Volume II: Exposition of Romans

 

§1.1 Why is Paul called Paul and not Shaul (שָׁאוּל)?  This is because he had two names; one he used among his own people, and the other among the nations.  Why do we call Messiah, "Yeshua" all the time, and not Yehoshua? If Yeshua had a birth certificate, then it would read Yehoshua: יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.  Yehoshua is usually rendered Joshua in English.  It is not a question of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ or יֵשׁוּעַ  being right. Many people have more than one form for their name.  For instance, Dan, Daniel, or Joe, Joseph, or Shosh, Shoshanna. יֵשׁוּעַ is the popular and more informal form, and יְהוֹשׁוּעַ is more formal.  Though the form יֵשׁוּעַ was an Aramaic short form for יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, it has become part of Hebrew.

There are sects that try to alter the traditional forms.  One sect insists on Yahushua (יְהוּשֻׁעַ) and promotes it so strongly as to cause division and disapproval of the traditional forms.  It's main argument is based on charging the Masoretic scribes with conspiracy to not only respell the divine name, but also to suppress all forms of part of the divine name used in proper names.  (It was never a secret conspiracy that the scribes respelled the vowels of the divine name.)  But takes an entirely new theory of suppression to charge them with altering parts of the divine name in proper names.  The conspiracy theory suggests that original *יַהוּ־ Yahu- forms  were pointed as יְהוֹ־ Yeho- forms to hide any resemblance to the divine name.  This theory falls flat on its face when we find out that that ־יָהוּ stands  at the end of many names, and that apparently ancient Jews had no proplem with pronouncing it, or that יָהּ stands separately in the Pslams and other places.   One has to assume 1. a secret conspiracy, 2. that it only conspired to make changes at the beginning of names and not the end, and 3. that Jews were only concerned about not saying Yahu- at the start of words and not -Yahu at the end of names.  This is not to say that there were no Yahu- forms for many names.  The problem is that the sectarian insistence on these forms for the Messiah's name is divisiveness for the purpose of making followers of the sect's leadership who will only listen to the sectarian leadership because they are "right" about such an important matter.  For many saying the names right is a matter of getting a particular point of the Torah right so that they may judge themselves faithful to the Almighty One, and everyone else unfaithful.  Right or wrong, it is not such particular points that will decide whether one is faithful to Yahweh or not.

Why does the translation use "Almighty" instead of "God"?  Good question.  It has little to do with the unfitness of the word God, and much to do with what the original texts actually approved.  You see, the Greek word for "God" was θεός, but this was never spelled out as such in the early Greek papyri.  In fact, all the vowels were missing.  Only as !q@s, !q$u, !q$w, or !q$n did it appear.  In fact, the original texts used a similar device for all the divine names and titles.  There were seven to be exact, one for Father, Son, Spirit, Yeshua, Messiah, Almighty, and Yahweh, respectively.  Scholars call the symbolic letters nomina sacra—Latin for sacred name.  What is the meaning of these devices?  It is fairly simple.  The texts were saying in effect, "Substitute the correct Hebrew term here."  The reason is that the divine names are titles were considered untranslatable because it was considered respectful to the Almighty One (אֱלֹהִים) to read the scriptures aloud with the proper names in Hebrew.  This reasoning applied principally to proper names, Yeshua, Yahweh, and less so to the titles, Elohim, Ruakh, Abba, Ben, Mashiakh.  I think that the four titles were added to the list to make a nice round number of seven basic nomina sacra.   Actually, there are three Hebrew words represented the symbol for Yahweh.

I translate אֱלֹהִים the "Almighty" because this is what the word  אֱלֹהִים means.  The base form of the word means "Mighty One", and the plural form on the ending: ִים is a superlative marker.  It means "most" or "highest" or "best".  This is translated with the prefix "Al" to form "Almighty".

§1.5 I use the translation "Peoples" for the usual nations.  But I will have to define it: a national unit of people defined by common culture language and geographical limits usually much smaller than the concept of the modern nation.  Also called a "people group".  Ethnologists have classified about 16,750 Peoples.

§1.7 The original texts contained symbols for divine names and titles; for the divine name: !k@u.  In the IVth century the scribes changed the symbols, including the symbols for the divine name; in this case to κυρίου.  A modern approximation of this ancient device is to spell LORD in capital letters to indicate the divine name.  It is Jewish tradition, and also Christian tradition not to pronounce the divine name.  The Rabbis claim that to say the divine name might break the third commandment.  The Church wishes to avoid it because it is too closely connected to Israel , and too ‘tribal’.    The symbol may stand for either the divine name: יַהְוֶה or for the titles:  אֲדֹנָי, אֲדֹנִי: or for the honorific אֲדוֹן.

The means of knowing which is meant is based on these observations: 1. Adonai means my Lord, and is almost always used implicitly or explicitly with a possessive pronoun, my, our, their, etc. 2. Yahweh is used 7000+ times in the Torah and Prophets, and Adonai less than 600 times.  Therefore, if the nomina sacra!k@u, is without a possessive pronoun it stands for Yahweh, but if with a pronoun then Lord.  The only exception to this is that in public with Yeshua in person the term meant was: אֲדוֹן.  The closest approximation to this is like calling the Almighty Señor  in Spanish, which means either "Mr." or "Lord".  This would have been an acquiescence to Jewish tradition, and the fact that Yeshua was hiding who he really was.

§1.8 Paul says your "faithfulness" is proclaimed in all the world.  Equally good is "your commitment" or "your supportiveness" or "your loyalty". In ancient Hebrew אֱמוּנָה meant faithfulness, but in modern Hebrew this sense has been rendered archaic, and has been replaced by נֶאֱמָנוּת to express faithfulness. The Hebrew text could be translated הַנֶּאֱמָנוּתְכֶם in modern Hebrew.   In Greek the word is πίστις(Please 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.   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.  The Hebrew noun אֱמוּנָה is derived from the verb אָמַן  which means to support, hence "a support", "supportiveness" are periphrasis based on the verbal root.

§1.16 The translation "believing" is misleading.  I have replaced it with the much more accurate "committing" for the verb πιστεύω.  To commit oneself means to give your support to the person committed to.  We commit to Messiah.  This means we give our support to be loyal and faithful to Him.  And the biblical Hebrew verb from which all of this is derived is אָמַן; it means "to support", and in the hiphil it means "to give one's support" (לָתֵת תְּמִיכָה) or "make one's support" on, in, or to someone.  It can also be used to mean giving support (assent) to facts or promises, but usually it means much more than that.  It means a complete committing of loyalty to Messiah Yeshua, i.e. to be committing both one's faithfulness (support, loyalty) to Messiah Yeshua, and also to be committing oneself to Messiah Yeshua's faithfulness (his support).  

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.  Key usages, establishing the meaning of support are the usages where dependents are being supported, or when speaking of supports (pillars) of the Temple.  It is perfectly clear that "believing" cannot support either the temple or dependents.

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.

Now it should be clear that the meaning support unifies all the uses in both Hebrew and in Greek.  In rare instances the object of the support is only a fact or promise.  To support a fact, or support a promise could legitimately be translated "believe"; however, when the object is a person, or implied person in the context, then the support implies loyalty and commitment to the person.

§1:17 English has a special problem with the word righteousness.  The word always seems to denote an inner unseen moral quality.  It wasn't so in ancient Greek or Hebrew.  Righteousness in those languages was also an action that was done to another.  The proper English term for this is justice.  Romance languages, like French, Latin, and Spanish have much less problem.  The particular problem in Paul is that he uses the original Greek, representing Hebrew terms, with the full range of meaning.  We have to may a choice in English, and that choice is for the word "justice" because this word has been less stripped of meaning than righteousness.

 

justice: 1. the penal justice of the Almighty which is a righteous action that he takes against sin.  2. the moral righteousness of the Almighty himself; His goodness, mercy, loving kindness, or any other moral attribute.

1:17 1st faithfulness:  Yahweh's faithfulness alone expressing his justice corresponding to two definitions of justice; 1: his covenant faithfulness expressed by Messiah on the cross paying the penalty of sin and renewing the covenant according to penal justice 2: Yahweh's own way of faithfulness; his personal faithfulness; a divine faithfulness ready to be taught to us according to moral justice, i.e. righteousness.

1.17 2nd faithfulness: the result of His faithfulness to us and in us;  this is our faithful response to His faithfulness, obedience to His commandments.  This is the result of Yahweh's justice in Messiah for us and to us.

1:17 3rd faithfulness:  the term here includes both the 1st and 2nd definitions.  We live by His faithfulness and by our faithful response.  The text is quoted from Habakkuk 2:4, "the righteous shall live by His/his faithfulness" where the term "his" means both Yahweh's faithfulness, and the faithfulness of the righteous person. 

2:12 as lawless: the term is an adverb describing the manner or character of the lawless one.

