Link to My Post Entitled: Messianic Duty During Times of Global Crises.

This is Obedience Versus Faith–Part 18 of Our Paul and Hebrew Roots Series

In preparing to discuss our next challenging Romans’ passage—1:16—I happened upon 1:5: an equally challenging passage needing discussion and explanation from a Messianic/Netzari perspective. 

The verse in question reads: 

“…through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations” (ESV). 

What does Shaul mean by “to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations?” Is Shaul suggesting that his apostleship’s purpose was to bring Gentiles into some form of obedience to the Christian Faith (as some in Orthodox/Fundamental Christianity have suggested)? Or maybe the obedience of faith that Shaul is certifying that his apostleship was purposed is being obedient to the call to be saved; to the call of Jesus Christ: again, as others in Orthodox/Fundamental Christianity have suggested.

 Paul’s Apostleship Explained

Or just maybe Shaul was declaring to the Romans that his apostleship, that was born of the Grace of Yah, was purposed to bring Gentiles to obedience to something entirely unlike that which our Christian cousins have proposed. And I contend that that something in which the Gentiles were to obey is an eye-opener for those with eyes to see and ears to hear and a mind to receive and meditate upon.

 The Importance of this Passage

Now why is it important that we Netzari understand what Shaul was trying to covey with this rather murky statement? Why should it matter to us?

Well, it matters because the full understanding of what this Pauline statement means impacts how we must (1) view and understand our Faith in its Hebraic paradigm ; and (2) how we must effectively relate this Faith of ours to those seeking the True Faith once delivered.

I submit to you that if we do not fully grasp what the apostle is trying to covey to his Roman readers here in this verse, we stand the risk of completely misunderstanding the core—the foundation—the basis of Shaul’s entire ministry and gospel message. 

 The Risks of Misinterpretation is High

There’s a lot at risk here. And I would further submit that the reason the Apostle Shaul is so misunderstood, mistranslated and misreferenced is because we’ve been trained or coached by unwitting and even witting individuals to view Shaul’s ministry from the perspective of it being the movement by which a new and superior religion was launched. And if by chance you (or anyone else for that matter) holds to this understanding of Shaul and his ministry, you cannot be further from the Truth.

What we will find out in this discussion today is that Shaul, who I would describe as a reformed Spirit-filled Messianic Rabbi, was actually taking the Gospel Message of our Master Yeshua to its logical, intended next step. And that logical, intended next step was bringing Jew and Gentile together as equal members of Yah’s single family.

Consequently, in order to accomplish this bringing together of Jew and Gentile into the family of Yah, Shaul had to somehow bring the Gentile component of the family to an obedience—or rather, into a lifestyle that is entirely divorced from paganism and fully founded upon Yah’s Ways. This extended also into the Hebrew or Jewish realm as well. Shaul recognized that many of his Jewish brethren were alienated from the Ways of YHVH and they needed to teshuvah—repent and return to Yah’s Way of Life. For the Jew, this Teshuvah required complete acceptance of Yahoshua as his/her Messiah. And for the Gentile, being engrafted into the commonwealth of Israel required his/her acceptance of Yahoshua as their Master and Redeemer. 

This single truth and concept is what the apostle meant by bringing about obedience of faith among all the nations. 

How and why is this so?

Well, in order to answer the how and why, we have to take this verse in context. The context in question must involve the content of the previous 4-verses of the chapter; bringing in other related Pauline passages; looking at Old Testament prophecies related to the Gospel of Yah; and the Ruach-led historical influence the Jerusalem Council had on the nations (ie., the goyim or ethne) coming obedience of faith. 

 Unpacking Romans 1:5 

Let’s begin by briefly examining the preceding 4-verses of this first-chapter, so as to contextually build-up our understanding leading up to and into our focus verse that contains the statement in question—”…to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations.”

Now, we can quickly dispense with verse 1 since we conducted a rather detailed examination of it back in episode 17 of this series, specifically unpacking Paul’s contention that he’d been set-apart-unto the Gospel of God. Mark records: 

“Now after that John was put in prison, Yeshua came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of Yah, and saying: The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of YHVH is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel” (1:14, 15; KJV).

