Precept upon Precept; Line upon Line

 

     Let us start with the beginning, shall we?  We have be told that salvation depends on our "faith" which for the many merely means "believing".   This is not so.  For believing omits repentance (cf. Mark 1:15).   Can such believing save?  No, because belief without works is dead (James 2:14; 20).   Is there any difference between those who will be saved and those who will not other than that the saved believed?  Yes, the saved not only believed.  The saved proved to be loyal and faithful to Messiah Yeshua (cf. Mat 25:34-40).  The saved show their love for Messiah by obeying his commandments (John 14:21), and they bore fruit out of their loyalty and commitment to Messiah (John 15:2, 9-10).

     The teaching of "believe only" and that believing is the only difference between the saved and the lost is a false one.  It is a siren song to those tempted to enjoy sin under the illusion that they are saved.  Yeshua speaks of them in Matthew 7:22-23: "Depart from me, ye that work lawlessness."   What I am saying might seem like a hard teaching to defend to many Christians, or even to justify as true for oneself.  However, it is precept on precept, and line upon line.  For they have believed many falsehoods, lies, and corrupt doctrines.  They have made corruption and lies their refuge and hiding place (Isa. 28:15).   So therefore, I must start at the very beginning of the most fundamental concepts of the word of the Almighty!

     I start with the word אֱמוּנָה which is mistranslated "faith".  In Greek the word is πίστιςPlease do not trust Strong's Dictionary on this, nor your fundamentalist preachers.  The Best Lexicon to use in Greek is called BDAG, 3rd edition, and the best Lexicon in Hebrew is BDB or HALOT.   The Greek Lexicon lists "faithfulness" in the first definition for πίστις.  The word commitment is right next to it along with fidelity and reliability (BDAG, 3rd, pg. 818).  אֱמוּנָה  = πίστις = faithfulness occurs in the King James Version at 1Sa 26:23 and Hosea 2:20; the noun is further translated "faithfully" in 2Kings 12:15; 22:7; 2Chron. 31:12; and 2Chron. 34:12;  The King James Version translates the adjective πιστός more than 40 times as faithful, but not once manages to translate the noun πίστις as faithfulness.  More modern translations have slowly, but grudgingly corrected this folly.  The New American Standard Bible manages to translate faithfulness three more times, in Mat. 23:23; Rom. 3:3; and Gal. 5:22.

     One should ask, if it means faithfulness in some passages, then why must it mean something else in a vast number of other passages?  The truth however is that as far as the scholarly world is concerned the dam has broken.  With the New Perspective on Paul and the "faith in Christ" vs. "faithfulness of Christ" controversy the arguments for "faith" have been unmasked as lies on philological, linguistic, and grammatical grounds.   The only thing the other side has to offer is traditional theology and traditional translation.  The argument assumes that providence could never let our fathers err, or so many great men could not be wrong, and so those who make it shut their eyes to the truth, and tradition is given a longer lease.

       So now, I will apply faithfulness where it counts.

 

Gal 3:11b “The righteous man shall live by faithfulness.” (text)

     This is a quotation is taken from Habakkuk 2:4b:

וְצַדִּ֖יק בֶּאֱמוּנָת֥וֹ יִחְיֶֽה

Hab 2:4b But the righteous by His faithfulness will live. (text)

Hab 2:4b But the righteous by his faithfulness will live.

     There are two versions of the same text here because the Hebrew may be read two different ways.  "His faithfulness" may refer to Yahweh's faithfulness, or "his faithfulness" may refer the righteous man's faithfulness.  The footnote of the NET Bible reads:

     Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” [What the word his refers to] has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness.

