Covenants Part II: What Does Lot's Wife Teach us About the “Big Picture” of Scripture?
Published by Stephen Michael Leininger in Stephen Michael Leininger · Tuesday 03 Sep 2019 · 27 minutes
Tags: lot's, salt, pillar, covenant, Sodom
Tags: lot's, salt, pillar, covenant, Sodom
Covenants Part II: Lot’s Wife Who Became a Pillar of Salt
What Does Lot’s Wife Tell Us about the Meaning of Covenants?
By Stephen Michael Leininger
Published: 09/23/2019
Updated: 08/29/2026
STOSS Books
Lot’s Wife Became a Pillar of Salt. What is the Literal Meaning?
To begin with, it would be cumbersome to continually refer to Lot’s wife as: “Lot’s wife.” So, let’s make it a little more personal. According to the Hebrew Midrash, the name of Lot’s wife was either Ado[1] or Idit (or Edith).[2] We will refer to her as Idit in this blog. It is important to understand the difference between literal and literalistic when interpreting Scripture. Following the link will detail the distinction between the two.
What this blog will show is that one who interprets Genesis 19: 24-26 such that Idit became a geological pillar of salt (her substance changed) are using a literalistic interpretation. Rather, the Holy Spirit inspires the human authors to use the languages of myth and phenomenology. Bernard Batto describes myth as language used to express realities that transcend human understanding yet are profoundly true nonetheless.[2B] The language of myth conveys a paradigmatic shift in human knowledge.[2C] A linguistic tool often used to communicate such paradigms is paradigmatic substitution.[2D] The term “Big Bang” is a modern-day application of that concept. It reflects the mythic formulation used in ancient Hebrew Scripture.[2E]
John Lennox writes:
Suppose, for instance, that God had intended to explain the origin of the universe and life to us in detailed scientific language. . . . If the biblical explanation were at the level, say, of twenty–second–century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone. . . . Rather than scientific language, the Bible often uses what is called phenomenological language—the language of appearance. It describes what anyone can see.[3]
In all of my writings related to the Theology of Salt (TOS), the hermeneutics of The Science & Theology of Salt in Scripture (aka STOSS) are used to gain a deeper understanding of the biological sciences hidden in Scripture. As a result of that exegetical tool, a compelling case can be made that the words dust, salt, and stone in Scripture are direct (and intentional, on God’s part) references to man’s DNA.
In the Bible, dust, stone, rock, salt, and sea all refer to man’s DNA. While all these terms refer to the same biological material, each possesses a particular connotation. That the Bible contains the direct links to the salt and dust of DNA can be found here.
Using the hermeneutical principles of STOSS, let’s endeavor to correctly understand the meaning of Genesis 19. Scripture tells us, “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomor′rah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. But Lot’s wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt” (Gen 19: 24-26). I’m convinced God did not turn Idit into a new substance, i.e., geological salt.
Scripture was not using the word “became” as a description of a change in her substance, but to denote a change in the state/condition of her substance. The word used for “became” in Genesis 19:26 is hyh or hāyâ. It means to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass. None of them refer to the annihilation of one nature to then be replaced by another nature—in the same being. Hyh could be a description of a change in appearance, e.g., to decay. Becoming encased in molten sulfur would count as the initiation of decay.
What is the context of the words “she became” as it is used in other passages? In Gen 24:67, she (Rebecca) became Isaac’s wife. In Ruth 4:13, she (Ruth) became Bo′az’s wife. In 1 Kgs 1:14, she (Ab′ishag) became the Kings nurse. In neither case was their essence destroyed.
Option A): Idit was encased by raining brimstone (sulfur liquefied by extreme heat), causing her to become a pillar of the salt of DNA, and her DNA was the only salt present;Option B): Idit was miraculously transformed into a non-organic salt, replacing her salt/dust of DNA. I don’t view this as likely, and it can be proven through Aquinas’ discussion on annihilation;Option C): A chemical reaction occurred within the falling sulfur, causing it to become a salt. Sulfur could, for example, become a sulfide salt through a change in the number of electrons in the ion. This option is not likely considering that which is written in Deut 29:22-23. These passages specifically separate the presence of the chemical salt from the elemental brimstone in its description of a burnt-out wasteland (i.e., Sodom and Gomorrah, among others); and finally,Option D): Idit was likely encased by molten sulfur and then dusted with geological salt from the turbulent environment surrounding the Dead/Salt Sea. The environmental salt was used by the Holy Spirit as a phenomenological sign pointing to the biological truth to which it points, i.e., the salt pillar is the sodium salt of DNA of her lifeless body. Thus, both chemical and biological organic salt could have been present. One as a sign, the other as the biological/scientific truth.
