Commentary and Notes

1:9¹ ^{^}τὸ ἀπόκριμα, or “the answer of death.” The sense appears that they expected the outcome of death in their trials, and were resolved to it.

3:3† ^{^}Not on tablets of stones, but on tablets of fleshly hearts. The contrast is not between tablets and tablets. For both clauses of the parallelism use the word tablets (πλαξὶν). The difference is stones and fleshly hearts (καρδίαις σαρκίναις). The text alludes to Ezekiel 36:26, “And I will have made turn aside the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will have given to you the heart of flesh.” In the renewed covenant, the Law is to be written on the heart (cf. Jer. 31:33). This is why Paul inserts the word “tablets” into the text, to remind us that it is the Law that is written on the heart.

3:6‡ ^{^}Who also qualified us as ministers of a renewed covenant, not a sentence but a breath of life; for the sentence kills, but the Spĭrit gives life.‡ Abstract: The new covenant is really an old one (cf. 1John 2:7-8). The understanding of new and old here is not properly based on the words of Hebrews, which is not to be admitted to the cannon of Scripture (or Marcion), but on the words of the Apostle John. The “letter” of the Law is not its positive precepts for life, but the negative “sentence” in two places in the ten commandments (Exodus 20:5 and 20:7). The sentence of the Law is the penalty clause. As the word “sentence” is in English law, so “letter” is for Paul’s usage.

In 1John 2:7-8 John claims that a new commandment is an old commandment. This goes to prove that new does not mean the old is obsolete. The old commandment is new because it is the old commandment being renewed. For this reason the new covenant involves the Spirit writing old commandments on the hearts of the faithful (Jer. 31:31-34). In the book of Matthew, Yeshua refers to “my blood of the covenant.” The best Greek texts leave out the word “new”! The same thing happens in Mark. The texts leave out the word “new.” The texts of Luke are confused, and as far as we can tell the word “new” is was not in the original Luke. The only place new is to be found is in Paul’s writings (1Cor. 11:25 and 2Cor. 3:6), and it is likely that he learned the additional words at the last supper from Peter.

The Messianic Faith does not accept the book of Hebrews because the author tried to abolish the Levitical Law, also called ceremonial, and also made many factual mistakes in describing the Tabernacle and services associated with it. Hebrews claims that saying new in Jer. 31:31 makes the old obsolete. But 1John proves that this is not so. This is because in Hebrew “new” may mean “anew” “again” or “renewed.” In English we approach the sense when we say “make it like new.” A lot of early Christians also did not accept the book of Hebrews, which had to fight its way into the canon, and only became canon when the Church of Rome and Alexndria, which by that time were apostate, decreed it so. The Eastern Church only accepted Hebrews assuming that Paul wrote it, however that assumption has now been disproved, and so their foundational reason for accepting it has been dis-confirmed. The book does not conform to Paul’s style and vocabulary, nor does it conform to his theology of Hab. 2:4. It was added to the canon by lawless bishops after the birth of the Papacy. And not long before this determination, Christians considered many other books canonical that were not. The reason Christians are never told this is because the book became essential to proving the abolishment of the Levitical Law, and without it, the argument will fail.

Paul refers to the “renewed” covenant in 2Cor. 3:6. No problem there, since what is old can be new, and what is new can still be the same as the old. Paul refers to the “letter” in a negative sense in the same verse. Does the “letter” mean the positive commandments of the Torah which are for life? No! The letter is a “sentence”, a “notice” the violator will be sentenced. This is a valid function of the Law. The person who has no forgiveness is sentenced by the “letter” that the judge determined. The person who repented and faithfully trusts Messiah has forgiveness. Therefore there is no “letter” which sentences him. A letter may be pages of writing, or a letter may be one letter of a word. A sentence is a whole string of words declaring what the penalty will be. In Greek they used the word “letter” the same way we use “sentence” to refer to a punishment or penalty. Therefore Paul means who also qualified us as ministers of a renewed covenant, not a sentence but a breath of life; for the sentence kills, but the Spĭrit gives life.

3:7† ^{^}But since the ministry of death in sentences engraved on stones was glorious,† Paul is saying that he wants to be on the instructing end of Torah for the faithful, and not in the business of sentencing the unfaithful. He admits that serving justice to the ungodly is glorious (vs. 7), “the ministry of death in sentences engraved on stones was glorious”. Everyone knows that the precepts of the law cannot just fade away. That is what some want us to believe. What Paul is saying is that the sentences of the Law will fade away because eventually there will be no lawbreakers left to give the sentence of the Law to. When the Law is completely written on the heart then the sentences will disappear. Therefore, the ministry of death in the sentences of the Law will disappear.