     The Septuagint (LXX) reads, "My faithfulness", which is to say Yahweh is referring to His own covenant faithfulness.  The LXX was the bible of most of Paul's readers, so they were inclined to think that Hab. 2:4 referred to Yahweh's faithfulness.  In Hebrew, "My faithfulness" looks like: אֱמוּנָתִי, and "His/his faithfulness" looks like: אֱמוּנָתוֹ.  The difference is only in the length of the tail on the last letter, something that might be confused or mistaken by an ancient scribe.  Paul's interpretations of Hab. 2:4 are based on the Masoretic Text reading: אֱמוּנָתוֹ, particularly Romans 1:17 where Paul says "from faithfulness to faithfulness", i.e. starting with Yahweh's covenant faithfulness and ending with Israel 's faithful response.

       The Church reduced the proper meaning of אֱמוּנָה (faithfulness) to "faith" and made it mean "believe only".  The NET Bible, above, alludes to this.  By doing so the Church shifted the meaning away from Yahweh's covenant faithfulness in Messiah Yeshua over to the believer's "faith".  This change is  both linguistically and theologically iniquitous.  Here is a host of lexical resources proving that the linguistic sense of "faithfulness" is the primary definition of πίστις.   The reason for the change is obvious.  The Church wanted a new theology—a theology that did not teach that conversion involved repentance and a pledge of faithfulness to Messiah.

       And while the Church would not object to the idea of Messiah's faithfulness first coming our way, they certainly object to the need for our faithful response to it!  So they changed "faithfulness" to "faith", and then interpreted "faith" to refer to the believer only, and then made it mean "believe" only.  And in so doing, they got rid of Yeshua's faithfulness!  And they destroyed the original understanding of the text that Yahweh was talking about "My faithfulness".

       Bbb....uut, they stutter, its not possible that our translators could have erred like that!  How is it that they translate it right in Hosea 2:22, "I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness" (בֶּאֱמוּנָה) (King James Version), and then when they get to Habakkuk 2:4 it becomes "faith"?  Could it be that Habakkuk 2:4 just had the misfortune to be quoted by Paul?  How did they get it right in 1Sam 26:23, "his faithfulness" (אֱמֻנָתוֹ) (KJV)?  The only difference between this text and Hab. 2:4 is that the vowel letter וּ in Hab. 2:4 אֱמוּנָתוֹ is spelled defectively in 1Sam. 26:23.   And in Psalm, 96:13, the Hebrew has בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ, exactly the same as Hab. 2:4, which is translated by Young's Literal Translation, "in His faithfulness", and the New American Standard Bible, and the JPS Tanakh.

        The King James Version managed to avoid using the word "faithfulness" altogether in the 1611 text between Matthew and Revelation, yet it got it right in many Psalms texts, and Hosea 2:20.  It seems Hab. 2:4 was omitted.  Modern translators seem to be quite stingy about being linguistically consistent.  The NAS provides "faithfulness" only in Mat 23:23, Romans 3:3, and Gal. 5:22.  The NET Bible's one good point is that it is the least stingy, expanding the list to Rom. 3:22; 26; Gal. 2:16; 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9; 1Tim 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 3 John 1:5.

         Where is the smoking gun?  The word "faithful" is the adjective form of "faithfulness";  The KJV almost always translates it correct as "faithful" between Matthew and Revelation.  In fact, about 40+ times.  What's the lexical difference between an adjective and noun in meaning?  None.  The difference is only grammatical in Greek, and maybe not even that in Hebrew.  Hebrew regularly uses the construct as a substitute for the adjectival relationship, e.g. Psalm 119:30: דֶּרֶךְ־אֱמוּנָה = faithful way (NAU) or way of faithfulness (YLT).  So when the Greek uses the noun in the Gentive, the translators translated "faith", but when it used the adjective, "faithful"!  What is the adjective "faithful" when it becomes a noun?  It is the quality or state of being faithful, which is expressed by faithfulness, and not "faith".

