1:5† ^We received loving-kindness, and the mission to bring about a faithful listening among all the nations: What is Paul’s goal for the nations? His goal is that they come to Mĕssiah and learn to faithfully obey his commandments. Paul uses a unique form of the word “hear” in Greek, ὑπακοὴν, which is explained by the difference between
The translations, however, undo the impact by adding the mistranslation “of faith” which lends itself to philosophical redefinitions of fidelity either as being counted obedient by the imputation of faith as perfect righteousness (Luther and Calvin) or being mystically transformed in the soul into a state of perfection (Rome), or realizing one’s inward perfection (Gnosticism).
But πίστεως here means faithfulness (BDAG def. 1), or as the genitive implies, obedience of the faithful kind, which can be turned into an adjective:
1:17‡ ^What was Paul’s theological thesis? For the justice of the Almĭghty in it is revealed from faithfulness to faithfulness even as it is written, but the righteous one by faithfulness will live. This is generally regarded as Paul’s thesis statement, and correctly so, because it sums up his most important teaching in one sentence. But none of the Reformers have understood it as Paul meant it, and none of the Catholic Fathers that I have read, because they have all rejected Torah, and have redefined faithfulness with an unbiblical sense. This would be quite an audacious statement to make if it were only speculation, but the proof is ready at hand.
The key is Hab. 2:4, where it says, “The just will live by his faithfulness.” Interpreters have long noticed that “his” may refer to either the faithful person or to the Almĭghty’s faithfulness. Usually interpreters side with the faithful person. However, the Septuagint sided with the Almĭghty: “The just shall live by My faithfulness” (ἐκ πίστεώς μου). The answer that Paul gives is that neither side is more correct than the other. The text is talking about both Gŏd’s faithfulness and the faithful response of the righteous one.
Interpreting it both ways, Paul expands Hab. 2:4, “from faithfulness to faithfulness.” By this he means to say that what is revealed (which I will explain in a bit) starts with the divine Faithfulness, and leads to (or results in) the
Now having shortened faithfulness to faith, i.e. “from faith to faith” interpreters have derived a doctrine of faith only, and then reduced this further to believe only, and then via the idea of inward perfection or legal perfection of the soul obtained from Gnosticism they have derived the doctrine that belief is counted as perfect righteousness in the soul, or according to the Protestant modification, only on Gŏd’s legal accounts. The result then, is a complete redefinition of what constitutes righteousness, and what behavior or obedience actually defines faithfulness.
What is being revealed from faithfulness to faithfulness? I have put here “the justice of the Almĭghty” (δικαιοσύνη), which is a more general sense of righteousness. The reason for avoiding righteousness here is that the term righteousness in English almost always denotes a personal piety, leaving out social justice and criminal justice. Everything Yăhwēh does is righteousness, from the giving of the Law on Mt. Si̱nai̱ to the offering of himself for our sins. So in a general sense
Finally, Paul cites Hab. 2:4 leaving out the “his” from the Hebrew text, because he is generalizing the application of the text as both Yĕshūa̒’s faithfulness and our faithful response.
1:26† ^Because even their females exchange the natural function for that which is against nature: A large part of the increase in immoral behavior, and the failure of the Church to stem its tide by imparting a true understanding of repentance can be blamed squarely on the teaching of a gospel that requires no repentance because it has been replaced with a gospel that teaches inward perfection despite sin, or the forensic righteousness of the Reformers. For a long time that only remained a theory, but really the proof of the doctrine, as the Gnostics would argue, is in actually sinning, and then claiming to have Gŏd’s grace. The current crop of immorality is due to the fact that many of the students of these doctrines actually put them into practice when their Pastors hemmed and hawed when asked if a Christian could fall from grace by sinning. A very large number of Christians remain attached to the Church (or the shell of it) because it validates the current cultural trend, and because of evil theology that has no power to transform it.
Our culture has long ceased from punishing immoral behavior. Torah does not require us to force a theocratic penal code upon an unwilling nation. It is Gŏd’s place to punish a culture at the nadir of its deviancy. Nations must willingly accept it, and it is better if a nation willingly repents, and brings in the restrictions gradually keeping pace with an actual repentance. This is because the evil of raising a new crop of Pharisees is as dangerous as immorality. The humanist has one good use, and this keeping an overzealous inquisition in check, especially one that holds to the principles of Calvin and Augustine.
What remains then is to persuade people to change, who signal that are willing to listen after reaping death from the culture.
The faithful will suffer from the increase in lawlessness, because lawlessness is only at first content to private immorality. Eventually it seeks to destroy all who disagree with lawlessness. Immoral people do not all aspire to this kind of lawlessness, but it only takes a small number to yield to the temptation of revenge against those who exercise their right of disapproval.
2:12† ^ For as many as lawlessly sin, as lawless ones will also perish;† also as many as have sinned according to law through the Law will be judged;‡ The first clause speaks about willful lawlessness or rebellion. These are people who do not believe in the rule of law, but only the law of the jungle.
The text literally goes, “As many as, indeed, as lawless sin, as lawless also will perish.”
2:12‡ ^Not under law, but ἐν νόμῳ, which is according to Law or with Law. These are they who generally agree with law or the rule of law, and still who commit sin. We should note that they are judged by the Law. It does not say all are condemned in the Greek. In the sphere of Law (ἐν νόμῳ) one may be judged through Mĕssiah, or one may be judged without Mĕssiah to intercede. The Law and the prophets teach his death and resurrection from the beginning as the solution, as part of the Law, as a legal option of mercy.
2:14† ^He means they do not have the written Law, but they are able to reason out moral laws by observation, or from long cultural tradition remembering the first law. So even though they do not have the written Law, they still have knowledge of the good deed and the evil deed.
2:25† ^For circumcision indeed is profiting when you may be practicing the Law; but when you may be a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision is the same as uncircumcision.† The word transgression means the willful sin, or the sin of rebellion. Yehūdi̱m often thought, or certain sects, that if you were circumcised then you were saved, and that transgression after circumcision was not fatal. In a similar fashion, the Church treated baptism. Indeed, the question of sin after baptism was debated extensively. But neither ritual protects a willful sinner, and neither ritual saves a person. They are merely steps of obedience and signs of the the faithfulness which one ought to have toward Mĕssiah.
By the last remark Paul simply means that via transgression, one’s status is as good as the pagan who is uncircumcised.
2:26† ^Paul is implicitly making the argument here that circumcision is not necessary for salvation. We have to add baptism to this category also. These commandments are important, but not so important that one cannot be saved without them. Since they have been made replacements for faithfulness, or all in one commands said to gain a saved status without actual faithfulness being present, it is judged that the command cannot be properly kept before the understanding of faithfulness is first in place, along with the understanding that in this mortal body our faithfulness is not perfect, and that while in a condition of abiding in Him, we already have forgiveness of sins.
Salvation has been correctly described by some, not as works that merit it, but as covenantal nomism. By our faithful response, we remain in the covenant. But it is through His faithfulness that our sins are forgiven and that we are sanctified. Theologians call cooperating faithfulness synergistic, but unlike the Church of Rome, we do not believe that our part is ever applied to what is called final justification. There is no final justification because salvation is not ever based on Gŏd viewing the faithful as perfected, or acquitted, or innocent, or based on him looking forward in time to to make a decision based on a future state of perfection. Salvation is based on Him forgiving our sins in the here and now while we abide in faithfulness to his commandments.
2:29¹ ^For what is on the outside is not Yehūdi̱, nor is what is on the outside in the flesh circumcision, so much as¹ one is in the inside Yehūdi̱. ἀλλὰ is equivalent to the Aramaic אִלָּא or Hebrew אִם לֹא, which oppose or limit a statement: Statement #1, [oppose,limit by] Statement #2. The Semitic terms mean “if not” and may be seen to oppose, “if not, then,” or limit, i.e. the first statement is false without the second to qualify it. Thayer has suggested the gloss, “not...so much as” when ἀλλὰ is combined with a negative. Liddell opens its definition with, “A. otherwise: used adversatively to limit or oppose words, sentences, or clauses, stronger than δέ:” The word may mean except. William J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar, “1. following a neg. sentence, clause; clarifying a previous denial. 2. without preceding negative; modifying a previous statement.” Timothy Friberg states, “an adversative conjunction indicating contrast, difference, or limitation...to introduce an exception.” I have opted for Thayer’s gloss on the passage.
