Hans Wolff on Amos 7:3 and Contingent Foreknowledge

In a previous post, Amos 7:1-6 and Contingent Foreknowledge, I quoted a recent work by a Catholic author, Robert Sungenis, arguing that this pericope supports contingent foreknowledge. As an Open Theist, I welcome such a conclusion, and agree that, exegetically, such is the most plausible reading.

In a recent commentary, I encountered the following about Amos 7:3 ("The Lord relented concerning this; 'it shall not be,' said the Lord") which supports this reading:

How does Yahweh react? “To repent concerning” (נחם nip’al with על) designates a change of mind prompted by the emotions, a turning away from an earlier decision on the part of someone deeply moved. From the standpoint of the party directly affected by the altered decision, the change might as easily be unfavorable as favorable. In itself, therefore, “to repent concerning” means neither forgiveness or condemnation. Here Yahwh is moved by the objection of the one to whom he has confided his intention in the vision. Just what sort of change takes place within Yahweh is more precisely defined by the quotation “It shall not happen.” In other words, the particular judgment here threatening Israel’s future—the invasion of locusts—will not be carried out. A change of mind with respect to Israel is not recognizable insofar as the forgiveness requested is not expressly granted. In fact, by 7:5 such forgiveness is no longer even requested. The terse report merely conveys that the punishment shown shall not take place. In context, this signifies initially no more than a postponement of punishment, or more precisely, a readiness to alter the sentence. If one keeps the subsequent visions in mind, one is inclined to think here, not so much of forgiveness, but rather of Yahweh offering an opportunity for selection of punishment (cf. 2 Sam 24:12ff). (Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977, 298]

Autobiographical Notes of my Testimony by Daniel C. Peterson

Matthew 5:48 as implicit evidence for the Latter-day Saint understanding of Theosis

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt 5:48)

Some critics of Latter-day Saint soteriology argue that, as Jesus is speaking of moral perfection, such is inconsistent with LDS views of theosis. Firstly, it should be noted that moral perfection is a natural prerequisite of LDS deification, so even if such were the case, it implicitly supports Latter-day Saint theology. While it doesn't encapsulate LDS views of theosis, it certainly embraces such. Luke 6:36 stands as the parallel verse:

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

It seems more probable that in this instance, Christ was making a parallel with known Scripture, "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). "To be holy" (Greek: αγιος; Hebrew: קדושׁ) implies far more than "be merciful," and this corresponds well with the Latter-day Saint understanding of perfection or completeness--to say nothing of sanctification as theosis was commonly described in the writings of early Christians, including the following (references are to the 10-voume Ante-Nicene Fathers set by Philip Schaff; W = Western writer; E = Eastern writer):

We have learned that only those who have lived close to God in holiness and virtue are deified.  Justin Martyr (c. 160, C), 1.170.

Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make man. Rather, as we have said above, man was capable of both. If he would incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he would receive immortality as a reward from Him. And he would become divine. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.105.

And again, “God stood in the congregation of the gods; He judges among the gods.” He refers to the Father and the son, and to those who have received the adoption. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.448.

As I have already said, He caused man to cleave to and to become one with God … unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.448.

How will man pass into God, unless God had first passed into man? Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.507

Human are not uncreated. But by their being in existence throughout a long course of ages, they will receive a faculty of the Uncreated. This will be through the free bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God…. But being subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.521.

It must be that you should partake of the nature of man at the outset, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.523.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, through His transcendent love, became what we are, so that He might bring us to be even what He Himself is. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.526.

The Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh. He has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man. He indeed imparts other hand, He has attached man to God by His own incarnation. He bestowed true and enduring immortality upon us at his coming—by means of communion with God. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.527.

Being baptized, we are illuminated. Illuminated, we become sons. Being made sons, we are made perfect. Being made perfect, we are made immortal. He says, “I have said that you are gods, and all are sons of the Highest.” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.215.

In this way, it is possible for man to God already to have become divine. “I said, you are gods, and sons of the highest” Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.437.

The man of God is consequently divine and is already holy. He is God-bearing and God-borne. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.547.

It would be impossible that another God could be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, at that rate we ourselves possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and will continue to do so. Only, it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we will be even gods, if we deserve to be among those of whom He declared, “I have said, ‘You are gods,’” and “God stands in the congregation of gods.” But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us. For it is He alone who can make gods. Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.480.

