Shabbat shalom and welcome to this second part of our study of the Kingdom Road. Last week we saw the three Kingdom-building solutions offered by the counterfeit system: Quietism, Compromism and Zealotism of which only one - Quietism - may from time-to-time, because of existing political circumstances - be temporarily mandated by Yahweh, and indeed shall be during the final 3½ years of the Final Gathering. The fourth, and biblical way, is what we call Messianic Israelitism, or the Christian Torah Way.

We will never understand the Besorah (Gospel) of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) as it is supposed to be received and lived until we have understood what 'Israel' was, is and what its purpose was and continues to be. Two thousand years ago, when Yah'shua (Jesus) was born, the religion of the day - that is to say, the Israelite religion known by scholars as Yahwism ('the worship of Yahweh') was fractured into many different groups or parties much as modern Christianity is denominationalised. And as we have seen, there were four major views of the Kingdom - this Kingdom that was called 'Israel'. As Solomon Schechter once amusingly quipped back in the 1960's, the rabbis had many faults but consistency was not one of them. And yet there was a basic worldview that all held, one which we can map pretty accurately, that lies at a deep and fundamental level. For in spite of the great variation between the sects of first century Judaism there was a broad family resemblance just as there is today between 'Evangelicals' and 'Messianics'. And if we are to make proper sense of the B'rit Chadashah or New Covenant, we must understand this belief structure.

So my question to begin today's study is this: what exactly was the belief system of the Judahites of Yah'shua's (Jesus') and Paul's day? And why, of course, do we need to know? Because this underlying belief structure is the same throughout the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation and it is what the new revelation of the Besorah (Gospel) was built on. If we move away from that foundation and try to establish another one, we shall end up with what is called religious syncretism - the combining of the Besorah (Gospel) with the religion and culture in the lands where the former has been planted.

Let me give you two well-known examples. When the Besorah (Gospel) was planted in Rome, within a few generations a synthesis had occurred with Roman and Greek paganism. So much of what Christianity today believes in, from festival observances like Christmas, Easter, to Halloween to ideas about the Soul and Hell, are actually fusions with pagan beliefs. This is how Roman Catholicism arose. Centuries later, when the Catholic Church colonised the New World, the already compromised Catholic system then merged with the indigenous pagan religions and cultures of Meso- and South America making the original Besorah (Gosel) even more obscure as to be virtually hidden altogether.

Maintaining Besorah (Gospel) purity is hard work because there is a constant dark spiritual entropy that would lead it into corruption. Ironically, it was purest when it was persecuted by the Roman Empire and only started becoming compromised and corrupted when Rome at length made it the official state religion. And whilst state religions certainly afford protection, they also lead to church control and the gradual erosion of its doctrines and moral authority. There aren't so many state-protected churches left but the ones that do still exist are little more than political entities teaching very watered-down versions of the Besorah (Gospel). Examples would be the modern Lutheran Church in Denmark or the Church of England in the UK. Since living in Sweden I have witnessed the Lutheran Church cease becoming a state-sponsored and -protected entity. To all intents and purposes it is now but a branch of the Social Democratic Party and the Globalist World Order. Why, one of its Archbishops, a woman, wasn't even sure if Elohim (God) existed, not a good advertisement for Yahweh!

What was that foundation which Yah'shua (Jesus) said He had come to fulfill, fill-up, or complete? What did Yah'shua (Jesus) mean when He said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah (Law) or the Nevi'im (Prophets); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill (Heb. lekayem) them" (Matt.5:17, NIV).

