Torah Times Messianic Ministry

Part I: The Explanations of Gen. 15:6 and Psalm 106:31

Four explanations of Genesis 15:6 are here presented, not because we have to choose only one of them, but because they are all true, and because this verse has enough flexibility in Hebrew that it may be used to explain the entire Good News of Messiah: the message of our deliverance from sin, and the means by which we inherit everlasting life. In addition to these four explanations, there are the heretical explanations of mainstream Christianity and the heretical explanations of Judaism. In this summation, I have not included these erroneous explanations in order to focus solely on the truth relevant to the Torah-observant faithful in Messiah Yeshua. The apologetical response in view of other explanations will be given in Parts II and III, as well as a discussion of the literary nature of some Scriptures, by which a text may have more than one sense.

Genesis 15:6 contains two sentences, which I identify as 15:6a (And he had been holding faithful in Yahweh), and 15:6b (And he considered it for him: righteousness). We may map out the explanations as those that are evident from Genesis 15:6a and 15:6b and those in which Genesis 15:6b is later explained in terms of a Messianic explanation of Psalm 106:31. In fact, in Paul's usage, 15:6b may be considered a quotation of Psalm 106:31. The connection was made in ancient Jewish theology between the two passages, and Paul did not disregard it.

In all of the explanations, Genesis 15:6a has a fixed interpretation, and only the sense of 15:6b varies, so I will give it first. This fixed sense is well expressed in the translation itself, And he had been holding faithful in Yahweh. The Hebrew verb means fundamentally "to hold faithful," "to be faithful," "loyal," or "to support" another with one's fidelity. It does not mean solely "believe" or "trust" in the mental sense. But believing and trusting are only part of the overall sense of "holding faithful." One holds faithful, or more literally, puts support into and on the Most High with both mind and body, so that fidelity also contains outward obedience as well as inward assent and trust. This is the explanation of 15a, so it will not be repeated below.

       

Ia.1: And he had been holding faithful in Yahweh. And he considered it for him: righteousness.

The sense of 15:6b that comes to mind first is that it refers back to Avraham's faithfulness. So the sense is that the Most High thought Avraham's faithfulness was righteousness. While this is surely true, it raises the question as to why such an obvious point would be made in the text. After all, fidelity and righteousness toward the Almighty are simply two ways of saying the same thing. What appears almost too simple in the text urges us to keep looking for the deeper sense of the passage in the context. And indeed, the Jewish theologians, whether right or wrong, led the way on this. And Paul agreed with them that there was more to it. I will unfold this in the following interpretations.

Ia.2: And he had been holding faithful in Yahweh. And he considered it for him: righteousness.

The possibility is that it refers to something else further back in the context of the passage. The feminine gender of the Hebrew pronoun it is relevant in that 15:6a does not have a corresponding feminine gender to agree with it. This suggests one of two things: either it is a vaguely indefinite pronoun referring back to an idea more complex than a single noun, or it refers back to a noun with a feminine gender. In the first case, the pronoun is called a neutrum of vague reference. (See Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Walke and O'Connor, 6.6d, 16.3.5c, 16n42,16.4f, 16n43, 17.4.3b, 17n3. See glossary, "neutrum."). If it refers back to a noun of feminine gender, then there is strictly speaking none, unless the word "reward" has been assigned an improper gender in Hebrew. I am therefore convinced that it refers back to Genesis 15:1 as a neutrum, unless reward is to be regarded as feminine.

The Most High says to Avraham, "I will be a shield for thee, thy reward being made very great." So he is saying that he himself is the reward, and the chief part of himself that he will give to Avraham through his seed, is his own righteousness. And according to the prophecy, the branch of David will be called, "Yahweh Our Righteousness." So it refers to the reward, and the reward is to be righteousness. The Hebrew verb חָשַׁב means "to think," so "he thinks it, for him, righteousness. He is considering, or planning, or intending that the reward for his faithfulness be the divine righteousness.

This reward is given according to the Most High's lovingkindness and not because our faithfulness is perfect in this age. We have to be faithful to receive it, and here I suggest you read my other article on the relationship between works and everlasting life to find out what kind of works the faithful are not supposed to do. It is for this reason that Paul makes the contrast in Romans 4 and brings the word "reward" into view. More importantly, this promise is a future promise, which is confirmed by Paul in Galatians 5:5:

We are not administered justice based on the imputation of merit to pay for sin or fill up the deficit in our account, but the justice we receive is forgiveness of sins when we pledge faithfulness to Messiah, and so we, through our faithfulness, await the future hope of Messiah's righteousness. Therefore, the pronoun it refers to the reward which he is thinking about for the faithful, future righteousness. Paul also says we hope for it. No one hopes for something he already has, so to hope for it means we must patiently wait for it through faithfulness.

Ib: And he had been holding faithful in Yahweh. And he considered it for him: an administration of righteousness.