Paul is not redefining Jewishness to a mere inward spirituality, but he is limiting the outward definition to one who is truly one on the inside also. Paul is not denying that ethnic Yehūdi̱m exist by this, but he is defining what proper Jewishness is as a term describing saved Yehūdi̱m.
2:29‡ ^Circumcision of the heart is by the spirit, and not through sentences, in persons whose praise is not from men, but from the Almĭghty.‡ Almost all translations add in the verb
Paul has used the words “letters” for what some Yehūdi̱m seek to achieve in their hearts by the outward ritual. Paul’s usage is sarcastic. First we have to realize that in English we use the word “sentences” for judgments, but the Greek used the word “letters” to denote a debt or a penalty. On the other hand, some Yehūdi̱m superstitiously think there is power in the written word, and place boxes on their heads (for others this is an ethnic custom without the superstition). The custom of Phylacteries may remind one of the commandment to keep the word between the eyes, but the command actually means to learn and meditate on the word, and not to wear it. For those who seek to be sanctified by ritual, Paul regards it as a sentence because it is not properly in the heart.
3:10‡ ^What then? Are we better? Not always, because we previously charged Yehūdi̱m, (besides also Greeks) all to be under sin, just as it is written, “there is none righteous, not even one.”‡ This quotation and all the following quotations are taken from contexts which are speaking of rebellious or wicked men of Israel. This text quotes Psa. 14:1, 3; 53:1, 3. A survey of the bulk of the quotes will show that they are about the evil men of Israel, and not the righteous. Paul’s object is to show that Israel, as a nation, has not been better than any other nation, in order to demonstrate that being born Jewish does not automatically make one elect.
But Calvinists have taken Paul out of context. They have said that no person is righteous, or righteous in Gŏd’s sight. If this is the sense, then Paul misquoted all of the passages, because they are talking about evil men in particular, in every place they are quoted from. Paul is only acquitted of gross misuse of Scripture when we realize that he is only making the point that Israel has its share of wicked, and therefore Yehūdi̱m should not consider being born Jewish a sign of election. Paul is knocking down the arguments of Jewish predestination, viz. circumcision and being born Jewish by showing that the circumcised are also lawbreakers. Paul is not teaching the T in TULIP. He is not teaching total depravity. Yet teachers lie year in and year out saying that Paul taught it. And just a reading of the texts where the quotes come from is sufficient to expose it!
I am often stunned by preachers saying that none of the righteous are righteous in support of TULIP, and they have never looked up the passages, or they have, and it never sinks in that they are only talking about the wicked in particular, and not every individual. They have not done due diligence in finding out that these texts do not support their doctrine.
3:28† ^For we are accounting a man to be satisfying justice by faithfulness apart from works of a legal tradition (Rom. 3:28). Faithfulness here is the previously mentioned “faithfulness of Yĕshūa̒” from Rom. 3:22 and Rom. 3:26. The faithfulness of Yĕshūa̒ is defined as his work on the cross to pay the penalty of sin which when combined with Gŏd’s mercy results in forgiveness of sin for everyone affirming faithfulness to Yĕshūa̒. Satisfying justice is defined as Yĕshūa̒ payment of the punitive penalty for sin to satisfy the required penalty. Apart from works is defined as any works of our own supposed to compensate Gŏd for sin. I say supposed, because as soon as any work is supposed to compensate for sin it becomes an unbiblical tradition. Or it can be called a legal tradition. The Greek phrase literally means, “works of custom.” So to summarize: a person satisfies divine justice by Mĕssiah’s faithful payment of the penalty apart from any works of his own supposed to compensate for sin.
Now let us explore how lawlessness changed the above explanation into a lawless gospel. How was the Messianic Faith changed into a lawless theology of faith that often goes under the name of Christian doctrine? In order to understand this, we have to understand how lawlessness translates and understands Romans 3:28. The Lawless theology was well in place before any English translation was made, so every English translation reflects it except this one, including the CJB. They go like this, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” Now we have to know how the lawless theology defines the terms. First justified is defined to mean
But this is not what Paul meant. In fact it contradicts the Law and the Prophets (cf. Deut. 6:25 where it says that if we obey the law then we will be righteous) and the fact that the verb πιστευω used so often by John means “affirm faithfulness” to Mĕssiah, and not simply an empty belief in facts without repentance. Paul meant that punitive justice is satisfied for a person by Mĕssiah’s faithfulness involving his death (not our faith) without our works. His work to pay the penalty for sin is without our works supposed to compensate for sin.
The false gospel, as I call the other version turns justice on its head. By the act of declaring a person righteous without works, it is implied that Gŏd is compensated for all sin. May I point out that this legalism does not restore the victims of sin to life, nor does it reverse the pain and suffering they went through. Gŏd cannot be compensated for sin. He can assign a punitive penalty for sin, but punitive penalties do not compensate the victims. When Gŏd requires a penalty to be paid in conjunction with forgiveness, the forgiveness is not because all the ill effects of sin were paid off. It is because a limited penalty was paid (not covering all compensation) and because the requirement for full compensation was waived by Gŏd’s mercy. We might even say that Gŏd forgives us because 1% the penalty is paid off, and the other 99% is simply forgiven because no penalty can compensate for the loss.
For this reason the penalty for the repentant was established by Gŏd to be equivalent to the limited pain and suffering Mĕssiah went through, and the fact that his death was temporary, and not permanent. This is basically a penalty put in place of an otherwise impossible demand for compensation. Now for the unrepentant their death is permanent. Even that does not compensate Gŏd or the victims of their sins.
Further, if we consider it, the notion of believer faith without works contradicts Scripture which says such “faith without works is dead” and also that we are to remain in Mĕssiah by keeping his commandments (cf. John 15). Therefore, Romans 3:28 must mean Messiah’s faithfulness in paying the penalty of sin without supposed (traditional) works to compensate for sin. Now having abolished the false doctrine of our faith without works, it is plain to see that His faithfulness is received by us when we affirm and confirm our faithfulness to Him. We abide in his faithfulness by our faithfulness just as John 15 says.
Now please understand that the lawless will not understand this. They will insist on using their own unbiblical definition system. The first thing they will say is that our faithfulness is not good enough to make it. Of course it is not good enough to compensate for sin, nor good enough to pay any penalties. But the answer is that Gŏd never requires it to be such. That is what the lawless Christians are trying to make faith into, a way of being considered perfect so that Gŏd is fully paid off, i.e. compensated for sin. And of course, they have to make it philosophically legalistic since works cannot achieve their goal.
So anytime the lawless say that a requirement to be faithful is not good enough, because sinful man cannot be perfectly faithful, then point out that such is only according to their own impossible standard and not to yours or Gŏd’s.
The next section here is a repeat of what I just said in terms of the Roman system and Protestant system.
The very foundation of Protestantism is faulty. That is why it is falling apart. This does not mean that the Roman Catholic foundation is any better though. Protestants rightly perceive the evil from that quarter, though perhaps they cannot describe it fully. The Roman Catholics simply represent a greater darkness now taking over a lesser darkness (Protestants). The Protestants are failing because they have not completed the reformation they started by coming into the full light of Scripture, and therefore the times are as when Gŏd let the Babylonians (a greater evil) overcome the lesser evil of the tribe of Judah.
The scripture I have cited here describes the core of the problem. But in order to understand it we have to understand 1. how the Roman Church changed the meaning of key words, 2. how the Protestants tried to correct those meanings without truly succeeding, and 3. what the words truly mean in Scripture.
A cult succeeds by redefining a sufficient number of words and concepts in order to create a division from the truth. And if members of the cult stray away, or question the definitions, then a religious war breaks out. Of course cult members have been brainwashed, and so they only barely perceive the evil they have been caught up in if they discern they should leave it. This is exactly the situation that Martin Luther started out in. Luther’s means of combating his Catholic brainwashing, however, were less than adequate. And this means he has bequeathed to Protestants in general. The reason that the Protestants are loosing the battle for truth, and will continue to loose it is because they are fighting it on the basis of a philosophy of salvation, and not on the basis of the Law and Prophets, which they have rejected as a proper source of definitions.
