the incrimination which the community experienced in consequence at the hands of God… The community had thus a vital interest in the restoration of order.” … “In cases where YHWH had not reserved to himself a special settlement for good or ill, order was restored by either the execution or the excommunication of the offender.” (p264) [note the English translation has British spelling of words, retained here]

Professor von Rad speaks of “Cutting off כרת from the midst of the people of Israel” as a frequently mentioned formula, ((Lv 17:4, 9, 14, 20:3, 5; Nm 9:12, 15:30-31. h3772. כָּרַת kāraṯ: to cut off, to cut down, to make a covenant)) in the case of sinful acts. In Deuteronomy, a similar method “you shall purge בור the person or thing out of your midst.” (Dt 13:6[5], 17:7, 12, 21:21)

He notes the ארר (curse) formulae also apply in this group; we go into detail about ארר later.

“The fate of a sacrally expelled person was terrible, (Gn 4:13-16) for as the bearer of a curse it was impossible for him to find shelter in another community; he was refused admission to all other groups, and, because at that time no one could dispense with relationships to supernatural powers, he was forced into the arms of the unlawful cults…” (p264) The point here is how strongly the impact of sinful acts is felt to have on the community at large. Joshua 7:1-26, the incident of Achan, was already referenced. Also note:

• Joshua 22:20 ESV – “Did not Achan the son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity.” And:

• Proverbs 28:17 ESV 17 If one is burdened with the blood of another, he will be a fugitive until death; let no one help him.

This setting helps current readers understand three things:

1. why YHWH says “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Lv 19;18)
2. why it is so frequently reiterated “fear God,” of which there are many examples. (e.g. Gn 20:11, 22:12, 42:18; Ex 18:21; Lv 19:14, etc.) It is only he who can alter this inexorable course. If we as an individual, or as a community are inevitably going to receive the consequences of these actions, our only appeal is to the Creator, the loving God, the only one that can provide mercy.
3. Genesis 11:1-9 makes much more sense, why YHWH does not like cities, (Gn 11:1-8, 19:1-31; Jg 19:10-28) but smaller ‘communities’ of people; the threat of dispersion; (as Cain, Gn 4) congregations of people in “unlawful cults.”

von Rad continues, “In this connexion, however, another side of the matter very alien to modern [i.e. “today’s Western”] ways of thinking has to be observed.” (p265) He points to our view indicating very limited and focused consequences. “In contrast, for the people of antiquity sin was something much wider in its effects. The evil deed was only one side of the matter, for through it an evil had been set in motion which sooner or later would inevitably turn against the sinner or the community…” [writer’s emphasis] “… the ‘recompense’ which catches up with evil is certainly no subsequent forensic event which the sin evokes in a completely different sphere–that is, with God. It is the radiation of the evil which now continues on: only so does the evil which the sin called out reach equilibrium.” (p265) [as a ‘law’ of nature, part of the Divine order of Creation]

Understand here what he is saying, and will say shortly in his own words. The Israelites view was not that YHWH was a God of retribution, but that the created universe had certain laws in effect that brought about the consequences. The appeal to God was to ask for mercy to change the inevitable. This is a huge, huge point, in how we understand God. “… the action of man on the one hand and what happens to him on the other are not … understood as two separate and independent things, or at least as things standing only in very loose relationship to one another… the presupposition of this idea is the closest possible correspondence between action and fate…” (p265)

von Rad quotes Freiburg 1899 (from the German), saying, “For the Jews sin was rather a power which brought the sinner to destruction, because it was basically identical with the penalty.” [this writer’s emphasis – see our definitions of Hebrew words earlier] “… what is in question is a process [inherent in the design of Creation] which, in virtue of a power proper alike to all that is good and all that is evil, comes to a good or an evil end. Israel regarded this as a basic order of her whole existence, to which YHWH had given effect and over whose functioning he himself kept watch.” (p265. See 1K 8:32; Pr 25:19, 26:27, 28:1, 10, 17, 29:6, 23, 25, etc.)

“Now this means that there is absolutely nothing in the thought of the Old Testament [ תַּנָךְ ] which by and large corresponds to the separation which we make between sin and penalty. The best proof of this is the linguistic usage. Semantically both חטא and עון show a remarkable ambivalence, which can only be understood by means of this basic “synthetic” concept–for they can stand both for sin as act and for the consequences of sin…” (p266)The phrase coined here, “The act AND the result of the act.”

