1:1¹ ^Why I do not translate “apostle”: Firstly, from the technical angle,
Because the word is “transLITERated” instead of “translated” it is hard to see how Mōshēh can be an “apostle.” However he is told to say to Yisra’ēl that Yăhwēh “has sent me”: שְׁלָחַנִי shelaḥani̱ = ἀπέσταλκέν με. There is that verb form: ἀποστέλλω, which is used prolifically in the Septuagint, meaning “to send,” so the translation problem with this word only developed in languages other than Greek and Hebrew.
Why does the problem persist? Why are the translations not corrected, or why is the word only transliterated, and not translated? To do so the Church would have to admit a closer connection to the Biblical languages, and a closer connection to a Jewish institution of a “missionary.” The term apostle is now a Christianized term, either orphaned or divorced from its Hebrew roots. And it is probable that many are interested in keeping it that way.
1:1‡ ^ פּוֹלוֹסׅ שְׁלִיחַ יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ בִּרְצוֹן אֱלֹהִיםׅ אֶל־הַקְּדשִׁים הַנִּמצְאִים בְּאֶפְסוֹסׅ וְנֶאֱמָן בַּמָּשִׁיחַ יֵשׁוּעַ׃
1:2¹ ^Why translate “loving-kindness” instead of “grace”? Grace, according to most bible teachers is something you get that you don’t deserve, because you’ve been bad. And further, according to them, it is something one can get in spite of being bad without even trying to be good. Grace is is supposed to be a spiritual substance from Gŏd that fixes all problems, and causes the believer in it to get into heaven with no commitment on his or her part. Grace is also often viewed as something Gŏd bestows by divine fiat in Eternity only on those individuals predestined to be saved. So I don’t use the word “grace.” There is a more accurate choice, without all the theological false teaching loaded on it. That word is “loving-kindness.” In Hebrew: חֶסֶד ḥesed.
Loving-kindness, on the other hand, is what a parent does for a child. A parent loves a child because it is the right thing to do, because the parent and the child are in a covenant called the Family. It is easier for the loving parent to give love to a child that is trying to imitate the parent and do the right things. A child does not take love for granted if they disobey. Loving-Kindness was something that the Almĭghty had for all creation, even before the fall, before man sinned. Before then he had loving-kindness for man. Loving-kindness is something that Gŏd has for those who obey his commandments (John 15:10; Exodus 20:6). Loving-kindness is also something he has for those with repentant hearts who want to be good, and who turn away from sin when it is shown them. Loving-kindness includes mercy and forgiveness.
Now then, somone will claim that they believe all of that, and yet they speak on one level to justify themselves, and on another they use the term grace in all the evil senses I described above. They label their false doctrines “grace,” doctrines that give people assurances without repentance. They wave their grace wand all over the place, and then they call anyone who teaches the truth of repentance a “grace-denier” or worse. But their version of grace is not in the bible.
Of course everyone who thinks knows that grace does not mean the narrow definition put on it by false teachers. It was a wholesome word. But it is too often fouled and made unclean by false teachers. It takes a good deal of time to clean up the word “grace” after they have dragged it in the gutter. To avoid this mess, I translate “loving-kindness,” a concept which came before the fall of man, and does not carry the burden of many people having been taught a false definition.
1:2² ^In the early Greek manuscripts the text shows the symbols: !ku%, and not the Greek κυρίου, usually translated “Lord.” The special marking was to indicate that a Hebrew title be substituted in place of the Greek symbols when anyone would read it aloud, and/or that the word so marked was a divine title or name. Scholars call this phenomenon, in the early Greek manuscripts, “nomina sacra,” which is a Latin phrase for “sacred name.” The symbols !ku% represent two Hebrew titles, and one name: A̕dŏn, A̕dŏnai, Yăhwēh. In order to figure which one is meant, we have to use context. The divine name is a personal name, and therefore will not occur before a personal name. Only a title will occur before a personal name. Also the form A̕dŏn means “Master,” and is what we expect to find in the usage of people addressing Mĕssiah on most occassions, although, where a confession is being made A̕dŏnai will be meant. So it is not too hard to figure which Hebrew term is being used in any context.
The title A̕dŏnai represents the Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי. In correct Hebrew this should be spelled אֲדֹנַי. The difference is in the long vowel /ָ/. The scribes made the vowel long in order to mark the title as being used of divinity! This is very similar to the Greek style of removing the vowels from a title and overlining it, as seen in the example above. Either way, the title A̕dŏnai is the plural of the word “lord” or “master” in Hebrew. The Hebrew plural is a plural of intensification. The precise meaning is something like, “High Lord” or “Great Master.” The intensive plural in Hebrew adds the superlative idea. The word is also ambiguous. It may mean “my Great Master” or it may simply be “Great Master” without the pronoun “my.” Where the context makes sense, A̕dŏnai may be taken to mean “my Lord!” and where not just “Lord!” The way to say “my lord” in Hebrew is אֲדֹנִי a̕doni̱, and this can be used for mere men who are kings or royalty, or highly regarded persons.
I have carried over the system of marking divinity into the English, which in this case is equivalent to the Greek overline style. I use the symbol / ̆/ in divine names and titles.
1:2‡ ^ חֶסֶד לָכֶםׅ וְשָׁלוֹםׅ מֵאֵת הָאֱלֹהִים אָבִינוּׅ וַאֲדֹנָי יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ׃
1:3† ^See note 1:4¹.
1:3‡ ^בָּרוּךְ הָאֱלֹהִיםׅ וַאֲבִי אֲדֹנֵינוּ יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ אֲשֶׁר בָּרֵךְ בֵּרְכָנוּ בְּכָל־בִּרְכַּת רוּחָנִית בַּשָּׁמַיִם בַּמָּשִׁיחַ׃
1:4¹ ^Paul switches from the future perfect in vs. 3 to the past perfect in vs. 4 in short order. Here is a list of future aorists:
Deconstructing the Calvinist heresy: First in vs. 3 we must note who will be blessed with every spiritual blessing. This applies to (or is contingent to) everyone who continues in faithfulness to Messiah. Vs. 1 states, “and faithful in Mĕssiah Yēshūa̒.” Then the texts says “as that” or “accordingly as he chose us...” The point is that Yĕshūa̒ chose us to become holy and then we responded according to his original choosing. Thus, he decided that mankind should be holy. But because of sin not everyone responded according to the original choosing. 1Sam. 10:24 speaks Yăhwēh choosing king Sha’ūl. Yet this king rebelled against him and died in rebellion. And Yăhwēh chose someone else to take his place. It is quite evident that when the king was chosen to be king before he became king that he was rejected later because of disobedience. This example shows that being “chosen” in the Scriptural meaning is not irrevocable. In the Scriptural context, being chosen is contingent on being faithful. Another example is that Yăhwēh chose Daυi̱d and his seed to reign after him forever. The choosing of the seed is not irrevocable. If a seed rebels then it is rejected. But if it obeys then it is accepted. So likewise he chooses us who are the seed of Adam to be holy. But anyone who rebels is cut off. So the seed of king Jeconiah was rejected from being king, even though the line of Daυi̱d was chosen. Yăhwēh kept his promise by raising up other seed of Daυi̱d via kinsman marriages. So also with humankind. Yăhwēh only needs a remnant to respond in faithfulness to accomplish the intent of his original choosing. The rest are rejected after being chosen.
