Hakham Shaul’s School of Remes

Romans 1:18-23
For the revelation of God’s wrath coming from the heavens is against all the wicked and unjust men who intentionally suppress the truth. This is because even intimate knowledge of God is evident to them, because God revealed Himself^[1] among them. For from the creation of the world, His invisible attributes,^[2] both His everlasting virtuous power and Divine majesty,^[3] are discerned^[4] clearly,^[5] being understood in the things made, so that they are without excuse.

Because^[6] although they knew^[7] God, they did not^[8] honor^[9] him as God^[10] or give Him thanks, but they became vain^[11] (futile) in their reasoning,^[12] and their unteachable^[13] minds (hearts)^[14] were darkened. Professing wisdom,^[15] they acted foolishly,^[16] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the images (idols) of corrupted human^[17] beings,^[18] birds, quadrupeds and reptiles. Literal Equivalent translation by H. Em. Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu ben Abraham

Commentary to Hakham Shaul’s (The Sage Paul) School of Remes

G-d’s Wrath

G-d’s wrath is often pictured and spoken of in terms of “G-d’s rage” or “anger.” There is an amazing difference in the nature of G-d as described in this passage. G-d’s chief desire is to show His goodness to His creatures and for His creatures to feel His love. This is the true reason for the existence of the universe, cosmos. The “revelation” (apocalypse) of G-d’s wrath against one of His creatures shows the magnitude of their crimes. Herein the creature has failed to understand the gift of the Yetser HaRa. The Yetser HaRa is given as a means of achieving the highest goals of our humanity, and not just to rebel against its creator.

The topic of “G-d’s Wrath against the wicked” starts here in Romans 1:18 and continues until 3:31.

The ung-dly – ἀσέβεια – asebeia is generally translated as “ungodly.” However, the root is stronger in intending that those being mentioned are the “wicked” Heb. Rashim (pl.). The rasha (sing.) is one who intentionally does evil against his knowledge of that which is good. The “rasha” knows the mitzvot of G-d but refuses to be complicit. This makes the rasha accountable for his actions and therefore liable for punishment.

How are we to understand G-d’s wrath as described by Hakham Shaul? Description of G-d’s wrath can only be understood in allegorical (Remes), parabolic (Midrash) or So’odic (symbolic) terms. The obvious answer to this problem is that G-d is not subject to human emotion and therefore does not have any association with anger retribution or vengeance. Therefore, we understand the pericope to be in terms of allegory.

The Sages of the first century, including Yeshua and his subsequent talmidim viewed the cosmos as an organismic whole. However, they often spoke in terms of interdependent absolutes. The subdivisions Middat HaDin (G-d’s justice) Middat HaRachamim (G-d’s Mercy) Torah and Yisrael are an organismic whole. Though the concept Middat HaRachamim (G-d’s Mercy) does not contain G-d’s “name,” it is clearly understood to mean “G-d’s love.” The two categories Middat HaDin and Middat HaRachamim are two aspects of G-d justice.^[19] G-d’s justice can also be understood in terms of Gemilut Hasidim (G-d’s works of loving-kindness). The creation of the cosmos is a balanced measure (middah) of both Din (justice) and Rachamim (mercy). This is because G-d chastises those that He loves.^[20] However, Hakham Shaul is not speaking in terms of chastisement or Gemilut Hasidim (G-d’s deeds of loving-kindness). He is speaking of Middat HaDin (G-d’s justice) and Middat HaRachamim (G-d’s Mercy). Judgment He pours out on those who subvert the truth and Middat HaRachamim (G-d’s Mercy) is for those He loves.

We can also look to the Shema for the answer. We are apprised of the benefits for being faithful to G-d in the verses D’barim (Deut.) 11:13-15. In D’barim (Deut.) 11:16 – 17 we are shown the results of turning to false gods.^[21] “Suppression of the truth” must some way be associated with idolatry and foreign deities. Wrath – ὀργή – orge^[22] is also associated with a “hardened heart,” “willful disobedience,” “stubbornness” and “lack of repentance.” As Middat HaDin (G-d’s justice), ὀργή – orge is for the sake of turning the “sinner” to teshubah (repentance). Nonetheless, Hakham Shaul shows that G-d’s “Middat HaDin” (justice), is revealed in through G-d’s Mesorah.^[23] “G-d’s Mesorah” must be interpreted as the “Mesorah of Elohim” demanding strict justice.