This interpretation, and the following interpretation vary only in the difference between "righteousness" and "justice." The Hebrew and Greek words may mean both. Righteousness means the divine righteousness that is going to be administered to the faithful. This is the reward spoken of in Genesis 15:1.

Ic: And he had been holding faithful in Yahweh. And he considered it for him: an administration of justice.

Finally, we have here the Most High acting in the role of the Judge, who will administer justice to the faithful. The reward will be the administration of favorable justice, namely the forgiveness of sins and cleansing of the same through the faithfulness and righteousness of Yeshua. This is connected to Psalm 106:31 where the covenant of peace in Messiah will be given to us. This is his ransom for us from evil. Phinehas was given a promise to be a minister of justice to Israel, and as such, he is a type of Messiah, who, through his ransoming covenant of peace, renews the covenant and administers his benevolent justice to us. For as Phinehas interceded for Israel, meeting up with evil and defeating it, he came between the living and the dead, ransoming Israel from the wrath of the Most High by purging the evil in the camp. And so we too, if we allow Messiah to purge the evil from us and to leave that evil in the grave, will be ransomed from the wrath to come upon evil doers.

In the Good News Of Messiah, I have rendered the verb construction, "And it was taken into account for him, for an administration of justice. This brings together our faithfulness, which is taken into account, and Messiah's faithfulness, and covenant of peace, which is taken into account, for the administration of favorable justice to us. The whole issue may be reduced down to this: forgiveness of sins for the faithful.

Part II: Apologetical Defense

Genesis 15:6 is a key text at the foundation of how God’s righteousness relates to the faithful. We of the Messianic Faith must re-evaluate what we received from Christianity on this issue because Christianity rejects the Torah, the Law of the Almighty, and replaces it with their own traditions. The place of Torah in connection to our faithfulness and the definition of righteousness in keeping the commandments should make us wary of listening to theological paradigms invented and refined on a foundation of Torah rejection. Christianity has not always rejected the Torah to the same degree, yet even where the faithful have not rejected such fundamental institutions as the Sabbath, an underlying anti-law theology exists concerning how righteousness is administered to the faithful. The controversies circle around Genesis 15:6.

Israel first went astray on this text, as far as history records, in the teachings of the Rabbis concerning the imputation of the merit of Avraham. The merits of Avraham are claimed to be transferred to his offspring in such a way that his offspring are granted favor before the Most High. So, if his descedants have demerits, then the demerits can be overlooked because of the transfer of Abraham's merit to the account of the offspring. This idea is similar to the common Christian teaching of imputation, and in terms of its legal theory, it is exactly the same. Picking up this Jewish idea, Gnostics and Catholics modified this teaching so that it became the imputation of the merit of Christ, a doctrine of perfectionistic internal regeneration, so that there would be no sin for God to look at in the soul of the believer. Later on, the so-called Reformation adopted the same paradigm but taught that it was an imputation of legal merit, or "forensic righteousness," as they call it. The reformers were the loudest in proclaiming this doctrine in relation to an implicit understanding of justification by faith as an acquittal from sin. These are the doctrines to be exposed as errors, going all the way back to the initial error of the Rabbis. Indeed, I shall prove in this essay that all these views are wrong, and I shall show what is obviously meant by the text. It will become clear when traditional blinders to what we see and cannot see in the text are swept away.

Torah observance among non-Jews traces its historical thread back through the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Baptists. After Jewish Israel was returned to the land, and especially after the 1967 six-day war, interest in Torah observance among Christians received a huge encouragement. And, a more sweeping return to Torah by the house of Israel in exile began when some Jewish Christians decided they would rather keep up with traditional Jewish observances. By this means, many non-Jews came into contact with the observance of the Sabbath and the Feast Days by Jews who accepted Yeshua to be the Messiah. This was especially noted and attractive to Christians who already kept the seventh-day Sabbath. At this point, a significant wing of the Church decided to let them, so long as they maintained a significant anti-Torah theology. This is to say that following the Torah was denied a connection with righteousness. And it was ever more critical to state that it was not an obligation. But it was allowed in the hope that the evangelistic mission to the Jews would prosper by allowing a bit of Jewish tradition. To be sure, there is a legitimate Jewish identity that is nationalistic, cultural, and even adopts a Jewish expression of Torah observance, but the way the Jews accomplish this is not an exclusive club to which one must gain entrance. And authentic Jewish identity has often been misrepresented as an exclusive means to salvation; in fact, the identity itself of being regarded as Jewish has often been regarded as the essential salvation credential. We shall see, however, that both for the house of Israel and the house of Judah, membership in a group, whether perceived or otherwise, is no more salvific than membership in a Church may be. To put this another way, knowing the path of salvation and following it gives one legitimate membership in Israel, but membership in Israel does not confer salvation on anyone. And no one should try to jump over the wall of the sheepfold in a way other than that taught by the Messiah.