Luke 20:35: “But those who will have been deemed worthy to attain that age and the resurrection of the dead neither wed nor are wedded.” καταξιωθέντες, aorist participle.
Isaiah 9:5 [6]: “Because a child will have been born to us; a son will have been given to us.” יֻלַּד ἐγεννήθη and נִתַּן ἐδόθη. Two aorist indicatives here translate the Hebrew future perfect. This shows that the unaffected aorist is only perfective in aspect. Tense only comes from the context.
Evripides, Alkestis 386, “Then I [will have] perished, if you will indeed leave me, woman.” ἀπωλόμην ἄρ', εἴ με δὴ λείψεις, γύναι. Randall Buth’s example (b-greek, Sun Sep 11 06:30:19 EDT 2005), my [].
Iliad 9:412-413: “εἰ μέν κ’ αὖθι μένων Τρώων πόλιν ἀμφιμάχωμαι, ὤλετο μέν μοι νόστος ...” “If I hang around the city of the Trojans fighting, my return home is [will have been] lost ...” (b-greek, Elizabeth Kline, 9/2005).
Romans 8:30: “And those whom he has destined beforehand, these he also has called, and whom he has called, these also he will have made righteous, and whom he will have made righteous, these also he will have glorified.” Again the unaffected aorist is perfective in aspect, but the context adds time. Therefore, it is rendered in the present perfect in three cases, underlined, and future perfect in three cases, bold italic.
D.B. Monro (Homeric Grammar 78:1) comments: "The speaker puts himself at the (future) point of time given by the context, and uses the Tense which then becomes appropriate." (Quote supplied by Elizabeth Kline, b-greek, 9/2005.) That is exactly right. The Hebrew perfect is used the same way. The speaker speaks from the point of view of the future and looks back into the past at the completed (perfected) action. In English, we need just a little help getting the speaker located in the future, thus we use the future perfect, “will have.”
From Mishnaic Hebrew and later, the future perfect has been replaced by the imperfect, so the use of the pefect as future in BH is an archaic style. In BH it is often used, and later whenever an author wanted to use Biblical Hebrew Style, usually to be more emphatic about the future outcome (i.e. Rom. 8:30 above).
My observation: the theory is correct, but the theorists have utterly failed to supply a practical application to implement it into translation, which requires real time relations. I have now supplied what is lacking. Translate using the English future perfect.
Mark 11:24, “By way of this I am saying to you, whatever you are praying and asking, faithfully trust that you will have received it, and it will be for you.” The point is that if one cannot trust Gŏd for an answer, then you might as well not pray at all. ἐλάβετε, aorist indicative. In Hebrew: לְקַחתֶּם.
Revelation 10:7: “But in the days of the voice of the seventh messenger, when he is about to trumpet, then the mystery of the Almĭghty will have been completed, as that he had announced to his servants, the prophets.” ἐτελέσθη, aorist indicative.
1Thessalonians 2:16, “And wrath will have anticipated against them at the end.” ἔφθασεν, aorist indicative. Hebrew: טָרַם עֲלֵיהֶם לְכַלֵּה teram = “it will have anticipated them against them at the end).” It is clear from the context that wrath lies ahead of them in anticipation, but it has not caught them yet.
John 15:6: “If anyone should not remain in me, he will have been cast out like a branch, and he will have been dried up, and they gather them, and into the fire they throw [it], and it is burned.” ἐβλήθη, aorist indicative; ἐξηράνθη, aorist indicative.
John 15:8, “By this my Făther will have been glorified, that you may bear much fruit, and may become my disciples.” ἐδοξάσθη aorist indicative.
1Cor. 7:28: “you will not have sinned” ἥμαρτες, aorist indicative. Luke 1:47: “my spirit will have rejoiced” ἠγαλλίασεν, aorist indicative.
John 17:18: “And I will have sent them into the world.” ἀπέστειλα, aorist indicative. Stanley Porter insists that the English future is too strong, and opts for “I am going to send them into the world.” (
More examples from Porter: Jude 1:4: “will have come with ten thousands of his holy ones.” Rev. 14:8: “will have fallen, will have fallen.” (The perfect gives an emphatic sense to the certitude of the outcome.) The viewpoint is in the future looking back. Rev. 15:1: “the wrath of Gŏd will have been finished.”
1:4² ^Paul is not here teaching individual predestination. The choosing here is in a general way, like a teacher chooses to teach freshmen one year, and sophmores the next. The teacher need not have individual students in mind to plan all manner of beneficial activities. Neither is a negative side of “predestination” mentioned here. There is no notice given of plans to send anyone to their destruction at the beginning.
1:4‡ ^כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּחַר אֹתָנוּׅ בוֹׅ בְּטֶרֶם יְסוֹד תֵּבֵלׅ לְמַעַן נִהיֶה קְדֹשִׁים וּתְמִימִים לְפָנָיו בְּאַהֲבָה׃
1:5-6‡ ^שֶׁיָעוֹד יָעַד אֹתָנוּ בְּטֶרֶם לִהיוֹת בָּנִיםׅ עַל־יְדֵי יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ לְעַצמוֹׅ כַּמַּחֲשָׁבַה הַטּוֹבָה שֶׁל רְצוֹנוֹׅ לְמַעַן תְּהִלַּת כְּבוֹד חַסְדּוֹׅ אֲשֶׁר חָנַן עָלֵינוּׅ מֵאֲשֶׁר אָהַב אֹתָנוּ׃
1:7‡ ^ בֲּאֲשֶׁר יֵשׁ לָנוּ הַפְּדוּת עַל יְדֵי דַמוֹׅ סְלִיחַת הַפְּשָׁעִיםׅ כְּעוֹשֶׁר חַסדּוֹ׃
1:8‡ ^אֲשֶׁר הֶעְדִּיף אֵלֵינוּׅ בְּכָל־חָכמָהׅ וְהַשׂכֵּל׃
1:9‡ ^אֲשֶׁר הוֹדַע הוֹדִיעַ אֹתָנוּ אֶת־סוֹד חֶפצוֹׅ כַּמַּחֲשָׁבָה הַטּוֹבָה שֶׁלוֹׅ אֲשֶׁר הִקבִּיעַ אִתּוֹ׃
1:10¹ ^See Isa. 22:21, “And your dominion I will put in his hand.” (οἰκονομίαν).
