# Genesis 15:6 imputation



## arapahoepark (Apr 26, 2015)

Can someone explain to me a little more of what he is saying in the Hebrew relation to faith vs act of believing?
Berith Road: imputation
It seems like a good blog overall but he seems enthralled with Dumbrell who, even though advocates an overarching covenant of grace and claims to be Reformed, is a hybrid of Arminian and dispensational soteriology and NPP.


----------



## KeithW (Apr 26, 2015)

I cannot comment on the original Hebrew. But I looked through both the article and the current comments and they are focusing so much on trying to understand imputation that they are taking Gen. 15:6 out of context to miss the definition of faith. And they are missing Paul's commentary on this and his definition of faith in Rom. 4. So here is something to think about.

In Gen. 15:6 Abraham believed God, but what did he believe? According to that website Abraham believed God's word. But this is too vague. What Abraham believed in verse 6 is explained in verse 5. Abraham believed God's promise of something that God would do, and that only He could do. That is what Abraham believed. With that in mind, then read Paul's Holy Spirit inspired commentary in Rom. 4 about faith in Gen. 15:6. "fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised" (Rom. 4:21 ESV) The key is God's promises. Then consider Gen. 15 and Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 and look for the idea of God's promises. Abraham believed God was able to keep His promises and that God was faithful to keep His promises. And that kind of belief was imputed/counted/reckoned as righteousness. And us reformed folks believe that kind of faith is a gift from God anyway.

It is as if the folks in that article and comment section are trying to understand imputation by taking it out of its context.


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 27, 2015)

Bump


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2015)

Trent,
We generally limit the interaction on this site with the content found on other personal-sites like blogs. Not everyone out there can agree to our standards here, and get his voice heard here in answer to critiques. We don't want to be caught in "flame wars" over the internet, dueling websites, etc.

That said, a public opinion aired elsewhere is an invitation for criticism (as ours of the PB is also ripe for the same). So I will offer a critique in service to you, but not for the sake of opening up any sort of mediated conversation between here and there.

************************

Gen.15:6, "...and he counted IT to him righteousness." To what does "it" refer? Simply _that Abram was a believer of the LORD._ Not so much his doing (act); but his being. It _*isn't*_ his ACT that constitutes him in God's eyes; but his NOT-acting; which is the way Paul interprets the force of the passage.

The reason "it" is feminine (lit. "her," there is no Heb. neuter gender) is not because "faith" is fem. in Heb. (there is both a masc. & fem. form of the common word for "faith," see Strongs H529 & 530), although the fem. form is by far more predominate of the two in the whole OT. But the two together are each given a single mention in the whole Pentateuch, thereby negating almost entirely any supposed preference for the feminine in Moses, the first author of the lasting prophetic record.

Probably the best reason estimated for finding the fem. pronoun in this context is because of "to him" that follows. The fem. is chosen not for any alleged noun (or pure-conceptual) antecedent; but for clarity of the sentence. Here's how is reads if HIM is used: "And he believed the LORD, and he counted *him to him* as righteousness." Confusing. "Her"/It creates a clear contrast in referents over against "him," that is Abram.

It is not that faith _*itself*_--whether the power to believe, or the act of believing, or some sufficient measure of the exercise--is put in place of all that righteous requirement God requires. The author is correct to say there is little difference between the two options he offers in the article. However, neither option #1 nor #2 actually get it right. He does reject the worse of the two, in my opinion.

God did not look upon Abram, consider his believing posture, and so count him who was a sinner-in-fact nevertheless righteous, and worthy on some other ground than righteous perfection. We must dissent from the position set forth as missing the true force of the language.

Abram believed God: that God fulfills his Word as a matter of course; that God will make a son of Abram the Savior of the world; that God justifies the ungodly, Rom.4:5. God looked upon Abram, not to see if he would obey (work) or to see if he might believe, whereby He should have reason to justify him. But He looked upon Abram as a believer--a man who hopes in God alone, counting himself unworthy--and this... nothing, this non-working sinner God reckons "righteous." God looks at Abram and sees righteousness, because he sees a believer; he sees him in Christ.

Faith itself is only an instrument (nonmeritorious) by which the promise is laid hold of.

************************

The putative Hebrew basis for his analysis is extremely weak. Perhaps there is a case he could make, but the offering is not sound.

The comparison made in the text to Ps.106:31, on account of the 3fs verbal application is worthless, so far as the analysis presented. "Presumably... [there is a] feminine singular subject pronoun implied within the verb [v30] being used abstractly." What might that pronoun be? Where? How? There is no exegesis here, and no reliance on formal grammar. He writes, "the implied feminine singular pronoun in Ps 106:31... _refer to Phinehas’s intervention_." Proof? What word, what term? In the end, it is all very convenient.

Then, this convoluted proposal is granted _interpretive weight,_ of all things. This "serves as a linguistic precedent for taking the feminine singular pronoun in Gen 15:6 as an example of an abstract use of the feminine singular pronoun in a similar context." Except that nothing whatever is yet proven; and the "precedent" of fact would need to be granted to Gen.15:6; and poetry is hardly the background one would like to establish normative use of language in narrative text. The same verb is used in the second text, but with different stem, PGN, and suffix; "righteousness" has a lamed prefix in the second text; "to him" is the only precise parallel in the two texts.

My tentative proposal, as to what the Psalmist might have thought when he wrote, "and *that* was credited to him for righteousness," was from the text of Num. 25:13, where the prominent word is "covenant" (berit, n. fem.). This is pure conjecture, I'd be very hesitant to preach such a supposition, but at least it has some real textual basis. There is literally no textual or grammatical basis for the other.

************************

I don't think further interaction with the comment-section of another man's blog is appropriate, so I'll stop at this. I hope you find it helpful.


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 27, 2015)

Thanks Rev. Buchanan,
I was not intending to interact with him. It was just a blog I recently ran into and found _some_ good stuff. I decided to check imputation in the categories but, the post was unclear and not spelled out the way you decided to do in your post so I was confused.


----------