The Church decided to relax, or rather was forced to relax, its inquisition by secularism, which put limits on its abuse of power. And so Messianic Judaism was born, which to this day maintains that it is ok for Jewish believers to keep the Torah but not ok for non-Jews to take it on as an obligation or as necessary to righteousness. So they kept their covenant with the Church and dotted the theological i's and crossed the doctrinal t's so that the Church would not attack the cultural expression of being Jewish. But then the unthinkable happened. Non-Jews from Sabbath-observing backgrounds realized they should be keeping more of the Torah than just the Sabbath and food laws. And what is important here is that we realized that just as keeping the Sabbath is an obligatory commandment, as are the food laws, so is the rest of the Torah. And that is the real divide away from Christian theology. While Messianic Judaism is largely about allowing a cultural Jewish expression and keeping Jewish identity at the center of it while adopting the theology of the Church and denying that it is righteousness to observe Torah, the house of Israel is not about Jewish identity but about loyalty to the Most High through keeping the laws of Israel, and the definition of righteousness is tied to obeying the Torah. The theological orientation of the Messianic Faith is, therefore, an entirely different world view than cultural observances of the Torah, which are still infused with paradigms alien to Scripture.

Furthermore, since Messianic Judaism is about cultural definitions and not about what Torah really says, it has equivocated Rabbinic expressions of observance with what the Torah says. And other non-Rabbinic expressions could be just as valid. All the while, the core theology of the Church is being uncritically accepted. And in fact, it is wrong. It is so wrong that we can call it the mystery of iniquity. And the interpretation of Genesis 15:6 is at the center of the problem because Christianity has given us a false narrative on this.

This text says, according to my rendition of the Hebrew, "And he (Avraham) has held faithful in Yăhweԩ. And he considered it for him: righteousness." I will show what is being considered for us is not what Christianity claims it to be. The Hebrew apologetics for this translation will be explained later in this article. My first task here will be to explain the various views that Christianity teaches, since we have to make a comparison between the true and the false. The exercise will better help us understand the text.

Now then, the Sacramental Church (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) related the text to baptism and considered righteousness infused into the soul at baptism, perfecting it. On the other hand, the Protestant (or Reformed) Church increasingly rejects sacraments for just one sacrament, believing only, and considers perfect righteousness legally accounted at the moment of belief without perfecting the soul. Different factions of Christianity slide toward one end of the infused-legal scale or the other, and it is often hard to pin down which is being promoted, so I must refrain from saying which view Messianic Judaism takes or Seventh Day Adventists take, other than saying I have seen both views coming from different advocates of both conferences. The important thing is that the faithful understand the truth at the individual level, no matter what denominational leaders say or claim is their correct doctrine. To reiterate, one wing of the Church teaches an infused perfection, and the other wing teaches a legal accounting of perfection. Christian denominations are also not entirely consistent on which end of this scale they go, but as we shall see, there is a united reason for their teachings.

There is a common trait between perfectly infused and perfectly legal righteousness, and that is, whichever view it is, it is said to contain the perfection necessary to satisfy the legal demands of the Most High in the judgment so that the defendant can receive an acquittal [4]. It is necessary to stress that these views require perfect righteousness to be infused or legally accounted. Otherwise, the doctrine does not work for its intended purpose: acquittal. Since I am going to show this doctrine is a most dangerous false teaching, I would like to acknowledge that the Most High does do a work of circumcising the heart, but this righteousness is in conjunction with our faithfulness, and is not yet perfected, and is by no means for the purpose of getting oneself acquitted of sin. He who gets acquitted needs no forgiveness. I stress the need for forgiveness, and not perfection in the eyes of the Almighty. It should also be acknowledged that the Most High does legally consider the faithful righteous inasmuch as they are doing righteousness and obeying his commandments. But this legal estimation is not for the purpose of getting acquitted from sin. Rather, when we sin and confess it, we acknowledge our guilt, and repenting accept forgiveness (or pardon) as our deliverance from condemnation.

Some may find it out of the ordinary to regard belief (or believing) as a sacrament, but belief alone is what has replaced baptism and other sacraments in the sacramental Church. A sacrament is an observance or commandment that is obeyed and is supposed to channel or activate the grace of God. In the case of the believe-only teaching, believing is supposed to trigger an accounting operation in God's legal ledger for the person doing the believing to say the person is now perfectly legally righteous. Likewise, in the case of baptism in the sacramental Church, baptism triggers an operation in the soul that places the perfect righteousness of God in it. So we see that both doctrines are a means for administering holiness. And this is the very definition of a sacrament. But as we shall see, both of these magical operations are opposed to righteousness through faithfulness. Truly, the Most High works through and in cooperation with our faithfulness to make us holy.

What is the origin of the infused righteousness or legal righteousness doctrines by which men are said to be justified in God's sight apart from actual faithfulness? Rather than speak of the two horns of this doctrine (infused and forensic), I will simply refer now to "the justification" teaching. What is the origin of the justification teaching? It comes from the human response to guilt, and this response is projected on others. That is, how a human wants to be considered is then thought to be the consideration of others, and then ultimately God himself. In other words, Christian theology posits a God that will view them and regard them as they want to be regarded and viewed, and not as the Most High actually views matters according to Scripture. The sacramental self justification has roots in common human nature to avoid the light on their actions.