He quotes Numbers 32:23 “But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against YHWH, and be sure your sin will find you.” [Here, the verb is the act, the noun is the penalty] “What does Cain mean when he says that he cannot bear his עון ? (Gn 4:13) Does he mean the guilt of his deed, or its penalty? Here again there is no difference. YHWH had made him see the consequence of his act, and Cain regards this whole thing, the complex evil reaching from his act to his fate, as too heavy.” (p266)

● נשא עונו “bear guilt” is the phrase, also seen elsewhere. “… it can also be said that a man dies not “for his own עון ,” but for “the עון of his fathers.” (Lv 26:39) Thus in rendering these concepts exegesis must in each instance exercise great care.” [when he says here “exegesis,” it also applies to each of us in our reading and interpreting Scripture] … “This concept makes perfectly clear the reason why the community had such a strong interest in an individual’s sin… the evil which an action had brought into existence inevitably had effects which destroyed individual and community alike, unless the latter solemnly and clearly cancelled its solidarity with the offender.” “… an offender was a danger to the whole people… the act would inevitably be looked at from one side only… its actual performance… quite apart from… subjective intention of the agent.” (pp 266-7) [writer’s emphasis]

“… we have to assume that in practice sins committed in error… under a delusion, in ignorance of his situation vis-à-vis God, were more frequent than deliberate sins. Earlier, Israel called this kind of deluded ignorance ‘folly.'” ((Gn 20:2-18, 34:7; Nm 12:2; Jg 19:23, 20:6, 10; 1S 14:24-47; 2S 13:12, 24:10))… Israel “thus refused to dissolve her concept of guilt into subjectivity. Only when the peculiarity and the grandeur of this ancient Israelite concept of guilt have been recognized will it also be apparent what… the Fall implies.” (Gn 2:25-3:13. Pay particular attention to this point; read the passage!)

There are “… complicated operations within the soul when guilt is incurred…” (p267) When a breach occurred, the priests were given authority to forgive or not, unless YHWH intervened. If the offender could not be forgiven, then the one had to “bear his guilt.” נשא עונו ((Ex 28:38, 43; Lv 5:1, 7:18, 17:16, 20:17, 19, 22:9, 16, 24:15; Ek 14:10, 18:19, and “frequently”))  This, then meaning, according to von Rad, “in an ambivalent way, both ‘to incur guilt’ and ‘to bear one’s punishment,’ in the sense that the agent is abandoned to the evil which he has occasioned… Since man has in himself no power of defence against the evil, and is unable to free himself from its embraces and pollution by any heroic moral action of his own, he inevitably becomes its prey.” (p268) [writer’s emphasis]

In order to preserve the community, and in accordance with priestly assessment, following the guidelines given, when appropriate “… the community carried out the death sentence on him directly, by stoning… In other cases what followed was excommunication from the community by the pronouncement of a ban over the offender, and this virtually amounted to a sentence of death.” (p268)

Three things for the reader to reflect upon: sending Adam and Havva [Eve] from Gan Eden [the Garden]; Cain’s banishment; certain communities today practice “shunning” or excommunication. ((1Co 5:11; Titus 3:9-11; 2Jn 9-11. In Pr 28:17, quoted above, ESV translated דָּם ḏâm נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš)) As suggested earlier, think about “community size” and how community and individual actions interact. In a large city, we more likely think our actions will go unnoticed.

On pp 269-70, von Rad then begins a discussion about the priestly duties, the sacrifices, and blood. He points out the importance of blood, especially noting:

• Leviticus 17:11 [ESV] For the life (h5315 נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls ( עַל־נַפְשׁתֵֹיכֶ֑ם ), for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life (נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš).”

נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš is most commonly translated as “soul,” but not uncommonly as “life.” Also note:

• Leviticus 17:14 [ESV] “For it is the life ( נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš) of all flesh; its blood is for its life ( נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš). And I say to the sons of Israel, You shall not eat blood of any flesh, for the life ( נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš) of all flesh is in the blood; anyone eating it is cut off.” Recall that after the flood, man was allowed to eat flesh, with the blood being restricted.