First let us use Rome’s vocabulary and describe what they mean by “justification by faith.” What Rome means is that upon conversion and confession of faith, the perfect righteousness of Gŏd is infused in the soul, so that the guilt of the original sin is removed. This perfect righteousness then works out in the person’s life, and thereby saves them. So when a Catholic does a good deed, then it is this perfect righteousness working out of them, because they were justified by faith. This is said to occur at baptism. The Catholic truly places their faith in the rituals which are said to confer the justification by faith upon them.
Of course this system does not bear any fruit because it is not based on true repentance or the true standard by which to measure repentance, which is the Law and Prophets. Being justified by ritual and philosophy does not change the world. It only leads to more superstition. When the Catholicism produced darkness and superstition in medieval Europe, of course someone was bound to notice and revolt. The revolt was the Protestant Reformation.
Truly, it was not Luther or Calvin that can be credited with the success of the Reformation. It is simply that the Reformers had to promote the reading of Scripture to win their battles, and therefore many people were allowed to read the Bible, and make up their own minds about the truth. But the reformers, and the average Christian rebelling against Rome was
The basic Protestant version of “justification by faith” is to add the word “alone” and to slightly redefine the meaning of the word justification. Justification they say is not an infused righteousness. Rather it is an external legal perfection. Justification, they say, is Gŏd considering the person who
Of course Protestants will tire of the legal philosophy of being accounted righteous. It is quite sterile and fruitless. When they do so, the original idea of infused righteousness pulls them right back to Rome. And therefore, we see all kinds of mixtures and reductions of the original protestant idea. We see Rome’s doctrine coming back in in teachings of the “new you” which is in the inner soul, the new perfect you, which just needs to be let out and express itself.
There is a real solution to the Catholic heresy, and the unsuccessful Protestant revision of justification. The solution is based on the Law and the Prophets. And for this reason alone many will not listen to it. It largely requires completely undoing Rome’s teaching.
No legal perfection is required. My second point is that the justice to be satisfied by Mĕssiah’s death is not a need to create legal perfection in the faithful. Rather it is Gŏd’s punitive justice (suffering and death) that needs to be satisfied. The penalty is punitive. It is not compensatory. Indeed, the idea that Gŏd
When a criminal is hanged, we don’t expect the punishment to make the criminal into a perfect man. When a rich person graciously pays the debts of a debtor about to be thrown into debtors prison, the rich person’s sacrifice does not make the debtor accounted as a perfect person. It just releases him or her from the penalty of not paying the debts.
Why the desire for legal perfection or infused perfection? The reason is simple: to release the person from any requirement to repent and be faithful keeping Gŏd’s laws after they have been forgiven, or while they are forgiven. The Catholic and Protestant doctrine are both founded in
So now, I will explain the Romans 3:28 text. For we are accounting a man to be satisfying justice by faithfulness apart from works of a legal tradition (Rom. 3:28). Firstly, in the original languages, the correct term is
He could pay the penalty since he did not owe one himself. Our works do not pay the penalty. That is what Rome teaches. It is called
Now we know that our works do not accomplish forgiveness, nor do they add up to a required perfection to merit forgiveness, but they are only a condition of continuing in forgiveness already received. This kind of righteousness is real. It is not the fake infused righteousness of Rome, nor the fictitious legal righteousness of Protestantism. It is real obedience to the commandments, which depends on sanctifying grace. And he sanctifies us by his commandments. Perfection is not required to continue in it. Just basic faithfulness according to the imperfect examples of righteous men and women in Scripture. And the reward is that he will make us perfect in the end, but even then, such perfection is no compensation for sin. It is only because the Almĭghty Sŏn and the Făther love us, and have sent his Spĭrit to direct us.
This is the real good news, which sometimes Protestants teach, but not when they try to teach it by their doctrine of justification. I know this is a paradigm shift for a lot of Christians, and truly only the Holy Spĭrit and a love of the truth will be sufficient to make it. I can only present the missing truth, and point out the current error. I cannot argue anyone into it whose eyes are not being opened.
4:3¹ ^Or, “confirmed
4:5† ^But with respect to the failure to work (yet confirming one’s faithfulness upon the one who renders justice to the ungodly) His faithfulness is accounted as justice†. We have to unwind quite a bit of Reformation theology on this verse and the previous. Firstly, the working and not working are traits found in one person, the faithful person. The Reformers explained it as traits in two persons, a heretic who works, and a believer who does nothing. The truth of Paul’s contrast is that the truly faithful person is a person who is not perfect and has episodes of failure to make the righteous choice. This is what Paul means by not working. He means a failure in the righteous person to do what is always perfectly right.
Now the one who fails to work constant righteousness
Interpreting faithfulness to refer to Mĕssiah’s faithfulness comes from Paul’s key in Romans 3:22 and 1:17. Paul is putting a drash (homily) onto Gen. 15:6. What I mean is that he is illustrating the text his own way, and not according to the obvious sense of Gen. 15:6. Here is the drash sense: And he made his support on YHWH, and he counted it (YHWH’s support) as justice. By doing this Paul causes us to focus on Mĕssiah’s faithfulness in dying for our sins. We make our support on YHWH, but this implies we make our support on his support. For if there was nothing to provide support, then we could not put support on the divine support. Therefore the foundation is the faithfulness of Mĕssiah, and our support is merely built upon it. His faithfulness results in the divine justice being satisfied, and the punitive penalty being paid in full being reckoned to our account. After forgiveness is sanctification (this is what Gen. 15:6 means in its own context): Our faithfulness, built upon that support of his faithfulness, renders us righteous in cooperation with his faithfulness to sanctify us via his commandments. This is a process of learning and transformation, wherein we are still imperfect until he makes the final change when the dead are raised.
4:13† ^normal status quo: Or simply norm as νόμος is defined in the dictionaries.
Rom. 4:15‡ ^But where the the normal status quo does not exist, neither does transgression. Where the condemnation does not come, neither does transgression by which to be condemned exist. Paul is describing the state of living of a faithful person. The faithful person does not commit transgression, which is serious sin as opposed to sins that do not lead to death, which are unwitting sins or sins of circumstance. Paul outlines the transgressions in Gal. 5:19-21 which cause a person to miss inheriting the kingdom of Gŏd.
οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος οὐδὲ παράβασις =
The usual translations have all been filtered through lawless traditions, which Peter prophesied about, noting Paul, in 2Peter 3:15-18. “But where there is no law there is no transgression” (ESV). The lawless propose the meaning is that all the law is abolished, and therefore there is no sin. They take all sin as equivalent to transgression. The scripture makes a difference between sin such as the faithful might inadvertently fall into by misunderstanding or circumstance, and moral rebellion. The lawless, in order to complete their argument, make no such difference, and therefore are unable to perceive that Paul means the status quo of condemnation has ceased for those who are faithful, and although being sinners, commit no transgression. The concept of Sin (with a capital S) and sin with a small s is found in 1John 3:4, 8 and 5:16 (the sin that does not lead to death).
The lawless interpreters were the Gnostics, who by erasing the distinction between sin and Sin made it impossible to be faithful to Gŏd as the Scripture teaches. Having made impossible the repentance the scripture teaches, they substituted their own philosophical doctrine of spiritual perfection, and thus spoiled the good news of salvation by philosophy. Their teaching has sunk deep into the lawless elements in the Church. These teachers have the mind of the flesh, and do not submit to the law of Gŏd (cf. Rom. 8:7.) And even though they claim perfection of the inward soul or legal perfection on the unseen accounts in heaven, they are LIARS. They have souls of flesh and are transgressors. And the inner enlightenment they claim is a fraud. They will be judged and called to account for every soul they have deceived into transgression.
4:25† ^Correction (δικαίωσιν): justicing, righting, straightening out. The idea is both a penal correction via the paid punitive penalty by Mĕssiah, and a reformative correction via the sanctifying force of his resurrection power through our faithful cooperation in keeping his commandments.