Remember that the phrase "fulfil the Torah (Law)" was a rabbinic idiom in Yah'shua's (Jesus') day so His audiences would have known exactly what He meant. The Hebrew word which we render "fulfill", which also appears in Jewish sayings of the day, literally meant 'complete' or 'accomplish'. And we know that the phrase in 1st century Palestine, "fulfill the Torah/Law" could also mean to properly interpret the Torah so that the covenant people can obey it the way Yahweh intends. What it never means is 'abolish', for which there are other Hebrew words, levatel ('nullify') and la'akor ('uproot') which could also be used at that time to mean to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. [1]

For example, the law against against adultery could be interpreted about a married man lying with another man's wife but not about watching another man's wife undress. Nevertheless when Yah'shua (Jesus) declared that lust was also a violation of the mitzvot (commandment), he was clarifying the true intent of the Torah (Law), so in rabbinic parlance He was 'fulfilling the Torah (Law)' or interpreting it the way Yahweh always intended it to be understood. More than that though, the phrase carried with it the sense of obedience too - of carrying it out. Therefore it carried with it the dual idiomatic meaning of teaching and practicing. Yah'shua (Jesus) therefore came, He says, to explain Yahweh's Torah (Law) and to live it out perfectly, which He did, thus qualifying Him to be Israel's sinless, eternal sacrifice.

Back to the foundations. Yahwism was, first and most importantly, not merely what we like to call 'a faith'. The Yahwism that lies at the heart of our belief system, as also that of ancient Israel, and before them the Patriarchs, was always regarded as:

• 1. A Derech, Way or Life-Path;
• 2. An Halakha or Collection of Torot (Laws); and
• 3. A Way of Being in the World.

Yah'shua (Jesus) expressed this set of overlapping concepts and said of Himself:

"I am The Derech (The Way), The Emet (The Truth), and The Chayim (The Life)" (John 14:6a, NKJV).

"No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6b, NKJV).

If we are to understand what Yah'shua (Jesus) meant when He described Himself thus, which may seem very abstract at first - or maybe even mysterious - to our modern ears, then we must understood what they certainly meant to His listeners who clearly understood what He meant. This was common language to them. These were familiar concepts engrained in a lifestyle which was millennia old.

Let me say 'off the bat' that this is not the world view of modern Christendom. Believers may repeat John 14:6 with delight and confidence, and well they should, since it is truly a most beautiful and profound passage, but much has been lost concerning its more literal meaning simply because we live in a different aeon or age to those ancients who used language a little differently to us. Underscoring both Yah'shua's (Jesus') statement about Himself, and how the Judeans of His day thought about themselves and their relationship to Deity, was the praxis - the action, activity or practice - that Israel is the people of the Creator, Yahweh-Elohim.

Were you to have asked a Judean of the first century why, for instance, he kept the Torah, he would unhesitatingly have replied: 'Because I am a part of Israel, the set-apart people of the creating and redeeming Elohim (God)'. In other words, the creating and redeeming Elohim (God) was, and is, the greater corporate whole, which gives meaning and purpose to individual expression. Yah'shua (Jesus), and later Paul, took this worldview and redefined it, bringing it to completion, as it were, on a far grander scale.

Our task, then, is to understand this threefold Derech or Way, this Emet or Truth, and this Chayim or Life. For those of you raised as Baptists or in the wider Evangelical Christian community (Lutheran, Methodist, Calvinist/Reformed, Pentecostal, etc.), you will be familiar with something called the 'Romans Road to Salvation', a very, very simple teaching tool used to bring folks to Christ and to simple, basic or milky (alef/alpha) salvation (Heb.5:11-14). For those of you who don't know what this is, it's a selection of Bible verses taken from Paul's Epistle to the Romans that present a simple Plan of Salvation through emunah (faith) in Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ):

• 1. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of Elohim (God) (Rom.3:23);
• 2. The wages of (punishment for) sin is (eternal) [1a] death (Rom.6:23);
• 3. The free gift of Elohim (God) is eternal [1b] life through Yah'shua (Jesus) (Rom.6:23);
• 4. People are saved by confessing with their lips that Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) is their Master (Lord) (Rom.10:9); and
• 5. Those who are justified (made right) through emunah (faith) have shalom (peace) with Elohim (God) (Rom.5:1).

Moreover, as you may recall from last week, there are variations of the 'Romans Road' depending which evangelical denomination you are in and what it is you want to emphasise. Sometimes in Place of Romans 6:23, you might, for example, be presented with Romans 5:8:

"Elohim (God) demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Messiah died for us."