We concluded that Shaul was revealing to the Romans that he had been set-apart to preach and teach the “Good News” of the coming Kingdom of Yah which included the critical element of mankind being afforded the opportunity for a true and substantive relationship with the Creator of the Universe. This was the same gospel that our Master taught, preached and modeled.

Having a firm understanding of verse one, we can safely turn our attention on to verse 2 which reads:

“Which He (YHVH) promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures” (ESV). 

That thing which YHVH promised beforehand through or by His prophets is of course Yah’s Gospel (ie., the Good News—the Besorah—the Euagglesia).

As straightforward as this verse may seem, there are a few aspects of this verse we must first unpack.

_____________________________________________________________________

Yah’s faithfulness: (Which He Promised Afore by His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures)

Promise=Epaggelia or Epangelia in the Greek. Paul uses this Greek term throughout his writings, especially in relation to the unilateral covenant Yah made with Avraham. One way to view the Hebrew concept of a covenant is as a “promise.” (But there is really no distinct Hebrew term for promise. And as it relates to the covenant Yah made with Avraham, it was dependent entirely upon Yah and not on Avraham. (This type of covenant has been popularly referred to as a unilateral covenant, meaning that the establisher of the covenant, in this case YHVH, is obligated to keep the promise He made with the receiving party no matter what.) Thus, even though Avraham or his descendants  may sin and reject Yah, Father will fulfill every aspect of that promise or covenant (cf. Acts 13:32,33; 26:6,7; Rom. 4:13-21; 9:8,9; Gal. 3:16-22, 29; Eph. 2:11,12). 

Thus Shaul seems to declare that the Gospel is not a new thing, nor was it different from the message of the prophets. But, with the ministry and sacrifice of Yeshua, that message has been fully revealed or expanded or explained. In fact, the good news upon which the promise was based, had been in the possession of Isra’el for centuries. (Shaul makes reference to this good news that his people the Jews held a couple chapters later: 

“What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of Yah” (Rom. 3:1,2; KJV). 

Now was the time for the fullness of that message to be revealed, “without restraint, to the nations” (Tim Hegg; Commentary on Romans; pg. 6). 

The Holy Scriptures (ie., graphais hagiais) that Shaul references consisted of Torah, the Prophets (or Neviim) and the Writings (or Ketuvim). It was these Scriptures that laid the foundation of the Apostle’s work and teaching (2 Tim. 3:16,17). It must be firmly understood by the 21st-century would-be disciple of Yeshua that the Apostolic Scriptures (or New Testament writings) had not been fully written in Shaul’s day. So Shaul when making repeated references to “scripture” or “scriptures” in his various letters, he was referring specifically and exclusively to the Torah, Ketuvim and Neviim. He was not speaking of any other set of writings. Thus, contrary to Christian conventional wisdom, the apostle’s entire ministry was built upon the Tanach. 

So intertwined was the apostle’s Gospel message with the tanach, it appears he quotes the Tanakh more than 80 times just in the Book of Romans alone. So, without a thorough contextual understanding of Torah, the Prophets (the Neviim) and the Writings (the Ketuvim) of which the apostle references, one cannot accurately comprehend Shaul’s teachings and writings, or for that matter, neither can one accurately interpret the teachings of Yeshua HaMashiyach as contained in the Gospel Writings. 

So when we really look at this thing from a boots on the ground perspective, Shaul would not be able to relate to the concept of an old testament. Better, Shaul saw what he was doing in fulfilling the duties of his apostolic office as a direct extension of what the prophets of old did in their time. 

As it relates to this understanding, Shaul wrote to the Messianic Assemblies of Galatia: 

”And the Scripture, foreseeing that YHVH would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations (”goyim” and “ethnos”) be blessed’” (Gal. 3:8). 

Interestingly, most Christian-leaning believers defer to the writings of Shaul as the basis upon which their Faith rest. These do so at the expense of the rest of the Bible (ie., at the expense of disregarding the Tanach or the Old Testament). Yet we learn from these opening verses of Romans that Shaul possessed a very high view of the Tanach. So much so that, over half of Shaul’s quotations of Tanach appear in this letter alone. Not only that, Shaul is strongly asserting that his entire ministry is founded upon the Tanach, ie., the Holy Scriptures. 