You will be a companion of God, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions and wasted by disease. For you have become divine…. God has promised to bestow these upon you, for you have been deified and begotten unto immortality. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.153.

I am of the opinion that the expression, “god will be all in all,” means that He will be “all” in each individual person. Now, He will be “all” in each individual in this way: when everything that one can either fell, understand, or think will be wholly God. This will be when a person has been cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and has every cloud of wickedness completely swept away…. It is when God will be measure and standard of all movements. Thus, God will be “all,” for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil—for evil will exist nowhere. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.345.

It is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is of the Father and the Son. For the nature of he Trinity is one and incorporeal. And what we have said regarding the participation of the soul is to be understood also of angels and heavenly creature needs a participation in the Trinity. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.379.

They see that from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature. This was so that the human—by communion with the divine—might rise to be divine. This not only happened in Jesus, but also in all those who not only believe, but enter upon the life what Jesus taught. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.475.

There are honored by God—through His Only-Begotten Word—by participation in His divinity and thereby also His name. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.479.

What man is, Christ was willing to be—so that man also be what Christ is. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.468.

What Christ is, we Christians will be, if we imitate Christ. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.469; see also 1.463. 1.522, 1.533.

With respect to Matt 5:48 itself, "be ye" is ἔσεσθε, the indicative future middle deponent second plural person of the verb "to be" (ειμι).  In other words, it refers to something that we must do ourselves--it will not be done for us (let alone imputed to us based on an alien righteousness!) It is something one must be actively engaged in, though we are not expected to be at that point at this very moment. In short, one must gradually and consistently, seek to become perfect or fully developed, like God the Father (and, in his post-exalted state [cf. Phil 2:5-11], Jesus, as we learn in 3 Nephi 12:48]). It is only through the saving ordinances, as administered by and through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and by the grace of God, can this be accomplished (notwithstanding the pathetic arguments otherwise [see here and here for a response to one critic]).

William Hamblin's response to the anti-Mormon approach to Book of Mormon Geography and Archaeology

Daniel Peterson, on his blog Sic Et Non, recently plugged an excellent article from 1993 by William Hamblin, so I think I should do the same to ensure it gets more readers:

Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon

Accusations Against the Articles of Faith

The following paper, written by the late Matthew B. Brown, is a brief but convincing response to some of the common objections raised against the Articles of Faith in the Pearl of Great Price:

Accusations Against the Articles of Faith

Resources for Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants

On the Benjamin the Scribe blog, there is a helpful bibliographical post entitled

Church History/ Doctrine & Covenants Resources

It will be especially useful to Gospel Doctrine teachers wishing to "nerd it up" a bit for the forthcoming Gospel Doctrine year which will be focused on the D&C.

I would also suggest Mike Parker's notes on the D&C/early LDS history from his adult institute class.

Acts 1:11 and Divine Embodiment

Which is also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up in heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)

This is a common text that Latter-day Saints appeal to as implicit evidence of divine embodiment. In the LDS view, if Jesus can be truly divine and embodied throughout eternity, then there should be no problem for God the Father being embodied. It also refutes the frankly stupid claim that belief in a God who is embodied is something that “limits” Him.

Interestingly, the anti-LDS “response” has been greatly eisegetical. In his 2001 book, The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible, J.P. Holding argued that Acts 1:11 does not state that, in between the ascension and Parousia, that Jesus remains embodied—he argued that, just as a party guest promises to return to the next New Year’s party with his fancy bowtie does not mean that he will wear the bowtie 24/7 for the year, Jesus, just because He ascended with, and will return with, with a body does not mean He will be embodied in the time in-between.