The claim that the “G-d of the Torah” is only of justice, stands in contrast to the Nazarean Codicil “G-d of love” represents a gross distortion of the truth. Every objective biblical scholar, Christian and Jewish alike, understands that the Torah conceived of G-d in terms of both love and justice, just as this same G-d of the Nazarean Codicil manifests Himself in justice as well as love.^[24] Herein does the great heresy deserve G-d’s wrath. Those who hold that the G-d of the Torah must be appeased through Messiah blatantly subvert the truth of G-d’s Mesorah.

For from the creation of the world

G-d has impressed His Divine nature into the earth. This impression, though not observable as a visible power perceived with the eye, manifests itself when the earth “produces fruit.” As we have seen, invested in the earth is the ability to bear fruit “after its own kind.”^[25] This power is an invisible stamp of G-d’s image on the earth. G-d made man after His own “image.” Therefore, we deduce from the expressions G-d said “let the earth bring forth,” “after its own kind” and the earth “brought forth” after its own kind” that the earth also bears the Divine Image.^[26] The invisible impression of G-d on the earth is discernable to the invisible soul, which understands this impression as the image of G-d produced in the earth or specific power attributed to the telluric world. With the capacity to perceive the “knowable” (Da’at) ideas of G-d, Adam (man – humanity) has the power to see the invisible creation with his innermost being. Having the capacity to know the attributes of the Divine Majesty we are called to express them in the cosmos as an expression of His Sons (B’ne Elohim). The Dabar/Memra/Logos (Messiah) is the highest expression of G-d’s “ideas.” As the highest expression of G-d’s “ideas,” the Dabar/Memra/Logos is the “idea of ideas.” Even though the Dabar/Memra/Logos is the prototypical pattern for the B’ne Elohim, each Neshamah bears a unique expression of G-d. And each Neshamah bears some resemblance and characteristics of the Dabar/Memra/Logos. “Still, all created beings in the visible world, according to Philo, were preceded by the creation of ideas corresponding to them. Consequently, the created individual minds and souls in the world must have been preceded by the creation of the idea of mind and the idea of soul.”^[27] In summary to what Philo and Hakham Shaul are both saying G-d made a spiritual expression of Himself in the form of “souls” before He placed them in physical vessels. These vessels (bodies) equip and enable the B’ne Elohim to carry out the mitzvoth of G-d and they bear the mark of the Divine Majesty on the souls.

Jewish Perspective of the Gentile world Romans 1:18-32

In dealing directly with the text, we will note the following. The section of Romans 1:18-32 deals with the Jewish perspective of the Gentile world. While some scholars contest this notion, Professor Paula Fredrikson’s article on Judaism and Circumcision notes the Jewish view of the “average Gentile” in the first century. Even though we have cited this reference in the past, we find these comments apropos.

What, on the average, did the average Jew think of the average Gentile? I think that we can rely here on Paul who, even when addressing Gentiles and in some sense acting as their advocate, refers to them, quite unselfconsciously, as ‘sinners’ (Gal.2:15). Their characteristic social and sexual sins—slander, insolence, deceit, malicious gossip, envy, heartlessness, disrespect of parents, homosexual and heterosexual fornication—are the varied expression of a more fundamental spiritual error: they worship idols. Could there be such a thing, then, as a morally good Gentile?^[28]

Fredrikson also notes that there are also arguments for the moral superiority of Gentiles who respect Jews and Judaism within the works of Josephus.^[29] Furthermore, Hellenistic Jews such as Philo found the “Stranger” who converted to be not only superior to his “pagan” counterparts but being embraced by the loving-kindness of G-d. Jewish acceptance of the “convert” is therefore considered meritorious.^[30] Consequently, the Gentiles who were “sympathetic” towards the Jewish people were considered to be of a greater moral affluence and worthy of merit. Hakham Shaul may have seen Gentiles that he was addressing in this way. However, what is very evident here is that the view of the Gentiles during the first century tended to be one of disdain and contempt rather than acceptance. The Gentile populace of “Rome” most likely would have found Judaism appealing based on its legal system. This view shows that the Romans considered themselves the vogue society. Acceptance of laws that governed civil and religious life therefore would have been appealing. The civility of Jewish lifestyle would have been a welcomed change from the drunken revelries of Roman debauchery.