5:1† ^Therefore justice being satisfied by faithfulness† we have peace with the Almĭghty through our Adŏnai Yĕshua the Mĕssiah. Firstly, in this case Paul speaks of Mĕssiah’s faithfulness in paying the penalty by his death. This goes with taking the word
This verse is often used to summarize the Reformed argument for justification by faith alone. But this doctrine forced a division between faith and works in order to explain the cross. This an incorrect taxonomy. The key is restoring the word faith to faithfulness, and then paying attention to what the text means in the case that 1. it means Mĕssiah’s faithfulness alone, and 2. it includes our faithful response. In the first case it is His faithfulness that satisfies the divine punitive justice (as explained in the Law) against the sins of the faithful. In the second case non-punitive justice, which is righteousness that is fulfilled through our faithfulness. This fulfilling of justice cannot, however, be viewed as compensation for sin, nor as partaking in payment for its penalty. It is imperfect in this life, and is finished by Yĕshūa̒ at the very end. This corrects the Reformation mistake which asserted it was the believer’s faith that was imputed for δικαιοσύνη. It was not the believers faithfulness or faith that was counted for justice satisfying the penalty. It was Mĕssiah’s faithfulness. The believers faithfulness is counted for positive righteousness (cf. Gen. 15:6), which is a required response, but it is not applied in any way toward satisfaction of the penalty, and it is always regarded as imperfected before Yăhwēh completes his righteousness in us.
5:12‡ ^Even so into all men death has spread, because of which all sin.‡ The mistranslation and misinterpretation of this verse is where the doctrine of original sin was born. Now by objecting to original sin, I am not objecting to the notion that sin originated among men with the sin of Adam. That is clearly true. I am objecting to the doctrine of Augustine that all sin
5:16† ^Correction is meant in two senses. First, it means a punitive correction. Grace (favor)leads to the correction brought about by the death of Mĕssiah. Secondly, favor, or grace, leads to a positive correction of righteousness in the life of the faithful.
5:17† ^And the gift of justice† shall reign in everlasting life through the one, Yĕshua the Mĕssiah! The gift of justice is also twofold. First it is Gŏd’s gift to pay the penalty, i.e. satisfy punitive justice. Second, the word means positive justice (righteousness), and in this sense Gŏd gives us righteousness. It does not come all at once, but it is eschatological. He will give us all of it on the last day. Whatever we lack will be made good at the resurrection or his coming. I should make clear what it does not mean: it does not mean the false doctrine of imputed righteousness as taught by Luther and Calvin, or the false doctrine of infused righteousness taught by the Catholic Church. These doctrines were invented to persuade men that they perfectly keep the Law without ever trying (repenting). The true imputed righteousness comes gradually with the cooperation of man in repentance, and is not perfected until it is finished by Mĕssiah at his coming again. Then what the faithful lack, or are unable to achieve even by way of cooperation will be completed by Him. The mistake of Paul’s adversaries in Galatia was that they indeed had thought they had completed Gŏd’s requirement for righteousness before He finished it. This is because they did not understand the death of Yĕshūa̒, that he pays the penalty for sin during our imperfection. They did not understand that we have to wait for the hope of perfect righteousness (cf. Gal. 5:5).
At the foundation, there is no requirement for perfection to be forgiven the penalty. To say there was is to imply that all sin may be compensated for, as if it had never happened, and as if all its consequences on and in others can be erased. Forgiveness does not return the overall situation as before. Therefore, Gŏd did not require perfect compensation in making the plan of redemption. He only required the punitive penalty to be paid, and the one he assigns to the faithful is the punitive penalty paid in Mĕssiah which was commuted by his grace from the second death which will be required of the unrepentant. The whole arrangement is according to his Law, and is witnessed in the Law. But it is not based on the philosophic idea of satisfying Gŏd with a perfect compensation. Such a doctrine as taught by Rome or the Reformers is logically illicit.
The most evil pop-doctrine in the Church is that Christ kept the law so that we do not have to. Why then did he pay a penalty for us? Penalties are only paid for laws that actually apply. The kept the law for us false doctrine evolved from Calvinistic teachings of imputed righteousness. This is why so many Christians are so bent on saying you can’t be perfect by keeping the law! We can’t be perfect in this age, but we will be perfected for the next. What they don’t understand is that Yĕshūa̒ pays the penalty for the imperfect. Meanwhile they have invented doctrines to assure themselves that the Almĭghty views them legally as perfect (that’s what the false doctrine of imputed righteousness means). There is true imputed righteousness, and this is eschatological (comes last). That means it comes through sanctification, and is not complete till he makes it so at his return.
5:20† ^RE: So a norm† came alongside such that the transgression would increase; The Mĕssianic Movement, a.k.a. Hebrew Roots Movement, or as I call the truth
It is not just the Law that is neglected. But the whole philosophic and interpretive structure built by the Church has to be either reformed or torn down. It is a system built in them mind of men and women who listen to the incorrect theology on a weekly basis. It is unrealistic to expect these hidden heresies to go away when a person realizes they should observe Sabbath. Neither am I saying a person is lost who retains the incorrect theological philosophy. But it does have to be unlearned or at the least put on the sideline so that true forgiveness may be grasped.
The Greek word νόμος means a
Transgression increases, because that is its nature. With or without written law it increases. There was no written law between Adam and Noah, yet transgression increased. So the written law is not what Paul is saying increases transgression. In fact, the introduction of written law has served to reduce transgression. For Yăhwēh sanctifies his people via his commandments! The Torah teaches the opposite of what the lawless Christians claim. The Law is for the good of man, so that he can turn from his wicked ways, so that he can know what his wicked ways are.
The notion that we should blame the increase of transgression on the written Law is refuted by the observation that it increased without written law. Just observe conditions during the days of Nōaḥ, and understand that the Deluge was sent to eliminate transgressors. Though some lawless people take written law as an excuse to rebel. Therefore, what Paul is saying is not that law increases transgression, but that the status quo, the norm, increases transgression. A status quo, or norm came in that transgression would increase. If we must call this “a law,” then we can call it the “law of sin,” or the “principle of sin.” It is not Yăhwēh’s Law that does this. It is sin that does.
One more reminder of the contradiction that leads to the false theology: Christ kept the law so we don’t have to. Or we can dissolve this into two contradictory propositions: 1. He paid the penalty for breaking it, 2. The Law does not apply in the first place. Clearly #2 is false if #1 is true. Put this test before your Christian friends, and you will fast ferret out those who are thinking in the Spirit, and those who are thinking fleshly theology.
5:20‡ ^But where the sin increased, loving-kindness greatly over-flows (Rom. 5:20). Putting this clause in front of a true Gnostic obtains some pretty amazing results. They say that sin causes grace. The idea is that Gŏd is supposed to have predestined or foreordained sin to happen so that he could increase the glories of his grace. This is a sick determinism. Sinning more does not cause more grace to come. It causes the opposite. Sin causes judgment to come. Paul’s point is that as man falls further into depravity, Gŏd increases his grace for the ignorant sinners who have not joined in the willful and open rebellion against him. That is where his grace led efforts are put to. He increases the effort to save the lost that are savable. Where sin increases is speaking of a sinful environment.
6:14† ^For sin must not master you, for you are not under the norm but under loving-kindness.† Νόμον (from nomos) may also be glossed as status quo, what is customary, or what customarily applies. The nomos for the world is rebelling in sin, and because of that rebellion, being held under judgment. This is what it means to be under nomos. The nomos is the social status quo, defiling the rebelling atheistic and licentious culture of the nations. Through faithfulness, which is from Mĕssiah, and our faithful response, we have departed from the
Humanists believe the state is god, and they worship what the state can do for them. They define the social status quo as the nomos, and the nomos is the nomos of the State. This is the illicit nomos of sin. Here is the ancient Greek philosophical definition of nomos:
“Nomos, ( Greek: “law,” or “custom”, ) plural Nomoi, in law, the concept of law in ancient Greek philosophy. The problems of political authority and the rights and obligations of citizens were a major concern in the thought of the leading Greek Sophists of the late 5th and early 4th centuries bc. They distinguished between nature (physis) and convention (nomos), putting laws in the latter category. Law generally was thought to be a human invention arrived at by consensus for the purpose of restricting natural freedoms for the sake of expediency and self-interest. This view of law as arbitrary and coercive was not conducive to social stability, however, and thus was amended by Plato and other philosophers, who asserted that nomos was, or at least could be, based upon a process of reasoning whereby immutable standards of moral conduct could be discovered, which could then be expressed in specific laws. The dichotomy between the negative and positive views of law was never actually resolved” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Nomos).