Then-LDS apologist, Kevin Graham, wrote the following in response to Holding’s absurd eisegesis of Acts 1:11. The article is no longer online, but I did save it a few years back:

 Acts 1:11

Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven

The question pertaining to this verse is whether or not Jesus kept his resurrected body. Christ's ascension took place after He revealed himself with a physical body: “For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (Lk 24:39). The scripture informs us that “this same Jesus”of flesh and bone is what we can expect upon his return. Latter-day Saints will naturally understand this as evidence against the argument that God doesn’t have a body, especially given our critics' devotion to the divinity of Christ. For how can anyone argue that Christ, being fully God, can have an eternal physical body, while at the same time argue that God has no body? We must keep in mind that Trinitarians insist the Father and Son, while distinct “persons,” are in fact the one being. This is the paradox they have yet to reconcile. What we will find in this section is that Holding’s concept of the trinity is contradicted by the Orthodox concept, which maintains that Jesus Christ keeps his resurrected body throughout eternity. But we will get back to this in a minute. As for the verse in question, Holding responds with,

The verse indicates nothing about the state of Christ between his ascent and return

Let’s get this straight. The Bible tells us Christ had a physical body at His resurrection (Lk 24:39). The Bible tells us that Christ kept his physical body when he entered heaven (Acts 1:11). The Bible tells us that Stephen saw Christ “standing” beside God the Father (Acts 7:55-56). The Bible on numerous occasions describes Christ as “sitting” and “standing” next to the throne of God after his ascension (Heb 1:3;10:12;12:2; Col 3:1). Lastly, we are encouraged that Christ shall return with this same resurrected body (Acts 1:11).

Now this is a significant amount of data the Bible provides us on this issue. So what we can gather from this is that in all likelihood Jesus Christ retains his body between his ascent and return. Impossible! This “indicates nothing,” Holding says. This response speaks for itself. We're expected to ignore several points of fact and adopt a view which is supported nowhere in any verse of scripture. He then reverts to analogy to illustrate his point:

Let us suppose that a person at a birthday party wears a bow tie that the host likes. He says, "You don't need to stare at it. I will return next year wearing the same outfit." The guest is not implying that he will wear the tie all year until the next party; nor were the angels implying that Christ's body was a permanent, unalterable addition to his natural existence. [1]

However, it is safe to assume this person kept his physical body during the twelve-month period. Holding is reading into the text while failing to acknowledge that he is merely begging the question. The problem with this analogy is that neither Christ nor his angels refer to his body, as a temporary “outfit” that is to be removed like clothing. According to the New Testament, the body will be resurrected not only the spirit. Bodies become glorified but never transformed from corporeal to incorporeal. To this Holding responds,

Nor would they need to, if the Jewish contextual understanding was that such bodies would be temporary. This is again where Graham falls for a Western, low-context understanding.

If Holding’s statement had a firm basis one would have expected him to back it up by now. But with all his talk about “high-context,” in reality he just expects us to take his word for it. As far as the Jewish understanding, Holding doesn't even seem to realize how this thwarts his argument. He admitted earlier that according to, “the Jewish view, ‘I’ is a body, and a spirit, together in one essential identity.” So now he says the Jews would have understood a division. Holding's statement about temporary bodies also flies in the face of Job 19:26. There Job declares, “Though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” As Schwarzchild explains, “We require the doctrine of resurrection, therewith to assert what is nowadays called the psychosomatic unity, or the embodied soul, of the human individual and the infinite ethical tasks incumbent upon him or her.” [2] In other words, they couldn't fathom one existing without the other. So the theory of a disposable or “temporary” body is dragged out from left field to fill in this huge hole in his argument. The Semitic Totality concept undermines his argument. In his haste, Holding offers what can only appear to be double-talk, all the while accusing us of reading like “Westerners,” which, presumably, is a temptation only he and a few really smart Evangelicals can resist. He maintains that our view,

...is not "logical" but is an anachronistic, "plain English" reading of the text with its source in Joseph Smith, a Westerner and a literalist.

Nothing by way of Jewish evidence is presented in his book to support this argument. Nothing. This is why he had to come up with a “western-minded/plain English” analogy to illustrate his logic. When that logic is turned on him he decides to appeal to some elusive Jewish evidence that he claims to have presented us in his book. We must keep in mind that Holding is working off the false premise that says Judaism always understood theophanies to be temporary manifestations which had nothing to do with the deity’s nature. But this review has already put that question begging to rest. Likewise, he works off the quasi-orthodox premise of his version of the Trinity which insists God is three persons in one being. Holding begins with trinitarianism of the later centuries and reads backwards into the text, foisting a later theology upon the Ancient Jews. Our anachronism specialist now has one of his own making.

