 |
|
|
|
|
|
Submit Articles
|
| Beryth – His Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (5) |
For us to enter into His presence, God must first reconcile, renew, and then transform us from blemished material beings who are subject to sin, death and decay, who are guilty for having failed to live up to His standard, into perfect spiritual beings who are not only innocent and eternal, but who are now unblemished and undying. In other words, since God already is what He intends for us, He must perfect and improve us to adopt us. And that means that salvation, rather than being God’s gift, is simply the means to deliver the real gift, which are the benefits of the Familial Covenant Relationship.
While Yahowah’s “natan – gift” is His Covenant, being vindicated is an essential part of the process. As a result, we are afforded the opportunity to be included in His family and are bestowed the right to live with Him in His home—forever. Beyond this, we will be empowered, enabled, and enriched beyond our wildest expectations – all of which has far-reaching implications.
Written in the cohortative mood, natan expresses Yahowah’s desire to invite us into His home. It tells us that He wants to adopt us as His children. God has chosen to engage in this relationship with us. He is on record, ready and willing to bestow these benefits upon us.
The qal stem serves to make this promise and offer genuine. It literally makes the Covenant a “natan – gift” of relationship.
The imperfect conjugation reveals that the gift of the Covenant has eternal, everlasting, ramifications, the benefits of which unfold over time. Moreover, the imperfect underscores the fact that Yahowah is consistent in this regard, and that the nature of this gift of relationship is uninterrupted, unchanging, and unfailing throughout the whole fabric of time. And that my friends is an insight you do not want to ignore.
Therefore, by using this remarkable verb in this way, Yahowah has told us: “I want to actually give, I yearn to genuinely bestow the everlasting gift of, I desire to grant the ongoing reward of, I choose to literally offer the unfolding present of, I choose to ascribe and entrust the eternal endowment of, and I wish to devote and dedicate without interruption or alteration, even pay for and consistently provide into perpetuity (natan), My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth-y) as a means to recognize Me as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond to this relationship (byn).” (Re’syth 17:2)
A sound argument could be made that “beryth – covenant” is the single most important word and concept in the whole of Scripture. Based as you know on beyth, it describes a “family-oriented relationship.” The beryth is God’s nurturing agreement with humankind and His binding promise with His creation. The beryth is a solemn oath of friendship. It represents a mutual alliance and pledge and is based upon a marriage vow. This beryth is focused upon a home where family is fostered and encouraged, even protected. God’s beryth is His constitution, His compact and contract. It represents His treaty with mankind and serves as a partnership.
Yahowah’s unfolding plan to reconcile His relationship with you and me revolves around this, the one and only “beryth – Covenant.” It serves as God’s binding promise to us, His oath of friendship, His vow of marriage.
You will also note that “beryth – covenant” is singular, not plural. In fact beryth is never scribed in the plural form. There is only one Covenant. And that means that the notion of two Covenants, of an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament,” is in direct conflict with the Word of God.
It also means that Paul lied in his letters to the Galatians and to the Romans when he wrote of “two covenants,” with the one memorialized here in the Towrah being “of the flesh,” calling it a “curse” and “cruel taskmaster,” which “enslaved,” “had become obsolete,” and which “never had the power to save anyone.” Because Yahowah’s Covenant is the opposite of these things, and because Yahowah’s description of His Covenant is affirmed in His own voice, Paul’s replacement covenant, said to be of the “spirit,” of “faith,” and of “grace,” isn’t worth the papyrus his letters were written upon. Therefore, if you haven’t already done so, this would be a fine time to wipe your mind and soul clean of Paul’s deceptions.
Simply stated, Yahowah’s one and only Covenant is God’s enduring gift—His eternal and binding promise to form a relationship with us. It alone provides the means for us to become members of His family, and for us to live with Him in His home. While it will be affirmed and renewed, that will not happen until He returns on the Day of Reconciliations. And when this occurs, the beneficiaries will be Yahuwdym and Yisra’el, not Christians. And on that day, rather than the Torah being neglected and disrespected, as it is in Christianity, God’s Instructions and Guidance will be placed inside of us.
Before we press on, we’d be impoverished if we didn’t consider the full implications of byn – especially in this context. By way of a reminder, God has just revealed: “I want to actually give the ongoing benefits of (natan) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth-y) as a means to recognize Me as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn – as the way to recognition and understand this association with Me) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond to this relationship (byn – for you to examine, consider, understand, and reply appropriately).” (Re’syth 17:2)
Byn, which can be simplistically translated “between Me” and then as “between you,” is indistinguishable in the text from the operative word of the 119th Psalm. If you recall, Dowd consistently emphasized the importance of coming to “byn – understand” the Towrah’s teachings. Byn then represents “the means to recognize, to comprehend, and to respond” to the Towrah, its Author, and His offer. To byn is to “carefully observe the evidence, thoughtfully considering the available testimony in a discerning and perceptive manner so that you come to know and understand. It is the basis of rational thought and the means to this relationship.
