The Messianic Israél Standard Bible: Romans

1. The commentary comes in one volume, and the translation in a second volume. This will be so that the user can lay the two side by side, to refer to the text.

2. The translation is two columns. On the left English, and on the right Hebrew, with simple linguistic notes or referents in the footnotes.

3. After this section, the Prologue, and Introduction, the commentary begins, going verse by verse. Each new verse is marked §, with subsequent entries numbered. The † indicates advanced information, mostly by way of proving what was already said, or citing the opinions of other commentors, not to find fault with them per se, but in pointing out the faults, the main point is further proved, and reinforced. The advanced sections are not needed for understanding the text, and I suggest that they be skipped on a first reading.

4. After the commentary follows a parsing guide to the Hebrew text. The codes and tense mappings from Hebrew to Greek to English are explained at the beginning of the parsing guide for chapter 1. This section has two purposes, I. To learn Hebrew at the deep grammatical level. II. To demonstrate an exact and literal reversion of the Greek text back into Hebrew, and that what cannot be transferred into Hebrew is preserved in the English.

In the usual administration of justice a person is tried and either acquitted or convicted. The acquitted go free, and the convicted are sentenced. However, sometimes it is considered right to pardon a criminal. The power of pardon is usually left to governors or to the president. Hopefully, officials handing out pardons are being just and righteous. To pardon a criminal there must be some mitigating circumstance. Among other things the criminal should have admitted his guilt. Criminals who seek to be justified (acquitted) at trial, and then are found guilty, still maintaining their innocence should not receive pardons. Further, criminals that seek pardons should have made it clear that they are going to turn away from their evil ways. It wouldn’t be right to issue a pardon to someone who is just going to continue in their practice of evil.

In most cases it is right to punish the guilty, but in some cases it is right to pardon them. This is the principle of mercy. A pardon is another word for forgiveness. The judge who punishes the guilty is being righteous, but if the judge can show mercy, then the judge is also being righteous when he pardons. Either way the judge is administering justice. If it is right to punish, then that is justice, but if it is right to pardon, then that is also justice. Either way justice is administered.

The world person will object to this definition of justice. They will argue that justice must be equal. They will argue that there is only justice when all crime is administered punishment as deserved. But this is not Yahweh’s justice. The world may think it foolishness to call mercy justice, but with the Almighty, mercy is justice, and to administer mercy where he may is justice. This is because divine justice is in reality divine righteousness. And when it is righteous of Him to show mercy, then that is His justice administered.

Πίστις (pístis) is not mere belief in a promise, belief in facts, or even just belief or trust in Yeshua. Πίστις is אֱמוּנָה (emunah)—faithfulness (in modern Hebrew נֶאֱמָנוּת). By faith alone Paul cannot be understood. It requires faithfulness. The word comes from the Hebrew root אָמַן (aman) which means “to support”. Πίστις, abstractly, is “supportiveness”, the verb πιστεύω “support”, and the adjective πιστός “supportive”; more will be explained on this later, and proofs offered from authorities and linguistic analysis, but for now I explain that the meaning of “support” depends on its object. If one says, “I support your words”, then he means that he believes the words. If one says, “I support you”, then he is declaring his loyalty or commitment to the other person. It wouldn’t do justice to say that “I support you” only means “I believe you”. The necesity of restoring the real meaning of the Πίστις/πιστός/πιστεύω word group comes up over and over again in the translation and commentary, so much so that it alone is a revolution in understanding Paul.

Faithfulness works two ways in Paul. A good many texts have been misunderstood by Christians to refer to believer-faith, when in fact such texts refer to Yeshua’s faithfulness. That is His personal faithfulness—not our faithfulness. Without the soteriological key of Messiah’s faithfulness it is impossible to unravel Paul. A concept like faith without works takes on meaning if it is Yeshua’s faithfulness without our works. Understanding when Paul means our faithful response with good works, and where he means Yeshua’s faithfulness without our works is the crux interpretum of Paul. Salvation consists of both monergism and synergism—His faithfulness alone, and His faithfulness appropriated through our faithful response. This will be explained in a way that respects Torah and the work of the cross.

Δικαιόω (dikaióo) has to be the most debated and fought over word in all of Christendom. It is usually translated “justified”, which is misleading in the extreme. This is because the English word is really the Latin justificāre in disguise from which it was derived and introduced to English for theological reasons. The primary meaning of the word in Greek was “to administer justice” or to “do justice to” or “for” someone. It will be shown that “justify” in English (also Latin) had this meaning, which is now archaic. It sufficies to say here that by use of the word “justify” Protestant theology claims that they are “declared righetous” in a perfective sense and Catholic theology claims that they are “made righteous” in a perfective sense, and further that both communities believe their concepts the basis for divine acquittal.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The concept of acquittal is opposed to the concept of pardon (forgiveness). Acquttial is legalistic—a fair and just declaration of “not guity” based on the righteousness of the defendant, or ability of the defendant to make an equitable transaction. A pardon is a righteous and just dispensation of mercy to a defendant who has pleaded “guilty as charged”, and is justly given to the sinner that desires to change. With this in mind, it will be shown that to “justify” someone means to “administer justice” to them. If the righteousness of the judge is to administer mercy because the case demands that righteousness manifest with mercy, then the justice administered is mercy. However, if the judge determines that mercy cannot be shown, then the judge “administers justice” directly to the defendant. The word for this is “justiced”. It means that justice/righteousness has been done to the defendant. This requires one to understand that in showing mercy the Judge is being righteous—not in an equitable transaction sense, but an unequal sense, in which circumstances dictate that righteousness means to dispense mercy. Paul explains these circumstances, and this indeed is the major theme of Romans¹.

When the sinner has been through the process of being justiced, then he has been administered justice. We may call the completion of this a “justiced status”. Even the unrepentant will receive a “justiced status” at the final judgment. How this works will have to be explained in each text as we come to it.

Νόμος (nomos) is the final major piece of the puzzle. Paul uses this word with its full range of meaning ranging from statutory legal system, law all the way to a mere norm—the way things are, or the status quo. Thus he speaks of the nomos of sin and death (=the norm of sin and death), and remarks, “but a norm entereth where transgression would increase” (Rom. 5:20). Liddell and Scott define, “Νόμος, ὁ, (νέμω) that which is in habitual practice, use or possession, I. usage, custom”; thus Paul means no more than that “a custom”, “a habit” or “a norm” entered in. It will become evident that by ὑπὸ νόμον (Rom 6:14) that Paul means “under the norm”. This notion is reinforced by the root νέμω, “A. deal out, dispense, 2. pay out, distribute” (LSJ). In the Greek literature νόμος is even equated with punishment and equity since these are things that are distributed or dealt out (cf. TDNT)². Nomos means that which “as a rule” applies. This usage of rule equates to normative, or as “custom” from that which is customary (cf. BDAG, 3rd, pg. 677), and finally norm; The third edition of BDAG made a major change in the nomos entry by promoting “custom...norm” to the first definition, and including a long preface explaining why forcing the term to mean ‘codified statutes’ is an error. Thus when Paul decrees that we are not ὑπὸ νόμον, he means we are no longer under the norm, being 1. compulsion to transgress the law, and 2. the penalty of the law. We are not under the norm of the sin nature, but are being delivered from it by Messiah.

So, these three words, Πίστις, Δικαιόω, Νόμος, and their corresponding verbs, adjectives, and nouns, when corrected to, faithfulness, administer justice, and the norm, serve to explain Paul in a straightforward and intelligible manner.³ No longer will any of the complicated antinomian constructions (called theology) that Christians have imposed on Paul be legitimized—systems which left behind a trail of contradictions and disputes; systems which misrepresent the Almighty One and the good news of Yeshua; systems which tear down Torah and enslave Israel to disobedience and disloyalty.

There is an abundance of technical information in this commentary, and the order it occurs in, is not necessarily the order in which I would present the subject to someone who is opposed or does not understand. All things are not in the order of relevance or importance, though I have tried to rectify this somewhat in this Introduction. Further, due to the verse by verse nature of a commentary, it is not possible to give an exhaustive presentation of each subject we come to. However, I bring the results of exhaustive studies into each specific text. For instance, on the subject of circumcision, we would have to correct many things in other books, and bring it all together into one paper written in essay format. This mode of presentation cannot be used here. Rather each text here is explained, but the paradigm is not exhaustively explained.

The core of the matter with Paul is the terms Πίστις, Δικαιόω, Νόμος. I think it important that the reader get some notion of the synergistic effect of fixing this words vs. leaving them mistranslated, leaving one less chance to miss the golden point by getting lost in other details:

In just a few verses we have the complete range of these words, for Πίστις, the nominal use, “faithfulness”, and the verb used “committing”; for Δικαιόω, the nominal use “justice”, and the verb use “being justiced”, and for Νόμος, a statutory sense, “Torah”, and a sense that merely refers to that which is the usual, or status quo practice: “norm”. One should be able to sense that all the terms are needed to make sense of Paul, and that their devolution into modern theological systems has completely destroyed Paul’s message.

The above passage ranks among the most powerful statements Paul ever wrote. To paraphrase: 21. apart from the the norm—the usual form of justice by which the sinner dies, a different form of justice from the Almighty is made visible—a different justice fully explained in the Torah and Prophets, vs. 22 —a different justice that comes by the faithfulness—faithful action of Yeshua, the Messiah on the cross unto all those who commit to Him, who support Him,....vs. 24 this different justice is administered --- done for us as a gift, by his loving kindness—his mercy, through the redemption which is in Messiah Yeshua.

The Hebrew text printed in this commentary is an edited version of the Ezekiel Margoliouth Manuscript, obtained in fascimile from the First Fruits of Zion Archive. It is the only known Hebrew version with cantillation marks, and also the version that is most true to the Greek Manuscripts. It is quite obvious that its author worked directly from the Greek, preserving word order, tense, and all manner of minor details as accurately as can be expected from Hebrew. It is far superior to Franz Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament, and even Bible Society Israel ’s version. At the bottom of the pile is the Salkinson-Ginsburg translation which qualifies as a paraphrase.

While the Margoliouth MSS is technically superior, it does little to correct traditional mistranslation. For instance despite the fact that the Syriac has אֶלָּא (if not) as the conjunction beginning Romans 3:29, the Margoliouth MSS has כִּי אִם (but). Whereas the Syriac does not deny that a physical Jew is a Jew, the choice made by the later MSS does. So, the MSS while serving as the best starting point, and indeed this saved a lot of work, it still needed editing to agree with the Greek, particularly on two of the three words above (Δικαιόω, Νόμος), and Δικαιόω only because the required definition is archaic in Modern Hebrew.

In many cases, Νόμος has to be rendered with הַנּוֹרְ֔מָה (Modern Hebrew for the norm). In reality this is the most “extreme” correction. But then again it is not extreme, because the Syriac Peshitta literally borrowed the word Νόμος into Aramaic in the form of נמוסא (aswmn). The word was also borrowed in the forms נִימוֹסָא, נִימוּסָא and נִמוֹס, defined in Jastrow as “usage, law; religion”; wherein examples cited, “the royal usage [norm] of warfare”, and “when you come to a place, follow its customs [norms]”⁴. Payne Smith (of the Margoliouth family), pg. 340 defines, “aswmn b) Νόμος, law, ordinance, custom, usage.” The truth here then is that the Peshitta Aramaic NT borrowed the word Νόμος. This tells us a lot. First there was no existing Hebrew or Aramaic word to represent Νόμος; and second the existing word תּוֹרָ֖ה [Fyrwaw (ואוריתא)] would not do. The modern Hebrew equivalent is נּוֹרְ֔מָה, borrowed from the English norm.

Cantillation marks represent, 1. accent marks, 2. punctuation marks, and 3. musical notes; wherein I modified or was compelled to add marks, they are true to accent and punctuation; the punctuation value of the conjunctive accents is all the same, but since I am not a Cantor or musician, the work of editing the “correct” notes is left to others, and that is not to mention actually figuring out the value of the notes in the first place.

The English side translation is meant to be most literal to the Greek. An additional reason for this, despite the fact that the English reader should slow down a bit, is that the English corresponds to the word order of the Hebrew much closer, which in turn minimizes the need for a dictionary for those using the translation to learn Hebrew. If we go back to the 16th century, we discover that English word order is indeed much more flexible than the modern norm might dictate. The key is for the English reader to slow down and think about the text clause by clause. For this reason copious punctuation in the form of [ ,;.!?:()[] ] has been placed into the text. These agree very closely with the punctuation accents in the Hebrew version.

The Hebrew translation is based on the Greek MSS. It is of course nonesense to think that Paul wrote anything in Aramaic to a Greek speaking audience in Rome, other than a loan word or two, or a phrase or two that actually made it into Greek. For example, Ἀββᾶ = אַבָּא Abba in Rom. 8:15, or ἀλλὰ = אֶלָּא I am not saying that the solutions here will not work on the Peshitta to some extent. Namusa (Νόμος) can certainly be explained with the Greek meaning as norm, and ימנותא (Rom 1:17) = faithfulness, and מזדדקין = having justice administered. Aramaic, however, is the language of exile (cf. Is. 28:11), as also is Greek, and both are dead languages, and it is Hebrew that is being revived, not Aramaic or Greek. The necessary words from Greek, and Aramaic, have already been borrowed into Modern Hebrew.

An Aramaic based source like the Peshitta has exactly zero apologetical value toward the vast majority of Christians. That’s because they have been correctly taught that the Greek is the closest thing we have to original sources. Those at the forefront of attacking the Greek MSS in favor of Aramaic are: James Trimm, Andrew Gabriel Roth. One classic argument is that, “Simon the Leper” (Mat. 26:6) shows the Greek is untrue because “lepers” cannot live in cities or around people. But at least three Peshitta translations (LEW, MGI, MRD) still have “leper”! The best explanation may be that it was a anachronistic nickname refering to a past association with a condition of leprousy.

Another classic argument is Acts 11:28, where the English says, “throughout all the world” (ἐφ᾽ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην). It is correctly argued that the famine was only in Judea. This problem is resolved easily by realizing that οἰκουμένην = “being inhabited^”5 = עַל כָל ־הָאָרֶץ הַמְּיוּשֶּׁבֶת. The word is a feminine participle that implies γῆ , without stating it, and the implied word means, “3. portions or regions of the earth, region, country” (BDAG 3rd, pg. 196). This makes it equivalent to the Hebrew אֶרֶץ. The word “world” is not even invovled in the Greek text, just “being dwelled”, i.e. only הַמְּיוּשֶּׁבֶת is explicit, and אֶרֶץ has to be supplied. In plain English, the Greek means exactly, “upon all the inhabited land [in Judea]”; So Trimm’s proof text for Greek faultiness against the Aramaic is mere self serving incompetence.

There is nothing special, or to be gained from Aramaic that cannot be obtained by translating the Greek, using legitimate Greek meanings, straight into Hebrew. The Greek maps exactly onto the Hebrew root base, and the Aramaic Peshitta actually agrees with the Greek more than those who would pit one against the other want you to think.

1. N.T. Wright, bishop of Durham, comes remarkably close to understanding the concept of justification, but is not quite able to untangle the issue because he is missing a good many pieces of the puzzle (Justification, 88-91). To be “justiced” is either to be shown mercy or to be punished. Justice is administered either way. Wright chooses of “a declaration which grants them a status” (pg. 91) to describe the result. Very close, but what a justiced status denotes is one who has been the recipient of administered justice = mercy via alternate penalty, but we have to keep in mind that this justice is only the righteousness of Yahweh being shown, which since it is mercy, is not to be treated as a commercially equitable exchange. The unrepentant, on the other hand, is not yet justiced. But when they pay the penalty, then they too will have a justiced status. Thus we may only speak of “right standing” when we understand that the wicked will get “right standing” also, meaning a standing where in what is right has been done. The judge is just in both forms of justice. What I am saying is that mercy is a form of justice that is righteous. Embracing mercy as administered justice requires us to understand that the righteousness of the judge in doing it is not based on equititable absolutism.

2. The fundamental sense of nomos always seems to come back to some kind of norm. Other authors have proposed “order” as the foundational meaning.

3. There are of course other minor niceties of the Greek language which will be explained in the commentary, which are critical to particular texts.

4. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Marcus Jastrow, pg. 905.

5. See Thayer’s Lexicon, pg. 411, “fem. of the pres. pass. ptcp. fr. οικεω [sc. γη;...]”; the abbreviation sc. means scilicet (one may understand, supply). The passive participle would be “being dwelled”.

1 Paul, a servant of Messiah Yeshua, being called as an emissary, and being ̈separated for the good news of the Almighty,

^אפּוֹל֡וֹס עֶ֖בֶד מָשִׁ֣יחַ יֵשׁ֑וּעַ ,מְקֹרָ֣א שָׁלִ֔יחַ, וְנִבְדָּ֖ל לִבְשׂוֹרַ֥ת אֱלֹהִֽים׃

§1:1.1 Why is Paul called Paul (Παῦλος/פּוֹל֡וֹס) and not Shaul (Σαῦλος/שָׁאוּל)? This is because he had two names; one he used among his own people, and the other among the nations.

1:1.2 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 only one form, 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.

†1:1.3 There are sects that try to alter the traditional forms. One sect insists on Yahushua (יְהוּשֻׁעַ¹) and promotes it so strongly as to cause division and disapproval of the traditional spellings. It’s main argument is based on charging the Masoretic scribes with conspiracy to not only suppress 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 it takes an entirely new theory of suppression to charge them with altering parts of the divine name in proper names. This conspiracy theory suggests that original prefix *יַהוּ־ Yahu- forms were pointed as יְהוֹ־ Yeho- forms to hide any resemblance to the divine name. However, this theory fails to explain why the suffix form ־יָהוּ stands unaltered at the end of many names. Apparently ancient Jews had no proplem with pronouncing them. It also fails to explain why the short form of the divine name, יָהּ stands unaltered 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 other 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. Sects latch on to such ideas because they serve as a shortcut way of telling who is elect and who is not. It makes their followers fell more secure in their salvation to have the badge of belonging to the group. Right or wrong, it is not such particular points that will decide whether one is faithful to Yahweh or not.

†1:1.4 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 papyri². 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.”³ 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.

2. The earliest “New Testatment” writings were translated or written in Greek on papyrus, a paper derived from Egypt. Sheets of these were bounding into a book form called a codex. The text was written in all capital letters without any punctuation or spaces between words.

3. See The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testatment, Philip Wesley Comfort, pg. 47-48. Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, Comfort, pg. 10.

I translate אֱלֹהִים the “Almighty” because this is what the word אֱלֹהִים means. The base form of the word means “Mighty One” (אֱלוֹהַ), and the plural form on the ending: ִים is a superlative marker.⁴ It means “most” or “highest” or “best”. This is translated with the prefix “Al” to form “Almighty”. What the word “God” lacks is a clear reference to the divine attribute of infinite power, and also a clear adjectival use. For example, in John 1:1 “the Word was with the Almighty, and the Word was Almighty (adjectival use)”.

4. cf. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, §124e. בְּרַכוֹת = (abundant) blessing [the Blessing of blessings]; KJV Ps. 21:6, “most blessed”; See also §124g n. 5, “an indication of the fullness of power and might implied in אֱלֹהִים”

1:1.5 The office of the “emissary” (Greek: ἀπόστολος) is taken from a pre-existing institution of the שָׁלִ֔יחַ. The שְׁלִיחִים were emissaries or representatives sent from one Jewish community to another, typically from Jerusalem to a dispersion community.⁵ The word meant “a sent one”. The שָׁלִ֔יחַ was sent in the name of, and with the authority of the sender. The word only appears in the verb form in the law and prophets for those sent by Yahweh. Yahweh, tells Moses to say שְׁלָחַ֥נִי “I AM sendeth me to you” (Ex. 3:14). Jehoshaphat שָׁלַ֤ח “sendeth” representatives to teach the Torah (2Chron. 17:7-9) at the end of the sabbatical year. By the time of the first century, however, the representatives themselves were being called “the sent ones” (שְׁלִיחִים) turning a verb into a noun. This term is adopted by Yeshua to designate his emissaries to Israel and the nations. Also, during the time that Paul used the word ἀπόστολος in Greek there was nothing churchy associated with it. Later the term was essentially hijacked and redefined by anti-Semitic Gentiles to the point that the modern word “Apostle” cannot be truly returned to its Jewish context.

5. cf. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Emil Schürer, “Apostoli, Jewish, II. ii. 269, 290, I. ii. 277.”

§1:2.1 At the time Paul wrote this, the reader would associate the term “holy Scriptures” with the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, what is today called the “Jewish Canon” or Tanakh. Paul bases his arguments on the authority of the Scriptures by constant citation. It is important to know that the Scriptures predicted Messiah “beforehand”. The fulfillment confirms the prediction, and the prediction confirms the fulfillment. This is an arrangement that must be divinely orchestrated. False religion cannot duplicate this kind of objectivity.

§1:3 The title “Son” was marked in the Greek MSS as nomina sacra: !u$n. It means Yahweh’s own special Son—One who is of the same nature. The English term is capitalized to show the nomina sacra status.

§1:4.1 Yeshua was raised “the third day”, and also “after three days”. In the first case “day” is defined as a 24 hour calendar day starting at sunrise and ending at the next sunrise—that is, the calendar day for sacrifices. In the second case, “day” is defined strictly as dawn to dusk, only 12 hours, such that “after” means the following night. This following night was still part of “the third day”. This agrees exactly with “three days and three nights”; Yeshua was raised at the end of the third night, just at the earliest dawn, on the Sabbath day (אַחַת־הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת). See Mat. 12:40; Mk. 8:31; Hos. 6:1-2; Lev. 7:15.

1:4.2 Yeshua was “designated” or “declared” the Son of the Almighty. This does not mean he became the Son then. It only means that the resurrection, fulfilling the sign of Jonah, was the final proof to Israel of His identity. For it is written, “וְנֵדְעָ֣ה נִרְדְּפָ֗ה לָדַ֙עַת֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֔ה כְּשַׁ֖חַר נָכ֣וֹן מֽוֹצָא֑וֹ” (Hos. 6:3): “We must know; we must pursue to know of Yahweh as at dawn is fixed his going forth.” So when Yeshua came out of the grave “in the third day”, it was proved that He was Yahweh, the son of Yahweh. See below .

†1:4.3 When the word “Lord” is used with a possessive pronoun, then it is not the divine name: אֲדֹנֵֽינוּ = our Lord. A study of usages in the Tanakh will show that the use of possessives, my, their, our, his, is almost exclusively with Adonai, and only a a few cases, called the emmendations of the Sopherim, with Yahweh. This general pattern allows us to decipher when the nomina sacra !k$u means Adonai or Adon, and when it means Yahweh. See below 1:7.

§1:5.1 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.

1:5.2 “Hearing of faithfulness” has two obvious senses. 1. “Hearing [about Messiah’s covenant] faithfulness [particularly on the cross]”, and 2. “Hearing with faithfulness”—a faithful or obedient response to the message. Paul unpacks Hab. 2:4 in Romans 1:17 and Rom. 3:19-31 the same way.

