So, what is the deal with Paul and the Jews anyway? I mean, don’t most people think he was a Jew? Well, straight off the bat we’re into trouble with any such idea; by birth Paul was Roman and he was a ‘Benjamite’:

“Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;” Philippians 3:4,5 KJV

Here Paul lays it out succinctly for all to read with nothing hidden and no games. Notice too this declaration doesn’t come on the first page of Romans but in chapter three of Philippians. So we should note what that means. Paul was not parading around like some dictator barking at people to get in line. Now, as to the substance of this declaration of Paul’s life and identity, it simply means he was an Israelite and not a ‘Jew’. (For those not up to speed on what I just stated, please visit the ‘All The Jews Fit To Print’ series to get up to speed on the history and the mystery of ‘Jews’ before proceeding further with this post).

Paul also mentions he was a Pharisee; a legalist in the most strict sense of the word. So, while we are here let’s note the crux of what Paul is saying, beyond stating his genuine bonafides as a pure bred Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, regarding fulfilling and satisfying the Law in the flesh and through physical works, that he, by his birth and by the life he lived as a Pharisee had put his ALL into – that it was not enough; there is no salvation by it. So, Paul understood only too well what most modern so-called ‘Christians’ still don’t after centuries of bogus Old Testament religion; salvation is through Christ not rituals and one’s own hard work:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16 KJV

So, now that we have warmed up with that rough intro to Paul, we are going to have a look at what Paul is really on about in the first few chapters of Romans and in order to sort that out we are going to have to deal once again with rubbish translation in the KJV: ‘Jews’ & ‘Gentiles’. We’re going to proceed in a chronological fashion, so to start let’s get to it in Romans Chapter 1:

“Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.” Romans 1:13 KJV (Underline mine)

“nolo autem vos ignorare fratres quia saepe proposui venire ad vos et prohibitus sum usque adhuc ut aliquem fructum habeam et in vobis sicut et in ceteris gentibus” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 1:13 (Underline mine)

We have already seen how and why ‘Gentile’ is problematic in ‘All The Jews Fit To Print’, with the word being translated as either ‘people’, ‘nations’, or ‘heathen’, but there’s yet more to it. Here, you can see the Latin word translated is ‘gentibus’. For now we’ll just bookmark that and come back to this ‘Gentiles’ thing shortly.

Moving along,

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Romans 1:16 KJV

“non enim erubesco evangelium virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti Iudaeo primum et Graeco” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 1:16 (Underline mine)

Now, if we look at this straight off the bat it doesn’t make any sense. ‘Jew’ is not a term of geographic but racial and spiritual designation. Judea was the land so what it should say is ‘Judean’ as in: “to the Judean first, and also to the Greek.” However, ‘Judean’ could also be a spiritual reference and the term ‘Greek’ as well.

“How do you mean”? you ask.

Very simply. It would mean salvation to the Judean Israelites first then the rest of mankind that believe. In which case, we are once again just looking at a wicked typo ‘Jew’ where it should read ‘Judean’. This is the typo, or certainly one of the top typos that are used to sell the idea that Christ was a ‘Jew’. Funny that, that strangers should adopt the Messiah of the bonafides that have been rejecting him 2000 years and counting. Really?

Let’s notice too, that the vulgate is ‘Iudaeo’; does that look and sound to you like ‘Jew’? Of course it doesn’t. So, what Paul is effectively saying here is that the power of Christ unto salvation is available to all mankind that believe; Israelite or foreigner matters not, ‘Greek’ being an example. Also let’s remember Greece was pagan. Below is more KJV corruption.

“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:” Romans 2:9,10 KJV (Underline mine)

“tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum Iudaei primum et Graeci gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti bonum Iudaeo primum et Graeco” Latin Vulgate Ad Romans 2:9,10 (Underline mine)

Did you notice there is no Latin word resembling ‘Gentile’ at all but ‘Graeci’ and ‘Greaco’? So, here we have the KJV suddenly throwing in ‘Gentiles’ for no rhyme or reason whatsoever when it should be ‘Greek’ and consistent with what Paul had written before in Romans 1:16.