• Genesis 9:3-5 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life ( נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš), that is, its blood (דָּם ḏâm). 5 And for your lifeblood ( דָּם ḏâm נֶפֶשׁ nep̱eš) I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.” (as “blood of another,” NKJV as “bloodshed,” NASB as “guilt of human blood.” Soon we will cover “bloodguiltiness.”)

von Rad points out, of Leviticus 17:11 “Here the commandment forbidding the eating of blood (from Gn 9:4) is reissued in an intensified form. It now gets a completely new substantiation for Israel–YHWH has ‘given’ the people of Israel this life-bearing [ נֶפֶשׁ -bearing] blood, all use of which he had previously ruled out, for a quite particular purpose, namely for the effective performance of expiatory rites at the altar. But it is not the blood in itself that effects expiation, but the blood insofar as the life [soul נֶפֶשׁ ] is contained in it. Expiation therefore does not depend upon the blood, but upon the life [ נֶפֶשׁ ], whose bearer the blood is.” (p269) [writer’s emphasis][This book will not get into spirit and soul distinctions, but obviously this concept may also relate to the atoning sacrifice of Yeshua, which some readers recognize. (Lk 23:46)]

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 gives a practical application, regarding an unwitnessed murder. von Rad, “If no act of expiation was made in which an animal was put to death in place of the murderer, then the areas would have to ‘bear’ the evil with its calamitous consequences.” (pp 269-70) There are actually several fascinating word-study details pertaining to this discussion, word studies that link together many verses, Keywords that are actually word forms, standing out when electronically searched. One example will be discussed in more detail later.

Another example the writer researched is a word study on נַפְשׁתֵֹיכֶ֑ם, which simply means “your souls.” However, in each of nineteen occurrences, including Gn 9:5 and Lv 17:11, it appears to serve as an emphatic, a ‘banner’ of an important statement. ((Gn 9:5; Ex 16:16, 30:15-16; Lv 11:43-44, 16:29-31, 17:11, 20:25, 23:27, 23:32; Nm 29:7; Dt 4:15; Josh 23:11; Jr 17:21, 37:9, 42:20, 44:7)) Many English translators simply slur over it in many instances, wording as “yourselves.” Many of the נַפְשׁתֵֹיכֶ֑ם passages have to do with atonement.

As von Rad clearly points out, “… the one who receives expiation is not YHWH, but Israel: YHWH is rather the one who acts, in averting the calamitous curse which burdens the community.” (p270) This, of course brings to mind two passages. The first is:

• Exodus 34:6-7 – 6 “6 “YHWH passed before him and proclaimed, ‘YHWH, YHWH, אֵל ’êl, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.’” [most versions pretty similar to this]

Exodus 34:6-7, of course, focuses on the ‘attributes’ of YHWH, clearly both his mercy and his justice, but more emphasis on mercy. Thus is YHWH’s role in the example von Rad discusses. The other verse brought to mind focuses on the other side of the equation in the von Rad example:

• 2 Chronicles 7:14 – “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

Professor von Rad points to several passages, most notably Lv 10:17-18, that the priest “bears the iniquity” by the carrying out of the sacrifice. He notes that “it is YHWH himself who effects or refuses expiation.” (p270) On “The Day of Atonement,” (Lv 16) without going into all the details, blood is involved in the offering of both the bull for the high priest himself and the offered goat for the people. The Azazel [scapegoat] is sent to the wilderness [“cut off”]. von Rad’s explanation of “what was effected in expiation,” is that YHWH “removed the baneful influence of an act.”

He continues, “He broke the nexus [link, connection] of sin and calamity; and this was as a rule effected by way of channelling the baneful influence of the evil into an animal which died vicariously for the man.” (p271) We, in looking at the sacrificial system, must also note that for the personal sacrifices by individuals, the sacrifice is also a very touching event, as the owner himself places his hand on the head of the animal and kills the animal and cuts it up. The priest offers it, but the person is very involved, heart-wrenchingly so. Having to do this, in addition to knowing it affects one’s community, might make a person think twice before repeating their acts.

von Rad is very careful to indicate, “Expiation was thus not a penalty, but a saving [salvation] event.” (p271) Again, pause to ponder. Think of this Synthetic grasp of life. If one believes that sin and its consequences are part of how Creation “IS,” like Newton’s third law, one knows that one’s actions come back upon oneself and one’s tribe or community. We could call it a “Law of Inevitability.” The Latin root ‘vita‘ means ‘life.’ What happens is part of ‘life’ as we grasp it. The consequences of gravity are such a law. If we walk off a cliff, there are consequences. In light of such a view, that if we sin, undesirable things will inevitably happen to us, then our view of the Creator is to focus on his Mercy, his willingness to ease the inevitable.