§2.13.1 This remarkable statement is regarded as only a theoretical principle by the antinomians.  Chafer says, "This is to state an inherent principle of the law...the same principle is a warning to all who attempt, or even contemplate, the keeping of the law" (vol. 4, pg. 239, Systematic Theology).  This idea, that the statement is only an unattainable theory for the sake of argument is refuted in James 2:24, "by works a man is justified"; now someone may warn us of a contradiction with Romans 3:20.  Yes, there is a contradiction, but it is not to be solved by reducing this text to a theoretical statement.  The solution is in the different applications of δικαιόω (justifico).

In English the word "justify", by constant theological misteaching has been reduced to two popular meanings, "to prove right" and "to straighten out a margin", and two theological meanings that Christians argue over, "to declare righteous" (Protestant) and "to make righteous" (Catholic). 

§2.13.2 Only the sense "to prove right" is understood by unindoctrinated English reader.  This sense is correct for one interpretation of Rom. 2:13.  The doers of Torah "will be justified/vindicated" in the eschaton (cf. note 13 a-a).  The eschaton is the age to come.  In that day, we will be perfectly righteous, and will not be brought to trial anew because we will be vindicated by the righteousness that Yahweh has given us.  The past will not be considered for those committed to Yeshua, because the penalty for the sins of the past (those belonging to this age) will have been paid.   Having been made righteous in the Age to Come, therefore, we will be proved right within the scope of that Age.

This interpretation is secured by other texts.  The Torah is to be written on the heart in the age to come (Jer. 31:31-34), and the promise to Israel after the exile and return, and restoration of the kingdom is that Yahweh will circumcise our hearts to obey him (Deut. 30:6).  Paul does use the future tense "will be" of δικαιόω.  So he is speaking of the future.  In vs. 12, "will be judged", he speaks of the future, and in vs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, he speaks of the future.  The critical point with Paul is that the wicked will not have their penalty of sin paid, and thus will not be given the completed gift of righteousness in the age to come, but we who commit to Messiah, on the other hand will have our penalty paid, and therefore will be completed in righteousness, in which we will be justified (proved right).  This justification does not pertain to our past sins.  It is only a vindication of the righteousness that we shall be given, which in fact is Yahweh's righteousness (cf. Jer. 23:6).  The justification or vindication in the future will be an external recognition of then being proved right.

§2.13.3 The word δικαιόω does not just have external application.  The reader should keep in mind that I am trying to communicate to both the unscholarly mind and the scholar, so at the risk of insulting the scholars, I have to illustrate what is meant in a less than formal way.   I start by using the English word "justify" in the sense of making the margin of text straight and even.  It means to straighten something out.  So if a person is "justified" then he is being straightened out.  From this idea comes the sense of "make righteous".   It is an internal justification of the faults of a person, i.e. straightening out.   This sense is undeniably used by James, "by works is made right a man" (James 2:24).  He uses the present tense.  In James 2:21, he says, "Was not Abraham...made right by works?"  In that case, he uses the aorist (completed point of view).  We are no longer talking about the Age to come here, but about the here and now, or the past in Abraham's case.  Paul uses the same sense again in Romans 4:2, "when Abraham was made right by works".  Thayer's Lexicon gives definition no. 1, "to make; to render righteous or such as he ought to be" (pg. 150, #1344).  This hearkens back to Hebrew usage, "Hiph. 4. make righteous, turn to righteousness" (BDB, pg. 834, צָדֵק, צָדֹק), where it speaks in Daniel 12:3, "and righteous-makers-of the many as stars" or "Niph...the holy place shall be put right" (BDB, pg. 842).  This means the holy place is straightened out, i.e. corrected, in the sense I described above.  And those who will shine as the stars, will be those who are the ones making righteous the many.  This will be by teaching the many to do what is right.  A similar usage occurs in Isaiah 53:11, "by his knowledge, my righteous servant, will make righteous the many";  the key point here is that it is done by "his knowledge", which can only mean teaching of the heart to do right (cf. Jer. 31:32) as the meaning of "Torah" is "instruction".

So then, to be justified is to be straightened out, to be corrected by teaching resulting in good works.  That brings us back to the translation, "but the doers of Torah will be made righteous" (Rom. 2:13).  It is a promise that those doing the Torah, albeit imperfectly now, will in the future be made righteous—i.e. justified, corrected, and straightened out.  This is an internal righteousness, a righteousness that corresponds to outward obedience, and not just an external acknowledgement of being proved right.

§2.13.4 So far, I have construed both "justified/vinciated" and "made righteous" as strictly in the age to come.  However, we do not have to take the future tense this way.  For example, "You will not murder, you will not commit adultery" (Matt 19:18).  That's not a future promise so much as a command, or "he will hate the one and love the other" (Matt 6:24), or "scarcely for a righteous man will someone die" (Rom 5:7).  This is a way of stating a general truth (called gnomic, c.f. Wallace, Exe. Syntax, pg. 571).  Therefore to apply the generic principle: the doers of the Torah are now made righteous in whatsoever matter they do it.  And this is opposed to hearers which do not do it.  This also fits the context of what Paul is saying. 

Of course, we need not entertain any notion of perfectionism in the current age.  Perfectionism is what the antinomians want to graft onto the text simply for the purpose of turning it into a theoretical argument or a proposition unachievable in practice.  This is because they hate the Torah and never want to admit that doing it constitutes righteousness in any way.

§2:25.1 Physical circumcision is a sign of covenant faithfulness, and a requirement for physical inheritance of the land of Israel in the coming Millenial Kingdom of Messiah Yeshua.  However, unless a person also circumcises their heart to obedience and allows the Almighty to circumcise their heart for obedience to His commandments, it will be of no value.  It will be of no value for those who lack a faithful response to Yeshua's faithfulness, because the inheritance will be denied.  Paul has to make this point because physical circumcision was widely regarded as a ticket to heaven.  Just being Jewish and circumcised was supposed secure one's status in the life to come.  This belief may seem strange to many, but it exists in Judaism today.  The same concept also exists in the Roman Church were physical baptism is the ticket off the path to Hell.  For antinomian Protestants "Faith" defined as a "one time moment of belief" in the supposedly unconditional promise of Messiah serves as the ticket to heaven for many.   For the more gnostic Christians confidence that one is one of the elect is confirmed by having confidence in one's unconditional salvation.  The confidence is the "gnosis" (knowledge of one's status).  Questioning this confidence in the face of unrepented sin is the worst fear of the Gnostic because they would think that they are probably not elect if they lose confidence.  All these things are of no value without faithfulnesses.  Circumcision, baptism, the moment of belief, maintaining confidence, or any other teaching that denies the place of faithfulness in salvation is a false hope.

§2:25.2 With the words, your circumcision, now Paul is using circumcision with a different sense.  He uses it to mean anyone whose confidence of salvation is based on the fact of their physical circumcision as the status determinant to make them part of Israel .  But if they are a transgressor of the Torah, then that circumcision is really a false flag.  Circumcision is of no value unless the one with the sign is actually being faithful to the Almighty.  It is no better than "uncircumcision", which is to say one might as well have the sign pinned on him saying, "cut off from Israel " or "unsaved pagan".

§2.25.3 The Greek word ἐὰν = when = אִם.   The Hebrew word (and the Greek too) does not imply a purely hypothetical condition.  The condition "if" applies to the time "when" it becomes true.  It is assumed that the condition will become true at some point, the condition only being "when" it does.  Thayer illucidates, "c. irregularly, but to be explained as an imitation of the Hebrew אִם which is also a particle of time (cf. Gesenius, Thesaur. s.v. 4), ἐὰν with the Subjunctive Aorist is used of things which the speaker or writer thinks will certainly take place, where ὄταν when, whenever, should have been used" (pg. 162).  My only remark here, is that the subjuctive does not grammaticalize time, and the present tense was only chosen to underscore the ongoing faithfulness of the Torah observer, so there is no reason to think this Hebrew influence is limited to the Aorist Subjunctive.  Thus Paul is assuming that circumcision is of value for the one being faithful to Torah.  Yet, the Church wants to deny that circumcision is ever of any value, despite Paul's satement to the contrary in Romans 3:1-2.  Therefore, Paul's words here must remain a purely hypothetical statement for them, i.e. a condition that never comes true.

§2.25.4 At the same time theologians like Chafer want to twist the meaning of the second half of the verse, "but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision" (Chafer, Vol. 4., pg. 239, Systematic Theology).  The key word "breaker" is not to be interpreted as anyone who breaks Torah in any way, as if by ignorance, or by a sin of circumstance.  The word means "transgressor" (cf. NASB).  The word παραβάτης = עֹבֵ֣ר = transgressor.  This is one who commits the sin of the high hand, either פְּשָׁעִים or עֲוֹנֹת (transgressions or iniquities).  This is one who deliberately crosses over the line, so to speak.  It is the Sin that leads to death.  Chafer, of course, wants it to be any sin, because he follows a theological tradition that began with hatred of any circumcision, which wanted to leave little or no conditions under which it might be valid.  Chafer cites James 2:10 in an attempt to say all lawbreaking inccurs the equal guilt, but James is speaking of transgressions (cf. vs. 9).  One transgression makes one wholly (πάντων) guilty.  He only speaks of sins that lead to death (cf. 1John 5:16).