• 1. Our Problem (sin);
• 2. Our Peril (death);
• 3. Our Provision (Yah'shua's/Jesus' death);
• 4. Our Confession; and
• 5. Our Justification (getting right with Elohim/szGod).

Now as you can see from the references I just read out to you, these aren't taken from a list compiled by Paul which he instructed talmidim (disciples) to present one by one to unbelievers to elicit a positive or affirmative 'salvation' response. They are scattered around the Epistle and have been plucked out from the 3rd, 6th, 10th and 5th chapters, respectively. They hardly make up what could be called a 'road' or a 'way'. What someone has done (and I'm still trying to find out who originally created this list and put it in this order) is that 'someone' has dug up five paving stones and laid them out on the side of the road, and said, "There! That's the road!" But they're not even a small path, or even a forest trail! It's barely even big enough for a child to play hopscotch on. As roads go, it's awfully short, like the one in this picture (see below)!

There are many who believe that Paul's Epistle to the Romans is a kind of summary of the Besorah (Gospel). I find this to be unlikely on many counts, not least of which is the fact that it is addressed solely to the Roman Messianic Community (Church). This is a letter addressing local needs, not a tract or complete doctrinal statement. And the fact that this cannot be a summary of the whole Message of Messiah is shown not so much by what is included but by what is absent:

• 1. There isn't a single thing about the Kingdom and even though Paul preaches about the Kingdom elsewhere - there is not one reference here. So therefore this Epistle cannot be an overview of the Kingdom Road let alone any 'Road' - it's a few key paving stones only;
• 2. There is almost nothing about two key doctrines of the Kingdom, namely, the Resurrection and the Ascension;
• 3. There is almost nothing about the Messianic Community (Church);
• 4. There is no reference to the Master's (Lord's) Supper;
• 5. There is no clear explanation of 'heaven' or 'hell';
• 6. Repentance is almost completely absent;
• 7. There is no reference to the New Birth, Spiritual Regeneration or being Born Again;
• 8. There is no reference to baptism which is a part of the Great Commission (Mt.28:19); and
• 9. There is a glaring absence of references to Yahweh, our Heavenly Father.

You don't leave all these things out if you are making a statement about the Besorah (Gospel) and a summary of your preaching. This is not the whole Besorah (Gospel) which we read of in others of Paul's letters or as we read of in Acts and elsewhere. Anyone who tries to build up a picture of what the Besorah (Gospel) is solely using Romans is going to be seriously deficient in a number of important areas, just as he would be in using only Acts (as one church does) or the Johannine Epistles. Moreover, some themes seem to be more prominent than they need to be. Why, for example, is so much time spent on the doctrine of Justification - or being legally put right with Elohim (God)? Why so much about the things Abraham did?

There are a number of possible answers. The apostle might have been answering questions posed by intellectuals or theologians in the Roman Assembly. Converts were made across every social stratum, from aristocrats to the common man in the street. Having lived in a university city, Oxford, where 'town and gown' commonly mixed (unlike campus universities), I attended congregations that included within them university professors, lawyers, scientists, shopkeepers, politicians, roadsweepers, bus drivers, and janitors. Rome would have included military folks as well. So part of Romans may have been the 'answers' part to a series of questions that Paul had been sent. Or he might have been addressing deficiencies or perversions in doctrine and practice as he did in his epistles to the Corinthians, for example. Remember that all the Messianic (Christian) congregatiions were a mix of Judahites (Jews), Romans, Greeks (primarily) and folks from every part of the Empire. Trying to figure out who Paul might have been talking to is the task primarily of historians.

That is a very hard task indeed. So much of our interpretation of Romans and of the New Testament in general stems from the world and mind-set of mediaeval Europe and the Reformation of the 16th century. Pick up a volume like Karl Barth's famous commentary, The Epistle to the Romans (translated into English in 1933), which was birthed in the midst of the totalitarianism of that era, and you will see Romans in a new and fresh way. Around the same time in Scotland (1935), James S. Stewart wrote an equally powerful book, A Man in Christ: The Vital Elements in Paul's Religion, which I started reading back in 1989 and which sent me off on a grand exploration of Pauline thought. And just when I thought I was starting to get into the apostle's mind and time, 80 years after Barth and Stewart, comes N.T.Wright's gigantic, breathtaking, mind-expanding and ground-breaking four-volume tome (nearly 1,700 pages long), Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2013), the leading Pauline scholar of our day with an astronomical knowledge of history and theology, which I have been carefully dissecting for a few years now, and you will start to see Romans in a fresh light once again. I am still astonished both by what contemporary scholarship has given us and by what we still don't know.