        Could the Church have blundered?   They assume, its imposible for Christian traditions and translators to be wrong.  Could it be this belief that sustains the traditional error?   Many Torah observant believers fall into the trap of thinking that it must be "faith".  There are many Torah observant people who hold to Calvinistic and Lutheran doctrines.  Calvin, in turn, received those doctrines from Augustine, bishop of Hippo.  These Torah teachers, who think they understand Paul, still teach him using the Church's bankrupt theology, and they will not, by any means, acknowledge that the proper translation is "faithfulness" in Paul's letters.

      However, as I pointed out earlier, the dam has broken in the scholarly world.  No one can point fingures of censure at any scholar who translates faithfulness so long as the text makes sense with it.   The refusal to translate it so in many cases has now been shown to be simply a matter of theological opinion and has nothing to do with the notion that the text must mean "faith" because of any properties of the language.

      So then, what is it that they are missing out on?  The just shall live by His faithfulness.   Salvation is first and foremost the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh to deliver Israel .  In His loving kindness, Yahweh provided His Son Yeshua to pay the penalty for sin.  This is the specific faithfulness that Paul is talking about, because it is by Yeshua's commitment to the work of the cross that Yahweh's covenant with Israel is renewed.   Further, Yeshua is faithful to teach His faithfulness to us by His Holy Spirit.  This includes teaching us his commandments.  So everything begins with His faithfulness.

      But what good is Yahweh's faithfulness if it does not result in our faithfulness.  And how can one live by His faithfulness if it does not become our faithfulness to live rightly?  Good question.  Hab. 2:4 is the thesis statement of Paul.  It is his starting point.  Paul explains Hab. 2:4 "from faithfulness to faithfulness", meaning that it starts with Yahweh's covenant faithfulness, which in turn, results in our faithful response.  So salvation depends on the Almighty One's faithfulness in Messiah Yeshua, and also our faithful response.

      

believe

 

     Traditional unrepentance theology is undead... mind dead if you will, because it claims that belief only is required for salvation, and that there is no loyalty required of the believer.  Fundamentalist Christians fought a war over this in the 20th century, some teaching Lordship salvation.  This means one must make Yeshua Lord of their life, i.e. submit one's life to his control for lack of better euphemism for obedience.  John McArthur championed this view (The Gospel According to Jesus), and on the other side of the fence was Zane Hodges backed up by the dispensational theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer.  Of course we know that John was right.  Sperry and company teach a doctrine called the "carnal Christian theory".  This is a theory that a one time "moment of belief" is sufficient to obtain the status of eternally secure salvation.  It's called "carnal Christian" because the Christian is supposed to be allowed to sin any kind of sin possible after his moment of belief and still be saved.   In order to remove the "moment of belief" from the possibility of being a human work, the Calvinists relegate the matter to the "gift of faith (belief)" and divine predestination.

       Anyway the verb "believe" used so much in conjunction with salvation texts is supposed to be the basis for the "believe only" theory.   There is just one problem.  The verbal root underlying faithfulness and faithful is exactly the same root for "believe".  You can chart it up like this:

 

πίστις = faithfulness, commitment

πιστός = faithful

πιστεύω = commit

πιστεύω εἰς = commit to

אָמַן = support

הֶאֱמִין ל־ = give support to

הֶאֱמִין ב־ = place support in

נֶאֱמַן = be support to

אֱמוּנָה = one being support

אֹמֵן = supporting

     The book of John makes it more explicit adding the word "to" after many occurences of the verb.  So then, a verse like John 3:16 would consistently go:

 

     John 3:16 “For the Almighty so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever gives faithfulness to Him should not perish, but have eternal life

     Now this can be put on a broader linguistic support.  And I mean support, because the root word behind all of this is the Hebrew אָמַן which means "support" (BDB, def. 1).  This is the meaning which unifies everything, verb, noun, and adjective use plus all of the lexical senses. 