§2.26.1 Now Paul is speaking of physical uncircumcision, but he he using the word to refer to the period of time between the time that a pagan faithfully commits to Yeshua and the time he is circumcised, i.e. Paul is equating the circumcstance of new, but uncircumcised, citizen of Israel , who is still in the exile, with Abraham before he was circumcised.  It is faithfulness that results in salvation status, not physical circumcision.  Paul is contrasting the situation in which circumcision cannot save one (if one is a transgressor) with the situation in which lack of circumcision is not regarded as unfaithfulness to the Almighty.

§2.26.2 Once again the text does not mean "if" as a purely imaginary condition that is assumed never to be true.  Under Hebrew influence, the Greek means "when".  See above 2.25.3.

§2:26.3 The word "circumcision" at the end of the verse is used to mean saved status.  The uncircumcision cannot in the circumcstance where the pagan has become faithful be regarded as indicating unsaved status, because faithfulness does not require perfection on our part; it only requires heart loyalty to Yeshua.  The uncircumcision of the outsider only becomes an issue if its continuance is understood as faithlessness, and there is a refusal to repent or correct the situation.  This goes for any other commandment as well, though with the violation of some important commandments it would be hard to maintain that that the person sinning was still faithful.   Uncircumcision may be a sin of circumstance or ignorance due to poor teaching or none at all.  For example, the Rabbis went about teaching that Gentiles only had to follow the Noachide commandments.  Therefore, neglect of non-Noachide commandments by many Gentiles could not be regarded as faithlessness.  The blame is on the incorrect teaching.  Therefore, uncircumcision is to be regarded as circumcision, i.e. unsaved status is really saved status in other words.

§2.27.1 Paul's sentence implies that the transgressor of Torah is transgressing Torah by being circumcised.  That's because, if one is going to be circumcised, and not keep the Torah, then one is flying a false flag.  If one's ship is the SS Transgressor flying the flag of HMS Righteous, then the signal flag is a lie.  A sign that misleads is worse than no sign at all.  To fly the flag of the king and then not be loyal to the king is to use the king's name in vain, which is a violation of the third commandment (Ex. 20:7).   Circumcision, in this case, and in Paul's thinking, is no circumcision at all.  It has become uncircumcision.   Then what about the marks that people flying the false flag of circumcision have on their flesh—whether Jew or Gentile?   If it is not circumcision, then what is it?  It is mutilation (Gal. 5:12; Col. 3:2), and here Paul alludes to Lev. 19:28, וּכְתֹ֣בֶת קַֽעֲקַ֔ב = scriptio stigmatus, an inscription incised in the flesh, or more commonly, a tattoo.  Paul uses the Greek γράμματος, which is shorthand for γράμματα στικτὰ.  The latter is the LXX's rendition of Lev. 19:28.  He is equating false-flag circumcision with a tattoo:

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. (Lev 19:28 KJV)

So if a person is to be a transgressor, which is to say, disloyal to the Almighty One, then his circumcision is false-circumcision, and indeed, is itself a violation of at least two commandments.  And if a person is not a transgressor of the Torah, then his circumcision is true circumcision, or if he is a new convert, who is being loyal to the Almighty, but has not been circumcised, then as Abraham was before being circumcised, he is assumed under the flag of circumcision.   A transgressor is not merely someone who sins in ignorance, unwittingly, and due to circumstance.  A transgressor is someone who is in rebellion against the Almighty.

§2.27.2 The conjunction καὶ = that is = דְּהַ֨יְנוּ: "for the purpose of explaining what goes before it and so, that is, namely" (cf. BDAG, pg. 495, 1c). This usage of וְ also occurs in Biblical Hebrew.  Church tradition takes καὶ as a coordinate "and" so as to miss the point that Paul is speaking of a false sign of circumcision.  They wanted to miss the point because they had no place in their hearts for true circumcision either, but wanted to make the text anti-torah, and anti-Jewish.  Also, tradition places an "if" into the text (cf. KJV, NASB), i.e. "if it fulfil the law", thus reducing Paul's remark to a hypothetical proposition rather than the statement of fact that he meant it to be.  There is no "if" in the text (cf. RSV, NIV).

 §2.27.3  Paul uses the word naturally = φύσεως = מִן־הַטֶּ֛בַע to underscore the circumstantial nature of uncircumcision.  Salvation begins with faithfulnesses, and not circumcision.  Paul does not want people to assume they are saved because they are circumcised.  Nor does he want people to assumed that others are unsaved because they are uncircumcised.  Circumstances count.  The exile is a factor.  So also false teaching or ignorance.  What is faithless in one situation is not faithless in another.  Paul is not undermining the commandment by making this argument.  Rather, he wants faithfulness to be established first, especially in the face of the false beliefs about circumcision being an automatic ticket to saved status, or uncircumcision being regarded as an automatic ticket to condemnation.

§2.28-29.1 These two verses are one sentence in the Greek.  The second half of the statement (vs. 29) qualifies the first half.  Standing alone, without qualification, vs. 28 would be a simple lie.  Jewishness, undeniably, is on the outside, and circumcision is on the outside (as a sign).  The antiJewish, antinomian, Church Fathers strove to make religion purely an inward private matter and never a matter of public or outward obedience to the commandments.  They were prejudiced against the outward signs of the covenant, circumcision and Sabbath.  What made their misinterpretation possible was the ambiguity of the Greek word ἀλλ᾽ = ἀλλά.  This is a word that had a thousand year relationship with the Aramaic אֶלָּ֣א, and due to the similar pronunciation of the two words were equated in Judeo-Greek.  Liddell defines the word: "used adversatively to limit or oppose words, sentences, or clauses ... 3. except, but" (pg. 67-68).  BLASS §448 אִלָּ֣א = εἰ μή.  The Syriac starts vs. 29 with אֶלָּ֣א = fa , which Payne Smith glosses as "if not, unless, only, except" (pg. 17).  The word is a contraction from the Hebrew אִם־לֹא (Jastrow). Thayer, "logically equivalent to not so much ...as" (pg. 28).  The fundamental meaning of ἀλλά in Judeo Greek is "if not", in two senses: a) if not = if the former statement is not true then the following is = but; or b) if not = if not also = the second clause is a condition that makes the first clause true = except, unless.

Therefore, one is not a Jew outwardly.....{unless, except, if not} ... he is also a Jew inwardly.  And this agrees with the Prophetic saying:

Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel .
(Eze 44:9 KJV)

In other words, the one does not count without the other.  Yahweh requires faithfulness in the heart, and not just a sign of faithfulness in the flesh.

§2.28-29.2 The phrase περιτομὴ καρδίας = מִילַ֥ת הַלֵּ֛ב = circumcision of the heart.   Heart circumcision is part of the Torah (cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6).  The commandment is for the faithful to circumcise their own hearts, and the promise is that Yahweh will himself circumcise our hearts.  So the two are interdependent.  If we circumcise what we can, then Yahweh will circumcise what we cannot.  As explained Habakkuk 2:4, "The just shall live by his faithfulness", which refers to both Yahweh's faithfulness and our faithfulness.

The Church tradition has tried to use Paul's words to redefine circumcision.  Surly no redefinition was necessary, since circumcision of heart was already a preexisting concept, however, the original Church translators and interpreters wanted to pretend that redefinition is what Paul was doing, because they did not want to acknowledge that either the command or promise to circumcise the heart was already in Torah!   To do this they break up the phrase and add two words, so that it reads, "circumcision [is that] of the heart" (KJV).  The NIV goes even further, saying, "[circumcision is] circumcision of the heart".  Following suit: NET, TNIV, RSV, YLT etc. We can trace this as far back as Tyndale, "circucisio of the herte [is the true circumcision]" (1534). Only the Latin is free of the mistranslation, "circumcisio cordis" (Vulgate).  By saying this, they want to imply that physical circumcision isn't circumcision (or is no longer circumcision), and that the only circumcision is a heart spiritualization of physical circumcision, i.e. ignoring the fact that circumcision of the heart was in the Torah in the first place!

But everything is against them on this: the fact that circumcision of the heart is in the Torah;  the fact that both physical and heart circumcision are mentioned in the prophetic future (Ezek. 44:9); and the fact that adding words to the text in the middle of a genitive phrase is most unusual.  They may argue that other statements from Paul demand their interpretation, but the schoolboy grammar tricks underlying their pedigreed tradition may well be exposed in those places also.