1:10-11‡ ^לְמֶמשָׁלָה בִּמְלֵאוֹת הַמּוֹעֲדִיםׅ לֶאֱסֹף יַחַד אֶת־הַכֹּל אֶל הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ אֶת אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִםׅ וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץׅ בּוֹׅ בְּשֶׁגַם הָנחֲלנוּׅ בְּהִוָּעֵד מִקֶּדֶםׅ כְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַפֹּעֵל עִם הַכֹּל כַּעֲצַת חֶפצוֹ׃
1:12‡ ^לְמַעַן אֲנַחנוּ נִהיֶה לִתהִלַּת כְּבוֹדוֹׅ אֲנַחנוּ שֶׁיִחַלנוּ מִקֶּדֶם בַּמָּשִׁיחַ׃
1:13‡ ^בְּשֶׁגַּם שְׁמַעתֶּם אֶת דְּבַר הָאֱמֶתׅ אֶת בְּשׂוֹרַת יְשׁוּעַתכֶםׅ בְּשֶׁגַּם הַאֲמֵן הֶאֱמַנתֶּםׅ אַתֶּם שֶׁנֶחתַּמתֶּם בָּרוּחַ הַהַבטָחָהׅ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃
1:14‡ ^אֲשֶׁר עֶרָבוֹן נַחֲלָתֵנוּ עַד גְאוּלַת הָאֲחֻזָּהׅ לְמַעַן תְּהִלַּת כְּבוֹדוֹ׃
1:15-16‡ ^בַּעֲבוּר זֹאתׅ כַּאֲשֶׁר גַּם אֲנִי שָׁמַעתִּי אֶת שְׁמוּעַת אֱמוּנַתכֶםׅ בַּאֲדֹנָי יֵשׁוּעַׅ וְאֶת אַהֲבָה לְכָּל־הַקְּדֹשִׁיםׅ לֹא אֲנִי חָדֵּל מוֹדֶה עֲלֵיכֶםׅ אֶת אַזכָּרָה עֹשֵׂה בִּתפִלּתַי׃
1:17‡ ^לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁרׅ אֱלֹהֵי אֲדֹנֵינוּ יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ אֲבִי הַכָּבוֹדׅ יִתֵּן לָכֶםׅ אֶת רוּחַ חָכמַהׅ וְהִתגַּלּוּתׅ בְּדֵעוֹת תְּמִיםוֹת לְעַצמוֹׅ
1:18‡ ^כַּאֲשֶׁר עֵינֵי לְבַבכֶם הוּאֲרוּׅ לְמַעַן יְדַעתֶּם מַה הִיא תִקוַת קְרִיאָתוֹׅ מַה הוּא עוֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד נַחֲלָתוֹ עִם הַקְּדֹשִׁיםׅ
1:19‡ ^וּמַה הִיא גְּדוּלָּה שְׁטוּפָה שֶׁל הֱחֵילוֹׅ אֵלֵינוּ שֶׁהַמַּאֲמִינִיםׅ כִּפְעוּלַּת מַמלֶכֶת עֻזּוֹׅ
1:20‡ ^אֲשֶׁר הוּא פָּעַל בַּמָּשִׁיחַׅ בַּהֲקִימוֹ אֹתוֹ מִן־הַמֵּתִיםׅ וְהוֹשִׁיבוֹ לִימִינוֹ בַּשָּׁמַיִםׅ
1:21‡ ^מִמַּעַל מִכָּל־שְׂרָרָהׅ וִשְׁלִיטָהׅ וְחַיִלׅ וַאֲדוֹנוּתׅ וְכֹל שֵׁם הַנִּקרָאׅ לֹא לְבַד בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּהׅ כִּי אִם גַּם בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא׃
1:22a‡ ^וְכֹל שָׁת תַּחַת רַגלַיו׃
1:22b¹ ^Why do most versions translate Church? This is a well known problem, and any scholar will confess that “assembly” or “congregation” is correct. Here is the orgin of the word “church”: “church (n.) Old English
Tyndale avoided the word “churche” except in two places: Acts 19:37 “For ye have brought hyther these me whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes,” and Acts 14:13 “Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people.” In both places, a place of pagan worship is referred to! For the faithful he used the term, “congregacion.”
A lot of people want to derive the term “church” from “circle” and then make a leap that “circle” refers to some kind of paganism. I would call this a popular junk etymology because it disagrees with the consensus without providing any evidence the consensus is wrong.
The word assembly appears in Hebrew as קָהָל qahal. It appears in the construct: קְהַל יִשׂרָאֵל qehal Yisra’ēl, “assembly of Yisra’ēl.” The Greek ἐκκλησία means the same. The term קָהָל should not be rendered in the feminine קְהִלָּה qehillah in imitation of the gender in the Greek. Translating the term correctly allows people to connect the term to the “Assembly of Yisra’ēl” and thereby begin to realize that Torah is a covenanat between the assembly of Yisra’ēl and the Almighty, and that Mĕssiah died to restore that covenant.
And we may ask members of large denominations, which have lots of money, why their leaders have not printed a corrected Bible? Could it be that this smoking gun is just the first worm in the can sticking its head out, and they are afraid of finding the other worms?
1:23‡ ^וְאֹתוֹ נָתַן לִהיוֹת אֶת רֹאשׁ עַל כָּל הַקָּהָלׅ אֲשֶׁר הוּא גּוּפוֹׅ הַשׁלָמַת עַצמוֹׅ אֲשֶׁר הוּא מַשׁלִים אֶת־הַכֹּל מֵאֵת כָּל־הַדְּבַרִים׃
2:1¹ ^ὄντας νεκροὺς. Based on Pual perfect, מוֹתַתֶּם mōtatem. The causative element of the Pual is translated “designated.” Paul is communicating that their “deadness” was a status assigned to them by the Almĭghty. They were under the sentence of death.
2:1† ^וְאֶתכֶם מוֹתַתֶּם בַּעֲוֹנֹתֵיכֶםׅ
2:2¹ ^Aeon (αἰῶνα). A Greek synonym meaning a ruler or prince אַיּוֹן a̕yyōn. I contruct the phrase, כְּאַיּוֹן שֶׁל הַתֵּבֵל הַזֹּאת.
2:2² ^מֶמְשֶׁלֶת memshelet, dominion of.
2:2³ ^מַרדָנוּת mardanūt
2:2† ^כַּאֲשֶׁר אָז הִתהַלַּכתֶּם כְּאַיּוֹן שֶׁל הַתֵּבֵל הַזֹּאתׅ כִּרצוֹן שַׂר מֶמשֶׁלֶת הָאֲוִירׅ הָרוּחַ שֶׁפֹּעֵל עַתָּה בִּבנֵי מַרדָנוּת׃
2:3¹ ^להפך Hith., “to overturn.”; אָז “then.” “doing” בַּעְשׂוֹת.