When you consider that byn speaks of the “means to come together,” and represents an agreement “between individuals which causes one party to come into the midst of the other for an interval of time,” the “recognition and understanding” aspects of byn become extraordinarily relevant, especially in the context of the Covenant. I share this because byn describes the purpose of our nesamah, or conscience, that unique gift of God which gives us the opportunity to know and understand Him. Running on byn, our nesamah enables us to differentiate between fact and fiction, right and wrong, truth and deception, that which is reliable and that which is not, so that we might respond sensibly to the Covenant. Byn, as the means to exercise good judgment and decide, prompts the Towrah observant to accept and embrace the terms and conditions of the Covenant. So byn is not only a prerequisite for good judgment, for logic, for justice, for morality, and for making informed and rational choices, it is the means “to understand” the Covenant, to “know” Yahowah, to engage in a “close relationship with” Him, bringing you into God’s presence.
It must also be said that “byn – discernment” is the antithesis of “faith.” Rather than a belief in the unknown, byn is “a rational response to that which is known.” Our participation in Yahowah’s Covenant is predicated upon knowledge and understanding which lead to trust and reliance.
Yahowah’s Covenant promise to Abram continued with these words: “And because (wa) I yearn to continually increase and multiply (rabah – I will, out of My own volition and desire, as part of a mutually engaged relationship, consistently promote and foster growth throughout time for (hiphil imperfect cohortative)) you in (ba) the extreme and to the uttermost (ma’od ma’od – to the greatest extent possible in power and strength, energy and capability, to the highest point in dimensions and status).’” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:2) This is why the Covenant is called “God’s Gift.”
Ma’od is an adverb, and as such, it is modifying “rabah – I will continually increase and cause you to grow forever.” Used once, it would make the “increase and growth” “exceedingly significant.” But ma’od was repeated twice, telling us that God plans to magnify our present status, increase us dimensionally, augment our overall amount of energy and capability, so abundantly, the increase exceeds our imagination. Like a loving father, our Heavenly Father wants to help us grow so that we reach our ultimate potential. And nothing is more empowering or designates a higher status, than being God’s child.
By using rabah (especially scribed in the imperfect) in the context of the Covenant, our Heavenly Father is saying that He will “rabah – consistently rear us, continually caring for us so that we grow into perpetuity and reach our full potential over the entire fabric of time, becoming exceedingly greater than we currently are.” Moreover, by analyzing the juxtaposition of rabah and ma’od, we discover that Yahowah is not speaking about the quantity of Abram’s descendants, but instead about demonstrably and substantially increasing Abram’s status (from a human child to God’s son), his dimensions (from 3.5 (stuck as we are in time) to 7.0) his capability (from matter to energy), his life (from mortal to eternal), and his wealth (from owning a flock of sheep to inheriting his own slice of the universe).
Since Abram lived the rest of his life as a regular guy, a rather typical human, it becomes obvious that these promises all applied to the eternal and spiritual realm. Therefore, those who byn come to view all of this as a benefit of the Covenant, its result, where we become more like God. The children of the Covenant become more powerful and energetic, more capable and longer lived. God’s children enjoy an elevated status. As a result of the Covenant, and of choosing to walk to God along the path He, Himself, walked, we are magnified, inheriting God’s source of energy as our nature is transformed from physical to spiritual.
The fact that Yah communicated rabah using the hiphil imperfect cohortative speaks volumes. The hiphil stem tells us that the subject of this verb causes the object of the verb to participate in the action as if they were a secondary subject. For example, in the sentence “Yada led you toward understanding,” the direct object (you) participates in the action that the subject (Yada) caused. So since God is the subject of this promise and we are the object, it is by consistently engaging with God in His Covenant that we continually grow. Our ongoing participation in the Covenant with Yahowah enables our Heavenly Father to eternally empower us. And as you know, the consistent, continual, habitual, ongoing, and eternal aspects of this verb are derived from its imperfect conjugation. And even better, by presenting rabah in the cohortative mood, we can revel in the realization that this is what Yah wants to do, as it expresses His desire and yearning.
Yahowah has told Abram, and us through him, what the Covenant Relationship was to entail, what He expected, and what He was offering in return. Up to this point, we have learned that Yahowah was insistent that Abram leave Babylon—the headwaters of the political and religious schemes contrived by man. Now He wants him to walk to Him.
There are three aspects to “walking” that I don’t want you to miss. First, those who are walking are standing upright, not bowing down. God wants to be adored as our father, not worshiped as a “lord.” Second, those who are walking are engaged and active, not passive. Relationships are not for spectators. Third, the Covenant is a journey of discovery, a way of life. It is about traveling through space and time with Yahowah.