Moving on,

“Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,” Romans 2:17 KJV

“si autem tu Iudaeus cognominaris et requiescis in lege et gloriaris in Deo” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 2:17 (Underline mine)

This again should be ‘Judean’, and would as such make sense because the monumental events of crucifixion and resurrection were fresh memories. Paul was on his ‘mission’ from Christ and many ‘Judeans’ had not been converted at that time and needed teaching to get them there hence Paul’s letters in the first place. It is interesting to note though that ‘Jew’ fits a modern context as today’s ‘Jews’ are, at least purportedly, all about the Law in their fierce denial of the divinity of Christ as the Son of The Father, Saviour and Messiah. However, Paul was not writing about 2022AD, but 2000 years before so such an idea is just a little out unfortunately.

Getting back to the issue of ‘Gentiles’, let’s look at the following:

“For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” Romans 2:24 (Underline mine) KJV 

“nomen enim Dei per vos blasphematur inter gentes sicut scriptum est” Ad Romanos 2:24 (Underline mine)

Here we have the word ‘gentes’ and let’s note that it is not the word ‘gentibus’ used before. So, let’s now look at a few things and get this ‘Gentiles’ business sorted:

Gentes may refer to:

Gens (pl. Gentes), in Ancient Rome, a family of those sharing the same nomen and a common ancestor

This definition actually helps illustrate that back in those days there were no big countries or nation states where social engineering Marxists were trying to create wholly new people out of miscegenated masses i.e. Canadians, Americans, Australians. Things were much more clannish and tribal and we have to think that way to make sense of what has been written here. So let’s note that and note it well. ‘Gentiles’/’Gentes’ then in addition to the definitions we have seen before could also be referring to various families descended of a common ancestor (Patriarch). For example those descended of Israel are known as ‘Israelites’, those descended of Judah are Judahites. So, ‘gentiles’/’gentes’ could also refer to non-Israelite patriarchal clans or families of the world which took their name from their Patriarch.

Looking again at this statement above ‘the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you’, why does it say ‘through you’? Paul is clearly stating that Israelites are blaspheming God (giving God a bad name, being hypocrites and/or teaching false ideas) among the non-Israelite nations of the world. Not much has changed now has it?

Therefore, as with Paul’s first mention of ‘Gentiles’ back in Romans 1 let’s not think there are ‘Jews’ and that ‘Gentiles’ are everybody else but, rather let’s think of patriarchal families Israelite and non-Israelite hence his hope:

“Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.” Romans 1 :13 KJV (Underline mine)

Before we hit the ‘Gentiles’ again, who are these ‘brethren’? If you guessed Israelites you’d be right.

Now, have you ever heard of an ‘Omnibus’ bill in politics? It’s a term for one of those ‘everything but the kitchen sink’ bills where the scoundrels try to stitch up and/or remedy a whole colossal mess all in one shot, usually at 3am when you are dreaming of better things. ‘Gentiles’ is an ‘Omnibus’ word that has many meanings.

As we saw in ‘All The Jews Fit To Print’, ‘Gentiles’ can also be a translation for ‘Nations’, but which nations?

“As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.” Genesis 17:4-6 KJV (Underline mine)

Really, we are definitely being told right here that ‘nations’ refers indeed to the descendants of Abraham and not say Japeth, Ham, or their descendants and certainly not the Canaanites being descended of Canaan. Yet, there’s more:

“And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.” Genesis 17:16-21 KJV

So again, here we can see that Sarah is to be a mother of ‘nations’ and also Ishmael and his descendants will indeed become a ‘nation’, however just one, not several. Thus we should conclude that ‘Gentiles’ would no doubt be those ‘nations’ descended of Sarah, through Isaac and that therefore Paul in Romans 1:13 is talking about Israelite ‘nations’ of Isaac and not the ‘nation’ of Ishmael, or any other ‘nations’ which, were elsewhere and busy with their own affairs.