If we ignore Option B, the remaining three options leave us with a critical question in need of an answer. All three of the remaining options involve scenarios involving multiple primordial materials. In Option A: sulfur and the sodium salt of DNA. In Option C: sulfur that had possibly become a sulfide, together with the sodium salt of DNA. In Option D: the salt of DNA, sulfur, and geological salt.
Ben McFarland explains a chemical acid. He writes:
This is why both DNA and RNA end with “A” for “acid,” because a negatively charged phosphate is an acid. An acid is something that has shed a positively charged hydrogen [possessing a single proton nucleus] in water, leaving a negative charge behind. Phosphate may be the only way for nature to make abundant charged chains in water.[3A]
Put another way, DNA is called a salt because its phosphate backbone (PO3-) is acidic and carries a net negative charge. Those negative phosphate groups must be balanced by positively charged ions—commonly sodium (Na+), potassium (K+), or magnesium (Mg2+) so isolated DNA is typically present as an ionic compound such as the sodium, potassium, or magnesium salt of DNA.[3B] However, relative to the DNA conformation, the only viable candidates were magnesium (Mg2+) and sodium (Na+).
According to Watson, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin, insisted it is the sodium ion that bonds to the Phosphate group that is essential for the DNA polymer to take on the proper double helix conformation. Without this conformation, DNA molecule as a whole would fail to function.[3C] Furthermore, if encasement were involved, any water present in her body would have evaporated or vacated the cell, leaving her DNA, in its purely primordial form, no longer an acid. It would remain a salt, but not a sodium salt of DNA.[3D]
The above establishes a phenomenological link between Idit’s becoming a pillar of salt on the one hand and her corporeal biological, not geological, body being that pillar on the other.
So, the question is this: if multiple materials were involved in the options discussed above, why did God only mention salt as a description of Idit’s state of existence immediately after her demise? Why focus on salt? I believe God intended to use Idit’s salt of DNA as a map legend. Whenever salt is used in Scripture relative to man’s body, we would know to interpret it as a direct or indirect reference to the salt of DNA.
Any option involving encasement should not be classified as a pillar of salt. Were the bodies encased during the eruption of Pompeii no longer human? Was their substance changed to lava. In both events, it would be a violation of the tenets of Philosophy. For example, if I want to construct a pillar, I would need to use a substance capable of meeting the philosophical requirements of a substantial pillar. A pillar is “an upright shaft or structure, of stone, brick, or other material, relatively slender in proportion to its height, and of any shape in section, used as a building support, or standing alone, as for a monument.”[4]
Genesis informs us of what the pillar is made, i.e., salt. Something that coats a substance would be a philosophical accident—not the pillar'’s substance. Both 1) the molten sulfur (molten sulfur is not a salt; it is liquid elemental sulfur, usually consisting mainly of S8 rings at lower melt temperatures) and 2) the primordial dust stirred up by the event’s violence surrounding the shores of the Salt/Dead Sea are accidents of the pillar—not it’s substatial form. The primordial elements likely comprising said coating would be MgCl2, KCl, NaCl, CaCl2, and minor bromide/sulfate salts[4B] would justify a phenomenological language hermeneutic of Genesis 19:24-26.
Of the four options, I believe Option D is not just the most probable but also the only one possible, given the precise scientific and phenomenological wording used in Scripture. Historically speaking, the science of DNA and the knowledge that man’s substance includes a body made of organic salt didn’t become available until recently. Thus the necessity for phenomenological language until the science caught up to the literal meaning of Scripture.