Unrepentant people often feel guilty when they commit sin and, accordingly, wish to justify themselves. That is, they wish to be perceived as good in the eyes of others. They wish to appear righteous. This is the human condition and the corruption that sin causes. People seek to cover up their nakedness. This human norm is now responsible for the corrupt theology of Reformed Christianity and Sacramental Christianity, the two horns of what I call the Ecclesiastical Deep State.

The need to self-justify in deep state theology has been projected back onto the Most High. It is taught by these "deep things" that God has to view the initiate as perfectly righteous. This is either done sacramentally by channeling the righteousness of God into the inner man through baptism or by a fictitious legal finding of perfect righteousness in the divine accounting books. This later mode, of course, is the Reformed one. Both views may be referred to by one term: justification.

Both views are two sides of the same coin. They are fundamentally the same heresy. What we are going to observe in Scripture is a third view suppressed by the religious deep state, a view not based on acquittal or self-justification but a view based on the forgiveness of sins. In this view, righteousness is considered according to the level of faithfulness to the Most High that one has. It is not considered perfect because, in forgiveness, there is no demand for perfection. Keep in mind that legal perfection is retroactive. An acquittal requires one to be cleared of past sins and charges and not just be innocent of the same sins in the present. But perfect righteousness is perceived as something to be achieved in the future by cooperating with the Most High in faithfulness. It is our "hope." This view is not based on a mystical infusion by sacrament, a claimed clothing with clothes of actual perfect righteousness for the soul. Yet the emperor has no clothes. Nor is it based on a pure legalism of projecting one's self-justification as the need for God to perceive one as righteous just for believing doctrines. Because God does not justify the wicked! And legal robes may cover filth, but to what end? To the end that the self-justifier does not repent and seek after the hope of real righteousness, which is the future reward of faithfulness that comes from the Almighty.

Take a look at Gal. 4:4-5 in the GNM at the right, where Paul beautifully sums up the matter. But you would never know it from corrupt versions. The Good News of Messiah translates the original Greek a bit differently than all other versions. It translates literally. Where the deep mystery translations put "Law," I translate custom, because this is just what the Greek word νομος means: a legal custom. By the customary justice, Paul means the worldly norm for justification, the need to be accounted as good in the eyes of anyone who might be a judge, and especially the judge, God. Of course, Paul's opponents were not yet teaching justification through baptism. This is a view projected onto Paul by the sacramental Church. Nor were his opponents teaching belief only as a means of justification. Rather, they were teaching an ancient Jewish form of the same heresy. The sacrament that he referred to was circumcision.

Judaism taught, and still teaches, that if one is circumcised and becomes Jewish, then one is saved. Let's flesh this out. Besides circumcision, the sacrament is one of identity. Circumcision is the ritual that allows one to be identified as Jewish, provided one is also part of the Jewish community and submits to the Rabbis. Regarding righteousness (in the false teaching of the Rabbis), therefore, a Jewish person is entitled to receive the merit of Avraham. Whatever is lacking in the Jewish person's righteousness by his or her own merits is taught to be supplied by the merit of Avraham. And therefore, the Jewish faithful are said to receive the favor of God.

So "what is customary," as Paul says, is the perceived need to be perceived as righteous, as having the merit necessary to receive the favor of the Most High. This traditional theme is the same in Judaism and Christianity. The transfer of merit to satisfy the justice of the Most High is the common error. It is opposed to forgiveness and the need for actual repentance and reduces the promise to legalism. When they accuse others of being legalists, they themselves are the legalists.

Paul was intelligent enough to generalize the concept he was opposing. In his situation, circumcision was the specific sacrament being promoted by the heretics, but Paul's argument is easily extended to the same concept in different guises, namely the baptism taught by the sacramental Church, and the reduction to the one sacrament of believing only by the reformed Church. None of these things initiate a transfer of merit. But their teachings are surley a diabolical corruption of faithfulness, circumcision, and immersion.

The common argument for these sacramental forms of justification is claimed to be based on Genesis 15:6. But it is a misunderstanding of Genesis 15:6. The Jewish view of the text is that God considered Avraham righteous, that is, having merit in abundance, so that it could suffice to transfer it from generation to generation. In Judaism, this is called "the merit of the fathers"(זְכוּת אַבוֹת), zechut avot. But as we have seen, in Christianity, it is the merit of Christ that is transferred by the sacrament of justification. It is the same doctrine as the Jewish doctrine, but with a different instrument for applying it: baptism or believing.