The validity of human reasoning depends on how far depraved it has become in rejecting the divine Law. As long as human reason is the source of the starting assumptions, the Greek concept of Nomos cannot be delivered from its arbitrariness, which is due to the inclusion of the sinful status quo in the definition of right and wrong. However, as Paul pointed out in Romans 2:14, the nations have some ability to ascertain the law of Gŏd in their hearts. The rights and duties of man are not derived from the State, or status quo. They are independent and are derived from the Almĭghty. For this reason the nomos of the society is a mixture of good and evil. We are not morally subject to this nomos, but only to the nomos of the Almĭghty. The nomos of the world without the nomos of the Almĭghty is sin. Whenever the nomos of the world agrees with the Law of Yăhwēh, it is still built on an illicit foundation since it claims to be derived from nature without the Gŏd of creation. Thus whichever Philosophy of Nomos is promoted, either an arbitrary status quo based on society, or an arbitrary derivation from nature, Paul concludes that this sort of reasoning only promotes the mastery of sin and its idolatries. Even a good law that agrees with the divine law, but is derived from nature, instead of acknowledging Gŏd is idolatry. We must be vary wary of basing our discussion with the unbeliever on a naturalistic argument. Creation evidence has to be used in conjunction with divine Revelation to be effective.
Humanism is the religion that man can save himself, the world, and the environment without Mĕssiah. This is the spirit of AntiMessiah. As long as man thinks this way, Gŏd’s plan will be to allow death and destruction to come their way until they cannot handle it. The only redemption is, and will be in Mĕssiah Yĕshūa̒. And after they have reaped their own death and destruction, then he will destroy the destroyers, and raise those who listened to life.
Christians wrapped up in their personal freedom from Gŏd’s law, and who use this verse, and others like it, to assert those freedoms, are in fact promoting the cultural status quo, and are contributing to the spirit of antiMessiah. And we find this increasingly in the so called Emergent Church movement with their acceptance of grave moral sins based on worldly reasonings. I realize this note rambles, but I only want to expose the narrow minded and out of context interpretation that this verse simply means that the Law of Yăhwēh is abolished for the evil that it really is. Those who see it that way are trafficking in the slave trade, and giving it legitimacy, slavery to every moral evil known to man.
The nations derive moral law from nature or social convention. There are degrees of Christian compromises with this philosophy. 1. law determined by social convention; we all know these as Christians in name only. They are simply humanistic liberals trying to blend with Christianity. 2. The attempt to derive moral law from nature alone and reason, or reason alone. 3. Christians who reject the Law, but who try to derive norms from commands repeated in the New Testament. 4. Christians who accept Law in general, but who arbitrarily dismiss what they term only the ceremonial law. 5. Christians who know the whole law is valid, and who are of the Messianic Faith.
The mystery of iniquity is composed of these causes. People see the arbitrariness of rejecting the ceremonial law but keeping the moral (compromise #4), and so they move to rejecting Law in total but keeping the commands repeated in the NT (compromise #3). Thus position 3 is caused in part by the inconsistency of position 4. Christians in position 3 move to position 2 and become Gnostics, and eventually move to position 1, which is the same as the athiestic humanists. The atheistic humanists hijack what is left of biblical language to favorably market their form of lawlessness. The mystery of the kingdom moves in the other direction, where people wake up to the fact of the compromising trend, and reverse their thinking back to accepting the whole Law of Yăhwēh as valid.
6:22† ^Note that the word “end” here as the sense of end-goal, but I still translate it “end.” See Romans 10:4.
8:28-30‡ ^And we know that the Almĭghty works for good with all things, to those who love the Almĭghty, to those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he acknowledges beforehand he also appoints beforehand to be conformed to the image of his Sŏn, so that he may be the firstborn in rank among many brothers; and whom he appoints beforehand, he also calls; and those whom he calls, he also satisfies justice for and whom he makes righteous these he also he will have glorified. There is nothing wrong with the Greek words in this text, except the philosophies that the Gnostic legacy has caused Christians to read into the text and its translations. The Philosophy is so united with certain English words that these words cannot be used, namely
The words πάντα συνεργεῖ mean that He works
As Paul uses the word προέγνω in the text, it does not mean to know beforehand, as in the sense of factual knowledge about who will and will not be saved. But the sense of “knowing” is that of intimacy and acquaintance. In a formal sense, it means to
προώρισεν means no more than “determine beforehand,” and in this case it is salvation that is determined before the day of judgment. Again, the determination is not fated.
Now it is possible to refer “before” back to the foundation of the world, in which case, it is to be noted that the text is addressing a plural class, mankind (ὅτι οὓς), and that the determination is not individual, but expresses the divine plan in general for the saved. Even this option does not entail classic deterministic predestination.
9:12¹ ^Literally: hated. A Hebrew idiom meaning “love less.”
9:18† ^So then he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires.† It should be noted that Gŏd is not arbitrary in this matter. Pharaoh was already under his judgment, so He used him for His own glory at Pharaoh’s expense. He has mercy were it is possible for men to receive it. But he does not overrule all the consequences of sin on the nations. This is why Yăhwēh has a covenant with us, in which, if we are faithful and do not rebel, he will overrule the final consequences of sin.
9:26‡ ^As he says also in Hōshēa̒, “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’ And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’ 26 And it will be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’ There they will be called sons of the living Almĭghty.” Hōshēa̒ declares that Yisra’ēl is “not My people,” because the Northern Kingdom was destined to be rejected and exiled to the nations, where they would mix, and become the fullness of the nations (cf. Gen. 48:19; Rom. 11:25). Paul is linking the receiving of the nations into the kingdom with the receiving of scattered Yisra’ēl back into the covenant. He teaches that the non-Jew who confirms his or her faithfulness in Mĕssiah is added to the house of Yisra’ēl, which will be joined with the house of Yehūdah in the end of days (cf. Ezek. 37: two sticks prophecy).
Paul can mean nothing else except receiving lost Yisra’ēl back into the covenant by the conversion of the nations. For to put it any other way, requires us to charge Paul with taking the prophet out of context, and to charge him with redefining who Yisra’ēl is. According to the Prophet the same national entity that was exiled is received back in the end of days.
9:30¹ ^The word justice (δικαιοσύνης) may also be translated righteousness. What Paul has in mind is Yăhwēh’S Justice, namely what happened on the cross through Mĕssiah. By means of Yĕshūa̒ the Almĭghty’s punitive justice was satisfied for everyone affirming faithfulness. This may also be described as Yăhwēh’s Righteousness, namely his punitive righteousness was satisfied by the death of Mĕssiah.
9:30² ^This also means “understood,” or “laid a hold of” (κατέλαβεν). The justice to be understood is the satisfaction of the divine punitive justice (righteousness) executed in the death of Mĕssiah.
9:30³ ^As Paul has so frequently defined before, he means the “faithfulness of Yĕshūa̒” by which he satisfied the punitive justice (wrath) against our sins through his suffering and death.
There is a second level of meaning to the text, which I am hesitant to point out sometimes, lest it complicate or obscure the first sense, and this is complicated by the fact that English in not a polysemous language. Justice is also to be viewed as the moral correctness that comes by the synergism of affirming faithfulness to Mĕssiah and the sanctifying power of his faithfulness. By the synergism, justice (or moral righteousness) is infused in the heart.
I must offer two warnings with the above explanation.
9:31¹ ^Paul means here both houses of Yisra’ēl, (aka Judaism and Christianity). For both have erected theological systems of legalistic perfectionism. Paul is speaking of majorities. Clearly a remnant of both houses have understanding. Against the majority, Paul is saying that the nations have come first to understanding Mĕssiah’s justice, as is evident when pagans convert and affirm faithfulness to Mĕssiah, and therefore they come first to understanding the Law, and keeping the commandments.
The “norm of justice” (cf. Rom. 10:4; 3:21), is the keeping of law, or particular commandments, or the believing of certain doctrines, which are supposed to compel Gŏd to view one as having kept the whole law, and therefore at judgment issuing a verdict of acquittal. Acquittal is heresy. Pardon is Scriptural. The Pharisees would say that he who keeps on point of the law is accounted to have kept it all and so they imply a verdict of acquittal. The opposite maxim uttered by James is truer: he who (willfully) breaks one point of the law is guilty of breaking it all. Therefore, the circumcision of the (willful) transgressor of the Law is counted as uncircumcision. But the standard of acquittal is innocence in the past and present. The real norm of justice is that the soul who sins shall die. It is futile to overcome this norm by seeking acquittal through the various forms of perfectionism.
