Yhwh Quotes

Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship--be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles--is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness. Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings. They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.

Love is written in our instincts, yet erased by our actions.

Worship that does not lead to neighborly compassion and justice cannot be faithful worship of YHWH. The offer is a phony Sabbath!

The conclusion affirmed by the narrative is that wherever YHWH governs as an alternative to Pharaoh, there the restfulness of YHWH effectively counters the restless anxiety of Pharaoh.

That divine rest on the seventh day of creation has made clear (a) that YHWH is not a workaholic, (b) that YHWH is not anxious about the full functioning of creation, and (c) that the well-being of creation does not depend on endless work.

Because the griots who compose these texts are part of a patriarchal system that frequently devalues women, we should not be surprised that their portrayals of YHWH allow the Divinity silently to consent to the women's abuse.

The emancipatory gift of YHWH to Israel is contrasted with all the seductions of images. The memory of the exodus concerns the God of freedom who frees.

When Moses sought the nature of this God, asking ‘What is thy name?’, he received the majestically forbidding reply, ‘I AM THAT I AM,’ a God without a name, rendered in Hebrew as YHWH: Yahweh or, as Christians later misspelt it, Jehovah.

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness. Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings. They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing.

Long before the Aryan Judeo-Christian plagiarization of the Semite's Scripture took place, the ancient Egyptian concept of the Trinity was a calendrical system of theology. The Aryan Osirian Jew annexed the ancient Egyptian calendar through Osiris' Scepter, while the Aryan Atenian Christian did so through Horus' Scepter. Both Scepters, however, symbolize that very same calendrical anchor when the cow-god YHWH annually rested in ancient Egypt; an event which the Jew and the Christian projected weekly and commemorated on Scepterday and Sonday, consecutively. The Jew has temporally reduced the symbol of the Scepter to the Sabbath, whereas the Christian has spatially reduced it to the Sun; a temporospatial ancient Egyptian unholiness of plagiarizing Semitic Scripture and its seven-days week calendar. That Judeo-Christian Trinity -which the former is trying so hard to conceal while the latter shies not from proclaiming- consists of the three ancient Egyptian calendrical elements: Sky, Moon and Sun. These elements were Hathor, Osiris and Horus who later on became to be identified as YHWH, the departed King coming as the Holy Spirit and the Son.

The first commandments concern God, God’s aniconic character, and God’s name (Exod. 20:3–7). But when we consider the identity of this God, we are made immediately aware that the God who will brook no rival and who eventually will rest is a God who is embedded in a narrative; this God is not known or available apart from that narrative. The narrative matrix of YHWH, the God of Israel, is the exodus narrative. This is the God “who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (v. 2).

When the mouth cries, I want to see God, the heart has reached its finest moment. Once we have sought and seen God, all other things have a way of finding us.

The Hebrew letters YHWH (English: “Jehovah”) when written vertically depict an upright person in four levels, image of the cosmos.

prophetic preaching can take place only where the preacher is deeply embedded in the YHWH narrative.

God by His generic name, Elohim, not His personal name, YHWH. This shows us how he views God; it’s the difference between knowing God and knowing about God.

YHWH summons us to a sabbath table. Water and wine, bread and salt, light and love await us there. Come, my companions, sorrow is for another day, for YHWH has spoken.

Here we have it. YHWH is in charge and will establish his own rule over the rest of the world from his throne in Zion. But he will do this through his “anointed,” through the one he calls “my son.

I still find my corrupt heart longing for tomorrow's bread. I can make a good argument to the Lord about how effective I can be if He would supply me with enough advance funds. It's a little frightening to pray for TODAY's bread. That means I must pray again for tomorrow and believe again for tomorrow. My greedy heart is willing to be corrupted by a little bit of riches so that I see my warehouse full of loaves. I can make a good argument about how God won’t have to be bothered with me every day if He would only advance me about ten years worth of bread.

The conclusion affirmed by the narrative is that wherever YHWH governs as an alternative to Pharaoh, there the restfulness of YHWH effectively counters the restless anxiety of Pharaoh. In our own contemporary context of the rat race of anxiety, the celebration of Sabbath is an act of both resistance and alternative. It is resistance because it is a visible insistence that our lives are not defined by the production and consumption of commodity goods.

Like most ancient names, YHWH had a meaning. It seems to have meant ‘I am who I am’ or ‘I will be who I will be.’ This God, the name suggests, can’t be defined in terms of anything or anyone else. It isn’t the case that there is such a thing as ‘divinity’ and that he’s simply another example, even the supreme one, of this category. Nor is it the case that all things that exist, including God, share in something we might call ‘being’ or ‘existence,’ so that God would then be the supremely existing being. Rather, he is who he is. He is his own category, not part of a larger one.

Jehovah, the Christian name for God derived from the Hebrew Yahweh, (from the letters YHWH), is translated as "I AM." YOU ARE the essence of life—the Cosmic Consciousness that creates, lives in, and destroys all things. In Buddhism, your true nature is referred to as your “Buddha Nature.” Muslims refer to it as Allah, Native tribes have often called it the Great Spirit, Taoists refer to it as the Tao, and numerous other cultures throughout history have all created their own distinctive names for it. But the one eternal reality that these cultures point to remains the same—and this reality is YOU.

First, concerning terms that refer to God in the Old Testament: God, the Maker of heaven and earth, introduced himself to the people of Israel with a special personal name, the consonants for which are YHWH (see Exodus 3:14–15). Scholars call this the “Tetragrammaton,” a Greek term referring to the four Hebrew letters YHWH. The exact pronunciation of YHWH is uncertain, because the Jewish people considered the personal name of God to be so holy that it should never be spoken aloud. Instead of reading the word YHWH, they would normally read the Hebrew word ’adonay (“Lord”), and the ancient translations into Greek, Syriac, and Aramaic also followed this practice.

To me God’s voice and inspiration is stronger, of greater importance and authority than that of any fairy or any other spirit like creature from above or below earth. My Spirit Tales are stories based on truth and inspired by His writings. Stories about YHWH and His great wonderful acts are definitely not fairytales but Spirit Tales.