What does Genesis 15:6 really say? It says, And he has held faithful in Yăhweԩ. And he considers it for him: righteousness. The most simple explanation is that Avraham's faithfulness, such as it was, was regarded as righteousness by the Most High. Furthermore, there is no indication of a transfer of merit from one person to another in the text. In the simple explanation, it is Avraham's faithfulness that is considered righteousness, and not someone else's righteousness dumped into his account, which God looks at while avoiding a look at the real Avraham. The whole merit transfer idea is eisegeis, which is reading into the text what one wants it to say. Moreover, the text has nothing to do with being regarded as perfectly righteous for the purpose of legal justification. The simple sense is just an acknowledgement that his faithfulness was righteousness, because it is righteous to be faithful to the Most High.

 

But this interpretation suffers from a fault if it is regarded as the only intended sense. It is trivial by itself. And we should suspect that there is more to the message. Why should a statement be made that faithfulness is regarded as or considered righteousness? It already is by its own definition. There must be more to this text! It is often said of the grammatical historical method of interpretation that, in ordinary speech, a text has just one meaning. But this is not true even of ordinary speech. Puns are based on double meaning. And Scripture is not ordinary speech. Outside of direct discourse, it is a literary work. Parables obviously have more than one sense. Messianic prophecy is clearly based on the principle that Scripture is a literary work that alludes to the Messiah beyond the simple meaning of the text. It only takes a little logic and reason to tease out these additional meanings from the text. And I did say logic and reason, because getting the additional meaning is nothing like the postmodern claim and practice of getting any meaning they wish out of the text to push their narratives. Oddly enough, we find that a true biblical chronology is an essential check and balance to interpretive anarchy.

One can find this double sense of texts in the chronological statements that Scripture makes, and indeed even in the chronological statements that Messiah Yeshua makes. A good example is Luke 13:32. And he said to them, "Having gone, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am getting finished.'" (GNM). Clearly, there are two more senses to the text. Getting finished refers to his impending death, as when the hero says, I'm finished because my wound is mortal. It should be noted that the crucifixion is the third day counting backwards from the resurrection. It should be noted that he said his death would be after two days. And also, he means he will be completed with his work of demonstrating his power to rescue from death by his own resurrection on the third day. Like I said, logical reasons pointed out by the Spirit to the faithful lead to these conclusions. No one should presume to invent their own narrative on the fly. That is the method of the world, not the way of truth. So that is the warning. Important Scripture texts often give more than one sense, and we should be admonished to look for them based on sound teaching.

Some Jewish commentators made precisely this point, and it was the notice of the triviality of the simple interpretation that led to the expansion of Jewish doctrine based on the text. We will find that their notice of the triviality of the faithfulness is thought of as righteousness interpretation is correct, but their additional interpretation is in essence exactly the same as Christianity! But they are right—there is more. We just have to seek it in a different direction. It is possible for the world to recognize part of the truth while the devil is giving the final and accepted interpretation of the world. Indeed, all lying narratives have to relate themselves to true explanations, yet they have no wish to repeat the truth before countering it. And because of this, one can hardly figure out the truth they are trying to pervert. This is why Christian and Jewish doctrine on this matter is so dogmatic, yet the reason for it is mysterious. So let us seek after the real additional meaning in the text.

It says, "Then he considered it, righteousness." The word "it" refers to more than one thing, just as finished did in Luke 13:32. It also refers to the words in Genesis 15:1: "After these matters, the Word of Yăhweԩ had come to Avram in the vision, saying, 'You should not fear, Avram; I am a shield for you, your reward made very great.'" The word "it" in Genesis 15:6 refers to the reward. Genesis 15:6a gives the basis of the reward, "And he has held faithful in Yăhweԩ," and then Genesis 15:6b states what he considered the reward to be, "And he considers it for him: righteousness." Everyone wants righteousness, do they not? To be given righteousness is the greatest reward of all. Righteousness is the opposite of corruption and death. Righteousness is the essence of everlasting life, peace, goodness, justice, and love. To have righteousness and the favorable administration of justice considered for one is not an immediate reality, but it is a promise for time to come for those who hold faithful. This is why the Most High considers it.

And we should notice where this righteousness comes from. He says, "I am ... your reward made very great." And this is confirmed to us in Jeremiah 23:5–6, "Behold, the days are coming! An utterance of Yăhweԩ! I will have raised up to David a righteous Branch, and he will have reigned, a King, and he will have prospered, and he will have done judgment and justice in the earth. In his days, Yehudah will be rescued, and Yisrael will dwell securely. And this is his name, which he will be called: Yăhweԩ our Righteousness." Yăhweԩ Tsidkeynu יַהֲוֶה צִדְקֵֽנוּ may also be translated "Yăhweԩ our Justice." He will have done judgment and justice. And this is what I call the administration of justice. He will be the one who administers justice to us. And it will be his justice, after his example, and according to his nature. He will administer righteousness to us. He will make us righteous. This is the promised reward based upon our faithfulness.

The reward is a future promise. That is to say, we cannot yet get all of it because we still dwell in mortal bodies. It is a hope to be fulfilled in perfection at the resurrection of the righteous and the transformation of the living. And this is why Paul says that "we, through the Spirit, by faithfulness, eagerly await the hope of righteousness" (Gal. 5:4-5, GNM). He says we wait, which makes perfect righteousness a promise.