Roman acceptance of certain aspects of Hellenistic influence had been a societal elevation. “Rules” and “Laws” for the Hellenist meant morality and civility. Monuments and shrines found listing numerous moral maxims in the middle of Grecian cities attest to this very truth.^[31] Interestingly, these “moral maxims,” were religious and philosophical in nature. Their sources varied but of greatest interest is the fact that portions came from Persian magi and Jewish Priests.^[32] The Hellenistic propensity towards high ethic may account for the Legalistic approach of Stephen in 2 Luqas (Acts) 6–7 and following.

Roman monarchies often pictured and proclaimed themselves gods. This eventually led to a denigration of the so-called hierarchy among Roman rulers. Even the Roman hierarchy of military was not exempt from having wives, family and children used as depraved sport by their leaders. The grip of paganism was destroyed by true moral civility as modeled by their Jewish subordinates. Code of conduct within family and society were far more appealing than the alternatives. This is not to say that Rome had no strengths worthy of emulation. However, the destruction of Rome was the result of antinomianism.^[33] The lack of certain legal restraint allowed immoral conduct to bring a deterioration and annihilation from within itself.

The darkened mind and mental futility, from a Jewish Perspective

Ephesians 4:17-19 Now I say this, and testify in the Master, that from now on you cannot walk^[34] as (some) other Gentiles do (walk), devoid of truth (Torah) in their mind,^[35] having a mental disposition full of darkness,^[36] alienated^[37] (cut off) from the life of God,^[38] their ignorance is due to an unyielding obstinacy of mind.^[39] For they, being desensitized, have given themselves up to apostasy,^[40] to every kind of impurity.^[41]

The consequence of idolatry and rejection of Torah principles results in darkened thinking and thoughts. People prefer a “religion” of their own making (works of the flesh) rather than the Divine revelation. Thus religion is born, springing from a rejected knowledge of G-d.^[42] Διαλογισμός – dialogismos in the Nazarean Codicil is only used in the negative sense for evil thoughts or anxious reflection.^[43] In a sense, the mind of vanity and futility is the judgment G-d has placed on the insolent. This punishment is “middah kneged middah” (justice measure for measure). The lack of gratitude is punishable through a darkening, retarding of the mind. In rejecting the “Da’at” of G-d the mental faculties are effected. Because there is a lack of honoring G-d in idolatrous and human religion, life is not experienced as a gift from G-d. Therefore, it loses touch with Divine reality and condemns itself to vanity and futility. Cf. Ecc. 1:2 The result or vanity of idolatry is always a “darkening” of the mental facilities. “The relation between sin and mental blindness is that of action and re-action. Each sinful/idolatrous action is cause and effect of mental darkening. Here, the darkening of the intellect is represented as the effect or foolish and wicked speculation; the liar comes to believe his own lie.”^[44] Knowing G-d demands the appropriate response due to His δοξάζω (glory). In the Jewish mind, “Knowing G-d” demands a specific response. Knowing G-d is tantamount to experiencing G-d. They have in fact experienced Him—His wisdom, power, generosity—in every moment of their existence, though they have not recognized Him. It has been by Him that their lives have been sustained, enriched, bounded. In this limited sense, they have known Him all their lives.^[45] Because they did not thank G-d as an appropriate response. Men experience the pleasures of “life” and do not give due benevolence to G-d for any of their likings or gifts. The appropriate response is trust and obedience. Men should have recognized their indebtedness to G-d for His loving-generosity.

The Allegory of Har Sinai

b. Shabb. 89a Why was Mount Sinai was also called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.

The current pericope of Hakham Shaul’ pericope is perfect parlance of the Torah. The current pericope of Romans summed in “v23” notes a circumstance that is a play on Psalms 106:20 (Lxx 105), which is a reference to the sin of the Golden calf. It may be hard to determine how these fits into the “Jewish perspective” of the Gentile as a “pagan idolater until we know the details. Furthermore, we can see that Hakham Shaul knows the true nature of the sin of the Golden Calf and its relationship “P’qod Kol Bekhor Zakhar,” numbering of all the first-born males.