The entire future of Israel depends, in each generation, on the capacity and resolve of YHWH to make a way out of no way. This reiterated miracle of new life in a context of hopelessness evokes in Israel a due sense of awe that issues in doxology. Well, it issues in laughter: “Now Sarah said, ‘God has brought laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me’ ” (Gen. 21:6). In subsequent Christian tradition, that laugh has become an “Easter laugh,” a deep sweep of elation that looks death and despair in the face and mocks them. The ancestral narratives attest to the power of YHWH to create new historical possibilities where there is no ground for expectation. IV

My conclusion from this brief survey of the evidence is that Jesus believed himself called to act as the new Temple. When people were in his presence, it was as if they were in the Temple. But if the Temple was itself the greatest of Israel’s incarnational symbols, the conclusion was inevitable (though the cryptic nature of Jesus’ actions meant that people only gradually realized what he had in mind): Jesus was claiming, at least implicitly, to be the place where and the means by which Israel’s God was at last personally present to and with his people. Jesus was taking the huge risk of acting as if he were the Shekinah in person, the presence of YHWH tabernacling with his people.

As a result, legitimate indignation is regularly siphoned away from speech with God to be acted out in other, perhaps more destructive ways. Such speech of rage addressed to YHWH is credible only when the worshiping community has confidence that the covenant God addressed is both willing and able to intervene in contexts of unbearable suffering.

In decreeing the Decalogue, moreover, YHWH bypasses Moses to address the people as a whole, communicating his will to them in quasi-democratic openness, without the need for any royal or prophetic intermediary. That is not only without precedent in the history of religion; it is also unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible. God’s proclamation of the Decalogue accordingly lies at the heart of the theme of revelation.

The letters of the name of God in Hebrew… are infrequently pronounced Yahweh. But in truth they are inutterable…. This word {YHWH} is the sound of breathing. The holiest name in the world, the Name of Creator, is the sound of your own breathing. That these letters are unpronounceable is no accident. Just as it is no accident that they are also the root letters of the Hebrew verb ‘to be’… God’s name is name of Being itself.

On all counts, this narrative, with its move from wonder to wait, contradicts the narrative of self-invention, competitive productivity, and self-sufficiency. Israel’s life is a life that contradicts the way of the world: •   Wonder instead of self-invention; •   Emancipation instead of the rat race of production; •   Nourishment instead of labor for that which does not satisfy; •   Covenantal dialogue instead of tyrannical monopoly or autonomous anxiety; •   A quid pro quo of accountability instead of either abdicating submissiveness or autonomous self-assertion; •   Waiting instead of having or despair about not having. At every accent point in the narrative, the tradition of Israel asserts that the dominant narrative of the world is not adequate and so cannot be true. It cannot be adequate because it omits the defining resolve and capacity of YHWH, the lead character in the life of the world. 3.

First, concerning terms that refer to God in the Old Testament: God, the Maker of heaven and earth, introduced himself to the people of Israel with a special personal name, the consonants for which are YHWH (see Exodus 3:14–15). Scholars call this the “Tetragrammaton,” a Greek term referring to the four Hebrew letters YHWH. The exact pronunciation of YHWH is uncertain, because the Jewish people considered the personal name of God to be so holy that it should never be spoken aloud.

Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. (Gen. 43:32) That treatment is not unlike the way in which Whites have characteristically treated Blacks in U.S. society. – In the exodus narrative it is remembered that Israel, in its departure from Egypt, was a “mixed multitude,” not a readily identified population (Exod. 12:38). – At Sinai, however, this gathering of disparate populations was formed and transformed by the will of YHWH into an identifiable, intentional community, called to a historical destiny:

Leviticus, then, is a book about the theme of dwelling with God in the house of God, and how that reality is finally made possible. Israel’s deepest hope, to dwell in YHWH’s house upon his holy mountain, was not merely a liturgical question but a historical quest. A gravely confounding quest, to be sure, for who may ‘dwell with the devouring fire?’ (Isa. 33:14). And yet Israel’s destiny, nevertheless, is to become just such a wonder, akin to the burning bush, to be ‘burning with fire, but not consumed’, alight with the glory of the Presence of God (Exod. 3:2–3).

The question of god lay at the heart of second-Temple Jewish life. Each affirmation, each act of worship, contained the question: not Who? (they knew the answer to that), nor yet Why? (again, they knew: because he was the creator, the covenant god), or particularly Where? (land and Temple remained the focus), but How? What? and, above all, When? How, they wanted to know, would YHWH deliver them? What did he want them to be doing in the meantime? And, When would it happen? The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth provided the early Christians with a new, unexpected and crystal clear answer to these three questions; and, by doing so, it raised the first three in a quite new way.

Light is the in-utterable name of God; the YHWH form. It is the emotional life of a bee and the distance to Icarus, the farthest visible star. It is the finding of compassion amidst tyranny, the networked communication between trees, and the whale song. Light is woven through the gauze of grief and is “the limitless undying love which shines around me like a million suns” (John Lennon). It is what Catholic theologians called “the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable, the thing we cannot conceive” (John Chrysostom) . “Tell me, if you have understanding. What is the way to the place where the light is distributed?” (Job 38:4) And unable to answer, in dumb obliviousness, instead, we point at the Sun

Throughout the Scriptures, God gives us constant reminders of his vastness and majesty. He reveals and invites us into relationship, but he never allows us to forget how big he is. In the Old Testament, his name served that purpose. So did the fact that he appeared to people without form. But the Israelites couldn’t handle a God that awesome, and they set about, time and again, to reduce him to a more manageable size. This has always been the temptation of the people of God—to tame him. He increases mystery; we desire to remove it. He introduces paradox; we seek to solve it. We, like the Israelites before us, want a God who is understandable and predictable and safe. We want a God who makes sense and operates according to generally accepted accounting principles. But instead, we meet YHWH and his son, Ye’shua, who don’t play by our rules.3

25:10. a jubilee: you shall go back, each to his possession. In the law of the jubilee, YHWH commands that every fifty years all property is to return to the original owners. This appears to be an economic program designed to prevent the feudal system, common in the rest of the ancient Near East, from developing in Israel. That is, it functions to prevent the establishment of a class of wealthy landowners at the top of the economic scale and a mass of landless peasants at the bottom. Every Israelite is to be apportioned some land (described in the books of Numbers and Joshua), and the deity commands that in every fiftieth year the system returns to where it started. If an Israelite has lost his ancestral land as a result of debt or calamity, he regains ownership of it in the jubilee year. Land is unalienable. Individuals can suffer difficult times, but there is a divinely decreed limit to their loss, and the nation as a whole can never degenerate into a two-tiered system of the very rich and the very poor.