Let us keep all of this in mind as we move on through the next 2-verses, leading up to verse-5, our focus passage for this study. For this and the succeeding verses create the foundation upon which we will build our understanding of verse 5. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

Yeshua as a Descendant of King David (Verse 3)

Verse 3 reads: 

“Concerning His Son, Yeshua Messiah our Master, which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh…” (KJV). 

Concerning what? Concerning the Gospel of YHVH that Shaul discusses in verses 1 and 2. 

“Son” terminology that Shaul uses here was common to 1st-century C.E. parlance. As it relates specifically to scripture, it is connected to the prophecies of Daniel 3:25; 7:13 where Daniel records two images of supernatural beings he describes as son of [the] gods or of God, and son of man respectively. 

Son of Yah was known among members of Judaism well before first-century Judaism. In other words, Son of God was not, as many modern day Bible enthusiasts suggest, of paganistic origin (ie., Greco-Roman origin). In fact, the Son of God title was frequently used to denote messianic figures. 

Paul uses the phrase “His Son” to “denote both the divine nature of the Messiah as well as the Son’s Messiahship” (Hegg; pg. 6). 

So, when we look at this verse in context with the preceding 2-verses, there are two concepts that we must recognize and keep in mind as we move along in our discussion: Yeshua’s “Sonship” and His “Messiahship.” 

When we consider the concept of “messiahship,” ancient Jewish history bears out the appearance of various men who attempted to uphold or who were awarded the title of messiah sometime during their lifetimes. 

We learn that Simeon-bar-Kochba (the Nasi: a Jewish military leader who led what has been famously deemed as the Bar Kokhba Revolt against the Romans in 132 C.E) was viewed by his followers as the long-awaited, long-prophesied messiah. Now, bar Kochba had at least one obvious Jewish messianic shortcoming that his followers had no problem overlooking: he was not of Davidic lineage. 

Interestingly, the Jewish-tradition messiahship concept doesn’t end with bar-Kochba. The Talmud speaks of a Messiah (aka Mashiyach) ben Ephraim, also known as Mashiyach ben Yosef. In the end times, according to certain Jewish eschatological understanding, this gentleman with 2-title-names will precede the coming, God-sent Messiah. Lineage-wise, like Simeon bar Kochba, ben Yosef/Ephraim, will not be of the Davidic line, but instead of the line of Ephraim. Yosef, interestingly is prophesied to be killed. 

And we’re not quite done with the messiah thing: another Jewish eschatological understanding interprets the kingly person of peace and of war in Zechariah 9 and 14 respectively as two separate individuals, or dare we say, messiahs. At least one of the two is given the name Messiah ben David. In contrast to ben Yosef, David will win victory over Israel’s enemies and bring in everlasting peace. 

Because we know the story of Yeshua HaMashiyach, we recognize over the understanding of our Jewish cousins that Yeshua has already fulfilled the role of the Messiah of Peace (Zec. 9), but He will, upon His triumphal return, fulfill the role of conquering Messiah (Zec. 14). Halleluyah! 

There is a whole lot that can be said about one’s Jewish affiliation being determined by one’s mother or father’s lineage. Unfortunately, Jews back in the day and even today are split as it relates to matriarchal and patriarchal lineage being the determining factor for one’s Jewish affiliation: one’s tribal and one’s overall Jewish affiliation that is. This is important because the commonly accepted understanding among ancient Hebrews was that Mashiyach (Messiah) would be of the tribe of Judah (2 Sam. 7:16; Psm. 89:3, 19; Isa. 11:1, 10; Jer. 23:5; 30:9; 33:14-18). 

Now, if we accept the prophetic requirement that Yahoshua had to be biologically of the Tribe of Judah, then Yeshua’s mother, Miriam (aka Mary). would have to have descended from the Tribe of Judah. Consequently, the AV translations of our English Bibles insert somewhat of a sticky-wicket into this basic premise by delineating Yosef (aka Joseph, Yeshua’s step-father), not Miriam, as the parent of required Davidic descent (Matthew 1:16). This translation flies in opposition to the commonly accepted understanding that (1) one receives their Jewish and Tribal lineage from one’s mother (Conservative-Orthodox and Reform Judaism); and (2) the Messiah had to be biologically descended from David. 