God now commands Moses to appoint the Levites to serve and minister to Aaron (Num. 3:5–10), as a substitute for the consecrated firstborn in Israel (Num. 3:11–13, 44). This appointment recognizes the Levites’ response to Moses’ rallying call and their consequent execution of Israelites for the sin of the golden calf (Exod. 32:26–29; Deut. 10:8–9). They accordingly are given charge of carrying the Ark of the Covenant that leads the Israelites in the desert and in battle (Num. 10:33–36; Josh. 6) and are assigned as assistants to Aaron and his sons (Num. 3:9), to attend on and minister to God (1 Chr. 23:28, 32).^[46]

Professing wisdom,^[47] they acted foolishly,^[48] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the images (idols) of corrupted human beings,^[49] birds, quadrupeds and reptiles.

2Ti 3:8 Just as ^aJannes (Jannis)^[50] and Jambres opposed Moses,^[51] so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected concerning faithful obedience to G-d and His Torah

Some scholars point out that Hakham Shaul’s reference to Jannes and Jambres shows his connection with and use of Jewish Liturgy^[52], i.e. Triennial Torah Reading Cycle. The Timothy passage is especially germane to our present pericope. This is because “Jannes and Jamberes” had full “knowledge” of who G-d was. Hakham Shaul was aware that Jannes (Janis-Jannis) and Jambres opposed Moshe on more than one occasion.

The first occasion:

Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 1:15 And Pharoh told that he, being asleep, had seen in his dream, and, behold, all the land of Mizraim was placed in one scale of a balance, and a lamb, the young of a sheep, was ill the other scale; and the scale with the lamb in it overweighed. Forthwith he sent and called all the magicians of Mizraim and imparted to them his dream. Immediately Jannis and Jambres, the chief of the magicians, opened their mouth and answered Pharoh? A certain child^[53] is about to be born in the congregation of Israel, by whose hand will be destruction to all the land of Mizraim. Therefore, did Pharoh, king of Mizraim, give counsel to the Yehudith midwives, the name of one of whom was Shifra, who is Yokeved, and the name of the other Puvah, who is Miriam her daughter.

Second occasion:

Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 7:11 But Pharoh called the hachems and magicians; and they also, Janis and Jamberes, magicians of Mizraim, did the same by their burnings of divination.

Also, relevant to our discussion is the fact that many Gentiles parted from Egypt (Mitzrayim) with the B’ne Yisrael.

Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 12:38 and a multitude of strangers, two hundred and forty myriads (thousands), went up with them, and sheep, and oxen, and cattle, very many.

Among those “strangers” were two infamous magicians, named Jannes and Jambres.

JANNES AND JAMBRES, two legendary Egyptian sorcerers whose names appear in various sources as the adversaries of Moses. Jewish tradition seems to identify them with the sorcerers mentioned in Exodus 7:11ff. (cf. Targ. Jon., ibid.). They are also mentioned as the sons of Balaam (Targ. Jon., Num. 22:22; Yal., Ex. 168, 176) and as having played a part in the incident of the golden calf after joining the mixed multitude that accompanied Israel in the exodus from Egypt (Tanḥ., Ki Tissa, 19).^[54]

The initiative in demanding the idol (of the Golden Calf) is attributed by some rabbis to the mixed multitude who joined the Israelites at the time of the Exodus (Ex. 12:38). Forty thousand of them, accompanied by two Egyptian magicians, Jannes and Mambres, came to Aaron and claimed that it already was the sixth hour of the 40th day since Moses had left, the hour which he previously had designated for his return. They claimed that since he had not yet appeared, he would never come. Satan (the adversary) added to the state of helplessness of the people by showing them a vision of Moses’ bier, which convinced them that he had died. Only then did they demand that Aaron produce a god for them (Shab. 89a; Tanh. B., Ex.112–3).^[55]

The truth of Romans 1:18 is now revealed. For the revelation of God’s wrath^[56] coming from the heavens is against all the wicked^[57] and unjust men (like Jannes and Jambres) who intentionally suppress^[58] the truth. This is because even intimate knowledge of God^[59] is evident to them, because God revealed Himself^[60] among them.

b. Shabb. 89a One of the Rabbis asked R. Kahana: have you heard what the mountain of Sinai [connotes]… While what was its [real] name? its name was Horeb. Now they disagree with R. Abbahu, For R. Abbahu said: its name was Mount Sinai, and why was it called Mount Horeb? Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon.