The Christian narrative states that a maximally powerful, maximally good, all-knowing aseitic being consciously created everything, including man who short-circuited shortly after. This failure resulted in the immediate separation of all earthly things, including man, from the Creator: the Middle Eastern deity named, Yhwh. The objective of life, according to the Christian narrative, is to return to communion with Yhwh. Failure to do so in a finite space of time (a single lifetime of indeterminate duration and unequal resources) will result in Yhwh tossing the individual into an abyss he created for his finest and most beautiful creation, an angel named Lucifer (Ezekiel 28:12,13), who also short-circuited sometime earlier. This is considered by Christians to be the ultimate punishment: an eternal separation from the god, Yhwh. This narrative is wholesale nonsense. As a theology (and scaffolding for a tremendously flawed accompanying theodicy), it is an extravagant work of self-annihilating absurdity. As a maximally good, aseitic being, everything was once part of perfection. That’s what aseity means. There was no-thing that was not already perfect. To argue otherwise is to concede Yhwh was not, in fact, perfect. Creation, therefore, destroyed this eternal harmony, this purity, and by this fact alone, the act of Creation can only be called maximally evil. Creation separated things from the perfect goodness. Creation expelled goodness and cast it into a state of imperfection, and that is evil. In the second instance, as Lucifer—Yhwh’s most perfect creation—had already failed, which was itself inevitable, then that means Yhwh consciously flung man into an already corrupted Creation, and that, too, is evil.

Jesus, then, went to Jerusalem not just to preach, but to die. Schweitzer was right: Jesus believed that the messianic woes were about to burst upon Israel, and that he had to take them upon himself, solo. In the Temple and the upper room, Jesus deliberately enacted two symbols, which encapsulated his whole work and agenda. The first symbol said: the present system is corrupt and recalcitrant. It is ripe for judgment. But Jesus is the Messiah, the one through whom YHWH, the God of all the world, will save Israel and thereby the world. And the second symbol said: this is how the true exodus will come about. This is how evil will be defeated. This is how sins will be forgiven. Jesus knew—he must have known—that these actions, and the words which accompanied and explained them, were very likely to get him put on trial as a false prophet leading Israel astray, and as a would-be Messiah; and that such a trial, unless he convinced the court otherwise, would inevitably result in his being handed over to the Romans and executed as a (failed) revolutionary king. This did not, actually, take a great deal of “supernatural” insight, any more than it took much more than ordinary common sense to predict that, if Israel continued to attempt rebellion against Rome, Rome would eventually do to her as a nation what she was now going to do to this strange would-be Messiah. But at the heart of Jesus’ symbolic actions, and his retelling of Israel’s story, there was a great deal more than political pragmatism, revolutionary daring, or the desire for a martyr’s glory. There was a deeply theological analysis of Israel, the world, and his own role in relation to both. There was a deep sense of vocation and trust in Israel’s god, whom he believed of course to be God. There was the unshakable belief—Gethsemane seems nearly to have shaken it, but Jesus seems to have construed that, too, as part of the point, part of the battle—that if he went this route, if he fought this battle, the long night of Israel’s exile would be over at last, and the new day for Israel and the world really would dawn once and for all. He himself would be vindicated (of course; all martyrs believed that); and Israel’s destiny, to save the world, would thereby be accomplished. Not only would he create a breathing space for his followers and any who would join them, by drawing on to himself for a moment the wrath of Rome and letting them escape; if he was defeating the real enemy, he was doing so on behalf of the whole world. The servant-vocation, to be the light of the world, would come true in him, and thence in the followers who would regroup after his vindication. The death of the shepherd would result in YHWH becoming king of all the earth. The vindication of the “son of man” would see the once-for-all defeat of evil, the rescue of the true Israel, and the establishment of a worldwide kingdom. Jesus therefore took up his own cross. He had come to see it, too, in deeply symbolic terms: symbolic, now, not merely of Roman oppression, but of the way of love and peace which he had commended so vigorously, the way of defeat which he had announced as the way of victory. Unlike his actions in the Temple and the upper room, the cross was a symbol not of praxis but of passivity, not of action but of passion. It was to become the symbol of victory, but not of the victory of Caesar, nor of those who would oppose Caesar with Caesar’s methods. It was to become the symbol, because it would be the means, of the victory of God.14

If Paul is hinting at “punishment” in this passage, it can only mean what it means in Isaiah, which has to do with the “servant” fulfilling Israel’s vocation—and simultaneously with the “servant’s” embodying YHWH himself, the powerful “arm of YHWH,” to take upon himself the consequence of Israel’s rebellion, idolatry, and sin, so that Israel and the world may be rescued

But if the “servant” is indeed the “arm of YHWH” under the guise of a suffering, bruised, and unrecognizable Israelite, then a new possibility emerges at the heart of Romans 3:21–26. The primary fault of the human race, according to Romans 1, is idolatry. The primary response, from the one God himself, is to “put forth” the Messiah as the place of meeting, the ultimate revelation of the divine righteousness and love.

When Christians affirm that Jesus is God, they are simply being faithful to the explicit teaching of the Bible. After all, the New Testament does, indeed, call Jesus Christ "God," not once, but several times. It also affirms that Jesus is "Lord," repeatedly doing so in contexts that equate Jesus with YHWH, the God of the Old Testament. In addition, the New Testament assigns a variety of other divine names or titles to Jesus (such as Bridegroom, Savior, and the first and the last). It gives Jesus all these names in the broader setting of a pervasive attitude of exalting the name of Jesus above every other name. If we are to be faithful to the teaching of the Bible, we must acknowledge Jesus Christ as our great God and Savior.