There are in fact two sentences in the ten commandments. The first is in Exodus 20:5 and the second is in Exodus 20:7. And these were engraved on the stones. The first sentence punished idolators. The second sentence punished those who took the name of Yahweh in vain. One sentence for pagans, and the other for hypocrites. Therefore, Paul knew what he was talking about when he referred to “sentences” engraved on the stones. What we call “sentences” today, they called “letters” then. With the ministry of the renewed covenant, the need for “sentences” is fading away.

These are the sentences of the Law:

Exodus 20:5 states, “Because I am Yăhwēh your Almĭghty, a jealous Gŏd attending the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third, and upon the fourth generation of my haters.”

Exodus 20:7, “Because Yăhwēh will not acquit he that may bear his name worthlessly.”

It is the sentence of the Law that will fade away after all are righteous, and after all the unrighteous die the second death.

3:14† ^{^}But their minds were hardened. For until the present, the same veil remains over the correct reading of the ancient covenant,† not being unveiled that in Mĕs­si­ah it is undone. or “decipherment.” The same sense is used in Isa. 29:11-12. τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης = the ancient covenant. The word ancient may be found in Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. The Hebrew equivalent is everlasting covenant or בְּרִית עוֹלָם beri̱t ō̒lam. See Ezek. 37:26, Exodus 31:16. The typical Greek phrase for this is διαθήκη αἰώνιος.

Paul says, “For until the present, the same veil remains over the correct reading of the covenant of old not being unveiled that in Mĕssiah it is undone.” What is undone. The veil. The veil represents the sentences of the law here. So in Messiah the sentence is undone, because he paid the penalty.

So now, with Hebrews out of the way, and new and old explained according to Scripture, and the letter understood to mean a “sentence”, we can see that the new covenant is the same as the old covenant without the sentence, as promised in Deut. 30.

Many have struggled over the word “letters” because the translators have been unfaithful, and did not give its real equivalent in English which is “sentences.” Many have struggled over the words “engraved on stones” because they were unable to remember to think of the penalty clauses in the law. Many have stumbled over a difference in the words “old” and “new” because the well of good theology was poisoned by Marcion’s paradigm of the old covenant vs. the new covenant. Many have rejected Paul as a true teacher because they could not reconcile him with Torah. Now you can.

On a more technical note here it does not matter that sentence is not provided in Greek lexicons as sense for γράμμα. We do not know all usages current in that time or how quickly a Greek reader would associate “letter” with the the concept of a “sentence.” Yet Paul’s usage demands this meaning. Even if it must be supposed that letter refers only to something written, and not the concept of penal sentences, we need not assume that he means the positive precepts of the law. Two clauses (composed of letters) stand out in the Torah: visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and because Yahweh will not acquit whoever carries His name for nothing.

Interpreting Paul: Peter writes that Paul writes things hard to understand at times. This is because Paul was a trained Rabbi and knew how to make exegetical points and interpret Scripture with Scripture. Paul was also a socio-political genius who took Yĕshūa̒’s parable of the tares and the wheat seriously. And he also spoke in a parable to the nations. Paul intended his words to be interpreted in the context of the Torah and the Prophets, and other Scriptural contexts to be used as the key to his meanings. Paul’s method appears to have been to use some ambiguous turns of phrases, which when taken in isolation can be read lawlessly, however, when taken the full context of Scripture they cannot be. This kept his enemies off balance, and gave the tares (weeds) something to latch onto to their own destruction. For if that had nothing to latch on to they would have destroyed the wheat

5:1† ^{^}Paul speaks of the present body vs. the resurrection body.

5:7† ^{^}Walking by sight is when the Măster’s eye is on you and your eye on the Măster. One will be faithful in that case equally for fear of the Măster as for love of the Măster. The real test is if one will be faithful when the Măster’s eye is not perceived, or when we do not see him. The definition of faithfulness is the same both ways. Walking by sight might not require true loyalty, but only fear. So we are made to walk without sight so that we might choose faithfulness and love over fear. Walking without sight obviously requires the element of trust implied in faithfulness.

Beware of the false teaching,however, that tries to reduce faithfulness to trusting only.