The topic at hand now jumps forward 114 pages in his book, still in “Volume 1.” von Rad discusses Israel’s conception of the צדקה (h6666 – righteousness) of God. He notes “most of the time she [Israel] lived with them [the conceptions] uncritically and practiced them in every situation of life.” He notes, at the time and the place, Israel’s life “was a life full of suffering and serious dangers for community and individual alike. What this means is that Israel took a supremely realistic view of life’s sufferings and dangers, saw herself as exposed to them vulnerably and without defence, and showed little talent for fleeing from them into ideologies of any kind.” (p384)

“… she possessed, rather, an exceptional strength to face up even to negative realities, to recognise and not to repress them, even when she was spiritually unable to master them in any way… this realism… allowed every event its own inevitability and validity… Thus the whole concept of צדקה had to vindicate itself among a people possessed of a very marked sense of reality.” (p384) 

Return to Webster’s second listed definition for “synthetic: attributing to a subject something determined by observation rather than analysis of the nature of the subject and not resulting in selfcontradiction if negated,” which seems to fit precisely with what von Rad is saying. [writer’s emphasis] “… Israel too was convinced that there was a definite and even clearly recognisable connexion between what a man does and what happens to him, such that the evil deed recoils banefully upon the agent, the good one beneficially. Like a stone thrown into water, every act initiates a movement for good or evil: a process gets under way which, especially in the case of a crime, only comes to rest when retribution has overtaken the perpetrator. But this retribution is not a new action which comes upon the person concerned from somewhere else; it is rather a last ripple of the act itself which attaches to its agent almost as something material.” (p384)

These are so-called “blessings and curses” of Dt 27-30. Read with an eye to this “inevitability.” “Like a stone thrown into water, every act initiates a movement for good or evil: a process gets underway which, especially in the case of a crime, only comes to rest when retribution [consequence] has overtaken the perpetrator.” (pp384-5) “Hebrew in fact does not even have a word for punishment.” [we return to] “The words עון and חטאת can denote the evil act; but they can also denote its evil result, and therefore punishment, because the two things are basically the same…” “The matter is particularly plain in connexion with bloodguiltiness. Murder initiates a baneful process which, before overtaking the murderer himself, first of all brings his community into the gravest danger. Thus, for its part, the community has the strongest possible interest in identifying and eliminating the murderer.” (p385)

In previously noted verses, von Rad notes an “exorcising formula.” Further, he says – “In disputed cases, it could be said: ‘let his blood (that is, his bloodguiltiness) be upon…’ (Josh 2:19; Jg 9:24; 2S 1:16) Or prayer could be made to God to avert the bloodguiltiness from the community. (Dt 21:8) ” … “If the murderer could be caught, then the bloodguilt (though the term ‘guilt’ is far too spiritual) was      (MargaretMeloni.com)         ‘turned back’ upon his own head, i.e., he was put to death, and the disaster so initiated was thereby averted from the rest.” (p385, 2S 16:8; 1K 2:5, 31f) [Lest the reader think this is only a concept in HS, see Mt.27:24-25 and context, both Pilate and the group of Israel’s leaders who had it in for Yeshua were very much thinking in this way.]

“… YHWH took a very immediate share in all this. It cannot … be said that Israel derived the knowledge of these connexions specifically from YHWH–they were much too obvious for that.” [recall ‘immanence’] “They were in fact a basic element in the general understanding of life, and, as such, more a part of that ancient oriental philosophy of life in which Israel also participated. But for Israel, with her belief in YHWH as the universal cause, it was impossible to understand such an elemental process except in relation to his power. Indeed, these beneficial or baneful results of an act were referred back to YHWH himself with the utmost immediacy.” (pp385-6) [italics added]

YHWH (or the makeup of his Creation) “it was, who eventually brought this process to its goal; he carried this connexion into effect; and hence the guilty party could appeal only to him in order to induce him to break this nexus and avert from the agent the disaster already impending. The decision whether a man should “bear his עון ” or not rested solely with YHWH.” … “One way or another, we arrive at the result that, in view of the existential connexion between act and consequence, it is out of place to speak of a ‘doctrine of retribution,’ for the idea of retribution, in that it understands ‘punishment’ as an additional forensic act, implies a legal way of thinking which is absolutely foreign to this whole range of ideas.” (p386) [italics added]

This point is so very critical. Let’s look at a few examples of where this thought process is very obvious, and then, in light of von Rad’s “legalistic” comment, consider how the trajectory of some of the more “legalistic” tended to go wrong, and how Yeshua’s teaching was to look at things again in the more traditionally Hebrew sort of way. Then we will look at how some of what von Rad says in his book impacts our lives today.