Yet this wondrous and amazing promise has been hijacked by the ecclesiastical deep state and replaced with teaching a present legal perfection they consider necessary for acquittal. Shame on them! They are teaching a worldly doctrine. They are promoting a doctrine invented by the powers to lull mankind into false security. Because their real aim is to get the human race destroyed and to confirm them, while unrepentant, as secure. And this false teaching lords itself over the house of Judah and the house of Israel. It is the enemy within the gates.

In Romans 4, Paul teaches that the reward is considered according to loving-kindness and not according to works. What does he mean by works? Faithfulness? No, not at all. He means the customary works, or according to what is customary. Now, according to Judaism, the customary works were the merits of the fathers and one's own merits. The key is that these merits were sought after because of the perceived need for justification in the sight of the Most High. But faithfulness is not working for merits unto justification. Faithfulness is not circumcision for justification, nor baptism, nor believing doctrines. There is no sacramental acquittal. But there is forgiveness, and the Almighty requires repentance unto faithfulness.

The Most High does not justify the guilty! But he does forgive the guilty when they repent. The Almighty does not pronounce the guilty righteous. He does not clear the guilty or acquit the guity. It is against his name and against justice to do this. But he does forgive the guilty. He does pardon sin and iniquity. And he does promise to work with a person's faithfulness to fulfill the promise of the righteousness for which we all wait.

 

There is but one reason for the sinner justification doctrine that those who profess to speak for God claim. It is because they have rejected the Law, the Torah of the Almighty! And they do not want to be convicted of sin by it. But the world should know this, and Israel should know this. The Most High can only forgive those who acknowledge their guilt and seek forgiveness and not justification.

 

To be sure the faithful get this point, I have corrected the false translation justification by faith in the Good News of Messiah. In the original languages, the key word means being justiced by a Judge or getting justice from God. It means being administered justice. It does not mean justified in the sense that Christianity and its translations teach. Also in the original languages, the basis of administration of favorable justice from the Most High is not based on belief alone (or baptism), but on our faithfulness to the Messiah. This is why I almost never use the translation faith or believe. Faith and believe are magical concepts intended to compel reality to conform to one's wishes. But faithfulness is what the Most High requires. A cult teaches salvation by sacrament or ritual.^[3] Superstitions are the bread and butter of Babylonian mystery religion.^[5]

 

Now therefore, whoever will acknowledge their sin and turn their heart away from it, and be sorry for it, and pledge faithfulness to Messiah Yeshua, who is our righteousness, the same will be forgiven and will be administered justice by him, the justice of forgiveness based on the pledge of faithfulness, and the justice of righteousness through faithfulness to be administered in increasing degree until it is perfected in the age to come.

 

So then our faithfulness is taken into account for the administration of justice to us, both in forgiveness and in reforming righteousness worked by the Spirit. As it is commanded, we are to circumcise our hearts. And based on this, the Most High promises that he will circumcise our hearts and the hearts of our children.

 

And circumcision is a sign of the administration of justice we receive based on our faithfulness. And so also, immersion is a sign of the cleansing from sin we are receiving. These rituals are signs and not sacraments to magically receive the lovingkindness of the Most High. Only one thing is needed to remain in and abide in the loving kindness of the Most High, and that is faithfulness and loyalty to him, and loyalty is proved by keeping his commandments.

 

So this wraps up this part on the practical meaning of Genesis 15:6 in relation to erroneous views. What is considered by the Most High with respect to our faithfulness is to make our reward his righteousness. And this reward is not complete until the age to come, but we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness through the Spirit through faithfulness.

 

Part III: Hebrew Matters, Gen. 15:6a

This section is largely apologetical. First I will give some definitions of some linguistic terms used in the grammar discussion to bring readers up to speed. Next, I will cover the meaning of the Hiphil conjugation in relation to the other conjugations. Then I will show that the verb הֶאֱמִין with a personal object means to give support to that person in the sense of loyalty.

Definitions: intransitive: when a verb has no object, e.g. He runs. transitive: when a verb transfers the action to an object, e.g. He runs the harvesting machine. reflexive: when the action is on the subject, sometimes made explicit with a form of the word -self, e.g. He runs himself. But this can be implicit with an intrasitive verbal use. binyanim: meaning constructions. This refers to one of the seven Hebrew stem constructions: Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hiphil, Hitpael, Hophal. root: the three consonants that define a Hebrew verb. accusative: the object of the verb. For example, He hit the ball. "The ball" is accusative. It receives the action. Or He hit her. "Her" is the object pronoun. It is accusative. voice: voice is either active, passive, or a reflexive middle, e.g. He has hit the ball (active). He has been hit by the ball (passive), and He hit himself with the ball (reflexive). Lexicon: Hebrew and Greek dictionaries of Biblical Languages are called lexicons.