Messianic/Hebrew Roots teacher Tim Hegg contends in his Commentary on the Book of Romans that first-century lineage was based upon one’s father’s lineage. In this case, Yosef, being of the Tribe of Judah, fulfilled this Judah requirement, despite Yosef not being Yeshua’s natural father (ie., Mat. 1:18-25; Luk. 1:34). 

Hegg then goes on to cast doubt on a popularly held belief that Miriam, Yeshua’s biological mother, was not of Judaian lineage, but of Levitical lineage. The reason Hegg gives for this understanding is that Elizabeth, wife of Zacharias, Mary’s relative, is clearly of Levitical lineage (Luk. 1:5). Hegg concludes that Yeshua would have registered as being of the Tribe of Judah under Yosef’s lineage, and this is the reason the Gospel writers included Yosef’s lineage in Matthews chapter 1 (cf. Gen. 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:11; Isa. 9:7; 16:5; Jer. 23:5; 30:9; 33:15, 17, 21; Eze. 34:23; 37:24; Hos. 3:5.). 

The problem I have with Hegg’s overall contentions here is that he completely ignores the requirement that Yeshua had to descend, biologically, from King David. The open acceptance that one’s lineage in something as critical as the family lineage of The Mashiyach, to me, is simply giving over to the coventional wisdom of religion. In other words, is it reasonable for us to simply hand over the critical requirement of Davidic lineage to Yeshua’s adopted parent? As much as we must have great respect and admiration for Yosef, the husband of Miriam for all he did to look after Miriam and Yahoshua, I’d be hard pressed to let this crucial messianic requirement go so easily. 

I get that Matthew’s recorded genealogy for Yeshua puts us in a rather confined predicament as it clearly points to Yahoshua’s step-father Yosef, and not Miriam, as having descended from King David, thus conferring onto Yahoshua the required Davidic lineage pedigree by adoption. 

Despite this confined predicament, I do believe I have the answer to this obvious predicament. The answer to the predicament requires us to partially abandon Matthew’s recorded genealogy in the authorized versions, and instead, reference Matthew’s genealogy from maybe another reliable ancient translation source. 

The AV reads: 

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yeshua, who is called Messiah” (Mat. 1:16). 

Turns out the problem as it relates to our understanding of Yeshua’s direct, biological lineage rests almost entirely upon the English word “husband” that precedes Mary in this verse. The Greek term for husband is “aner,” which interestingly enough, can mean a number of things, depending upon the context in which aner is used: a male; a husband; one who is betrothed; one who is aged or to distinguish between a boy and an man; any male person; or in general to refer to a group of both men and women. Thus it seems that the interpreters of the Brit haDashah chose to take the path of least resistance and presume that the Yosef mentioned here is the Yosef who was betrothed to Miriam, the mother of Yahoshua, and who would be Yahoshua’s adopted father. So it makes total sense that the translators would choose “husband” as the title for this particular Yosef. 

But what if this particular Yosef is not Miriam’s betrothed husband, but instead, another Yosef who is biologically related to Miriam. 

The Ancient Aramaic term “gowra” points us in the direction we need to go with this verse. Gowra refers to a relationship of a male who is set to protect a specific individual. The designated male protectors of unmarried women in Hebrew society according to Torah is always the unwed woman’s father. Thus, the Yosef in this verse must be Miriam’s father, not the man whom she was betrothed to marry. This being the case, Miriam, the biological mother of Yahoshua, is biologically descended from both King David and Judah. Now, does any of this preclude Yosef, Yeshua’s to be step-father being descended from David or from Judah? No. In fact, it would make sense that Miriam, being of the Tribe of Judah, would be betrothed to a man who was descended from David and or Judah. For me, this understanding seals the Messianic requirement that our Master be biologically descended from the Tribe of Judah and from the Royal Davidic line. 

But getting back to verse 3, clearly Shaul’s intention here was to introduce or underscore as Messiah (as Mashiyach) whose coming had been foretold in the Tanach, which the English translations render as Scripture. And regardless the confusion that may arise from talk regarding lineage and Messiahship, Yeshua met the qualifications of Messiah by virtue of His biological connection to King David. Thus Shaul’s Messiah was both Jewish and the long-awaited Hebrew Messiah. 