Another reason we know that Romans isn't a 'Statement of Faith' is because chapters 9-11 just don't fit into such a pattern. This section is an impassioned expression of his personal love for the Judean people. He even says he would be prepared to go to hell on their behalf if anything could be accomplished for them in so doing. Scholars have tried to make out that these chapters are a kind of 'parenthesis' and not really part of the overall argument.

However, it must be remembered that Paul didn't divide his letter into sections or chapters as we do. This isn't a book like one of the four gospels. His thoughts run straight from chapter 8 to 9, and from chapter 11 to 12 without any sort of break. So this can't be a 'parenthesis'. This is not a carefully planned-out document or manual systematically setting salvation doctrine and practice out.

This is Paul, in the middle of something very deep and profound, and he is leaping around from one thought to another, constructing an ark of understanding - it is impassioned and Ruach (Spirit)-driven. As you read Romans you at once find yourself in the middle of a deep mystical experience or communion with Elohim (God) that reaches far beyond the grasp of mere intellect, yet the apostle is trying to relay his experience in words which we can understand, but which of course we can't fully unless we are truly in Messiah, and won't completely until we have grown and matured. For this is a reactive kind of Christian/Messianic mysticism, with Yah'shua (Jesus) holding the initiative, not Paul. This echad union was not a human achievement, but the gift of Elohim (God). It came, not by any 'spiritual exercises', like meditation or chanting, but by Yahweh's self-revelation, His self-impartation. Hence, as in everything, all is ultimately "of grace". Union with Messiah, which is the chief objective, is not something to be achieved by effort, but something that has to be accepted by emunah (faith).

Yet there is also a 'road' to be walked at the end of which is salvation-completed - taw or omega salvation - which is why James had to remind believers, lest they misunderstand Paul, that "man is justified by works, and not by emunah (faith) only (alone)" (James 2:24, NKJV), and uses Abraham and Rahab as illustrations (v.25) showing why this is true. For "emunah (faith) without works is dead" (James 2:26, NKJV). First leg forward is by emunah (faith) - the Pauline doctrine - and the second leg by works - the doctrine of James. It's not an unnatural race where you hop on only one leg or hop with both legs either tied together or in a sack.

We are justified by emunah (faith) - trusting - in Yah'shua (Jesus) and in so doing are put into a jurisdictional or legal relationship with Him through His atonement. But emunah (faith, trusting), as we know, is not passive, but active. This kind of trusting leads to a response which is rooted in Torah to live the Torah lifestyle - the Road or Way of Chayim (Life) commanded by the Father and reaffirmed by the Son who is its visible incarnation. We are saved (delivered or rescued from sin and death) by trusting in Messiah alone (absolutely and totally!) and in so doing are guaranteed a place in the Kingdom which has no end if we continue trusting. But our rewards - the glory and kind of resurrection we receive - is most definitely tied into our works. Thus we are justified by works (as the presiding apostle and brother of Yah'shua/Jesus, James insisted) for the latter differentiation, but justified by emunah (faith) for the actual admission into Yahweh's world.

Why didn't Paul say anything about this? Why is he silent about the necessity of works? Because this wasn't an issue for the Roman qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) - because they already knew the importance of 'Torah-works paving-stones' on the Kingdom Road - the Judahite (Jewish) members would have made sure of that by teaching the importance of Torah. They always did. They already knew about that kind of righteousness which is works-linked (and which Paul actually discussed with the Corinthians who obviously didn't, unlike their Roman brethren). They already knew that the true worship of Yahweh consisted of a Derech or Way, an Halakha or collection of Torot (Laws), a Life-Path, and a way of being in the world because they were Israelites - either natural-branched Israel or ingrafted Israel, and were actually reminded so in Romans 11 by Paul as some of the gentile converts were getting arrogant. "After all," the apostle wrote, "you [gentile Romans] were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree [Israel]" (Rom.11:24, NIV). They were now Israel, doing the 'Israel thing'.