As far as his comment about Joseph Smith being the source of this belief, this is indubitably absurd. For what influence did Joseph Smith have on the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Last year I was discussing this issue with CRI contributor, and up and coming Evangelical author Richard Abanes. He nearly had a conniption fit when I explained Holding’s argument to him. He then reassured me that the “Christian position” is that Jesus Christ retains his body throughout eternity. [3] I investigated this matter further by emailing several Christian websites, and in fact they all confirmed what Mr. Abanes asserted. The Incarnation of Christ is in fact an eternal concept.

What Holding argues is nothing short of heresy, for Christ is conceptualized as fully divine and fully human simultaneously. His resurrected body is something He retains all throughout eternity. Now Holding wants to redefine Christian doctrine, and it appears he doesn’t expect anyone to notice. Ultimately, what this all means is that Holding is not setting up a Mormon vs. Christian view as his book suggests. Holding might have a tougher time arguing his point within his own Evangelical circle, and in fact he might consider cleaning up his own house before proposing to “correct” alleged misinterpretations by Latter-day Saints. Given the overall data, there is every reason to believe Christ retains his physical body, and practically zero evidence to support Holding's position of an incorporeal Christ. But Holdng isn't interested with dealing with burdens of proof. From his perspective, it is always his opponents who have that burden.

---

[1] Holding, 23.
[2] Menachem Kellner, The Pursuit of the Ideal: Jewish Writings of Steven Schwartzchild, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990). Pp. 209-228.
[3] It disturbed him so much that he refused to believe this was Holding’s exegesis, until I provide a citation from his book.

Did Ephrem the Syrian teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Catholic scholar and priest, Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, wrote the following on the Immaculate Conception:

The first apparently explicit testimony is in the Nisibene hymns of St Ephraem, a fourth century Syrian writer: “Certainly you are alone and your other are from every aspect completely beautiful, for there is no blemish in you, my Lord, ad no stain in your mother.” But there are other texts in the same author’s writings which, to put it mildly, call for subtle interpretation to maintain the doctrine—he spoke for example of Mary’s baptism.

The opinion of St Ambrose is also controverted; he did first establish the complete personal sinlessness of Mary. St Augustine held this latter doctrine; his opinion, on the Immaculate Conception is endlessly debated. His much quoted text “except the holy Virgin Mary, about whom, for the hour of the Lord, I want there to be no question” is offset by some enigmatic words which he used to counter the taunt of Julian of Eclanum, a Pelagian who said to him “you deliver Mary herself to the devil through the condition of her birth.” Unfortunately, in another way, Augustine’s negative influence on the development of the doctrine was for centuries decisive. He thought that original sin was transmitted by conjugal intercourse through inherent concupiscence. Christ was immune because he was conceived virginally—the conclusion was drawn that Mary was not. (Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, “The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of our Lady in Today’s Thinking” in Mary in the Church [ed. John Hyland; Dublin: Veritas, 1989], 44-56, here, p. 45)

Catholic Mariologist, Luigi Gambero, wrote the following on Ephrem the Syrian:

Ephrem’s insistence on Mary’s spiritual beauty and holiness, and her freedom from any stain of sin, has led some scholars to hold that he was aware of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception and to point to him as a witness to the dogma. Yet it does not appear that our author was familiar with the problem, at least not in the terms in which it was made clear by later tradition and the dogmatic declaration of 1854. In one passage he even used the term “baptized” to indicate her Son’s saving intervention in her regard:

Handmaid and daughter

of blood and water [am I] whom You redeemed and baptized. (Hymns on the Nativity 16, 10) (Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 110)

For more on the lack of evidence for the Immaculate Conception among the patristic-era writers, see my article:

Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception

On Luke 1:28, which is the most popular "proof-text" Catholic apologists appeal to from the Bible to support this dogma, see:

Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη: Evidence for the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

When one examines both the Bible and early Chrisitan writings, there is no meaningful evidence supporting Rome's claim that the Immaculate Conception is an apostolic tradition.

Is the Resurrection Limited to the "Responsible"?