1:5.3 Paul's presentation of covenantal, which is to say two parts. One part is Yahweh's faithfulness, and the other part is our faithful response. His faithfulness is at first unilateral, but our response is synergistic—our faithfulness working with His faithfulness to transform us.

†1:5.4 The phrase, “hearing of faithfulness” is deliberately ambiguous. The sense of the Greek is a compliant hearing, or submissive hearing, literally, “under hearing” (ὑπακοὴν = ὑπ + ακοὴν). From this comes the sense of “obedience”, a translation which obscures the semitic sense Paul wishes to convey. In Hebrew, “hearing” is “obeying”. If someone does not obey, then it is implied that he did not hear. The idea of hearing is connected with the will of man. If he does not obey it, then he is not giving a hearing to it; his will is not submitted to the message. Neverthess, the content of the message to be heard is vitally important, and by translating “obedience” this is lost.¹

1. Dunn, (Word Biblical Commentary, “Romans”) tells us that the Greek word ὑπακοὴν “was a little known word at this time (see LSJ; MM)...probably as yet another word we owe to Paul” (pg. 17). Paul is using a semiticism here, “The verb ὑπακούω still displays its derivation from ἀκούω, “hear” (see LSJ, ὑπακούω—range of meaning includes “give ear to, answer, heed”; LXX uses ὑπακούω to translate שָׁמַע, “hear”);” (ibid).

The phrase is ambiguous. As a genitive of quality it transforms to “faithful hearing” (cf. Cranfield, pg. 66 vi. ‘believing obedience’). As an object gentive, “[giving] heed [to] faithfulness” (cf. Cranfield, pg. 66 iii, ‘obedience to God’s faithfulness attested in the gospel’). The grammarians, of course, do not really need to use such jawbreaking terms. “Hearing of [:with/about] faithfulness” states the whole genitive sense quite clearly. Despite seeing the semitic origin of ὑπακούω Dunn fails to apply it when rejecting Gaston, “obedience to [i.e. hearing of] God’s faithfulness”; Dunn also rejects the subjective genitive in Rom. 3:22.

†1:5.5 Cranfield also clearly fails to detect the Hebrew sense, “hearing”, or the Hebrew sense, “faithfulness” (support). This causes him to miss the whole point and to argue for the degenerate sense, “the obedience which consists in faith”, which he reduces to a “decision” called “an act of obedience” (pg. 67). Stern (pg. 328) rightly rejects this interpretation of Cranfield, but is too timid to restore πίστεως to “faithfulness” and fails to see “hearing of (about) [Messiah’s] faithfulness” in the text. He ends up with a mere paraphrase of one side of the correct interpretation, “trust-grounded obedience” improved, but still quite weakened by antinomian theology.

Shullam (A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans), disconnects us from the literal sense and obvious semiticism by pointing us to “obedience of the peoples” “יקהת עמים” (Gen. 49:10, pg. 34). [The Gen. 49:10 Hebrew יקהת, appears to be construct noun based on יִקַּח. = will be received/taken. The LXX, “And he is the expectation of the nations” seems to agree, and the KJV “gathering of the people”. So the Gen. 49:10 Hebrew should go, “and to Him receiving of the nations”. Judah is restored first, and Messiah is Jewish, so the nations are recieved by Messiah first, then Judah (cf. Gen. 48:19).] So Shullam’s speculation is too tenuous (the word יקהת is nearly hapax), and I would also suspect Rabbinic bias taking Gen. 49:10 as “obedience”, especially in light of the fact that the Rabbis want to avoid the Messianic rendition of, “until shall come Shiloh [Messiah] and to him the-receving-of peoples.”

§1:7.1 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.

†1:7.2 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.

§1:9 The “good news” (בְּשׂוֹרָ֣ה) in Greek is εὐαγγελίῳ. The Hebrew term is used for “good news” in 2Sam. 18:22, 25, 27. The verb root בָּשַׂר means “1. gladden with good tidings” (BDB). The Greek term εὐαγγελίῳ is composed of two parts, a prefix εὐ, meaning “good” or “glad”, and the word αγγελίῳ meaning “message”, the same word from which we get ἄγγελος “messenger”.

The word “gospel” no longer evokes this sense in the ear. It is the duty of translators to update language when old meanings become unclear. “Gospel” used to mean “good news”,

What happens when a word is not in its plain sense, or is not updated to its plain sense in the general language, is that it is culturally redefined as a technical word among its users. In this case “gospel” is a Christian word which denotes the specific good news about Yeshua and the kingdom of the Almighty. While this notion is contextually true for many uses of the word, it is still an adulteration of the word to confer on the word the lexical sense of a specific good news. It has the effecot of divorcing the word from its wider biblical context. One can see the discordance in the NASB where the word is translated “gospel” in the NT in 94 verses, and nowhere as such in the “Old Testament”, where it is translated “good news”. These sorts of disconnects come from a latent desire to get a divorce from the Hebrew roots of the Scripture. This is why we have a host of words that have been Christianized, i.e. “church”, “faith”, “apostle,” “gospel”, “preach”, etc.

§1:11 Knowledge given in love is a “spiritual gift”. To know the Almighty One, begin with his commandments (1John 2:3-4), and to love Yeshua, show loyalty by ordering one’s life after His life (John 14:21). To be spiritual don’t be anti-intellectual, and to be spiritual don’t go looking for a mystical (unexplained) experience.

§1:12 Christianity has reduced mutual encouragement to commonly held doctrines, and often at that, false doctrines. If that is all faith means, then I am little encouraged. For it is divisive and lawless. Thankfully, Paul is talking about “faithfulness” in the other person encouraging us. When we see others doing good then that is truly encouraging. And when we are faithful, then we encourage others.

§1:13.1 The NASB, KJV, NIV all correctly place ( ) around the statement, “(and am prevented until now)”; the thought is an interjection that is interrupting the flow of the main thought. We are so used to having punctuation in English to show us when this is the case that we have forgotten that the original texts had no punctuation. Without the punctuation the statement could be misread such that Paul was predestined to be prevented so that he might have fruit.

§1.16.1 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).

†1:16.2 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.

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.

§1:17.1 This verse is something like a thesis statement for Paul. It marks his main point, which he will unpackage.

1:17.2 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 Latin, 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 make a choice in English, and that choice is for the word “justice” because this word has been less stripped of meaning than righteousness.

1:17.3 The word “justice” then refers to: 1a. the quality of being just [or right] in administering justice by way of punishement to the sinner, 1b. the quality of being just [or right] in administering justice by way of merciful pardon to the repentant sinner, 2. the moral righteousness of the Almighty himself; His goodness, mercy, loving kindness, wrath, anger, or any other moral attribute.

1:17.4 The 1st faithfulness is Yahweh’s faithfulness alone expressing his justice corresponding to three definitions of justice; 1a: His faithfulness to himself and his own word to judge and punish wickedness; 1b: His faithfulness to his promise to show mercy to repentant Israel through a reduced and substitutionary penalty paid by Messiah Yeshua. 2. His own faithfulness ready to be taught to us; His own faithfulness, moral uprightness, righteousness.

1:17.5 The 2nd faithfulness is 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; “to faithfulness” means to our faithfulness.

1:17.6 The 3rd faithfulness includes both the 1st and 2nd. 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.

†1:17.7 In Habakkuk 2:4 in the Greek version, which is called the Septuagint or abbreviated LXX by scholars, the text says “but the just will live by My faithfulness” (ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται). The Hebrew text says, בֶּאֱמוּנָת֥וֹ = by his faithfulness leaving the matter ambiguous on whether the pronoun refers to the just man or to the Almighty. It is quite clear that Paul took the matter as synergistic. For he constantly speaks of Yeshua’s faithfulness, but with the verb form he constantly conditions receiving it on our commitment, which is not just support of facts about Messiah, or support of promises, but support of Messiah, i.e. loyalty to Him expressed in love and obedience.

§1:19.1 The knowledge of the Almighty is manifest “among them” (ἐν αὐτοῖς). This can also be taken as “to them” or “in them” in a literal sense. It is “in them” in the sense that their conscience bears witness to right and wrong. It is “to them” in the sense that creaton bears witness to Yahweh, and among them because He has his witnesses to the truth bearing witness to the truth.

†1:19.2 The reason for the ambiguity in the passage “to/in/among them” is that used abstractly the Hebrew preposition ב = ל; this is glossed as “in respect to” = “in connection to”; in the abstract the Greek ἐν can likewise switch with εἰς. Compare BDAG ἐν, def. 8, “to, by, in connection with” with εἰς def. 5, “for, to, with respect to, with reference to” (pg. 291).

§1:20.1 The text says the truth is “understood clearly” (νοούμενα καθορᾶται), נִרְאִ֣ים בָּר֗וּר. Why then do all not understand? It is because they have no understanding with which to understand what is in front of them. We expect small children to be without understanding, but through sinful false teaching, indoctrination, and willingness to believe paradoxes and antinomies, man has been taught to set his common sense and reason aside. Man has been taught to “turn off” his understanding. Thus, what is clearly understood, is not comprehended.

1:20.2 When Paul says “no excuse”, he does not mean that there are no logical reasons explaining their choice to reject Him. He means there are no excuses that logically justify their rejection of the Almighty. Someone may be deceived or reject Him out of ignorance; this may explain the rejection, but if they tried to defend and justify the choice with facts, they would find them lacking, i.e. there are no excuses to justify the rejection. The third definition of Merriam-Webster applies.¹

Many read a doctrine of “total depravity” into the words ‘no excuse’, and treat others as if they have ‘no excuse’, that is, as if all sin is high handed disloyalty to the Almighty. In their treatment of others then, they show no mercy because exigent circumstances don’t matter.

1. ex·cuse 1: the act of excusing 2a: something offered as justification or as grounds for being excused b plural: an expression of regret for failure to do something c: a note of explanation for an absence 3: justification, reason synonyms see apology.

1:20.3 It is also helpful to understand that Paul is indicting the nations at the corporate level here, just as he will indict the Jews at a corporate level in chapter 3.

§1:24 He “gave them over”. Since they chose not to be loyal to the Amighty, he let them be disloyal to each other. Evil lusts are against the created order that the Almighty established. By turning them over to their own decaying reasonings, wherein they sin against his rules, they will experience mutual disloyalty and hatred. Perhaps the negative experience will teach them to repent. For He is not desiring that any man should perish.

§1:25 “They changed the truth ... into the lie”. The archtypical example of this in the modern age is evolution and modern cosmology.

§1:27 And in this verse Paul speaks of homosexuals who act against the witness of creation as to how a man and a woman should relate.

§1:28 The further one goes into sin, not learning any lessons from the disappointments and disloyalties, and betrayals, hating the Almighty One, rather than seeking the answer, then the more one loses their mind. Their thinking becomes insanity. Their minds become incapable of grasping the truth.

3. Progressive past action. Maps to MH: הָיָה + participle, BH = imperfect.

This is an advanced system of identifying all the grammatical elements of every verb, and their lexical meanings. It is best to show how to use it by example. In the first verse is the word [מְקֹרָ֣א]. This is parsed out below as [מְ׳קֹרָ֣א]. The [׳] apostraphe separates the prefix from the three letter root. Then follows [= pPpms=being made to be call ed.] The root meaning is indicated by the italicized word, in this case [call] the code [pPpms] is deciphered by the following table:

f = perfect, m = imperfect, r = imperative, c = infinitive construct, p = participle, i = infinitive absolute

1 = 1st person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person (omitted in case of participles, infinitives)

The English words not in itallics, e.g: [being made to be ... ed] decipher the stem form according to the following paradigms omitting person, gender, and number. I use the variable love to fill the verb slot.

f = ...eth, th, (eth, th, marks the aspect of the perfect, archaic present tense).

fPp = be made to be love d. /Pp = be made...to be..d/ (Pual-causitive passive stative)

fHa = give th love, OR make th to love. /Ha = give, make, bring .../ (Hiphil causitive)

mPa = will be making to be love d. /Pa=make..to be...d/ (Piel-causitive stative)

mPp = will be being made to be love d. /Pp = be made...to be..d/ (Pual-ca. st.)

mHa = will be giving love, OR will be making to love. /Ha = give, make, bring .../

pQp = (one(s)) be [ing] love d. /Qp = be...d/ (the passive meaning is morphological).

pQs = (one(s)) be [ing] love d. /Qs = be...d/ (the stative-passive meaning is lexical).

pPa = (one(s)) mak [ing, es] to be love d. /Pa=mak..to be...d/ (Piel-causitive stative)

pPp = be mak [ing] to be love d. /Pp = be mak...to be..d/ (Pual-causitive passive stative)

pHa = (one(s)) giv [ing, es] love, OR mak [ing, es] to love. /Ha = give, make, bring .../

cPp = be mak ing to be love d. /Pp = be mak...to be..d/ (Pual-causitive passive stative)

cHa = giv ing love, OR mak ing to love. /Ha = give, make, bring .../ (Hiphil causitive)

The imperative /r/ paradigm: verb with 2nd person + gender + number (thou or ye) suffixed.

rPp = must be mak ing to be love d. /Pp = be mak...to be..d/ (Pual-causitive passive stative)

rHa = must giv love, OR must mak to love. /Ha = give, make, bring .../ (Hiphil causitive)

The infinitive absolute is rare, and chiefly confined to BH or literary works, and is used mainly to re-emphasize the main verb by repeating it, i.e, “loving he loved...”

§2:1.1 As in 1:20, “excuse” means that they have no logical reason to justify their choices. Again, this does not mean there is no logical reason as to why they made a wrong choice. There may be, or there may not be in the case of willful rebellion. In either case they cannot justify the choice. And Paul proves this by citing their own moral inconsistency. The very things they call unjust when others practice them, they themselves fall into doing. This serves to prove that their moral logic is faulty.

2:1.2 The concept of self contradiction may be taken a step further. Sin and death result in inconsistency. Entropy causes breakdown in the reasoning process. One may demonstrate that a conclusion is “without excuse” by showing a self contradiction in the reasoning process that supposedly proved the conclusion.

2:1.3 Paul’s argument in chapter 2 shifts to the person who believes that God will judge sin. So in this case the lack of excuse is that they have no justification for their moral inconsistency.

§2:4 The English translation has the words “think little”; this is synonymous with the Greek word καταφρονεῖς, def. no. 2, BDAG 3rd, and Thayer, “think little of” (חֹשֵב קָטָן). The word καταφρονεῖς = κατα [down] + φρονέω [think]; While the word often means “despise”, with a connotation of ill will or willfulness, it does not exclusively mean “despise”. So, this text does not support total depravity. Total depravity would require all rejection to be of the most willful nature, motivated by pure hatred without regard to the possibility that circumstances may have tripped the person into the wrong conclusion.

§2:5.1 People are stubborn due to willful causes and/or circumstantial causes like indoctrination or tradition. The word “stubborn” does not say which, but only refers to the hard resistance of people toward the truth. Likewise, “unrepentant” from the words not turning (בְּלִ֣י תְּשׁוּבָ֗ה) refers to the fact of not being turned to the truth, and does not connote the reasons why.

2:5.2 The difficulty with a lot of religious words, of negative connotation, that are used to point out sin, is that their users are indoctrinated in Augustinian/Calvinistic theology. They do not know how to use any of the words dispassionately. The words are always used to imply maximum or total fault. Such evangelists use words like “unrepentance” or “stubborn” in a weaponized manner. This comes out in much of their preaching. The object is always to blame the other guy at a conscious level, whether or not such blame is warranted. It is undoubtedly true that the words do apply in many cases of willful sin, but it takes a lot more discernment than a bankrupt theological system to tell who is the rebel and who is merely deceived.

2:5.3 Religious people have been misusing the words for so long that they have forced the words into a subculture, often criticized by the entertainment media, which only reinforces the “definition”.

§2:6 Ps. 62:12, “And belonging to you Lord is mercy; for you will repay to each according to his work”; Mercy is shown in judgment to those loving Yahweh and keeping his commandments (Exo. 20:6), yet we are to be repaid for our good deeds whilst in mercy He forgives our sin. The justice of mercy allows the balances to balance for the righteous, but for the wicked: “the sons of men are vapor—as false weight in the balances goes up; they lighter than vapor altogether” (Ps. 62:9).

§2:7.1 “Eternal life” (חַיֵּ֥י עֽוֹלָם) is refered to in Daniel 12:2. This text clearly teach that faithfulness as expressed in “good work” in needed to appropriate “eternal life”. The antinomians rationalize, “in vv. 7 and 13 the cases are hypothetical” (C.I. Scofield—a famous American dispensationalist). However, Paul does not say the case is just hypothetical for the sake of argument. The verb “who will render” is taken from vs. 6, a future indicative verb in Greek, and also quoted from Psalm 62:12, תְשַׁלֵּ֖ם = you will repay. It certainly isn’t hypothetical there.

2:7.2 Also to be considered is Yeshua’s answer to the rich ruler (Luke 18:18) and Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to “keep hold on eternal life” (1Tim. 6:12) and then to the rich: “That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to share— laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may keep hold on eternal life” (1Tim. 6:19). Paul has given the rich here precisely the same answer that Yeshua gave to the rich man.

2:7.3 The antinomians place a stumbling block before the teaching that it is necessary follow Yeshua (not just believe) in order to appropriate eternal life. They say that the standard of perfection must be reached under such a regime. By exaggerating Yahweh’s requirements to be faithful they reject any requirements altogether. The assumption that He required perfection for those who loved and obeyed him is simply a lie—a lie exposed of all places, in the ten commandments themselves, “And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Exodus 20:6). Is this just another theoretical statement, another hypothetical text, or did Yahweh really mean what He said by “showing mercy”?

2:7.4 Then the antinomians well tell that if salavation is contingient on good works that one is trying to “earn” salvation. This is like telling a criminal, who was pardoned on the contingiency of repentence, this his repentence earns the pardon in the first place. This is complete nonsense. The pardon was the judge righteously being merciful. The ex-criminal continues in mercy by walking uprightly, understanding perfectly well that his good deeds don’t undo the effect of his past crimes.

§2:8 “Selfish ambition” means pursing one’s goals by corrupt or unjust means. The word was used for “electioneering or intriguing for office”, i.e. for corupt politicians who sell there vote for money, and use money to buy votes, or who make promises they cannot keep in order to gain a position of power.

§2:12.1 There are two parts to this verse. The first deals with the lawless, and the second deals with those who sin without being lawless. Paul has divided mankind up into two classes using the words “as many as” (ὅσοι) in the beginning part of each statement. It is not a class distinction between Jews and Greeks in any sort of jurisdictional sense. For both have their lawless and those who regard the law, but nevertheless sin. The first group (Jew or Gentile) perishes. With the second group (Jew or Gentile), they are to be judged according to Torah to see if they will receive mercy or condemnation.

†2:12.2 The Greek ἄνομος means, “lawless” (BDAG, 3rd, def. 1), and the adverb ἀνόμως means “lawlessly” (BDAG, 3rd, def. 1). Thayer also says in Greek writers it was synonymous with “unjustly, wickedly” (pg. 49). In a neutral sense the word may denote, “without custom” (as in 1Cor. 9:21), but here it does not. It suggests iniquity, and any sense of “without law” merely means the lawless do not regard the law in their conscience as valid. The -ως ending makes the word an adverb. This is the same as adding the suffix “ly” or prefixing the word “as” to “lawless”. The idea is that the wicked sinneth lawlessly, i.e. inquitiously, with a high hand. Paul is talking about serious willful transgression. Then he says, “also as lawless with perish”. This does not mean that they will not be judged by the Torah. It describes that they will still perish “as lawless”, which is to say not holding to being lawful in their conscience.

2:12.3 In the second half of his statement, Paul covers everyone else who sins in circumstance or in ignorance, “also as many as sinneth according to Torah, through Torah will be judged”; such people are not “lawless”, but they still break the law. (Lawlessness is an attitude toward the law, and is more than just merly breaking the law without the attitude.) Notice that Paul leaves off the destruction of the lawless ones here: he does not say “will perish”, but “through Torah will be judged”; to be judged by the Torah does not here mean to be “condemned” by the Torah. Paul does not use the word for “condemn” (κατάκριμα), but the word for judgement in the sense of “to decide” (κριθήσονται). Yahweh will decide all cases according to either mercy or according to penal justice on the sinner.

†2.12.4 The antinomians have corrupted many a translation, and all explanations of Rom. 2:12 in order to get away from its plain meaning. First they drain the word ἀνόμως of its plain connotative adverbial meaning by translating it “without law”, especially in connection to the words “sinneth” and “will perish”. Then they use this to make the first clause refer only to Gentiles, whom they deem not “under law”. For extra measure the NAS, NET, ESV, and NIV translate the second clause “under” law even though the word “under” (ὑπὸ) isn’t represented in Greek. The KJV translated “in law”, but in contrast with “without law” it is easy to interpret two classes: Jews and Gentiles. The words “in law” really mean “in connection to law” (cf. BDAG 3rd, def. 8) or “according to law” (cf. TDNT, pg 1087)that is, those who sin while holding to the law.

§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). C.I. Scofield had the same opinion. 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 given righteousness 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 give righteousness to the many” (יַצְדִּיק...לָרְבִּים); 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”, and teaching about how mercy is granted in Yeshua’s death.

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.

§2:14.1 Paul reinforces the lesson from 2:12 by not using the word “lawless” here (which the antionomians corrupted into “without law” in that verse.) Here Paul really does mean “who do not have the Torah”, and he spells it out in Greek. According to the antinomian reasoning, we may expect Paul to continue to use the word “lawless” (ἄνομος) with their supposed meaning “without law”, but he does not, or according to their reasoning, we may have expected τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα (who do not have law) in both texts. The fact of the matter, though, is that ἄνομος means lawless in every case in the Greek writings, except where nomos does not mean “law” per se, but tradition or custom! And there is only one text: 1Cor. 9:21.

2:14.2 Paul’s aim here is to show that the Gentiles cannot all be classed as “lawless”, which is the label the Jews might put on them. This is because they are not all lawless of heart, even though they do not have the Torah. Nature teaches them that which is lawful to a great degree. What nature teaches corresponds to what Torah teaches. It is just easier to ascertain from Torah.

2:14.3 Almost in every case, the scribes have supposed that they can make the text say “a law to themselves”, as if “a law” would help disconnect this naturally derived law from “the torah”; however, this is entirely foregin to the context. The word “torah” means “teaching” or “instruction”. What nature teaches us about the disadvantages of unclean animals is the same as what Torah teaches us. What nature teaches about the unleanness of promiscuity, so also does the Torah teach. What Torah teaches about the benefit of washing when disease is present, so also was learned from natural science.