2:3† ^וּבתוֹכָם כוּלָּנוּ הִתהַפַּכנוּ אָז בְּתַאֲוֹת הַבָּשָׂרׅ בַּעְשׂוֹת אֶת־חֶפצֵי הַבָּשָׂר וְהַמַּחֲשָׁבוֹת׃ וְהָיִינוּ בְּטֶבַע בְּנֵי רֹגֶז כְּמוֹ גַּם הַנִּשׁאָרִים׃
2:4† ^אַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים נֶעֱשָׁר בְּרַחֲמִים עַל יְדֵי אַהֲבָתוֹ הָרַבָּה אֲשֶׁר אֲהַבָנוּ,
2:5¹ ^Hebrew: made to be dead, or declared to be. Paul is speaking of a legal status here, under the sentence of death.
2:5² ^The Greek should be read as an instrumental dative, or a dative of consequence.
2:5³ ^Hebrew: made us to be alive. Again the Piel speaks of a legal status. The sentence was changed from one to death, to a pardon for life.
2:5‡ ^Here I have opted for a future perfect. The Greek text combined a present and a perfect participle. The future perfect looks backward from a point in the future, and sees what has been the case in the past.
2:5† ^גַּם בִּהיוֹתֵנוּ מְמוֹתָתִים בִּגלַל פְּשָׁעֵינוּׅ הוּא חִיָּה אֹתָנוּ עִם הַמָּשִׁיחַ׃ עַל יְדֵי חֶסֶד אַתֶּם נוֹשַׁעתֶּם׃
2:6¹ ^The Greek aorist usually translates the Hebrew perfect. It is clear that Paul was thinking in Hebrew terms here, because the context requires the future perfect, a.k.a the converted perfect. The Greek aroist was the best translation for the Hebrew future perfect.
2:6² ^The idiom “by the hands of.” This is a Hebrew idiom meaning “by means of” or “with the help of.” It is an anthropomorphism. Messiah does have literal hands, but the idiom does not mean that here. It is simply a Greek instrumental dative: ἐν = by, by means of.
2:6† ^וֶהֱקִימָ֖נוּ עִמּ֑וֹ וְהֽוֹשִׁיבָ֤נוּ עִמּוֹ֙ בַּשָּׁמַ֔יִם עַל־יְדֵ֥י הַמָּשִׁ֖יחַ יֵשֽׁוּעַ׃
2:7† ^לְמַעַן יַראֶהׅ בָּעוֹלָמִים הַבָּאִיםׅ אֶת־שׁוֹטֵף עֹשֶׁר חַסדּוֹׅ בַּטּוּב עַלֵינוּׅ עַל־יְדֵי מָשִׁיחַ יֵשׁוּעַ׃
2:8† ^Because by loving-kindness, being saved, you have¹ been saved, in faithfulness, and this salvation is not from you.† From the Almĭghty it is a gift,‡ 9 not from works, so that a man should not make himself to be boasting.¹
By the Almĭghty’s love we have been saved, and are being saved. What is his part in salvation? His part is to pay the punitive penalty for our sin and forgive it, and to heal us to enable us to obey him. We have already been forgiven, as the text says, “have been saved”. But we also are being saved, as the text says, “being saved.” He is presently healing us to enable us to obey him. The healing is not done, and so our faithfulness cannot yet be perfect. Gŏd’s initial salvation, and continuing salvation, are not caused, or implemented by our works. But it is caused by his work, and caused by his faithfulness.
What is our part in salvation? Our part is to meet the condition of receiving his work. And to meet the condition he sets we need to respond to his work. We have to respond to his sacrificial work and to his ongoing healing of our souls. Having heard the good news, we are required to affirm our faithfulness to Him, and to confirm our faithfulness to him by obeying his commandments. Our ability to be faithful is in proportion to his ongoing saving work in our minds and bodies to enable us to make the faithful response.
“Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before him, in whatever our heart condemns us, because the Almĭghty is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before the Almĭghty. And whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, that we should affirm faithfulness to the name of his Sŏn Yĕshua the Mĕssiah, and love one another, just as he commanded us. 24a And the one who keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in him” (1John 3:18-24a).
The salvation provided by the Almĭghty is a saving to forgive when we repent, and to heal us to enable us to obey him. But if we wish to rebel against him, or turn away from him, he does not save us from that. He will not save us from our own willful decisions to turn away. Nor will he save us from deception if we have not generally sought him. Therefore, it is necessary to seek and to confirm our obedience
Elsewhere the emissaries speak of saving yourselves from an evil and perverse generation, and working out your salvation. So when we confess that salvation is without works, we are confessing that Mĕssiah’s part of salvation is without our works. Paul never meant to deny that our response does not play a part in overall salvation. Yĕshūa̒ said that he who endures to the end will be saved. Clearly, he is speaking of the human component in overall salvation. So we may say that overall salvation consists of Yăhwēh’s salvation by grace without our works combined with our faithful response.
The theological term used to describe overall salvation is
Monergism is an Augustinian and Calvinisitc conception of Salvation. In this program the saved are predestined to salvation and the dammed are predestined to damnation by the divine will in eternity before time. In this view god causes all things, both good and evil. All destinies are fixed, and the future is exhaustively determined. This philosophy has slipped into the faith and perverted it. The god of monergism is the god of fate. It is a false god where love is ultimately meaningless, and where this god causes sin, and sinners cannot help themselves from sinning because of the divine decree of this god. Gŏd’s people have taken this idol god into their hearts.
There are many faithful who have been deceived into believing doctrines that describe the false monergistic god just as they have been deceived into other false doctrines like a hell of eternal conscious torment, but they believe them just because they have been told they are true and not because they really believe the true Gŏd is like that in their hearts. So we have to extend a bit of grace to them. On the other hand, we have to watch out for the theologians and teachers that are committed to the system.
Finally, I would point out that most Bible versions were produced by monergists, who have illegitimately inserted their beliefs into the texts they translate. In the present verse, the translations put “faith” instead of “faithfulness,” which they interpret as believe only, and then they also interpret the text so that faith is caused by the monergistic god. The faithful are then reduced to robots.
Watch out for the leaven of modern monergists: R.C. Sproul, James White, Norman Geisler, John Piper, and Bruce Ware. These men teach a false god. And they have the arrogance to act and think like they are the defenders of orthodoxy. They are nothing more than the Scribes and Pharisees of tradition. And their tradition does not agree with the word of the Almĭghty.
The Greek text of Eph. 2:8 has been the subject of much debate, with many false teachers saying that “faith” is the gift, and that “this” refers to “faith.” This simply cannot be, because in Greek the word “faithfulness” πίστεως is feminine in gender, and the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο “this” is neuter. The neuter is used to refer to another neuter, or a concept compounded of several words of different genders. In this case, the demonstrative pronoun refers back to the opening phrase, “by loving-kindness, being saved, you have been saved.” The matter can be made quite a bit clearer by translation into Hebrew, where חֶסֶד ḥesed is masculine in gender, and the verb has a masculine 2nd person plural ending. Since Hebrew has no neuter case, I use the masculine demonstrative pronoun זֶה zeh to translate the Greek neuter. Now it more easily refers to “loving-kindness” (חֶסֶד) and the verb phrase “you have been saved.” Also I have placed the word “gift” in the masculine, and the pronoun “it” is also masculine.