The first part of the verse is, "And he has held faithful in Yăhweԩ." Literally the Hebrew verb root אמן means support. "He has caused support in Yăhweԩ." [2] See the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. In Genesis 15:6 the verb is in the conjugation הֶאֱמִין meaning "he has given support." The helping verb (given) here is an expression of the Hiphil form of the conjugation. The Hiphil emphasizes the agent causing the action, that is the subject of the verb making the action happen. Here are some English examples of Hiphil semantic contrasts sticking with the perfect tense.

He has run (Qal) vs. He has made himself run (Hiphil). The usage of the Hiphil here is intransitive, and is why it is reflexive. Compare Waltke [1], example no. 11, page 356, and example No. 2 on page 355.

He has made to be running the water (Piel) vs. He has made run the water (Hiphil). The Piel emphasizes the resulting state, and the Hiphil emphasizes the agent causing the action. See Waltke example no. 7 and example no. 10.

He has made himself to be running (Hitpael). Here the reflexive idea is added to the Piel making the construction intransitive. Again the emphasis is on the resulting state. See Waltke example no. 9

The other binyanim (constructions) pertain to voice. Niphal is passive of Qal. Pual is passive of Piel. Hophal is passive of Hiphil. There is also a Qal passive, and the Niphal can be reflexive. Examples. He is run by his wife (Niphal, other subject supplied). He runs himself (Niphal, intransitive). He is made to be running (Pual). He is made to run by his wife (Hophal).

Giving support is conceived according to the object of the verb. If the object is a person to whom support is due, then the Hiphil conjugation of support "he made support" or "he caused support" is meant to convey the idea of giving loyalty or faithfulness. But if the object of the verb is a person who has made a truth claim demanding confirmation, or the object is the truth claim itself, then the support is given to the truth claim. For example, "Do you put support in the Prophet?" Or "Do you give support to my words?" When a person is the object and the person has given a truth to be supported, it can be ambiguous whether the support sought is just to the truth claim or to both the truth claim and the person.

The reason for avoiding the translation "believe" is that believe constitutes giving support only in the mental realm. But the Hebrew root has no such limitation itself. A mental limitation may be enforced by the context if the object of the verb is only a truth claim. But as soon as the object of the verb is a person, supporting that person has the same sense as supporting a child if the person is inferior, and the same sense as supporting a king if the person is superior. Supporting a cause does not just mean believing in the cause. It means doing what is necessary to promote it.

The main reason for not using the literal Hebrew translation is that it has to be explained to anyone who is not familiar with Biblical Hebrew. The solution is to use the best translation that has the explanation already in it: He has held faithful in Yăhweԩ. The Hebrew noun אֱמוּנָה is translated faithfulness, but it is literally, "supportiveness." And so for example if one shows supportiveness to the Most High, then one will both believe what he says and do what he says. Supportiveness is not limited to only believing. To avoid the explanation, it is better to translate "faithfulness."

Amen, אָמֵן, is used as both an adverb and adjective, e.g. "Faithfully, faithfully, I say to you..." or "And he said, [it is] faithful." A participle אֹמֵן better describes this latter use, viz. [I am] supporting. But the usage is usually transliterated and not translated.

Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew are not the same languages. Modern Hebrew lacks the waw consecutive and the waw remote. Modern Hebrew lacks the present tense sense of the imperfect, and also lacks the regular use of the perfect for the future. Modern Hebrew is heavily influenced by European languages. In some respects it is like Middle English or Old English to English. And similarity can be quite deceiving in cases because the BH meaning might vary from the MH meaning. This means a person fluent in Modern Hebrew may not know the Biblical Hebrew nuance. And in fact, in this case, Modern Hebrew has devolved the meaning of the verb אמן to the meaning of "believe." The AI machine translators certainly do not understand the nuances. So the question is how do we know that the BDB Lexicon is correct. The following concordance with contexts of specific examples will clear this up:

Isa. 7:9, And the head of Ephrayim is Shomron, and the head of Shomron is the son of Remalyahu. If you will not give support תַאֲמִ֔ינוּ, surely you will not be supported תֵאָמֵֽנוּ. If they will not give support to the Most High, and his words, then they will not be supported by the Most High.

2 Kings 18:16, In that time Hizqiyah had stripped the doors of the Temple of Yăhweԩ, and the supports הָאֹ֣מְנ֔וֹת which king Hizqiyah of Yehudah had overlaid. Then he gave them to the king of Ashur.

Eshter 2:7 And he is supporting אֹמֵ֜ן Hadassah.

The Hiphal may be equally expressed by another helping verb, put, e.g. He put support in Yăhweԩ. This makes more sense out of the preposition in in English, but it steers us toward the idea of trust. This is the fault of the English. The Hebrew verb does not steer away from loyalty. For this reason Yohanan used the preposition "to" when he was explaining holding faithful to Messiah. The reason this is possible is because the Hebrew preposition has an abstract use, e.g. "in [connection] to." Thus, "He has given support in [connection to] Yăhweԩ." Or He has held faithful in connection to Yăhweԩ.