§2:28-29.3 The phrase ἐν πνεύματι = in spirit = בְּר֖וּחַ.  It is unlikely that this word was orginally marked nomina sacra, i.e. !p!ni.  The word "in" can be either a dative of location or dative of instrument, i.e. "in spirit" or "by spirit": 1. circumcision of the heart is accomplished "by" a man's spirit, 2. circumcision of the heart is done "in" a man's spirit.  The word "spirit" may refer to Yahweh's Spirit, hence: 3. circumcision of the heart is by the Spirit.  All of these interpretations are true.  There is the commandment to circumcise our heart.  There is the promise that Yahweh will circumcise our heart.  And it takes place in the spirit.  So then it is His faithfulness in connection to our faithfulness.

§2.29-29.4 The word inscription (γράμματα) is explained above in 2.27.1 in the literal sense.  Here I expand the idea somewhat to superstitious uses of things written.  I give a drash on it.  (A drash is the use of a text to illustrate, and not literal interpretation.)  We can use γράμματα to allude to phylacteries, and the idea that phylacteries circumcise the heart.  Circumcision of the heart is by faithfulnesses. Just because one part of Judaism makes circumcision a ticket to the age to come does not mean that Judaism doesn't teach traditions to "maintain" one's status.  Much like the Roman Church's grace after grace through the sacraments, so also Judaism tries to take shortcuts away from faithfulness via traditon to stay in the Almighty's favor. The commandment to circumcise one's heart is a commandment to obey what Yahweh actually said, but Judaisim takes the written text and puts it into a box, and then straps it on the head, and claims that this sacrament fulfills the commandment.  But is this really what it means?  No, because it does not enter into the heart.  This is the same superstition as Church sacraments, albeit in a different form.  It is just a sacrament using the "written text".  So also the Mezzuzah is treated.  A scripture, γράμματα, is placed in a small holder and placed on the doorway.  This is supposed to fulfill the commandment to write the Torah on one's gates and doors.  Does it?  No not at all, because the γράμματα, remains invisible to the eyes, and hence invisible to the heart.

3:9-18: These verses are misunderstood and taken out of context by those who teach total depravity of every individual.  Total depravity is the doctrine that all men are utterly faithless.  This is not true at all.  All are sinners, but being a sinner does not mean one is incapable of faithfully committing to Yeshua, nor even for that matter that an individual pagan in incapable of good morality.   Paul has just finished in chapter 2 proving that circumcision is not a ticket to heaven.  He is disproving a false Jewish doctrine.  In this chapter he wants to prove that ethnic Jews are just as sinful as pagans.  Being Jewish does not make one "better" than pagans.  Paul's points are to prove that Jews as a class are not better than pagans as a class, and if he can do this then he has disproved another Jewish false doctrine, i.e. that Jews as a class are better than pagans as a class.  The reason that Paul must disprove it is because this doctrine is a support to the previous false doctrine that circumcision gives one a saved status.

Paul does not have to prove that pagans are as bad as bad can be.  Therefore, the texts he quotes are all aimed at showing how Israelites were as bad as bad can be.  If you look up the sources of his quotes, one will find that they are complaints by Israelites against fellow Israelites.

§3:19.1 The text does not say "under" the law, (which would require the lacking Greek word ὑπὸ);  Also, the idea here is neither having the Torah (in the simple sense of being the people to whom it was given) nor obeying the Torah (in the sense of being the people who recognize it should be obeyed).  "In connection to the Torah" means those charged with adminstrating the justice of the Torah, the equivalent of law courts where sin and transgression are put on trial.  Those "in the law" are the priests, kings, elders, and judges of the kingdom of Yeshua, who serve Yeshua in the capacity of legal administration.  The passage looks to a future time when the appointed administrators of Torah by Messiah will execute justice on the nations, and then to the future after that when heavenly beings will be appointed with the task of executing the judgments given from the throne.  This is made plain by the obvious fact that "all the world" has not yet come under the divine justice.

§3:19.2 In the torah = ἐν τῷ νόμῳ = בַּתּוֹרָ֔ה.  The preposition ἐν denotes "in connection with" (BDAG, 3rd, pg. 329, def. 8).  Pramgatically, it means those in the sphere of law or those charged with its administration.  This fits the context exactly, because this is exactly how the world will be judged (cf. Rom. 2:12).  It makes no sense at all to try to say that the Torah only speaks to those "under law" so that the whole world may be judged.  No.  It speaks to those "in the law"—in the business of law administration, so that they may apply it to the world and bring the world under divine justice.  

This is not what the antinomians want it to mean.  They want to tear down the Torah.  They want it to only apply to the Jews, hence they twist the text into the sense of *"those under the law" or interpret it to mean *"those having the law", to claim it only speaks to those under or having the law, and no further.  This idea creates an illogical disjunction in the text.  How does the law speaking only to the Jews lead to the judgment of the world?  It doesn't. 

The gnostics were the original antinomians.  In order to dispense with the Torah they limited it to the Jews, and in order to dispense with the judgement of the world, they rejected the Almighty One of the Jews, and replaced Him with a god made in their own image—a god who always loves and never dispenses justice.  But how can a god love that never dispenses justice?  A delay in correcting evil is understandable, but to never correct evil?  That would not be love.  So the gnostics started the cultic tradition of twisting Paul around to their point of view.  It is a tradition with a long pedigree, but one inherited from this antinomian world view, nevertheless.

§3.19.3  The  word "under" serves to create an unwarranted disjunction in the two halves of the verse.  This thwarts Paul's logical flow. Once Paul's logical flow is thwarted, the focus of the reader falls onto the inserted idea.  Hebrew translations of the New Testament are by no means free of this bias.  BSI's Hebrew translation has "to the men being subject to the Torah". Salkinson-Ginsburg has, "who receiveth the Torah, it puts its word, and with it, will shut every mouth", that is to say, the Jews are just an example of failed torah-keeping that is supposed to shut every mouth.  Delitzsch has "under" in one version, and "which are yoked with the torah" (שֶׁעוֹל), in another version. But the simple fact, is that Paul wrote: ἐν τῷ νόμῳ = בַּתּוֹרָ֔ה, and this Paul is not the Paul of tradition, but the Jewish Paul, a Paul quite different than the haloed Church image of Paul. 

If we broaden the words "in the law" to include more than just administrators of the Torah, then we might consider all Israel as the administrating the torah.  In this sense all Israel represents the Almighty, and through Israel 's administration of Torah, the whole world will be judged.  Therefore, we with the Torah, are Messiah's ministers of justice to the whole world.  It speaks to those "with the torah" (בַּתּוֹרָ֔ה), and the logic here is that those "with the torah" are the one's who administer the justice in the second half of the verse.  This logic is totally complelling because the only way Torah can judge the world, is if the world is proved to be guilty of breaking it.

§3.19.3 The text says "under...justice" (ὑπόδικος).  Here the word ὑπό is used, and the Greek word < δίκη = judgement, penalty, justice.  "Justice" is the concordant meaning this class of word.  It means actual execution of justice.  Friberg says, "a legal technical term, of one who has lost all possibility of disproving a charge against him and thus has already lost his case.  The person under justice must be justiced.  The penalty must be applied.  

Paul's thought, however, is eschatological.   This justice will not be executed until the kingdom is restored, particularly at the last judgement.  The important point though is that the trial is deemed to be over.  Only the sentencing phase remains.

§3.19.4 The text says "as much as", or "as much as that" (כְּרַבִ֣ים כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר).  Paul's words are emphatic.  As much as the Torah says means all of which the Torah says.  What this means is that a particular commandment can only not apply to one if it is first proved not to apply by Torah.  By default, the commandment applies, unless proved otherwise.   And only certain laws can be so proved, where the case is clearly limited to priestly duties or classes and scopes that are not universal.  Paul's statement puts and end to all argument that generally Torah only applies to the Jews.  The clarity of this is so much, that it serves as sufficient reason for the antinomians to tamper with text by mistranslating "under" into it.  For it is the only way to get rid of Paul's teaching.

§3.20.1 This appears at first sight to be a direct contradiction of 2:13, "οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται" vs. 3:20, "ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται";  the matter is made even more stark because both texts say, "παρὰ θεῷ" = "ἐνώπιον αὐτου";  In 2:13 it says, "the doers of Torah will be justified before God" and in 3:20, "by works of Torah no one will be justified before Him"; this has forced interpreters to say that Paul is only making a theoretical statement in 2:13 for the sake of setting up his argument.  The solution, however, lies in the fact that δικαιόω (justiced) has more than one meaning.  For background refer to the comments on 2.13, here I will explain this text.