In some small circles within the broad Christian spectrum, there is a belief that some, not all, will be resurrected and raised to judgment, something called the doctrine of "Resurrectional Responsibility." In such a view, only those who knew about the Gospel and either accepted it or rejected it in this lifetime will be raised to judgment by God, with the rest of humanity remaining in the grave. The largest group that holds to such a view would be the Christadelphians, a group that I have discussed before on this blog, mainly on the issues of Christology and Satan/Demons.

To read John Thomas's defense of this doctrine, see his work Anastasis. To see attempted defenses thereof, the Wrested Scriptures Website (based on the book of the same name by Ron Abel) has a section on the topic of Resurrection.

There are, of course, an overwhelming body of biblical evidence refuting the concept that only the "responsible" will be resurrected (see my post defending universal resurrection). Raymond Flaircloth, a "biblical Unitarian" has a very good paper refuting the view that only the responsible will be resurrected:

Is the Resurrection to be Only of the "Responsible"?

He also has another good article refuting the Christadelphian view of "mortal emergence" (i.e., that the righteous dead will be initially raised mortal, not immortal):

The Faithful Dead Will Be Raised Immortal

Balaam's Donkey, but not Balaam himself, seeing the Angel of the Lord in Numbers 22

God's anger was kindled because he was going, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his adversary. Now he was riding the donkey, and his two servants were with him, The donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the donkey turned off the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the donkey, to turn it back onto the road . . . The angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me." (Num 22:22-23, 32 NRSV)

In this incident, the angel of the Lord appears, but is not seen by Balaam but his donkey. Arguing like a certain anti-Mormon who finds it difficult to believe that Joseph Smith’s brothers could remain asleep while the angel Moroni appeared to Joseph in their shared room, one could (being consistent, something this critic prides himself on not being) argue that this makes the above incident impossible—I mean, how could a glorious angel not be seen by Balaam but by a mere ass?

Further, as discussed in this post, an incident, as recorded in 2 Kgs 6 where an entire angel of angelic beings remains invisible to a large group of people is recorded and affirmed by the biblical authors.

It is funny that the Bible, taken to be the sole, formally sufficient rule of faith (á la sola scriptura) by Evangelicals, serves as a great witness to the deceptive and inconsistent arguments Evangelicals utilise against the LDS Church.

HALOT and BDB on חשׁב

About a year ago, I wrote up a series on the meaning of λογιζομαι and its usages in Greek texts contemporary with the NewTestament, showing that the common Reformed Protestant understanding of this verb to be fatally flawed. The same, of course, applies to its Hebrew equivalent חשׁב. The following are the entries from HALOT and BDB on this verb in Hebrew:

Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

3295  חשׁב

חשׁב: MHb. Ph.; BArm. Nab. Palm. )DISO 97( JArm. CPArm. Syr. Mnd. )MdD 154a(; Arb. Eth. Tigr. Wb. 73a hÌas(a)ba, to think, reckon, Eg. hÌsÃb to reckon; orig. meaning to weave (Goldmann ABR 1:135ff; Driver WdO 2:255ff).

qal: pf. חָשַׁב, חָשַׁבְתָּה, חָשָֽׁבוּ, חֲשָׁבָהּ, חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ, impf. יַחְשֹׁב, יַחֲשָׁב־, יַחְשְׁבוּ/שֹֽׁבוּ, יַחְשֹׁבוּן, וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ, יַחְשְׁבֵנִי, תַּחְשְׁבֻנִי 3. fem. pl. )BL 337m(, inf. ) לַחְשֹׁבBL 348h(, pt. חֹ(וֹ)שֵׁב:

—1. to weave )ï חֹשֵׁב(;

—2. to respect, hold in high regard Is 13₁₇ 33₈ 53₃ Mal 3₁₆;

—3. to take somebody to be something, assume: a( with acc. and לְ Gn 38₁₅ 1S 1₁₃ Jb 13₂₄ 19₁₅ 33₁₀ 35₂ 41₁₉.₂₄ )one takes, alt. (יֵחָשֵׁב; b( with two acc. Is 53₄, cj. Ps 119₁₁₉ )rd. חָשַׁבְתָּ, alt. pi.(; c( with acc. and כְּ to regard as Jb 19₁₁;

—4. to impute, reckon to: aעָוֹן לְ ( ח׳ as guilt )vRad TLZ 1951:129ff( 2S 19₂₀ Ps 32₂, Ezr 9₁₃ var. )ï חשׂך 3(; bלְטוֹבָה ( ח׳ for good Gn 50_20b, צְדָקָה as righteousness 15₆ )Heidland Anrechnung(;

