The Magical Translator
concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 1:3-4 NASB
The resurrection from– Magic often depends on sleight of hand. The magician makes you look at one thing while he does something else. You are deliberately distracted from the real action so that you don’t see how the trick is performed. So it is with the magical translator. By drawing your attention to something you think you already know, the translator can misdirect you and cause you to form a conclusion that isn’t in the original text. Sometimes it doesn’t matter much, but sometimes it is crucially important. Paul’s opening verses in his letter to the Romans are crucially important, but magical translation is required in order to produce the “proper” theological conclusion.
First, let’s compare the critical part of these verses in the NASB with the RSV. The RSV reads, “and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,” Did you see the difference? The NASB does not include “his” when it describes the role of the resurrection. That’s not the only problem. Both translations use the preposition “from” (“resurrection from the dead”) so even though the NASB doesn’t use the pronoun, the sentence still implies that Paul is writing about Yeshua’s resurrection. Unfortunately, both versions are magically incorrect translations.
Paula Fredriksen’s book, When Christians Were Jews, makes this point:
“The standard English misrendering of these lines of Paul’s attests, instead, to the pressures of the passage of time. Instead of reading, ‘designated son of God in power by the resurrection of the dead,’ which is what Paul’s Greek says, the Revised Standard Version gives ‘designated son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead.’ But that is not what Paul says. He states, rather, that Jesus will be known as ‘son of God’—that is, as Davidic messiah—not by his own resurrection from the dead, but by the (general) resurrection of (all of?) the dead. This is a distinction with a difference.” . . . [in the footnote] “Paul’s Greek text contains no possessive pronoun (‘his,’ Greek: autou) modifying ‘resurrection,’ and no preposition (‘from,’ Greek: ek) modifying ‘the dead.’ The correct English rendering can thus only be ‘declared son of God in power by the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead’—an event, Paul was convinced, that was shortly to occur.”[1]
What we have here is theological misdirection. The Church does not want you to think that Paul expected Yeshua to be recognized as Messiah when all the dead were raised. That, by the way, was a thoroughly Jewish expectation about the Messiah. Paul was completely within the Jewish apocalyptic camp by declaring this anticipated event. But it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen in Paul’s lifetime and it hasn’t happened since. If Paul hinges the validation of Yeshua as Messiah on this event, then we have two incredibly significant problems: 1) Paul was wrong, and 2) Yeshua did not fulfill the requirements of being the Messiah even for Paul. You can see why the Church found it necessary to rewrite the text. Adding a pronoun and a preposition means that the Church can go right on believing in the Messiah despite the fact that he doesn’t meet the criteria.
But now you know what Paul really said. And now you will have to deal with these two problems. Or maybe not. Maybe you’ll just pretend that you never saw behind the trick and go on thinking that Paul’s statement is really about Yeshua’s resurrection. It’s so much easier to just believe what you want to believe.
Oh, please don’t get upset. Yes, there are other verses that you can marshal to show that Yeshua is the expected Jewish Messiah, but, unfortunately, not this one, I’m afraid. And that should make you investigate the other verses you were ready to put forth. How many of them have also been “modified” because the second coming didn’t come?
Topical Index: Romans 1:3-4, resurrection, dead, Messiah
IF the Jews are waiting for the Second Coming then they are waiting until it will take no faith for them to believe in their Messiah: not only that, the Second Coming is the Judgment: it will be too late to obey: too late all the way around. I think this is a dangerous ‘hoop’ they have set for themselves (well, if they think they have set it for Messiah, that is even more dangerous).
Yeshua set the conditions for the Second Coming at the Ascension: when we have witnessed to the whole world (which gives them the chance of choice), then He will come back. Shouldn’t we be focusing on this instead of on yet one more made-up reason the Jews aren’t acknowledging their Messiah?
There is a wonderful book (and lots of Youtube sermons, too) by Ty Gibson called The Sonship Of Christ where he makes a cogent argument that Yeshua was not made God’s Son until AFTER His incarnation. This was after many failed attempts to establish the title “son of God” from Adam on through the fathers and David and Solomon, too – all called “son of God”. He is called “The beginning, the firstborn from the dead and “the beginning of the creation of God” (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1;5; 3:14) Ty says “These titles have nothing to do with Jesus coming into existence as the first being created by God. Jesus is the last Adam and therefore the new starting point for creation. His resurrection as the Adamic Son of God signals the rebirth of creation…. There is simply no justification for insisting that these passages are talking about the ancient metaphysical beginnings of Christ.” I got a lot of amazing new insights from this book.