What do you suppose the "cultivation" consisted of? What is 'cultivation'? Is it something passive or active? What do we mean by 'cultivation' in agriculture which is the symbol being used here? It is the preparation of the ground in order to promote the growth of crops or plants. What is the human counterpart? To be 'cultivated' means development through education and training. What was, and is, the training of Israelites from an early age? The Torah. What did the Gentiles lack inasmuch as they are described as 'wild' or 'uncultivated'? Torah, of course. What else? They are grafted in uncultivated - by grace (undeserved loving kindness). What are they grafted into? A Tree for cultivated Israelites. Once ingrafted, they must begin cultivation too, like a true Israelite. Is this ingrafting easy? Not according to Paul, it's far harder than for cultivated (Torah-obedient Israelite) believers. Ask yourself why it's harder. Also ask yourself what happens to those who refuse Torah cultivation? Does it happen automatically by in-grafting? Do newly saved believers automatically live the consecrated lifestyle? In part, yes, if the Torah has truly been written in their hearts according to Jeremiah's prophecy, depending on what they know or accept from Scripture. Most choose to openly rebell against mitzvot (commandments) they don't like because it isn't engrained in them. Did Yah'shua (Jesus) ever say that we died to the need for Torah? Never. Quite the opposite.

Do not be deceived by Luther's false 'faith-alone' teaching which he was so desperate to centralise that he not only wanted to remove James' letter altogether from the canon, but Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Revelation too - what he dubbed 'antilegomena' or 'of disputed authenticity' and ignomiously put them into a separate section at the end of his Bible. He made no pretence of his favourites which he considered sufficient for his own belief system: John, 1 John, Paul's epistles (but especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians) and 1 Peter. He likened James to "straw" and at times tried to prove James was not its author. He then went and deliberately changed a key text in Romans 3:28 in his German translation!

"So halten wir nur dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben" (Rom.3:28, Luther).

"Thus, we conclude that a man is justified without the deeds of the law through faith alone" (Rom.3:28, Eng.trans.)

Now, no literal English translation of the New Testament that I know of includes the word "alone", and rightly so, because it isn't there but Luther's interpretation lives on in the commentaries, as in my ESV Study Bible [2]:

"Justification is by faith alone and does not depend at all on doing any works of the law"

"Although the word alone does not appear in the Greek text, that is Paul's clear meaning" [3].

For Protestants, this is the 'Gospel', or at least a summary of it. Another commentary I have, in this case a liberal one (conservatives and liberals are as one in this matter by and large), says that this singular verse "is a concise summary of the gospel" [3].

The verse before reads:

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before Elohim (God)" (v.3, NRSV).

"Abram believed Yahweh, and He credited it to him as righteousness" (Gen.15:6, NIV).

So is Luther's doctrine established? Is justification by faith alone in all circumstances - "allein durch den Glauben"? Can we contain the entire saving Besorah (Gospel) in this statement? Not according to the Presiding Apostle, James, who also quotes Genesis 15:6, saying:

"But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed Elohim (God), and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of Elohim (God)'. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (alone)" (James 2:20-24, NKJV).

Do you see why Luther was enraged by James? Because the apostle explicity repudiates the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' and spells it out so plainly that ever since Protestants have been doing theological gymnastics around these verses. Now I could spend an entire series of sermons on these texts alone, and indeed I have already gone into these apparently contradictory verses in great depth in my series, Amazing Graces and Free Gifts if you want to pursue this important matter further.

In a nutshell, what James - who is painting the bigger picture - is saying (and please understand that he is not contradicting Paul, only an early first century version of Protestantism which had arisen - presumably among the Gentiles - and which he had to correct because they had misunderstood) that, yes, we are justified or made righteous by our emunah (faith) or trusting in Yahweh, just as Abraham was, but we must clearly understand that emunah (faith) must be perfected or completed by works which is also to be 'justified' or 'made right' with Yahweh. It's not a one-legged gospel. Faith or trusting is the right-foot stepping out into the unknown ahead (trusting); works or deeds is the left-foot responding and following after the right-foot, 'perfecting' or 'completing' the two-stepped walk.