Hakham Shaul knows the Aggadah, and the Targum having followed the Jewish liturgical readings of the Torah. Consequently, the Torah, Targum and related materials fashioned the opinion of Hakham Shaul concerning the pagan Gentiles. The “Jewish perspective” of the Gentile as a “pagan idolater was; therefore, more than likely the Rabbinic view. Har Sinai is also Horeb because of the desolation of idolaters. Allegorically we take this to mean that the Torah is a means for destroying idolatry and pagan idolaters. We can look at their destruction as if they were destroyed in some horrific punishable way or we can see their destruction in their acceptance of Torah. It seems evident that Hakham Shaul was looking for the latter.

אמן ואמן סלה

From the “Six Basic Elements of Peshat and Remes Discourse of the Nazarean Codicil” identify their relationship as translated above.

1. Identify the context in which this Gemará was crafted;
2. Identify the parties or stake-holders of this Gemará debate;
3. Controversy of a Mitzvah or Mitzvoth in question;
4. Contestation against the Hillelite interpretation of the mitzvah or mitzvoth in question;
5. Riposte of the Master or Hakham;
6. Verdict concluded by the Master or Hakham (Halakha).

1. G-d revealed His true nature and plan to them. Yet, they withhold the truth (i.e. the Torah – Written and Oral) from those who are subordinate to them. ↑
2. The Invisible Attributes of G-d. This Remes statement teaches us that these invisible attributes are the upper three Sefirot, Hokhmah, Bina and Da’at. The Seven lower sefirot are seen is the congregation. The Bet Din remains invisible in the Remes mind. Hakham Shaul and Philo agree and may even be citing a common source.The role of the Bet Din and the Sages is to serve as intermediaries between G-d and man, specifically the Congregation. It is through the Sifrah of Hokhmah that G-d makes his first expression. This is related to the chief officer of the Bet Din. But this does not limit any individual who puts in endless hours of Torah Study to better communicate with G-d. Through the Sefirot we find the linguistic expression of G-d.Ps. 19:1 The heavens declare (mesapprim) the glory of God; and the firmament show His handiwork.The heavens, or those who represent the heavenlies (cf. Eph. 1:3) tell mesapprim from “spr” (Sefer) meaning to “tell.” Thus, the Soferim tell the Kibod (glory) of G-d. Thus, the invisible attributes related to the upper Sefirot. Through these vehicles the speech of G-d comes from the realm of speechlessness into the mundane world through the agents of those Sefirot.Ecc. 3:11 He (God) hath made everything beautiful in His time: also, He hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end.Philo, in his discussion on the garments of the Kohen Gadol (High Priest. One of G-d’s principal agents) speaks of G-d’s use of “Logos.” God uses Logos to create the visible world from His invisible thoughts. The Logos (God’s Word’s) are an indestructible “Form of Wisdom” (Hokhmah the highest of the Sefirot relating to the Hakhamim). Interpreting the garment of the high priest (Exod. 28:34; 36) Philo states: “But the seal (on the Kohen’s Head) is an Idea of Ideas, according to which God fashioned the world, being an incorporeal (invisible) Idea, comprehensible only by the intellect” (Mig. 103). The invisible intelligible world which was used by the Logos as a model for creation or rather formation of the visible world from the (preexisting) unformed matter was created in the mind of God: “The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Logos (Reason) and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it” (Op. 36) There is then on the head “a golden leaf,” [Exodus xxviii. 36], pure, having on it the impression of a seal, “Holiness to the Lord.” And on the feet, there are, “on the fringe of the inner garment, bells and small flowerets.” [Exodus xxviii. 34].Describing Moses’ account of the creation of man, Philo states also that Moses calls the invisible Divine Logos the Image of God (Op. 24; 31; LA 1.9) Forms, though inapprehensible, leave an impress and a copy and procure qualities and shapes to shapeless things and unorganized matter. Mind can grasp the Forms by longing for wisdom. “The desire for wisdom alone is continual and incessant, and it fills all its pupils and disciples with famous and most beautiful doctrines” (Spec. leg. 1-45-50). ↑