There is an additional aspect of “walk” worthy of contemplation. There are other forms of locomotion our Heavenly Father could have chosen. And yet He did not say “stand at attention.” Rather, He is indicating that we are to be at ease with Him. He did not say “march.” Therefore, we are not following orders. God did not say “run.” So He isn’t challenging us to perform. He did not say “fly,” suggesting that He isn’t beyond our reach. He didn’t even say “jump,” because He hasn’t set up any obstacles between us. God did not say “ride,” either. Not only will He be providing the transport to heaven, a relationship requires both parties to actively engage. But He did say “walk,” because He wants us by His side, moving through life together.
It bears repeating: Yahowah wanted Abram to walk to Him, which required him to make the conscious decision to choose to be with God, and then to move in that direction. It further implies that God wanted Abram to be at ease with Him, to walk along side of Him, to be conversant with Him. He did not ask Abram to praise Him, to bow before His throne, or to put Him on a pedestal. These instructions are the antithesis of that, and as such they may represent some of the most important words in Scripture.
Yahowah has invited us to have a relationship with Him. He did not establish a religion. Further, this relationship with our Maker is to be on a first-name basis. We are invited to walk side-by-side, in His presence, conversing with Him. If you get nothing more out of this book than that, my labor and your time will be rewarded in abundance. If you capitalize on this offer, God will cause you to grow in status and power beyond your imagination.
Considering the Source, the offer of the Familial Covenant Relationship was very humbling stuff. And that’s probably why Abram reacted the way he did. But pay special attention to God’s reply...
“Then (wa) Abram (‘Abram – Father Who Lifts Up) fell (napal) on His face (‘al paneh – in God’s presence), and (wa) God (‘elohym – the Mighty One) spoke (dabar – talked and communed, shared the word) with him (‘eth), to say (la amar – to respond): ‘Here I Am, look at Me (‘any hineh). My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – I have formed a personal partnership and friendly association) is with you (‘eth). You shall be (hayah – you will exist as) a father (‘ab) to (la) many enriched (hamown – an abundance of) people from different races and places (gowym).” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:3-4)
It’s hard to see up when you are looking down, which is why Yahowah’s directions are the opposite of Catholic and Islamic prostrations. While man is prone to falling down, and has been conditioned to bow down, God wants to lift us up so that we can be with Him and look Him in the eye.
The “beryth – covenant” is a family relationship, and an “’ab – father” serves as a progenitor of a family – which is the reference being made here. In this way Abram represents our “Uplifting Father” who was soon to become Abraham, our “Merciful Father.” Both serve as metaphors for God, our Heavenly Father, who is the Patriarch of the Uplifting and Merciful Family Relationship known as the “Beryth – Covenant.” This is God’s plan to adopt and enrich us.
The “gowym – people from many races and places” who have embraced Yahowah’s Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship, and who have been adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family, are indeed “hamown – abundantly rich.” As part of our adoption, we inherit Yahowah’s possessions—which include everything in the entire universe. While I don’t know how many thousands of us there are or will be, there is more than enough to go around to exceed the pledge communicated within this verse.
Speaking of this offer, Yahowsha’ affirmed Yahowah’s promise when He said: “I am the Door (associating Himself with Passover). If anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved…. I came so that they might have life more abundantly.” (Yahowchanan / John 10:9-10)
Throughout Scripture, there are many words and statements which reveal important contrasts, words and ideas which have a light and dark side, depending upon whether the primary, secondary, or tertiary definition is considered. This is one such place. The benefit of the Covenant is derived from hamown’s primary definition: “being enriched with abundant wealth through the accumulation of possessions greatly in excess of what is actually required.” Through the Covenant we are “hamown – enriched” in this way because God’s children receive their Heavenly Father’s inheritance.
But that is not all hamown means. Its secondary definition is “to create an uproar which confuses the masses, to clamor in a loud and unruly fashion so that many are motivated to riot, inducing hordes of militants plunder their victims.” Then under its tertiary definition, hamown speaks of “political pomp and pontification,” even of “religious pronouncements and processions which mystify and cause the preponderance of people to be agitated.” This connotation defines the result: “turmoil, commotion, tumult, and riots.” So because of the massive cultural damage the dark side of hamown can do to an entire community, indeed to a civilization, the final definitional consideration of hamown reads: “crowd, multitude, masses, and populace.”
Therefore, in the dark and light side of this word, we witness the contrast between the consequence of embracing the Covenant and the result of rejecting it. We are either among the few who are adopted by God and are “hamown – enriched,” or we become “hamown – one of the many depraved victims of man’s caustic religious, political, economic, and military schemes.”
Turning next to gowym, we discover that the primary designation, “people from different races and places” is the best fit in this godly pronouncement, because “individuals the world over, regardless of their genes or their geography,” have been enriched by Yahowah’s Covenant. But, gowy, the singular of gowym, can also be translated using its secondary connotation which is “nation,” as it is a subset of the word’s primary implication. And as you are probably aware, religious Jews prefer to transliterate Gowym as “Gentiles,” and then to ascribe the word’s tertiary meaning to those who are not Jewish: “heathen pagans who are uncultured and act as animals.”