Is there enough salt in man to justifiably classify each of them as living pillars of salt? In every one of our cells, we have a complete copy of our salt/dust of DNA. We have trillions upon trillions of cells in our body. I have seen estimates of between 10 and 100 trillion cells in the adult human body. We have so much salt of DNA in our body that we could place every strand end-to-end, and it would extend 10 billion miles; enough to go to the planet Pluto and back.[5] If every molecule of DNA were uncoiled and placed end-to-end, twenty round trips could be made to and from the sun.[5A] Yeah, I would say that every one of us are all pillars of salt.
Idit: A Negative “type” of Jesus
Uniquely, Idit became part of a scriptural map legend, identifying the meaning of fallen salt in Scripture and the consequences of breaking a covenant of salt. No material described in Genesis 19:24-26 can be classified as an organic salt—except Idit.
Idit is also a confirmation of the existence of covenants of salt. Her disobedience was in direct relationship to the destruction of Sodom as a result of their inherently fruitless sexual behavior. An intact covenant of salt with God requires openness to children, as per Genesis 1:28. In fact, God commands all organic life created on the 5th and 6th days to reproduce, thus reproducing the perfection of their creation to succeeding generations. No record exists of God’s revocation of that command. Man sins because only man is capable of entering into a covenantal one-flesh nuptial union between a man and a woman.
Furthermore, her sin demonstrates that all sins affect our neighbors and our children. Like pebbles dropped into water, the sins of Sodom spread to the other four cities of the plains. Thus, God destroyed them all. According to St. Catherine of Siena:Keep in mind that each of you has your own vineyard [which itself must be fruitful ]. But every one is joined to your neighbors’ vineyards without any dividing lines. They are so joined together, in fact, that you cannot do good or evil for yourself without doing the same for your neighbors.[5B]
Idit is another example of Paul’s use of a linguistic tool known as parallelism-with-contrast (e.g., 1 Cor 15:45, 47). In Genesis, Jacob came to a certain place, put a stone under his head, and dreamt of angels ascending and descending a ladder. Upon awakening, Jacob “took the stone which he had put under his head and set it up for a “pillar” and poured oil [Jesus was anointed] on the top. He called the place—the pillar—Bethel [House of God]” (Gen 28:10–22).[5C] The pillar was a symbol of Jesus’ body.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a Hebrew word meaning house of bread. Jesus was laid in a manger, which was used as a feeding trough. What did Melchiz′edek, king of Salem, bring as a blessing to Abram after his victory? It was bread and wine because “he was priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:17-18).
John tells us that when Jesus said he would rebuild the stone temple in three days, he was explicitly referring to his dust-to-stone, resurrected, glorified, but no longer mortal, body (Jn 2:19-21), which was prophesied by Ezekiel (Ez 47:1-12). Idit became a pillar of disobedience salt. In contrast, Jesus, who is perfectly obedient to the Father’s will, became a pillar of obedient salt/stone.
What Does a Covenant of Salt Mean?
Scripture makes reference to covenants of salt (aka, salt covenants). What, if any, is the difference between a “covenant” and a “covenant of salt”? Nowhere in Scripture can a passage be found in which God is cited as establishing a covenant with man that is specifically referred to as a salt covenant. Yet, we know that salt covenants exist. There are three passages that refer to them (2 Chron 13:4-5, Lev 2:12-14, Num 18:18-20). Furthermore, there is also no specific text in Scripture directly defining a covenant of salt.
Due to their eternal nature (among other reasons, as well), all covenants are also salt covenants.[6] In Scripture we read, “Do you not know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt” (2 Chron 13:5)? This generational handing down of kingship occurred through a covenant of salt. In other words, this kingship involved the salt of DNA. All multi-generational covenants involve, by definition, the salt of DNA. Who was the final recipient of this salt covenant? Jesus, whose body (salt / dust / stone of DNA) is the rebuilt/resurrected temple (Jn 2:19-21) whose ancestors were Adam and Eve.
In Genesis we read, “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:11); and, “So shall my covenant be in your flesh [salt of DNA] an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:13). In other words, circumcision was only a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his people, but it was not, itself, the covenant. The covenant was ‘in the flesh,’ i.e. a covenant of salt. In the Old Covenant, purification of the heart was affected from the outside of the person, penetrating inward to the heart[7] (cf. Rom 7:23-24). In the New Covenant, purification/sanctification occurs from the inside of the person (the inner heart, i.e., the spirit of the spiritual soul),[8] while simultaneously affecting the outside (the flesh). In the NC, this inner sanctification is accomplished solely through the union of our salt together with the salt of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ (see Nuptial Union).