§2:17 Finding “rest” in Torah is not the negative concept implied by the scribes translating “rely on”; to rest in Torah means to take comfort and repose in the Covenant, knowing that Yahweh is merciful to those loving Him (cf. Ex. 20:6). “Rely on” or “resteth” (KJV) is calculated to disguise the lexical meaning of the Greek, which is “rest” or to explain it away theologically, by suggesting that the Jew is seeking to be lay his works on the balance of divine justice. While this could be the case for some Jews, a point which Paul takes up later, it is not his message here. Here, and in the following verses Paul is merely upholding the standard, and then asking his fellow country men if they are guilty of transgressing the Torah.

§2:18 “And know his will ...being instructed out of the Torah”. These are not hypothetical statements by Paul, but simple acknowledgements that through Torah we know His will, and “things that are better”.

§2:19 Torah teaches us, and when we have learned, we can “guide the blind”, and we can be a “light to those who are in darkness”.

§2:20 And we can correct “foolish” things, and teach “immature”, and in the Torah is the “structural form of knowledge and truth”.

§2:21.1 Paul begins to ask if the teacher of Torah follows the Torah. His aim here is not to convict those whose hearts are into obeying the Almighty, but those who are hypocrites, and who though they teach it transgress it. This is part of Paul’s arguments to show that Jewish people can also be transgressors commiting serious sin. And again, it is part of his argument to show that Jewish people also need to repent and turn to Messiah, and that they cannot trust in their birth.

§2:21.2 Paul will show that all men need Yeshua, and not just transgressors, but his argument for those who only sinned in ignorance, which would be very few, would depend on the need for Yeshua to make us righteous and to deliver us from the sin nature and death. This is an argument that he weaves in later. He does not make it here. He is only intent on showing that Jews also transgress the Torah. And this is indeed the weak link in Jewish soteriology. So Paul concentrates on it.

§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 the physical uncircumcision of the proselyte or new convert who has not yet been circumcised; he he using the word to refer to the period of time between the moment that a pagan renounces falsehood and faithfully commits to Yeshua, and a later time when he is circumcised, i.e. Paul is equating the circumcstance of the new, but uncircumcised, citizen of Israel , who is still in the exile, with Abraham before he was circumcised. Paul shows that 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. So Paul is assuming that the new convert will be showing his faithfulness to the Almighty by keeping His commandments.

2:26.3 The word “circumcision” at the end of the verse is used to mean saved status. It clearly cannot mean physically circumcised. 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.

2:26.4. In the preceding section, I identified “circumcision” with saved status, and “uncircumcision” with unsaved status, but Paul showed that actual circumcision does not determine the status. Only faithfulness determines the status, because Paul says that uncircumcision can be regarded as circumcision so long as the uncircumcised man approaches Torah with faithfulness, and Paul has also shown that physical circumcision cannot determine the status because so many that have physical circumcision are transgressors.

The key to Paul here is that he is using “circumcision” as a synonym for remnant Israel . This is the Israel that has saved status, wherein citizenship is based on faithfulness. It does not include all of Israel , but only the part approaching the covenant through faithfulness. So when he says that the physical circumcision of the transgressor is regarded as uncircumcision, he is saying that this Israelite is not part of remnant Israel . (He is not saying is not an Israelite though.) And when he says the uncircumcision of the man approaching in faithfulness is counted as circumcision, he means that person is reckoned as a citizen of remnant Israel . It does not make the former Gentile ethnically Jewish, but by faithfulness the non-Jew gains the same rights, privileges, and citizenship status, in the kingdom of the Almighty as fellow Jews who are part of the remnant by Israel by faithfulness.

So when Paul says the uncircumcised is reckoned as circumcised he means that person belongs to remnant Israel . Many Rabbis base their doctrine not in faithfulness, but in election and chosen status, claiming to be members of remnant Israel . It is clear from Paul’s teaching that faithfulness alone was the sole criteria for citizenship in the remnant of Israel . The non-Jew who is faithful will be regarded as circumcised, i.e. joined with the remnant of Israel . This means Rabbinic control of the gates of the Kingdom by means of tradition, ritual, formal conversion under the authority of man, or any other criteria of election not in accord with faithfulness is nullified. And the truth is, they themselves shut the gates to others, but will not themselves go through them.

Since a faithful non-Jew is reckoned as circumcised, which is to say a member of remnant Israel , it logically follows that there is no legal discrimination between the non-Jewish faithful and the Jewish. The Rabbis cannot say the non-Jew must first become Jewish in order for the sabbath or food laws to be embraced with true conviction. The Rabbis cannot legislate a two-tier legal system, one for them, and one for the non-Jewish faithful on the basis of their doctrine of election. Paul has shown how that doctrine is nullified with respect to the remnant of Israel .

§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:

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.

2.27.4 Possibly there is an escatological sense in Paul use of the word “keeping” (BDAG, 3rd d. def. 2) τελοῦσα; if translated “completing” or “finishing” [rather than mere keeping in the present] (cf. Hebrew note: גֹמֵר,) then Paul is suggesting that the non-Jew who joins Israel and completes the Torah through Messiah, when He returns, will afterward judge the Jew who transgressed the Torah.

§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:

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.

§3:1.1 We have two questions here, which do not have exactly the same answer. Paul’s answer to both questions is “Great in every way”, which is to say a generalization, and then he cites only one particular advantage of the Jew—having the Scriptures. (The expected answer is "none", as might be supposed from the mistanslations in chapter 2, but this expected answer is much weakened by the fact that the conjuction אֶלָּ֣א in vs. 29 removes the need to redefine circumcision.)

Paul could not, and would not make explicit everything concerning these questions; he preferred to leave ambiguous or unanswered aspects of this issue, no doubt motivated by the Spirit having the foreknowledge of almost 2000 years of exile remaining for Israel during which the house of Judah would also face its final exile—one many times longer than any previous.

The situation with Israel and Judah was different during Paul’s mission than it is now. In Paul’s time they faced exile, and Paul knew that during this time the influence of Torah would weaken due to circumstances and apostasies (cf. Acts 20:29). He therefore takes measures to preserve that which is critical, and which can be preserved. It is not known how cognizant of this Paul was, but the Spirit guiding his letter knew it all.

Now, however, Yeshua’s People face a new situation—the impending end of exile and the restoration of the Kingdom. This situation requires answers that Paul did not deem important in his time. This should justify for us why Paul gives such a short answer to the question, and why I give such a long answer. However, the long answer can indeed be logically deduced from Paul’s short answer, and other comments, and that is where we must start.

§3:2.1 We must separate the question on the advantage of the Jew from the one on circumcision. First let’s take the advantage of the Jew. In Paul’s day, the Jewish people had a great advantage over the nations. They had the Scriptures, and indeed, the tribe of Judah had remained faithful longer than Israel . So to them were commited the Scriptures. Further, despite the national rejection of Yeshua, there was still much more salt left in the Jewish people at that time, as evidenced by the fact that the Nazarenes existed as a Jewish community some time after Paul before finally being absorbed by the exile.

Now, however, this advantage has beeen greatly reduced. The Scriptures have been transferred to the nations by being translated into many languages by non-Jewish Israel ¹. The tools and resources that non-Jewish believers rely on, are now almost exclusively derived from the efforts and publications of non-Jewish Israel . Even the Hebrew bibles used by most of us come from non-Jewish sources, BHS, Owens, J.P. Green, Davidson. Some of the resorces started with Jews, but all of their authors were completely removed from the Jewish community during the times of their work and production. And their theology was more influenced by the Church than by any commitment to Torah. This includes even Franz Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament, Salkinson-Ginsburgs Hebrew New Testament, Margoliouth’s MSS. Only the latest Bible Society Israel ’s ספר הבריתות leans toward a more Jewish context, yet it is still heavily influenced by the non-Jewish sources, and Church theology.

Inasmuch as modern Jews, expecially the Orthodox, have argued themselves the sole interpreters and preservers of Scripture to Israel in the context of a Jewish community, I must say not so. Not any longer. Non-Jewish believers in Yeshua have run far ahead of them for a long time. Certainly since the 15th century. Meanwhile, they have disappered into things like Kabbalah and Talmud evolving Judaism to the point that Moses and the Prophets would not even recognize it. The point here is not to convince Jews who refuse to follow Yeshua, but to prove that those who do are following the lead of non-Jewish Israel in the matter of the Scriptures, because invariably they come around to addicting themselves (in the words of Jospehus) to doctrines taught by Gentiles.² What non-Jewish followers of Yeshua have done in the furtherance of the Scriptures has out produced the Jewish community by more than 10 fold.

1. I mean here the “commonwealth of Israel ” (Eph. 2:11), to which non-Jewish belivers in Messiah Yeshua are made citizens (Eph. 2:19).

2. Which is good with respect to Yeshua and the pure waters of forgiveness of sins, but evil with respect to all the other false doctrines of the Church: torahlessness, eternal torment, immortality of the soul, penance, purgatory, and all their substitutes for faithfulness.

3:2.2 Now we turn to the question of physical circumcision being advantageous, which has not the same answer as being “Jewish”, though many mistakenly think to be circumcised is to become Jewish, which is synonymous with making it necessary to adopt the ethnical requirements of being Jewish according to the Rabbis—taking on the yoke of oral tradition, and the rulings of the Rabbis. If that is what Paul means by the benefit of circumcision, then to Judaize (in the proper use of the term) is of no advantage at all. Rather, it is a burden, and a slavery, which anyone who has been near an orthodox Jewish community will recognize, and further it is a spirit and heart destroying system that takes the joy out of Torah and turns the non-Jew away from Yahweh.

So we must look for the advantage of circumcision in its original covenant context, and in light of Paul’s earlier observations. If the circumcised man is going to be a transgressor, then any advantages of circumcision are nullified. Yet if he is faithful to Messiah Yeshua, then his physical circumcision benefits him along with his continuing heart circumcision. Physical circumcision truly then marks him as part of the remnant of Israel and meeting the requirement for inheritance in the land. Paul says, “For in Messiah Yeshua neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; unless faithfulness which worketh by love” (Gal 5:6 ). Notice the conjunction correctly translated “unless”? This is the same exception as in Romans 2:29 that I explained before. If one is circumcising their heart, then physical circumcision is valid. If one is first being faithful, the physical circumcision is valid and valuable, as a sign of the covenant, the righteousness by faithfulness, and pertaining to an actual physical inheritance in the land —even in the New Jerusalem, in the glorious Age to Come.

It therefore, is necessary to realize that abiding faithfulness and circumcision of the heart is what makes one part of remnant Israel . For the new convert, it is absolutely necessary for him to remain uncircumcised until he realizes that abiding faithfulness to Yeshua is the means by which we remain in the covenant and in the remnant of Israel —so that the new convert is not deceived by the unfaithful in Israel who teach their circumcision entitles them to election and inheritance even when they are unfaithful and transgressors!³ It is necessary to delay physical circumcision if there is any possibility that they will condition their election exclusively on status as circumcised and rather than faithfulness. That is, there is a danger that they might get circumcised, and then think it is salvation insurance that covers transgression. There is (or I should say was in Paul's time) a great danger then that circumcision becomes a false doctrine of eternal security or assurance of salvation through circumcision.

3. We may wish to also tell any new convert to stay away from any other perverted commandment until they really understand faithfulness, like baptism if the one's doing the baptising are Catholic. The biggest problem now is the way the good news is presented in the marriage of antinomianism and Calvinism which is called dispensationalism, and no-lordship salvation. The sinner is told that if they “just believe” that they are eternally saved from that moment on. The ambience of the teaching belies any real commitment to Messiah, and thus results in a multitude of false conversions.

The Jewish doctrine of once circumcised always saved has its carnal Jew theory parallel to the dispensational “carnal man” doctrine. A person who is properly become a Rabbinic Jew and is circumcised is told he has eternal security regadless—so long as he doesn’t believe in Yeshua.

But now that the good news about Yeshua has spread to the nations, we have a new problem. The Church has imported the Jewish philosophy of salvation and combined it with Greek thinking. Yes, they got Paul’s point about physical circucmision not granting eternal security, but then they promply replaced it with another form of eternal security that allows them to transgress and be saved at the same time. It’s called antinomian baptism, and antinomian faith. For Catholic Christians, eternal security is based on their baptism after which sin is not really sin, and cannot threaten their baptism based eternal security, but it is a policy that has to be renewed by periodic confession to a priest and penance to compensate for purgatorial penalties.

The Catholic method was too difficult for the Protestants, so they came up with eternal security by means of reducing faithfulness to “faith alone”, which turns out to mean believe only —an insurance policy that is a one time thing and does not even need to be renewed. They can even sin willfully, and they are still saved. That’s why they cling to “total depravity”. They don’t want to think being faithful is possible; and they cling to “predestination”, and “unconditional election” to keep their total depravity from threatening their salvation. This, of course, like the Jewish doctrine, means they get to continue in their transgression feeling safe and secure.

Any such doctrine of security that allows one to be unfaithful to Messiah (while claiming to believe in him, or thinking the promise is unconditional), will not save them in the end. If anyone thinks so, they should read Matthew 7:21-23, “depart from me, ye that work lawlessness.”

So some Christians are waking up to the fact that believe only is obviously too easy a premium for a valid eternal security policy. Remember that believe only is simply a one time transaction for them, something that they think appeases the Almighty One enough to fully compensate their sin. They don’t have a clue that Yahweh’s mercy is conditioned on a true abiding loving faithful response to Him. Momenent by moment abiding in His Word. But they can see the problem, the transgressions, and the indulgences that evangelical preachers are handing out for the carnal “Christians” who exercise their assurance policies to maximize the fun.

What happens then? Something else becomes attractive. But they march right to it looking for a community that can provide a new insurance policy to replace the one they lost when their eyes briefly opened to the fact that the Church underwriters might actually be fraudulent undertakers. So they go looking for the eternal security equivalent elsewhere. So, still not understanding that abiding faithfulness is required, and still not coming to terms with a direct commitment to Yahweh, they desire to live their lives their own way. But they just got to have that new insurance policy. So they join the torah observant, taking on the outward signs of being so. But they do not feel secure. They soon find out that its not the right kind of torah observance for the insurance policy. They begin to “see” that “Scriptural” torah observance requires faithfulness, and then they run from it. So they go to the people who promise the insurance policy—they convert to Orthodox Judaism and reject Yeshua. And never do they realize that it was abiding commitment to Messiah that was required.

So circumcision is valuable, just like baptism and believing the divine promises, but when these things become a substitute for commitment to Messiah, and an insurance policy for disloyalty to Messiah, then they become worthless. What are these insurance policies? They are the mystery of iniquity, and seeking them is the cause of antinomianism and further rebellion.

To reiterate also the Romans 2 points, if physical circumcision is not the insurance policy, and faithfulness is, then Paul’s logic holds: “will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision”? Paul really believes it will, because he makes the same argument with Abraham in Romans 4. The former Gentile, if yet uncircumcised, is not considered disloyal to the covenant because in his physical uncircumcision he is in exile. Israel faced a similar situation during the years in the wilderness, which was only corrected when Israel entered the land. This is parallel to the years of Abraham’s uncircumcision, a time that lasted 29 years from his sojourn out of Ur, and most of this period spent in Canaan.

How much more then should the Gentile who joins with Israel through Messiah be regarded as loyal to the covenant even though still uncircumcised in the exilic condition. The non-Jew who commits to Yeshua is like the son of those rebellious Israelites who sinned with the golden calf. Their parents did not circumcise their sons, and so for a period of 38 years they grew up in the wilderness uncircumcised. When they were mature, circumcision was reintroduced to them as soon as they had entered the land of Israel . So it will be with the house of Israel .

We list the advantages of physical circumcision. 1. Circumcision is “a seal of the righteousness of the faith” (Rom. 4:11), 2. It will be required in the age to come to enter the Temple (Ezek. 44:9). 3. It is a requirement for inheritence in the land of Israel (Gen. 17:14). So what are the advantages here? 1. a sign of righteousness, both Yahweh’s and our response to it, 2. gives admission to the holy places, and 3. allows landed inheritence in Israel or the New Jerusalem, which will be in Israel .

3:2.3 Paul answers his question in vs. 1, “Great in every way”. This is to say that there is more than one advantage. I listed three physical ones above. And the greatest advantage of all is spiritual—inclusion in the covenant faithfulness—also including the nations that have joined Israel through faithfulness even though under exilic circumstances.

Paul adds one more, namely that the Scriptures were given through the Jews, i.e. “were committed to them”; the advantage here is that the Jews were first in line to understand the things that Yahweh has revealed, and to teach them, as Paul explains in chapter 2. This is because the tribe of Judah remained faithful to Yahweh while Israel apostacized. But notice that Paul does not say the Scriptures are forever and exclusively committed to the tribe of Judah. They only ended up with it because the rest of Israel apostacized. If the rest of Israel returns via a process of Gentiles joining Israel through the faithfulness of Messiah, then to them too the Scriptures are also committed.

3:2.4 But Paul is not saying that the nations, who have been grafted into Israel are not also the custodians of the Scriptures. In fact, the nations who have joined Israel through Messiah have done as much, if not more, to preserve the Scriptures in the last 2000 years. The study of Hebrew grammar by scientific methods and the production of usable tools for Hebrew learning has been greatly advanced by faithful from Gentile backgrounds, not say nothing of preservation and distribution of the Apostolic Writings called the “New Testatment” in the Greek language. The Scripture does say “with other tongues I will speak to this people” (1Cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11); and so it has been for the last 2000 years.

3:2.5 Having shown that the faithful in Messiah have equal inheritance of custodianship of the Scriptures whether Jewish or from Gentile background, and that with the mission to the nations, the Scriptures that were committed to Judah, now also are committed to the nations, which are one people in Messiah with the Jews committed to Yeshua, and fellow citizens, I must hasten to add that in the final exile of the Jews, and in the end of the final exile of the nations joined to the house of Israel , that both have terribly mishandled the texts, and both have gone far astray, much father than any other exile before.

§3:3.1 “So what if some are unfaithful?” That’s the star question, but we need to illustrate this unfaithfulness in respect to preservation of the covenant faithfulness and the context of the last 2000 years. Even though non-Jewish followers of Yeshua have become custodians of the Scriptures, as a class, they have been utterly unfaithful to the Torah, and where it matters and impacts Torah, utterly unfaithful to accurate and true translation. If anything else is proved in this commentary. It is that point.

Furthermore, Jewish Israel has also been utterly unfaithful, as a class, heaping traditions on traditions: Seder Olam, Talmud, and Kabbalah, all for the purpose of diverting Jewish Israel from the truth of Messiah Yeshua.

3:3.2 “Will it nullify Yahweh’s faithfulness?” “May it never be”, says Paul (חָלִ֕ילָה). Because the “deliverer will come to Zion, ‘and I will turn ungodliness from Jacob’ ” (Isa. 59:20; cf. Rom 11:26). Unfaithfulness will be cut off and a remnant will be made holy; they shall return to Zion, and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. Torahlessness is to be removed from non-Jewish Israel , and Messiahlessness from Jewish-Israel . And non-Jewish Israel ’s mishandling of the Scriptures will be corrected, and also Jewish-Israel .

3:3.3 חָלִ֕ילָה = profanation, a curse on it. This word was the strongest possible way of negating something.

§3:4 Paul quotes the last half of Psalm 51:4 in connection to answering the question about the reason for the unfaithfulness of Israel . Pslam 51 is King David’s Pslam of repentence concerning his adultery. The reason given by Paul's opposition is that Israel is saved by predestination (once a Jew always a Jew), and that any sin in Israel is according to the carnal Jew theory, and only serves to glorify the Almighty. This view is exactly parallel to the Calvinist theory of salvation for Christians, which says that some of the elect fall into sin, but only to further ‘glorify’ God.¹It is this Hellenistic/Stoic Jewish philosophy that Paul seeks to counter first, because it was the main apologetic as to why Jews had a superior status over that of the nations. They thought they were the elect, and that transgression could not undo their election.

1. The Carnal Christian theory was promoted by the C.I. Scofield, so that American fundamentalists adopted it enmass; it “divides men into three classes, (1) the Adamic man, unrenewed, through the new birth, (2) the spiritual, that is, the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God, and (3) the carnal, that is, the renewed man who, walking, ‘according to the flesh’ (Rom. 8:4), remains a babe in Christ” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1Cor. 2:24, note, 2002 edition). So the Christian who has the “moment of belief” has the necessary badge of predestination, and is saved without repentance. Any sin the carnal Christian might commit is to glorify God. John Piper spetacularly confirms this in Spectacular Sins: Their Global Purpose in the Glory of Christ, 2008.

2. Of course the Pharisees and Essenes would not admit to being gnostic or antinomian any more than Catholics, Reformed Calvinists or Scofield Dispensationalists. However, in all cases, salvation was linked to the knowledge of one's election, which was confirmed by the badges. The philosophy does not differ even though the badges differ: circumcision, tonguges, baptism, sacred name, belief only, etc. In all cases is knowledge of one's fated (eternal) status the determining factor rather than faithfulness. Thus the gnostic and antinomian labels apply by definition. The gnosis is the knowledge of one's status, and the removal of faithfulness as the determinant of status is the antinomian part.

Read in this manner, it appears to say David was predestined to sin so Yahweh would be glorified. The antinomians answer to the question, “Why do the elect sin?” (David was one of the elect) was so God might be vindicated (shown righteous). This allows the antinomians to create a carnal Jew theory by suggesting that the carnal Jew is not judged, because that would be unjust, and therefore, the purpose of the sin of the elect Jew is only so that God may be glorified!

The International Critical Commentary suggests that this was the problem³, and gives its solution: But if we acknowledge “the final clause is really dependent on the preceeding verse” as noted by Cranfield, then David is saying:

For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me, (also against you, you separately⁴, have I sinned, and done this evil in your sight), so you will be justified when you speakest, and be righteous when you judgest me. (Ps. 51:4).

3. Cranfield, The International Critical Commentary, Romans vol. 1, pg. 183. Cranfield confirms the Rabbinic effort to rationalize David's transgression so that he remains an elect Jew during his sin: “The Rabbinic explanations of Ps 51:4 [MT: 6] in Yalkut Reub. on Gen. 8.21 and Sanh. 107a, quoted in SB [Strack & Billerbeck] 3, p. 135, are startling: according to them, David's motive in sinning with Bath-sheba was to prevent God's word in Gen. 8:21 (‘the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth’) from being falsified.” Shullam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans, pg. 128, quotes Mid. Ps. 51.4 (6) “For Thee, Thee only have I sinned...That Thou mayest be justified when Thou speakest. To whom may David be likened? To a man who broke a limb, and came to a physician. The physician marveled and said to him, ‘How great is thy break; I am much distressed on your account.’ The man with the broken limb said: ‘Art thou distressed on my account? Was not my limb broken for thy sake, since the fee is to be thine?’ Just so David said to the Holy One, blessed be He: For Thee, Thee only, have I sinned.’ ” Shullam agrees that Paul is refuting this idea, “The Hebrew and Greek texts of Psalm 51.4 can both be read literally to say, ‘I have sinned against you only so that you may be justified....’ Paul acknoweledges that this interpretation may be made, and proceeds to ‘disprove’ the case that man’s unrighteousness can ‘prove’ God right or justify His actions.”