The book of Jonah is all about this concept. Begin with Jonah 1:3-16 to see the understanding of the sailors and of Jonah. The idea is very clear again in vv. 3:6-10 and 4:1-2. [please read] David understood the concept very well. We see it in several examples with him, twice when he spares Saul’s life, (1S 24 and 1S 26) in relation to the consequences of his taking an unlawful census, (2S 24:10-25) and surrounding the death of Bathsheba’s son. (2S 12:13-23) Also, Abigail reminds David of this principal and spares him the “bloodguiltiness.” (1S 25) We will take a very brief side-trip here to point out a very pertinent word study, relative to “bloodguiltiness.” Notice בְּדָמִ֑ים dāmiym:

• 1 Samuel 25:26 – וְעַתָּ֣ה אֲדנִֹ֗י חַי־יְהוָ֤ה וְחֵֽי־נַפְשְׁךָ֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר מְנָעֲךָ֤ יְהוָה֙ מִבּ֣וֹא בְדָמִ֔ים וְהוֹשֵׁ֥עַ יָדְךָ֖ לָ֑ךְ וְעַתָּ֗ה יִהְֽי֤וּ כְנָבָל֙ איְֹבֶ֔יךָ וְהַֽמְבַקְשִׁ֥ים אֶל־אֲדנִֹ֖י רָעָֽה׃  

• 1 Samuel 25:26 – Now then, my lord, as YHWH lives, and as your soul lives, because YHWH has restrained you from •bloodguilt and from saving with your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be as Nabal.

• 1 Samuel 25:33 – ׃ וּבָר֥וּךְ טַעְמֵ֖ךְ וּבְרוּכָ֣ה אָ֑תְּ אֲשֶׁ֨ר כְּלִתִ֜נִי הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ מִבּ֣וֹא בְדָמִ֔ים וְהשֵֹׁ֥עַ יָדִ֖י לִֽי  

• 1 Samuel 25:33 – Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from •bloodguilt and from working salvation with my own hand.

If one does a word search on this word form, דָמִ֑ים dāmiym – the plural of h1818. דָּם ḏâm, instead of “bloodguiltiness,” one gets a very interesting reflection of the concept that von Rad is explaining. Looking up h1818. דָּם ḏâm, there are 361 occurrences the KJV. Earlier we spoke of the connection between life/soul נפש , and blood. As one looks at occurrences of דָּם , sometimes it means the liquid running in your veins, sometimes it means the soul or life, sometimes it means the spilling of blood (killing), and sometimes it means the guilt of killing or murder.

Of the 361 occurrences of דָּם by Strong’s number, thirty-five are דָמִ֑ים dāmiym when search is done specifically for that form, the plural form.▸ (see below) Of the 35 occurrences of דָמִ֑ים dāmiym, several are translated already as bloodguilt or bloodguiltiness. Many others could very easily be interpreted that way, and probably should be. There are two or three that would require more of a discussion in order to say that is the best interpretation. As many words in Hebrew that have a plural form but are translated as “singular,” [“bloods” does not appear], there seems to be a special significance. This writer suggests that דָמִ֑ים may be another important Keyword.

Next, we’ll look at some GS examples that seem to be very clear when looked at from this example. Paul on Malta, (Acts 28:1-6) is a perfect example of the mindset of the locals in respect to this belief of the act, the guiltiness, and the punishment all being inexorably linked. Recall the second part of Webster’s definition: “not resulting in self-contradiction if negated.” Because the concepts of this synthetic grasp were based upon observation, the locals changed their opinion of Paul. The consequence of the viper leads them to consider him a murderer in v. 4, and when there are no consequences from the snakebite, he becomes “a God” in v. 6. It would not occur to them to question the “Worldview,” precisely what the writer is asking the reader to do, in light of having the written instruction.