3. For it follows of necessity that the Creator must always care for that which He has created, just as parents do also care for their children. And he who has learnt this not more by hearing it than by his own understanding, and has impressed on his own soul these marvelous facts which are the subject of so much contention—namely, that God has a being and existence, and that He who so exists is really one, and that He has created the world, and that He has created it one as has been stated, having made it like to Himself in singleness; and that He exercises a continual care for that which He has created will live a happy and blessed life, stamped with the doctrines of piety and holiness. Philo, A., & Yonge, C. D. (1996, c1993). The works of Philo: Complete and unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson. p. 24 ↑
4. Because Hakham Shaul is speaking on the deeper aspects of Remes, we can see that he is speaking of meditation on G-d and the aspects, which verge on So’od. Meditation and deep mental thought brings about a normal mysticism that reveals aspects of G-d’s character that can only be revealed through allegorical comparisons. ↑
5. καθοράω – “to look down,” perceive etc. The best understanding, we can derive from this sentence, is that there are those who have transcended great heights and are able to see from “above” per se. To these souls, G-d is “clearly” seen, or intimately known. Hakham Shaul is not suggesting that the subversive men who suppress the truth (i.e. the Torah – Written and Oral) are capable of this mental level. He here shows that there are those who do have this capacity and will appropriately worship and honour G-d. ↑
6. Διότι – dioti = “because” on account of; a marker of cause or reason. ↑
7. Generally associated with “Da’at,” here is in the negative showing an absence of “Da’at.” In other words, the pagan view of G-d is distorted and devoid of true “Da’at.” The “wisdom” of pagan humanity can never “know” G-d. Their “wisdom” is not Biblical, Jewish Hokhmah. Failure to find true wisdom is due to the absence of the Mesorah among the Gentiles. Eph 1:17 the Father of dignity grant you the power to comprehend through the Oral Torah, and His agents Chochmah, Binah and Da’at. The wisdom of the world, philosophical or otherwise cannot “know” G-d. In other words, the world (kosmos – pagan earthly system) cannot even achieve the level of “Da’at.” herein is the blinding “veil” which covers the minds of the unfaithful. cf. 2 Cor. 4: 3ff once the Mesorah is shined on the soul of the “Gentile” the true nature of that soul shines forth. If the resident soul is that of the Nefesh Yehudi that Neshamah will embrace the Torah, Oral and Written. ↑
8. Because they knew, they did not conduct themselves accordingly.Γνόντες, the aorist participle is used since their experience of God has necessarily always gone before their failure to recognize its true significance and act accordingly. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. p. 116 ↑
9. Praise, glorify, honor and magnify. Δoxázō also means to “believe in.” Therefore, we have the connotation of pagans and Gentiles not believing in G-d. They had enough knowledge of G-d to know to give Him due benevolence, however, they failed/refused to do so. The phrase implies giving thanks for G-d’s actions towards man, i.e. His loving-kindness, “good.” Cf. Luzzatto, Moshe Hayyim. Derekh Hashem / the Way of God / by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto ; Translated and Annotated by Aryeh Kaplan; Emended by Gershon Robinson. Jerusalem; New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1998. pp. 37-41 ↑
10. The article τὸν θεὸν implies the “true G-d.” Shedd, William G. T. Commentary on Romans. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999. p. 22 fn. #4 ↑
11. Cf. D’barim (Deut) 32:21; Yermi’yahu (Jer.) 2:5 ↑
12. Διαλογίζομαι implies that they have no ability to conceive of G-d. This means that the “Da’at” intimate knowledge they would possess is not available to them. In the Nazarean Codicil διαλογισμός – dialogismos is only used in the negative sense for evil thoughts or anxious reflection. G. Schrenk TDNT 2:96 ↑
13. What we translated here as “unteachable” bears stronger language in Hebrew. The words “stupid,” “wicked” and “fallen.” ἀσύνετος takes on the connotation of being without or in opposition to the wisdom of the teacher (Hakham). As such, we note that Hakham Shaul refers here to those who have an unteachable spirit. ↑
14. The “heart” is the center of “inner life.” Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Reprint edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012. p. 85 ↑
15. Professing to have Hokhmah, and or to be a Hakham ↑
16. To be recalcitrant, obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline. ↑