This text proves beyond a doubt that one cannot translate without knowing what Paul meant beforehand, and knowing correct theology beforehand. It is plainly clear that the Almĭghty has a covenant relationship with Yisra’ēl. He is faithful, and he expects a faithful response. Therefore Paul says that salvation is “by way of faithfulness,” yet at the same time he says that the loving-kindness of salvation is not from us. He is saying that the saving is done by Messiah, but that it is received by way of faithfulness, i.e. a faithful response.
:2:8‡ ^כִּי־בַּחֶסֶד הִוָּשַׁע תְּיֻשְּׁעוּׅ בֶּאֱמוּנָהׅ וְזֶה לֹא מִּכֶּםׅ מֶאֱלֹהִים הוּא מַתַּן׃
The Greek Perfect emphasizes a resultant state mostly in present time (see Stanley Porter). The Hebrew conjugation for a stative sense is the Piel or the Pual. Paul has augmented the perfect in Eph. 2:8 with a present tense “to be.” In order to capture the present emphasis and the stative result, I have combined a passive infinitive absolute with the Hebrew Pual Imperfect, הִוָּשַׁע תְּיֻשְּׁעוּׅ, hiwasha̒ teyūsheū = being saved, you are made to be saved = ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι. This is very close to the way the King James Translators understood the text, “For by grace are ye saved..”
He combines the Greek present verb ἐστε with the passive perfect participle σεσῳσμένοι. The reason he does this is to indicate continuing and future results.
Now elsewhere Paul says to work out your salvation, which is an apt description of faithfulness (Phil. 2:12). By this he does not mean paying our own penalty for sin, or reversing death. Only Messiah’s loving-kindness can do that. Rather he means sin-avoidance by being faithful. Now this is something we can do something about. In 1Tim. 4:16 it says, “and yourself you will save and your hearers” (σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου).
2:9¹ ^לֹא מִמַּעֲשִׂיםׅ לְמַעַן אִישׁ לֹא יִתְהַלֵּל׃
2:10‡ ^כִּי מַעֲשֵׂהוּ אֲנַחנוּׅ נִברָאִים עַל יְדֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֵשׁוּעַׅ עַל מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִיםׅ אֲשֶׁר הֵכִין הָאֱלֹהִים מִקֶּדֶםׅ לְמַעַן בָּהֶם נִתהַלֵּךְ׃
2:11¹ ^ποτὲ, אָז a̕z, “formerly, at that time”
2:11² ^The NIV criminally interpolates the word “are” here, completely illegitimate to the context. The NLT is lawless. The ESV avoids the necessary predication. The KJV captures the sense correctly. The HCSB, ISV, YLT are correct.
B.S.I.’s modern Hebrew translation goes like this, “Therefore, remember ye what had been in the past, ye, the nations, in physical terms, those being called uncircumcised ones by the mouth of those being called circumcised ones, whose circumcision
2:11‡ ^עַל־כֵּן זִכרוּ כִּי אָזׅ אַתֶּם הַגּוֹיִם בַּבָּשָׂרׅ הַנִּקרָאִים עַרֹלָהׅ תַחַת הַנִּקרָאָה מוּלָה בַּבָּשָׂרׅ נַעֲשֵׂית בְּיָד׃
2:12† ^Paul refers to them as they who “had been strangers from citizenship in Yisra’ēl,” and by so doing he confirms that their new status is that of citizenship in Yisra’ēl. This is what he means in Eph. 2:19 when he reuses the word citizens. The phrase “ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ” beings with a perfect passive participle in Greek. It therefore demands the translation, “had been strangers from citizenship in Yisra’ēl.” Paul’s use of the temporal adverb “then” in the context (cf. 2:11¹) indicates that the perfect is a pluperfect.
In order to explain away this text it is often claimed that “citizen” in Eph. 2:19 only means a citizen of the kingdom of heaven associated with physical Yisra’ēl, but not actually a citizen or joint heir in literal Yisra’ēl. They say that non-Jews are spiritual citizens of “salvation” alongside, but separate from Yisra’ēl, and they define Yisra’ēl as only Jews. However, on the contrary to this view, the non-Jew “had been strangers from citizenship in Yisra’ēl”, so the complementary opposite must be the positive side of this truth: we are now non-strangers from non-citizenship in Yisra’ēl. Paul says we are joint-citizens, a joint-body, joint-heirs, joint partakers of the promise. He does not mean a spiritual kingdom alongside Yisra’ēl, which is not Yisra’ēl. This notion does not agree with Paul’s words, “because you had been at that time without Mĕssiah, as that you had been† strangers from citizenship in Yisra’ēl, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise” (Eph. 2:12).
Non-Jewish ethnicities (τὰ ἔθνει) remain the ethnic groups they are when being integrated with Yisra’ēl, because the ethnic reference is a genus or origin. Their citizenship status, on the other hand, is Yisra’ēli̱. There is one covenant nation, one spiritual and physical entity called Yisra’ēl, united in Mĕssiah. It is not exclusive to Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free, which are all roles within the citizenry of Yisra’ēl. All are counted as the seed of A̕v̱raham (Gal. 3:29).
The term Yisra’ēli̱ may refer to serveral things, 1. a genus or origin, a genetic descent from Ya‘aqōv̱. 2. citizenship in secular political Yisra’ēl. 3. Citizenship in Yisra’ēl, as recognized by the Almĭghty, which includes all of category #1 (genetic descendants, excepting the Northern Kingdom, which was disowned, see below), including those who have rejected Mĕssiah, but which He has promised to cut off and judge when he purges the citizenry of Yisra’ēl of ungodliness, and also including anyone of non-genetic descent, who has been naturalized as a citizen through faithfully trusting in Mĕssiah. 4. The remnant of Yisra’ēl. I include this category, which is really a subcategory of #3, and hence “remnant of” because it really designates the remnant destined for salvation, which will remain after those rejecting salvation are cut off.
There is some similarity between secular political Yisra’ēl (#2) and Yisra’ēl as recognized by Gŏd, in that both include non-genetic citizens. In Gŏd’s reckoning (#3) non-gentic descendants of Ya‘aqōv̱ who do not accept Mĕssiah, which are included in secular-political Yisra’ēl, are not part of his definition #3. The covenant extends to all nations, even to those who are not genetic descendants, and those genetic descendants who were disowned from being Yisra’ēl (cf. Deut. 29:12-18), but this extension of the negative aspects of the covenant does not enjoin them the right of Yisra’ēli̱ citizenship (#3) or the blessings of the covenant without entering via Mĕssiah. Therefore, the unbelieving Jew currently has a higher status than an unbelieving descendant of the northern kingdom, which has been counted as cut off already. For the Jew, on the other hand, who remains in unbelief, excision from identification with Yisra’ēl occurs when Mĕssiah purges the nation. If they die before then, excision occurs by not being included in the resurrection of the righteous, and then further at the final judgment. As long as they live, there is a window of opportunity to repent, but the unbelieving Jew is not to be disowned from the nation, or temporally judged for unbelief. This loving-kindness was extended by the Almĭghty to them over and above the northern kingdom, which was divorced when the Almĭghty reached the end of his long suffering.