2Kings 10:1 הָאֹמְנִים אַחְאָב = the supporters of Ahab

2Kings 10:5 הָאֹמְנִים = supporters

Esther 2:7 וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת־חֲדַסָּה = and he was supporting Hadassah

Num 11:12  כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֶן אֶת־הַיּנֵק = as when the one supporting carries the one sucking

Isaiah 49:23 וְהָיוּ מְלָכִים אֹמְנַיִךְ = and be’eth kings your supporters

Ruth 4:16  וַתְּהִי־לוֹ לְאֹמֶנֶת = and she was for him as one supporting

2Sam 4:4 אֹמַנְתּוֹ = his supporter

2Kings 18:16 הָאֹמְנוֹת = the supports

Lam 4:5 הָאֱמֻנִים = those being supported

Psa 12:1 אֱמוּנִים = the supportive ones

2Sam 20:19  אָנֹכִי שְׁלֻמֵי אֱמוּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = I am from the peaceable supportive ones of Israel

Psa 31:23 אֱמוּנִים נֹצֵר יַהְוֶה = ones being supporting Yahweh preserveth

Prov 11:13 וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ = and one being supportive of spirit

1Kings 8:26 יֵאָמֶן נָא = let it be supported, I pray

Isa 7:9 אִם לֹא תַאֲמִינוּ כִּי לֹא תֵאָמֵנוּ = if not you all will not give support, you surely will not be supported

2Chron 20:20 הַאֲמִינוּ בְּיַהְוֶה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְתֵאָמֵנוּ הַאֲמִינוּ בִנְבִיאָיו = place support in Yahweh your Almighty so that you are being supported; place support in His prophets

Gen 45:26 כִּי לֹא הֶאֱמִין לָהֶם׃ = for he did not give support to them

Deut 1:32 וּבַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֵינְכֶם מַאֲמִינִם בְּיַהְוֶה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃ = And in this matter not ye are placing support in Yahweh your Almighty

Gen 15:6 וְהֶאֱמִין בְּיַהְוֶה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה׃ = and he placed support in Yahweh, and He counted it to him as righteousness.

 

     So where does the sense of "believe" come from?   When used for a person, it means to support the person; when used for facts, it means to support the truth of the facts, but where the word can mean more than supporting facts, it always does mean more than supporting facts.   To support Yeshua means to be loyal to Him, to commit to Him, and not just to support facts about him, and not to just support promises He makes.  The truth of the matter is that the definition "support" given for the Hebrew verb explains all the usages, and all the occurences.   When connected to a person, it always implies giving one's loyalty to that person:  "Abraham placed support in Yahweh and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6)

     Most Greek Lexicons are seriously weak when it comes to the proper definition of the verb πιστεύω.  However, BDAG 3rd explains, "total commitment to the one who is trusted" (pg. 817), and gives an example, "(those) who made their commitment".  This weakness is not due to the fault of Jewish Greek or Synagogue Greek in the time of Paul.  The word  πιστεύω was fully equivalent to the Hebrew הֶאֱמִין ל־, הֶאֱמִין ב־.   This is frequently spelled out with the a preposition: πιστεύω εἰς.  On occassions, the King James version translates the word "commit":

John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them.

Romans 3:2 because unto them were committed the oracles

1Cor 9:17 a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me

Gal 2:7 the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me

1Tim 1:11 which was committed to my trust

     The Lexical faults are due to the fact that those dictionaries were written by men who were sinful, who were motivated to remove any notion of repentance from the good news.   Though seriously weak, Friberg defines as follows:

(2) as primarily a religious commitment, especially with God or Christ as the object of faith believe (in), trust; (a) with the object in the dative have faith in, believe (AC 16.34); (b) especially denoting the exercise of saving faith, with the object expressed by using εἰς or ἐπί and the accusative, believe in or on (JN 3.16; AC 9.42); (c) as denoting relying on God for help have confidence, believe (MT 21.22); (3) as committing something to someone entrust, trust (LU 16.11); passive, as having something committed to someone be entrusted with (RO 3.2)

And BDAG, 3rd, defines:

"2. to entrust onself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, w. implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted."