In all of God’s promises to man, the fulfillment of the promise is conditioned on man fulfilling his end of the bargain, so to speak. This is what constitutes the ‘salt’ component of a covenant with God. In Old Covenant days, in addition to keeping God’s Laws and Commandments, all Israelites were expected to make themselves an offering to God.[9] What are we? We are salt and light (Mt 5:13-16). We are also told that all of Israel’s offerings had to be salted.[10] It is written in Leviticus 2:13, “you shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be lacking.” God’s part of any covenant could never be lacking. Only man is salt. God is never identified or characterized as salt. The Trinity is not a Covenant of Salt. Only man’s part of the covenantal ‘deal’ can be lacking. It is only man’s salt (as referred to in Lev 2:13) that can be lacking from a sacrificial offering to God.
How does man express the overflow of his inner heart? It is through the mouth, i.e., his body. The mouth is that through which any expression is sent out. Of what is man’s body composed? Salt/dust. All prescribed offerings to God by the Israelites had to be salted. That which was being offered (e.g., meat, cereal, and non-water drink) was a type of the suffering of the incarnate Jesus (the anti-type of the offering), who would make of himself a perfect offering to God the Father. All offerings to God had to be both unblemished, and also first fruits.
Only the incarnate Son of God could ever be described as being without blemish (Mary was without blemish, but only through the offering her Son would make). Therefore, the salt that had to be added to the salt of the offerings prescribed in Scripture is our salt (of DNA). Our sufferings/offerings are ‘acceptable and pleasing’ (cf. Mal 1:10-11, Is 64:6, 1 Pt 2:4-5) to the Father only when we unite them with the Son’s infinite and eternally perfect offering on the wood of the cross. This is exactly what occurs at each and every Mass.
Through the Eucharist, we are made present at the crucifixion. We are united to Jesus on the cross—uniting our imperfect offerings (but made perfect and pleasing by our union with Jesus) to our Father.[11][12] This is what the wood of the cross represents—us. The salt of DNA of the wood represents our salt of DNA to which we are nailed together (joined together) with Jesus through the salt of his body, blood, and soul, hypostatically united to his Divinity in the Eucharist. We are the wood upon which Jesus is nailed (united). I will talk in more detail about this in Part IV.
Scripture is not silent about a direct link between organic substances (e.g., humans, food, juice, etc.) and the word ‘salt’. Let’s take a look at some very interesting wording that Luke used. During the resurrected Jesus’ appearance to the Apostles, Luke writes, “And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem.” (Acts 1:4: Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). Pope Benedict XVI places great significance on the wording that Luke chose to describe Jesus’ eating with them. According to Benedict, the word that Luke used is synalizômenos. Benedict tells us this wording was very important to Luke; that he must have deliberately and purposefully chosen to use it. The literal translation of the phrase in question is “eating salt [emphasis added] with them.”[13] Benedict believed that purpose was to form a direct link to the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, we form a sacred salt bond with Jesus. Like the Israelites, we are adding our salt to the unblemished offering of Jesus to our Father.
The New Covenant is a covenant of salt. The miracle at the wedding at Cana was an intentional foreshadowing of what would be the ultimate accomplishment of the covenant of salt (Jesus’ mission). Parts One, Two, and Three of the three-part blog titled “The Wedding Feast at Cana” makes the case for said understanding. Hmm. Isn’t the Sacrament of Matrimony a covenant of salt also—you know, that whole one flesh thing? By the way, this marital one-flesh union is not, I repeat, not merely symbolic. More is explained in the Nuptial Union.
Interestingly, inside the Ark of the Covenant was:
1) Moses’ staff. Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD), who was a historian and eyewitness to much of the earliest events in Church history, earlier in Scripture described Moses/Aaron’s rod as growing new branches upon which were also growing almonds;[14]
2) the two stone tablets which were written by the finger of God, i.e., the Holy Spirit; and
3) a gold urn containing some of the manna from heaven (Heb 9:4).
