ROMANS — Chapter 1, Verse 3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;” –KJV

1. “Concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord,” (peri tou huiou autou tou) “Concerning or regarding the Son of him.” Take note that the translation includes “our Lord.” This is not in the text. [check other texts.] Another addition by the translators for doctrinal purposes? Now, let’s look at the Greek words.

peri – “around, circum, circling”

tou – “the”

huiou – “of son”

Note also that “Jesus Christ” is not in this part of the text. This is the “received text” underlying the King James Version. Again, the translators have misplaced a phrase that comes at the end of this section, to the front, i.e. “Jesus Christ, our Lord.” What’s difference does it make? Simply this. This is English thinking, NOT the Father’s thinking. The Father concludes this section of verses with the IMPACT conclusion that “Yahshua Anoited, the Sovereign” sanctions what was said. If read first, the concluding impact is lost to the reader, and/or listener. Usually we remember strongest what we last read or heard. So, you figure out why the Father would put this phrase at the end versus the beginning of the complete statement. This statement is actually the last few words of verse 6. So, the whole section runs from verse 1 thru verse 6. Now, read these four verses and conclude them with “Yahshua Anointed the Sovereign, [Master] ours.” That, my friends, is the Seal of Approval on what Paul just wrote in these first four verses!

2. “Which was made of the seed of David,” (genomenou ek spermatos David) “Who has come out of (sperm-seed), of David.” If you have done any studying at all on New Testament “criticism” you know there is much questioning about what Paul really knew about the Messiah. Well, let me say, most pay no attention to Paul, or the rest of the NT in their criticisms. They pay attention to the opinions of men who claim to be “New Testament Scholars,” which they aren’t in most cases. They are simply scholars of the opinions of men, including their own.

Romans was written by Paul. This verse then, written by Paul, shows that he knew the Messiahf was of the seed, or line, of David. Another question these so-called scholars bring up are the two geneologies of the Messiah. It’s interesting to note that the very first thing you read about the Messiah in the evangel of Matthew is this: “Biblos geneseos iesou xristou uiou david uiou abraam.” That is the transliteration of the Greek text of Matthew 1:1. The very first thing Matthew records then is that Yahshua is the SON OF DAVID (uiou david). Thus, showing the royal lineage of the Messiah relative to rulership over Israel. The next word is, son of Abraam. (uiou abraam). This shows the source of the promise of land and faith in the Messiah’s lineage. Now, Paul obviously knew this for he wrote clearly in this verse that the Messiah was “of the seed of David.”

genomenou – “engendered of, made of”

ek – “out of, out from”

spermatos – “sperm-seed”

david – David.

3.) “According to the flesh,” (kata sarka) “According to flesh.” That is, the fleshly lineage of the Messiah. The fleshly lineage came through Abraham and David, “promise and kingship.” Luke’s geneology is that of Mary, which gives the Messiah the spiritual lineage. Without that He could not pass on eternal life to us. Luke’s geneology is the only onbe of the two that goes all the way back to YHWH. Notice the last person in Luke’s lineage. “SON of Elohim.” This goes to help prove the Messiah was not only a Son of the Father through the fleshly lineage, but also the Son of the Father by the Spirit of the Father causing Mary to become pregnant with a “spiritual seed.”

kata – “down, fall”

sarka – “flesh”

In other words, the Messiah came “down through flesh” to this earth.

“Around about the son of him, the engendered out of sperm-seed David, down-flesh.”

Romans — Chapter 1, Verse 2

“(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.)” –KJV

1) “Which he had promised afore,” (ho proepengeilato) “Which he promised beforehand.” Literally “The promised he beforehand.” In other words, the evangel or wellness news promised from Adam through the prophets and on through the apostles. All directly inspired by YHWH through them. The evangel came through them, it was NOT by them. Too often translations use the term “by” when it should be “through.” You will notice this in the next phrase from this verse where the KJV uses “by.” Using such a translation infers that the writers “created” these messages themselves. They did not do so.

2) “By his prophets,” (dia ton propheiton autou). Dia means through in its most basic meaning. Thus water runs dia the water pipes. Water is not (made) BY the pipes. “Through the prophets of him.”

Again, notice the –ou on the end of the word autOU. It means, as we mentioned before, “OF.”

Note: At this point it might be good to note the fact that we need to learn to think more as the original languages of preservation present the evangel. Here is one case we can learn from: the ending -ou. In English we express the idea “of” or -ou, slightly different from the Greek and Hebrew. Here for instance, the word “autou” is expressed or translated as “his.” Frankly, that is NOT what the text says. That is purely English in thinking and expression. We study the Bible NOT to read and learn English thinking, but the thinking of the Bible languages. Remember, the Father used those languages to preserve the evangel, He did not preserve them in English. So, I believe we should always express the Hebrew and Greek as Hebrew and Greek but in English form. That is, until we ourselves learn those languages. Therefore, we would always translate like this. It is the book of me. NOT “my book.” It is the book of him. NOT “it is his book.”

Take the word wife, for instance. Arlene is my wife. No she isn’t, according to Biblical teaching and thought! Arlene is the wife OF me. Do you grasp the difference? Eve came from Adam. So, she was NOT Adam’s wife. She was the wife OF Adam. Or, better yet, in her case, Eve was the wife (made) OF Adam. So, what’s the difference? Arlene is the wife OF me because she is part of me now. I don’t own her. She is not mine, or MY wife. She is the other half OF me. We complete each other. On the other hand, I am not her husband. I am the husband OF her. If for instance I am bakng bread. The dough is kneaded and ready to bake. I want two loaves to bake. So, I take a PORTION OF the first loaf and form a second loaf. That second loaf is OF the first loaf. Does that mean the first OWNS the second? As in,  “that loaf is MY loaf”, if the first loaf could speak?

This difference in understanding is critical. For, in learning more and more to think in the way the Hebrew and Greek text presents things, the closer we come to the full meaning of the evangel, or message. If one will deliberately make onesself change his, hers, its, etc. into OF him, her, me, it, etc. one will find an exciting new vista of understanding open when reading Scripture.

Now, in the matter of “Through the prophets of him”, what can we learn? This means, and shows, that those prophets are actually part of him, the Father. NOT just people who were picked up, enslaved, and trapped into being HIS, just to give the message. One cannot be a prophet without some PART of the Father being within them. And, since the Father’s spirit is within them, then they are OF him, not “his.” I hope this Biblical way of thinking can be grasped by more and more seekers OF the truth.

3) “In thy holy scriptures,” (en graphais hagiais) “In holy or sanctified writings.” Look at the THREE Greek words. They do NOT say “In THY…” It just says, simply IN. Nor does the Greek say HOLY scriptures. The three Greek words say simply: “IN WRITINGS SET-APART”. That is certainly different from “In thy holy scriptures.” The additions of the translators fail to carry across the simple, dignified, and perfect message OF the Father by translating this way. This is a simple example of translator license. We must always be concerned about this kind of misleading translation. No matter how minor it seems.

The major problem is this. English translators are under the delusion that they must translate INTO English thinking patterns which are definitely NOT in the thinking patterns of the Hebrew and Greek texts. If we want the mind OF the Father and the Son OF Him, then we need to think like they did and do, based on the languages they used.

“The… promised he before, through the prophets of him, in writings set-apart.”

Now, verse 1 and 2 together.

“Paul, slave-servant of Yahshua Anointed, called apostle, set-apart unto the evangel (wellness message) of YHWH. The… promised he before, through the prophets of him, in writings set-apart.”