[b-hebrew] Well, well well...G_d's Justice

davidfentonism at aim.com davidfentonism at aim.com
Mon Oct 30 15:18:18 EST 2006

Howdy Chris:
You have not misread at all, Chris. HaShem is an Elohim of justice and could not be Holy, Holy, Holy without it. Grace takes on its full meaning in light of the holiness of G-d. It is in contrast to His set-apartness that we see our own unrighteousness and how great His definitive love is. Thus, Eloah is just and His love allows for a Way by which we might be redeemed from the justice we all deserve in light of His holiness.
I'm not sure how well I've expressed this thought but please feel free to ask more questions which might flesh out clearer responses from me.
Gal. 27-29: For as many as have had a tevilah into Moshiach have clothed yourselves with Moshiach. There is not Yehudi nor Yevani (Greek), there is not eved (servant) nor ben chorin (freedman), there is not zachar (male) nor nekevah (female), for you are all echad in Moshiach Yehoshua/Yeshua. And, if you belong to Moshiach (YESHAYAH 53:10), then you are of the ZERAH of Avraham Avinu, you are yoreshim (heirs) according to the havtachah (promise).
-----Original Message-----
From: wattswestmaas at eircom.net
To: davidfentonism at aim.com
Sent: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Well, well well, Whose changing a hundred years of a basic rule - Infinite Absolute!

Hallo David, 
Actually what you wrote is quite an eye opener, especially when you said that the ideal state is for a man to be judged by his deeds, but unfortuanately there is now a need for mercy. I like that. However please could you clarify: 
-----At first, G-d created the world exclusively with the attribute of justice (E-ohim)----- 
I have assumed that your bracketed E-ohim has something to do with Justice or have I misread it? 
Best Regards 
> Chris, 
> The TNKh is full of G-d's mercy even from the very beginning of Torah: 
> Rashi commented that Genesis 2:4 was the first mention of Hashem's name in > the Torah. He says it was in direct reference to the Creation of man, > "...{This} denotes G-d in His attribute of mercy {grace}." At first, G-d > created the world exclusively with the attribute of justice (E-ohim) > because the ideal state is for man to be judged according to his > deeds..without a need for special mercy {grace} and forbearance. Yet G-d > realized that man could not survive in such a rigid environment, i.e., > without mercy. Therefore, He added the Name signifying mercy to teach that > He would temper justice with compassion (Rashi to Genesis 1:1). 
> In fact, the Judges went far out of their way to pardon those guilty of > capital offences. They did as HaShem did and would have them do. Yeshua > was following in this tradition when He would not condemn the woman caught > in the act of adultery. The requirement of witnesses was one level of this > but the Judges sought out ways to not condemn those found guilty of > transgressions for which stoning was prescribed. 
> Regards, 
> David 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: wattswestmaas at eircom.net 
> To: b-hebrew at lists.Ibiblio.org 
> Sent: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 1:20 PM 
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Well, well well, Whose changing a hundred years of a > basic rule - Infinite Absolute! 
> To my complete surprise, when I translated the verse in Exodus 21: 28, as 
> "when an ox gores a man or a woman and they die, the ox shall deffinately > be 
> stoned" - I was wrong. Apparantly an Infinitive Absolute plus imperfect 
> most likely conveyed: 'it is liable to be stoned' or 'it may be stoned'. 
> BUT, not killing it is NOT breaking the law. Cited in "Readings in > biblical 
> hebrew, Ehud Ben Zvi, Hancock and Beinert - 1993" 
> Similarly, in Leviticus 20:10 "he shall surely be put to death" (I have 
> always cringed at this 'shall surely' business anyway), means that he is 
> liable to execution but if PARDONED that is not breaking God's > commandment. 
> And you know what, all this makes much more sense anyway. BUT what is > this 
> new developement in the Infinitive absolute, is this an isolated opinion > or 
> is there a consensus out there, and how did they arrive at this 
> understanding? (And if it is correct then why don't they correct the 
> 'Modern' grammar books). 
> NOTE: 
> Of course all this allows for the fact that there WAS mercy to be found in 
> the law after all and this excites me, since I have always been under the 
> impression that there was no Flexibility in the regulations, just > rigidity. 
> This would thoroughly explain Jesus's ability to be both an upholder of > the 
> law while at the same time appearing to break it by not having that woman 
> stoned who was brought to him by those individuals who wanted to test > Jesus. 
> regards 
> chris 
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list