§3.20.2 In 2:13 the word  δικαιόω turned out to mean justified/vindicated in the age to come, and made righteous, either eschatologically, or in a non-perfective sense, in the present.  This is from the idea of straightening something out, illustrated by justifying the margin of text.   In 2.13 this was connected solidly with conformity to doing the Torah, and the idea of the doers being straightened in the moral sense.   In 3.20 the situation has changed.  Now Paul is speaking of the guilty who are to be charged with breaking the divine Law (see vs. 19).

Now that which is to be straightened out is not the morality of the person, but the judicial requirements of the judge.   The trial has proceeded to the sentencing phase (cf. 3.19.3), and circumstances will define just how justice is satisfied.  To be justified in this case is to be balanced in the balance of justice.  The trial that ended in a guilty verdict now proceeds to sentencing.  The guilty party now is represented on one side of the scale of justice by a weight of guilt.  The scales are not level though, as there is nothing on the other side of the scale yet to justify it.  In fact, the pointer in the middle is way over to one side (weighed down by the guilt), and says, "add penalty weight to opposite balance-pan to balance justice".   When the penalty weight is added, then the balance will be justified.  The guilty party, of course, is figuratively speaking said to be in the balance.

In order to justify the balance, the judge must "administer justice".  The guilty must be justiced.   The judge has two weights for the guilty party to pick from.  1. a weight called eternal death, and 2. a weight called pardon.  The judge tells the first defendant that entered the "not guilty" plea before the sentencing phase that he will have to be justiced by weight no. 1.  "I never acquit the guilty", he says.  Accordinly, weight no. 1 is put in the balance, and the guilty is justiced/justified by eternal death, and the balances are justified.

The second defendant is more clever; he pleaded guilty beforehand, but before going to sentencing, he pocketed a weight called "my good works".  He asks the judge sell him weight no. 2 in exchange for his good works weight, to put this weight in the pan so that the balances justify.  The judge replies, "How do you expect your good works to undo the evil caused by your sins?" "Can you reverse all the consequences of your sins on others?  If others died through your sin, can you bring them back to life?" "Justice will not be administered you with good works! And your plea was fraudulent.  This is no different than seeking acquittal!"  He plops down weight no. 1, and the balances justify.

The third defendant seeing the fate of the second pockets a weight called "God's good works".   He hands it to the judge.  "Where did you get this weight," says the judge?  "From you" says the defendant.  "Not so" says the judge, "it's fraudulent... anyway how's this weight different from seeking an acquittal?"  He also adds, "even if they were my good works, how do you expect that to undo all the consequences of your sin? I cannot administer justice by good works, not even my own!  It's not fair.  Since your plea is based on satisfying equity, you will be justified by weight no. 1, which is the most equitable weight.

The fourth defendant pleaded guilty, and entered the sentencing with empty hands.  The other three had thought him a fool.  The guilty picks weight no. 2, explaining, I deserve death, but I plead for mercy, and I have nothing with which to equitably deserve this weight.  The guilty then notices that the second weight has no mass.  Woe is me he says.  The judge says, if you will be loyal to Me henceforth, I will pay your penalty for you, and weight no. 2 will work.  But its so light My Lord!  Trust me, my son, my death will justify the balances of my justice, and I live afterward to instruct you on repentance.  The judge puts the weight no. 2 on the balance, and removes his judicial robe revealing the prints in his hands, and mark in his side.  The balance justifies.  The sinner is pardoned.

§3.20.3 Good works cannot be put in the balance of justice.  Remember what is being "justifed" is the same as "justiced".  Justice is being straightened out according to the Judge's requirements.  The text, of course, is in the eschatological context.  The choices and type of justice one will seek are predetermined before the last judgement, so in the last case, the pardoned pled for pardon before the last judgment, and the other three defendants enter their pleas and plan their defenses in this life before the last judgment.

The word δικαιόω is here translated "justiced", and explained to mean "to administer justice".  The judge is administering justice by way of pardon through his own payment of the penalty, or justice by justicing the guilty direct with their own death.  In this text, we cannot translate "justified" because the common meaning of this is "to prove right".  And in the age to come, explained in 2:13, it was explained that we are proved right in our good works.  To think that δικαιόω had the same sense here would be to enter into contradiction with 2:13.   The word δικαιόω therefore refers to "administering justice" in this text, and "proving right" or "making righteous" in the other text.

§3.20.4 Let us work backward from English to the original Greek.  It used to be that the English word "justify" meant "to administer justice":

Merriam-Webster: Jus·ti·fy 2a archaic: to administer justice to;

Oxford Dictionaries: Justify, origin, Middle English (in the senses 'administer justice to' and 'inflict a judicial penalty on'): from Old French justifier, from Chrisitan Latin justificare 'do justice to', from Latin justus.

Concise Scots Dictionary (Mairi Robinson, C. 1985, pg. 332): "justify &c vt 1 = justify 15-2 execute justice upon, convict, condemn; execute (a convicted criminal); put (a criminal etc) to death"

1913 Webster: "Justice \Jus"tice\ v.t. To administer justice to [obs.]--Bacon.

"Other senses of "to justify" were current.  The word was commonly used in a legal context, to mean 'to administer justice to, to treat justly' and hence also 'to execute justice upon, to punish'—exactly the senses explicit in the Greek δικαιόω, and implicit in the Latin iustificare, against which Luther grappled in the previous decade" (The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace, pg. 189, Brian Cummings, C. Brian Cummings 2002, Oxford University Press).

"Justifico (justificus), as, a. 1. to do justice to, act justly toward" (pg. 466, A New and copious lexicon of the Latin language).

"justifico, 1. v. a. justificus. I. To act justly towards, do justice to one" (Charles T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary).

"δικαιόω to do justice; to judge; to execute justice; to redress, or rectify; to pronounce sentence, condmen, or punish ..." (A New Greek And English Lexicon; James Donnegan, Boston, 1838).

Thayer's lexicon: "to have justice done one's self" (pg. 151).

 

The idea of "balance" is found in Mishaic Hebrew (יְצַדֵּק, מְצַדֵּק, לְצַדֵּק). See 501 Hebrew Verbs by Shumel Bolozky, pg. 618.  This is the idea of "making to be right" the scales or balances of justice.   Job 31:6, "Let Him weigh me with accurate scales" (בְמֹאזְנֵי־צֶ֑דֶק ).     A just balance is a צֶ֑דֶק balance.   To correct a balance this is out of balance is to "justify" the balance (לְצַדֵּק), or balance the balance.

§3:20.5 The text does not just say "knowledge of sin".  The Greek ἐπίγνωσις means "full knowledge of sin" (הַחֵטְא הַמָּלֵא);  BDAG, 3rd explains, "with the prep. making its influence felt, know exactly, completely, through and through" (pg. 369, ).  The idea is expanded under ἐπίγνωσις , "consciousness of sin Ro 3:20" (BDAG, 3rd, pg. 369), that is the preposition ἐπί = con, and γνωσις = scientia = knowledge;  only in the Greek, knowledge is "upon" the mind, where as in English "with" the mind.  Friberg explains, "true knowledge ... (full) knowledge".

Now if the Torah makes one conscious of sin, then the Torah defines norm against which one can judge oneself.  The consciousness of sin comes by accepting the Torah standard and allowing it to judge one's actions.  By it comes the consciousness of sin.  So there is no escaping the fact that sin is transgression of the Torah, nor the fact that Paul assumes the standard of the Torah is supposed to judge the consciences of men.

Not everyone listens to their conscience.  There is a great deal of self-justification in the human heart.  With this in mind, the "full knowledge" of sin includes the fact that sin's consequences are partly permanent.  There is no "undo" or "reverse" for all the consequences of sin.  This is especially true concerning others.  If by sin of one person, another person is led into transgression and then dies the eternal death, then the sin of the one person led to irreparable consequences on the other person.  Thus most of the offspring of Adam will perish as a consequence of his sin.  

The "full knowledge" of sin, therefore, is the realization that there is no equitable justice possible.  Equitable justice is the kind of justice which completely rights a wrong.  For instance, if one man caused a monetary loss to another, then the consquence of the wrong to the other is fully repaired by paying the costs of the loss.  Equitable justice is only possible with some sins wherein the loss can be totally recovered.   However, sin and the sin nature result in irrepariable loss, because its influence leads to people hating the Almighty.  He could "snap his fingers", so to speak, and right everything by instant decree.  But will this teach love and loyalty, or will it teach how much the Almighty one hates unfaithfulness?  No.  It must be seen that our sin causes a loss of love and loyalty in others that cannot be repaired.  To be created in the image of the Creator means to be able to freely love, and freely be loyal without compulsion.

This therefore requires the sinner who will be saved to understand a form of justice that is not equitable in every sense.  Our sin "kills".  If our sin "kills", then can we bring back the murdered to life, or to make it more stark, can we resurrect those who have been spiritually murdered because they were turned away from the solution by the sin of others?   So then, there is no way to positively right the consequences of all sin.  This is what it means to have the "full knowledge" of sin, as taught by the Torah.  For the Torah teaches us that the consquences of sin is a one way trip, and the Torah teaches us that sin's consequences are fatal for the majority.