9:31³ ^The Greek word ἔφθασεν means to
9:30-31† ^What shall we say then? That nations, who did not pursue justice have grasped justice, that is justice which is by faithfulness but Yisra’ēl, pursuing the norm of justice has not arrived first to the Law.† Justice pertains to two things. Firstly the the forgiveness provided through Yĕshūa̒’s death satisfying Gŏd’s punitive justice, which is His faithfulness. Secondly, justice means righteousness through repentance and sanctification through our faithfulness working with his. But Yisra’ēl following a tradition of perfection (the norm of justice) did not arrive at the perfection they sought. In order to understand this, we must consider that the so called Jewish heresy is now the Christian heresy. Both Catholics and Protestants have founded a doctrine of justification on the the basis of perfection in the twin explanations of imputed righteousness they teach. However, neither arrive at a perfection approved by Gŏd.
Traditional works must not be thought of as only tradition, or commandments of men, but also commandments of Gŏd supposed to lead to perfection. Or commandments that have been taught to replace the need for general faithfulness, i.e. circumcision, baptism, etc.
9:32† ^The missing verb is supplied by the context. The ESV supplies the verb
9:33‡ ^The one who affirms faithfulness to Yĕshūa̒ trusts in his work that paid the punitive penalty for our transgressions, and not in doctrines of being declared righteous, or innocent, or perfected, nor doctrines that being circumcised or baptized accounts one to have kept the whole law. Messiah did not compensate for sin. He paid the punitive penalty for it. Human beings, in their pride, wish to compensate for sin, or failing that be viewed as having compensated for sin. This idea is the reason Mĕssiah is the Rock of Offense. If sin is compensated perfectly then one is permitted to continue sinning, and there can be no last judgment. For what loving Gŏd in such a case would fail to compensate. But if one really understands that Mĕssiah paid the the punitive penalty, assigned by the Almĭghty for the repentant faithful, then one is truly freed to obey his commandments.
What so often happens is that many understand this in their hearts, but they do not have the courage to go against the majority because they do not want to suffer persecution that obedience would result in.
10:4‡ ^For Mĕssiah is the end of the normal status quo for justice to everyone confirming their faithfulness. Literally, “Messiah is the end of the norm for justice to everyone confirming their faithfulness.” The norm for justice is the penalty of the law, as applied to the unrepentant. The exception to the norm is that Mĕssiah paid the penalty. In some sense Mĕssiah is the end (goal) of the norm for justice, because to be delivered from the norm for justice we have to arrive at Mĕssiah. The Greek word τέλος only suggests the sense of a goal much like the English word “end” does in a context. For example, see Romans 6:21-22, where the word “end” means goal in the context. Nevertheless, it is still translated “end.” The translation
Take a few examples of “end:” “and its end, eternal life” (Rom. 6:22). “Then comes the end...”; We can see that the translator did not use the word “goal” even though “end” means a goal in the first example. In the second example end means end. Since English
If we translate, “Mĕssiah is the goal of the Torah,” then the good news Paul is trying to teach is eliminated from the text. David Stern, who popularized this interpretation of goal among Messianic Jews took his lead from Cranfield’s Commentary on Romans 10:4 in the
To make this plainer then, saying he is the goal of the Law means that the law is to show that the law’s righteousness is not good enough, so that a substitute legal forensic righteousness is needed to be imputed from His account to our account so that we are counted perfect. This doctrine, as I have been saying all along is false. It is a child of the reformation, and simply another way to justify calling people righteous apart from obeying the Law. The Almĭghty does not need to count people as perfect to forgive them. He only needs to forgive them. The idea of counting someone perfect to forgive them is based on the notion that sin has a full compensation. It does not. The effects of sin cannot be paid back. That is why the penalty Mĕssiah paid was merely punitive, and not compensation.
Paul’s statement, of course, can also be read in terms of sanctification, “the end of the norm for righteousness,” because through our faithfulness we are sanctified beyond the norm by Mĕssiah’s faithfulness.
The reason that interpreters miss this is because they are too busy substituting the doctrine of acquittal based on imputed perfection as their definition of righteousness (δικαιοσύνην).
10:5¹ ^The conjunction is γαρ, “for,” “because” introduces Paul’s reasoning why Messiah is the end of the norm, “because...,” but he starts by introducing a point which Yehūdi̱m will agree on, even though he will have to explain in vs. 6 what “live by” does and does not mean. Paul introduces “the righteousness” in contrast to the “justice” mentioned in vs. 4. He speaks about doing the moral positives of the law in vs. 5. In vs. 4 he was speaking about the Almĭghty’s justice against sin. So there is a contrast between judicial justice, both the norm of it, and the exception of it, on the one hand, and positive righteousness, obedience to the commandments, on the other.
10:5† ^Paul introduces this statement because he wants to explain what the righteousness of the Law really is in the next verse, and also because he knows opponents will present the righteousness of the law as a standard by which to be perfect, and therefore merit or earn salvation. The Yehūdi̱m of the time almost always presented the Law this way. The odd thing is that Christians opposed to the Law also present the nature of the Law in this fashion, as a set of rules defining a standard of perfection necessary to earn or merit salvation.
10:6¹ ^The righteousness from faithfulness is the same righteousness which is from the Law. Paul is seeking to further clarify the nature of righteousness as defined by the Law. That is why he introduces vs. 6 with “yet” (δε), with the sense of “in addition,” or “furthermore.” Auetenrieth suggests “though” as a gloss of δέ, “strictly neither adversative nor copulative, but used to offset statements or parts of statements; such offsetting or coördination (‘parataxis’） by means of δέ, when it appears in place of the to us more familiar subordination of ideas (‘hypotaxis’), gives rise to the translation ‘while,’ ‘though,’ ‘for,’ etc” (Emphasis mine, Auetenrieth). Applying Auetenrieth, “...though the righteousness from faithfulness speaks thus....” The contrast is formed between traditional righteousness, which passes condemnation or vindication based on individual merit, as the Rabbis taught it, only implied here (cf. Rom. 10:1-3), and biblical righteousness, which does not need to ask who will cross the sea, descend into the abyss, or ascend into heaven to get it.
The present gloss used in the text is supplied in BDAG, 3rd edition, page 213, “3 a marker with an additive relation, with possible suggestion of contrast, at the same time.” Though this is wordier, I think it helps point out the fact that the contrast is a clarification to contrast with Judaism’s conception of righteousness. This stems from the fact that Paul’s clarification is also taken from the Torah, namely Deut. 30:11-15. Therefore, the righteousness defined as doing the Law in Lev. 18:5 and Deut. 6:25 is qualified by Deut. 30:11-15. “At the same time,” (yet, furthermore, in addition) introduces the Law’s own qualification. And what is proved from the Law cannot be redefined or rejected from the Law. The Law’s own terms have to be used.
Paul’s drash on the Deuteronomy passage is somewhat homiletical, i.e. use as an illustration. The questions imply the impossible, but the text replies that it is possible. Judaism likewise implies the impossible by implicitly making perfect righteousness the standard of salvation. This neglects the pardon in Mĕssiah needed due to our sinful nature. But Judaism neglects this because they seek to establish their own justice rather than the justice of the cross. Christianity also implicitly makes perfection the standard of salvation, but this is turned into the philosophy of
For these reasons, Paul’s contrast and clarification is aimed at Scripture righteousness vs. traditional righteousness. He is not contrasting Old Testament righteousness with New Testament righteousness. The syntax and interpretive context of Paul’s time is sufficient to prevent this, because a concept of a different righteousness, not taught or found in Torah, was not in anyones’ theory or tradition. Everyone thought their tradition was what Torah taught. Even in Rom. 3:21 Paul explains that the justice apart from the norm is taught in the Law and Prophets. In Paul’s time, therefore, it would occur to no interpreter that he was rejecting the Law’s version of righteousness. All would realize that he is only giving his interpretation of it.
Christian interpreters define the righteousness from the law and the righteousness from faithfulness as two different things. They therefore reject the Torah’s definition of righteousness as the valid definition for the faithful in Mĕssiah. They replace it with a forensic doctrinal theory of imputed righteousness in which the believer does not have to do anything to be regarded as perfectly righteous. But the text does not justify this leap of illogic. The text is only clarifying the nature of righteousness. And the Christian theological definition depends on redefining the terms, particularly the meanings of πιστις, πιστευω, and imputation, which I have remarked on extensively elsewhere.