At any rate, getting back to our main pesky translation problem,

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Romans 2:28,29 KJV

“non enim qui in manifesto Iudaeus est neque quae in manifesto in carne circumcisio sed qui in abscondito Iudaeus et circumcisio cordis in spiritu non littera cuius laus non ex hominibus sed ex Deo est” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 2:28,29 (underline mine)

Once again the correct translation here again should be ‘Judean’. It is critical to understand that Paul is not comparing and contrasting two different people but elucidating the transition of the Judeans themselves from law to grace.

“For he is not a Judean, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Judean, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Romans 2:28,29 HBTS Version

Now regarding this verse, for modern purposes what could actually be used here in place of ‘Jew’ is ‘Christian’ and then we would have a proper meaning of the term ‘Christian’ as one, which believes in salvation through Christ and His grace.

“For he is not a Christian, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Christian, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 

This is the crux of Paul’s message. He is not saying forget the Law but fulfil it through faith in Christ because there is no salvation in strict legal adherence.

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?” Romans 3:1 KJV

“quid ergo amplius est Iudaeo aut quae utilitas circumcisionis” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 3:1 (Underline mine)

Well, the ‘Judean’ had no advantage at all because there is neither respect of person, or status, nor ritual or law adherence at all with Elohim. In fact, the ‘Judean’ was at a disadvantage due to centuries of failing at the law.

“What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;” Romans 3:9 KJV (Underline mine)

“quid igitur praecellimus eos nequaquam causati enim sumus Iudaeos et Graecos omnes sub peccato esse” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 3:9 (Underline mine)

Here we have again in the KJV ‘Jews’ and ‘Gentiles’ instead of ‘Judeans’ and ‘Greeks’. This verse should correspond to what Paul had written before should it not? So, what verse or verses is Paul referring to then? As far as I can tell it should be referring to Romans 2:9,10 and if we look at the Vulgate we see that the Vulgate is consistent on this but lo and behold the KJV is not. Crickets.

“tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum Iudaei primum et Graeci gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti bonum Iudaeo primum et Graeco” Latin Vulgate Ad Romans 2:9,10 (Underline mine)

“quid igitur praecellimus eos nequaquam causati enim sumus Iudaeos et Graecos omnes sub peccato esse” Latin Vulgate Ad Romanos 3:9 (Underline mine)

So, the KJV has made matters confusing and inconsistent. Were they trying to make Paul look a fool?

Finally,

“Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:” Romans 3:29 KJV

“an Iudaeorum Deus tantum nonne et gentium immo et gentium” Latin Vulgate 3:29 (Underline mine)

Now, this verse is particularly interesting because the KJV and Vulgate are in agreement in that it is ‘Gentiles’. However, let’s note that in the Latin it is ‘Gentium’, neither ‘Gentibus’ nor ‘Gentes’. (I’ll get back to this distinction soon). So, if we render the verse properly with ‘Judeans’ what is Paul saying? As far as I can make out Paul means not only the patrilineal families of the Judahites, Benjamites and Levites of Judea (formerly House of Judah before being captured to Babylon 535BC), but also the lost Israelite families or clans of the House of Israel captured to Assyria roughly 750BC and as well, those of Israelite ancestry for example Aenaes that founded Rome descended as he was of Zarah (‘The Aeneid’ Virgil):

“And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.” Genesis 38:30 KJV

So, hopefully dear readers this tidy up of KJV translation in the first three chapters of Romans will help you plough on with your own improved understanding of what Paul was really saying, which hopefully will help you make sense of many things often confused by today’s charlatans and blind guides offering their politically correct drivel so as not to displease the minds of men.

“For he is not a Christian, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Christian, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 

We have seen by just casually referencing the Latin Vulgate two different forms of the root word ‘Gentes’ (‘Gentibus’ & ‘Gentium’), and five different forms of the root word ‘Iudae’ (‘Iudaeo’, ‘Iudaeos’, ‘Iudaeorum’, ‘Iudaei’, ‘Iudaeus’).