§3:21.1 The norm (νόμου) of justice is that the sinner must die for their own sin.  There is another justice of the Almighty that is not based on the norm.  It is an exception.  If the sinner wishes to repent and faithfully commit to Messiah Yeshua, then justice will be served by Yeshua's payment of the penalty on the cross.  We must realize that this payment is the payment of the judicial penalty such as the Almighty One requires.  The extent of the penalty was determined by Yahweh so as to make sure that man's pride would have to be set aside in order to properly accept it.   The penalty is not a full compenation for the consequences of sin.  There is no full compensation.  Not even the death of the sinner is full compensation for sin.  For the death of the sinner cannot bring back to life the lives of those killed by the sinners sin!   For this reason, there are two penalties for sin, neither of which restores the situation, but which, when you think about it, are the only types of justice possible that can "do justice to" the situation in the best way.  Neither is an equitable justice (totally equal compenation for the wrong).  But they are both judicial justice—the type of justice which the judge decides can be administrated.

There is the norm of justice.  This is will be the death of the sinner who does not repent or cannot repent due to the consequences of other's sins, or their own sin.  In reality it is both.  For their own sin, would, given time, lead to total death.  If the sinner is cut off early, then he has no descendants.  In this sense the offspring are killed before they are born.   If the sinner is cut off late, then his sin manifests in the death of the offspring.   Is it better to let the sinner live a while in hopes that he will repent?  Meanwhile others die.  Or is it better to judge the sinner soon, wherein he himself, and his offspring have no chance to repent?  See the catch-22?  It's literally "dammed if you do" and "dammed if you don't".   Since the Almighty One will not have the sinner living eternally without repenting, in His infinite wisdom, he decides when the norm of justice must be judicially applied, even if the sinner is not totally dead.   Sin moves pretty fast, however, and that's why Yahweh has cut down the life span of man to about 70 years.   The last judgment, then will be the judicial or legal phase of the justice of final "death" as the final consequence of sin.  The sinner will be resurrected so that they will understand the justice being administered.  And the sinner will understand that their final death does not even begin to restore what was lost through sin, namely a person created in the image of the Almighty who refused or was unable to return love and loyalty to the Creator because of Adam's sin.  The norm of sin and death is allowed in hopes that man will return to loyalty and seek another justice.

The justice apart from the norm is a justice that quashes the pride of man in thinking he has an equitable solution, or in thinking that the Almighty provides for an equitible solution.  The quest for an "equitible soluiton" is exactly where Christian theology has failed to understand His justice!   The fact is that we are not getting what we deserve.  This is because justice in Messiah is substitionary.  Further, in every sense of the term, the penalty required has been modified and reduced.  It was modified by substitution, a principle of mercy, or which is simply mercy, and further by a non-equitible penalty, i.e. reduced.  For the substitute the penalty paid is less than the penalty under the norm of justice.  The norm of justice would require eternal death, but justice in Messiah (apart from the norm) only requires a temporary death from which Messiah was raised.

Now there is no point in arguing that since Yeshua is Yahweh that his payment was infinite.  This is just an attempt to "equalize" things according to philosophy.  As much infinitude is there, it is not sufficient to undo all the consequences of sin on others.  And if the equity argument is pressed to its logical conclusion, then the final result is universalism!  Those who make the equity argument, or engage in it, are understating the results of sin.  And this unfortunate result is pressed by those who do not understand the atonement.

The reason that the Father set up the Levitical system for the sin of ignorance, and provided Messiah for transgression and inquity was to teach those who would truly accept His justice that for man to acheive equity was impossible.  To do so is to give up the philosophy and belief that somehow man can adequatly correct sin.  It is also to give up the notion that somehow the Father can magically wave the wand and change disloyal humans into loyal ones.  After all, these humans are created in the image of the Almighty One, with enough autonomy of will to choose between love and hate.  

Therefore, the animial offering for the sin of ignorance is a reduced penalty, in which the sinner of ignorance does not die for his own sin.  And likewise, the death of Messiah takes the compensation idea off the table!  Messiah's temporary death pays a reduced judicial penalty:

 

1. Total Equity ---- not logically possible.

2. Eternal death of sinner --- as logically close to #1 as possible, and made imperative for sinners who cannot or will not commit (be loyal) to Yeshua.

3.  Temporary death of substitute --- as logically severe as needed, but rules out a repentant sinner that commits to Messiah from thinking that they are being dealt with according to equity.

 

In spite of the fact that Messiah's death is manifest mercy reduced from what would be equitable, this has not stopped theologians from trying to build a philosophy of equity into their explanation of it.  Justice is justice, such as the Almighty One defines it, but justice does not have to be equal to be just.  It only has to be right for the situation, or put another way "right" for the divine law.  And in fact what is just and what is right both come from the same word in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.  Only English separates the two.   To have mercy is what is right for sinners who will truly repent.  Therefore, it is just.  To not have mercy is what is right for sinners who will not repent.  But in no case is what is right completely "fair" in the philosophical sense.

§3.21.2 Therefore, the norm of justice is the death of the sinner, and to be "apart from the norm" is the justice (i.e. rightness of mercy) reducing our penalty to a penalty paid by Messiah.   This is the צִדְקַ֥ת אֱלֹהִ֖ים apart from the norm.  And it is fully testified to in the Torah and Prophets.  The Levitical system fully illustrates the principle of reduced penalty via sacrifice, albeit only for sins of ignorance/circumstance.   What is more, Isaiah 53 explains how justice is mercifully served through Messiah's offering for our transgressions.  Zechariah 12:10 and other passages also allude to or mention this rightness, i.e. mercy-justice.

§3.21.3  Further, this justice is fully in accord with the Torah, and is based on Torah.  The key to seeing this is the word "norm", which Paul uses in its native Greek sense.  The norm, to be sure, is still the Torah, but it describes things as Torah might be normally applied.  The forces of lawlessness have tried to wipe this meaning of nomos (νόμος) off the face of the earth, because by eliminating it, it makes it impossible to vinidate Paul as a supporter of Torah.  Paul can even use the word nomos (νόμος) for the "norm of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2); by it he means the status quo of sinning and dying, but  in this verse he means the status quo application of Torah to the sinner.  The "norm" is that which typically happens.

§3.21.4 Nomos (νόμος) = norm = הַנּוֹרְ֔מָה  is such an important definition that I should cite its sources.  Firstly, there is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed., BDAG).  This Lexicon is remarkable for acknowledging the results of linguistic research on key words, and yet at the same time being supported by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and scholars affiliated with it:

 

νόμος 1. a custom, rule, principle, norm. 2. law.

 

The defintion "norm" is also acknowledged by The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "It thus comes to apply very broadly to any norm, rule, custom, usage, or tradition" (pg. 646, Abridged Volume).  Josephus uses it this way: "And in the norm of war the blows will be received toward the face" (καὶ πολέμου νόμῳ τὰς πληγὰς ἐθέλειν κατὰ πρόσωπον δέχεσθαι (Jwr 2:90 JOS)).  Josephus is observing that in battle, enemy blows are normally (νόμῳ) received on the front side and not the back. "...the norm of writing" (τῷ νόμῳ τῆς γραφῆς (Jwr 5:20 JOS)); Josephus speaks of the normal (νόμῳ) or usual standard of writing that would keep him from putting personal feelings into the account. TDNT adds: "a. νόμος belongs belongs etym. to νέμω, "to allot," and thus has the sense of "what is proper," "what is assigned to someone" "The basic idea behind νέμειν explains why νόμος, in the course of development, is often connected and even equated with  ® δικη, δικαιον, ισον [punishment, just, equity]" (TDNT, vol. IV, pg. 1023).  Listed as a source in BDAG 3rd, edition is Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy, by Martin Ostwald.  The index of this book lists usages of νόμος, " = way of life, 21-2; = normal order of things, 22-3; = normal way in which something is done, 23-4, 94-; = custom, social practice, 1 n. 3, 34-7";  Ostwald states, "A second use of νόμος consists in the application of the term to somewhat narrower norms of universal validity which form part of the general νόμος we have just discussed.  When, for example the chorus in Aeschylus' Agamenmnon (1207) asks Cassandra whether she and Apollo produced any children νόμῳ, the addition of νόμῳ obviously cannot refer to a custom or statute, but it signifies the Old Men's assumption that in the normal order of things the union of male and female will result in children." (pg. 22).  "In the lines immediately following, the comic point consists in a shift of the use of νόμος from the sense of customary practice to that of statute" (pg. 22, n2).  And BDAG observes, "The synonym ἒθος (cp. συνήθεια) deontes that which is habitual or customary, especially in reference to personal behaviour ... A special semantic problem for modern readers encountering the term νόμος is the general tendency to confine the usage of the term 'law' to codified statutes. Such limitation has led to much fruitless debate in the history of NT interpretation" (pg. 677).