—5. to plan a( with עַל against Gn 50_20a 2S 14₁₃ Jr 48₂ Mi 2₃ Nah 1₁₁; b(with לְ for Ps 41₈; cאִישׁ ( רָעַת ח׳ misfortune of somebody Zech 7₁₀ 8₁₇ Ps 35₄, רָעוֹת Ps 140₃; dמַחֲשָׁבוֹת ( 2S 14₁₄ )rd. (חֹשֵׁב Jr 11₁₉ 18₁₈ 29₁₁ 49₂₀ 50₄₅ Zech 8₁₇ Da 11₂₅, מַחֲשָׁבָה עַל Jr 18₁₁ 49₃₀ Est 8₃ 9₂₅, רָעָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת Ezk 38₁₀; eאָוֶן ( ח׳ Ezk 11₂ Mi 2₁ Ps 36₅, 1QIs^a 32₆ Sept. Len. Tg. יַחֲשֹׁב) :: MT (יַעֲשֶׂה; הַוּוֹת Ps 52₄, מְְזִמּוֹת 10₂ 21₁₂ דִּבְרֵי מִרְמוֹת 35₂₀, תַַּהְפֻּכוֹת Pr 16₃₀;

—6( with לְ with inf. to intend, to have in mind 1S 18₂₅ Jr 18₈ 23₂₇ 26₃ 36₃ Ps 140₅ Jb 6₂₆ Lam 2₈ Est 9₂₄ Neh 6₂.₆; abs. Is 10₇;

—7. to devise, invent כְּלֵי שִׁיר Am 6₅ )ï כְּלִי(, מַחֲשָׁבוֹת artistic designs Ex 31₄ 35₃₂ 2C 2₁₃; חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת מַחֲשֶׁבֶת חוֹשֵׁב elaborately devised machines 2C 26₁₅;

—Ps 40₁₈ rd. ) חוּשָׁה־לִּי70₆(. †

nif: pf. נֶחְשַׁב, נֶחְשַׁבְתִּי, נֶחְשְׁבוּ/שָֽׁבוּ, impf. יֵחָשֵׁב, pt. נֶחְשָׁב:

—1. to be reckoned, be worth 1K 10₂₁ 2C 9₂₀, with לְ as Jos 13₃ Is 29₁₇ 32₁₅ Lam 4₂, with עַל to Lv 25₃₁ 2S 4₂, with עִם among Ps 88₅; with אֶת־ to be accounted for with 2K 22₇; with לוֹ is credited to him Lv 7₁₈ )|| רָצָה nif.( 17₄ Ps 106₃₁ )with לְ as(;

—2. to be regarded as, count Dt 2₁₁.₂₀ Pr 17₂₈ Neh 13₁₃, with לְ with, for Gn 31₁₅ Is 40₁₇ Pr 27₁₄, with בְּ for Is 2₂₂, with כְּ as Nu 18₂₇.₃₀ Is 5₂₈ 29₁₆ 40₁₅ Hos 8₁₂ Ps 44₂₃ Jb 18₃ 41₂₁. †

pi: pf. חִשַּׁב, חִשַּׁבְתִּי, impf. יְחַשֵּׁב, וַאֲחַשְּׁבָה; וַתְּחַשְּׁבֵהוּ, pt. מְחַשֵּׁב:

—1. to compute Lv 25₂₇.₅₀ 27₁₈.₂₃; with אֶת־ to settle accounts with 2K 12₁₆; with לְ to take into account for Lv 25₅₂;

—2. to think of Ps 77₆ 119₅₉, abs. 73₁₆; (God) pays attention to 144₃;

—3. to plan, devise Pr 16₉, רָע with אֶל Hos 7₁₅, with תְּהַפֻּכוֹת Pr 16₃₀, with לְ with inf. 24₈; עַל מַחֲשָׁבוֹת against Da 11₂₄ Nah 1₉ )cj. (תְּשַׁבְּחוּן;

—4. with inf. nif. to be about to Jon 1₄ )ï בקּשׁ 5c; Tg. בעה, ï Da 2₁₃(. †

hitp: impf. יִתְחַשָּֽׁב: to reckon oneself among with בְּ Nu 23₉ )passive 1 QS iii:1, 4(. †

Der. חֹשֵׁב, I חֶשְׁבּוֹן, *חִשָּׁבוֹן, מַחֲשָׁבָה; n.m. חֲשֻׁבָה, חַשּׁוּב, חֲשַׁבְיָה(וּ) and חֲשַׁבְנְיָה; n.loc. II חֶשְׁבּוֹן )?(. 

Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB)

3535  ] חָשַׁב3536) [Hebrew) (page 362) (Strong 2803(

 † חָשַׁב vb. think, account )NH id.; Aram. חֲשַׁב, hÍšab; Ar. hÍasaba; Eth. hÍasab: id.; Ph. n. חשב mng. dub. v. CIS:i. 86(—Qal Pf. ח׳ Is 33:8 + 9 t.; חָשַׁבְתָּה 2 S 14:13 etc.; Impf. יַחְשֹׁב Is 10:7 + 4 t.; יַחֲשָׁב־ 2 S 19:20, Psalm 40:18; sf. יַחְשְׁבֵנִי Jb 19:11, 33:10; pl. יַחְשְׁבוּ Psalm 41:8, Dn 11:25; יַחְשֹׁ֑בוּ Is 13:17 ; יַחֲשֹׁבוּן Psalm 35:20; נַחְשְׁבָה Je 18:18, etc. + 9 t. Impf.; Inf. cstr. לַחְשֹׁב Ex 31:4 + 3 t.; Pt. חשֵׁב Ex 26:1 + 15 t., חוֹשֵׁב 2 Ch 26:15; חשְׁבִים Ne 6:2 + 3 t., חשְׁבֵי Mi 2:1 + 3 t.;—I. of man: 1. think, account לבבו לא כן יחשׁב Is 10:7 not so thinketh his mind; חשׁבי שׁמוֹ Mal 3:16 those thinking of his name; sq. 2 acc. חשׁבנהו נגוע Is 53:4 we thought him stricken; elsewhere c. acc. + לְ Gn 38:15 (J), 1 S 1:13, Jb 19:15, 35:2, 41:24; so, fig., of crocodile Jb 41:19 he reckoneth iron as straw. 2. devise, plan, mean, c. acc. מַחֲשֶׁבֶת רָעָה Ez 38:10, רעה Psalm 35:4, 140:3, Zc 7:10, 8:17, תַּהְפֻּכ֑וֹת Pr 16:30, מְזִמּוֹת Psalm 10:2, 21:12, דִּבְרֵי מִרְמוֹת Psalm 35:20, אָוֶן Mi 2:1, Ez 11:2, Psalm 36:5, הַוּוֹת Psalm 52:4; ח׳ רע(ה) על devise evil against Gn 50:20 )E(, Je 48:2, Na 1:11, ח׳ רעה לְ Psalm 41:8, ח׳ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת על Je 11:19, 18:18, 49:30, Dn 11:25, Est 8:3, 9:25, ח׳ כזאת על 2 S 14:13; c. inf. 1 S 18:25, Je 18:8, 23:27, Jb 6:26, Ne 6:2, 6:6, Est 9:24, Psalm 140:5; c. לבלתי + Impf. 2 S 14:14 )where, however, Ew rds. חוֹבֵ for וחשׁב cf. We Dr; in this case לבלתי carries on (לאֹ יִשָּׂא. 3. charge, impute ח׳ עון ל׳, 2 S 19:20 impute iniquity to. 4. esteem, value, regard, silver Is 13:17, a man Is 33:8, the servant of י׳ Is 53:3. 5. invent ingenious and artistic things, ח׳ להם כלי שׁיר Am 6:5 invent for themselves instruments of music; ח׳ (כל) מחשׁבת invent cunning work )of artistic devices in constr. of tabern.( Ex 31:4, 35:32, 35:35 )all P(, so 2 Ch 2:13; מַעֲשֵׂה חשֵׁב work of the cunning )ingenious, inventive( workman (of artistic devices in weaving; see esp. VB and Di) Ex 26:1, 26:31, 28:6, 28:15, 36:8, 36:35, 39:3, 39:8 )all P(; מַחֲשֶׁבֶת חוֹשֵׁב 2 Ch 26:15 inventions of inventive men )of engines of war(; חָרָשׁ וְחשֵׁב craftsman and inventive workman (in constr. of tabern., vid. supr.) Ex 35:35, 38:23 (P). II. of God: 1. think, c. acc. pers + לְ indirect obj. account one לאויב, for an enemy Jb 13:24, 33:10; ח׳ לוֹ כצריו Jb 19:11 he accounted me unto him as his adversaries. 