All Jews are Yisra’ēl (#1, #3), but only the faithful ones in Messiah will be the remnant of Yisra’ēl after judgment.
In Hosea Gŏd calls the northern kingdom “not my people.” This is further affirmed in Isaiah 7:8. The tribe of Judah, on the other hand, containing also remnant of the northern kingdom, remained his people in the sense of definition #3 (cf. Jer. 31:36). So the northern kingdom was disowned from being Yisra’ēl. Their genetic descent is not recognized as making them Yisra’ēl unless they re-enter through Mĕssiah. Therefore, most true Christians (who are not Jewish Christians) are the reinstatement of the northern kingdom of Yisra’ēl, upon their faithfulness in Mĕssiah, as Paul writes in Romans 9:22-26. This is the mystery of the kingdom. The northern kingdom is readmitted on the same basis that the remnant of nations with no genetic connection to Yisra’ēl are admitted, on the same basis as Christians with no genetic connection, which is why Paul was able to include them under the saying “not my people”, because these formerly always were “not my people.”
2:12‡ ^כִּי הֱיִיתֶם כָּעֵת הַהִיא בִּבלִי מָשִׁיחַׅ כַּאֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם זָרִים מֵאֶזרָחוּת יִשׂרָאֵלׅ וְנָכרִים לִברִיתוֹת הַהַבטָחָהׅ תִּקוָה לֹא אוֹחֲזוֹתֶיהָׄ וְאָתֵאִיסטִים בָּעוֹלָם׃
B.S.I. translation, from Hebrew, reads “In that time, ye had been without Messiah, strangers to the congregation of Yisra’ēl, and foreigners to the covenants of promise, being made to be lacking of hope, and without God in the world.” It is to be noted that the B.S.I. translation substitutes “congregation” for “citizenship,” which is not correct.
Covenants of promise: Paul uses the word διαθηκη in the plural in three texts: Eph. 2:12; Rom. 9:4; Gal. 4:24. The plural also appears in 2Mac. 8:15 referring to the covenants with the fathers. The plural never appears in the Hebrew text, i.e. it is always בְּרִית. In Romans 9:4 the sense is the same as here. In Gal. 4:24 Paul is speaking about “two wills” resulting from the same covenant. It is clear from the usage in Romans 9:4 that the plural refers to the covenants of Yisra’ēl. For the sake of simplicity the whole arrangement between Yăhwēh and Yisra’ēl is called the covenant. But the reality is that the covenant is put together from many covenants, which are renewed from time to time. So for example, the book of Deuteronomy describes a covenant renewal, “These are the words† of the covenant, which Yăhwēh had made to be commanded Mōshēh‡ to cut with the sons of Yisra’ēl in the land of Mōa̓v̱, besides• the covenant which he had cut with them in ¹Ḥōrēv̱” (Deut. 29:1). The plural covenants lays emphasis on the participating covenants in the overall covenant: the covenant with Noah; the covenant with Abraham; the covenant at Sinai; the covenant on the plains of Moab; the covenant with David; and the promise of the renewed covenant in Jer. 31:31. Possibly Paul is saying covenants here to prevent some from saying only the covenant with Noah applies to non-Jews, but not the other covenants. Paul also uses the word “promise” to refer to the land of Israel (cf. Gal. 3:29), and this helps make is meaning clear, lest anyone try and disenfranchise non-Jews from being part of Israel.
2:13‡ ^אַךְ עַתָּה בְּדֶרֶך הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֵשׁוּעַׅ אַתֶּם אֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם מִקֶּדֶם מֵרָחֹקׅ אַתֶּם הֻקרַבתֶּם בְּדַּם הַמָּשִׁיחַ׃
2:15¹ ^I have here put “the penalty of the law,” which is always mistranslated as, “the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or something meaning the same thing. The Greek phrase is “τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν.” The last two words, ἐν δόγμασιν easily correspond to a Hebrew phrase: בְּמִשׂפָּטִים bemishpatim = “in judgments” or כְּפִי מִשׁפָּטִים kipi̱ mishpatim = “according to the mouth of judgments.” The verb root for δόγμα is δοκέω “to be of opinion, think, suppose;” hence the noun form means “legal opinion” or a legal “judgment.” The term ἐντολῶν is usually translated commandments, but the word may also means “injunctions” or “orders” issued by a judicial body giving directions for sentences to be carried out. Judicial injuctions are actually penalties in our modern world. What happened in the last 2000 or so years is that the language used in the legislature has diverged from language used in the courtroom. A direction that something be done is called a law in the legislature. A direction that something be done that comes from a court is called a sentence, injunction, or order. The word ἐντολή equally means all of these things. But English speakers do not normally think of “commandments” coming from a court, or even a legislature. The word “commandments” in English is relegated to almost exclusive religious use! So it is no wonder that modern experience gives no context. But as soon as you say “injunctions” then we have a context. Aha! “Court injunctions” which penalize one party and favor another.
The first word in our phrase is νόμος nomos. This word also has a much broader range of meaning than one expects from the typical English translation “law.” It fundamentally means any sort of “norm, custom, or usage.” All three senses are in the Lexicons. A usage is a standard procedure, or expected procedure. So if we cast Paul’s phrase into modern terms we have “the usage of the injunctions in judgments,”; the judgments would be the written legal opinions of a court, and the injunctions would be specific orders for penalty or relief. To render this into Hebrew I have used a phrase meaning, “the penalty of the Tōrah according to the mouth of judgments”: עוֹנֶשׁ הַתּוֹרָה כְּפִי מִשׁפָּטִיםׅ.
Early on lawless interpreters of Paul decided that the “law of commandments in ordiances” meant the “ceremonial” part of the law of Moses. This early speculation made complete nonesense of Paul’s good news, which only makes sense if the penalty of the law is being suspended for the faithful. If only certain ceremonial laws are being suspended, then that is bad news, because that leaves a lot of other laws that people always break, to be judged by. How is it good news if no penalties are canceled, but only the actual code of part of the law?
Other interpreters have gone further, and have claimed that the Paul is abolishing the law in total with these words to escape the nonesense of dividing the law up into two pieces with no context to justify it. This makes even less sense of the good news. Why then did Messiah die, and what is there to forgive? And why is there still a final judgment?