I ran across a couple Messianic commentaries that put forth a rather strange idea that Paul drew the contents of this verse from some hymn. The interesting thing is that neither of those commentators provided any  references to these supposed hymns. So to that proposal I say: “whatever.” 

Regardless, scholars do seem to find some difficulties with this verse from a Greek standpoint: 

“Peri tou uso autou tou genomenou ek spermatos Davwid kata sarka” (ie., concerning the Son of him come of [the ] seed of David according to [the] flesh). And because of the difficult Greek wording, it can be understood in a few ways: 

1. Yeshua is descended from David, physically. This is taken literally such that Yeshua is viewed as being of “the seed of David according to flesh” through His mother Miryam (Luke 3:23-38). For we know that Miryam was caused to birth Yeshua by the Ruach HaKodesh (Matthew 1:18-2:12; Luke 1:26-56; 2:1-38).

2. Yeshua is YHVH’s Son spiritually. As a man, Yeshua is set-apart from all of mankind. He was the only human being qualified to bring salvation to mankind. This is more evident in Yeshua’s resurrection from the dead than His miraculous birth (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Thus, it is through His resurrection that we receive the blessed assurance of our own impending resurrection (8:28-39; 1 Cor. 15:12-57).

3. Yeshua Messiah is our Master (our Lord). Yeshua’s Davidic heritage makes Him the Messiah (Mat. 1:1). Furthermore, as Son of God, Yeshua possesses Yah’s very nature (Mat. 4:3) which qualifies Him to be our Lord.

And the English translations don’t help the situation either, with the KJV stating the Besorah concerns YHVH’s Son Yeshua Messiah who descended from David, and other translations expounding upon Yeshua’s Sonship. 

In my humble opinion, such Greek scholars may be lacking guidance from the Ruach HaKodesh and suffering from a drought of faith. The Ruach HaKodesh, according to Yeshua: 

“But the Helper, the Ruach HaKodesh, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Joh. 14:26; ESV adjusted). 

And the drought of faith I’m referring to is that many bible scholars don’t believe the very documents they are interpreting and translating. If these don’t believe the Bible, how can they expect to properly interpret it. They are essentially standing in opposition to YHVH and His Ruach HaKodesh. For the understanding of Scripture is revealed to those that believe: 

“…the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Yeshua Messiah might be given to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22; ESV adjusted). 

So those who refuse to believe the Bible and those who do not have the infilling of the Ruach HaKodesh labor in vain. 

And as always,context must rule the day when studying Scripture, especially when studying Shaul’s writings. Again, we can’t look at a single verse and allow it to stand on its own without bringing it along side the preceding and proceeding verses. So let’s continue on to verse 4 and then bring all 4-verses into a single, cogent premise upon which to establish our understanding of verse 5, our focus verse. 

Verse 4—Declared to be the Son of Yah with Power 

Of verse 4, Messianic Commentator J.K. McKee states that Shaul is relating that Yeshua was the Son of Yah, not that there was a time when Yeshua was not the Son of Yah, but rather, it was in Yeshua’s resurrection that Yeshua was decisively “marked out” to be the Son of Yah. Thus, in Yahoshua’s Incarnation did He suffer and die for sinful humanity. 

As it relates to Yeshua’s Sonship and Messiahship, New Testament scholar Douglas J. Moo wrote: “The transition [here]…is not a transition from a human messiah to a divine Son of God (which would be a form of adoptionism) but from the Son as Messiah to the Son as both Messiah and powerful, reigning Lord.” 

Another way McKee drives his point home is that its more about Yeshua’s identity as Savior and restorer of Israel’s Kingdom that was confirmed by His resurrection, than an assurance one receives of a future resurrection of the dead. 

Seems rather a complicated jumbling of concepts here and maybe Shaul is really really smart and this Sonship and Messiahship is really really complicated. Nevertheless, it seems pretty evident to me that Shaul is simply telling the Romans that the Besorah of Yah (ie., the Gospel or Good News of YHVH) has come to us on account (Greek for account here is ”peri”) of YHVH’s Son, who by the way happens to be Messiah, having qualified to be Messiah through His Davidic heritage (for you Jews out there who doubt Yeshua’s Messiahship by lineal pedigree), but who is also YHVH’s Son by the power of the Ruach HaKodesh that raised Him from the dead. 