Second, the New Testament calls Jesus "Savior" in conjunction with the divine titles "Lord" and "God." The description of Jesus as "our Lord and Savior" (2 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18) is familiar to most Christians (see also Luke 2:11; Phil. 3:20). The New Testament also calls Jesus "our great God and Savior" (Titus 2:13) and "our God and Savior" (2 Peter 1:1).' This conjunction of the titles God and Savior is especially noteworthy, since in a majority of occurrences of the word Savior in the Greek Old Testament it is similarly conjoined with God in reference to YHWH (Dent. 32:15; Pss. 25:5; 27:9; 62:2, 6; 65:5; 79:9; 95:1; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 45:15, 21; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18). In light of this Old Testament usage, the suggestion that Paul or Peter could call Jesus "our God and Savior" and mean someone inferior to YHWH is simply untenable.

YHWH claims that he does not look on outward appearances but at the heart (will) of the person (1 Sam. 16.7). However, when the last of Jesse's sons comes into the room, we are told:'Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome. The Lord said [to Samuel], "Rise and anoint him for this is the one"' (1 Sam. 16.12). Thus the selection of David as the boy companion of the main warrior chief, while it departs from the standards of beauty set by Saul, appears nonetheless to begin with his remarkable beauty...The first thing we know about Saul and David is their beauty.

1:1. the words that Moses spoke. In developing from a man of actions to a man of words, Moses imitates God. The Tanak depicts God as becoming more and more hidden over the course of history. In the first books of the Bible God apperas to humans, is seen and heard at Sinai, makes His presence known through miracles, angels, and the column of cloud and fire. But these visible signs of divine action in history disappear from the story one by one. And by the last books of the Tanak, there are no angels or miracles. The words of "YHWH appeared to" and "YHWH spoke to" do not occur to anyone. Instead, the priest Ezra reads the Torah aloud to the people. In the place of the acts of God there is the word of God. When the Torah pictures Moses ending his life in words, he imitates and prefigures the transformation of the human experience of God that will occur in the Bible.

Sacrifice is the only mechanism for forgiveness in the book of Leviticus. There is no suggestion in Leviticus that repentance alone can bring forgiveness for violations of the laws, no indication that one can appeal to YHWH's mercy. His grace, or His kindness for atonement. Indeed, the words "repentance" (šûb), "mercy" (raḥǎmîm), "grace" (ḥēn), and "kindness" (ḥesed) do not occur in Leviticus.

34:6-7. merciful, gracious, slow to anger, kindness, faithfulness, bearing crime and offense and sin. This is possibly the most repeated and quoted formula in the Tanak (Num 14:18-19; Jon 4:2; Joel 2:13; Mic 7:18; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; 2 Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17,31). The Torah never says what the essence of God is, in contrast to the pagan gods. Baal is the storm wind, Dagon is grain, Shamash is the sun. But what is YHWH? This formula, expressed in the moment of the closest revelation any human has of God in the Bible, is the closest the Torah comes to describing the nature of God. Although humans are not to know what the essence is, they can know what are the marks of the divine personality: mercy, grace. In eight (or nine) different ways we are told of God's compassion. The last line of the formula ("though not making one innocent") conveys that this does not mean that one can just get away with anything; there is still justice. But the formula clearly places the weight on divine mercy over divine justice, and it never mentions divine anger. Those who speak of the "Old Testament God of wrath" focus disproportionately on the episodes of anger in the Bible and somehow lose this crucial passage and the hundreds of times that the divine mercy functions in the Hebrew Bible.

In fact, the holy name YHWH is most appropriately breathed rather than spoken, and we all breathe the same way.

These words from the serpent misrepresent God’s authority and bring doubt to the woman (Eve) by: 1) questioning God’s motivation with the subtle addition “really say,” 2) using the name “God” rather than the covenant name “LORD” (YHWH), 3) reworking the wording of God’s command slightly by adding “not” at the beginning (with “any” expresses absolute prohibition), omits the emphatic “freely,” uses the plural “you” rather than the singular in 2:16, and 4) placing “from any tree” at the end of the sentence rather than at the beginning as in 2:16.

24:20 an eye for an eye. Perhaps the most perplexing of the ethical laws is the principle of justice expressed in the formulation "an eye for an eye" It has frequently been cited as evidence of the stern character of YHWH, but that is a misunderstanding. In its context in Leviticus it applies solely to human justice. YHWH Himself frequently follows a more relenting course than that, from the golden calf event to a series of reprieves for seemingly undeserving individuals and communities in subsequent books of the Tanakh. As for the meaning of this formulation for human justice, we must read it in its context, where the basic principle appears to be that punishment should correspond to the crime and never exceed it

1:1. wilderness Wilderness emerges through the narrative not only as a setting but also as a theme of considerable significance. The Hebrew title of the book, bêmidbar, "In the Wilderness," which derives from the opening verse ("And YHWH spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai [bêmidbar sînay] ... "), is a better indicator of the book's contents than the Greek title, arithmoi (from which comes the English "Numbers"). It also better captures the pervasive feeling of the book. The wilderness depiction conveys two quite different qualities. On the one hand, the wilderness years constitute a kind of ideal. The peoples life is orderly, protected, close to God. It is a period of incubation, of nurturing. All is provided: food, water, direction. The miraculous is the norm. At the same time, though, the wilderness is depicted as terrible. Conditions are bad. The environment is hostile. There is rebellion from within and fighting with peoples whom they encounter on the way. There are power struggles and fear. And this is pictured as having been almost entirely avoidable, a fate that has come upon the people for having rejected the opportunity to enter the land. Numbers thus expresses pervasively a notion that is only begun in Leviticus, namely that closeness to the divine is both glorious and dangerous.

12:6. in a vision; in a dream. All prophetic experience in the Tanak is understood to be through visions and dreams—except Moses'. The fifteen books of the Hebrew Bible that are named for prophets either identify the prophets' experiences as visions or else leave the form of the experiences undescribed (Ezek 12:27; 40:2; Hos 12:11; Hab 2:2; Mic 3:6). Many begin by identifying the book's contents as the prophet's vision: "The vision of Isaiah" (Isa 1:1, cf. 2 Chr 32:32); "The vision of Obadiah" (Oba 1); "The book of the vision of Nahum" (Nah 1:1); "The words of Amos ... which he envisioned" (Amos 1:1); "The word of YHWH that came to Micah ... which he envisioned" (Mic 1:1); "The oracle that Habakkuk the prophet envisioned" (Hab 1:1).