     One can see that the Lexicon's are struggling to get the correct definition into definition 2 for the verb, when they got it right for the noun faithfulness, and the adjective faithful.  What then is so hard about giving faithfulness to, or placing support in for the verb?  Only the bias of rebellious Christianity.       

     I have chosen to translate the Greek πιστεύω as: commit to + [personal object], for a particular reason.  The Hebrew Hiphil in Genesis 15:6: הֶאֱמִין ב־ is literally "place support in".  The Hiphil implies the idea of "make" or "cause", i.e. to make a support with/in.  In Genesis 15:6 the meaning is twofold, a) to make Yahweh one's support, and b) give support to Yahweh.  The English, "And Abraham committed himself to Yahweh" expresses the proper ambiguity.  It implies entrusting oneself and being supportive of the one committed to as the same time.

      What the Scripture is teaching here is covenant, or covenantal nomism.  Yahweh expects us to support him, which is to be faithful to Him.  He says to circumcise your hearts.  He expects us to do what we can do.  He does not expect impossible perfection.  If that is someone's view, then one's concept of the Almighty as loving and merciful is certainly at fault.   If we support Him, then he promises to support us.  If we walk but a little to circumcise our hearts, then He promises to circumcise that which we cannot circumcise.  Therefore, it is written:

     "The righteous shall live by His/his faithfulness" (Hab. 2:4.)

     Observe then that salvation begins with His faithfulness and results in our faithfulness.  We must first find our support in His faithfulness, which is Yeshua's faithfulness renew the covenant by paying the penalty of sin on the cross.  But the condition of receiving forgiveness is that we repent and give our support to Him.  I don't know what is so hard about this.  It only requires one to love Yeshua.  If anyone does not love Messiah, then the truth is not in them.

     What the Church has ingrained in the Christian consciousness, especially of the Lutheran, Calvinist, or Gnostic stripe, is a total fear of thinking that the slightest ounce of loyalty to the Almighty is required in Salvation.  They fear that somehow this will be viewed as merit earning salvation.  Nothing can be further from the truth.   Our faithfulness does not pay for forgiveness.   But Messiah's faithfulness on the cross does.  The dispensational theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer still complains, before he explains his "carnal Christian theory" that the "legalists" are "kept saved by works".   Chafer's doctrine is not based on Scripture.  It is based on his Thomistic-Calvinisitic theology of God, and is squarely contradicted by Paul:

     "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12)

     Yes, we are already saved, but if works have nothing to do with remaining in salvation, then Paul lies.  Yeshua agrees:

     I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (Joh 15:1-10 KJV)

     Yeshua is the vine.  He supports us.  That's his faithfulness.  But if we do not support the vine by bearing fruit, then the Father will remove that unfaithful, unreliable, and untrustworthy branch!  If we remain in His faithfulness, then he will nourish us so that we may produce fruit.

 

The faithfulness of Messiah

 

Gal 2:16 through the faithfulness of Messiah Yeshua 

...by the faithfulness of Messiah.

     Galatians 2:16 has to be the most important text in the book.  It might even rank as the most important text in everything that Paul wrote.  I only quote a snippet here because there is much to be explained before we can approach the rest of the text.  The revered King James Version reads "the faith of Jesus" and "the faith of Christ" respectively.  The NIV on the other hand, along with most every other version reads, "faith in Jesus" and "faith in Christ" respectively.  The NET bible reads, "faithfulness of Jesus" and "faithfulness of Christ" respectively.  What these differences reveal is that there is a raging debate among Scholars as to the meaning of the words.  The NET Bible notes:

Or “faith in Jesus Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

     What this says is that the evidence lies on the side of "faithfulness of Yeshua", and not "faith in Yeshua".  Further, witness this from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (page 114-116):

2) Possible (and Exegetically Significant) Examples involving πίστις χριστοῦ

Arguably the most debated group of texts involves the expression, πίστις  χριστοῦ/: should it be translated “faith in Christ” (objective gen.) or “the faith/faithfulness of  Christ” (subjective gen.)?