Therefore, by using the primary characterization of both words, we know that “gowym – individuals the world over” will choose to be made “hamown – abundantly rich” by Yahowah’s “Beryth – Familial Covenant Relationship.” But many will choose an opposing fate. We discover by considering the implications of the secondary and tertiary connotations of each term, that God is predicting that not all of the gowym who claim Abraham as their patriarch, such as Christians and Muslims do, will benefit. And as usual, He was right.
Before we press on, let’s see how accurately some of the more popular English Bibles did with this extraordinarily important passage. To accomplish this, we should recognize that Yahowah said:
“I want to actually give, I yearn to genuinely bestow the everlasting gift of, and I choose to literally offer the unfolding present of, and I wish to devote and dedicate without interruption or alteration, even pay for and consistently provide into perpetuity (natan), My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth-y) as a means to recognize Me as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond to this relationship (byn). And because (wa) I yearn to continually increase and multiply, as part of a mutually engaged relationship, fostering growth throughout time for (rabah) you in (ba) the extreme and to the uttermost, to the greatest extent possible in power and strength, energy and capability, and to the highest point in dimensions and status (ma’od ma’od). (17:2)
Then (wa) Abram (‘Abram) fell (napal) on His face (‘al paneh), and (wa) God (‘elohym) spoke (dabar) with him (‘eth), to say (la amar): (17:3) ‘Here I Am, look at Me (‘any hineh). My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth) is with you (‘eth). You shall be (hayah) a father (‘ab) to (la) many enriched (hamown) people from different races and places (gowym).’” (17:4)
The first Gentiles to “translate” Yahowah’s testimony using secondary and tertiary definitions for “hamown – enrich” and “gowym – individuals from different races and places,” was the Roman Catholic Church. They did so in their Latin Vulgate, where Jerome began by errantly rendering “natan – give” as if it were “karat – cut or make. He also ignored “hineh – look at Me,” which was Yahowah’s response to Abram falling on his face. “And I will make my covenant between me and thee: and I will multiply thee exceedingly.” (2) “Abram fell flat on his face.” (3) “And God said to him: I am, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” (4)
Conffirming that the King James Version is actually a revision of the Latin Vulgate, rather than a translation of the Hebrew text, we find the king’s occultist coconspirator, Sir Francis Bacon, plagiarizing Jerome: “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. (2) And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,” (3) “As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” (4)
Also ignoring the fact that Yahowah said that His Covenant was a “natan –gift,” and that Yahowah asked Abram to “hineh – look at Him,” the New Living Translation published something substantially different than Yahowah’s actual testimony. To highlight their errors, I have emboldened the words they added without textual support or that they rendered using secondary meanings: “I will make a covenant with you, by which I will guarantee to give you countless descendants.” (2) “At this, Abram fell face down on the ground. Then God said to him,” (3) “This is my covenant with you: I will make you the father of a multitude of nations!” (4) Beyond revisiting every one of Jerome’s and Bacon’s mistakes, and beyond their ill advised additions, hayah does not mean “make.” It means: “you shall be” or “you shall exist as.”
It’s little wonder Christians fail to understand that the “Beryth – Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship” presented in the Towrah is Yahowah’s “natan – gift” to us, that God wants us to “hineh – look at Him,” rather than bow down, and that the purpose of this relationship is “rabah – to increase and multiply” us in the “ma’od ma’od – extreme and to the uttermost.” Unknown to Christians as a result of their errant translations, the Covenant was given to Abram so as to “’ab – father” “hamown – many enriched” “gowym – individuals from different races and places.” It is what Yahowah wants most: to empower us to become His children, to lift us up and make us vastly greater than we currently are, so that we might inherit all that is His to give. This is the gift of the Covenant. It is the reason the Towrah was written.
There are two reasons that I can say with absolute certainty that these three bible translations have misrepresented Yahowah’s message. The initial proof is encapsulated in the previous paragraph, where the primary definitions of the words Yahowah actually selected were disregarded.
The second reason is a bit more complicated, but no less relevant. We know Abraham had a legitimate and an illegitimate son. The legitimate son, Yitzchaq, became the father of Ya’aqob who became Yisra’el—a people expressly contrasted from the gowym. The use of “gowym – gentiles” thereby excludes the one and only nation considered valuable by God. And nothing is known about what happened to Yshma’el, other than he married an Egyptian and wandered off into the desert where his offspring were predicted by Yahowah to be “wild asses of men whose hand would be against their brothers, and who would live in conflict with the whole world.” So there is no chance that these gowym asses embody the gift of the Covenant either. Therefore, it is senseless to render ma’od, hamown, and gowym as Christian theologians have done.