He is Ahab, and the queen is Jezebel. They were members of a dynasty, called the Omrides, that consolidated the Northern kingdom, established its international repute, and promoted a culture in which Yhwh featured prominently. Without these efforts, we would have no Bible today.

The Holy Bible, the written word of God is the physical ''Vade-Mecum'' that initiates us into an understanding of the mind of God, by exposing us to the ways, and character of God, YHWH

The exodus is the moment of establishing YHWH’s alternative governance in the world, a governance that will displace the exploitative regime of Pharaoh and all exploitative regimes that follow after.

the biblical laments give their voice entirely to the community. They do not wait for Yhwh to speak; rather, they expect him to listen.

I am blessed I am favored I have no food I have no money I have YHWH He gives me honey To glaze a virtual turkey And a virtual bunny

The political agency of YHWH comes, in Israelite tradition, to be a stable, orderly cultic presence, but without surrendering any of the force of agency known in the exodus narrative itself. Thus “glory” becomes a cover term that holds together forceful agency and abiding presence

The Hebrew terms torah, torat moshe (“ the Torah of Moses”), torat YHWH (“ the Torah of the Lord”), and torat haʾelohim (“ the Torah of God”), already in use in late biblical literature to describe what is later called the Pentateuch p. 1( e.g., 2 Chr 23.18; Ezra 7.6,10; Neh 8.1,18; Dan 9.11), offer a better clue to the nature and unity of these books.

I am absolutely nothing without YHWH With God I am what I am because I AM dwells in me

The Pledge of Affirmation I am blessed I am favored by YHWH YHWH is my Shepherd YHWH leads me in the path of righteousness I am YHWH's sheep I graze in YHWH's pasture YHWH is my God YHWH keeps me YHWH will never leave me For better or for worse In good health or in bad In life or in death YHWH and I will not part I am sheltered by YHWH I am fed by YHWH I am surrounded by YHWH YHWH is my Guide YHWH is good YHWH is kind YHWH is full of mercy YHWH is my shield YHWH is my protection YHWH reigns today YHWH reigns forever

The name of God (3:13-14) may be rendered "I AM WHO I AM," as it is in the NIV, or "I will be what I will be." In Hebrew, the abbreviated form "I am" is related in some fashion to YHWH, often spelled out as Yahweh (and commonly rendered "LORD," in capital letters; the same Hebrew letters stand behind English Jehovah). The least that this name suggests is that God is self-existent, eternal, completely independent, and utterly sovereign: God is what he is, dependent on no one and nothing.

It may be impossible to “sing YHWH’s song” in this foreign land, but this particular psalmist turns this impossibility itself into yet another of “YHWH’s songs,” thus making a psalm out of the fact that one can’t sing psalms here. If that reminds us of Israel’s greatest prophet sensing himself utterly abandoned by God and yet still able to ask God why he has abandoned him, that is probably part of the point.)

There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists. The others are silly made-up nonsense. But not yours. Yours is real.

To take this any further we need to look more closely at the people who believed themselves called by the one true God, YHWH, to be his special people for the sake of the world--the people who spoke of his rescue operation for the whole cosmos and thought of themselves as the agents of that plan. It is within the story of this people that we can make sense of the story of Jesus of Nazareth himself, the center and focal point of Christian faith. And it is when we understand Jesus, I shall suggest, that we begin to recognize the voice whose echoes we have heard in the longing for justice, the hunger for spirituality and relationship, and the delight in beauty.

When the word Lord occurs in lowercase letters, the translator is indicating to us that the word adonai is found in the Hebrew Bible. Adonai means “sovereign one.” It is not the name of God. It is a title for God, indeed the supreme title given to God in the Old Testament. When LORD appears in all capital letters it indicates that the word Jahweh is used in the Old Testament. Jahweh is the sacred name of God, the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush. This is the unspeakable name, the ineffable name, the holy name that is guarded from profanity in the life of Israel. Normally it occurs only with the use of its four consonants—yhwh. It is therefore referred to as the sacred tetragrammaton, the unspeakable four letters.

Gli Ebrei si erano lasciati tentare dall’idolatria, e la figura di questo giudice, Gedeone, assume tratti religiosi: egli demolisce l’altare pagano e diventa il salvatore di Israele dalle mire egemoniche dei Madianiti, una tribù ostile meridionale, pur essendo membro della «famiglia più oscura di Manasse» (6,15). Gedeone sarà un liberatore, e la sua vittoria evidenzierà la sua esperienza di “piccolo” e di ultimo sostenuto solo dalla forza di Yhwh. Ma in questo brano entra in scena un’altra delle tante correlazioni allegoriche che la tradizione cristiana ha liberamente – e spesso fantasiosamente – intessuto tra il Nuovo e l’Antico Testamento. Tutto ruota attorno alla cosiddetta “prova del vello”. Sull’aia Gedeone espone un vello di pecora: nella simbologia mariana esso diventa un’immagine del grembo di Maria. La rugiada notturna – che è molto abbondante –, in un panorama assolato com’è quello palestinese, è un emblema di benedizione (cf Genesi 27,28), è simbolo dell’amore divino (cf Osea 14,6). Abbiamo citato l’omelia di Proclo in onore della Theotókos quando abbiamo parlato del roveto ardente. Ecco come prosegue: «…roveto vivente che non fu bruciato dal fuoco del parto

Siamo attorno al XII secolo a.C. Gli Ebrei, liberati dell’oppressione egiziana, stanno occupando la terra promessa, abitata dagli indigeni cananei. Ma al centro dell’attuale Galilea, essi si scontrano con la violenta reazione del regno di Hazor, una potente città-stato, il cui re, Iabin, poteva schierare un’eccezionale armata da guerra. Israele, invece, è un popolo agricolo, militarmente impreparato, retto da Samgar, un «giudice» (cioè un politico) inetto e titubante, e da Barak, un generale incerto, e si sta avviando fatalmente ad essere divorato dall’avanzata cananea. È a questo punto che Dio, come in altre situazioni della salvezza, compie una scelta apparentemente stravagante. Sarà una donna, una creatura disprezzata in Oriente (e non solo…) a donare a Israele la libertà; a rivelare “profeticamente” la vicinanza di Dio a un popolo oppresso. Colui che appare è «Yhwh del Sinai, Dio d’Israele», cioè il Signore della libertà, colui che strappa lo schiavo dall’oppressione, colui che anche adesso sta per entrare in azione per aiutare un popolo umiliato e schiacciato. Debora è «giudice», termine che nel linguaggio biblico abbraccia tutta l’attività politica, e «profetessa»: pur essendo donna fragile, con la