Let’s look to the Passion narratives to get a view of this perspective in the Gospels. First, notice Pilate’s response at the end of the “debate” with the crowd, and the crowd’s response both reflect this “grasp”:

• Matthew 27:24-25 ESV  24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

Here is an example where blood represents not only the execution of Yeshua, but the bloodguilt associated with it. And Pilate indicates that the guilt falls on the crowd and not himself, by his words and his symbolic action. But what about preceding this demonstration? Look at the wording of Caiaphas’s prophecy,(John 11:49-52) and see the very clear indication of this belief that the situation could fall upon the entire nation. And look at the interaction between Yeshua and Pilate, (John 19:10-16, particularly at verses 10 and 11) where Yeshua not only indicates that the sin [the act itself] and the guilt of the sin are not upon Pilate, but upon those who delivered him to Pilate.

However, there is a clear crossover here with the Pharisees, going beyond the “natural consequences” picture into “punishment mode,” what von Rad called the “doctrine of retribution.” Which of course was why Yeshua was so hard on many of the Pharisees, their “legalism.” It was this legalistic approach that led to his crucifixion, not the teaching but the way it was being applied. And the resurrection, among many things, was to indicate the death of a legalistic approach, not the death of all the underlying framework of Creation. Return to Caiaphas’s prophecy in John 11 and read the verse following the prophesy,

• John 11:53 – “So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.” (see also Mt 12:14; Mk 3:6; John 7:1, 10:31-33, 11:57, 12:10-11)

Compare with the wisdom of Gamaliel, which is more the wisdom of the people of Yehuda in general, rather than this isolated group of corrupt leaders of the Temple whose ways were threatened by Yeshua’s teachings [read the context]:

• Acts 5:35-39 35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”

So they took his advice, — this is the wisdom of following the order of Creation. We recognize this as Truth. The first three attributes of YHWH listed in Ex 34:6 are “merciful, gracious, and slow to anger.” This is what Jonah had a problem with. This is what we have a problem with. We want “swift retribution (justice) for the “other guy,” but patience and mercy for ourselves. ((Is. 30:18; Ek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hab. 2:3; Lk 18:7; He. 10:37-38; 2P 3:9-10; Re. 2:21))

• Ecclesiastes 8:11-13 – 11 “Where sentence on an evil work is not executed speedily, on account of this the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. 12 Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged to him, yet surely I know that it shall be well to those who fear God, who fear His presence. 13 But it shall not be well for the wicked; and he shall not lengthen his days like a shadow, because he does not fear the presence of God.”

Just two or three more points from von Rad, after which we will look at some aspects that relate to today. First, the Professor tends to look at Israel’s perspective as archaic, primitive, even naïve, compared to those Western societies that have gone through the “Enlightenment.” He says of “Modern” society, “we do not form our judgment on the naïve certainty claimed by historical positivism.” He notes this not only in relation to the aforementioned idea of “natural consequences,” but upon YHWH’s “continuous divine activity.” “… these writings conceive YHWH’s action in history… by speaking of distinct acts of election and great promises– promises which God later fulfills, though often only after a period of waiting which is fraught with many trials.” (p427 in Vol. 2)

He does not seem to recognize Peter’s statement in 2P 3:9-10. What von Rad here at the end of his book calls naïve and “historical positivism,” he earlier stated was based upon Israel’s observation of “reality.” Returning to his statement in the earlier presentation of the topic, he had said of Israel they were “a people possessed of a very marked sense of reality.” In that discussion, he went on to say, “The term reality is, of course, not without its problems. Men have not understood the reality of life, its inter-connexions, sequences, and events, in the same way at all times, for, even behind man’s most elementary experiences, there already underlies a certain “dogmatic” preconception.” For that reason, he says Israel’s sense of reality has “to be presented critically.” (p384 Vol. 1) Or, perhaps our “sense of reality” should be questioned.

Very interesting that in this discussion he draws a contrast with Egypt, which is typically symbolic of worldly values: “Even in Egypt, which was close by, things were obviously quite different. He quotes a German writing from E.Otto, ‘We Know from all periods in Egyptian history that the Egyptians loved, as we say, to ‘idealise’ the actual events. But in the last analysis, this idealising consists in the fact that certain political events, or occurrences in the national and personal life as well, are simply not allowed to exist, if the external god-given laws are not to be overthrown… as the Egyptians see it, a tension exists at all times between objective and factual historicity and subjective reality.'” (p384, Vol. 1)

If this writer’s understanding of von Rad’s presentation is accurate [not having read the entire book], he is saying that “historical positivism,” evidenced by “naïve certainty” as a basis for judgment, is not “Enlightened.” Further, does the reader understand his quoted passage from Otto regarding Egypt as being reflective of two things we see in our “modern, enlightened” society?