Abram’s transition from “Uplifting Father” to “Loving and Merciful Father who Enriches,” illustrates the nature of our Heavenly Father’s Covenant gift. It represents a “loving act of undeserved favor, of forgiveness provided out of a sense of compassion and affection.”
We know this because God said: “And (wa) no longer shall (lo’ ‘owd) your name (shem – your personal and proper name) be called out (qara’ – be proclaimed, read, or recited, summoned or designated) as (‘eth – by) ‘Abram (‘abram – uplifting father). Your personal and proper name (shem – your designation and renown) shall be (hayah – shall exist as) ‘Abraham (‘abraham – Loving and Merciful Father who Enriches; a compound of ‘ab – father, raham – womb of merciful, forgiving, tender love, affection, and compassion, and hamown – to enrich). I have given to you (natan – I have granted as a gift to you) the designation of (ky – the brand and symbolism designating to whom someone belongs of) the father (‘ab) of many enriched (hamown) people from different races and places (gowym).” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:5)
Once again I would like to remind you that God did not, and could not have told Abraham that the benefit of the covenant would be to make him the father of many nations, because that is not what occurred. Beyond the fact that the primary meaning of hamown and gowy are as I’ve rendered them in these passages, if Yahowah intended infer that Yisra’el would become great, then He would not have used gowy or gowym, singular or plural. Apart from using the name Yisra’el, He could have used ‘am, the familial term for naturally-born children. As you know, gowym speaks of foreign populations, thereby expressly excluding Yisra’el.
More telling still, the number of Yahuwdym/Jews has been and continues to be limited by their religious enemies. So even though I understand that there are over a billion Muslims who mindlessly claim to have descended from Ishmael, they are all adversaries, and thus counterproductive to this partnership. After all, Yahowah dedicated the previous chapter to demeaning Ishmael, so His evaluation of Islam is well attested. Therefore, the only other nations which claim decadency from Abraham are expressly disqualified.
|
The only meaningful message in complete harmony with the words themselves, especially in the context of this Covenant discussion, is that our “Loving, Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate Father who Enriches,” through this familial relationship, has adopted people from many different races, living in many different places into His family, and that these spiritual children, after having been elevated in status, have been enriched, inheriting all that is God’s to give. While we all begin life outside of God’s family and home, and are all foreigners initially, Yahowah has a plan in place for this status to change.
According to Yahowah, not only will those He adopts by way of His Covenant become abundantly rich, and be exceedingly empowered, He will grow as well...
“And (wa) I will grow, be fruitful, and flourish (parah – I choose to grow by branching off and bearing fruit (scribed using the hiphil stem denoting a relationship in which both parties participate in the action; perfect conjugation telling us that this growth will complete God just as children make a family whole; and in the consecutive form which conveys volition; first person singular, affirming that it is God who is choosing to branch off, blossom and grow, be fruitful and to flourish relationally)) with you (‘eth – in association with you) in (ba – with) the extreme and to the greatest extent possible (ma’od ma’od – to the uttermost capacity of energy and capability, to the highest possible and most complete dimension, place, and status).” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:6)
Yahowah has defined the purpose of the Covenant from His perspective. Family relationships complete Him; children cause Him to grow, to branch out, to blossom, and to flourish. The hope of developing a mutually beneficial and engaged relationship with us is the reason God created the universe. It is the reason we exist. You and I actually provide the means for Yahowah to grow, for Him to become greater than He already is. Without the Covenant, deprived of these relationships, God ceases to be infinite, because by definition, to be infinite, one must continue to grow. Loving relationships, a flourishing family, children to nurture, companions to enjoy, a universe to share and explore with supportive friends, represent the only things God cannot provide for Himself.
The fruit of the Covenant is growth – both ours and God’s. Our Loving and Merciful Father grows and is enriched when His family grows and is enriched. It is that simple. It is that profound.
We know these things because ma’od is an adverb modifying the verb “parah – I will be fruitful and grow.” Just four verses ago, in Re’syth 17:2, ma’od was used to modify “rabah – I will cause you to increase and grow.” And because ma’od was scribed ma’od ma’od in both sentences, God is telling us that the Covenant will not only cause us to increase and grow beyond our wildest imagination, it will also cause Yahowah to be fruitful and grow to His maximum potential. By helping His children flourish, our Heavenly Father grows. Loving family relationships empower and enrich everyone—including God.
As with most things, however, relationships can also be painful, even counterproductive. For example, have you ever loved someone who didn’t return your love? Have you ever cared about someone who didn’t seem to care about you? If you have, you know that there are few experiences as frustrating or exasperating as being rebuffed, rejected, or just ignored. Trying to initiate and nurture a relationship which is not reciprocated can drain the life right out of a person. And so it would be with God if He personally solicited everyone on earth. So I suppose this is why God loves those who love Him. It is why His mercy has been and will be bequeathed upon thousands, not millions or billions of souls. It is why His family will ultimately be small compared to the number of people who have rejected or ignored His overtures.