2. devise, plan, mean, c. acc. + ל indirect obj. לטבה for good Gn 50:20 )E(; c. ל pers. לִי devise for me Psalm 40:18; acc. rei + עַל, devise something against a person Mi 2:3, Je 18:11; towards one Je 29:11, c. אל against Je 49:20, 50:45; sq. inf. Je 26:3, 36:3, La 2:8. 3. impute, reckon, c. acc. rei + ל pers., the habit of believing in י׳ he reckoned to Abram as righteousness Gn 15:6 )JE; cf. Niph. 3(; not impute iniquity to one Psalm 32:2. Niph. Pf. נֶחְשַׁב Nu 18:27, 18:30, נֶחְשַׁבְתִּי Psalm 88:5 etc. + 10 t. Pf.; Impf. יֵחָשֵׁב Lv 7:18 + 7 t., etc., + 6 t. Impf.; Pt. נֶחְשָׁב Is 2:22, 1 K 10:21, 2 Ch 9:20:—1. be accounted, thought, esteemed, c. כְּ as Ho 8:12, Is 5:28, 29:16, 40:15, Psalm 44:23, Jb 18:3, 41:21; c. לְ Is 29:17 = 32:15 , La 4:2; עִם with, among Psalm 88:5, בַּמֶּה Is 2:22 at what )value( ? )v. prob. interpol.; om. LXX(; c. acc. Dt 2:11, 2:20, Pr 17:28, Ne 13:13; נֶחְשַׁבְנוּ לוֹ נָכְרִיּוֹת Gn 31:13 )E; LXX Sam (כְּנֶח׳ Is 40:17. 2. be computed, reckoned, c. לְ Jos 13:3 )D(, עַל Lv 25:31 )P(, 2 S 4:2: abs. כסף was not counted )so plentiful was it( 1 K 10:21 = 2 Ch 9:20, 2 K 22:7. 3. be imputed to any one, c. לְ Lv 7:18, Nu 18:27, 18:30 )all P(, Lv 17:4 )H( Pr 27:14; the interposition of Phinehas נח׳ לוֹ לצדקה Psalm 106:31 was imputed to him for righteousness )cf. Qal II 3(. Pi. Pf. 3 ms. חִשַּׁב Lv 25:27 + 4 t.; f. חִשְּׁבָה Jon 1:4; 1 s. חִשַּׁבְתִּי Psalm 77:6, 119:59; Impf. יְחַשֵּׁב Pr 16:9, Dn 11:24, תְּחַשְּׁבוּן Na 1:9, etc., + 4 t. Impf.; Pt. מְחַשֵּׁב Pr 24:8:—1. think upon, consider, be mindful of, c. acc. Psalm 77:6, 119:59, (מה) בֶּן־אֱנוֹשׁ וַתְּחַשְּׁבֵהוּ Psalm 144:3 what )is( man's son, and thou thinkest upon him )||(תֵּדָעֵהוּ. 2. think to do, devise, plan, c. acc. Pr 16:9, אֶל of persons against whom Ho 7:15, Na 1:9, עַל Dn 11:24; c. inf. Psalm 73:16, Pr 24:8; so of inanim. object הָאֳנִיָּה חִשְּׁבָה לְהִשָּׁבֵר Jon 1:4 the ship was about to (minded to) be broken up. 3. count, reckon, the years since a sale of land Lv 25:27 (H); c. לְ pers. Lv 25:52 )H(, 27:18, 27:23 )P(; c. עִם Lv 25:50 )P(; c. אֶת 2 K 12:16. Hithp. Impf. לאֹ יִתְחַשָּׁ֑ב בַּגּוֹיִם Nu 23:9 )JE( among the nations it shall not reckon itself.