2:14-15‡ ^כִּי הוּא הַשְּׁלָמִים עָלֵינוּׅ שֶׁעָשָׂה אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם אֶחָדׅ וְאֶת מְחִיצַת הַגָּדֵר הוּא פִּתַּחׅ אֶת עוֹיְנוּתׅ בְּדֶּרֶך בְּשָׂרוֹׅ אֶת עוֹנֶשׁ הַתּוֹרָה כְּפִי מִשׁפָּטִיםׅ הוּא בִּטֵּלׅ לְמַעַן הַשְּׁנַיִם יִברָא בְּדֶּרֶך עַצמוֹ לְאָדָם אֶחָד חָדָשׁׅ עֹשֵׂה שָׁלוֹם׃
2:16‡ ^וּלְמַעַן יְשׁוֹבֵב אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִםׅ בְּגוּף אֶחָד לֵאלֹהִיםׅ בְּדֶּרֶך עֵץ תְלִיָהׅ מֵמִית אֶת עוֹינוּת בְּדֶּרֶך נַפשׁוֹ׃
2:17‡ ^וּבְבוֹאׅ בִּשֵּׂר שָׁלוֹם אֲלֵיכֶםׅ לָרְחוֹקִיםׅ וְשָׁלוֹם לַקְּרוֹבִים׃
2:18‡ ^כִּי בְּדַּרְכּוֹׅ אֲנַחנוּ אוֹחֲזִים אֶת הִתְקָרְבוּתׅ הַשְּׁנַיִםׅ בְּדֶּרֶך רוּחַ אֶחַדׅ אֶל־הָאָב׃
2:19‡ ^לָכֵן אֵפוֹא אֵינכֶם עוֹד נָכְרִים וְגֵרִיםׅ כִּי אִם אַתֶּם אֶזרָחִים יַחַד עִם הַקְּדוֹשִׁיםׅ וּבְנֵי בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים׃
2:20‡ ^בְּנוּיִם עַל יְסוֹד הַשְּׁלִיחִים וְהַנְּבִיאִיםׅ אֵיפֹה יֵשׁוּעַ הַמָּשִׁיחַ עַצְמוֹ הוּא אֶבֶן הַפִּנָּה׃
2:21‡ ^ בְּמִי כָּלּ־הַבִּניָן מְחֻבָּר יַחַדׅ מַגְדִּיל לְהֵיכַל קֹדֶשׁ בְּיַהוֶה׃
2:22‡ ^ בְּמִי גַּם אַתֶּם נִבְנִים יַחַד לִהיוֹת מִשׁכַּן הָאֱלֹהִים בְּרוּחַ׃
3:2¹ ^After careful consideration of these words in the Greek, and their translation into Hebrew, I have concluded that “if...you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace” (or its equivalent found in the English versions) is way off base. Firstly, like the Hebrew the Greek verb ἀκούω means “to listen to” (cf. Friberg), or to heed or “obey.” Secondly, there is more to the word “administration” than “stewardship.” It also means “dominion, realm, kingdom” (from מֶמשָׁלָה memshalah, cf. Isa. 22:21, “And your dominion I will put in his hand...and he will have opened, and none
3:3† ^This is the mystery of the kingdom, the hidden treasure in the field, that the Sŏn of Man sold all he had (his life) to purchase. The field is the world, and the treasure are the sons and daughters of Yisra’ēl who are the lost sheep wandering in every field (country) under heaven, who were divorced and disowned for their transgressions, but who are now invited to repent of their sins, and return through Yēshūa̒, to become children of the kingdom, where they are accorded the status of equal citizenship in the kingdom of Gŏd according to all the rights and privileges of the native born.
3:1-4‡ ^בַּעֲבוּר זֹאת אֲנִי פוֹלוֹסׅ אֲסִיר הַמָּשִׁיחַ לְמַעַנכֶםׅ הַגּוֹיִםׅ אִם־אָמנָם שְׁמַעתֶּם אֶת מֶמשֶׁלֶת חֶסֶד הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר־נִתּנָה לִי בַּעַדכֶםׅ כִּי כְּהִתגַּלּוּתׅ הוּדעָה לִי אֶת הַתַּעֲלוּמָהׅ כַּאֲשֶׁר כָּתַבתִּי בְּטֶרֶם בִּמְעַט מִלּוֹתׅ עַל אֲשֶׁר תּוּכלוּ בְּקָראֲכֶם לְהַכִּיר אֶת־בִּינָתִי בְּתַעֲלוּמַת הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ
3:5‡ ^אֲשֶׁר בַּדּוֹרֹת הַאֲחֵרִים לֹא הוּדעָה לִבנֵי אָדָםׅ כַּאֲשֶׁר נִגלְתָה עַתָּה בִּשְׁלִיחָיו הַקְּדֹשִׁים וּבנְבִיאָיו בָּרוּחַׅ
3:6¹ ^Do the “Dispensationalists” disclaim being joined to Yisra’ēl? Yes they do. But Paul is against them. Even the word “dispensation” οἰκονομίαν (YLT, KJV) they have made to be ripped from the context. I have explained that this word means “dominion, realm, kingdom” from its Hebrew source: מֶמשָׁלָה, memshalah. The phrase “kingdom of Gŏd” refers also to the kingdom of Yisra’ēl, i.e. in 1Chron. 28:5, “Then he chose Shelōmōh, my son, to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yăhwēh over Yisra’ēl.” The words there are: מַלכוּת יַהוֶה malḳūt Yăhwēh! This is also referred to by the Queen of Sheba, “to put you upon His throne as king for Yăhwēh your Almĭghty” (2Chron. 9:8). Paul piles on the adverbs: “joint heirs,” “joint body,” “joint partakers” (or “receivers [of the inheritance] as one [people].” In Eph. 2:12 also, “citizenship in Yisra’ēl”, “foreigners to the covenants”; and 2:19, “no longer aliens,” “citizens jointly.” How can Paul says this? Well he did, and therefore “dispensationalists” deny the canonicity of Paul (I know they will protest this). Paul’s whole point comes from the Tōrah and Prophets, e.g. Gen. 48:19; Isa. 56:1-8. Deut. 29:14-15; Hos. 1:9-11 (cf. Rom. 9:22-26; 11:25). Also many who call themselves “Messianic Jews” deny that Paul is saying non-Jews are joint citizens with them, who teach that non-Jews are not included “in the covenants of promise,” and that non-Jews receive a different inheritance outside the promises to the Patriarchs. They throw the non-Jews the same sop of spiritual status in an ethereal kingdom (really a gnostic one) that the law-denying side of the Church teaches to its own non-Jews to keep them from realizing their inheritance in the kingdom. They do not enter the kingdom, and they teach so as to make anyone who has gone through the door the least in the kingdom. Take hold of your inheritance!
3:6† ^Paul speaks here of “nations” in terms of origin, and not status. Many people are greatly confused by the terms, “1. gentiles,” גּוֹיִם gōyim, “2. nations” גּוֹיִם gōyim, “3. sojourner,” תּוֹשָׁב tōshav and “4. sojourner” גֵּר gēr, and “5. Who is a Jew?” “6. Who is Israel?” A good deal of the confusion comes from the fact that one Hebrew term is translated two ways, and two Hebrew terms are translated one way, and all the terms have two possible senses in contexts, A: describing a status, or B: describing an origin.