4. Translate "separately"; David's sin was a separate offense against Yahweh. The text does not mean to imply it was against Yahweh alone. Obviously he sinned against Uriah, and others also.

Paul’s short quotation of just the last clause of Ps. 51:4, then, is a prime example of why the blanks have to be filled in to understand some of Paul’s arguments. In this case, the context of the Pslam, along with its antinomian and legitimate uses are background to vs. 5-8. Read the verse with the parenthesis and without them. Then read the verse starting at “also ...” without the clause from the preceeding text, and you will see how it seems to say that David sinned so that YHWH would be glorified. And it is the reality that this view was known to exist among Jews, and then the Manichean Gnostics, was transferred to Augustine, and from there to John Calvin and his followers, John Piper and R.C. Sproul.

If fact the antinomian view, i.e. carnal Jew and carnal Christian theories, is the natural philosophical devolution of the idea that election is based on irrevocable chosenness and not on faithfulness.

§3:5.1 The “justice of the Almighty” is demonstrated by punishing sinners, by judging them. If there were no sinners, then He would not have an opportunity to demonstrate this form of righteousness called justice. There need be no predestination for Yahweh to show such justice. It is only that sinners choose to disobey. And the Scripture does say that Yahweh does not wish the death of the wicked. Evidently, he does not need to be glorified in dispensing justice. He is only so glorified in the contingiency that man chooses evil. (cf. Jer. 32:35).

The first gnostic antinomians, the kind Paul was dealing with, did not believe in judgment at all (at least for the elect)—they argued that He predestined sin for this very purpose—to enhance the expression of his righteous justice, which they interpreted as greater opportunity for God to show mercy by not judging the elect. So they rejected a concept of a judging God, who requires faithfulness or loyalty. This is why Paul’s question is rhetorical. The antinomians would say they don’t believe in a wrathful God, but one one who ordains ‘evil’ so that good may come of it. The Scripture, and Paul, disagrees. That is, they don't believe Yahweh who directs his wrath against even the transgressors among His people. They don't believe that repentance is the key factor.

There is a modern view of this that has morphed into a form of universalism. It claims that Christ forgave all sin, denying that Messiah's death is actualized only to "the many" (Isaiah 53:11). Yeshua, did die for all, and John emphasized this (cf. 1John 2:2) only because the Gnostics he was dealing with claimed that Yeshua only died for the elect! This is the same teaching as John Calvin. Knowing Yahweh, is not a matter of election, but a matter of faithfulness (cf. 1John 2:3-4). In Calvinist theory, (the same as gnostic), Christ died only for the elect, and is not contingiently avaiable for the non-elect. That's what John was countering. Messiah can forgive any man on the contingiency that he repents. So we have two forms of antinomianism. A closed form depending on election, and a universalist form wherein all sins are actually forgiven. But then, how can Yahweh justly judge anyone in either case? He can't, for in the one case, he causes the sin, and in the other case he already forgave it! Hence, without faithfulness as a determining factor, the heretics make a complete mockery of divine justice.

Gnostic antinomians were suggesting that not all Israel was faithful so that Yahweh could be glorified by showing mercy to them. It was fated for them to be unfaithful according to their interpretation of Ps. 51:4 so that the Almighty would be shown righteous in making a judgment of mercy. Some Gnostics limited this interpretation for the elect, i.e. the chosen who really had an immortal soul, and were predestined to salvation. Other applied forgiveness to all, and became gnostic universalists.

The questioner is assuming that his sin (and or Israel ’s unfaithfulness) was predestined to enhance the glory of the Almighty. Such gnostic antinomians were Pagans or backslidden Jews, who when approached with their sin typically defend themselves using whatever philosophy they could use to justify themselves in their sin, and make the Almighty to be unjust if He were to judge them. So they deny the existence of a judging God, and remake Him into one that does not judge sin. Then they depend on their election or universalism. The predestination assumption that makes antinomianism logically compelling for them could be picked up from several sources, I. The Pharisees, II. The Essenes, or III. The Stoics¹.

1. Josephus War of the Jews. Book 2. 8. 14. (162) “But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned: the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, (163) and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action.” Josephus Antiquities of the Jews. Book 13. 5.9, “ (171) At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. (172) Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. (173) And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War.

Paul shows what logically follows with a rhetorical question: “Perhaps the Almighty is being unjust in judgement?”; Paul's grammar demands "no" as the answer. The antinomian answers the question “yes” based on the predestinarian interpretation of Ps. 51:4., and proceeds to reject Yahweh who judges transgression regardless of election. The antinomian claims that God will not judge the transgressor and overturn election because, as they say, it would undo the grace of God. Or they become universalists, saying that the Lord judges no one. In both cases they have destroyed faithfulness.

3:5.2 Paul says, "our unrighteousness". With the word "our" he is particularly focused on evidence of Jewish transgression of the Torah.

§3:6.1 Paul’s answer to the thought that Yahweh caused sin to express his justice on it is, “May it never be!” (הָלִ֑ילָה). For if that were the case, then how could he justly judge the world? Paul implicitly refutes the doctrine of fate here, but not formally, as it was considered relatively unimportant to Jews other than the Essenes—unless they were confronted with the fact that their transgression undoes their election. In that case, all but the Saducees would argue like the Calvinist. Therefore, it is needful that I go the extra step since the the Greek Stoic philosophy of fate has taken over Christians through Augustine and John Calvin. What Paul only implies must be fully explained.

Now Calvinists argue that sin is predetermined, but they deny the consequence of it: that God could not justly judge the world. This is a huge logical inconsistency for Reformed theology. To be more compassionate, it suffices to say that such a concept is revolting to any sense of justice. Calvinists feel compelled to dishonor Yahweh’s justice by this moral disconnect from true justice because they limit³ God to a reality of their own imagination.⁴ It is a made up reality where He is required to cause everything past, present, future. And they also limit Him to never being able take a rest from predetermining all things. They have reduced his glory in administering justice and have reduced the dignity of the Almighty by refusing to let Him cause only what He desires. They have no concept that Yahweh might leave a lot of things uncaused, leaving it up to his creatures what to cause by their choices. So they shut Him up in a philosophical box that requires Him to be cause of all evil.

3. Calvinists hate the word “limit”, even though Yeshua, being the πλήρωμα “complement” (BDAG 3rd, def. 1b) of the Almighty clearly limited himself to human flesh (Col. 1:19; 2:9). The Greek idea of a perfect being, was a being that could not change in any way. So, they think of the Almighty as undifferentiated and indivisible, because this implies change. If change was allowed, it would only occur in one direction, toward imperfection (and even Judaism swallowed this idea—that's one reason they reject Yeshua). Thus for a Stoic, a Manichean, Augustine, and Calvin, the Almighty could create only one reality, which would be predetermined by him in eternity to maximize his glory. Whatever happens in reality, therefore, maximizes his glory, even sin. But, there are good alternatives to this theology, ranging from Arminianism to less extreme forms of Open theism.

Open theism states that the future is partly determined (by God), and partly undetermined, i.e. “open”; it logically points out that Thomistic Theists, who base their points on Greek philosophy, limit God to a prefixed reality with no variations or variant causes introduced by created beings. In open theism God can create a determined universe, or a partially determined/undetermined one. In Thomistic theism, he can only create a determined universe. This makes Thomistic theism more limiting of divine omnipotence. The real question is which kind of world did Yahweh create according to the Scripture? Some thought provoking books are: 1. The Openness of God, Richard Rice. 2. The God Who Risks, John Sanders. 3. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, Gregory A. Boyd. 4. A Case for Arminianism, Clark Pinnock. I certaintly do not advocate everything they say, especially Boyd, nor where some of them have taken their theologies due to a lack of Torah.

4. To have a false theology of God in one's heart is a form of idolatry (cf. Ezek. 14:3-7).

3:6.2 Calvin did not start predestination. It’s history may be firstly traced to Augustine, and then the Greek Stoics, the Essenes, through world history, all the way back to ancient Egyptian religon. It also ties in with eastern religion through the concept of karma. If the Almighty is to be just in judging the world, then he should not have been the cause of the sin he is judging, nor should he have arranged things so that sin would occur⁵, and further he should have done all that is possible to limit its effects⁶, and to redeem what is possible to redeem. Genesis 6:6-9 states just this, “And it repenteth Yahweh that he made man ....for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found favor in the eyes of Yahweh... Noah was just ... and perfect in his generations.” This teaches that Yahweh did not ordain the outcome of man’s sin. He did not cause it or intend it.

5. Basically: if allowing evil can be avoided, it ought to be avoided. This, of course, does not mean that the Almighty should not test the loyalty of creatures he has given free will to. It just means he should not have arranged the outcome that man should sin.

The Scripture sometimes refers to a limitation on divine foreknowledge, when Yahweh speaks in the form of the Messenger/Manifest (theophany) of Yahweh מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה [malakh] (who is Yeshua before taking a totally human form), in contexts involving the choice of sentient beings created in the image of Elohim, e.g. at Abraham’s test, “for now I know” (Gen. 22:12) says מַלְאַךְ Yahweh upon conclusion of the test. It also refers to self limitation of present and past knowledge, “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know”⁷ (Gen. 18:21). Concerning Israel , Yahweh says he tested them, “to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no”⁸ (Deut. 8:2). Concerning Satan, the Scripture says, “Thou was perfect in they ways from the day that thou wast created till injustice was found in thee” (Ezek. 28:15). Also, in regard to the time of His return, the Son, the מַלְאַךְ יַהְוֶה now manifested as completely human, though still identified as Yahweh our Redeemer, denies knowledge of it, “neither the son” (Mark 13:32). In regard to the human heart, Yeshua, through the Spirit, says, “I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds” (Rev. 2:23)⁹. So just as the Messenger Yahweh investigated Sodom, he investigates those called by His name, “to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no”. Therefore, we may conclude that Yahweh does not ordain sin, but he seeth and testeth the hearts of men without causing the results. He will see (with such methods as he desires) who is faithful, but he will not predetermine who is faithful.

7. No one would deny that the Almighty can simply will himself the knowledge of what was going on instantaneously. Evidently, however, that's not the way he wanted to operate. It also stands to reason that even when the Almighty has access to all knowledge by some means unknown to us, that He would not want to meditate on all parts of it equally, just like human beings don't want to dwell on that bad experience where they lost a loved one, or the evil choice of a friend who chose a life of sin. Exhaustive knowledge might be like the quantum mystical particle. I say mystical, because without measurement, its existence is unconfirmed. In theory, it has position, vector, and velocity, but to actively measure it makes the outcome deterministic. Therefore, if one want to avoid imposing determinism, one does not attempt to actively measure it. Of course, this is only a thought experiment with an analogy. But it does seem to imply that active knowing is linked with deterministic interference.

8. If there be some mystical way for Yahweh to know the outcome, finding out that way does not seem to be His priority. He'd rather just observe the outcome.

9. So we see that even the Spirit of Yahweh discovers by a “search”. The strict Calvinist response to all this would be that the Scripture speakes “anthropomorphistically”, i.e. in the guise of a man, and that despite the “human” language indicating that he does not determine all outcomes, he really does determine all outcomes. Of course, the Scripture does not “say” that all these statements are such figures of speech, and Jer. 19:4-5 is emphatic about Judah's evil, “which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:” So we see that the Almighty did not dream it up or plan it out. To call it anthropomorphistic is simply to ignore the point for the sake of one's philosophy.

§3:7.1 Paul returns to the questioner, who is assuming predestination (or fate) justifies his questioning of divine justice, and asks how God can be just in judging him. The questioner rejects the Almighty of the Torah and substitutes one that does not judge his sin. Further the questioner argues that sin is predestined to glorify god. So while the question asker asks “why...am I ...judged?”, he only askes it rhetorically to justify his belief in a god who does not judge his case.

3.7.2 I have been refering to the antinomian that Paul is dealing with. But, Gnosticism swings back and forth between predestination and universalism. But it is the same philosophy. Universalism is simply the result of extending predestination to everyone. "Judgement" is then explained as only an illusion. The lake of fire purifies rather than destroys, etc. When gnosticsm was taken into the later Church and integreated with it, they were forced to reintroduce the concept of a judging God. It had to adapt once it was inside the Church. When it is modified by Augustine, sin is ordained, and then the sinner is condemned. In a sense this is less noble than the original gnostic, because now a mockery has been made of the whole concept of justice. Now, the pendulum of the same philosophy is swinging back toward universalism. The refutation is the contingiency of faithfulness.

§3:8.1 Paul forces the philosophy behind the questioner to it’s logical conclusion. If sin was fated to happen to enhance the glory of Yahweh, then wouldn’t it be logical to sin more to more glorify Him? Without addressing the predestinarian philosophy, based on a misconceived doctrine of foreknowledge being equated to causation, Paul shows how unreasonable the conclusion is. The logical result of predestination is antinomianism! For it justifies all sin to the glory of God.

3:8.2 The Gnostics, or at this stage proto-Gnostics, or Jewish Gnostics interpreted Paul to lawlessness (cf. 2Pet. 3:15-17). The Gnostic interpretations stuck with the later Church, but the Gnostic extremes of behavior were weeded out, or provided better less transparent rationalizations. They based their antinomianism on sin being predestined, and thus argued that sin caused good things to come forth from God. Paul’s argument against them leads up to “So it is not, as we are being slandered ....” making his argument a point of self defence against false charges.

3:8.3 The extremes that Paul had to deal with are hard for modern people to fathom. Advances in knowledge have allowed the antinomians to to refine their positions and have given them may clever tools to disguise the lawlessness. Arguments that might seem crass and just plain stupid to us today, were taken seriously in ancient times when those being led astray didn’t have a bible works computer program to instantly look up passages. Antinominism tends to mutate after a particular strain has been only partially defeated. Natural selection leaves only the strongest varieties. This is not a problem so much with Jews as with non-Jews in the exilic circumstances.

§3:9.1 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.

§3.9.2 The Greek word translated “as all”, “altogether”, or “as a whole” is taken from πάντως. It is here used adverbially. A rough English equivalent is “all-ly” or “as-all”; BDAG, 3rd. says “2. totally, altogether” (pg. 755). Οὐ πάντως is translated in 1Cor. 5:10 by the KJV as, “not altogether”; B-D-F suggests that similar words mean “not in every case” or “in general” (§433.2). BDAG and B-D-F both cite that the inclusion of these words in the text are uncertain. Cranfield states, “[it] properly means ‘not altogether’” (pg. 189-191). Therefore, to take the words as in the KJV, “in no wise” or NAS, “not at all” is unecessary, and actually contrary to the context.

The translation "not as all", "not altogether" is absolutely demanded by the context over and against "not at all" that the Calvinist or antinomian would wish for. Firstly, Paul has said that circumcision is beneficial. "Great in every way" he says. And Paul has told us that the Jews were better off with the Scriptures, and he has implied by the words "some are unfaithful" that "some are faithful". But commentators like James G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, have obliterated the text with citations like, "What then do we plead in defense" (Romans, pg. 147), and then rejection of the Greek words, "οὐ πάντως" in toto, claiming that they were added to the text. This fancy assertion is the proof that we are not dealing with a dogmatically compelling argument, but one based on speculation—just to run away from the false doctrine of total depravity.

Bruce Metzger, pg. 507, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, writes, “The unexpected sequence (hyperbaton) of οὐ πάντως (which ought to mean ‘not entirely,’ but (which in the context must mean ‘not at all’) accounts for the deletion of the words in some witnesses and their replacement by περισσόν in others.” Observe, 1. Metzger implies the words belong in the text, 2. He implies that ancient speakers of Greek agreed with the sense ‘not at all’, but couldn't make the Greek mean that, so that they deleted the words. 3. Metzger claims the context demands, ‘not at all’, but on what grounds we are not told, other than that we can guess it is the doctrine of total depravity, or anti-semitism. This is a case of looking at what is actually in the text through the lense of tradition, without taking from the text only what it says. The case for omission of "not altogether" is textually weak (cf. Novvum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed), and the context actually does approve of "not algether" when we eliminate the other deceptions foisted on the text by traditon.

3.9.2.1 "Are we better" or "bettered-are-we" or "bettered ourselves we". It makes no difference whether the middle or passive is treated as active, "Do we do better?" The verb is stative and non transitive to begin with. Also when Paul says "we" he means the Jewish people, which some commentator's have denied, because fearing for the doctrine of total depravity, they want to make Rom 3:9-18 a specific indictment of non-Jews as well as Jews. But Paul isn't concerned to show that non-Jews are sinners. His audience did not need to be convinced of this. Paul is only intent on showing that Jews harbor their share of transgressors.

3:9.3 David Stern, Jewish New Testatment Commentary, tells us that vs. 10-18 apply to everyone (pg. 342), but I will point out that such exegesis is merely midrash, i.e. homiletical application. It is not according to the literal sense. A text used under the principle of drash must as least agree with sound doctrine. In this case, the correct drash is that everyone is a sinner, but by no means does this mean total depravity. That would be contrary to the pshat (literal) usage of the texts in their sources.

§3:10.1 Psalm 14:1 speaks of the atheist who denies the existence of the Creator. The verse concludes, “there is none that doeth good”, which applies to the fool denying the Almighty One, and all like him. Paul substitutes the word “righteous”, i.e. “none is righteous, not even one”; posssibly Paul thought that the word righteous explained what was meant by ט֑וֹב in the Hebrew text; it means “good”/”righteous” in Yahweh’s sight. In other words, the righteousness of the athiest is discounted by Yahweh. He may be moral in a relative sense with no logical foundation in himself to justify his morality, but because the fool dishonors the Creator, he is not doing sufficient good to be acknowledged as good. That’s because the atheist always credits himself with his notion of good and never credits the Almighty. If the athiest will not credit the Almighty, then the Almighty will not acknowledge the athiest.

The context of this Pslam does not say clearly whether it speaks of fellow Israelites or pagans. Likely David was thinking of some fellow Israelites. And this is reinforced by the fact that when an Israelite rejects Torah, they often adopt some form of atheism instead of idolatry or superstition. They were wisened to idolatry by the Torah, but neither do they want to be loyal to Yahweh, so they deny his existence. Being in the midst of Israel , it is easier to be an atheist than an idolator. The same phenomenon is true of Jews today. They who reject torah typically become athiest, or agnostic. That’s why there are so many Jewish athiests. And this makes Paul’s point. As a class, Jews are not better than the nations.

Of course, the teachers of “total depravity” will have us rip this Pslam out of context so that they may apply it to everyone. But this is not necessary to justify Paul’s statement in vs. 9. He only means to prove that Jews, as a whole, are as corrupt as the nations. The purpose of the total depravity doctrine is to lead people away from the necessity of faithfulness in repentance and toward the doctrine of predestination, which justifies a transgressing elect.

§3:11 This also is from Psalm 14:1-3. Paul is ‘quoting’ what he remembers in the order he remembers it. He is not copying out of the MT, or Greek LXX.

§3:13 In this text Paul takes us to Psalm 5, where David is remarking on the condition of domestic enemies, i.e. fellow Jews. This again makes Paul’s point that Jews are not better, as a class, than the nations. Paul is intending to undermine and disprove the Jewish idea that merely being born a Jew as soteriological value apart from actually being loyal to the Almighty. Paul’s argument is not aimed at proving that the nations are corrupt. This is merely assumed, and is not questioned by either Jews or Gentiles.

§3:14 In Psalm 10:7 again, David is speaking of the wicked, and likely domestic Israelites oppressing the poor. Reading the whole Pslam, it is perfectly clear that David did not mean to class those faithful to Yahweh into the category of the wicked by his Pslam. It is also clear that to use this text to teach “total depravity” is an argument that obvious takes the text out of context. The “total depravity” doctrine is designed to level the field between all sinners, so that those who turn to Yahweh in loyalty are not distinguished from those who are disloyal. It’s purpose is to eliminate faithfulness as that which appropriates the mercy of the Almighty (cf. Exodus 20:6). But as we see, such a doctrine is based on pedigree of falsehood.

§3:15 Prov. 1:16 is quoted in the midst of an exhortation not to follow the path of wickedness. Isaiah 59:7 has the same text. The whole chapter is addressed corporately to Israel , and specifically to the wicked majority who need to turn and repent.

§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)¹. 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.

1. cf. Cranfield, pg. 195, “For ἐν τῷ νόμῳ compare not ὑπὸ νόμον in 6.14 and 15, the sense of which is quite different, but ἐν νόμῳ in 2.12.

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.

David Stern misses the sense of "in connection to the law", even though he translates it exactly this way on page 342 of his commentary. In his translation, and explanation, he has "to those living within the framework of the Torah", and he explains, "that is, to Jews" (pg. 343). Stern implies this text only indicts Jews, and that the non-Jew had their indictment in 1:18-2:16. But Paul does not say the former passage applies only to non Jews, nor does he say the current passage only applies to Jews. Paul says, "all the world" just as in 1:18 he said, "all evil", and not just the evil of non Jews. Stern justifies his misinterpretation with a kal v'chomer exegesis of the second half of vs. 19. But these devices are only tricks if they are not submitted to the pshat (literal) sense of the text. Paul says that whatever the Torah says, it says so that (ἵνα), "all the world may come under...justice"; Paul is not limiting Torah or dividing up mankind into groups, some of which only parts of Torah apply. There is no hint of this in the context. Just as with 2:12, the translators and interpreters have gone over the text to make it say what they want it to say.

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 application 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, either by pardon or penalty. The word does not mean “condmened” (κατάκριτος). This says more than the word means (Cranfield, pg. 197).

Paul’s thought, however, is partly eschatological. This justice will not be fully applied until the kingdom is restored, particularly at the last judgement. The important point though is that the trial is deemed to be over, and Yahweh must now apply righteous justice to the case.

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 put in the balance of justice. If the balances do not justify, then the sinner is justified directly. The trial that ended in a guilty verdict now proceeds to sentencing. The guilty party now is represented on one side of the balance of justice, and his debt on the other side. The judge adds a weight called “undo”¹ to the opposite side of the scale. Also he adds a punitive weight called “eternal death”. These weights cause that side of the scale to go far down, and the other side to go way up.

1. The “undo” weight represents complete compensation for sin. It means that the sinner must make restitution such that the sin never happened. If the sin of the sinner sent someone else to judgment, then the sinner must undo all the effects of their sin, “just as if he’d never sinned”.

Now the judge must “administer justice”. The guilty must be justiced. If sufficient counter weight can be placed on the sinner’s side of the balance, then compensation will be made and the sinner justiced. He will go free. If not, then the sinner will be administered the punitive justice.

The judge tells the first defendant that entered the “not guilty” plea before the sentencing phase that his not-guilty plea was disproven in the trial. “I never acquit the guilty”, he says. The defendent is speechless. “Obviously you have nothing to offer to balance these scales,” the judge says. “Take him away to be justiced”.