10:6† ^ ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Mĕssiah down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Mĕssiah up from the dead).† It would be quite obvious to Paul’s readers that he is saying that the law is part of faithfulness, and that observance is righteousness. But interpreters are in the habit of reading the conjunction δὲ as contrasting two kinds of righteousness. Paul uses the conjunction not for this reason, but because the pursuit of righteousness has to come with a certain attitude and understanding. This is expressed in the denial of saying, “Who will ascend into heaven?” For such a question expresses the thought that the Law is too hard to keep to be perfect, and therefore why should anyone try since it is too hard. The passage alludes to Deut. 30:12, where the same idea is expressed that the Law is too hard, because one would have to go to heaven and bring it back. Paul’s answer is simply to express that the notion of having to reach an unattainable standard is false. One has only to reach what one knows already in his or her heart — because the cross is the answer to our imperfection problem: forgiveness.
The second denial “Who will descend into the abyss?” also describes remoteness, which suggests that the Law is unattainable. Deut. 30 has a second idiom, “Who will cross the sea to get it.” If one does call for some other person or themselves to ascend into heaven, then having done it tears down Mĕssiah off the cross, where it is made clear than no one will ascend to heaven without the forgiveness of Mĕssiah. So if the faithful could go up to heaven to bring back perfection, then Yĕshūa̒ would be unnecessary. The same thought is expressed in the abyss idiom. This is the grave. Whose sins are unforgivable so that Mĕssiah did not die for him or her. Who will go down to the grave because they have been sinners. If someone cannot be forgiven, who repents, then this brings Mĕssiah up from the grave. Both idioms are expressing the same idea, namely that no one has been too imperfect, who repents, and no one who repents is perfect. But the necessary faithfulness is in our hearts, to do and obey the commandments.
It should be noted that Paul bases his proof on Deuteronomy 30. This should be sufficient to show that he is not teaching a “faith without works” kind of righteousness, which is really a redefinition of righteousness and a rejection of the definition given from the first by the Almĭghty. Christian interpreters, having a Gnostic legacy, imitate the paradigm of the Gnostics, who supposed that everything in the Law and Prophets was myth, and that citations of it are only extractions of a kernel of spiritual truth, or are only made for the sake of providing material for redefinition according to what they supposed was spiritual truth. Therefore, the fact that Paul holds up Deut. 30 as the source of his proof has no impact on them. Rather they think that Paul is redefining or reapplying Deut. 30 in terms of “Christian doctrine.” Thus, they do not care what Mōshēh meant in Deut. 30. They only care what they think is Paul’s re-explanation of it. Of course, such a notion voids the validity of Paul’s whole proof in the first place, because a proof that changes the sense of the proof texts by equivocation is an invalid proof.
Modern interpreters, especially higher critics, and Neo-Orthodox interpreters, have long since become comfortable with arguing semantic paradigm shifts. And they suppose that they have proved the source is myth, and that they have the spiritual enlightenment to extract a seed of truth, making sure they redefine or eliminate all the elements they assume are myth in the process. This approach to “truth” is called Modernism. It does not submit to objective truth, nor to any objective tests by which to confirm or deny truth claims. Christians who argue that Paul does not mean what Deuteronomy 30 means when he cites it are engaging in the Gnostic/Modernistic philosophy of truth.
10:8-9‡ ^But what is it saying? “The Word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” which is the word of the faithfulness which we are proclaiming, that if you should confess with your mouth, Adŏnai Yĕshua, and should confirm faithfulness in your heart, because the Almĭghty raised him from the dead, you will be saved.‡
Again, Paul has based his teaching of the possibility of genuine faithfulness on Deut. 30. He has cited Deut. 30:14, “Because very near unto you is The Word† in your mouth, and in your heart, to do it.‡” You should ... confirm faithfulness in your heart, because the Almĭghty raised him from the dead. This text does not mean, “believe that he was raised from the dead.” Faithfulness does include this, but it is not just an assent to facts. What is is saying is that a faithful commitment should be made to obey,
10:10¹ ^Every translation has mangled the Greek text at this point, καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην, because they were done with an imposed theological paradigm. The verb πιστεύεται is passive in this case. But the translations have tried to make it active: NASB, KJV, HCSB, ISV, NET. The sense is passive/reflexive, i.e. either, “With the heart one is affirmed faithful to righteousness,” or “With the heart one affirms oneself faithful to righteousness,” or “With the heart is affirmed faithfulness to righteousness.” In Hebrew this should look like this: כי בלבבו נאמן לצדקה. We can look at similar constructions, “they were affirmed faithful with the oracles of Gŏd,” (Rom. 3:2), “I have been affirmed faithful with an administration” (1Cor. 9:17). See also Gal. 2:7, 2Thess. 1:10, 1Tim. 1:10; 3:16, Titus 1:3. Since there is no middle form for the verb, it is passive/reflexive in the passive form. And the Hebrew passive/reflexive equivalent נֶאֱמָן confirms this.
10:13† ^Joel 2:32. The “name” of Yăhwēh in the Hebrew sense means reputation and character. English has this idiom too, “He has a good name (i.e. reputation).” To call on his name requires a basic understanding of his character and reputation. He is merciful and forgiving, but he also requires faithfulness and loyalty.
11:1† ^It is important to note that Paul proves that Yisra’ēl is not rejected, because he himself is an example of a faithful Yehūdi̱ who has accepted Mĕssiah. But Paul will say that the unfaithful branches are rejected.
11:4† ^In this second example, Paul makes the point that a remnant was not rejected. The rest had turned to idolatry, and therefore were cut off. Paul’s point is that the Almĭghty still chooses Yisra’ēl even if the majority disobey and are cut off. This is proved by the preservation of a remnant.
11:7‡ ^And the rest were hardened. Notice the contrast with “those who were chosen.” Paul is implying that the unfaithful have lost their chosen status, and this principle is illustrated concerning the idolatry of the the Northern Kingdom. The Almĭghty said they were, “Not my people.” So if others reject Messiah, then they are cut off. Yĕshūa̒ announced to the Pharisees who rejected him that their father was the devil, and that if they did not affirm faithfulness to Him, then they did not accept his Făther either (cf. John 8:19; 8:44). If one has another father than the true Almĭghty, then that is idolatry. So the Yehūdi̱m are not exempt from being rejected. Truly, only the faithful remnant is chosen.
11:11‡ ^Being chosen really is meaningless if one is cut off from salvation. We rejoice with the current blessings Jews enjoy in Israel. But we should not mistake the Jewish ability to create a humanistic paradise with chosenness in respect to ultimate salvation. In respect of receiving the Almĭghty’s favor, the unbelieving Jews are chosen in the hope that they will turn to Mĕssiah. But in respect of salvation, they are not chosen in their unfaithful state. This is a dual concept. We say they are chosen but not chosen. It is meant in two senses so there is no contradiction. They are blessed so that they will repent. But they are not chosen until they repent. The blessing is preconversion grace, which is the same grace the Almĭghty is showing to the nations by not judging the nations yet, while he waits for the nations to accept Mĕssiah. This grace to the nations is extended all the more because that is where the northern kingdom went. So we may say that the pre-conversion blessing on the Jews is based on the same principle as the pre-conversion blessing on the nations, in that the Almĭghty is reaching out to lost Yisra’ēl in both cases.
11:12‡ ^Paul does not mean the current blessing on Israel by “their fullness.” He means when they accept Mĕssiah. The current blessing on Israel can quickly be turned away, because Israel is walking a path of unrighteousness, and this is not with respect to the nations around them more unrighteous than they, but with respect to the righteousness of the Almĭghty. Jewish Israel is still subject to chastisement.