What the antinomians do not want to recognize is that Paul seized on this Greek usage of νόμος to explain how the good news is apart from the norm of justice; that we are not under the norm of sin and death.  And further, as mentioned by Ostwald above, Paul was able to switch from norm to statute in the same passage, using the word to maximum effect.  The Greeks, of course, realized this when the Greek language was still the world language.  However, the term was ambiguous, and could be taken out of context.  The Gnostics, exemplified by Marcion, misinterpreted Paul in the typical fashion of cults which take texts out of context.  In doing so, the Gnostics left a legacy of inconsistencies in Paul with statements of Paul that would not yield to such twisting around.

§3.21.5  In English the sense of distributive justice, i.e. justice done to another, or administered for one is contained in the word "justice" while the concept of moral uprightness is contained in the word righteousness.  In Latin derived languages, Greek, and Hebrew, this was not so.  The same term combined both senses, and only the context could decipher which was meant.  Anyone who reads a Spanish, Latin, or French bible can sense both meanings.  English is deficient, and the missing meaning must be supplied in a footnote.  "Now apart from the norm the righteousness of the Almighty is made visible";   This righteousness is defined in the Torah, but it is made visible in Messiah, because Messiah showed us how it was lived in reality.   It is apart from the norm ...which is the sin nature.  This is more obvious in Paul's other usages of nomos.   Here the idea is included as a valid interpretation, however, it must go with the next verse to be fully understood.  The righteousness of Yahweh is the path to defeating both the sin nature, and the penalty of sin—such as is assigned for the faithful.

 

 

2. the norm of righteousness.  This would be humanly attainable righteousness without assistence from the divine faithfulness.

3:22 faithfulness: in this case Messiah's own faithful commitment to the work of paying the penalty of sin on the cross.

3:24 justiced: 1. note well.  Not "justified";  justiced means that the penalty is paid for a sinner who was found guilty.  "Justified" would mean the sinner was acquitted.  2. While regular Greek means "justiced", another sense of the term is "made righteous"; while the primary idea of Paul is clear, it is possible to get a very true second idea with the meaning "made righteous".  We are also being made righteous by Messiah teaching us His faithfulness.

3:25 The penalty of sin is wiped away by the sacrificial payment by literal loss of life (blood), but the presence of sin is progressively wiped away by Yeshua giving to us his divine life (symbolized by blood).  We are justiced by the loss of his life.  We are made righteous by the gift of his resurrection life as he teaches us His faithfulness.

3:25 overlooking and sending off: this refers to the day of atonement when the second goat carried the iniquities (transgressions) into the wilderness.  The second goat was not killed or pushed over a cliff because the penalty was not paid at that times.  Iniquities were those serious sins not payable by the Levitical offerings.

3:26 וְנִשְׁלָמֵי־צֶדֶק = and being completer of justice.   Justice is completed for us from the faithfulness of Yeshua, both judicial and moral.  Judicial justice is completed by Messiah's faithful payment of the penalty, and moral justice is being completed by His writing of His faithfulness on our hearts.

3:27 1. The norm of works is an attempt to come to justice by one's good deeds.  But justice cannot be served by one's good deeds, because it avoids payment of the penalty of sin.  The torah of faithfulness is the teaching of Yeshua's faithfulness on the cross.  This pays the penalty. 2. The norm of works may also be thought of as man's independent effort to do right without divine help.  In this case the torah of faithfulness is the teaching of Yeshua's faithfulness, that he will circumcise our hearts to obey his torah.

3.28 The key phrase here is "justiced by faithfulness", which is twisted into "justified by faith", a sense that is totally alien to Paul's thought, and so twisted as to have no relation to it whatsoever!  First I will explain the corrupted sense. 1. justified = proved/declared right, 2. by = through, by means of, appropriated by, 3. faith = belief, trust in facts and promise.  That would mean one is proved right, acquitted in the sight of God under the condition of their belief in the promise.  Problem: the Almighty One does not acquit or prove right sinners. He can only pardon them and make them righteous after the pardon.

Firstly, Paul does not mean acquitted, proved right, or justified.  These are all words for telling a defendant he is "not guilty" (which would be a lie).  In Hellensitic Greek, the word δικαιοῦσθαι means  "is (being) justiced" in a negative sense that justice is done to the person, usually meaning to execute a penalty upon the person. In Jewish-Greek (LXX) the word means "is being made righteous".  In modern English, it would have the sense of "being served justice";   Secondly, πίστει  means a. Messiah's faithfulness, and b. our response of faithfulness to His faithfulness, and thirdly,  ἔργων νόμου "customary deeds" may mean, a. mere traditon, b. deeds of Torah, c. some particular customary deeds supposed to appease or balance divine justice.

To unpack the senses of this text we must exegete two meanings of δικαιοῦσθαι and two meanings of πίστει, and three meanings of ἔργων νόμου.

 

1. Primary: "a man is justiced [pay's the penalty] by [Messiah's] faithfulness, and not by, {works of Torah, traditional works, or particular customary works aimed at appeasing divine justice}.

2. Secondary: "a man is justiced [being made righteous] by [our] faithfulness [taken from Messiah's faithfulness through instruction in the Torah], and not by {traditional works, or particular deeds said to appease or balance divine justice}.

Being justiced by faithfulness can be broken down into two aspects.  Justice is one part judicial penalty and one part being made righteous.  The judicial penalty is completed by Messiah faithfulness on the cross.  Being made righteous starts with Messiah's personal faithfulness (righteousness), which is then taught to us, and so becomes our faithfulness.  Works that are supposed to appease or balance the judicial justice are denied in all cases.  Proper deeds of Torah are only denied as effecting judicial justice or balance.

To carry translate this into Hebrew is a challenge.  There is no Hebrew word expressing exactly νόμου, but since Torah is considered traditon also, for the Jewish reader the term הַמַּעֲשִׂים הַנָּחוּגִים can be considered to sum up all the senses, so long as the reader refers it only to tradition in the case of the second interpretation.  The phrase לְנִשְׁלָמֵי־צֶדֶק = to be completer of justice.  One could also read צְדָקָה instead of צֶדֶק so long as the sense of justice being a divine action against sin is not lost.   One is a completer of justice by the faithfulness of Messiah, a. by his judicial payment of the penalty, and b. by his justice (i.e. righteousness) being taught us to become our faithful response.

4:3 Abraham committed to Yahweh.  The gloss commit/commitment is recognized in BDAG 3rd edition for πιστεύω/πίστις.  The verb commit, I have found is the most useful English verb to express the sense.  First it means "to give (one's) support to (somone)";  this is exactly in line with the Hebrew root that is supposed to be represented by πιστεύωאָמַן means "to support";  In Genesis 15:6, the sense is "he put his support in Yahweh";  The verb root is hiphil.  Hiphil means the sense is to make or cause something.  So Abraham made or caused his support to be with Yahweh.  At the same time, like the English commit, the sense is ambiguous, hence, "he made supportment on Yahweh", or "He committed himself to Yahweh" (Greek text).  The idea is that he supports Yahweh, and Yahweh supports him;  he caused his support to be in Yahweh.

Abraham's support of Yahweh was his loyalty, his faithfulness.  This is what was considered as righteousness in Yahweh's sight.   The notion that the text is teaching any kind of forensic legal perfection being put onto Abraham's account is foreign to the context.  This notion is sought by those who want to lay a legal foundation for being perfect in God's eyes, as if this was required at all.  All that is required to be considered righteous is a faithful committment, i.e. to give one's support to Him.  And then he will support us, because we need support.  For man cannot be perfect in this Age, but must rely on Him for perfection in the age to come.

4:4   Though it is not evident at first glance in Genesis 15:6, Paul saw another layer of meaning in the phrase: וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה = and he considered it to him for righteousness.  Now the "it" here is הָ, which is feminine, refers back to the verbal idea at the start of the text: "And he made support in Yahweh":

2. The suffix of the 3rd person singular feminine (us also the separate pronoun ayhi Nu 14:14, Jos 10:13, Ju 14:4) sometimes refers in a general sense to the verbal idea contained in a preceding sentence (corresponding to our it); thus the verbal suffix, Gn 15:6, Nu 23:19, 1 S 11:2, 1 K 11:12, Is 30:8, Am 8:10; cf. Gn 24:14 (HB' thereby), 42:36, 47:26, Ex 10:11 (Ht'ao that), Is 47:7. Elsewhere the suffix of the 3rd singular feminine refers to the plurals of things, e. g. 2 K 3:3 (GK §135.p).