Bottom line here: YHVH our Elohim has declared our Master Yeshua to be the prophesied Messiah and His Son and Father not only made this abundantly clear by personally stating it, but also by raising Yeshua from the dead by the power of YHVH’s Ruach HaKodesh and bestowing upon Him all power and authority over heaven and earth. 

Here are a few Scriptural supports: 

At Yahoshua’s baptism: “…a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mat. 3:17; cf. Mar. 1:11; Luk. 3:22; ESV). And of course this was repeated later on in Matthew 17:5 at the Transfiguration that was witnessed by Kefa, Yochanan and Ya’achov (cf. Mar. 9:7; Luk. 9:35). 

Indeed, Yochanan the Revelator revealed that angels, the beasts and the elders that are gathered round about YHVH’s throne in heaven declare in a loud voice: “Worthy is the Lamb (ie., Yahoshua) that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing…Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power be unto Him that sitteth upon throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever” (Rev. 5:11, 12; KJV).

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Having built a firm understanding of the first 4-verses of Romans 1, we’re now ready to tackle verse 5, our focus verse: 

“Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations” (ESV). 

Again, the challenging portion of verse 5 is “…to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations.” 

Verse 5—Bringing the Nations to Obedience of Faith 

In our opening discussion we considered some of the problems associated with this passage and why it’s important that we come to a full understanding of what Shaul meant by this rather confusing statement. So let’s see if we can draw an accurate understanding or interpretation based upon what we’ve gained so far in our studies with help from some Messianic Commentators.  

Shaul’s commission came directly from Yeshua. Shaul was commissioned to promote trust-grounded obedience which Shaul translates as “the obedience of faith” (”pistis” being “trust, faith” in the Greek—Act. 3:16). 

Shaul is referencing the “good works” that come from obeying YHVH. 

Unfortunately, the Christian Community erroneously portrays Paul as promoting “faith” and opposing “works.” But we learn that this is indeed not the case (reference: 3:27-31; Eph. 2:8-10). 

It is hinted of here and more strongly discussed later on in this letter that Paul opposed legalism (works derived from one’s prideful sense of self-sufficiency that is absent trust and sees the legalism as the individual doing Yah a favor). Paul also opposed antinomianism (which is undisciplined living that rejects obedience to Torah which leads to righteous living). 

Shaul declares in his letter to the Romans that he had a distinct mission to reach out to both his own (Jewish) people, as well as to the non-Jewish people. Thus Shaul’s seeming greater missional focus on the non-Jews did not come at the detriment of his own fellow Jews. 

McKee takes note of how certain Messianics address the English term “nations” (ie., “ethne,” which corresponds to the Hebrew “goyim”). He cites that Stern interprets ethne/goyim as “nations, ethnic groups, Gentiles, non-Jews, pagans, heathen,” referencing Mat. 5:47, 10:5. Thus if Gentiles is the proper interpretation for this verse, then Shaul’s letter is addressed primarily to the assemblies’ Gentile members; if “nations,” Shaul would be writing to the assemblies’ mixed congregation of Jew and Gentile. 

Obedience of faith is the challenging phrase in the Greek of “hupakoen pisteos” which the NIV translates “the obedience that comes from faith;” “trust-grounded obedience” from the CJB; “believing obedience” from the Kingdom New Testament; and “to promote obedience to the faith” according to the Moffat New Testament. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The orthodox Christian understanding or translation tends to side with that of “an obedience that consist of faith.” (I really don’t understand one bit what this means. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. What little I can piece from this suggests to me that a life that is committed to a trusting faith in the Person and Ministry of Christ and any obedience that comes from this trusting faith cognitive in nature. That obedience, if it is indeed possible, is essentially the understanding that Christ is who He said He was and is and that He will deliver that which He promised in the Gospel and Apostolic record. 