17. Aramaic talya; “lamb, kid” (possibly young bull or calf) or “young boy.” This will bear a greater importance below. ↑
18. φθαρτός – phthartos is used of that which is corruptible and perishing. ↑
19. Kadushin, Max. Organic Thinking: A Study in Rabbinic Thought. New York: Bloch, 1976. p. 184 ↑
20. Mishle (Pro.) 3:12 For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights. ↑
21. Toledano, Rabbi Eliezer. Orot Sephardic Shabbat Siddur: A New Linear, Sephardic Siddur with English Translation. Orot, n.d. pp. 380-81 ↑
22. Out of the 28 times ὀργή – orge is used it is used 10 times in Romans. ↑
23. Cf. Rm. 1:1 ↑
24. Glustrom, Simon. The Language of Judaism. Jason Aronson, Incorporated, 2000. pp. 199-200 ↑
25. Cf. B’resheet 1:11 ↑
26. Cf. B’resheet 1:11-12, 26 ↑
27. Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Volume 1: Structure and Growth of Philosophical Systems from Plato to Spinoza. 4 Revised edition. Harvard University Press, 1962. p. 214 ↑
28. Professor Paula Fredrikson, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S. 42 (1991) p534 ↑
29. Ibid ↑
30. Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. New updated ed. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Pub, 1993. p. 650 ↑
31. Walbank, F. W. The Hellenistic World. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993. p. 60ff ↑
32. Ibid. ↑
33. Our reference here is used to denote that opposition to the Torah’s laws of civil morality brought about its own destruction. However, we must note that the “antinomianism” of Rome is not the same as it is in the contemporary world. The Romans of the first century were “lawless” on a level that may not have been specific opposition to the Torah. Only after introduction to the Torah and then its refusal could the Romans be considered “antinomian.” The true idea of antinomianism in its contemporary meaning did not exist until Martin Luther. ↑
34. περιπατέω – peripateo is used here twice to call the Gentile to Torah observance, meaning Hakham Shaul demands the acceptance of the Halakhah (613 mitzvot) as taught and expounded upon by the Hakhamim. ↑
35. ματαιότης – mataiotes mental futility or vanity. This means that the Gentile who rejects the Torah, 613 Mitzvot and the teachings of the Hakhamim are aimless conducting lifestyles of futility. This futility has captured their minds holding them ransom. ↑
36. Hakham Shaul now apprises us of the opposing mental disposition. Not only is it a mental disposition, it is the direct opposition to the Torah, the 613 Mitzvot and the Hakhamim. ↑
37. ἀπαλλοτριόω – apallotriou has the sense of being “hostile.” ↑
38. Morally bereft of all sensible mores. The depth of this statement is only understood from a Hebraic mindset. To be כָּרַת – karat, “cut off” means completely estranged from G-d’s presence and protection. Those who were “cut off” while traveling through the wilderness were subjected to every evil influence, without G-d’s protection or chesed/grace. Therefore, this is a crime of excommunication by Divine Decree. Here we can see the gravity of moral purposelessness. There are those people who believe that the idle mind of secular entertainment is harmless. However, this idle purposelessness is “opposition” to the Torah, which presents the “goal of Messiah” before us a s standard of life. Life in Messiah has the purpose of recapturing the mission of Adam HaRishon. Adam HaRishon shows the ability to capture the essence of each creature on the earth. Nevertheless, the goal was to apprehend the essence of G-d Himself. Herein, Hakham Shaul in this letter to the Ephesian Congregation sets this goal before them in the pattern of the ten men (3 Dinim – Judges and 7 Paqidim) of the congregation. Why did Adam HaRishon and his spouse Chava cover themselves with a fig leaf? Was this an attempt to “hide” from the Omni Presence of G-d? Their new “awareness” was the sentience of the state of being כָּרַת – karat, “cut off.” Therefore, they saw that they were without G-d’s protection in the Garden. Covering themselves with a fig leaf has many So’od connotations. The most simplistic explanation is that they wanted to camouflage themselves primarily from G-d but the other animals of the earth that would now pursue them as a food source. The human mind/soul is preprogramed with the capacity to perceive G-d. When we deviate from the Torah and the teachings of the Hakhamim, this is impossible. ↑
39. This is an unyielding mind devoted to opposing G-d and G-dly truth/practice. Its dealings are strict, harsh cruel and merciless. Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. ↑