Before we complete our review of this statement, I want you to know that most every English bible differs significantly from the way I have translated the passage. It’s not that the words are confusing, but instead that the theologians who rendered them can’t fathom the notion that God benefits and grows as a result of the relationships which are facilitated by His Covenant.
And yet there is no denying that the text begins: “w-h-parah-y – and I will grow and be fruitful.” The “w,” prefix, representing the conjunction “and,” indicates the beginning of a new sentence. Then, because parah was scribed in the first person singular, we must recognize and include the pronoun “I” at this juncture in the sentence. And therefore, since Yahowah is speaking to Abraham, He is the one who is growing.
Also, as noted in the text, the hiphil stem speaks of relationships in which both parties participate in the action. Therefore, God is addressing one of the benefits of His Familial Covenant Relationship. Furthermore, the verb’s perfect conjugation reveals that God’s growth will complete Him, making Him whole. And lastly, the consecutive form tells us that God has chosen this result because it is what He wants. In fact, the only rational conclusion which is possible based upon this statement is that God’s growth explains the reason He created us.
The second word in this verse, ‘eth-d, is “‘eth – with” suffixed in the second person singular masculine, meaning “with you” or “in association with it”—in this case referring to ‘Abram and/or his new name: “‘Abraham – the Loving and Merciful Father who Enriches.” The third and fourth words are: “b-ma’od ma’od.” The “b” represents the preposition “in.” And ma’od ma’od conveys: “to the greatest extent possible.”
Therefore, since God said: “And (wa) I will grow, be fruitful, and flourish (parah) with you (‘eth) in (ba) the extreme and to the greatest extent possible (ma’od ma’od),” (Re’syth 17:6), these translations are all inconsistent with the words He selected. So why did the Roman Catholic Vulgate publish: “And I will make thee increase exceedingly?” Why did the King James Version mimic them with: “And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful?” Why did the New Living Translation follow suit: “I will make you extremely fruitful?”
I find it telling that they all published: “I will make thee/you...,” even though every translator was aware that none of the six Hebrew verbs which could have be translated “make” were included in the text. Should you be curious, they are: 1) karat – make in the sense of cutting a deal, 2) bara’ – make in the sense of creating, 3) ‘abad – making something happen through one’s labor or service, 4) ma’aseh – working to make or accomplish something, 5) ‘alylyah – making in the sense of effecting an outcome, and 6) ‘asah – doing, fashioning, or accomplishing, and thereby making.
Every translator knew that parah was used as a verb, not as a noun in this sentence. Therefore: “to grow and to be fruitful,” is accurate, while making someone “fruitful” is not.
And each publication recognized that the verb parah was not suffixed in the second person singular, so it cannot read: “I will cause you to grow or be fruitful.” The second person singular pronoun was added as a suffix to the following word: “’eth-d – with you.”
While I do not claim to be a great translator, one does not have to possess such skills to render these four words accurately. So this begs the question: why did all of these translators choose to change God’s testimony? Why did they all perpetrate the same mistake? Since there is no reason to think that they were poorly informed or unqualified, what was their agenda? What were they trying to hide or to promote?
And this is no small issue. Accurately rendered, these four words answer the question: what does God want? They explain why He created the universe, why He conceived life, why He established His Covenant, why He delivered His Towrah, why He invited us to participate in His seven Called-Out Assemblies, and why He enabled the Way to His home on Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits in 33CE. The moment we understand what God wants from the Covenant, everything fits. It all makes sense.
God yearns to be our Father. It is His desire to share His universe with His children. He wants to grow by helping us grow. God becomes greater by elevating and enriching us. In fact, His plans for us are so spectacular; we will become royalty, heirs to His throne, kings in His kingdom. After all, God’s children should expect nothing less…
“And (wa) I will provide and give this (natan – I will actually offer, allow, grant, and bestow this unfolding relational gift (qal perfect, prefixed first person singular masculine and suffixed second person singular masculine)) to (la – on behalf of) people from differing races and places (gowym). And (wa) royal rulers (malakym – those who live like kings) will come forth (yatsa’ – they shall be delivered and find freedom; they will be produced (scribed in the imperfect conjugation, telling us that this process will continue to unfold over time)) from you (min – by this means).” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:6)
Once again, Yahowah chose to use the verb “natan – give,” and did not use any of the six Hebrew words at His disposal to convey “make.” The Covenant and its benefits are “gifts” for all humankind, regardless of place or race. Also, since He prefixed natan in the first person singular, God said “I will give.” But that is where certainty transitions into probability. You see, “natan – give” was suffixed in the second person masculine. So the verb must be followed by “you,” referring to Abraham, or “this or it,” referencing something in the immediate proximity which is also masculine singular. Based upon what has come before, the options are: “shem – name,” “‘ab – father,” “hamown – enrichment,” or “‘Abraham – Loving and Merciful Father.” “Gowym – people from different races and places,” is also masculine, but it was written in the plural form, and “beryth – Covenant,” while exclusively singular, is feminine.