L’esperienza di Dio che Mosè vive ai piedi del monte Oreb, davanti a un roveto che ardeva nel fuoco senza consumarsi, e dal quale udì provenire la voce del Signore che gli parlava, ci rimanda al simbolismo classico delle manifestazioni di Dio, il fuoco, rappresentazione della vicinanza e della trascendenza divina. Fiamma che non può essere afferrata e trattenuta, eppure che ci attraversa col suo calore e col suo splendore. Il suo carattere «inestinguibile» evoca l’eternità perfetta e l’immutabilità suprema di Dio. Questa epifania di Yhwh avviene nella cornice di un luogo santo, in cui Mosè è entrato inconsapevolmente. Ce lo rivela il gesto, di ammissione e di purificazione, che è invitato a fare: togliere i calzari, come segno di umiliazione e di spogliazione delle impurità rituali. La connessione tra la scena dell’Oreb e Maria di Nazaret è, ovviamente, allegorica, metaforica, libera e creativa. Il roveto arde in mille pagine mariane, della tradizione e dei Padri della Chiesa, come segno della verginità di Maria, della sua maternità divina. Ecco come Gregorio di Nissa, grande padre della Cappadocia (Turchia), vissuto nel IV secolo, in un’omelia natalizia sviluppa questo tema: «Ciò che era prefigurato nella fiamma e nel roveto, fu apertamente manifestato nel mistero della Vergine. Come sul monte il roveto ardeva ma non si consumava, così la Vergine partorì la luce ma non si corruppe. Né ti sembri sconveniente la similitudine del roveto, che prefigura il corpo della vergine, la quale ha partorito Dio». Durante una omelia del 428-429, Proclo, futuro patriarca di Costantinopoli, parla della

Nell’uso del roveto dell’Oreb si intuisce la dimensione simbolica mariana connessa al titolo Theotókos: Dio si rivela in pienezza in Maria, come nel roveto era Dio a svelarsi a Mosè. Efrem Siro, morto nel 373, fa balenare la verginità di Maria come sede della manifestazione di Dio. Il grembo di Maria è come il roveto nel quale discende il fuoco teofanico e nel quale Yhwh si rende presente e sperimentabile a Mosè. Nella stessa linea si muove anche Severo, patriarca di Antiochia, morto nel 538. In un’omelia, la 67, egli afferma: «Quando volgo lo sguardo alla Vergine Madre di Dio e tento di abbozzare un semplice pensiero su di lei, fin dall’inizio mi sembra di udire una voce che viene da Dio e che mi grida all’orecchio: “Non accostarti! Togliti i sandali dai piedi, perché il luogo dove tu stai è terra santa!”… Avvicinarsi a lei è come avvicinarsi a una terra santa e raggiungere il cielo». Certo, come dirà Ambrogio, «Maria non è il Dio del tempio ma il tempio di Dio». Perciò noi dobbiamo, come Mosè, avvicinarci a lei a piedi scalzi perché nel suo grembo è Dio che si rivela e lo fa nel modo più vicino e trasparente, rivestendo la carne dell’uomo.

and John explained that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit. In the broader context of Isaiah 40–55, there is a close connection between the outpouring of the Spirit and the resulting new creation: “For I will pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, and My blessing on your offspring” (Isa. 44:3; cf. Gen. 49:25; Ezek. 34:26–27; Joel 2:14; Mal. 3:10–11). Here the dry and thirsty land receives the outpouring of water, which brings rejuvenation, and this imagery is tied to the outpouring of the Spirit. Concerning this verse, though, John Goldingay explains, “Yhwh’s renewal of the people is an act of new creation.”46 This conclusion seems warranted, especially in light of Isaiah 44:2: “Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb [עשך ויצרך], who will help you.” E. J. Young explains, “The expression Creator [יצר] used of God as the Creator of His people is found only in Isaiah, as also the parallels Maker and Former.”47 This language is used, for example, in the creation account of man (Gen. 2:7). All of this imagery comes with a kaleidoscope of ideas that ties together creation, exodus, new creation, and the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit.48 These observations are not new. J. Luzarraga, commenting on Isaiah 31:5, explains that this verse, as well as the others thus far surveyed, refer to: a “return,” a second exodus, a new exodus, which…comes described with features taken from the first exodus, projecting upon an eschatological future, for the gifts that God has granted in the past are only a symbol of his provision in the future. As in the days past, so also in the ones to come, “Like birds hovering, so the LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it; he will spare and rescue

Thus, N. T. Wright says, “I think it highly unlikely that these verses are a sad commentary on the temporary nature of exorcisms. ... Rather, as Matthew’s closing sentence [v. 45], and Luke's context, seems to indicate, this is a kind of parable about Israel. Here is the link between the exorcisms and the overall mission of Jesus ... the exorcisms themselves were signs that this god wished to deliver Israel herself from the real enemy who is now pitted against her: satan.” Wright then proposes that the ‘house’ in the parable is the Temple and speculates on the nature of the ‘exorcism’: “If specific movements are in mind, we might perhaps think of the Maccabaean revolt, when ‘the house’ was ‘swept and put in order’; or perhaps the Pharisaic movement as a whole, attempting to cleanse the body and soul of Judaism by its zeal for a purity which in some ways reflected that of the Temple; or possibly Herod’s massive rebuilding programme, which produced a ‘house’ that was magnificent but in which (according to Jesus, and probably many of his contemporaries) YHWH [God] had no inclination to make his dwelling. ... Nothing short of a new inhabitation of ‘the house’ would do.” This new habitation of God was eventually understood to be in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful. As St. Paul wrote, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16).