40. This is the result of being “cut off” from G-d. The language uses terms of sexual impropriety as an allegorical way of telling us that the person or persons are bereft of G-d or any ethical mores. Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1:490 ↑
41. In much of the Nazarean Codicil, demonic possession is associated with ritual impurity. While, Hakham Tsefet (Peter the wise) learned at Caesarea not to call Gentiles unclean, those who vehemently oppose the Torah are in some way subjected to unclean Shedim. This is not to say that all Gentiles are “unclean,” G-d forbid. Rather it is noteworthy to mention that direct opposition against the Torah, as a way of life is the mission of two-thirds of the shedim / fallen angels. Therefore, the darkened mind refers to those Gentiles who are either simply ignorant of the Torah as a way of life, and, those who are vehemently opposed to it because of their “unyielding obstinacy of mind.” Hakham Shaul’s view of the Gentile in Ephesians is the same as his view in his Letter to the Romans 1:18-32. Here Hakham Shaul takes the position that the lack of ability to comprehend G-d is a willful opposition against the Torah/G-d. ↑
42. Leenhardt, Franz J. The Epistle to the Romans: A Brilliant Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome. The World Publishing Company, 1961. pp. 22-24 ↑
43. Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964. G. Schrenk TDNT 2:96 ↑
44. Shedd, William G. T. Commentary on Romans. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999. p.23 ↑
45. Cranfield, C. E. B. (2004). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London; New York: T&T ClarkInternational. p. 117 ↑
46. Neusner, J., Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A. J., Green, W. S., & Museum of Jewish Heritage (New York, N. Y. (2000). The encyclopedia of Judaism. “Published in collaboration with the Museum of Jewish Heritage, New York.” (2:596). Brill ↑
47. Professing to have Hokhmah ↑
48. To be recalcitrant ↑
49. φθαρτός – phthartos is used of that which is corruptible and perishing. ↑
50. Cf. Targum Pseudo Yonatan Shemot (Ex) 1:15: 32:4 ↑
51. Cf. Ex 7:11; 32.4 ↑
52. McNamara, M. 1966. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch. AnBib 27a. Rome. 83-85 ↑
53. Explicit mention has already been made of these two in Pseudo-Jonathan at Exodus 1:15, in an inserted haggadah on Pharaohs dream on the birth of a lamb (Aramaic talya; “lamb, kid” or “young boy”), interpreted by Jannes and Jambres chief magicians of Egypt as referring to the birth of a son among the Israelites, one destined to destroy Egypt. McNamara, Martin. Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2010. p. 236 ↑
54. Roth, Cecil. Encyclopedia Judaica [or Encyclopedia Judaica] (16 Volumes). Keter Publishing House, n.d. Vol 11. p. 78 ↑
55. Ibid Vol 7. pp. 700-1 ↑
56. G-d’s wrath is often pictured and spoken of in terms of “G-d’s rage” or “anger.” There is an amazing difference in the nature of G-d as described in this passage. G-d’s chief desire is to show His goodness to His creatures and for His creatures to feel His love. This is the true reason for the existence of the universe, cosmos. The “revelation” (apocalypse) of G-d’s wrath against one of His creatures shows the magnitude of their crimes. Herein the creature has failed to understand the gift of the Yetser HaRa. The Yetser HaRa is given as a means of achieving the highest goals of our humanity, and not just to rebel against its creator. The topic of “G-d’s Wrath against the wicked” startshere in Romans 1:18 and continues until 3:31. ↑
57. ἀσέβεια – asebeia is generally translated as “ungodly.” However, the root is stronger in intending that those being mentioned are the “wicked” Heb. Rashim (pl.). The rasha (sing.) is one who intentionally does evil against his knowledge of that which is good. This makes the rasha accountable for his actions and therefore liable for punishment. ↑
58. The English word “suppress” is from the Latin “sub” (down) premere (to press) supprimere – suppress. This word cannot convey the depth of meaning expressed by Hakham Shaul. The intentional withholding of truth is a most heinous crime. These men withhold the truth knowing the consequences of their actions and those who are affected by these subversive actions. ↑
59. Intimate knowledge here means that “these men” who suppress the truth (i.e. the Torah – Written and Oral) know G-d as far as He is “knowable.” However, even what they know they have subverted and suppressed. ↑
60. G-d revealed His true nature and plan to them. Yet, they withhold the truth (i.e. the Torah – Written and Oral) from those who are subordinate to them. ↑