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 put his good works² weight on his side of the balance. 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! Give me your weight, he says. He puts it on the sinners side of the balance, and the sinners pan, which was high up, moves down a tiny bit, but the balances do not justify. “Take him away to be justiced”.

2. The defendant offering good works thinks he can compensate the situation, but such compensation as can be offered cannot restore the life of the wronged party.

The third defendant seeing the fate of the second pockets a weight called “Jesus’ good works”. He hands it to the judge to put on his side of the balance. “Where did you get this weight,” says the judge? “From you”³ 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! Tell you what,” said the judge, “taking a weight out of his pocket; this weight is proportional to My righteousness. Just to prove My point, I’ll put this on your side of the balance.” Then, the balance comes down a good deal, but still is not even close to justified. “See”, he says, “My righteousness does not undo your evil, because your evil did, and would, cause others to reject Me, and my righteousness was unable to save them in that case.” The Judge takes his own weight off the balance. “That was just an example”, He says. He takes the fraulent weight and tosses on the dung hill out the door. The balance returns to its ridiculously unjustified state. “Take him away to be justiced”.

3. The third defendant is the one who, instead of offering his own good works for compensation, offers what is called “imputed righteousness”—the teaching of Luther that Christ’s good works and righteousness can be put in the balance. The defendent thinks this will balance justice, but little does he realize that sin also causes spiritual death in others. If these others cannot repent, then can the sinner reverse the effect of his sin? Of course not. No amount of positive righteousness can compensate for the loss of that person.

The fourth defendant pleaded guilty, and entered the sentencing with empty hands. The other three had thought him a fool. The first defendant thought him a fool for pleading guilty. The others though him a fool for having nothing to put in his side of the balance. The guilty man says, “I deserve death, but I plead for mercy, and I deserve death.

The judge says, if you will be loyal to Me henceforth, then I will apply the justice of mercy to My balances, and they will justify. “I commit to you Yahweh”, the defendent says bowing his head, but I don’t understand how your mercy can be just. The Judge says, it will be just because to be just is to be right, and I am right in showing mercy in this case. But in my wisdom, I must assign some cost to sin, and it must be paid.” The judge then removes the weight called “eternal death” and replaces it with a weight called “substitute’s death”. He also removes the weight called “undo” entirely from the scale saying, “I know you cannot undo all the consequences of your sin”. Still the balances do not justify. “Where is the lamb for the substitute?” says the man. Trust me, my son, my death will justify⁴ the balances of my justice, and I live afterward to instruct you on repentance. The judge puts a weight called “My death” in the sinners side of the balance, and removes his judicial robe revealing the prints in his hands, and mark in his side. The balance justifies. The judge says, “Let him go free.”

4. The balances are no longer measuring compensatory justice (the “undo” weight was taken off), but only measure punitive justice. Keep in mind that the assignment of punitive justice is up to the righteousness of the judge. The judge righteously decided to show mercy by paying the punitive justice of the sinner—in the case where the sinner wishes to repent, admitting his inability to compensate either kind of justice. The act of reducing the punitive penalty from the norm to the substutionary sacrifice is a principle of mercy given legal foundation in the Torah. Whereas the norm requires the eternal death of the sinner, the case of mercy requires only the temporary death of the sacrifice.

Someone may ask, “why require sacrifice at all; why not just forgive the sin?” We may answer this question by asking “why require punitive justice at all?” It is undeniable that the Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does! In the case of the unrepentant, punitive justice is in place of the impossible compensatory justice. Remember the balances never justified in the first three cases. The defendents were taken away to be justified (administered justice). In the case of the repentant, punitive justice on the substitute, is to remind the repentant that sin has a real cost no matter what.

Philosophies based on the satisfaction of compensatory justice lead to the concept of universalism, i.e. the idea that God will somehow restore all sinners to life, or can make complete satisfaction for sin. The scripture is against this idea. The reason that Yahweh is against this solution is that there is no way to restore freely given loyalty in a person that has chosen disloyalty due to their own sin, or that of others. The best he could do would be to “make” the person obedient without choice. But then, the original person, created in the image of Elohim would not be restored. So to “restore” the disloyal would teach that full compensation was possible. Such restoration would only be an illusion.

Furthermore, to be an universalist, defines Satan’s original sin as due to quantum randomness, and freely given loyaly to the uncertainty principle rather than as a conscious challenge to the word of the Almighty. For to restore a creation based on the uncertainty principle would be to restore beings who cannot really decide not to error. For the uncertainty principle will make them error given enough time. Yahweh said he made creatures in his own image, and that the creation was “very good”, but those creatures have to trust this to be true. There is no direct experiment or experience that can prove this to be true. The closest proof there ever will be, will be Yahweh’s just and final wrath on the rebells, showing to the loyal, that He cannot be compensated when creatures in his image rebell.

3.20.3 Good works cannot justify 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”:

Holladay gives the same definition for the Hebrew equivalent to δικαιόω, “hif.: pf. הִצְדִּיקוּ,s הִצְדַּקְתִּיו; impf. יַצְדִּיק; impv. הַצְדִּיקוּ; inf. הַצְדִּיק; pt. מַצְדִּיק, sf. מַצְדִּיקִי: — I. give s.one justice, bring justice 2S 15₄;”¹ To complete the semantic domain, I repeat the BDB Hiph. def., “4. make righteous, turn to righteousness” (pg. 843). The Hiphil means to “give justice” or to “give righteousness”.

1. pg. 303, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, William L. Holladay. See also Bruce K. Walke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pg. 437, and compare “bring justice”, to “bring” sense of Hiphil.

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.

We may cite also several uses of the Hebrew root צדק meaning, “do justice”¹ in the sense of “to administer justice”, as mentioned by BDB:

Absalom merely means that he will administer justice. He does not mean he will make the plaintiff or defendant righteous, nor even that he will justify those coming to him. He only means he will administer justice correctly.

1. BDB, “do justice, in administering law” (Hiph. no. 1). See also Psalm 82:3, “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy” (KJV). Justice is often administered unfairly to the poor because of their defenceless position. They can’t buy a high priced lawyer to watch out for loopholes in the law exploited by a powerful adversary. Therefore, the Psalm instructs, “do justice to” (i.e. administer justice for). It does not mean to justify them over and against all others, or to declare them righteous over all others.

2. The word also means “give righteousness”. In Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, the verb for “justice” and “righteousness” is all the same. See “Justice and/or righteousness: A Contextualized Analysis of Sedeq in the KJV (English) and RVR (Spanish)”, pg. 321-345, The Challenge of Bible Translation, Steven Voth. To give justice means to either administer punishment or mercy, both outcomes being justice. To give righteousness is to write the Torah on the heart.

3:20.5 The words ἔργων νόμου also mean “works of custom”, which is to be turned around as a Hebrew Genitive to “customary works” (see Wallace, pg. 86, Exegetical Syntax). The works are thought of as either torah deeds or traditional deeds, or for that matter any deeds or rituals that a defendent might wish to put on the balance of justice in an effort to compensate the divine balances. So Paul is not limiting his denial of works to those which are merely in Torah.

3:20.6 The words “no flesh will be justiced before Him” may be related to Ps. 143:2: οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν (LXX) = not will be righteous all living. Paul does not introduce the Romans text with, “It is written”, and neither the Gal. 2:16 text. David speaks in the Psalm, “And enter not into judgment with your servant; for before you not all living will be righteous.” It is likely in the Pslam that David is refering to his own life, i.e. not all of it is righteous; he refers to his circumstances in vs. 3-4 as a factor. The verb δικαιόω is in a decidely Hebrew sense, “to be righteous”, whereas in Paul’s Greek usage it is Hellenistic, “to administer justice”.

3:20.7 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.

Sin in both Hebrew and Greek means "miss", as in "miss the mark", however, itis used for sin offering and as a metonymy indicating the punishment of sin. The distinctions are important, especially in light of the fact that theologians have used the wrong defintion and come to wrong conclusions, such as sin where sin offering was meant, or sin where only punishment or penalty was meant. In this text, "miss" would imply to miss the mark set or laid out by Torah.

3:20.8 Cranfield cites Bultmann as typical of those who want to deny the plain sense of the text, “this sentence (coming after vv. 10-19) does not, of course, mean that through the Law man is led to knowledge of what sin is, but does mean that by it he is led into sinning” (pg. 199). Cranfield rejects this antinomian calumny and so should we.

3:20.9.1 Now I will turn to criticize David Stern's massive number of mistakes on this text in his Commentary, and his importation of Church theology into it. Why do I pick on David Stern Translation? Because it is looked up to by a good number of Messianic Jews. But it solved very few problems, and endorsed all the other mistakes of Evangelical Protestantism. These unsolved problems are a huge factor in apostacies to Judaism, because other Jews, after all, are not blind to the contradictions.

3:20.9.2 Firstly, Stern translated "For in his sight no one alive will be considered righteous"; in the forgoing I showed that this is neither a good translation of the Hebrew source nor Paul's Greek text. It is simply a theological interpretation. The word "considered" is not part of the lexical sense of the verb δικαιόω. Stern simply inserted the Lutheran doctrine of "declared" righteous here. The word "considred" must be removed and the word δικαιόω = justiced, administer justice to. This has nothing to do with the judge seeing the defendant as righteous, and everything to do with the judge being righteous in justice.

3:20.9.3 Stern's Commentary takes us back to הצדק which means "give justice to" or "make righteous"; in some cases, it means "declare righeous", but this is only when the court recognizes that the defendent is righteous. And never is the wicked to be "declared righteous" at trial. Scripture forbides it. Therefore, as mentioned before, the Hebrew root is used in the sense of "give justice", i.e. to make or determine justice in a case. His Commentary then compounds the error by stating, "But being declared innocent by God and considered righteous...." (pg. 343) at trial.

Stern, to his credit, rejects the idea that one is never declared righteous by good works. This is true, so long as the unrighteous is not declared righteous at trial, and so long as the one declared righteous is righteous. Stern to his credit recognizes that James 2:10 speaks of transgression, "rebellion", and not just any sin, and that the yoke that could not be borne was Jewish tradition, and did not mean the commandments of Yahweh. Stern recognizes that the Torah does not impose an impossible standard for faithfulness.

3:20.9.4 Stern recognizes the difficulty of nomos. But the solution he implemented does not work. He translates, "no one alive will be considered righteous on the ground of legalistic observance of the Torah commands". He sees the difficulty of "[good] works of torah" in conjuction with "declared righteous". To use good works to defend evil deeds at trial is a good reason for the judge not to administer justice the way the defendant desires. But cannot the defendant really bring good works to the trial? Yes he can! The defendant can point to a real good deed he did in his life, and not some legalistic traditional one. He can point to a time when he really did something on the basis of love. The defendant can be declared righteous in that good deed, but he cannot have his guilt for evil deeds dismissed at trial on the basis of his good deed.

The problem is removed by translating correctly: δικαιόω = justiced, administer justice to. Once this is done, there is no need to artificially restrict the meaning of nomos in this text. Nomos certainly includes legalistic works, or traditional deeds, but it does not exclude legitimate torah deeds either.

§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:

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:

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 ¹tradition” (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)².

1. Slater’s Lexicon, “νόμος 1. a. custom, tradition b. political tradition, regime c. tune, melody; Middle Liddell, I. anything assigned, a usage, custom, law ordinance ...conventionally.

2. See also, The relationship between Roman and local law in the Babatha and Salome Komaise archives, by Jacobine G. Oudshoorn, pg. 410. “This means that ἑλληνικῷ ν́ομῳ should indeed not be translated as ‘according to Greek law’,” but more like Katzoff suggests ‘in the Hellenic manner’ or ‘in the manner Hellenes consider proper.’” “...Katzoff addressed this issue by giving a further explanation of the use of ‘custom’ designating an economic standard.” (pg. 412) [Brill, Studies on the Texts of the desert of Judah].

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.

A righteousness from Yahweh, is therefore attainable, that under the norm is not attainable. This is a righteousness based on the divine promise to circumcise the heart (Deut. 30:6) and to write the Torah on the hearts of his people Israel (Jer. 31:32).

§3.22.1 Paul unfolds his theology of Messiah a step further, telling us how the צִדְקַ֣ת אֱלֹהִ֗ים (justice of the Almighty) is applied. It is through the “faithfulness of Yeshua”; This is a specific πίστεως/אֱמוּנַ֣ת of Messiah. We can term it His commitment or his support of us so that we may obtain the pardon. Yeshua freely paid our penalty on the cross. The divine justice is balanced, or in other terms the divine requirement for justice is made complete. As explained before, the temporary-substituionary death of Messiah fullfills Yahweh’s justice, a justice that is mercifully reduced from a type of justice that would be equitable in theory. And it was proved that there is no equitable justice, even in theory, that can totally undo sin.

For those committing to Messiah there is a penal justice that is paid by Messiah. Yahweh could have made it zero, but this would tempt man’s pride, and make man think he bore no judicial fault in the matter of sin. And even then, the antinomians try to explain Messiah’s death in terms of equity, or in terms of the full damage of sin being compensated, either by theological theory or by good works. These attempts are but reductions of the bad effects of sin—in short to understate its effects and consequences. Such attempts are legalistic in the true sense of the term and fail to recognize that even though a penalty is paid, forgiveness (pardon) is truly rooted in Yahweh’s mercy—a mercy that cannot be received by thinking that there is full compensation for sin’s effect. The purpose of the penalty is therefore to reinforce the understanding of the consequence of sin by making a penalty, but also to show Yahweh’s mercy by Yeshua making the satisfication of this penalty.

3:22.2 Paul states, “unto all those commiting to him” (לְכָל־הַמַּֽאֲמִינִ֑ים). To appropriate the justice of Yahweh in Messiah, we must commit ourselves, 1. to trust the promise, and 2. to support, be loyal to Messiah. We commit ourselves to his promise and to be loyal. Earlier, I explained the linguistic basis for this. And, of course, the antinomians will rebel against it. Man is always looking for a shortcut to faithfulness, a set of particular rituals or badges that will define who is faithful and who is not faithful in any set of circumstances, so as to determine who is approved by Yahweh and who is not. The problem is that badges do not sufficiently separate the sheep from the goats. Only faithfulness does. Only proven commitment to Yeshua determines who has appropriated His faithfulenss.

Clearly, when someone is able to obey and be loyal, and understands that it is the right thing to do, then disobedience is a mark of not belonging to Israel . On the other hand, circumstances often show misunderstanding or inability to conform due to social persecuation, or exilic circumstances. We may think of the faithful in North Korea, who lay down their lives for Yeshua, who cannot keep Sabbath, or more likely have no idea of Sabbath, who need to be delivered from the “Egyptian slavery”. Their faithfulness to Yeshua cannot therefore be judged on Sabbath. Only faithfulness/loyalty to Messiah is the universal constant that appropriates Yahweh’s mercy to us.

3:22.3 Paul adds, “for there is no distinction”; what he means here is that the divine mercy is avaiable to all who will abhor their sin regardless of their personal situation or circumstances. One does not have to be Jewish, to be born free, or to be a man to be saved. Yahweh calls all men without respect to class, race, or nationality to be joined with Israel .

3:22.4 David Stern, Joseph Shullam, the NET Bible, Howard, Daniel B. Wallace, and others all give good support for the "faithfulness of Yeshua" rather than "faith in Yeshua".

§3:23.1 This text implies that all who “fall short” are in need of Messiah. This is everyone born of Adam, except for Yeshua, whose birth was special, guarded over by the Spirit of Yahweh so as not to infect Messiah with the circumstances leading to sin. And to underline this specialness, and disconnect with the sin nature, Messiah was born of a virgin.

Notice that Paul does not state the matter in terms of “total depravity”, but merely in terms of falling short. The doctrine of “total depravity” is contrary to the principle of faithfulness and repentance. Men who choose to follow Yeshua are not totally depraved. Neither are many who refuse, yet those who refuse only move further in the direction of total depravity.

§3:24.1 Paul states that we are “being justiced ... in Messiah”; 1. we are having justiced administered to us, 1a. by Yeshua’s payment of the judicial penalty, 1b. by reduction and change of punitive penalty to the substutite. 2. we are also “being made righteous”; The two aspects come from the righteousness of the Almighty (צִדְקַ֥ת אֱלֹהִ֖ים), in the first sense as external application of mercy, which is how Yahweh judges righteously for the repentant, in in the second sense as application of His righteousness to the internal transformation.

There are two aspects of justice, an external one, and an internal one. This is unified in the Hebrew hiphil

3:24.2 Paul expresses Yahweh’s mercy and love with the term חֶסֶד. It is translated in this text “loving-kindness”.

3:24.3 Paul uses the present tense, passive, participle, δικαιούμενοι = being justiced. It is also inflected in the plural. This is to say that the administration of justice to Israel is an ongoing process, and an ongoing state, appropriated through faithfulness. It is ongoing corporately for Israel because of those newly coming to Yeshua. But it is ongoing for those already in Messiah, 1. as a continuing state wherein the penalty is paid, and 2. as a continuing process of being made righteous.

Therefore, we cannot say that “being justiced” is completed. The foundation for it has been completed, namely Yeshua’s death, and his resurrection, but the appropriation and application of it to us is not complete. It must be appropriated through faithfulness, which puts us in a state wherein the penalty is paid, and into the process of being sanctified, i.e. being made righteous.

3:24.4 By “redemption” (הַפְּד֔וּת), Paul means Yeshua’s payment of the penalty price by His own death. The use of redemption means that the punitive penalty is “paid for”, which was reduced from eternal death and paid by the substitute via divine mercy. Since the penalty was reduced and substituted to Messiah, it is obvious that what we are redeemed from is a reduced and altered penalty. It in no way means that the effects of all our sin are compensated for or fairly paid off. Yahweh, in his mercy retained only “punitive justice” reduced from eternal punishment to the temporary death of the substitute. What has happened is that we are outright forgiven compensation that cannot be attained, and the retained punitive judgment is paid by Messiah. This is not outright forgiveness of the retained penalty, but the result is the same. “Mercy” means not to be treated as one deserves, expressed by Yahweh’s willingness to forgive what is deserved, and by Yeshua’s willingness to pay for the remaining penalty.

3:24.5 The Reformers defined the perfection of God according to Greek philosophy. A perfect God, they reasoned, has to be perfectly compensated to forgive sin. This might be true if God’s justice was always equitable (fair). Such a God would never have any need to show pure mercy. For pure mercy is based on getting was is not fair and equal. For this reason, they invented the doctrine of “imputed righteousness” and defined the word “justify” to mean “delcare righteous”, by which they mean God’s righteousness is put into the believers account, and then the believer is acquitted (found not guilty). And by being found not guilty, God is said to be 100% compensated for sin.

Of course to believe in the reformers doctrine of imputed righteousness requires one to assume that the Almighty cannot in fact forgive sin without total compensation. But as we have proved, total compensation is not possible. And we have proved that “justify” means “to justice” or “to administer justice”, and that when the judge makes a ruling of mercy he is being righteous; he is administering the correct justice by being merciful.

There is no need then to think that to “justice” a person means to declare them righteous when they are not righteous, and when they have lost the case. Nay, to administer righteousness (justice) means for the Judge to be merciful, if the sinner wants to repent and asks for a pardon.

The sinner that thinks they need to acheive an aquittal based on vicarious deeds believes 1. the judge is a hard judge and must always be compensated, even in mercy, and 2. that vicarious deeds really are compensation. That sinner has been lied to or believes a lie on both points. The judge is not hard. And the judge never acquits the guilty. Further, the notion of compensation leads to lawlessness, because if one believes the judge can be compensated for sin, then it does not matter if one continues to sin. For then sin can always be compensated for.

Therefore, the “imputed righteousness” doctrine of the reformers is a false doctrine.

§3:25.1 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.

3:25.2 The meaning of the word לְכַפֹּרֶת is to “wipe off” or “wipe away”. Levitical offerings “wipe” away the penalty of a sin of ignorance. This penalty is a reduced penalty—one reduced from the death of the sinner when an innocent substitute is provided. It is valid when offered with repentance. A Levitical offering did not wipe away the sin nature. Only the Spirit of Yahweh combined with repentance can do this. Another thing wiped away by a Levitical offering was ritual impurity, not a sin itself, but as a preventative measure. If one did not take care of ritual impurity, and then entered the holy places, then it became a serious sin.

3:25.3 I. Yeshua wipes away the penalty of sin (i.e. a reduced/altered penalty by mercy to a substitute) by His faithfulness (his work on the cross). II. Yeshua wipes away the sin nature, which is progressive by His faithfulness (divine righteous nature).

3.25.3 “Faithfulness” here refers to Yeshua’s faithfulness in the matter of the cross, and to our faithfulness working with His faithfulness in the matter of removing the sin nature. In the matter of wiping out the penalty, it is only His faithfulness. In the matter of wiping out sinfulness, it is our faithfulness working with His faithfulness to sanctify us.

3.25.4 “His blood” has two senses here. Firstly, it means Yeshua’s loss of life on the cross in payment for the sin penalty. Secondly, “blood” means life, and refers to the divine life of Yeshua. This is his resurrection life—His living life, which we partake of through faithfulness. His life becomes our life. This change results in His righteousness being written on our hearts through our faithful response to His faithfulness.

3:25.5 Overlooking or sending away of transgressions 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 time. Iniquities were those serious sins not payable by the Levitical offerings.

§3:26 In the Hebrew translation, I chose to render וְנֹתֵן־צְדָקָה = and giving justice. The classical Hebrew term is מַצְדִּיק means “one giving justice/righteousness”—a hiphil participle matching the Greek participle: δικαιοῦντα; the term has two applications, 1. the Almighty gives us justice in the form of forgiveness within the legal parameters of the divine law., 2. He gives us righteousness by writing his law on our hearts (Jer. 31:32; Deut. 30:6). To give someone justice (צְדָקָה) means to decide their case righteously. For those repenting and seeking pardon, Yahweh has determined it to be righteousness (צְדָקָה) for Him to show mercy, and then to help us change by giving us His righteousness (צְדָקָה).

§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 they cannot make full compensation or restitution for the damages caused by sin. The torah of faithfulness is the teaching of Yeshua’s faithfulness on the cross; by His faithfulness, Yahweh showed mercy in forgiving full compensation, and in reducing the punitive penalty to the substitute. 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. In this sense, His faithfulness equals His righteousness, which He is giving to us.

§3.28.1 Let’s return to the example of the balances with two pans, one on the right and one on the left. The balance only balances (across a fulcrum) when equal weights are in each of the two pans. The left pan is for the the debt, and the right pan, represents payment for the defendant. When the pans are justified, the defendant is regarded (counted) to be justiced (given justice). If the pans cannot be justiced, then the defendant is taken away and justiced with his own eternal death.