I understand that part of Messiah’s mission as Son of God was to re-include the whole human race back into that sonship position again with Him. We are not supposed to be passively sitting back waiting for Him to do His Messiah thing: He is now waiting for us to do our part of that thing with Him. We have been returned to the Son of God status that Adam started out enjoying. Now the position of Messiah is being shared by us. Well, what exactly are we doing – in cooperation with Messiah as a part of His corporate Body – to get Messiah to come back? Won’t it be when He is perfectly revealed in His Body to the world? Won’t the Jews recognize Him then? Isn’t this up to us?
We must know that a plant is known by its roots. And this plant was rooted in the desert. Think about it.
Oh, the slippery slope. The supposed slight of hand.
Better the straight way.
History is clear and the Scriptures concur that Yeshua
defeated death according to God’s divine plan and
after His resurrection it is recorded that He continued
walking this earth (in His resurrected body) for 40 days
appearing to over 500 witnesses. Then He ascended.
Before His death He said to His disciples: “You have
heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming
back to you’. Jn 14:28. Timing was not mentioned;
preparation was. “Watch therefore for you do not
know what hour your Lord is coming.” Matt 24:42
Yeshua also gave some open-ended clues.
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in
all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the
end will come.” Matt 24:14
“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,
and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will
see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory.” Matt 24:30
We should be preaching the gospel clearly and waiting
expectantly on God’s timing. Paul thought it could be
anytime. And it could be. But not yet. Be ready.
Would this the refer to the resurrection as explained in Eph 2. From sin to life through anointing?
One solution to the two incredibly significant problems… PRETERISM.
Many Jews missed Yehoshua’s 1st coming.
Most Christians missed his 2nd coming.
Skip,
Just curious, but I was wondering if it is possible that Paul was thinking of Matthew 27:50-54?
Interesting that you should pick this example since only Matthew mentions it, and only about some, not all, people, and Paul makes no mention of it at all. Furthermore, Paul apparently expects this to happen as a future event, not something that occurred at the crucifixion. I have always wondered why Matthew is the only one to mention this since, if it happened, it would be rather startling, to say the least. But I don’t think this is what Paul has in mind. BTW, you might want to look at the Greek construction for what the centurion says, as it seems to me that the critical word “the” might not actually be required.
Skip I just looked this up in George Howard’s Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew. Matthew 27:50-54 is in there on pages 146 and 147. https://www.academia.edu/32013676/Hebrew_Gospel_of_MATTHEW_by_George_Howard_-_Part_One.pdf
This particular Hebrew version of Matthew has a lot of scholarly debate about its origins. Nevertheless, I am not sure even it can be used to support the idea that the centurion claimed Yeshua was THE son of God since, as I read the Hebrew, it could likely say, “This was son of THE God.” But perhaps you read it differently (despite the typical translation). Hard to tell what’s happening in this late version (at best 10th Century CE).
Well, here’s a case in which I agree with you, Skip! I don’t think “the” should be in the translation of the centurion’s words in 27:54. Those who translate this way are guilty of eisegesis based, in part, on Christian presuppositions and, in part, on a faulty understanding of ‘Colwell’s “rule”‘ (by applying the converse of ‘Colwell’s rule’–something, disappointingly, Colwell himself did at times).
“concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans” 1:3-4 NASB
Regarding v.3, consider the CJB translation…
“3 It concerns his Son — he is descended from David physically;”
I’m not a fan of the CJB translation, but I think it is spot on on this one. From what I see in the Tanakh, one of the requirements or promises re the mashiach is that he would be a physical seed/descendant of David. And at the moment, although I don’t see an explicit text that says Joseph is Yahusha’s physical father, I also don’t see any explicit text that says he’s not. Therefore, I lean more towards the possibility that Yosef is Yahusha’s physical father…crazy as it may sound.
Regarding v. 4,
“who was ***declared the Son of God***with power by ***the resurrection from the dead,*** according to the Spirit of holiness”
Wow! This is lining up with what I’m learning.
“Resurrection of the dead”= pertaining to spiritual, not physical, resurrection and death
Consider the death in the Garden of Eden: Gen. 2:16-17
“16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [a]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will ***surely die***.”
This is a helpful study of the Hebrew words translated as “surely die”.
https://donkpreston.com/the-death-of-the-garden-guest-article-by-dr-dallas-burdette/
The above article is a paradigm shifter. It explains why most of the “death” that the NT is pertaining to is the spiritual, and not the physical. Physical death was never the problem. It was built into the natural order of things from the beginning. The death that happened to
Adam and Eve after they disobeyed Yah was a spiritual death (separation from YHWH). Thus, it would make sense if the resurrection is also a spiritual one, and not a physical one.
Death = separation from Abba (cut-off from His household/kingdom)
Resurrection = restoration to Abba’s kingdom/household
Going back to Romans 1:4…
When was Yahusha declared to be the son of God? Right after his immersion.