And Shaul’s apostolic purpose was to bring Gentiles into obedience of faith, which depending on how one is inclined to interpret this, can be taken in a number of ways: 

1. Obedience to the accepted body of doctrines for the Messianic Faith.
2. Obedience to the authority of faith.
3. Obedience to Yah’s faithfulness attested in the gospel.
4. Obedience that springs from the act of faith.
5. Obedience which faith requires.
6. A believing type of obedience.
7. Believing that consist in faith.

Douglas J. Moo introduces the concept of “epexegetic genitive” to this discussion of Obedience of Faith, whereby it is to be understood from the perspective of this being a case that indicates possession here: 

“This obedience to Christ as Lord is always closely related to faith, both as an initial, decisive step of faith, and as a continuing ‘faith’ relationship with Christ. In light of this, we understand the words ‘obedience’ and ‘faith’ to be mutually interpreting: obedience always involves faith, and faith always involves obedience. They should not be equated, compartmentalized, or made into separate stages of Christian experience” (Moo). 

“There is no separation in Paul’s mind between faith and obedience, between believing and doing.” And “only he who is obedient believes” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). 

James 2:14-26 and Matthew 7:15-20; 21:28-32 corroborate Bonhoeffer’s claim. 

J.K. McKee goes on to make what I believe to be a solid point such that the nations of the world needed to be brought into the family of YHVH (3:29, 30): 

“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also since God is one-who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.” 

The “nations” term (ie., “ethnos”) used here by Shaul is not specific to simply Gentiles or non-Jews, but given the tenor of this letter so far, is instead referring to Gentile and Jew alike. Greeks and Romans needed to turn to Israel’s Messiah as their Redeemer, as did many Jews who had strayed away from a set-apart life in Torah. Disobedience as it relates to these errant Jews also included a rejection on their part of their promised Messiah. 

The “obedience of faith,” then “involves the whole kit and caboodle of the gospel message. The whole kit and caboodle of the true gospel message would of course be a bit more involved for Gentiles than their Jewish counterparts. Gentiles would first have to acknowledge Israel’s Elohim, accept Israel’s Scriptures and accept Israel’s Mashiyach, Yahoshua HaMashiyach as their Redeemer. Thus, obedience of faith is not limited to the Gentile, but it applies to both Jew and Gentile alike. 

Another way to look at this is through the Hebrew concept of Halachah that Tim Hegg brilliantly exposits in relation to Shaul’s bringing the nations to “obedience of faith.” 

According to Hegg, this likely speaks to the requirements of halachah being conferred upon the Gentiles, who because of their acceptance of Yeshua as their Messiah, had now joined themselves with the Jews who had also believed in Him. Both Jew and Gentile were expected to accept upon themselves the righteous halachah enjoined upon them by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. 

This is essential understanding because if YHVH is supposed to be the one God of all the nation-peoples of the earth, it required the Gentiles worshiping in community with their Jewish or Hebrew counterparts. There’s no way that the two-communities who both claimed YHVH as their God could exist as separate entities. Thus it was necessary that the Gentiles submit to received (ie., established) halachah as was enjoined upon them by the Jerusalem Council. This submission to established halachah is what Shaul referred to as “obedience of the Faith.” 

The Apostolic halachah was determined at the Jerusalem Council. And the council determined that converted Gentiles would be admitted into the Messianic Congregation as equals without undergoing the ritual of a proselyte as long as they adhered to established halachah. 

What is the apostolic halachah that Tim Hegg mentions in his commentary of the Book of Romans? Turning to the Book of Acts, it is as follows: 

¹² Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. ¹³ And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: ¹⁴ Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. ¹⁵ And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, ¹⁶ After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: ¹⁷ That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. ¹⁸ Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. ¹⁹ Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: ²⁰ But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. ²¹ For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. ²² Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: ²³ And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: ²⁴ Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: ²⁵ It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, ²⁶ Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. ²⁸ For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; ²⁹ That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.  (Act 15:12-29 KJV) 

The proselyte was considered of equal status with the native born Israelite. So engrafted was the proselyte into existing Jewish society and culture that if he was a male, he could freely marry a Jewish woman, even the daughter of a Levitical Priest. (It must be mentioned here that the process and validity of the proselyte process among many Jewish leaders and sages was contested. But generally speaking, this was how things were regarding proselytes.) 