It's a binary system or like a monogamous marriage. In astronomy, a binary system consists of two stars orbiting around their common barycentre. They appear as a single system at a distance but when viewed closer are seen to be two. More than half the stars in the universe have this arrangement, though only about 5 to 10 per cent of them are visible with the naked eye. Usually one star is larger than the other, 'ruling' the smaller one, as it were, yet rotating around the same point, as predicted by Kepler's Laws. In 1971 when I was studying Astronomy as one of my O-Levels in the UK, one of my two projects was on the binary system Algol or β-Persei. We now know that in some binary systems, like VFTS 352, the two massive and very hot stars are actually in contact with one another and even sharing material. These are known as 'contact binaries'.

It's the same in a common marriage system. The husband leads or rules but both rotate around a common invisible centre which is Messiah. This is how justification by faith and works 'work' - faith leads, works follow on, but both rotate around the same barycentre, which is perfection or completeness in Messiah. They are two separate entities yet may be viewed as echad or one, like binary stars or a marriage relationship. Together they are Emunah - 'Faith', 'Active Faith'.

When I was younger and the world was more conservative and Christian, my parents would be addressed in letters as Mr. & Mrs. Keith Warren, recognising that my father was head. Indeed, I can still remember my mother being announced as 'Mrs. Keith Warren' at public events in Malaya. In these more liberal days letters would be addressed as 'Keith & Marjorie Warren' or even the other way round, or they might not even share the same surname, as the whole notion of patriarchy is viewed as offensive by feminists. We can view the Justification model using the marriage pattern or tavnith, with the unit as 'Mr. & Mrs. Justification', with Faith as the 'husband' and Torah-Works as the 'wife'. When viewed as a single entity - from a metaphorical distance - one sees the 'head' of 'Faith', the way Paul views it, namely, as Mr. & Mrs. Faith Justification. James views it up close, reminding readers that there is a Mrs. Justification called 'Works' too.

There are ternary or triple (as opposed to binary) systems that work in the same way too, though they are rarer, just as there are other kinds of family arrangements in the world, such as Jacob's family. Interestingly enough, we now know that the Algol star system is much more complex with at least three stars, so it is actually a ternary or triple system. But we didn't know what when I was a boy. Here is a near-infrared picture of Algol A, B and C.

The same kind of arrangement is to be found in the Elohimhead or Godhead consisting of Yahweh (the Father), Yah'shua (the Son) and the Ruach haQodesh (or Mother). Though both 'genders' are represented in the Elohimhead (Godhead), overall Elohim (God) is spoken of as "He" or 'male' because the Father/Husband is Head. This is an an extended family tavnith or pattern. And as we know, the Ruach (or Spirit) is sevenfold so we are actually dealing with a system of 2 + 7 or 9.

We now know, from astronomical observations, that systems consisting of seven stars, exist, and it is speculated that even larger systems will yet be found. I wouldn't be surprised. We know of some ternary systems that have at least one planet which must be quite an amazing arrangement! Indeed I think the heavens are reflections of some of the relationships that exist down here on earth, both the good and the bad, the small and the complex, the intimate and the more casual, but that's another story.

I am hoping, in sharing all this with you, to broaden your minds to see a 'bigger picture' than mainline denominations are prepared to grant theologically because they're so two-dimensional. We need to ask ourselves other questions, now that we know there are two kinds of justification which are in intimate relationship with one another, such as: how is emunah (faith) "perfected" by works? Indeed, why does it need to be "perfected" in the first place? Why isn't simple 'believing' enough? And is this necessarily a bad thing as most evangelicals would have you believe? What are "works of the Law"? I'm coming back to that presently because it's another Hebrew idiom little understood by Evangelicals.