Gen. 15:6b

Then he considered it for him, righteousness. The word "it" here is the direct object of the verb. "It" is receiving the action of consideration. The unparsed verb is וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ. So let's break this apart. Firstly, then וַיּ. Next he י. Next thought חשב, and finally, it הָ. The prefixed pronoun indicates an imperfect verb form. The "he" is the subject and refers to Yăhweԩ. The it (הָ) in the object position is feminine in Hebrew. To what does it refer?

There are no feminine gender elements in Gen. 15:6a. And there are no feminine gender nouns in Gen. 15:1-5 that would make sense of הָ. Waltke and O'Connor explain this matter: "The neutrum or vague referent can be marked with an object pronominal suffix, usually feminine. The action or state is ordinarily described in the preceding clause(s)." Waltke and O'Connor then proceed to supply examples of this from Gen. 15:6 (וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ); 24:14 (וּבָהּ אֵדַע); Isa. 47:7 (לֹא זָכַרְתְּ אַחֲרִיתָהּ), and Gen. 42:36 (עָלַי הָיוּ כֻלָּנָה). The הָ in Gen. 15:6 is this neutrum or vague referent. Basically, this is saying that "it" can refer to anything in the preceding context that makes sense without regard to its gender. The linguistic term referent means what a pronoun refers to. It is called vague because it is not straightforwardly clear from matching the gender to something already mentioned of the same gender.

The pronoun "it" may therefore refer to the reward previously specified. This is, in fact, confirmed by Paul in Romans 4:4, where he assumes it is the reward that is being considered, so that he can explain the manner in which it is considered, not by what is customary, but by loving-kindness. But also the pronoun it refers to faithfulness in Genesis 15:6a.

Now let us turn to the verb in Genesis 15:6b. The root חשב means to think. But its meaning is much broader in Biblical Hebrew than the English might suppose. It is used of any mental activity in the sense of to intend, to plan, to consider, to calculate, to think, to reckon, to account, take into account. So we may translate Gen. 15:6b, Then he intended it (the reward) for him, righteousness. And as previously mentioned, this is the Most High's righteousness given to us in part, being given to us, and to be given to us in full in the age to come, as based on our faithfulness, and his faithfulnes to forgive our sins, which is not based on that which is customary, acquittal from sin, or justification of the sinner in the modern sense.

There is one last thing to tie up here from the Hebrew. The reader should notice that I left out the typical as placed into Gen. 15:6 by translators, viz. Then he considered it (the reward and faithfulness) for him [as] righteousness. We may break this down into a double accusative: He considered it for him and He considered righteousness for him. "It" and "righteousness" are set in apposition as double accusatives. That is they are equivocated, He considered it for him [to be] righteousness.. So then it refers to the elements being considered, the reward, righteousness, and his faithfulness.

Now I will make some additional points of interpretation, and this is especially important to understand Paul. The first is that Paul is focused on the "it" as refering to our faithfulness, and so in the GNM I have translated, "It was taken into account," namely faithfulness. But using the Psalm 106:31 text, Paul wishes to connect faithfulness to Messiah's covenant faithfulness. This is explained in GNM notes and essays. That is, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins. So this also is taken into account besides our faithfulness.

Secondly, the righteousness in Genesis 15:6 does not have to be interpreted as only a reward of personal righteousness to us. Rather it refers to the Most High doing righteousness. The word "righteousness" also refers to what is called juridical righteousness. Juridical means "the administration of justice," or "the administration of righteousness." So Gen. 15:6b may be rendered, Then he considered it for him, the administration of justice. And part of this adminstration is being given the reward of righteousness, and part of this administration is being forgiven sin, and part of it is Messiah's just consideration to rescue us based on our loyalty to him.

Righteousness is not just a promised regeneration. To have righteousness considered for us also means to be treated righteously and justly by the Most High, which is according to our faithfulness. To the bad, he will be bad for them, to the faithful, he will be righteous to them. This is the promise. I exercise the phrases like this so that you can wrap your mind around the Hebrew semantics and better understand the text.

The noun צְדָקָה and the verb צָדַק can be translated justicing (as a noun) and to get justice as a verb, e.g. 2 Sam. 15:4, And I will have gotten him justice (וְהִצְדַּקְתִּֽיו). These are two concepts that are really behind the modern mistranslations "justification" and "to justify." We receive a justicing from the Most High, both forgiveness and circumcision of the heart to righteousness, which is ongoing in conjunction with our faithfulness, and we wait for the perfection of righteousness through this justicing by the Spirit. Messiah Yeshua gets justice for us. This is his faithfulness. We are to receive his justicing apart from what is customary, apart from the justifying of the guilty. Our justicing is according to the Almighty's justice and faithfulness, and according to his ransom from sin and lawlessness, if only we will cooperate and pledge loyalty to him.