The reason the suffix is feminine is that "give support" (הֶאֱמִין) is feminine as the noun אֱמוּנָה = faithfulness, supportiveness.  So the "it" refers to Abraham's faithfulness.  This is what was counted as righteousness.

What Paul saw was that the text actually teaches both ways.  "He made/found support in Yahweh, and he is reckoning it (supportiveness) to him as righteousness"!   The Hebrew: וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ is imperfect, i.e. "he is counting it";  Paul turns this around to focus on Yahweh's faithfulness.  This is being counted as righteousness.   So Yahweh's faithfulness is being counted to Abraham via sanctification as Abraham follows Yahweh's commandments.  This counting is according to Abraham's deeds, a progressive counting.

However, Paul saw something that was not counted according to deeds in the word צְדָקָה, which Paul now turns to explain in terms of "justice", which is the completing of the judicial penalty for sin vicariously, and then counting this penalty as paid in full—without works.  So far, he has just spoken about that righteousness which comes from Yahweh's faithfulness, appropriated by Abraham's faithfulness, which is actually firmly connected to good works.  Now he proceeds to show where Yahweh's faithfulness to us is without our works.

 

v4 Now in working, the reward is not considered as loving kindness, if not as a debt.

 

We can say that righteousness is a gift because it all comes from the Almighty;  however, working righteousness, or having to work to appropriate it by obedience may be considred a rewardable debt.  Paul is simply observing this to contrast it with what he is about to say.  Righteousness appropriated through our faithfulness is not only a rewardable debt.  We obtained it by loving kindness.  For this reason the conjunction finishes the sentence, "if not as a debt", i.e. ἀλλὰ = אֶלָּא = if not.  We run into this Pauline use of an Aramaism in Greek frequently.  In this case, if not = if not also.   Righteousness appropriated by our faithfulness is rewardable by debt.

5:5 I must point out at once, that the former verse, and this one are not talking about two different people, one who works for salvation, and one who does not work for salvation.  They are talking about two different aspects of obtaining righteousness/justice in the faithful person.  Hence the translation is, "in working ...in not working";

In this verse, Paul completes his additional interpretation of Genesis 15:6.  Now faithfulness refers to Yahweh's faithfulness in making the payment for the penalty of sin on the cross (cf. Zech. 12:10), and righteousness (צְדָקָה) means to complete the divine justice (בַּמַּשְׁלִימֵי־צֶדֶק).  We put our support on the one completing justice for us.   We, the ungodly, who repent and commit to Him, are justiced by His faithfulness.  Our judicial penalty is paid for us.  Therefore, Yeshua is the completer of justice for us: יַהְוֶה צִדְקֵנוּ.

This aspect of justice is without works, without our working, but is appropriated by our faithfulness to Him, by our commitment, and finding support in His work of faithfulness.  The other aspect of justice, our being made righteous, is connected to our deeds, and our loving Yeshua by keeping His commandments.

4:6 The text has צֶדֶק (justice) because, it is the paid judicial penalty that is being put in the account of the faithful.  The Hebrew word צְדָקָה would do just as well for those who really understand Hebrew.  However, I suspect that even modern Hebrew is dividing righteousness and justice due to English influence.

5:12  Amplified: Therefore, as through one man [Adam] sin [missing, decay] entereth into the cosmos [the universe], also through sin [decay, missing] enters death [malfunction]; and similarly death [malfunction] goeth through to all men, upon which [upon which condition] all sinneth [miss].

Paul is building a chain of responsibility here.  The one man was responsible for sin entering into the world, and in the same way, sin is responsible for death.  Death in turn is responsible for all men sinning.   Sin is the first missing or decay before malfunction occurs.  Death is the malfunction.  It is not final physical death, though that is death also.  Death refers to any malfunction, or faculty of the person that no longer works due to sin.  Think of the cosmos or person as a huge factory.  Parts decay and wear out.  This is sin.  Some of the assembly lines malfunction.  This is death.  Human capacities fail due to decay.  Human capacities die due to sin.

Sin causes death.  Death causes sin.  The cycle continues until complete death occurs.  The antinomian heresiarch of dispensationalism, Lewis Sperry Chafer tells a different story.  The sin is identified as Adam's initial transgression, and not the resulting decay, missing, or sinfulness.  And death is identified as the judicial penalty for that sin.  The generic interpretation is "the judicial penalty [death] passes to all men, in whom [Adam] all sinned".  It is reckoned by Chafer that all men sinned when Adam sinned.  Other theologians back him up thinking that "in whom" (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) means "in Adam" all sinneth.  From this is developed the doctrine of orignal sin.  This is the idea that all men are responsible for Adam's sin and that the judicial penalty for Adam's sin is reckoned (imputed) to all his descendants.

It is enough, however, that a judical penalty is assigned for our own sin.  What then is the real reason for the heretical doctrine?  First, the doctrine allows Churches to teach that the penalty of sin is due to Adam's sin.  This avoids having to say that the penalty of sin is due to transgression of the Torah.  Second, the doctrine sets up a correspondence of imputations with imputed righteousness.  If the Almighty can count the judicial penalty of sin for a person that did not commit the sin, then the reasoning goes, he can also count righteous a person that does not commit (do) righteousness.  The one error is used to support the other error.

Chafer tries to defend the doctrine:

Since the aorist tense is used ... a single historical act completed in the past is indicated ... the words all sinned cannot refer to a nature which results from the act, nor can it refer to personal sins of many individuals.  It is not that man became sinful. (pg. 301, vol. II, Systematic Theology).

If the aorist is a past tense then please explain these aorists: 1. "the Pharisees sit [sat?] in the chair of Moses" (Mat. 23:2); 2. "Wisdom is [was?] vindicated by all her children" (Luke 7:35); 3.  "You are my beloved Sin; with you I am [was?] well pleased" (Mark 1:11); 4. "my spirit rejoices [rejoiced?] in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:47); 5. "Now the Son of Man is [was?] glorified, and God is [was?] glorified in him." (John 13:31). 6. "believe that you receive [received?] them, and you will have them" (Mark 11:24);  "and it will obey you [obeyed you??]" (Luke 17:6). (cf. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, Constantine R. Campell).

 

Porter is one of the few scholars who have been trained formally in both linguistics and theology.  As such, he brings a robust theoretical linguistic framework to his analysis of the Greek verbal system.  In particular, his analysis is conducted through the prism of the functional school of systemic linguistics.  One important consequence of this is Porter's strong adherence to the distinction between semantics and pragmatics, which is essential to his analysis.

Porter self-consciously builds on the framework established by McKay. He too concludes that Greek is aspectual and not tense-based at all.  But unlike McKay, Porter rigorously defends this view form a theoretical basis.  Since temporal reference is not always expressed by the verb, it therefore cannot be a semantic value. Temporal reference must be pragmatic.

 It is Porter's contribution that has caused the fiercest debate.  The "tenseless" position is still very much in the minority, being rejected by most traditionalists. (pg. 29, ibid. Campbell).

If anything, the above texts, and the fact that heresies are based on them should prove that Porter and McKay are correct.  The main reason that the traditionalists reject the linguistic results of Porter is that they perceive a threat to their theological hegemony, and rightly so, because a good number of their arguments depend on the abuse of tense.  I have adopted Porter's explanation, and add that ancient Hebrew is also tenseless.  It is only aspectual.

The doctrine of original sin is not just that sin if passed down by cause and effect causing all to sin.  It is a teaching that the judicial penalty and guilt of Adam for the one sin is transferred to all his descendants by imputation.  It is argued that imputation is a legal reckoning without respect to reality.  A new born child is legally reckoned guilty of Adam's sin, and thus must die for Adam's sin.  This doctrine is a false doctrine, and the Scripture teaches against it:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deu 24:16 KJV).

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Eze 18:20 KJV).

Yet Chafer demands:

The construction is so demanding that exegetes are largely of one mind ....An actual imputation of the Adamic sin is denoted by the right rendering of the text...the words declare an actual imputation with its attending individual guilt and penalty of physical death. (pg. 302, ibid.)

Not once does Chafer consider that the doctrine of original sin is diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles of justice.  He dogmatically claims that tradition supports him and that the Greek text must be taken his way, and his way only.

Literal translation of Hebrew text: Therefore, when in-way-of man one the-sin into the-cosmos entereth, also in-way-of the-sin the-death; and-in-manner similar the-death entereth into all sons-of man under which-all sinneth.  The Hebrew מִתַּחַת שֶׁ־ (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) was deemed better than עַל אֲשֶׁר.  The latter would be more literal, "upon which/whom";  the idea would be building "upon" the effects of sin and death all sineth.   The idea "under [the effects of] which all sinneth" was deemed less confusing.  Franz Delitzsch's translation is: מִפְּנֵי אֲשֶׁר = because of which.  This is also acceptable, but Salkinson-Ginsburg:  בַּאֲשֶׁר = in which/whom.  This is unacceptable.