5:8† ^{^}Or from “the body,” but Paul clearly must be meaning the present body, because he believes in the resurrection body too. And of course, in the resurrection body, we will be with Yăhwēh. The resurrection body will have the powers necessary to dwell with Him in glory on a face to face basis.

The Scripture compares the state of the first death to sleep, and the resurrection to waking up, but there are those who insist that after death the faithful exist in a waking state in the intimate face to face fellowship promised here in this text. This doctrine contradicts 1Cor. 15:51-55; Phil. 3:20-21; 1John 3:2; Rom. 6:5, and John 11:21-27, and Daniel 12:1-3, and Job 19:26, and Job 14:10-15. Their interpretation depends on reading the words “the body” to mean absent from any sort of body, including the resurrection body. But it is plain to see that putting the meaning of “any body” on the words “the body” is only a possible interpretation of the words in some other context. In this context such a meaning is not possible.

The wish to derive a conscious waking state after death without a body derives from two other false doctrines that need depend on the assertion. The first is the pagan idea that denies death and says that the soul when released from the body wanders to a spiritual plane of existence. The second is the doctrine of purgatory in which there is no resurrection body. Therefore, the doctrine requires a conscious state without a body. Also the destruction in the lake of fire is called the second death. In order for there to be eternal conscious torment, it has to be possible for a person to have a conscious state when dead. Of course this contradicts Matthew 10:28 which not only specifies that the body dies, but also the soul is destroyed.

The notion of a conscious state after death without a resurrection body also opens one up to deception by mediums (who impersonate the dead by means of evil spirits) and doctrines such as transmigration of souls, and the Gnostic concept that the human soul is eternal and is just trying to re-unite with the original soul.

5:13¹ ^{^}Crazed, insane, stunned, amazed. The Deer in the headlights look.

5:16¹ ^{^}σάρκα = flesh. A dynamic translation is needed here since very few will understand what is meant by “flesh.” That is they do not view a person in terms of money, status, power, rank, birth, outward beauty, or any of the things which the fleshly mind of the world exalts. Before coming to the faith, many viewed Messiah in worldly terms as just a man, or as just a man who did good things because he was in the inside track with Gŏd.

5:17† ^{^}Or, “there is a new creation,” or “a new creation is.” There is no verb in the connection so the text may be understood different ways. In Paul’s Greek, the word καινὴ could also mean what is new in renewal. And we see that renewal (τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς) is explained in Romans 12:2, “by the renewal of the mind.” Under the term “new creation,” Paul may be including acts of inward healing to enable a broken person to function with faithfulness again. Of course, with the ability restored, the person still has to choose to be faithful.

What the text does not mean is what the reformed Calvinists teach, i.e. a spiritual regeneration bypassing the human will that ensures salvation. This text is often equivocated to teach this false doctrine using various phrases and terms onto which this reformed meaning has been grafted.

5:17‡ ^{^}τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν: old things pass. Paul is not saying that all old things pass all at once. Reformed doctrines claim that all old things have passed in a legal or mystical sense, especially by the “union with Christ” doctrine. This means they claim the faithful are united with Christ in such a way that all of Christ’s righteousness is the united or joint possession of the faithful. They emphasize this as a person’s state rather than the need to be faithful or continue repenting. A good deal of Church language is centered around the notion of faith not doing anything, but only receiving. This is centered around the notion that abiding in Christ is done by faith without works (cf. Rom. 3:28), and is not dependent on keeping his commandments (John 15).

The aorist here is gnomic, i.e. a general truth for the faithful, “old things pass,” and ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά (perfect), “Behold new ones have come,” is the observation that new things have come to those who have affirmed faithfulness, because the faithful have changed by cooperating with the truth, having their minds renewed. Paul is not arguing the perfectionistic doctrine of lawless interpreters, i.e. namely that all old things have passed, or that all new ones have come.

5:21‡ ^{^}He made him who knew no sin to be a sin offering on our behalf, so that we might ourselves become the righteousness of the Almĭghty by him. Translators have often translated, “to be sin”, whereas according to usage in the Law, the word means “a sin offering.” Some have argued a sin “transfer” theology so completely that they even say Mĕssiah became a sinner in Gŏd’s sight! But “sin” is also used the Law and prophets to mean the penalty of sin. To lay sin on someone, therefore means to put the penalty for it on someone. It does not mean to make them sin or a sinner. The plain word “sin” in Hebrew, and LXX and NT usage, means 1. sin itself, 2. a sin offering, and 3. the penalty of sin (cf. 1Pet. 2:24). There are legions of false teachers that do not understand this, and they teach false theories of Mĕssiah’s death because of their opinions, which are not based on Scriptural usage.