1. “Idealising ”
2. Historical revisionism

It seems the Scriptures are replete with warnings against such.▸▸ As von Rad discussed, “The term reality is, of course, not without its problems. Men have not understood the reality of life, its inter-connexions, sequences, and events, in the same way at all times, for, even behind man’s most elementary experiences, there already underlies a certain “dogmatic” preconception,” (p384 Vol. 1) the thought occurred to this writer that this was precisely the reason that Torah, the written form of YHWH’s instructions, his Word, was given at Sinai, and further, precisely why the Shema is so adamant about eating, breathing, teaching, living his teaching, Torah. May the writer return the reader to a term used earlier in the book of “assumptive reasoning,” and parallel that with von Rad’s term “dogmatic preconception.”

The question we all must ask ourselves is whether our assumptions are based upon the Truth of Scripture, the instructions of life, or the “world” – “Egypt.” A few comments about our world today. As a part of some “casual reading,” the writer recently came across an advice column in an online magazine of our brothers Yehuda, regarding a woman with back pain. The response was enlightening regarding some aspects of this “worldview” that still exist in the culture of Yehuda, which seemed altogether healthy, positive, and quite enlightening. The response seemed to reflect exactly the connection between our spiritual lives and our physical lives. The point of the advice was that everything in this physical life is reflective of things taking place in the spiritual life. The advisor was very careful not to pinpoint a cause, but gave a list of things to consider that might be reflected in back pain, one example being taking on the burdens of others, but many dealing with the person’s own lifestyle. The point is that there is, persisting in a Hebrew people today, at least a part of a worldview that is not an “apprehension” of “the world,” but a grasp of a Creation in which all things are bound together. The writer is very thankful that a people has preserved such a grasp of life, one which we should consider.

The reader will have to determine for himself or herself whether to accept the presentation from von Rad.  To this writer, von Rad substantiates his discussion with extensive documentation, mostly from Scripture, with a slight amount of commentary from others.  To this writer, it paints a picture consistent with the other things presented here regarding Hebrew culture.  And, it seems, as well to fit in with current scientific discoveries, but you can be the judge of what is shared next. The reality understood by ancient Israel is that their concepts may be ancient and based upon both observation of Creation and the teaching of YHWH, including his book of revelation of life, but the concepts are not naïve, primitive, nor archaic. As in most everything when one sees from God’s perspective, the world [read as current society] may not think it is “good,” but so often the world has to “catch up” in its thinking. Current science has discovered many things. In all areas in which science seems to make “new discoveries,” it is clear that science and technology are only beginning to see what God’s teaching has told us all along, if we only took the time to “read and understand his teaching.”

A relatively recent discovery is a concept called “non-linear determinism,” or what has come to be known affectionately as “Chaos Theory.” We will look at this together briefly to see how it ties into the current discussion. Look at those two descriptive words first, “non-linear determinism.” From early in the book, the reader has seen the Hebraic perspective of life that is “non-linear,” cyclical. And this chapter has been all about “determinism,” that the is a cycle of action that determines the reaction, as in Newton’s Third Law. In other words, causes have effects that “come back around.” Before some more details, just a comment from one who has lived life as a scientist of sorts, that science in its quest of Truth, must needs come to meet God, because God is Truth! ((A few examples: Dt 18:22; 2S 22:31; 1K 17:24; Ps 12:6, 18:30, 19:9; Pr 30:5; Is 65:16; Jr 7:28; John 3:33.))

In 1963, Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist, published a paper called “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow.” His paper was based on hurricane-prediction software, in which he discovered that the most minor changes in his input data could bring huge differences in his results. His seminal work has developed into a large area of science with implications in many aspects of modern life. That area is known as “Chaos Theory,” and his work has also been commonly known as “The Butterfly Effect.” The reason for the moniker the butterfly effect is that the magnitude of the changes in input that could bring a huge difference in output was described as, “a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the earth could bring about a hurricane on our side.” It indicates that in our “system,” everything is connected.

The other thing that has become apparent in this work is something called a “strange attractor.” There is something “strange,” hidden, mysterious, H5475. סוֹד sôḏ, about the “attraction” between elements of our Creation. Something “attracts” … holds things together. A connection should be made apparent here before proceeding. Because of the way the Hebrew language developed from letters that had meaning, words that share letters have connections one to another. The writer notes these related words as “word families,” taken from Benner’s terminology of parent and child roots.▸▸▸

Next is a photo and comments about the photo from a book that has to do with leadership in the business world, which goes to demonstrate how far-reaching the implications are.# All of the understanding [analytic perspective] of “strange attractors,” etc., has only been possible since the advent of computers and rapid calculations. But it really describes what the “synthetic, observational apprehension of life” has “known” all along.