Rom 3:22

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

 

the faithfulness of Jesus Christ

Phil 3:9

πίστεως Χριστοῦ

 

the faithfulness of Christ

Eph 3:12

διὰ τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ

 

through his faithfulness

Cf. also Rom 3:26; Gal 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22, for similar wording.

Older commentaries (probably as a Lutheran reflex) see χριστοῦ/ as an objective gen., thus, “faith in Christ.” However, more and more scholars are embracing these texts as involving a subjective gen. (thus, either “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness”). 

1) On behalf of the objective gen. view, it is argued that πίστις in the NT takes an objective gen. when both nouns are anarthrous; it takes a sub­jective gen. when both are articular. In response, the data need to be skewed in order for this to have any weight: most of the examples have a possessive pronoun for the gen., which almost always requires the head noun to have an article. Further, all of the πίστις χριστοῦ/ texts are in prepositional phrases (where the object of the preposition, in this case πίστις, is typically anarthrous). Prepositional phrases tend to omit the article, even when the object of the preposition is definite.

The grammatical argument for the objective gen. [i.e. faith in Christ], then, has little to commend it.

2) On behalf of the subjective gen. view, it is argued that “Pistis followed by the personal genitive is quite rare; but when it does appear it is almost always followed by the non-objective genitive. . . .” This has much more going for it, but still involves some weaknesses. There are two or three clear instances of πίστις + objective personal gen. in the NT (Mark 11:22; Jas 2:1; Rev 2:13), [I disagree;] as well as two clear instances involving an impersonal gen. noun (Col 2:12; 2 Thess 2:13). [I disagree.] Nevertheless, the predominant usage in the NT is with a subjective gen. Prac­tically speaking, if the subjective gen. view is correct, these texts (whether πίστις is translated “faith” or “faithfulness”) argue against “an implicitly docetic Christology.” Further, the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω  rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful. Although the issue is not to be solved via grammar, on balance grammatical considerations seem to be in favor of the subjective gen. view.

     This should show that the translation "faithfulness of Yeshua" and "faithfulness of Messiah" are correct for Galatians 2:16.  What is the "faithfulness of Yeshua"?  In Galatians 2:16 it is: the covenant faithfulness of Yahweh as expressed in Yeshua's faithfulness/commitment to the work on the cross to pay the penalty for our transgressions to renew the Yahweh's covenant with Israel for us.

Justified

"a man is not justified by the works of the law" (Gal. 2:16, KJV).

     I quoted from the King James Version here because before we can approach a solution, we must understand the problem.   If the word justified is interpreted as "acquitted", then the above phrase makes sense in isolation, and is in fact true.  A person is not acquitted by their deeds, because everyone has sinned and is guilty.  A synonym for acquitted is proved right when charged with a crime.  Since all have sinned, no one can be proved right.  However, let us look at the next usage of the phrase:

     "that we might be justified by ...Christ, and not by the works of the law" (Gal. 2:16, KJV).

     Now if the word "justified" means "acquitted" we have a problem.  It would say that the believer is acquitted instead of pardoned (forgiven).  An acquittal is a dismissal of a legal case because the defendant is found "not guilty".  A pardon is a release from the penalty for the crime after the defendant has admitted guilt and asked for clemency: mercy and forgiveness.

     Acquitting the guilty is Scripturally condemned, and in fact, Yahweh himself declares that he will not acquit the guilty:

 

     Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked. (Exo 23:7 KJV)

     If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. (Deu 25:1 KJV)

     He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD. (Pro 17:15 KJV)

 

     To compound the problem, we have the Catholic and Protestant interpretations of "justified".   The Catholics say it means "made righteous".  Put this into the text: "a man is not made righteous by the works of the law", and compare with Deut. 6:25:

     And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. (Deu 6:25 KJV)

 

     The Catholic opinion is lawlessness because it denies that doing the law makes one righteous!  Further, put "made righteous" into the second clause, "that we might be made righteous by ... Christ"; so far that's good; continuing..."and not by the works of the law"; O my! Now we have a problem, because righteousness has been disconnected from the Torah.