Irrespective of its plural designation, since the sentence is senseless written “I will give you to peoples from differing races and places,” and since the “beryth – Covenant” is excluded because it is feminine, the context suggests that the thing Yahowah is giving to individuals from varying places and races is “hamown – enrichment” through His “shem – name.” This occurs because He is serving as our “’ab – Father, specifically, our “’Abraham – Loving and Merciful Father.” When we are adopted into Yahowah’s family, into His Covenant household, we become God’s children and we inherit His home, also known as the universe. Furthermore, as the sons and daughters of the King of Kings, God’s children become royalty of the highest order.
Malakym, the word rendered “royal rulers,” is the plural of malak. Usually translated “king or kings,” it denotes “royalty,” and addresses those who are “related, enriched, empowered, authorized, and free to do as they please.” The malak form of wealth and power transfer is always inherited from father to son. As such, it is a fitting reward in this context, especially since the emphasis has been on the “natan – gift” of a “beryth – family relationship,” which provides “hamown – enrichment,” to the “ma’od ma’od – greatest extent possible,” using the “shem – name,” of our “’ab – Father.”
But more than this, malak is based upon mal’ak, which describes a “theophonic” or “godly being,” a “supernatural deputy or associate” which serves as a “spiritual messenger or heavenly envoy.” This too is telling because as God’s children we will become supernatural spiritual beings as a result of His message.
It is also noteworthy that yatsa’, rendered “will come forth,” was scribed in the third person, masculine plural, making the subject of the verb the newly conceived “malakym – royalty.” So with “min – from” suffixed in the second person masculine singular, we are reminded of our Father’s enrichment, of His love and His mercy “yatsa’ – producing” these benefits.
Beyond these things, both Dowd and Yahowsha’ were kings. And both were descendants of Abraham. So as with most things Yah, a literal and spiritual interpretation is possible.
These things known, let’s check to see if the Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical Christian publications picked up on any of these insights. God said: “And (wa) I will give this (natan) to (la) people from differing races and places (gowym). And (wa) royalty (malakym) will come forth (yatsa’) from you (min).” (Re’syth 17:6) And yet the Roman Catholic Vulgate published: “And I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.” The King James Version parroted them with: “And I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.” So then ignoring “natan – gift” and “yatsa’ – come forth” while arbitrarily adding “descendants,” “many,” and “among them,” the New Living Translation authored: “Your descendants will become many nations, and kings will be among them!” At least they were consistent in that they all missed the gift and its purpose.
Once again, beyond the fact that natan means “give,” not “make,” we are compelled to consider the spiritual implications of this promise because the use of gowym expressly excludes Yisra’el, the only nation traceable to Abraham, and the only place on earth where kings have had an ongoing relationship with God. Moreover, neither Dowd nor Yahowsha’ were Gentiles. Therefore, this realization renders each of these English translations senseless. But don’t accept my word on this. There are a plethora of interlinears and lexicons available to you free online or for purchase in stores which allow you to verify this for yourself. After all, there is a great deal at stake. Because if I have accurately rendered natan and gowym, God is offering a tremendously valuable gift—one worth our time to consider—to humankind regardless of our race or place of birth.
Moving on to Yah’s next statement, we are reminded that the “beryth – familial covenant relationship” belongs to God, which is why He is free to give it to us. Moreover, our Heavenly Father uses it to “quwm – restore us and to establish us” so that we can “quwm – stand upright,” in His presence. He accomplished this when He “quwm – stood up” for us on Passover and Unleavened Bread, enabling us to “quwm – stand” by His side.
“And (wa) I will stand up and establish (quwm – I will restore, fulfill, and accomplish, I shall ratify and confirm (written in the hiphil stem, whereby the subject (God) is causing the object (Abraham and his offspring) to become established and stand upright)) with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – My family and household (feminine singular, suffixed in the first person singular gender inclusive “My Covenant”)) as a means to recognize Me as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn – as the way to recognition and understand this association with Me) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond (byn – for you to examine, consider, understand, and reply appropriately to this relationship), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’ – and with your seed, your extended family, encouraging them to explore and understand) after you (‘achar – following you), regarding and on behalf of (la – concerning) their dwelling places and generations (dowr – their protected households and extended families, elevating and extending their lives), for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam – always enduring and eternally existing) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – familial association (feminine singular)), to literally be and to actually remain (la hayah – to genuinely exist yesterday, today, and tomorrow (scribed in the qal relational stem denoting reality and in the infinitive construct giving the verb the qualities of a noun)) as your (la) God (‘elohym) and (wa) for (la) your offspring (zera’ – seed and descendants) after you (‘aharown – until the very last of you).” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:7)
Therefore, the stated purpose of Yahowah’s “beryth – Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship” is to “dowr – to elevate and extend our lives, to enlarge and protect our family,” which is to say that we become part of God’s family. This thereby “dowr – enables generations to abide and endure together throughout time.”