First the judge weights down the left side of the scale with the defendents debts. He places the weight called absolute compensation¹ for compensatory justice, and another weight for punitive justice² called eternal death. The right pan rises and the left pan descends so that the balance of justice is unjustified. 1. The first defendant pleaded innocent, and had nothing to offer. He was taken away to be justiced. 2. The second defendant pleaded guilty, and offered his good works to pay his debt. They weren’t enough. He was taken away to be justified. 3. The third defendant offered the judge a fraudulent weight called Messiah’s good deeds. But even with the fraudulent weight the balances wouldn’t justify with absolute compensation. He was taken away to be justified.

1. There are two forms of justice to be considered. The first is compensating the victims of sin by restoring everything that we caused them to loose. For example, when Adam sinned, his sin led to the eternal death of many because the many were taught to be disloyal to Yahweh by his sin. They did not, or could not repent, and because of this Yahweh cannot undo this particular effect of sin. Our wrong behaviour contributes to our fellow human beings rejection of the Almighty. To compensate for this wrong, then, would require reversing this result, something that the Scripture makes clear cannot be done.

2. Punitive justice is a penalty not for compensation, but it is assigned for pain and suffering caused that cannot be undone. It’s purpose is deterrence, to cause the sinner not to engage in the sinful activity any more. With the unrepentant the only sort of punitive justice that will deter them is eternal death.

The final defendant committed himself to the righteousness of Yahweh to do justly¹. So he pleads guilty and prays for a pardon. Yahweh answers the prayer with mercy, forgiving² (by lifting it off the scale) the weight called absolute compensation. Also he replaces the weight called eternal death with one called substitionary payment. Yahweh then removes the robes of his glory showing himself as Messiah Yeshua with the nail prints and the side wound, and places a weight called My death into the right hand pan of the scale. Then the repentant sinnner is counted to be justiced (justified), and shown to the way to the tree of life.

3:28.2 At each step in justifying the repentant (בעל תשובה) Yahweh’s justice is to act with mercy, 1. by not requiring payment of absolute compensation, 2. by commuting eternal death to substitionary payment, and 3. by revealing Himself as Messiah Yeshua and making the final payment. With these three steps of mercy, Yahweh administers justice, justifies, justices, does justice for, or gives justice³ to the repentant. To do justice with mercy is the outcome of Yahweh’s righteousness⁴ in this case.

4. Yahweh’s righteousness is justice, and His justice is his righteousness. He determines when it is righteous (just) to show mercy, and when it is righteous (just) to punish the unrepentant.

3:28.3 Justice is administered without works. Notice at no time were works placed in the balance. The works of the torah (law) were not placed in the balance because the sinners good deeds would not justify with eternal death or absolute compensation. (To be sure, the Judge is not going to mercifully remove those debts from the balance as long as the sinner tries to provide his own justice.) Further, not even the works of Messiah are placed in the balance. Imagining this to be so would be fraudulent justice. Nor were even the customary works, or ritual norms placed in the balance (= prayer, fasting, and alms for Jews).

Only one work (not works) was needed on the right side of the balance! And that is the work of Messiah on the cross. And this work was not of the “customary” sort—it was an unusual work, a work outside the normal deeds (ἔργων νόμου). Further, not even the one work was our work. It was Yahweh’s saving work.

3:28.4 Now, one is “counted” or “reckoned” to be justiced without works. The term λογιζόμεθα (present middle) is an accounting term. Theologians sometimes translate the term “imputed”. In the middle voice, it means “we ourselves count”. This reckoning is no more or less than agreement with the divine reckoning. We are justiced by faithfulness, which is to say by the faithfulness of Yahweh, 1. by upholding his covenant faithfulness to show mercy, and 2. by His faithfulness on the cross for the final step of mercy. “Faithfulness” as used in this context is not our faithfulness because this would be works, nor is it His faithfulness becoming our faithfulness, because this happens in conjuction with our obedience—also works (cf. Jer. 31:32; Deut. 30:6).

3:28.5 Reformed theology claims that δικαιοῦσθαι means “being declared righteous” (justiced, justified). It proposed that Christ’s good works, his obedience to the Torah throught his life, and all his righteousness from eternity are placed in one side of the balance and that the balance justifies with compensatory justice and eternal death still on the other side of the balance. Somehow, Messiah’s temporary death is equated with eternal death, and somehow his righteous deeds are able to make full compensation. Such a view approaches logical consistency if and only if universalism is true! Sin can only be truly compensated if the wicked can be restored to faithfulness. Reformed theology still has works in the balance of justice, even if they be Christ’s works. Since this is an attempt to satisfy justice by compensation for sin, it is a fraudulent justice.

2. Justification. According to Scripture usage, to be just or justified may mean no more than to be free from guilt or innocent of any charge....We thus conclude that divine justification is not a mere removal of personal sins by forgiveness, but it is rather a divine decree wich declares the believer to be eternally clothed with the righteousness of God...which is equitable to an infinite degree...It is so harmonious to divine jurisprudence that God is said to be just when He justifies a sinner...Divine justification, being legally equitable, will be defended by God to the end of eternity. (Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pg. 273, 278).

Wayne Grudem senses the problem: “One sometimes hears the popular explanation that justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ ” (Systematic Theology, pg. 727, note 4). But then he contradicts himself on page 732 in the personal application section: “Are you confident that God has declared you ‘not guilty’ forever in his sight? ... If you think of yourself standing before God on the day of judgment would you think that it is enough simply to have your sins all forgiven, or would you also feel a need to have the righteousness of Christ reckoned to your account?” Returning to pg. 727: “...because I will aways be conscious of the fact that I have sinned and that I am not an innocent person but a guilty person who has been forgiven...Moreover, it is different from ‘just as if I had lived a life of perfect righteousness,’ ”

So they contradict themselves. The only reason the doctrine of forensic imputed righteousness was foisted on the Scriptures in the first place was to satisfy philosophical assumptions of equitable justice, the kind of justice that a righteous person receives in court when acquitted of a crime. But a pardon is a pardon, and an acquittal is an acquittal. They are two different forms of justice, and they are opposed to one another. There is no need for one who is pardoned to have a legalistic righteousness on the accounting books that is not his own.

But there is a need for the pardoned to turn to righteousness and live righteously after receiving the pardon!

3:28.7 It is possible to interpret vs. 28 another way, but only under restricted definitions of the key phrases. If “customary works” is limited to those works which would be done for the purpose of satisfying the divine penalties on the balance, say for example “some works of the law” (MMT) or the Jewish teaching that prayer and alams substitute for the sacrifices, or say Roman Catholic penances aimed at reducing purgatory time, then we may gain the following sense: Paul considers a person to be given righteousness [made righteous] by faithfulness [Yahweh’s faithfulness becoming our faithfulness] apart from customary [penance type] works.

§3:29 Paul has shown that the pardon (forgiveness) depends on mercy toward the repentant. It does not depend on election, nor does it depend on the ability of the elect to somehow place works in the balances. It does not depend on an acquitted status, or innocent righteous status before the Judge. It does not depend on Yahweh being compensated with absolute equity. It only depends on entering a guilty plea and asking for mercy agreeing to turn away from transgression. Therefore, predestination as a member of the chosen people does not determine who will be saved, and who will not be saved. Salvation is for the supposedly non-elect just as much as the supposedly elect. True chosenness is based on commitment to Messiah Yeshua.

§3:30.1 Chosenness is based on faithfulness! First it is His faithfulness expressed in his covenant mercy by which he administers justice to us, and then, on the other hand, our faithfulness to appropriate His faithfulness, and not only just his faithfulness in mercy, but also to lay hold of his righteousness nature through our obedience to His commandments. For the just shall live by faithfulness—both His and ours.

3:30.2 Paul says “the faithfulness” at the end of the verse, marking faithfulness with the word “the”. He is referring to the covenant faithfulness, both His and our response.

§3:31 Paul means “the covenant faithfulness” (τῆς πίστεως) when using the article “the”. By establish (ἱστάνομεν), he means “makes to be stood up” (מְקַיְּמִ֥ים). This is related to Deut. 27:26, “Cursed be he that does not make stand (יָקִים) the words of this Torah to do them”. The LXX has the word “stand by” in Greek (ἐμμενεῖ); cf. BDAG, 3rd, “2. persevere in, stand by” (pg. 322). The repentant person upholds the Torah, and remains in it; he does not become lawless or antinomian. Paul quotes in Gal. 3:11, “Cursed is everyone who does not stand by all things written in the book of the Torah, to do them.” He does not mean someone who fails by circumstance or ignorance. He means someone who will not uphold the Torah, someone who will not be faithful to Yahweh by rebelling against it.

§4:1.1 Paul addresses his audience inclusively with “our forefather”; his audience was a mixture of Jewish and non-Jewish faithful. Considering his address, his audience, and his theology, he is including the non-Jewish faithful in Messiah as sons of Abraham (cf. Gal. 3:29; Eph. 2:12-19). Considering also that he finishes chapter 3, including the non-Jew by faithfulness, Paul is designating Abraham as the father of the non-Jewish faithful.

It was a widespread belief that Jews regarded their descent from Abraham as salvific (cf. John 8:33; Mat. 3:9; 2Cor 11:22). In the Rabbinic theology, Abraham's righteousness was considered meritorious for the salvation of his descendants: “In the ‘olam haba [age to come] Israel will sing a new song, as it is said, ‘Sing unto Adonai a new song, for he has done marvelous things’ (Psalm 98:1). By whose z’hut [merit] will they do so? By the merit of Avraham, because he trusted in the Holy One, blessed be he, as it says, ‘And he trusted in Adonai’ (Genesis 15:6)” (Exodus Rabbah 23:5).¹But Paul will show that it depends on faithfulness. Abraham's merit will not keep the transgressor a son of Abraham, only faithfulness will, and only the truly faithful have Abraham as their father.

The verb "found" suggestes an implicit idea of "to find [favor]"; it is used this way in Gen. 18:3, “When pray now I findeth favor in your eyes”. What did Abraham “make to be found”² in the flesh? He found “favor”! The word flesh here is used as synonymous with ‘in the context of the sinful body’. Abraham found favor with the Almighty One, even though he was in a sinful body. Paul will further answer this question in his exposition of Genesis 15:6 by connecting it with faithfulness in two ways. One way will be according to works, and the other without works, and related to our sinfulness.

4:1.2 Paul says “according to the flesh” because he wants us to focus on Abraham’s failures as well as his good deeds. Flesh suggests the ‘sinful body’— Abraham was an imperfect man. Paul will show that imperfect people who commit to Yeshua to love and obey him will also receive mercy from Yahweh (cf. Exodus 20:6; John 14:21; 15:10; 1John 2:3). The imperfect person can "find [favor]" in Yahweh's eyes through faithfulness (Eph. 2:8-9), as Abraham discovered ‘according to the flesh’, and as we can read that he did find favor though imperfect, both according to works and without works, and neither a matter of self praise to the Almighty.

†4:1.3 Dunn, pg. 199, is incorrect to think that by “our forefather” that Paul may only resuming dialogue with a Jewish interlocutor, and though he cites the preceeding and following contexts as favoring the inclusion of the non-Jewish believer under the title, his theology demands a denial of non-Jewish identity with Israel . Stern, pg. 353 commits the same mistake, “his hypothetical Jewish questioner...a second quesiton.” This error is put to rest in vs. 11, “so that he might be the father of all who commit by way of uncircumcision.”

§4:2.1 The text should say “when Abraham be‘eth given righteousness” and not “if”. The Greek εἰ term means “when” as a Hebraism from אִם. See notes on 2:25.3. What is conditional is only the time at which he is righteous by works. The antinomians insist on “if” because they wish to make the entire statement into a hypothetical point¹ merely so Paul can derive an argument from it. They want to deny that anyone is ever righteous by works, particularly the Torah. James, however, says that Abraham was righteous by works, “a man is righteous from works” (James 2:24). And we can cite the Torah itself that doing it “shall be our righteousness” (cf. Deut. 6:25). Paul himself said, “the doers of the Torah will be made righteous” (Rom. 2:13).

1. cf. Dunn, Romans, pg. 201, "But he poses it as a theoretical possibility only to deny its central affirmation completely: in relation to God boasting such as characterizes his fellow Jews has no place, because righteousness is not “from works”. On the contrary, like many other first class conditions, Paul is not only assuming the statement for argument, he assumes the reality of it also. The Greek word εἰ does not lexicalize the reality of the condition, but it allows for it. It is the Scriptural context that shows that the reality of the condition is assumed in the argument.

4:2.2 I have translated the verb δικαιόω as “be‘eth given righteousness” very close to the Hebrew, which equally means “be‘eth given justice.”² The Greek sense would be “be‘eth justiced”, and the sense is “to administer righteousness/justice to”. Firstly, the verb is passive meaning if Abraham is charged in wrongdoing (hypothetically) in a matter where he did no wrong, then his works prove him right. He is acquitted. For example, if Abraham takes none of the plunder from his victory over the king of Shinar (Gen. 14:22-24), and later he is charged with enriching himself from the Sodomites, then he will be justified, or “proved right”, because took none of it.

So, with limitations, it would be possible for Abraham to acquit himself. But it would not be possible before Yahweh taking his whole life into account. Then he could not plead innocent. So he cannot “boast”, literally “praise himself” to Yahweh. That would be pride, in any case, considering where all righteousness comes from.

2. For the explanation of the teneless nature of Greek, and the aorist passive as timeless “be‘eth” instead of “was”, see Verbal Aspect in the Greek New Testatament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Stanley E. Porter. Note also that English verbs in past tense “form” when used with the present passive are only timeless participles, e.g. in "he was weakened" and "he is weakened", or even "he will be weakened", the "ed" does not mark past tense. It only makes the verb a participle. So the English reader should realize that the "ed" marker grammaticalizes tense only in other constructions.

Secondly, the text suggests “be‘eth given righteousness”, which is not an external application of justice or declaration justification and innocence, but an internal corrective. The Greek sense can suggest the straightening of something out, i.e. making it right. In this case the works come from Yahweh, and are given to Abraham to do. So Abraham does the righteousness that he is given. Abraham only cooperates with Yahweh because he is faithful to Yahweh and loves Yahweh. So again he cannot praise himself, but must credit the Almighty as the source of the righteousness. So, Abraham is not just “proved right by works”, he “be‘eth made righteous” by the Almighty.

So in any case Abraham cannot, or should not praise himself to Yahweh. The Roman Catholics make a correct and honest case for “made righteous”, but they, like the Protestants, neglect the tenseless nature of the Greek.³ It is “be‘eth made/given righteous/ness”. The text is not suggesting that Abraham was made perfect. The aorist ἐδικαιώθη is teaching that something happens, and by interpreting scripture with scripture, we know that being given righteousness is not completed until the age to come—until the second coming of Messiah (1Cor. 15:52; Lev. 16:30; Gal. 5:5).

3. See Porter, McKay, Campbell. The traditionalists are most unwilling to yeild to the results of solid linguistic research into Greek “tense”. This is because much of their theological hegemony depends on corrupting the temporal relations of theological passages. Wallace accuses the teneless theory of problems (Exegetical Syntax, pg. 510), but his objections were adquately dealt with by Rodney J. Decker, “Verbal Aspect in Recent Debate: Objections to Porter's Non-Temporal View of the Verb”.

†4:2.3 Dunn, and others struggle with the fact that “justified” appears to be a contradiction to 3:20. If only they would consider that in 3:20 the root means “to administer justice” “to justice” and that in the present text it means, “to be righteous”; but even without this, the sense “is justified” will do in both texts, since Paul says in the former text, “before Him”, and in this text “but not before the Almighty”! Paul means as a matter of trial seeking an acquittal, not as a matter of mere recognition by Yahweh that Abraham did righteousness through good works. “Before Him” must be taken in the specific sense of on trial before Yahweh's court, and not in the general sense that he never sees righteousness.

Other’s attempt to fix the problem by arguing righteousness before men on the one hand, and righteousness before God on the other. But this overgeneralizes the context of “before God”, which is to be limited to the heavenly court, and not how we are seen in general. We are vindicated “before Him” by our good works outside of the divine court, just not in court. But the reason that such an obvious solution is glossed over is that Churchianity has come to the point where they never want to acknowledge that any good works consititute righteousness before Him.

David Stern's translation of this passage is horrible, “if Avraham came to be considered righteous by God because of legalistic observances, then he has something to boast about. But this is not how it is before God!” (pg. 1406, The Complete Jewish Bible). All the underlined words are added or extraneous. And the bolded words are mistranslated! All this to villify that good works constitute righteousness for most interpreters. To Stern's credit, this not his motive, but he was forced into it by a one sided Protestant definition of “justify” = “to declare righteous” as the outcome of the divine trial, though he recognizes “be made righteous” elsewhere. Shullam does much better. Abraham was righteous by works, and could in theory have a boast, but not in theory before the Almighy at trial, and elsewhere did he even make the boast? Not at all. He only uses a tenative, “If pray now I findeth favor in your eyes” (Gen. 18:3). Then Shullam cites Jer. 9:23-24 on page 160.

†4:2.4 Dunn lists quite a number of references to the Jewish argument that Abraham was righteous by works (pg. 200). Paul is not even concerned with denying this. With his fellow Jews, it was irrefutable. Paul just wants to get a word in edgwise about how Yahweh will administer justice without works, since works will not balance out at trial. He will administer it by showing mercy.

Further, Paul is not denying that Abraham’s faithful response was of no consequence to his seed. By all means it was. Paul states so in Rom. 11:28. Dunn claims, “Paul serverly questions the association of πίστις and works as the way to interpret Gen 15:6, James affirms the association and remains much more within the tradition which Paul here questions” (pg. 201). That this is nonsense, we shall shortly see. Paul is merely bringing up an equally valid interpretation along with the traditional to explain the good news.

§4:3.1 To embrace the righteousness being given from Yahweh, Abraham must cooperate with it. He must commit to Him, and support Yahweh. This commitment is the one thing that the Almighty One explicitly points out is righteousness in Abraham. The loyalty comes from Abraham, because Abraham chooses to love and obey. It is a cooperative loyalty, to be sure, and this prevents Abraham from praising himself.

4:3.2 The Hebrew הֶֽאֱמִ֤ין = give support. The verb is related to the feminine noun “faithfulness”. The Torah says וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ = then he considered it. The suffix “it” הָ, at the end of the word is feminine. It refers to the verb הֶֽאֱמִ֤ין = give support. What is counted as righteousness? It is Abraham’s support, loyalty, commitment to Yahweh that is counted as righteousness. This is the one thing that Yahweh singled out to ponder or think about. The verb חָשַב means to esteem, think on, ponder, suppose, reckon, calculate. Abraham could be good to Sarah, or do good deeds for his son, but what was most notably righteousness in Yahweh’s eyes was his loyalty to the Almighty, a fact proved again at the binding of Isaac, as Abraham chose to obey Yahweh over keeping his son.

4:3.3 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 πιστεύω. אָמַן 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. The sense entrust would be a dynamic equivalent though not exact translation, and it is very difficult to get both sides of the semantic ambiguity to make sense in English with just one translation.

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 establish a legal foundation for being perfect in God’s eyes, as if justice were administered this way for the faithful, which it is not. 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, to be completed in the age to come.

4:3.4 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, which I will get to in a bit after reviewing the normal sense, and the foundation for the normal sense. The “it” here is הָ, which is feminine, refers back to the verbal idea at the start of the text: “And he giveth support in Yahweh”:

The reason the suffix is feminine is that “give support” (הֶאֱמִין) is feminine in the form of the noun אֱמוּנָה (= faithfulness, supportiveness). So normally the “it” refers to Abraham’s faithfulness. This is what was counted as righteousness.

The remez (a hint), רֶמֶז, Paul saw was that the text actually teaches support both ways. “He maketh/findeth support in Yahweh”; So Abraham is putting his support on Yahweh’s support. This possibility is strongly supported by the use of the preposition בְּ (in, on) connected to the divine name. If the preposition is taken as locative, then the sense is “he maketh support on Yahweh”, i.e. Yahweh is his support. On the other hand, if the preposition is abstract, “he maketh support into/in connection to Yahweh”. The latter, of course, is the usual sense of taking this phrase. However, Paul drags out the locative force of בְּ (in, on) in vs. 5 by translating ἐπὶ (upon). Thus, like the וֹ (him) on the end of אֱמוּנַתוֹ in Hab. 2:4, the הָ (it, 3fs) at the end of the verb in Gen. 15:6 has two references, either Abraham’s faithfulness or Yahweh’s faithfulness.¹

1. This is by no means Rabbinic exegesis. The hint is gained directly from the syntax of the context giving it an objective basis.

The Hebrew: וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ is imperfect, i.e. “And he will be counting it”; Paul turns this around to focus on Yahweh’s faithfulness. Abraham “findeth support on Yahweh”, and “it” refers to the one supporting. This is roughly the same as "to entrust" or "to commit oneself to". Only Abraham is committing himself to Yahweh's faithfulness. Now Yahweh's faithfulness is transferred to Abraham as his loyalty expresses itself in righteousness. This is connected with works. In order to see where works must be left aside, we have to see what Paul saw in the word צְדָקָה: justice.

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 commuting of the judicial penalty, by mercy, to a substitute, and then counting this penalty as paid in full—without works. So far, Paul 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, in vs. 1-3. In vs. 4-6 he proceeds to show where Yahweh’s faithfulness to us is without our works. He is going to expand Gen. 15:6 by remez (hint) to include justice (in the judicial sense) in the meaning of צְדָקָה.

Abraham "maketh support on Yahweh, and then He reckoned it [Yahweh's support] for justice". It might sound odd to find Messiah's atonement in Genesis 15:6, but then then again, in the wake of Romans 1-3, and Habakkuk 2:4, and Paul's explanation of the "faithfulness of Messiah" it is compelling.

4:3.5 However, Paul does not disagree with the standard Jewish exegesis of Gen. 15:6. Abraham's faithfulness was counted as righteousness. This is pointed out by comparison to the binding of Isaac, by citing the same wording applied to Phinehas in Psalm 106:31, who slew the Midianite (cf. Num. 25:6-13). The text is cited the same way James 2:21 cites it in 1Maccabees 2:52, “Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness?” Similarly, Jub. 30:17-19 and Philo Leg. 3:228; Immut. 4; Migr. 44; Heres 90-95). “Πίστις would be taken in the sense of ‘faithfulness’ by most Jews, and quite properly so in terms of common usage” (Dunn, Romans, pg. 204).

What Paul wants to establish is that Yahweh's faithfulness in Yeshua is also part of faithfulness. Paul desires to to show that the texts also teache that Abraham made his support on Yahweh—that this implies that Yahweh is the one who supports, and that this support will be counted for justice, starting with Yahweh doing justice through Yeshua's death, and ending with him making us righteous out of His own righteousness. So Paul does not deny the traditional Jewish exegesis of Gen. 15:6. He is only expanding on it, and finding what it was fully intended to mean, just like Hab. 2:4.