      Is the Lutheran/Calvinistic solution any better?  Not at all!  They will have us believe that "justified" means "declared righteous" in a legal sense.  They argue it as "declared 100% righteous" in their legal case with the Almighty.  This again is the same thing as "acquittal", and has the same problems noted above.  But there is a twist.  "Faith in Christ" is supposed to result in a counting of righteousness to the legal account of the believer.  What righteousness is this?  You got it: Christ's obedience to the Torah.  The Almighty then is supposed to acquit the believer when He sees this righteousness.  Oopsy doodle!  Now the person is "declared righteous" by "the works of the law"!!!  And that was already denied: "a man is not declared righteous by the works of the Law".

 

Toward a resolution

 

     We can only say that the traditional Christian positions on "justified" result in contradiction of other Scripture, contradiction of just legal procedure, or self contradiction using their concepts in the same context.  Further, these problems are the result of rebellious attitudes toward the Torah.  What does the verb "justified" really mean?  What does the underlying Greek δικαιόω  mean?

 

     The verb δικαιόω does not mean "declared righteous", "made righteous" or "acquitted" in its primary sense in Hellensitic Greek.  The word means:

1a. do justice, show justice, take up a cause

1b. bring to justice, to do justice to, to have justice done

1c. chastise, punish

1d. to secure justice, pass sentence

1e. to do one justice.

     We can summarize all the above lexical definitions in one word, "justiced";  This is a real English word, and means "to pay the penalty", exactly what the above definitions mean.

     If anyone doubts this, then the following database of Lexical References will place the matter beyond all doubt:

 

 http://www.torahtimes.org/Greek_database/greek_words_index.htm#dikaioo

 

     The Greek word simply means "justiced", i.e. to pay the penalty.

     Gal 2:16: "knowing that a man is not justiced by the works of the Torah..."

     This means that no one can plead that the penalty is paid by their good deeds.

     "but by the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah"

     One is justiced [pays the penalty] by pleading guilty and asking for the forgiveness of Yahweh via Messiah's faithful payment of the penalty on the cross.  We plead the faithfulness/commitment of Yeshua to restore the covenant to us by his work on the cross.

      "We to Messiah Yeshua commit so that we may be justiced by the faithfulness of Messiah, and not by the works of the Torah." 

     And now all the problems have disappeared.  The text is not forced to say that salvation is based on "acquittal" or being "declared righteous".  Such nonsense as the idea of "made righteous" "without the works of the law" is not read into the text either.

     Now the whole text:

     "knowing that a man is not justiced by the works of the Torah but by the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah. We to Messiah Yeshua commit so that we may be justiced by the faithfulness of Messiah, and not by the works of the Torah. Because no one will be justiced by the works of the Law."

Justiced

This ancient usage shows up in Modern English at times.  Here are a few examples from the internet:

 

"Was he justiced? Was he hanged No..."

"The boy is being bullied! It is time for me to start Justicing and protect him! FOR JUSTICE!"

 

A closely related phrase, "have justice served".

 

Here are some ancient usages of δικαιόω that I collected:

 

Sir 9:12 they will not be justiced until Hades

Polyb. 3,31,9 you will justice yourselves

Dio 48, 46 Antony was not justicing Ceasar

Arist. EN V 1136a18, 30:  have justice done to one

Jos Ant 17.206 who had been justiced for pulling down the golden eagle

Jos Ant 18.178 to be justiced by death, to be a relief

Jos Ant 18:14 and that under the earth there will be rewards or justicings

 

    Gal 2:17 “But if, while seeking to be justiced in Messiah, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Messiah then a minister of sin? May it never be!