Another photo regarding “strange attractors,” with caption: “The Lorenz attractor displays chaotic behavior. These two plots demonstrate sensitive dependence on initial conditions within the region of phase space occupied by the attractor.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Another word you have probably heard that is related to all of this is “fractals,” generation of repetitive patterns in Creation and by computers. One can buy Apps to create one’s own fractals, which are simply repetitive mathematical equations. Cycles repeated:

Or one can simply look for them in the world around us; they are everywhere: A computer-driven mathematical equation can make something that resembles what we can see in the world around us. To the left, by computer [0’s and 1’s, darkness and light]; to the right, in nature.

  

Even when you go to the grocery store, you can look for them:

Recall what was said several times earlier by von Rad in this Post, and in Webster’s definition, that the Hebrew people developed their understanding of a “Synthetic Grasp” (which extended to non-Hebrews as well, e.g. the people on Malta, the sailors on Jonah’s ship) based upon “observation” of the world around them.  Have we become so sub-specialized in our societies today that we look at our own little area but are not able to look at the “big picture?”  Are we so insulated/isolated from the world around us that we do not recognize the cause-and-effect that is in existence both on the physical level and the spiritual level?  Even in what appears to be chaos all around, God created order. He knows how it works, he created it, and he gave us instructions about it. Should we not read and follow those words?

• Isaiah 29:16 ESV 16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay, that the thing made should say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

• Genesis 1:1-5 – Green’s Literal Translation – LITV 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; 2 and the earth being without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moving gently on the face of the waters, 3 then God said, Let light be! And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good, and God separated between the light and darkness. 5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.

When God called forth light, was not “order” brought about in ALL? What is “Enlightenment?” Perhaps… Until we “enlightened ones” move from our “analytic” mode of thinking to a “synthetic” mode of thinking, and understand that our acts have unseen repercussions, we may be like Israel in Egypt for 430 years. Or like the caterpillar in its cocoon awaiting its time of emergence. Perhaps we need to emerge from our cocoon, our past teachings, our “assumptions.”

It is necessary to re-evaluate some of what von Rad said in light of some understanding that this writer has from his training and exposure to his reading regarding some aspects of Hebrew thought, which will be covered in the next chapters. One point to be made here is that is is clear in some instances, and suggestive in other instances, that the Synthetic grasp included a melding together of the concepts of the laws governing Creation and God himself, in the minds of the Israelites. God is One, and the aspects of his nature are seen throughout his Creation. This is a not-unusual use of metonymy. Hopefully the discussion will tie together some loose ends for the reader before demonstrating a midrash/exegesis.

* Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, 2005, Prince Press, Peabody, MA. The page numbering from the previous two-volume printing is maintained. Page numbers listed here will be from the First Volume, except some of the last, which will indicate Volume 2.

** Our current American society seems to have trouble recognizing and talking about sin as a concept.

***There was teaching before they received it in writing, e.g. Ex 15:25-26.

▸Exodus 4:25-26 [twice], 22:1-2 [twice]; Deuteronomy 19:10, 22:8; 1 Samuel 25:26, 25:33; 2 Samuel 16:7-8 [twice], 21:1; 1 Chronicles 22:8, 28:3; Psalm 9:13, 26:9, 51:16, 55:24, 59:3, 106:38, 139:19; Proverbs 29:10; Isaiah 1:15, 9:4, 33:15; Ezekiel 7:23, 9:9, 22:2, 24:6-9 [twice]; Hosea 4:2; Micah 3:10, 7:2; Nahum 3:1; Habakkuk 2:12

▸▸ e.g. Dt 8:14; 2Ch 20:33; Ps 10:4; Is 43:22, 64:7; Jr 10:21; Ek 33:31; Dn 9:13; Zep 1:12; Lk 12:19.

▸▸▸The Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, Hebrew Letters, Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context, Jeff A. Benner, 2005, virtualbookworm.com Publishing, College Station, TX.

# Leadership and the New Science, Discovering Order in a Chaotic World, Margaret Wheatley, Third Edition, 2006, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco.

© Jan 2018 logandspeck.com please cite if copying