En résumé, en Israël, Yhwh devint définitivement la divinité la plus importante avec le putsch de Jéhu. Yhwh a d’abord été vénéré dans le Nord surtout comme un « baal », c’est-à-dire un dieu de l’orage ressemblant à certains égards au dieu Baal d’Ougarit. Il n’a pas été le seul dieu vénéré en Israël ; peut-être a-t-il d’abord été subordonné à El (notamment dans le cas du sanctuaire de Béthel). Sous les Omrides, deux baalim se faisaient concurrence : le baal phénicien (peut-être Milqart) et le baal Yhwh. Par la suite, Yhwh intégra apparemment les traits d’El ainsi que des traits solaires : il devint un baal shamem, un « Seigneur du ciel ». Jusqu’à la chute de Samarie en 722 avant notre ère, le culte de Yhwh n’était pas exclusif, comme le montre le prisme de Nimroud, dans lequel Sargon II relate la prise de la capitale du royaume du Nord : « Je comptai pour prisonniers 27 280 personnes ainsi que leurs chars et les dieux en qui ils se confiaient. »

Selon les témoignages bibliques, la vénération de Yhwh en Israël s’est surtout matérialisée par des statues bovines.

En résumé, la déesse Ashérah a été associée à Yhwh comme parèdre, mais elle était aussi vénérée indépendamment de lui, surtout par les femmes, en tant que Reine du Ciel. C’est seulement sous le règne de Josias que Yhwh se retrouve seul, sans son Ashérah.

Question d’une influence directe du mazdéisme sur le judaïsme naissant est plus difficile à résoudre. On constate, par exemple, dans de nombreux psaumes de l’époque perse ainsi que dans d’autres textes, que Yhwh est présenté comme trônant au milieu de l’assemblée céleste et dépassant tous les autres dieux, qui sont de fait dégradés en « anges » ou en « saints

Durant les XIème et VIIème siècles, Yhwh prend définitivement la tête du panthéon, reprenant les fonctions d'autres dieux, comme celui du dieu solaire, qui est aussi le dieu juge. Il existe en effet de nombreux psaumes qui transfèrent des caractéristiques et des fonctions du dieu solaire sur Yhwh.

. . . those who invoke YHWH as the judge of all must themselves live in the light of that coming judgment.

YHWH is The Mistress of Dendera: Hathor/Sothis.

The infidel Arabs inherited their religion from the Jews with the cow-god 'YHWH'/(LMBWL=King-of-Flood) as 'YHWH-EL' (or simply, HuWEL).

The second oracle (2 Sam. 7:8-16) takes a different tact.  Rather than appealing to the past as justification for denying David’s request, it looks to the future.  In this oracle, YHWH explains to David that he will not build a house for YHWH, rather YHWH will build a house for him.  This juxtaposition makes use of a play on words in Hebrew, where the Hebrew word for house (bayit) can convey both a “temple” and a “dynasty.”  Because David is the recipient of an everlasting dynasty, he will not be the one to build the temple for YHWH.  Many scholars consider this second “oracle of Nathan” to be the origin of messianic thought in Israel (Jones, 1990, 59-60).

This theological construct contains the following tenets: 1) YHWH chose Jerusalem specifically as the city for his immediate presence on earth; 2) YHWH appointed David and his descendants to rule from Jerusalem forever; 3) the temple in Jerusalem functions as the center of the cult of YHWH; 4) the Davidic king performs an intermediary role between YHWH and the people; and 5) the continuation of the Davidic dynasty and the protection of Jerusalem are both dependent upon the continued faithfulness of the king and his people to YHWH (Miller and Hayes, 1986, 203).  In addition to this “oracle of Nathan,” this theology is evident in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs. 8:46-53) and most poignantly in a number of the psalms (Ps. 2; 18; 20; 21; 45; 46; 48; 72; 76; 84; 87; 101; 110; 121; 122).  Jerusalem becomes the cosmic center of the universe, where YHWH sits upon his throne reigning as king over creation. 

The Deuteronomistic Historian credits all of Solomon’s extra-Yahwistic worship activities to the influence of his foreign wives, but this was likely a theological coping mechanism.  Solomon was likely comfortable worshipping Chemosh and Molech alongside YHWH and his Asherah throughout his reign without thinking twice about it (1 Kgs. 11:7-8).  Such syncretistic practices were probably common in Greater Israel during the 10th century. Chapter

But then there is Bathsheba’s statement in 1 Kings 1:17: “She said to him [David], ‘My lord, you swore to your servant by YHWH your God, saying: Your son Solomon shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne.’” This adds a less savory perspective to the story.  Randall Bailey has argued that this statement, made by Bathsheba before David has made any official gestures indicating his choice of Solomon as his successor, indicates that this dynastic choice was a precondition Bathsheba set before she would marry David. 

According to Scripture, Solomon was in Gibeon making his usual sacrifices (1 Kgs. 3:4).  While he was there, YHWH appeared to him in a dream and asked what he wanted (1 Kgs. 3:5).  Solomon responded, “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil.” (1 Kgs. 3:9).  This request pleased the Lord so much that he not only granted Solomon’s request for “understanding” and “discernment” but also added, “I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor all your life;

In fact, the temple and the palace were so close that their respective inner courts shared a wall, and in one of Ezekiel’s prophetic oracles, YHWH chastises the people of Israel for this issue of proximity:  “The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they nor their kings…When they placed their threshold by my threshold and their doorposts beside my doorposts, with only a wall between me and them…” (Ezek. 43:7-8). Again,

One of the most interesting aspects of Waterman’s theory is his explanation of the contents of the debîr. According to the Bible, this housed the cherubîm and the Ark of the Covenant, and there is no reason to think that these items were secondarily placed in the debîr.  Waterman argues that the cherubîm could not have represented the presence of YHWH anymore than the cherubîm guarding the Garden of Eden would have done so. 

The reason Jesus celebrates the Last Supper with the twelve disciples is that together they represent the bride of God -- the people of Israel. This is a prophetic sign whose symbolism would have been recognized by any Jew familiar with the prophecies of God's future wedding. Just as YHWH wed himself to the twelve tribes of Israel at Mount Sinai through the blood of the old covenant, so now Jesus unites himself to the twelve disciples through the blood of the new covenant, which is sealed in his blood.