     We seek to pay the penalty in Messiah.  The key phrase "justiced in Messiah" means we are seeking to have the divine justice satisfied through Yeshua's death on the cross.   Also note that Paul declares "we...have been found sinners";  To be found sinners means to be shown guilty before the Almighty, which is the opposite of acquittal.  It is a legal contradiction to seek for an "acquittal", to seek to be "declared righteous" when the court finds that you are a sinner.

Justice

     "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Gal 2:21 KJV)

     This text presents a problem to be broken down into two steps.  First is the word "righteousness" and second is the word "law".  For the time being I will interpret "law"  as "works of the law".  This is not entirely accurate, but it will do for this text, and allow us to focus on the first part of the problem, which is the word "righteousness".  "Righteousness" in English culture is a word that purely designates a quality of moral goodness or a state of moral correctness.   If this is what the text means, then it is surely a mistake and contradiction of Torah.  Moral goodness does come by observing the Torah.  "Love your neighbor as yourself" is part of the Torah.  Loving your neighbor is moral goodness.   What is lost sight of in the English word "righteousness" is that in Hebrew the word can also designate a righteous action that is done by one party to another party, such as a judge to a defendant.  We call this action "justice".  In both Hebrew and Greek "justice" as an action of righteousness to another, and "righteousness" as moral goodness of character are expressed by the same word.

     We are concerned with Greek here.  The word is δικαιοσύνη.  It's first definition is "justice", and the second "righteousness".  And the reader can verify that this is true by checking the lexical database:

 

 http://www.torahtimes.org/Greek_database/greek_words_index.htm#dikaiousune

 

     Translating  δικαιοσύνη "justice" solves the hard part of the problem.  The rest is trivial:

 

      Gal 2:21 “I do not nullify the loving-kindness of the Almighty; for if justice is through the *[works of the] law, then Messiah died needlessly.”

     What we are talking about here is doing the works of the law as a means of satisfying the divine justice.  The divine justice is the Almighty One's wrath against sin.  Can being good appease Yahweh's wrath?  Paul's answer is no.  Paul's answer is also that if it did, then Messiah's payment of the penalty would be needless.

 

The Norm

 

     The Greek word for "law" has a more fundamental meaning in Greek that is overlooked by the translators, no doubt because they have a rebellious attitude toward the Torah, and they would like to avoid the basic meaning of νόμος in texts where mistranslating it might serve to negate the Torah.  That meaning is "norm", "custom" or "usage".  A visit to the Greek word database would be instructive:

 

http://www.torahtimes.org/Greek_database/greek_words_index.htm#nomos

 

     Let's look at Merriam-Webster's definition of "norm":

 

Main Entry: norm
Etymology: Latin norma, literally, carpenter's square
Date: 1674

1 : an authoritative standard : model
2 : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
3 : average: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c : a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom <standing ovations became the norm>

 

 

     Let us now revisit Gal. 2:21 with the real defintion of νόμος.

Gal 2:21 “I do not nullify the loving-kindness of the Almighty; for if justice is through the norm, then Messiah died needlessly.”

    This requires us to think about normal justice, or what justice would be according to the norm.  Normally, justice is served by punishing the guilty.  On the other hand, when we are justiced by Messiah, the procedure is unusual, though legal.  We plead guilty and forgiveness is possible because Yeshua pays the penalty on our behalf.

     I will illustrate νόμος with one more text:

Rom 10:4 For Messiah is the end of the norm regarding justice for everyone committing to him.

     Messiah is supposed to be "the end of the law for righteousness";  however those translations are in reality an interpretation of Paul's Greek with three faults, 1. Such interpretation pays no attention to the covenantal context, and 2. It isn't the best Greek, and 3. It perverts the good news of salvation by taking teaching about Yeshua's payment of the penalty (that ends the norm for justice for us), and turns it into a statement negating the teaching of righteousness from the Torah.