I know many of you think all of this is tedious and academic, but bear with me, because we have to resolve this controversy between Protestants, Catholics, and others - but we need to realise that most Bible translations are not literal word-for-word renderings because many of the original ideas or concepts are lost in that way. (I've talked about the importance of Dynamic Equivalent versions elsewhere - like the NIV - plus all the risks that come with that method too).

All translations into modern languages like English express original ideas into different words. From a linguistic perspective, where the idea is being translated, rather than each literal word, Luther's rendition is a valid possibility but the way he puts it - which is the way Protestantism has traditionally understood it for the last 500 years - directly contradicts the senior apostle James and so creates theological confusion. Paul is only looking at one of the two elements of the Justification 'Binary' system - the most important one - whereas James is looking at both and filling in the theological information gap, much as I am trying to do now, to harmonise without twisting or bending anything out of shape.

Remember that two translators with the same education and knowledge of the original biblical languages will, and commonly do, come to opposite conclusions whilst maintaining proclaimed objectivity in their exegesis. Why do you think there are so many Bible versions? And why do devout believers, claiming to be led by the Ruach (Spirit), end up with different translations? Do you remember the Passion Translation, which I reviewed recently, which claimed a special anointing of the Ruach (Spirit) and yet contained so many glaring errors? This is exactly what Protestant, Catholic and other theologians do concerning Romans 3:28 ("Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" - KJV). And this is the uncomfortable reality that Christians and Messianics must face up to: everyone makes their exegetical conclusion conform to their hermeneutic, whether they admit it or not.

What do I mean by people's 'hermeneutic'? I mean the methodology of their interpretation, the way they interpret, the lens through which they see the world. To be clear, hermeneutics is not the same as exegesis even though the two are unfortunately used interchangeably by those not familiar with them. Exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Hermeneutics is much a wider discipline and involves both verbal and non-verbal communication as well as semiotics ('meaning-making'), presuppositions and pre-understandings. Most Bible commentators sadly don't usually involve themselves in hermeneutics, but we must.

When I began this study today I purposefully looked at Hebrew hermeneutics - the way the Israelites viewed themselves and their Scripture because without that understanding we will arrive at a distorted or false hermeneutic of Romans, of Pauline theology, of the New Testament, of the Bible, and indeed our whole faith. People raised in the Calvinistic traditions, for example, view Romans 3:28 and passages like it, through a distorted, and distorting, Reformed lens. That is why we, in the ministry, absolutely insist we have to get back to the Hebrew roots of the New Testament, and especially Paul, because Paul was a Hebrew, not an Englishman, German or American! And he was not a Protestant or a Catholic!

And so it is that Dr.David Stern, who as a Messianic Jew understands the Hebrew mindset better than most, translates this passage far better than Luther and other Protestant theologians:

"Therefore, we hold the view that a person comes to be considered righteous by Elohim (God) on the ground of trusting, which has nothing to to do with legalistic observance of the Torah commands" (Rom.3:28, JNT/CJB).

This understanding is extremely important because we see here that Paul is not excluding the Torah lifestyle in the word 'emunah' or 'faith', as we call it (which is, remember, active and not passive believing) but a wrongly-used form of Torah-observance - the attempt to save oneself through commandment-keeping called 'legalism' (which is not a biblical word, incidentally - Stern uses it because it is unfortunately part of our contemporary theological vocabulary). And lest anyone go and misunderstand Old Covenant Israel, the ancients did not observe Torah in order to be saved but because they believed, as Moses, Paul and James testified. This is not a false 'Israel vs. Christian' or 'Demiurge/Yahweh vs. Christ' or 'Old Testament vs. New Testament' set-up as some would have it, thereby blaspheming the Father. As we saw, Abraham was declared righteous with Yahweh through trusting but "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws" too (Gen 26:5, NKJV). This is a binary system, the same as in the New Covenant. Faith and works are married, but faith - trusting - drives the whole, and divine acceptance and accreditation starts there. Divine acceptance starts and ends with faith but our perfection and the nature of our rewards and the type of resurrection we inherit do depend on works, as we shall see, and as James pointed out in no uncertain terms.