†4.3.6 Remarkably, it seems like for Dunn, the only “Scripture” for the Church is Paul. This would be in common with Marcion; for he can dismiss James as contradictory to Paul, and then he can state, “Jewish exposition of the verse by reference to Abraham’s faithfulness to God’s command in Gen 22 would be assisted by Ps 106 [LXX 105]:31 where Phinehas’s zeal (for the law) is commended and the same phrase is used: καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην [and it be‘eth counted to him for righteousness]. For Phinehas was held forth as the ideal of zealous devotion to Israel ’s covenant with Yahweh, as one who had preserved Israel ’s exclusiveness and separateness from the other nations (Num 25:6-13);” (pg. 202). The argument is so conclusive, that it would be better to change one’s interpretation of Paul than to hold Psalm 106 in common with Gnostic rejection of Yahweh. But for scholars like Dunn, telling his fellow scholars that he knows about Ps. 106:31 is enough to avoid having them foil his Church interpretation of Gen. 15:6 with it. For, they also cannot harmonize Paul with it, and the overriding paradigm is the one introduced by the heretic Marcion: the Scriptures for covenant Israel are not the Scriptures for non-Jewish followers of Yeshua. So know one cares to be intellectually honest, or to put it another way, everyone is too comfortable in their chairs to put the traditional paradigmn to the test, find it wanting, and then suffer for it.

†4.3.7 The “New Perspective on Paul”, as they call it says that “to be ‘righteous’ is to be not so much acceptable to God as accepted by God—righteousness as the status which God accorded to his covenant people” (Dunn, 203). This sort of ambiguous concept, “a status of righteousness” is a not so transparent attempt to bridge the yawning abyss between the Torah and Prophets on the one hand, and the Church’s theology on the other, as to what makes a person righteous in Yahweh’s sight. The Scriptures say, “faithfulness”, and the Church says one is “declared righteous through faith [without works]”. Either view is a “righteous status”, but they are poles apart, and the ambiguity is aiding the theology that says Jews are saved by Israel ’s covenant, and the non-Jews by some other “new covenant”. Why did this theology come about? Because, the Church cannot denigrate Jewish people any longer the way they did before. To do so, is to push more non-Jews over to the Jewish perspective, since the Jewish opinion can no longer be effectively shut up. Therefore, the more liberal benign “New Perspecitive” allows covenantal nomism for Jews, but denies it for the non-Jew, and in the end leaves the Jew without Messiah, and the non-Jew without Torah, just as before.

“The New Perspective” in short is remorse for being so mean to Judah without solving the issues that caused the conflict in the first place.

§4:4.1 Verses 4-5 in the corrupted versions make it sound like two different people are being considered, “Now to him that worketh....But to him that worketh not....”. Or, the texts make it appear that two different theologies are being considered, one heretical, and one orthodox. Nothing of this sort is necessary from the Greek.

Paul is considering two different situations in the same person. He is talking about a faithful person who does what he knows what is right. The person does not transgress, yet the person stumbles due to ignorance and circumstance. When the person stumbles according to ignorance and circumstance, this is called “with respect to not working”, and when the person does what is right and does not transgress, then this is called “in respect to working”. What Paul wishes to give us, is two different theological perspectives on Gen. 15:6, both equally valid.

The Dative of Reference/Respect τῷ...ἐργαζομένῳ, לַּפֹּעֵ֔ל = in respect to working, fits here (cf. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, pg. 144). Paul is referencing the two cases, one where justice is administered on the basis of good works. This is rewarding the debt, or what is owed, as would only be just, and the other case is one where justice is administered without works, because the justice administered will be mercy. There is no word for the “one” or the “man” or “he who” works in the text. The text is simply the dative article connected to a present participle, literally, “in the working...in the not working”;

4.4.2 In the doing of good works we are rewarded both according to loving kindness AND debt. That’s because the Almighty helps us to do the good works, and rewards them beyond what they really deserve. But some of the reward is really deserved on the basis of pure fairness.

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 just only a rewardable debt. We also obtained it by loving kindness. For this reason the conjunction finishes the sentence, “unless as a debt”, i.e. ἀλλὰ = אֶלָּא = if not, unless. We run into this Pauline use of an Aramaism¹ in Greek frequently. In this case, if not = unless also. Righteousness appropriated by our faithfulness is rewardable by debt.

1. It was an Aramaism that was firmly borrowed into the first century Hebrew vernacular, and also into Palestinian Greek. A form of proto-Mishnaic Hebrew was spoken in some Jewish communities, and Aramaic in others. Studious and pious Jews would have learned the Hebrew as a vernacular, but borrowed certain phrases and usages from the Aramaic side. After the Babylonian exile, the Jews returned speaking Aramaic, however, like modern Israel , Hebrew would have been revived quite quickly, and certainly after a century would have become vernacular in many quarters.

§4:5.1 Once again, 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. These verses are talking about two different aspects of obtaining righteousness/justice in the faithful person. Hence the translation is, “in the working ...in the not working”. Paul is describing his explanation of Genesis 15:6 in two ways, in a way that involves works, and in a way that does not involve works.

In this verse, Paul completes his additional interpretation of Genesis 15:6. 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) is the administered justice. We put our support on the one justicing us. We, the ungodly, who repent and commit to Him, are justiced by His faithfulness. Our judicial penalty is paid for us. The words τὸν δικαιοῦντα = the one justicing, or administering justice. The object of the phrase is לָרָשָׁ֔ע τὸν ἀσεβῆ = the ungodly. Paul chose this word because he wants to make sure that those who were¹ transgressors are included. Messiah pays the penalty for transgression, or former sins of rebellion.

1. The actual phrase “justicing the ungodly” is best understood as an assumption that the committed/faithful person makes. Yahweh justices the ungodly—in the negative sense of punishing them, therefore in light of this truth, his justice must be mercifully satisfied through the substitute, through the faithfulness of Yeshua, for those committing to Him.

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. So with respect to justice without works, it is His faithfulness, but with respect to righteousness by works, it is our commitment working with His faithfulness.

4.5.2 The Greek word δικαιόω means “to administer justice”. The definition is simplified in BDAG 3rd, “1. take up a legal cause [case], show justice, do justice, take up a cause [case] ...” (pg. 249). The citations show that “administer justice” is exactly what the word means, “’you will (find it necessary to) take up your own cause’ = you will sit in judgment on yourselves” (ibid.), but the influence of Lutheranism is evident in suppressing the full definition, which is made more explicit in other Lexicons, e.g. Liddell and Scott, 1968 sup. “brought to justice”. So to “do justice” refers to the Judge administering justice. He must do justice in the case.

Now to do justice normally means to punish the sinner and to acquit the righteous. What we may remark on is the different senses of δικαιόω. In its second definition, it may mean “vindicate” or “justify” in the sense of declaring the defendant righteous. Here is the key text from the LXX: καὶ οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων (Exo 23:7 LXT) = and not you will justify the wicked for the sake of a gift. In the Hebrew, however, we have: לֹא־אַצְדִּ֖יק רָשָֽׁע׃ (Exo 23:7 WTT) = not I will make righteous [the] wicked. This usage then is exactly opposite Paul’s, “δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ” = “justicing the ungodly”. So Paul is not justifying the wicked. Rather he is justicing them, either by mercy or judgment.

§4:6.1 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.

4:6.2 Justice is credited without works. This means that the judge administers justice without putting any good deeds in the balance. Only Yeshua’s paid penalty goes in the sinners side of the balance. That’s one good deed by Yeshua (cf. Rom 5:18 δι᾽ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος = through one righteous deed), and the point is that it is not deeds (plural), but just one good deed. Therefore, there are no “works” in the balance at all—not even “imputed righteousness”. Messiah's payment is “one righteous deed.” This would be rather pedantic if it were not for the fact that Reformed theology puts Christs works on the balance, and not just his one righteous deed.

4:6.3 This would be a good place to define the relation of works to salvation in the broader context. When justice is administered to the faithful, their works are not on the balances. What ended up on the balance was simply the one work of Messiah's payment of the penalty, and this was sufficient to equal the remaining judicial penalty on the other side of the balance—which had been reduced to substitutionary penalty, a severe reduction of what the sinner owed from eternal death and compensatory justice. So there were three steps of justice administered by mercy without works: 1. removal of the requirement to compensate for wrongs that could not be compensated (undone), and 2. commuting eternal death to substititionary death, and 3. payment of the substitutionary death by Messiah.

Now we must define that which disposes the judge to administer justice this way in the first place instead of “justicing the sinner” in the negative sense, i.e. making him pay the fullest possible penalty. The answer to this is not the sum of the faithful persons past good deeds. Rather it is the abiding commitment (faithfulness) to Yahweh in the heart, to love him and do righteousness, and to depend on his justice—which is synonymous with trusting the judge to administer justice by way of mercy. I will talk about this again in Romans 10:10, and this is somewhat ahead of the program, but it should be mentioned serveral times: Yahweh will administer mercy in justice for those who repent and commit to Him, to love and obey him. That is the contingiency, and that is the side of the covenant for which the faithful are responsible.

Now antinomian Churchianity would have us believe that the notion of the judge being disposed to mercy due to the repentant commitment of the faithful is an idea that will surely damm those who hold this opinion to Hell fire. Their test to eliminate those from their midst who hold to the truth is to reject them as brothers if either some express this idea, or do any parts of the Torah (through commitment to Yahweh) which they deem to be “evidence” of this opinion. Therefore, in the words of John they “hate” their brothers’ in Messiah. John turns this around to say that if they hate their brother then they are “in darkness even until now” (1John 2:9), and “whosover hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1Jo 3:15 KJV). This, then, is how we know who is false, and who really belongs to Messiah despite their ignorance. If they reject us, then they are showing their hatred. If they only disagree with us, but do not reject us, then they may be saved though they be a weak brother.

Now, I go on to the broader context of Paul and “works”, so summarize the correct perspective on some key texts. Paul is concerned to say that we enter into a saved estate immediately upon understanding of the good news and commitment to Messiah. This of course includes the desire to repent, to forsake, and abhor sin. It's abiding validity is dependent on loyalty to Yahweh and a subsequent life showing the fruits of that commitment. However, the saved state begins with the commitment in the light of the good news. The commitment is not invalidated if the faithful sins through ignorance or circumstance, but only if the faithful rebels against the Almighty, and this indeed will suspend the application of Messiah's forgiveness.

So, in Eph. 2:8, by “salvation” Paul means deliverance from the penalty of sin, and he means the same in Eph. 2:9. But he does mention the contingiency of “through faithfulness”¹ in vs. 8. In Rom. 9:11, he means that the initial “call” to salvation is by mercy. This is not to say that a faithful response to the “call” is not required. In Rom. 9:32, these “works” are those supposed to go on the divine balances, or such works as might be required as a substitute for heart commitment to Yahweh, and are claimed to ensure a saved status. We can list a sampling of these substititionary frauds for abiding faithfulness: being circumcised, being declared Jewish by the right rabbi, baptism, speaking in tongues, a moment of belief, having the right doctrines, saying the sacred name, and so on.

1. What follows, "and this not of ye" grammatically refers to being saved by loving kindness. It does not say the "through faithfulness" part is not from the faithful one.

In Rom. 11:6, Paul is saying the election of the remnant is by loving kindness and not by the works of the remnant. “Election” is synonymous with effective deliverance from the penalty of sin, and national preservation from its destructive results. The “works” of the elect cannot achieve either result. Only the work of Messiah can achieve it. Again, Paul is not negating the good works resulting from commitment to Messiah. He only wants to keep the contingient requirement of the faithful response in its proper humble place in relation to His work.

In Gal. 3:2, Paul means “customary works”, or such works of the Torah that the Rabbis or Pharisees might require to be passed before allowing the new convert to be included in the elect, such works as listed above, as a substitute for heart commitment to Yahweh, and are claimed to ensure a saved status. One receives the Spirit with a heart commitment to Yahweh, not by works that are given as substitutes for heart commitment. I could go on, but I think I've made the point clear enough for the present.

§4:7.1 This text is quoted from Ps. 32:1. But it should not read “forgiven”. The Greek word ἀφίημι means “1. let go, send away, 2. cancel, remit, pardon”. It would not agree with the Hebrew or good theology to use def. no. 2. The Hebrew word is נְֽשׂוּי = pQpms-c = being carried away of, which is from the root נָשַׂא = to lift/carry away. Hebrew has another word for forgive: וְ״נִ׳סְלַ֥ח (Lev 4:20) = and be‘eth forgiven. The point is crucial here because David’s transgression (פֶּ֗שַׁע), translated lawlessnesses (ἀνομίαι) in the Greek versions could not be atoned for by the Levitical offering (cf. Num. 15:22-31). David knew the Torah well enough to use the word נְֽשׂוּי, refering to the fact that his transgression was lifted off him through repentance and carried away into the wilderness where it would await Yeshua’s offering, by which the actual forgiveness would be given later. Therefore he does not use the verb סָלַח.

4:7.2 The phrase “whose sins are covered”. This expresses the idea of “lift” or “carry” away with a synonymous word. This is not saying the penalty was canceled, but the matter was “covered” in the English sense “I’ve will cover it [take care of it]”.

^v8 “Blessed is the man whose ^asin Yahweh will not dwell on.”^b	^ח ”אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי אָדָ֗ם לֹ֤א יַחְשֹׁ֬ב יַהוֶ֣ה ל֣וֹ עָוֹ֑ן^“א׃
8 a MT = iniquity \| b Ps. 32:2.	ח׳א = Ps. 32:2׃

§4:8 לֹ֤א יַחְשֹׁ֬ב = will not dwell on = λογίσηται < λογίζομαι = “think (about), consider, ponder, let one’s mind dwell on” (BDAG, 3rd, def. 2). The verb in an aorist subjunctive in Greek, but imperfect in Hebrew. This suggests a final future fulfillment according to which Yahweh saith;

For I will forgive with respect to their iniquity, and with respect to their sin, I will no more remember.

But it is doubtful that David was thinking eschatologically when he wrote these words, it is more likely that יַחְשֹׁ֬ב meant “will not dwell on”, or “will not think about” in David’s present. This is for two reasons. a. David knew that he was not being condmened because Yahweh let him live, and b. David knew that transgressions were symbollically removed by the scapegoat, though not formally forgiven. So the sin was put out of sight. לֹ֤א יַחְשֹׁ֬ב would, then, not imply a total absolute forgetting, but only a “not dwelling on”. Formal forgiveness, and formal forgetting has to conincide with Messiah's first and second comings.

§4:9 Paul is speaking about the physically circumcised here and the physically uncircumcised. This is because he is overturning the Jewish doctrine of election, namely that being or becoming an ethnic Jew makes one a member of the elect. This doctrine, of course, was disconnected from faithfulness by the Jews. Even today the Jews believe they are the elect, and that it does not matter if they transgress the Torah. So long as they are Rabbinically defined Jewish, they are in the kingdom.

Paul introduces a very important doctrinal statement, a summary of everything he has said before, “be’eth credited to Avraham the faithfulness as righteousness.” Paul has described a crediting by works, and a crediting without works, a crediting including merit, and a crediting without merit based only on mercy. He credits His faithfulness as justice, which sums up the work of Messiah to pay the penalty. He credits Abraham’s faithfulness as righteousness.

Paul’s carefully worded statement uses a gnomic aorist passive, “be’eth credited”. The purpose is to state it as a timeless principle, a universal truth for the remnant of Israel . This is possible because חָשַׁב in Gen. 15:6, (וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ = then, he was counting it, or then, he will count it) stands in the imperfect. As such it covers all future fulfillments of the principle. This is quite clearly indicated by James application to the binding of Isaac, which was some years later than the making of the covenant.

With this understood, Gen. 15:6 states the principle of salvation. It states that inclusion in the covenant is by faithfulness, which is counted as t’daqah, that is righteousness or justice, depending on whether we look at the righteousness of the faithful, or the justice of Yahweh. Now as the world trade language, English separates the notions of personal righteousness and justice into two words. Hebrew, Greek, and Latin based languages do not do this. This is both a hinderance and a help. Having the two concepts separated in English helps us talk about justice in Messiah without works, and righteousness by works. On the other hand, the translators, not knowing Paul’s meaning have often failed to get it right, or have failed to point out when the other meaning is possible.

§4:10.1 Since salvation is conditioned on faithfulness, which Abraham manifested well before being circumcised, and since the covenant was made before he was circumcised, it is quite clear that inclusion in remnant Israel is by faithfulness only.

4:10.2 Notice again the conjunction “unless” (אֶלָּ֖א). The lesson here is divine justice is administered according to mercy in Messiah Yeshua before one is circumcised. Circumcision stands for all the other commandments the new convert may not understand or know also. One continues in faithfulness by loving Yahweh, by abiding in Him. The intial repentence was based on what was known at the time of committing to Yeshua, and what was circumstantially possible at the time of commitment. Walking in faithfulness requires one to continue to listen to and obey Messiah. So after being circumcised, we are still justiced in Messiah. Paul does not mean to say only that faithfulness is credited while uncircumcised. He just wants to be sure we understand that it applies before we learn of and keep a particular commandment.

§4:11.1 Think of righteousness as something Yahweh does. The righteousness here is Yahweh showing mercy in Abraham’s case. This may also be described as Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness. To describe in terms of justice, Yahweh’s faithfulness provides the correct justice for Abraham, which is to be explained later in terms of Messiah’s death. “And he maketh support in Yahweh” (וְהֶאֱמִ֖ן בְּיַהְוֶה), so that Yahweh became the support. And Yahweh’s support is His covenant faithfulness [הָ = אֱמוּנַתוֹ > וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ], which is Messiah’s support in our case to lay down his life as payment of the penalty. Thus Messiah’s faithfulness is counted for justice.

4:11.2 Then think of righteousness as Abraham’s response of faithfulness. Reading the text, “And he giveth support to Yahweh”. In this case, the בְּ is taken abstractly, “in connection to”, similar to לְ. The reason John translates πιστεύων εἰς (Joh 3:16) so much, i.e. 22 times, is to emphasize the need to commit to Messiah, to give one’s support to Yeshua. Paul says, therefore, “of all who commit”, indicating the condition of receiving Yahweh’s merciful justice in Messiah.

4:11.3 From faithfulness to faithfulness (Rom. 1:17; Hab 2:4) is taught in the ten commandments, and was spoken from Mt. Sinai, “And showing mercy unto thousands, of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:6). So if we commit to Him, then he commits to us. John 14:21 and 15:10 repeat the same concept given in the Torah, and now I have shown that Paul teaches the same thing.

4:11.4 Notice again that Paul makes Abraham the father of not just the Jew, but also of the non Jewish faithful, even when the non Jew is in exile in his uncircumcision. The promise is secured to the exiled children of Israel first, and then when they later enter into the land, physical circumcision is enforced anew, just as when the children under 20 years were not condemned to die in the wilderness after the sin of the ten spies, and even though they were uncircumcised by their elders, they were not excluded from the remnant of Israel .

Again, when the non Jew keeps the Torah—when the non Jew commits to Messiah to be faithful, then his uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision—his status will be reckoned as a citizen of Israel .

§4:12.1 The words “And father of circumcision” (וַֽאֲבִ֣י מִילָ֗ה) apply to those starting out from a circumcstance of uncircumcision. Firstly, the phrase is prophetic. Abraham will be the father of circumcision because all the sons will be circumcised in heart and in flesh when the circumstances are changed. Secondly, the phrase is one of national identity and inheritance. Those beginning in a circumstance of uncircumcision are citizens of remnant Israel , even though they be in exile.

4:12.2 The only way around Abraham being the literal “father of circumcision” to the nations, is to spiritualize the word “circumcision”. However, Paul already said in Rom. 2:26, “when the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” So the spiritual sense is not true unless the uncircumcised one walks in faithfulness keeping the commandments of the Torah.

4:12.3 Further, Paul says, “not for those from circumcision alone”. The argument Paul was countering was that the nations could not be saved unless they became Jews through circumcision, which is to say, that they must take on the whole halakhot of the Rabbis before they could be counted as part of remnant Israel . Paul is saying that they are members by faithfulness. Remember I have explained that faithfulness is not perfection. Faithfulness is loyalty to Messiah Yeshua. And faithfulness is the covenant faithfulness through Messiah. Therefore, if the nations come “from faithfulness to faithfulness” they are saved beginning with that, without first coming into conformity with all the commandments.

Also Paul is saying that circumcision is not the status changer in respect to salvation. Faithfulness is the status changer. In Paul’s day the concept of two remnant Israels was unknown. What I mean is one for the Gentiles, who get heavenly blessings without the Torah, and one for the Jews inheirt the Torah and spiritual blessings. This view has always been the doctrine of rebellious Churchianity and exclusivist Jewish Christians who think the Torah is just for themselves alone. But this did not exist in Paul’s time.

There was only one heresy being taught, and this was that the non-Jew must conform to the whole halakhah of the Rabbis, starting with circumcision, before he could either be counted faithful or receive Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness. Paul refutes it by showing that Abraham was included in remnant Israel before he was circumcised by faithfulness. Paul completely refuted the false doctrine of Judaism, and defeated it so thoroughly that lawless Churchianity was forced to evolve a new form of the hersy in which there are two remnant Israels, one for the Jews where they observe Torah, and one for the nations, where they are prohibited from observing Torah! But there is only one remnant Israel , one body, one covenant, one immersion, one faithfulness of Messiah, and one faithful response to Messiah.

4:12.4 Again, notice the conjunction, “unless also” (אֶלָּ֣א גַּ֠ם).

4:12.5 Paul conditions inclusion in remnant Israel with “to the ones lining up in the steps of the faithfulness of our father Abraham while uncircumcised,” or this may be expressed “conducting themselves in the steps of” or “walking in the steps of” (לַמִּתְהַלְּכִ֞ים בָּעִקְּב֣וֹת). Yahweh says to Abraham just before he commands him to be circumcised, “Walk before me and be blameless” (Gen. 17:1):

Blameless walking before Yahweh is possible. For Noah walked with the Almighty and he was blameless (Gen. 6:9). Blamelessness (תָּמִ֥ים) is the substance of faithfulness. To be blameless does not mean to never sin in igorance or stumble in a circumstance. It means to purify your conscience as it is written, “And every one holding this hope upon Him is purifying himself, just as that one is pure” (1John 3:3).

4:12.6 Paul says, “while uncircumcised”. All the circumstance of uncleanness is not yet removed from Abraham before he was circumcised, or for that matter afterward, so then, how much more should the nations be accepted, “as well as also them by the faithfulness purifying their hearts” (Acts 15:9).

^v13 For not through the ^anorm is the

^יג כִּ֡י לֹא֩ בְּדֶ֨רֶךְ הַנּוֹרְמָ֜ה^א

§4:13.1 The Syriac (Aramaic) borrowed the word aswmn (נמוסא) from the Greek νόμος. The Syriac namusa sounds like nomos. The reason is, that the Peshitta Aramaic translation was dependent on the Greek version, and the Aramaic scribes were quite aware that the Greek νόμος could not be simply translated into Torah. The Aramaic equivalent of Torah was Fyrwaw (ואוריתא). It occurs in Mat. 11:13, 12:5, 22:40. The reason they would want to avoid Torah, is that they knew νόμος meant “custom” or “usage”¹; in fact, that is exactly what oral Torah is for Judaism. So the translators went to the extreme and translated nearly every case as namusa, even in cases where it was unnecessary.