In my opinion, the two stone tablets represent the salt of DNA (the dust of the earth) of our flesh upon which the Law is written (Gen 17:13). They also represent the unchangeable Truth of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God[15] (who took upon himself the heaviness of a mortal body). The manna represents the salt of DNA of Jesus in the Eucharist (described above as salt by Pope Benedict XVI) through whom we receive an increase of the purifying gifts of the Holy Spirit. In other words, all three items represent the coming of the newly rebuilt Temple (described in Ezekiel’s dream), which is the final and everlasting Covenant of Salt.
What Does Lot’s wife (pillar of salt) Tell us About the Big Picture?
Considering everything we have discussed so far, what does Lot’s wife becoming a pillar of salt tell us about covenants between God and man? While God made a covenant with Abraham, he didn’t give him a manual to describe what that means. Or did He? The events described in this multi-part blog, I believe, convey an integral part of that manual.
If it was God’s intention to save mankind, Idit (together with other components of the event next to the Dead/Salt Sea) was a sign of why it was necessary for Him to enter into a covenant of salt with man. Idit was a sign of the seriousness and gravity inherent in being, and remaining, in a covenant with God. This was a covenant made with fallen man—man who had not, as yet, been redeemed and was without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Living Water).
From a scientific standpoint, the role of water (I like to refer to it as bio-living water) within the cell is mind-boggling. According to Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, “We are able to begin to see water as really alive and moving.” He characterizes life as “water dancing [SML] to the tune of macromolecules.’[16] . . . a sort of quantum jazz which is both, always being improvised in response to its environment and is also coherent beyond our wildest imaginings. Our body is a liquid crystalline [liquid stone] organism that is, in fact, quantum coherent.”[17]
In other words, Scripture is telling us that Lot’s wife’s death was not only physical, it was also symbolic of the following fact: By disobedience to God’s covenant, man would lose forever the Living Water of the Holy Spirit. We were being shown the drastic consequences of disobeying God and breaking the covenant. Scripture tells us, “Evidence of their wickedness still remains: a continually smoking wasteland, plants bearing fruit that does not ripen, and a pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul” (Wis 10:7).
St. Clement of Rome writes:
On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture. (Genesis xix; cf. 2 Peter 2:6-9) For Lot’s wife, who went forth with him, being of a different mind from himself, and not continuing in agreement with him [as to the command which had been given them], was made an example of, so as to be a pillar of salt unto this day. This was done that all might know that those who are of a double mind, and who distrust the power of God, bring down judgment on themselves and become a sign to all succeeding generations.[18]
In the next part of this blog series, we will be discussing how the Dead Sea and Sodom and Gomorrah contribute to a deeper understanding of the meaning of covenants in Scripture. We will learn why the usage and connotation of salt in the Old Testament/Covenant is drastically different than in the New Testament/Covenant.
Part I of this blog series can be found here.
Part III can be found here.
Part IV can be found here.
To see a list of all blogs and articles with descriptions and links, go here.
ENDNOTES:
[1]. Book of Jasher, Chapter 19, #52, http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm, accessed 7/6/2019.
[2]. Kadari, Tamar, “Lot’s Wife: Midrash and Aggadah,” Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. February 27, 2009. Jewish Women’s Archive. (accessed July 12, 2019) https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lots-wife-midrash-and-aggadah.
[2B]. Bernard F. Batto, “Myth,” in The New Theological Dictionary, eds. Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 697–701, ISBN-13 978-0-87061-295-4.
[2C]. John Lennox provides a biological example of a paradigmatic shift when he writes, “[When Ernest] Rutherford discovered the nucleus of the atom he at once overthrew a dogma of classical physics and an immediate paradigm shift resulted. And DNA replaced protein as the basic genetic material virtually overnight” (Lennox, John C., Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? (London: Lion Books, 2021), Kindle Edition, p. 80, eISBN: 978 0 7459 8141 3).
[2D]. Ehsan Namaziandost, Sajad Shafiee, and Hosna Rasooyar, “Paradigmatic Relations and Syntagmatic Relations: Are They Useful in Learning Grammatical Structures?” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 5, no. 5, (November 2018): 22-23, 26-27.
[2E]. Bernard F. Batto, “Myth in the Hebrew Bible,” In the Oxford Bibliographies Online, 2023, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0125.xml.