What else happened during this time? The Ruach hakodesh descended upon him (spirit of holiness/setapartness)
Immersion/baptism seems to play a part in man’s spiritual death and resurrection/restoration to Abba. I’m still studying this out. I’m not sure yet how this ties in with the immersion of Israel in 1 Cor. 10:1-2. Or with 1 Peter 3:20-21…
“20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, ***baptism now saves you***—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
I’m leaning more towards this “resurrection” of Jesus Christ as pertaining to his spiritual resurrection during his immersion, rather than his physical resurrection after his burial.
Also it’s interesting to note that both baptisms mentioned in 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter took place before Mosaic torah was given, particularly the torot connected with the tabernacle/temple and the Levitical priesthood. I used to think baptism and mikwah to be the same, but I’m reconsidering it in light of things being “demystified” in th NT, esp. those that occurred prior to the tabernacle/temple era.
Just some thoughts…Thank you for letting me post!
But CJB makes the same mistake Fredrikson points out. It ignores the actual Greek in order to promote a theology. And Paul does NOT say that Yeshua was declared the son of God after his baptism. He doesn’t even mention it. He says that Yeshua is declared the son of God at the resurrection OF THE DEAD. Despite your post about spiritual death vs physical death, there is really no indication here, nor is there in the culture of the audience of this letter, that Paul doesn’t have the general resurrection in mind, something Jews anticipated in the coming Kingdom. Paul does go on to say that the resurrected “body” is spiritual (in some way) but that stands in pretty dramatic contrast to the actual narrative of Yeshua after the resurrection since he is PHYSICAL and is seen as a man with a body, an appetite, etc. I don’t see how we can ignore that common cultural idea of bodies coming out of the tombs.
The part where I quoted a CJB translation was verse 3 only…not including verse 4…Yahusha being a physical descendant of David, and thus, possibly a physical son of Yosef.
For the rest, I just copy/pasted your NASB version, and changed “from” to “of”. And I agree that “of” is a better preposition.
Although it’s true that Paul does not say that Yahusha was declared the son of God after his baptism, Matthew 3:17 does. (See also Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). All three gospels testify that Yahusha was declared by the Most High to be His son for the first time right after his baptism. I’m just trying to make that connection with what Paul is saying.
I’m not discounting the significance of Yahusha’s bodily resurrection. I’m still studying this out, listening to what others have to say, and trying to test every piece of the puzzle against Scripture. It’s always exciting when dots seem to connect very nicely, making the complete picture more clear and visible.
I’m currently testing the puzzle piece that the “resurrection of the dead” has something to do with the “restoration of (spiritual) Israel…turning Yah’s people truly into His children (children of Israel vs children of God).
Also a big part of the restoration is making Israel once again into a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6; Yah’s original plan for Israel had they diligently obeyed His voice), instead of a “kingdom with priests” (after the Golden Calf incident).
1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
Peter was addressing the believers during his time. It was in their generation that the Messianic age (age of anointed) was being ushered in, as their present age (e.i. the Temple age) was coming to an end in 70AD.
Skip, have you read the article from the link I shared? It’s so up your alley. I was able to appreciate it because of the training that I’ve been getting from your blogs!
Sorry for the double post.
This wonderful back and forth exchange is what I will really miss. Rarely do I have the opportunity to speak for another, but in this case I think I speak for everyone on this site…except for the one that counts. You. Please don’t leave us! We will miss your presence in the comment section of TW. You answer our questions (that you helped create) questions that oftentimes can best be resolved by you and sometimes, only by you. The additional insights you offer as a result of your interaction with we “commoners” is really what makes the comment section so valuable. Iron sharpens iron, but also lessor metals too. I understand that it can be both time consuming and frustrating to sometimes answer the same questions over and over and over again and deal with the same topics again and again, seemingly to no avail or end; but isn’t this exactly what Moses went through with the first generation who came out of Egypt? I’m not implying that your leaving is the same as hitting the rock (blog) with your rod (pen) in anger or that you won’t enter the Promised Land with the people, but simply that your interactions, wisdom and knowledge will be sorely missed if you permanently leave. Perhaps if Moses had taken a sabbatical from his daily interaction with the people he might not have been so vunerable to burn out and ultimate burn up. No one here wants you to be stressed to the point it affects your health, but I’m sure the Jewish people would have been willing to see and hear Moses much less often in the desert, if they had known they wouldn’t be able to see him at all in the Promised Land. I hate to push our collective luck, as we are thankful for your recent reconsideration of keeping the old comments alive, but I’m sure Gayle and her moderators wouldn’t mind not having to play Joshua and Caleb on MEWE and all of us (less one) would be elated at the prospect of reading your comments and having our questions answered much less often, than never again at all. Take a sabbatical… take two, if need be- more, but don’t stay away forever is our plea.Thanks for your consideration…again.