The commentary war over this verse is a sight to behold, but first we must understand another motivation for the false translation, “to be sin,” and that is to serve as the antithesis of the faithful becoming the righteousness of God. It is assumed that the believer is forensically (for purposes of law only) accounted as 100% righteous. This then implies that Christ was forensically accounted to be a sinner, as if his death were compensatory for all sin rather then simply the payment of a punitive penalty assigned for those affirming faithfulness to Him. Both the ideas of forensic imputed righteousness and Christ being forensically regarded as a sinner are false doctrines. The imputation of sin to Mĕssiah is a false doctrine. Only the penalty of sin was laid on him. Guilt was not. E.g. a judge finds a defendant guilty and sentences him to pay a fine. The fine is graciously paid by a third party. The third party bore the fine, but the third party is not guilty.

So we have Ellicot’s Commentary for English Readers outright telling lies in order to deny the translation “sin offering,” (and others) and all for this reason, “Christ identified with man’s sin: mankind identified with Christ’s righteousness—that is the truth.” Nay, my friends, this is a complete lie, and it is the mystery of lawlessness. Benson’s Commentary allows the sense “sin offering,” but then restates the forensic righteousness false doctrine. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible settles on the sense “sin offering,” by the obvious process of elimination, since any other sense makes no sense. Barnes suggests that it may mean that Mĕssiah was treated as a sinner in Gŏd’s sight. Not exactly. If a sinner were to die for his own sin, then he should have to die eternally, and it would not compensate for his sin. But Mĕssiah’s death was only temporary. So clearly he was not treated as if he were a actual sinner. The penalty of sin for the faithful was paid. But surely all the effects of sin were not compensated for. They were simply forgiven.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary deny the sense “sin offering.” So also Matthew Poole. So also Gill. So also the Geneva Study Bible, “imputation of guilt.” Though Meyer cites a host of Church Fathers taking it as sin offering, he rejects it. The Expositor's Greek Testament claims that, “ἁμαρτία cannot be translated ‘sin-offering’ because it cannot have two different meanings in the same clause.” This notion is refuted by Lev. 4:3, where ἁμαρτίας = sin and also sin offering. So also the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, and Bengel’s Gnomen. So also the Pulpit Commentary.

In the forgiving of sins, there is only the need for Mĕssiah to pay the assigned punitive penalty for the repentant faithful.

So that we might become the righteousness of the Almĭghty by him. This does and does not have to do with imputed righteousness. It does not have anything to do with the false doctrine of forensic imputed righteousness, that is the positive righteousness of Christ transferred to our account, then upon review of our account in the judgment, an acquittal is declared, or a declaration of innocence. The Law does not allow acquittal of the guilty. The Law only allows pardon of the guilty. A pardon is forgiveness. An Acquittal means you never committed the crime in the first place.

Since the forensic explanation is false, the case against “sin offering” as the proper translation in the first clause of this verse falls apart. The forensic explanation falls apart with the verb γενώμεθα. This is a subjunctive aorist middle. It also has a unique passive form. The verb is reflexive, so that “we might become ourselves” the righteousness of the Almĭghty. Such righteousness cannot be forensic. It cannot be only a legal declaration on the books. It has to be actual righteousness. The subjunctive expresses an intended result of the sin offering, and not a guaranteed result. Mĕssiah paid the penalty in the hope that we would affirm faithfulness to Him, and this means keeping his commandments and actually becoming righteous. His commandments are the righteousness of the Almĭghty.

It says, “so that we might ourselves become.” The pardon along with the sin offering was in the hope that we would become better for it. There was no transfer of sin to the actual account of Mĕssiah, nor transfer of righteousness to our account. But he paid the penalty for us, and the Almĭghty forgave what could not be paid (compensations) by Mĕssiah. Therefore, we are forgiven. We are not counted righteous except in the righteous things we do. And such righteousness is never the basis for acquittal (a declaration of innocence), which would falsely be called forgiveness. For who needs forgiveness when he is acquitted? Who needs forgiveness when his legal account is perfect?

No one of course. That is why the doctrine of forensic imputation is the mystery of iniquity. It is a direct attack on the good news. We do believe in the imputation of righteousness. But it comes via faithfulness to his commandments, and is not completed until Mĕssiah returns and completes it.