If we are going to be honest and get to the original sense of Scripture we cannot 'bend' or exclude any passage we don't like - like rubbishing or demoting James - to fit our theological world view. The whole counsel of Yahweh must be taken as a whole, not reduced to just the bits that fit our preconceived world view. We can't imitate Luther. We will come back to this controvery in a moment because it resurfaces every time the Romans Road to Salvation scriptures are handled by Protestants. Please bear with me as I am trying to bring in a lot of different streams together. This is a bit like a Post Office sorting room and there are a lot of packages to order!

I can understand why Romans was popular in the early Messianic Community (Church) and why lots of copies of it were made and circulated to other assemblies. It's an incredible letter! But Romans, which was written in the early spring of 57 AD, and which understandably had wide circulation, was already being misunderstood and taken out of its local context, requiring the presiding Apostle, James, to write his letter in the early 60's AD.

Were you aware that a conscious attempt was made by the Reformers to place Paul ahead of the other New Testament writers? In our modern Bibles, James is tucked away at the end of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament), just after Hebrews and just before the Petrine (Peter's) Epistles, the Johannine (John's) Epistles, Jude and Revelation. (Luther, you will remember, wanted it removed altogether and mockingly called it the 'straw gospel' as it contradicted his Reformed doctrine). Note how Romans is given a higher position, right after Acts. If you look at the chronology (when they were believed to have been written) of Paul's letters, you will find a very different order:

What you need to realise, though, is that rearrangement of the order took place later. In the original Hebraic ordering, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John and Jude all come before the Pauline works, because they had greater apostolic authority, being senior to Paul. Paul is traditionally regarded as the last or '13th' apostle, the junior-most member of that august body of witnesses, and he himself wrote:

"I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Community of Elohim (Church of God)" (1 Cor.15:9, NIV).

This is not unimportant. Though Paul is not being 'corrected', because he was never in error, the senior apostles (James, Peter and John) made sure that the Pauline writings were put into context of the whole:

• 1. Torah (Tanakh/Old Testament);
• 2. Gospels;
• 3. Presiding Apostles (Peter, James, John) and Jude (a brother of Yah'shua/Jesus, like James); and
• 4. Paul

You'll notice that the order of the Pauline writings is unchanged. Who arranged them thus we do not know. But if we are to follow the development of Pauline theology we do need to be aware of the chronological order of his writings, which is why I made reference to them earlier.

Next week we shall be continuing with the 'Romans Road' as there is so much more to look at and arrange and I am already way over time. Please suspend arriving at any final or firm conclusions until then and for now just keep this material on your 'case board' like a good detective. Blessings to you in Yah'shua (Jesus). Amen.

Endnotes

[1] For more information, see What 'Fulfil the Law' Meant in Its Jewish Context [1a-b] The word 'eternal' in reference to 'eternal death' (by the way, the word 'eternal' is not in the original text) and 'eternal life' just to remind everyone that the word here is 'aeonian', meaning 'age-long' (a fixed span of time), and not 'eternal' (everlasting). There's quite a bit of dishonesty in evangelical circles concerning this word 'eternal' that continues with its insertion in even modern versions like the English Standard Version (ESV) when it isn't there in the original - e.g. "..for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever" (Jer.15:14, ESV - also, astonishingly, the RSV & NRSV) where "forever" should be "against you" (NIV, CJB) or "upon you" (KJV, NKJV, NASU, ASV, NASB, HRV, LXX, Douay etc.). If it had been 'forever', the Hebrew word would have been olam meaning 'age-long' (like aionios or 'aeonian' in the Greek, which is not in the Septuagint - LXX - either). Instead it is 'al, meaning 'above', 'over', 'against' or 'upon you'. See, in comparison, Jer.17:4 where 'ad olam is used ('forever', NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB) and Jer.18:16 where olam is used ('perpetual', KJV, NKJV; 'lasting', NIV) - see Eternal or Eonian? Untangling a False Western Teaching for an exhaustive exegesis.
[2] ESV Study Bible - English Standard Version (Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois: 2008), p.2163
[3] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 2005), p.1516

Acknowledgements