[3]. John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 26.
[3A]. McFarland, A World From Dust, 12. Ben McFarland, A World From Dust: How the Periodic Table Shaped Life (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), Kindle Edition, p. 12; eISBN: 978–0–19–027503–7.
[3B]. Tan, Z. J., & Chen, S. J., “Nucleic acid helix stability: effects of salt concentration, cation valence and size, and chain length,” Biophysical journal 90, no. 4 (2006): 1175–1190, https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.070904.
[3C]. James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (New York, NY: Touchstone, 2001), p. 168, ISBN: 0-684-85279-9 ; cf. Perepelytsya, S., “Positively and Negatively Hydrated Counterions in Molecular Dynamics Simulations of DNA Double Helix,” Ukrainian Journal of Physics (2019), https://doi.org/10.15407/ujpe65.6.510 ; Várnai, P., and K. Zakrzewska, “DNA and its counterions: a molecular dynamics study,” Nucleic acids research 32, 14 (2004): 4269-80, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh765.
[3D] Watson wrote, “I realized that the phosphate groups in Linus’ model were not ionized, but that each group contained a bound hydrogen atom [from the water surrounding the DNA molecule] and so had no net charge. Pauling’s nucleic acid in a sense was not an acid at all” James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (New York, NY: Touchstone, 2001), p. 133, ISBN: 0-684-85279-9.
[4B]. Wikipedia contributors, “Dead Sea,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, accessed August 26, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_Sea&oldid=1368100043.
[5]. Weir, Kirsten, “20 Things You Didn’t Know About ... DNA,” Discover, June 13, 2011, https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-things-you-didn't-know-about-dna.
[5A]. Allison Piovesan, Maria Chiara Pelleri, Francesca Antonaros, Pierluigi Strippoli, Maria Caracausi, & Lorenzo Vitale, “On the length, weight and GC content of the human genome,” BMC research notes 12, no. 1 (2019): 106, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4137-z.
[5B]. Catherine of Sienna, The Dialogue, trans Suzanne Noffke, O.P (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980), p. 62, see also p. 33, ISBN: 0-8091-2233-2.
[5C]. John Hardon, “Bethlehem,” Modern Catholic Dictionary, (Bardstown: Eternal Life Publishing, 2008), 63.
[6]. Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky, written in an email to ‘heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org, “Children of Salt,” Covenant of Salt, http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0209/0209b.html.
[7]. Francois-Xavier Durrwell, Holy Spirit of God, trans. Sr. Benedict Davies (original English translation published by Geoffrey Chapman, a division of Cassell, Ltd., 1986; reprint by Cinncinati, OH: Servant Books, 2006), p.#, ISBN: 978-86716-785-6 (pbk).Francois-Xavier Durrwell, Holy Spirit of God, trans. Sr. Benedict Davies (original English translation published by Geoffrey Chapman, a division of Cassell, Ltd., 1986; reprint by Cinncinati, OH: Servant Books, 2006), p. 154, ISBN: 978-86716-785-6 (pbk).
[8]. Catechism of the Catholic Church, https://usccb.cld.bz/Catechism-of-the-Catholic-Church2/772/: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994, n. 1968.
[9]. Koniuchowsky, http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0209/0209b.html.
[11]. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Libreria Editrice Vaticana (Third Millennium Media L.L.C., The Faith Database L.L.C., 2008), nos. 5, 8, and 11.
[12]. Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), nos. 1323, 1353, 1364, 1366-1367, 1382.
[13]. Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection, English trans. By Vatican Secretariat of State (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), Kindle Edition, 270-271.
[14]. Flavius Josephus, Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, trans William Whiston (BN Publishing, 2010-10-07), Kindle Edition, Locations 3599-3600.
[15]. cf. Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), p. 191, 213, 333, 360, ISBN: 0-8091-3130-7 (pbk).
[16]. Gerald H. Pollack; Ivan L. Cameron; Denys N. Wheatley, Water and the Cell (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), viii.
[17]. Mae-Wan Ho, Zhou Yu-Ming, Julian Haffegee and others, “The Liquid Cyrstalline Organism and Biological Water,” Water and the Cell, eds. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 220-221.
[18]. Translated by John Keith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm.