11:15† ^It may be conceded that the non Jews are the nations. Paul is speaking to the saved nations. Though he calls them nations under a concept of dual citizenship. They are also citizens of Israel. Even though they are outside of Israel, they are full citizens of Israel in Gŏd’s sight. They are still members of their respective nations. Paul himself was a dual citizen. He was a Roman citizen as well as a citizen of Israel. This then is how to explain the non-Jew being called the nations. What the Church and unbelieving Jew wishes is for a Christian to be only a citizen of the nation they belong to. What Scripture teaches is that those affirming faithfulness to Mĕssiah obtain their primary citizenship in Israel without losing their other national citizenship, unless those nations should rebel against the Almĭghty and revoke the citizenship of the faithful in Mĕssiah. The divine Law accepts dual citizenship, and many nations recognize it also. The Church rejects it because they want no obligation to the divine Law. Jews reject it for Christians because they don’t want to acknowledge the faithful in Mĕssiah. Those are the reasons. The concept of dual citizenship is a perfectly valid legal concept. The current Political Israel is like one of the nations. Here also dual citizenship applies. If the Jew is faithful in Mĕssiah then he is a citizen both of political Israel and the Kingdom of the Almĭghty. Poltical Israel is a human construction, which should be one and the same with the Kingdom of the Almĭghty. However, it is not. Israel is the one nation in which the the Kingdom of the Almĭghty will become the only Political Israel. As long as there is a political Israel separate from the faithful Kingdom of Israel, the faithful Jew who is part of political Israel will have to have dual citizenship, until the problem is corrected. Ungodliness will be removed from Jacob.
12:3† ^A measured trust is a responsibility, or ministry. See 1Chron. 9:22, τούτους ἔστησεν Δαυιδ καὶ Σαμουηλ ὁ βλέπων τῇ πίστει αὐτῶν, הֵמָּה יִסַּד דָּוִיד וּשְׁמוּאֵל הָרֹאֶה בֶּאֱמוּנָתָם.
14:2† ^The chief reason for eating vegetables only was not health reasons, but to not have to run the risk of eating any meat contaminated by an idol. Everyone knew that idol sacrifices were prohibited, but this involved eating meat in an idol temple or in a place connected with the temple where the meat was sold or given as a sacrifice to the god. The dispute arose over meat sold in the general market. The dispute was whether this meat was non-associated with the idols of Rome enough to be considered clean. Some thought not and regarded it all as common, and ate vegetables only. Others disagreed and ate meat from the general market. Paul’s ruling is that both parties should guard the conscience of the other, and not induce the other to violate their conscience.
14:5† ^One person chooses one [fast] day over another [fasting] day another chooses every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.† The following context makes it clear that the issue is eating and not eating. The days in question, therefore, are fast days, of which there are several promoted by the Rabbis, such as the 9th of Av or the fast of Esther, or at most minor holidays like Purim and Hanukkah. At one time there was a faction that fasted on the same days of the week as the Pharisees, and another faction that thought it unspiritual to fast on those same days, and chose to fast on other days instead. Whatever the reasons, one party should not judge the other, or one person should not judge the other.
14:14† ^There is a difference between what is called common (κοινὸν), and what is truly called unclean (ἀκάθαρτον). The former word, used here, is never used in the canonical books of the LXX for “unclean things” or “unkosher things.” Elsewhere, the sense is what is “commonplace,” “in common,” “common good,” or whatever is ordinary and usual. The exceptions are 1Mac. 1:47, “κτήνη κοινὰ” (common beasts). 1Mac. 1:62, “μὴ φαγεῖν κοινὰ” (not to eat common things). Common suggests the idea of shared, or associated with something else. According to Rabbinic precepts anything that would ordinarily be clean or fit for food, by proximity to, or by sharing the same shelf space or house, or otherwise associated with, or come into contact with something unclean, became itself unclean. Since such food could not be directly called unclean, it was called “common” to state how it became unclean, i.e. by associating with what was truly unclean. Paul says that nothing is “common on its own” (κοινὸν δι᾽ ἑαυτου). That is when something otherwise clean is come into association with the unclean thing, and then is afterward removed from such association, such that it is again by itself, then it is no longer common, i.e. it no longer derives a shared uncleanness from the unclean thing. Of course, someone may have a conscience that an item of food was not properly disassociated with something unclean, or he believes in the Rabbinic rule. In that case it is common to him, i.e. shares the uncleanness of the unclean item it was with. LSJ, “common, shared in common, shared in by both, common to, common with, adv. jointly.” Slater, “mutual, shared.”
Of course in many contexts what is common is treated as what is unclean, because by the rules common meant that uncleanness had been somehow inherited by the item. A good synonym would be “contaminated,” in which by itself the thing is clean, but by associating with the unclean it has become contaminated. Even if the contamination has been removed completely, or it has been removed from a contaminated environment, and it itself is not contaminated, the Rabbinical superstition regarded it as contaminated in any case. Contamination had a legal and spiritual definition according to the Rabbis that when beyond the actual physics of the matter.
Probably what Paul had in mind in Romans 14:14 was otherwise clean meat which was sold in the general market. It was always possible that some of the meat had been slaughtered in association with the idol. Therefore some of the Roman faithful became vegetarians to avoid the possibility. Paul’s ruling is that if the meat is not associated with the idol, i.e. it is “by itself” (δι᾽ ἑαυτου), then whatever contamination the idol imparted is no longer present. Of course, Paul would be the first to agree that if meat is eaten in an idol temple or in the presence of an idol, then it is contaminated by the idol. And he also prohibits eating meant if there is certain knowledge imparted, or it is very probable that it was sacrificed to an idol.
Even the Rabbis has certain limits on what qualified as contamination. Generally a very small contamination in a very large volume did not render the whole lot common.
14:15† ^If meat was bought in a market, the weak brother might consider it common because it could have been associated with an idol before it came to the market. If the meat was eaten in his presence or served to him, he might think he was committing a sin of idolatry, even if there was no certain knowledge of a connection. One could either tell him that it was privately slaughtered and the circumstances are known, or refrain from eating in his presence or serving it to him. That way he would not be tempted to defile his conscience with a sin of idolatry. Paul’s ruling here does not concern mere scruples or lesser convictions, but only matters that might cause a brother to commit a mortal sin. The weaker brother may certainly have knowledge that the stronger brother buys meat from the general market, but this does not mean the stronger brother has to refrain from eating it in his own home. It just means the stronger brother should not put the weaker brother in any situation of social pressure to eat meat. The weaker brother also has to realize that while it is not o.k. for him to eat meat, because of his conscience, it is o.k. for the stronger brother.
14:17† ^If the meat is clean, and sold in the general market, then the strong brother may eat the meat without asking questions about its origin, and if the weak brother learns of this habit, and the weak brother becomes judgmental, then the strong brother may stand up for his own conviction and tell the weak brother that he has a right to exercise his own conscience to refrain but not to judge others, and further that he the strong brother is not inducing him to violate his conviction, and finally that his own conviction is permitted, and that the weak brother should make peace rather than being judgmental. But it is that new converts often have convictions that appear unreasonable to the strong and mature over interpretations of the law, and therefore the strong should bear with them and not compel them to violate their conscience.
But as it happens in a social situation, someone who does not have a conviction, often tries to reason the other party out of the conviction while at the same time inducing them to violate the conviction. The
14:20† ^All surely: Paul means all the clean meat sold in the general meat market. “All” pertains to all the meat over which the dispute was, which is whether clean meats sold in the general market were common or not due to the possible association with an idol.
Stumbling means being tempted to go against one’s own conscience, and then giving to the temptation. It does not mean being offended over someone else’s conviction, or someone else being offended over your conviction. The stumbling Paul means is only when a person sins against their own conscience.
πάντα μὲν καθαρα. Or “all indeed is clean.” See also μην. Friberg.
14:21† ^Wine could be used in libations. So if a libation was taken from a wine bowl and offered to the gods before letting the worshipers partake, then it would make the wine common. Often pagans will take a pinch of food, or a sip of drink and offer it to their gods before partaking. Then partaking in the food is participating in the idolatry. It is possible that someone would have a problem with wine sold in the market, because someone might have done this to it. Paul’s opinion is that by being sold in the market it has lost its association with any possible idol.
ἐλπίδος, i.e. hope. But modern theology has reduced “hope” to a subjective expectation of a possibility, i.e. belief in a religious outcome without any evidence.
16:23† ^Mss omit vs. 24.
16:25¹ ^The grammar of the Greek sentence stands incomplete, and so it has to be completed in some such way as this. See Meyer.
16:27¹ ^Mĕssiah and the Spĭrit are part of the only wise Almĭghty with the Făther. Semantically, the statement can be illustrated this way, “It was made known by the only wise Council, through the emissary, a member of the council, to whom...”
16:27² ^The nearest antecedent of the relative ᾧ is Yĕshūa̒, but it also includes the more general reference to the Almĭghty in the previous clause.