Namusa and another word dyn !yd (דין), which was borrowed from the Greek δὲ prove that the Aramaic Peshitta was derived from the Greek. In fact, the conjuction dyn !yd, occurs after the first word in sentences just like one would expect from Greek grammar. See Smith, “!yd the Greek particle δὲ, conj. but, however, for, then; cannot begin a sentence...”² Namusa and dyn are like finger prints, like chemical tracers placed in explosives to show their origin. They tell us that the Peshitta came from a Greek source. The choice of the Syriac translators suggets that nomos is best left as a loan word.

^v13 For not through the ^anorm is the promise

^יג כִּ֡י לֹא֩ בְּדֶ֨רֶךְ הַנּוֹרְמָ֜ה^א הִ֥יא הַֽהַבְטָחָ֤ה

4:13.2 What does Paul mean then when he says that the promise is not through the norm הַנּוֹרְמָ֜ה? What he means is that method of salvation, which Judaism embraces, which is opposed to faithfulness. The Jewish doctrine of salvation is predestination, i.e. election, or being born Jewish, or being made into a halakhic Jew by going through the Rabbinical or Pharisaic program of proper Judaizing. And once a Jew, always a Jew. It does not matter if the Jew is a transgressor or pious. So long as he or she is a Jew, then salvation is assured. And if one checks the Rabbinic fine print that sourced this doctrine, he will find that only believing in Yeshua can undo one’s Jewishness. This view is opposed to sound doctrine. Salvation depends on Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness, and our faithful response to it. That does not include transgressors and rebels, who are cut off from the covenant.

The “norm”, of course, can be expanded to any status quo or tradition embraced by a majority that opposes Messiah’s faithfulness or our faithful response. It may be any tradition, custom, or even good deeds one may do to even out the balances of divine justice. The “norm” is not the “works of the torah/law” in a neutral sense or in the positive sense of doing righteousenss. The “norm” is not that. Rather the “norm”, only mimics true torah observance, in the sense of particular customary, or traditional works supposed to secure election in place of, or opposed to Messiah’s faithfulness. Good works in response to Messiah’s faithfulness as a condition of receiving the pardon, of course, is not what Paul means by the “norm”; Paul means any status quo substitute for faithfulness.

^v13 For not through the ^anorm is the promise ..., if not, through the ^bjustice of faithfulness.

^יג כִּ֡י לֹא֩ בְּדֶ֨רֶךְ הַנּוֹרְמָ֜ה^א ... אֶלָּא^ב בְּדֶרֶךְ צִדְקַ֥ת^ג אֱמוּנָֽה^ד׃

4:13.3 The conjuction אֶלָּא = if not, and introduces either a qualification of the preceeding or an opposing statement. In this case (where we have translated norm), it opposes. The idea is “if = (on the condition of ) not = (negating the forgoing) + then: “through the justice of faithfulness”, or more simply put “but through the justice of faithfulness”. Here again, we speak about Yahweh’s faithfulness in Yeshua on the cross as being counted as His justice (mercy) to us. Or, on the other hand, we may speak of the faithful response of the seed of Abraham that is counted as righteousness. See below note 13b.

^v13 For not through the ^anorm is the promise ..., if not, through the ^bjustice of faithfulness.	^יג כִּ֡י לֹא֩ בְּדֶ֨רֶךְ הַנּוֹרְמָ֜ה^א ... אֶלָּא^ב בְּדֶרֶךְ צִדְקַ֥ת^ג אֱמוּנָֽה^ד׃
13 a or Torah \| b or righteousness.	יג׳א אוֹ הַתּוֹרָה \| ב = אּם־לֹא \| ג אוֹ צֶדֶק \| ד = נֶאֱמָנוּת׃

4:13.4 Alternatively, we may translate nomos = torah. See note 13a. In this case, then the conjuction is limiting. “If not” = “unless”; the idea this time is, “if not = (the former condition is true if and only if that following condition is not true). Abraham does not receive the promise through Torah if he does not receive it through the justice of faithfulness. The idea is expressed by “unless”. However, it seems unlikely that Paul would have limited himself to salvation substitutes that mimic Torah. He would have wanted to include doctrines from outside torah that also opposed faithfulness. Therefore, this option is relegated to the footnote.

4:13.5 So after reading the foregoing carefully, you will see why the only way to translate ambiguously Paul conjunction is to leave it “if not”.

^v14 For if those from the norm are heirs, the faithfulness be‘eth emptied and the promise be‘eth made to be nullified;	^יד כִּ֗י אִם־אֵ֨לֶּה מִן־הַנּוֹרְמָה֙ יֽוֹרְשִׁ֣ים הֵ֔ם נָבַֽקָּה הָֽאֱמוּנָ֑ה^א וּבֻטְּלָ֖ה הַֽהַבְטָחָֽה׃
	יד׳א = הָנֶּאֱמָנוּת׃

§4:14.1 Those “from the norm” would be those counting on election to get them saved, i.e. the concept of once a Jew always a Jew, or to use a modern evangelical equivalent, “once saved, always saved,” and then merily merily transgress without a worry. Such a concept nullifies the covenant faithfulness. For the promise is based on the covenant faithfulness. Yeshua’s side of the covenant is to pay the penalty. That’s his faithfulness.

But if the sinner wants the pardon, then the sinner has to commit to Him. So salvation is from faithfulness to faithfulness. If the sinner will not love YHWH, then why should he pardon him? If the sinner refuses to change, then why should he be forgiven. So “faithfulness” refers both to Yeshua’s faithfulness, and also to our faithful response.

^v15 for the norm brings about wrath; for where no norm is, also no transgression.

^טו כִּ֥י הַנּוֹרְמָ֖ה פֹּעֶ֣לֶת חָר֑וֹן כִּ֗י בַּֽאֲשֶׁר֙ אֶ֣ין הוֹיָ֥ה נוֹרְמָ֔ה גַּ֖ם אֶי֥ן עֲבֵרָֽה׃

§4:15.1 “For the norm brings about wrath”; this is, because the norm, just as we have described it above, is anything that nullifies faithfulness. The Jewish norm bases salvation on Jewish identity, a sort of “once saved always saved” for Jews. The norm is also the Calvinist doctrine of “once saved always saved”. In either case, the sinner is free to transgress confident that they are saved. But faithfulness is not the norm, and faithfulness will not allow transgression. So “where no norm is, also not transgression”. The faithful man does not transgress—commit willful sins or serious sins involving disloyalty to Yahweh.

Again, the norm is Catholic baptism, which secures them a place in the life to come. It is not the rule of faithfulness. Or the norm is a charasmatic speaking in tongues, which the charasmatic supposes is the sign that his salvation is secured with no respect to the abiding need for faithfulness. Or the norm is pronouncing the sacred name correctly, or the norm is a moment of belief, after which one is permenantly saved. Or the norm is realizing one's predestination.

All these things are false doctrines that replace faithfulness. This is because the sinful nature finds it easier to deceive the emotions of man with a false security blanket so that man can go on transgressing without any requirement for a real commitment to the Almighty. So what is the norm? The norm is lawlessness. The norm is the law of sin. Remove the norm and replace it with faithfulness, and then there will be no transgression.

4:15.2 The norm is "that which is in habitual practice, use or possession”¹ Sin is in habitual practice. The norm is just the status quo. Transgression, which is rebellion against Yahweh has become the norm. Transgression is not just any sin. It does not include sins of ignorance or circumstance. A sin of ignorance is called שְׁגָגָה in Hebrew, for transgression we have the Hebrew word פֶּשַׁע, and the synonym עָוֹן, which means iniquity. A שְׁגָגָה can be forgiven through a sin offering made by a Levitical priest, but for the transgression there was no forgiveness, because it was a sin of rebellion (cf. Numbers 15:22-21 for the distinction). What sins are these? 1. Worshiping other gods, 2. image worship, 3. profaning the name, 4. intentional Sabbath breaking, 5. dishonoring your father or mother 6. adultery, 7. murder, 8. intentional bearing false witness against your neighbor, 9. intential theft of property without circumstance, 10. desiring what belongs to your neighbor.

Transgression is opposed to faithfulness. The Scripture gives us examples of things that are not transgressions. When Namaan had to help his master down to worship his false god, Namaan also had to go down. This was a sin of circumstance. The ignorant possession of the image was not transgression, but using it in worship was. Sabbath breaking was only punished if it was flagrant. The man who rebelled and gathered firewood was put to death. The children of Israel , who neglected it in the exilic circumstance, were introduced to it again after the Exodus. Other sins have to be labeled intentional to be transgression. This is because a sin like theft in a circumstance could be atoned for by a Levitical offering. Desiring what your neighbor has is not desiring to have something like what your neighbor has, and then working for it. To be transgression, it’s the jealous attitude that one must just have what belongs to them.

4:15.3 Transgression is the Sin that leads to death. If the sinner repents of it, and commits to Messiah Yeshua, then such sin is forgiven, and he will be given life through Messiah's faithfulness. When the sinner repents he on the path of faithfulness.

§4:16 Once again Paul says that Abraham is the father of the non-Jewish faithful—“who is father of all of us”, as well as the Jewish. By doing so, he includes the former Gentile in the remnant of Israel . The first use of “Faithfulness” refers to both Messiah's faithfulness, and the responsive faithfulness of the faithful one. Loving kindnesss refers to both mercy in forgiveness of penalty, and giving of righteousness for being made holy. One aspect is without works, and the other aspect with works.

The promise is not to the one who has the whole Torah only along with the faithfulness of Abraham. The promise is also to the one who has the faithfulness of Abraham and only part of the Torah—the part he or she knows about.

In the second usage, “faithfulness” refers to Abraham's faithfulness, i.e. our faithfulness, which is our part of the covenant needed to receive the benefits of Yahweh's covenant faithfulness (cf. Exodus 20:6).

§4:17 The traditionalist translation here, “and calleth those things which be not as though they were (KJV)” is incorrect. First, it would be a falsehood to call that which does not exist as if it existed. But this view accords well with the Lutheran doctrine of imputed righteousness, and all manner of other abuses, as if it were some kind of principle or law that God says things are so that have no reality, and it also contradicts the traditionalist position of the immortality of the soul to render it according to the context, “even to the one calling that not being to being” (καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα).

The phrase is simply explanatory to the preceeding clause, “to the one making alive the dead”; Cranfield supports the sense, ‘to being’ for ὡς ὄντα. Dunn adds, “the use of ὡς to express a consequence (‘call things that are not so that they are’) is well attested elsewhere” (pg. 218) which he then documents extensively. So the “calling” is an effectual calling of the dead, whose soul does not exist, back “to being”. This is not to say that a spiritual component does not survive death, but the state of that part is sleeplike. The living soul itself ceases to exist at death. This is the real reason that the traditionalist does not want to translate this passage in harmony with the context, because it would contradict their Greek philosophy of the soul.

Where does immortality of the soul lead? It leads to perversion's of the divine justice, like eternal torment in Hell, and lends itself to Gnostic doctrines of the eternal prexistence of the soul, and from there to transmigration of souls.

§4:18.1 The first usage of “hope” in this text is preceded by the word “beyond” (cf. Friberg, “(4) adversatively against, contrary, without regard for, beyond (Ro 4:18).” The idea is that the promise was beyond human hope of fulfillment. The second use of the word “Hope” is a metaphor for Yahweh himself, e.g. “O the Hope of Israel , the saviour thereof in time of trouble” (Jer. 14:8; cf. Jer. 17:7; 13, 17; 50:7). Paul repeats the key word from vs. 5, ἐπὶ, translated there as “on”, and here as “upon”. So Abraham's commitment was directly upon Yahweh himself, who is the Hope of Israel .

The Church translators have done everything in their power to make the sole object of Abraham's commitment mere confidence in the promise that he would become the father of many nations. That's because they want salvation to depend on only supporting a promise and not on making ones support upon Yahweh. So the KJV translates, “believed in¹ hope, that he might become”. The NET bible corrects half the problem, “believed in hope with the result² that he became”.

1. i.e. believe in confidence. If hope is not understood metaphorically, then the phrase is the trite concept of confidence in confidence, or trust in confidence. This is the philosophical concept of the no-lordship salvation crowd. It enables the carnal Christian theory. If this is what Paul meant then he would have used the word ἑν instead of ἐπὶ, and then he would have used a less ambiguous phrase than the infinitive construct.

To correct this, observe that “upon Hope committeth” stands independently of the promise, and that the object of “committeth” is the metaphorical use of “Hope” for the Almighty One. The following clause is resultive, (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι), as recognized in the NET bible and also by Dunn, “The εἰς τὸ with the infinitive hardly goes with the ἐπίστευσεν to describe the content of Abraham's hope” (pg. 219). So Abraham isn’t just giving support to a promise. He is making his support on Yahweh, his Hope.

Now, I am not saying that Abraham did not specifically support the promise. He did. However, support of the promise is included in his support of Yahweh. Genesis 15:5 precedes Gen. 15:6, but Gen. 15:6 tells how and why he supported the promise. It was because he “maketh support on Yahweh”. Paul is emphasizing Yahweh's supportiveness here by interpreting the hebrew בְּ in בְּיַהְוֶה as locative, clearly indicated by the word ἐπὶ (upon). (This does not rule out the usual abstract, “giveth support to Yahweh”), it is just that Paul is emphasizing Yahweh's part to fulfill the promise.

Genesis 15:6, “And he giveth/maketh support to/on Yahweh; then he is/will be counting it to him: righteousness/justice.” The first part of the statement is gnomic, i.e. timeless to the context. Abraham was already supporting Yahweh, and would continue to abide in Him; hence the Hebrew perfect. The second part of the statement is in the Hebrew imperfect, which is continuative and or future. Thus, there is no one-time support of a mere promise. It is a continuing support on and to Yahweh out of which comes specific occassions of support, such as believing the promise, or the binding of Isaac—or the final reckoning of that which is Yahweh's justice (צְדָקָה) in Messiah.

4:18.2 In the Hebrew translation, I have reproduced the ambiguities of the Greek in the second clause, and the Hebrew in the first: “upon Hope he {maketh/giveth} support, {in connection to/to} be him....” The contextual choices are indicated by the italics. The abstract use of ל, fits the context לַהֱיוֹת֔וֹ = εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν.

§4:19 The Greek text has, “the faithfulness”, with the definite article. Here too, the words τῇ πίστει do not mean “the faith”, which is just a particular body of religious dogmas. Paul almost never is thinking of this Church concept of a body of doctrine. Rather he is thinking of “the covenant faithfulness”. One can see this just by going back to the Latin fide, which means “fidelity”, or the Greek, “commitment” and Hebrew “supportiveness”. The article serves to sum up “faithfulness” as a generic class, pointing to both sides of the covenant faithfulness, Yahweh's, and our faithful response to His faithfulness. Abraham was not weak in his own support nor in comprehending Yahweh's support—though he did try to take some very human shortcuts in fulfilling it!

§4:20 Paul includes “the” again, “in the unfaithfulness”, because he is focussing on the class of unfaithful humanity, as opposed to the class of faithful Israelites; the second use, “the faithfulness” is also the class of those included in the covenant faithfulness. To not support the promise would be to class oneself with the unfaithful. I'm being pedantic because this is not about just one point of belief, but about full commitment to Yahweh. To put it another way, believing is included in the overall concept of the commitment which goes way beyond just believing.

§4:21 The Greek word πληροφορηθεὶς means, “be’eth brought to fullness”. It probably does not mean “fully convinced” either here or in Col. 4:12, “being made to be full in all the will of the Almighty”. Even in Romans 14:5, the sense is, “Each in his own mind let be made complete.” So persuaded or convinced is not the the lexical meaning in the later text. It is only pragmatic sense.

The aorist participle, “be’eth made to be full/complete” strongly suggests a transitional point to vs. 22-25, wherein Paul will apply Gen. 15:6 to the us, who have come from the multitude of nations. What vs. 21 says, then, is that the promise was actually accomplished. Abraham did become the father of many nations, and we from the nations, are now being blessed by him, because Yahweh was able to carry out what He promised.

§4:22 “For this reason”, (διὸ) [cf. Friberg], looks back to vs. 21 and forward to vs. 22. The reason only implied in vs. 21, that it was counted to him for the sake of us, who come from the many nations promised, (which is now fulfilled), is made explicit in vs. 23-24.

§4:23 Paul quotes Gen. 15:6 again, and applies it to us non-Jews who have committed to Messiah.

§4:24.1 The initial condition of salvation is, “to the ones committing upon [Yahweh]”; in the Hebrew this means to “make support upon” (also “give support to” Yahweh—a sense to be put aside for the moment). Paul is focusing on the former sense of “making support upon” as he uses the word ἐπὶ. Equivalently, we could translate the former sense, “commiting oneself to” Yahweh, or “entrusting oneself to”. Paul wishes to focus on “making support upon” since this is the initial step of repentance. The pentitent sinner who askes for a pardon must trust Yahweh to forgive, and also must appeal to Yahweh to help him change. This is the initial “making support upon” Yahweh, i.e. to make a dependence on Him, to entrust oneself to Him.

So what is counted on the basis of making Yahweh one's support? It is His faithfulness (support) that is counted for justice (צְדָקָה)—faithfulness specifically given at the cross by Yeshua to pay the substitutionary penalty. This support was accounted for justice. Messiah’s payment of the penalty ‘counts for justice’; We “maketh support on Yahweh”, which is to say that Yahweh is our “support”, and then the support (refered to by “it”) “he is counting...for justice”. This is one way of looking at Gen. 15:6, and so long as we are “making support upon Yahweh”, “then he is counting it [his support] for justice”;

So far, the support (faithfulness) is just in a legal sense to mercifully commute the penalty to the substitute, and then to pay it. But remember that the pentitant who receives the pardon also asked Yahweh to help him change. Now, it is no longer just a legal accounting, but, “he maketh support upon Yahweh, then he is counting it [Yahweh's support] for righteousness”. How does this happen? We simply have to fill in the blank. Yahweh gives his support (faithfulness) to the repentant sinner who receives it as his own, but committing to do it, and then when it is done, it is counted as righteousness.

Now, I move on to the laid aside sense, “he giveth support to Yahweh”, which takes the preposition בְּ in the normal sense of “in connection to”. Initially, Yahweh's Spirit gives the pentitent the ability to grasp the good news that a pardon is available. The penitent “giveth support to Yahweh” to “administer justice” in this fashion. Yahweh then gives righteousenss to the penitent person, and after receiving it, the penitent person continues to “give support to Yahweh” by walking in that righteousness, and “then it [the faithfulness (support) of the penitient person] is counted as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6).

But commitment is not a one time deal, nor is receiving righteousness in this age a one time deal. That would be the Protestant and Catholic heresies respectively. Commitment begins with “making support upon Yahweh”, but continues with “giving support to Yahweh”. (Both senses might blend better in straight Hebrew, “maketh support in Yahweh”. We only have to extract which is purely Yahweh's part vs. the faithful person’s to explain Paul's paradigm of what is in respect to good works, and what is without out good works.) So the whole process is contingient on commitment to the Almighty One. This is a continuous, abiding commitment, i.e. support of Him, not a moment of “faith”.

Further, righteousness is also counted iteratively, continuously, because it is not all given at once. Training in righteousness requires instruction from the Torah and the Prophets (1Tim. 3:15-16). So we are incomplete until the day that Yeshua returns. “For we spiritually [or in the Spirit] by faithfulness are waiting for the hope of righteousness” (Gal. 5:5).

For the above reason, Paul uses the phrase, “to whom it is going to be counted”. The words, “it is going” are from one Greek word, μέλλει, which means, “to take place at a future point of time and so to be subsequent to another event, be about to” (BDAG, 3rd, pg. 627). Also, “in a weakened sense it serves simply as a periphrasis for the future” (ibid.).

4.24.2 Modern Churchianity would much rather have the text read, ‘to whom it is counted, to those who believe’ and the theory that the carnal man is saved after one moment of faith would have it say ‘is counted...believed’. To accomplish the equivalent, the translators render, “if we believe” (KJV) or “as those who believe” (NASB), or “for us who believe” (NIV), or “to us who believe”; the KJV might suggest a moment of faith, but the words “if we” have no counterparts in the Greek. The words τοῖς πιστεύουσιν are simply the article + present participle verb. The Greek present is always progressive, up front, and close, in aspect, hence “to the ones committing” is correct. The Greek teaches an ongoing commitment, not just a one time moment of “belief”.

§4:25.1 He was delivered to the cross to pay the penalty for our transgressions. So justice is legally administered by way of the substitute by His death. On the other hand, he be’eth raised to give us his resurrection life. The term usually rendered “justification” has two senses, a. administering justice on the cross, and b. making us righteous. The first happens for us as we are committing, and the making righteous part is a process to be completed when Yeshua returns.

†4:25.2 David Stern correctly captures the second sense of δικαίωσιν, “to make us righteous” (pg. 357), though he seems to place being made righteous totally in the age to come. That is an understandable overreaction to Catholicism.

The “justice administered” is a noun, and can be seen as beginning with judicial administration flowing into making us righteous. The word, therefore, is to be connected with both Messiah's death, and his resurrection (cf. Cranfield’s citation of F.F. Bruce, pg. 252). He is rasied because the Almighty accepted the payment, on the one hand, but also raised for the sake of the “righteousness to be administered”. To see this it is easier to translate the noun as a nominal participle, “justice given”, as it can be both past refering (to his payment) and present referring—a state of being given righteousness. “Justification” or “Righteousification” might be o.k., so long as we understand that 1. the judges judicial righteousness is being satisfied, and 2. It is a process when applied to changing us. But I think it proper to avoid the term because of the knee jerk Catholic and Protestant interpretations thereof.

†4:25.3 Cranfield rightly connects the text with Isaiah 53:11 (pg. 252), which from the Hebrew is, “my righteous servant shall give justice/righteousness to the many.” The Hebrew includes both sense of to administer justice righteously, i.e. mercy by way of having a substitute pay the penalty, and of giving us righteousness so that we can change into his likeness. The LXX has, “to justiceth/righteous-eth the righteous one well serving to many...” Breton's translation, “to justify the just one who serves many way” also strongly hints at the need for the pardoned person to repent, and falls into line with Paul’s interpretation of Hab. 2:4. The only alternative to this explanation of the difference between the MT and LXX is that the LXX translators badly missed the sense of the Hebrew.

The connection to Isaiah 53:6-12 explains Paul's unusual choice noun δικαίωσιν here. Isa. 53:11 has δικαιῶσαι. It also explains Paul's use of the verb παρεδόθη, for which see Isa. 53:6 παρέδωκεν, 53:12 παρεδόθη, 2x. (cf. Cranfield pg. 252).

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.

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).

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:

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.