First, let’s describe origin. A person’s origin is where they originally came from. People often change citizenship by moving to another country, or revoking their citizenship in one country and becoming a citizen of another. Many people who are citizens of one country do not live in the country of their citizenship. An American might revoke their citizenship and become Canadian in Canada, and then they might move to America and remain a Canadian citizen. The person would rightly be called an American in terms of origin, and a Canadian in terms of citizenship.
Therefore, all these terms, can describe an origin of a person apart from their current citizenship. One can be from the nations outside Yisra’ēl, and yet have become Yisra’ēli̱. In one sense a person like that is gōy, and in the sense of national status Yisra’ēli̱. We can say likewise for the term “sojourner.” It refers to an origin, and not a status. Likewise a person who is a Jew, may not be a citizen of Yisra’ēl. The term may refer to their origin, their birth, and not their status of citizenship.
So now that you see the problem, let us go through the terms one by one. Firstly, “Gentiles” is a term invented by Rabbinic Jews and the Church to combine origin and status into one term. The Jews came up with the term to keep Christians away from Yisra’ēl. And the Church agreed with the term for the same reason. A Gentile is a person who is not a citizen of Yisra’ēl, or in the covenant of Yisra’ēl. And a Gentile is also a person that is not Jewish or descended from any tribe of Yisra’ēl. The term “Gentile” and “Gentiles” is a possible translation of the Hebrew word גּוֹי or גּוֹיִם, but it is not the only meaning. The word sometimes means a “pagan” or an “idolator.” As the word “gentiles” almost always denotes a status, it is wrongly translated in the Scriptures. The word, when used of the faithful in Mĕssiah, only denotes an origin, and not a status. As for status, the believing nations are citizens of Yisra’ēl. As for origin, from the nations. Believers are incorrectly called “gentiles,” when they sould be called “nations” and understood that they are incorporated into citizenship in Yisra’ēl.
The term “nations” is almost always correct for translations. It denotes firstly an origin, and only if the context requires it a status of foreigner to Yisra’ēl. Where the faithful are being addressed, then it only refers to origin and not status, as here in this passage in Ephesians.
The term “sojourner” may also denote an origin and or a status. This confuses a lot of people who can’t figure out if a sojourner is a citizen of Yisra’ēl or not. Eli̱yahū was a sojourner (1Kings 17:1), but he was a full citizen. Exodus 12:46 says that “no sojourner” (תּוֹשָׁב) shall eat the Passover if they are not circumcised. So the term is referring to an origin in terms of Eli̱yahū. The person is an immigrant or not native.
The term Jewish denotes an origin in many usages, both a status and an origin in others, and a status for converts to Judaism. The term Jewish should not denote a salvific status at all, but the Rabbis have decreed it is a salvific status, or as a term denoting covenant status.
The correct term for designating the status of the faithful is they are now sons and daughters of Yisra’ēl. Their origin may be Jew or Greek or any other nation, or tribe. Yisra’ēli̱ can also describe an origin apart from either status in secular political Yisra’ēl, or it might describe an origin apart from political connection. But when all is said and done, citizenship in Yisra’ēl, and belonging to the covenant of Yisra’ēl, will not be determined by Jewish origin, Greek origin, or being in origin from any other nation, but it will be determined by being faithful in Mĕssiah.
3:6‡ ^שֶׁיִּהיוּ הַגּוֹיִם נְחָלוֹת יַחַדׅ וְגוּף יַחַדׅ וּמקַבְּלִים כְּאֶחָד מִן הַהַבטָחָהׅ בַּמָּשִׁיחַ יֶשׁוּעַ בְּדֶרֶךְ הַבְּשׂוֹרָהׅ
3:7‡ ^לַאֲשֶׁר הָיִיתִי לִמשָׁרֵת כְּמַתּנַת חֶסֶד הָאֱלֹהִיםׅ אֲשֶׁר זֹאת נִתְּנָה לִי כִּפְּעוּלַּת גְּבוּרָתוֹ׃
3:8¹ ^Job 5:9, 9:10: אֵין חֵקֶר a̕ēn ḥēqer = “unsearchable.”
3:8‡ ^לִיׅ הַצְּעִיר בַּצְּעִירִים לְכָל־הַקְּדשִׁיםׅ נִתַּן הַחֶסֶד הַזֶּהׅ בַּגּוֹיִם לְבַשֵׂר אֶת־עֹשֶׁר שֶׁאֵין חֵקֶר לַמָּשִׁיחַׅ
3:9‡ ^ וּלְהָאִיר אֶת־הַכֹּלׅ עַל מַה הִיא מֶמשֶׁלֶת הַתַּעֲלוּמָהׅ שֶׁעֻלּמָה מֵעוֹלָמִים בֵּאלֹהִיםׅ שֶׁבָּרָא הַכֹּלׅ
3:10‡ ^לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר תּוּדַע עַתָּהׅ לַשָׂרִים וְלַשַּׁלִּיטִים בַּשָּׁמַיִםׅ בְּדֶרֶךְ הַקָּהָלׅ אֶת חָכמָה הָרַב־צְדָדִית לָאֱלֹהִיםׅ
3:11¹ ^I have used a military term here. The sense in Hebrew is “the ranking of the ages,” or “the battle line of the ages,” an epic phrase indeed. The Greek term used here, πρόθεσιν, is used in the Septuagint to refer to the “arrangement” or “ranking” of the Showbread, “bread of the faces” (לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים) leḥem hapani̱m, and other items in the tabernacle: “And you will have arranged the arrangement of it” (Exodus 40:4), or “ordered the ordering of it,” or “ranked the ranking of it.” The Hebrew root is עָרַךְ a̒raḳ. In Exodus 40:4, the LXX also compounds the translation with repetition, “προθήσεις τὴν πρόθεσιν αὐτῆς” (וְעָרַכתָּ אֶת־עֶרכּוֹ), wea̒raḳta e̕t e̒rkkō. The literal sense is given in the text, but the Hebrew gives space for some great connections and illustrations. Reuben Alcalay defines: מַעֲרָכָה ma‘araḳah: “arrangment; army; row; battlefield; battle-line; battle, fight, campaign; act, part (in drama, film); order, sub-kindom, system; disposition of stars.” “The arrangement of/for the ages,” i.e. planning the dispositions in advance to accomplish good, and bring justice to evil.
3:11² ^I have translated with the future perfect here a Greek aorist, and the verb with a Piel: “which he will have made to be accomplished.” This takes the matter out of pie in the sky theology, and brings it down to reality. There is an all-out war between good and evil, and Yēshūa̒ will bring the dominion of his kingodm. I should note that the word Paul uses for “administration” is the same as the word for “dominion” (מֶמשָׁלָה memshalah), “realm, kingdom.”
3:11‡ ^כַּמַּעֲרֶכָה לָעוֹלָמִיםׅ שֶׁפִּעֵל אֹתָהּ עַל יְדֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַׅ יֵשׁוּעַ אֲדֹנֵינוּׅ