God-fearers, on the other hand, deemed by some Jews as righteous Gentiles, worshiped Israel’s God-YHVH-but never underwent the rituals involved in becoming a proselyte. These were viewed as Gentiles in the eyes of Jewish sages and leaders and the religious and community status of this class of worshiper was debated as well. 

God-fearers or righteous Gentiles were expected to abandon their former paganistic lifetyle and adhere to the halachah observant Jew or Israelite. At issue, as it related to admittance of Gentiles into the Faith, was about being in community with Yah and Yah’s people. 

Generally speaking, the most sensitive areas of halachah revolved around the purity laws: (1) foods, (2) intimacy and (3) idolatry. [Reference my post entitled: Torah’s Forbidden Sexual Relationships.] It was widely known and accepted by first-century Jews that the idolatrous practices of the surrounding pagan nations incorporated into their worship the elements of food and intimacy (reference Leviticus 18-20; my teaching on Torah Reading 89; also the Ba’al Peor Incident). Thus it was imperative that so-called righteous Gentiles sever all ties with such rituals and practices. And it was this concern surrounding ritual impurity that was brought on by pagan temple worship practices that prompted Ya’achov (ie., James) and the Yerushalayim (ie., Jerusalem Council) to act accordingly in response to the influx of non-Jews into the Messianic Faith. 

Interestingly, at the time the Yerushalayim Council decree was written, Gentiles were noticeably in the minority in terms of numbers in the Messianic Community. It is unclear if the Council Members anticipated the inevitable reversal in the Gentile to Jew ratio (ie., more Gentiles than Jews which we saw occur in the Roman Messianic Community of the first century A.D.). It would be one thing to influence minority numbers of Gentile converts affiliating with Messianic Congregations to conform to established halachah. It would prove quite challenging on the other hand to influence a majority of Gentiles to conform to established halachah. This was the situation that Shaul was facing at the time he wrote his letter to the Roman Assemblies. And we can clearly see this reality manifested today in the abject rejection of established halachah by Orthodox/Fundamental/Charismatic Christians. 

Nevertheless, Shaul’s statement that his apostleship was to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, underscores the extreme relevance that the apostle placed on the manner in which a Gentile member of the Faith conducted his or her life. How one conducted their life determined how much the individual loves and is committed to YHVH. To neglect halachah was indicative of one’s lack of allegiance and submission to the Creator. In Shaul’s mind, it was incongruous for a supposed converted Gentile to confess Yeshua as their Master, but then continue to live a pagan lifestyle. 

The change of heart in the converted Gentile results in what Shaul referred to as an “obedience of faith.” That obedience of faith is a heart-felt commitment on the part of the converted Messianic/Netzari, to live a righteous life that conforms to established halachah. To Shaul, righteous halachah is the inevitable requirement for consistent worship of Yah. Thus the impure are kept at a distance, while the pure are allowed in. 

The way Shaul saw it, obedience to revealed halachah is the direct means by which Jew and Gentile pursue holiness, all the while recognizing that it is the Ruach HaKodesh that enables the Netzer to walk out their Faith as they should. 

 Call To Action

In closing, this challenging Pauline passage has been brought into the light and realm of Messianic/Netzari understanding. Obviously, orthodox, fundamental, charismatic Christianity will reject this interpretation of Romans 1:5. These, under the heavy sway of their anti-Torah, hyper-grace perversion, would not be capable of rationalizing a faith-based life having an equal obedience to Yah’s established Ways attached to it. Our Jewish cousins, on the other hand, if they can get past their disdain for Yeshua, would certainly understand the relevance of this challenging passage since they have already, in most cases, subjected themselves and their families to a life of obedience—albeit, more a life of tradition than a Torah-based life. 

So what do we do with this obedience of faith? Well, it is incumbent upon us to live this life of obedience of faith that Shaul wrote to the Romans about. This life of obedience to Faith is the basis upon which our Master’s admonishment to “Seek out His Father’s Kingdom and Righteousness” is built. Taking on the righteousness of Yah requires obedience and faith. 

And when we live that life of obedience of faith, we glorify our Heavenly Father and set His Holy and Righteous Name apart—we sanctify YHVH’s authority, presence, authority and His name—here on the earth and usher in Yah’s glorious Kingdom here on earth.