The “beryth – Covenant” is not just singular, affirming that there is only one Covenant, it will “’owlam – endure forever.” That which is ‘owlam is “perpetual,” meaning: “continuously existing and unending.” This of course means that this one and only Covenant was not replaced by a “New Testament.” According to Yahowah, He “Beryth – Covenant” will endure forever – as will its beneficiaries. And not so coincidently, at the heart of “‘owlam – everlasting and eternal,” we find its roots: “‘owlal – child” and “‘am – family.”
Also worth noting, in both instances, beryth was scribed in the construct form which binds it to the words which follow it in the text. In the first instance, the “beryth – covenant” was associated with byn. There, written in the first person, byn conveys that the Covenant is “between and beside Me, in My proximity, and within My defined space and time.” And in keeping with the theme of family, children, and inheritance, on this occasion it was irrevocably linked to “zera’ – offspring.” Then in the second instance, we find beryth yoked to “’owlam – eternally enduring.” These are all wonderful thoughts, albeit, all too easily missed.
While I cannot prove it, I suspect that the reason the “beryth – Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship” is feminine, is because it is the work of our Spiritual Mother, the Ruwach Qodesh, and it is a derivative of the Towrah (also feminine). We are born into our Heavenly Father’s family in accordance with Yah’s Towrah instructions by way of the Set-Apart Spirit. It and She give us new life. They nurture us, cleanse and purify us, protect and enlighten us. In accordance with the Towrah’s teaching, the Set-Apart Spirit adorns us in a Garment of Light, which enables us to enter God’s home. Working in harmony the Towrah and Ruwach Qodesh save and empower us so that we might enjoy life eternal in our Heavenly Father’s home.
By saying that He, Himself, is going to “quwm – stand up for and establish” the Covenant Relationship, God is announcing the central plank of the “Mow’ed Miqra’ey – Called-Out Assembly Meetings” which not only predict the arrival of the Ma’aseyah, but also explain His sacrifice. Because God stood up for us on Passover and Unleavened Bread, and because He will stand up for us again on Reconciliations and Shelters, we are restored and established and we are able to walk with Him in a familial relationship which leads us to being raised up to His heavenly home—living forever.
As has been our custom, let’s compare Yahowah’s testimony regarding the purpose and enduring nature of His Covenant, with that which men have written. God said: “And (wa) I will stand up and establish (quwm) with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth) as a means to recognize Me as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’) after you (‘achar) regarding and on behalf of (la) their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth), to literally be and to genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (‘elohym) and (wa) for (la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘aharown).” (Re’syth 17:7)
With the exception of writing “to be a God,” rather than “to be and remain as your God,” Jerome’s Roman Catholic Vulgate was reasonably accurate: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations, by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.”
Not surprisingly, the King James Version is identical to the Vulgate, which leaves us with the loose paraphrase known as the New Living Translation: “I will confirm my covenant with you and your descendants after you, from generation to generation. This is the everlasting covenant: I will always be your God and the God of your descendants after you.” Lost in their rhetoric are all of the insights we have just considered.
Moving on to the next verse, we are reminded that the Promised Land serves as a metaphor for eternal life with God in heaven. That is why this gift is listed as one of the benefits of the Covenant.
“And (wa) I will give (natan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera’ – seed) after you (‘achar), this (‘eth) land (‘erets – region and realm) where (‘eth) you are living as an alien (magowr – a stranger and foreigner with minimal status and rights), the entire (kol) land (‘erets) of Can’aow (can’aow – merchant traders who will be humbled; transliterated Canaan) to (la) eternally (‘owlam – to endure forever in and) possess (‘achuzah – to inherit and to be settled within). And (wa) I will exist (hayah – I will be) unto them as their (lahm la) God (‘elohym).” (Re’syth / Beginning / Genesis 17:8)
Since Yahowah and science both reveal that the Earth will not last “’owlam – forever,” the only way this promise can be fulfilled is for the ‘erets to represent the universe, inclusive of the realm known as “shamaym – the heavens.” Therefore, the ‘erets represents the conditions experienced in the Garden of Eden and those which will be experienced during the one-thousand year celebration of “Sukah – Tabernacles and Shelters.” It speaks of living with God, of camping out with Him.
Along these lines, the reason Abraham was currently a “magowr – stranger” in this realm, is because he had not yet demonstrated to Yahowah that he was willing to trust and rely upon the Covenant’s provisions. That would not occur for more than a decade, and not until Abraham trusted Yahowah sufficiently for him to walk to Mount Mowriyah and perform a dress rehearsal for Passover.
|
Posted on Jun 02, 2012 21:41pm by admin
(Return to Articles)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pin us on Pinterest
|
|
|
|
|