We have Exodus 3:14 as a direct proof for the ancient Egyptian triad godhead of YHWH The Cow, "normal" Horus and the rejuvenated Child Horus, aka, the Lion of Judah. In this verse, we read the name of the Child Horus (i.e. Ihy) being equated to YHWH (i.e. Ihy is Yahweh) for that Ihy (i.e. rejuvenated Horus) is one of the seven names of YHWH and 'YHWH' can also be rendered into an archaic third person singular imperfect form of the verb 'Ihy' (i.e. 'HWA') besides being a triconsonantal root of 'HWH'. It is yet astounding to even realize that Ihy was a god who represented the ecstasy of playing the sistrum, and the instrument was associated to Hathor/YHWH with her/his son Ihy in most representational contexts.

As there were no collusion between Trump's team and Russia, there has never been a collusion between YHWH (i.e. the cow-god of ancient Egypt) and Abraham.

YHWH rests thrice a month on the zodiac of Dendera as an internal gear driving the outer spur gear of the decans; which in turn allows for 12 rolls a year (12 roles/tribes).

relationship between God and Old Testament Israel. In fact, as Jeremiah and other prophets pointed out, the catastrophe of 587 BC was not a denial of that covenant relationship, but the proof of it. It demonstrated that God meant what he said, that YHWH was as faithful to his threats as to his promises. At its inception the covenant had included sanctions – the notorious curses that would come on the people for persistent disloyalty to their covenant Lord (Lev. 26; Deut. 28).16 In 587 BC, they came.

Why is My Mishkan still under My Heel Stone? Auger coring 1.2m (4ft) below it too Hard? Your Book does not Mention it, Why?

The existence of a temple of YHWH in Upper Egypt means one of two things for our understanding of what Jews were like at this embryonic moment in their collective existence. Either they were pre-biblical, aware only of some of the legal codes of the Torah and some of the elements of the founding epic, but had not yet taken in Deuteronomy, the book written two centuries earlier, ostensibly the 120-year-old dying Moses’ spoken legacy to the Israelites, which codified more rigorously the much looser and often contradictory injunctions of Leviticus. Or the Elephantine Jews did have the Mosaic strictures of Deuteronomy, and perhaps even knew all about the reforms of kings Hezekiah and his great-grandson Josiah making the Jerusalem Temple the sole place of sacrificial ritual and pilgrimage, but had no intention of surrendering to its monopoly. The Elephantine Yahudim were Yahwists who were not going to be held to the letter of observance laid down by Jerusalemites any more than, say, the vast majority of Jews now who believe themselves to be, in their way, observant, will accept instruction on what it means to be Jewish (or worse, who is and who isn’t a Jew) from the ultra-Orthodox.

The Jew presence on Elephantine coincided with Khnum's cult, for that the Jew maintained his own temple there (i.e. the House of YHWH) which functioned alongside that of Khnum's. Khnum was the creator of children, which he made on a potter's wheel from clay. Therefore, we expect to find some evidence of Ihy's creation story in Egypt - taking into consideration his important role as a rejuvenated god in the New Kingdom and that is exactly what we see in Dendera's Temple complex where Khnum moulds Ihy.

the text itself tells us that the calf was not originally meant as an alternative to, or reification of, God but was designed as a visual aid to worship. After all, Aaron attempts to point out the limitations of the calf by proclaiming a day of festival specifically in the name of YHWH.11 The point was that it was only meant to be an object that provided a focal point for reflecting upon the genuine experience of God in their midst. Yet the people were quick to view this object as a visual manifestation of the God who delivered them from Egypt. As such the image became an idol to the people and eclipsed the genuine experience of God.

Once the doors of the temple were open, the priest’s day would begin, and the first task of the day was to feed YHWH breakfast in a three-part daily morning ritual (de Vaux, 1997, 449-50).  There was a whole burnt offering (translated as a “holocaust offering” in older translations) that the priest performed, most likely on the bronze altar in the hêkal.  The priest would cut the throat of a one-year old lamb without any blemishes and pour its blood around the altar.  The priest would then skin the lamb and cut it into four parts, which the priest then placed into the fire on top of the altar.  While one priest was doing this, another priest pulled bread, made with a particular recipe, from the oven and placed it on the table in the hêkal along with a jug of wine (de Vaux, 1997, 415-16).  A third priest took a shovel, scooped some charcoal out of the golden altar, sprinkled perfume onto the glowing embers and returned the scented coals to the altar (de Vaux, 1997, 423).  The priests then said their morning prayers, and one example of such a morning prayer appears in Psalm 5 (de Vaux, 1997, 458). After

To understand, however, how the received form of the Bible frames and presents them, we do well to refer to the way I introduced them in chapter 1: the laws are, first and foremost, treaty stipulations. They are the conditions and mandates set down by the sovereign king YHWH for His treaty with the vassal Israel.12 As such, they are prescriptive in nature, and are meant to be binding on the members of the covenantal community. It is on the basis of the fulfillment of these stipulations that Israel the vassal will be judged by the heavenly sovereign king, just as earthly sovereigns judged their vassals on the basis of their compliance with the treaty stipulations. It may well be, additionally, that Scripture intends that judges make quasi-statutory, analogical, or referential uses of some of these laws.13 At the same time, it is clear that judges, perforce, must have also engaged a comprehensive oral law, or set of unwritten norms and social customs. The

The impression given by the Bible is of a cyclical swing between the cult of many gods and the cult of a single exclusive YHWH. But there may have been a prolonged period in which YHWH was worshipped as top God rather than the only God. Even the first of the commandments says ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’, presupposing that there were others – a matter of seniority rather than exclusiveness. It is only with ‘Second Isaiah’ as late as the fifth century BCE, that the first explicit statement of ‘Yahweh Alone’ is made categorical.

SNEAK AROUND IN LIFE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TIP TOE THE SPIRITUAL WOOD FLOORS CREAK LOUDER AND LOUDER NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY SNEAK IN SILENCE. THAT'S WHEN YOU REALIZE... "SNEAKING IS NOISY” AND S.I.N IS LOUD!!!!