Now, the following is from Word Sense, which, funnily enough actually doesn’t really make any sense at all unless one is prone to buying the idea that ‘Jew’ trumps ‘Judean’; that ‘Jew’ came first and ‘Judean’ is a synonym?

iudaeorum

iudaeorum (Latin)

Adjective

iudaeōrum

1. Inflection of iudaeus (genitive masculine plural)

2. Inflection of iudaeus (genitive neuter plural)

This is the meaning of iudaeus:

iudaeus (Latin)

Origin & history

From Ancient Greek Ἰουδαῖος‎, from Hebrew יְהוּדָה‎ (“Judah”).

Adjective

iūdaeus (feminine iūdaea, neuter iūdaeum)

1. Jewish, of or pertaining to the Jewish people.

2. (substantive) A Jewish/Judean (person)

Noun

iūdaeus (genitive iūdaeī) (masc.)

1. a Judaean, Jew

You can see for yourself what it is folks, this basic lie going around that somehow the following makes sense:

iūdaeus (feminine iūdaea, neuter iūdaeum)

1. Jewish, of or pertaining to the Jewish people.

2. (substantive) A Jewish/Judean (person)

Really? ‘Iudaeus’ means ‘Jewish’ as opposed to ‘Judean’? Well, they actually cough up the truth at the very bottom:

1. a Judaean, Jew

There it is listed correctly in order of importance: ‘Judean’, ‘Jew’; ‘Jew’ is a synonym; ‘Jew’ is derivative.

Here, just for fun is the Yandex translator, and when I put in ‘Judean’ in English it produced ‘Judean’ in Latin, though for a moment prior it did actually show ‘Iudean’. Does someone need to pay off the techies to fix up a bit of old code?

Finally, since we are essentially fingering how poor KJV translation has distorted meaning let’s note that what Paul is talking about is crucial. Here is another example of poor translation and what we must always be on the lookout for:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” Romans 4:16 KJV

Upon reading this verse again recently, I did a double take and realised that while I may have been reading it the way it should properly be understood, perhaps there are many which might read it and get the entirely wrong idea? Now, you may need to read this one a few times to get it sorted but here is the first focal point: “not to that only which is of the law“. The way the translators have constructed this phrasing suggests that there is some promise guaranteed to those of the Law, and that those of the faith of Abraham are somehow just newcomers or Johnny-come-lately on the scene, but can yet be claimants to the promise (which will no doubt occur of course through strict adherence to the new legalism a.k.a. Roman Catholicism 2.0 or Anglicanism!)

So, in stumbling upon this discovery, I made a note and it read the following: “Paul is speaking not just of racial heritage but also spiritual. Therefore ‘only’ and ‘also’ should not feature here.” I then went on to augment my note with more:  ‘only and also should come after is’. 

So, what I mean folks is that the verse should read like this:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that which is (ONLY) of the law, but (to that) which is (ALSO) of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” (Caps and brackets mine).

Now, you might think I’m mad or that it doesn’t make much difference, but I hope you will see just how devious the translation is because simply by moving the words ‘only’ and ‘also’ the meaning changes entirely. In this second rendition it clarifies properly what Paul is actually saying; that the Law ONLY is not enough; there MUST ALSO be the faith of Abraham. This is exactly what his own personal journey shows us; being born an Israelite and becoming a hard legalist Pharisee was not enough. Yet, the way the KJV renders this verse makes it out there is some special status afforded to a mythical, special, ‘chosen people’ of the Law; this kind of language is exactly the kind of language used to support a ‘chosen people’ of the Law first, and everyone else get in line doctrine. This is pure priesthood legalist religious dogma and Paul was definitely not promoting any such rubbish at all. This is exactly why Christ told us in no uncertain terms of their treachery:

“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52 KJV

Now, just to see if my hunch were right I went to the Greek Interlinear to see what it said. Here are the two verses for comparison:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” Romans 4:16 KJV

“Therefore it [is] of faith that [it may be] according to grace for – to be sure the promise to all the seed not to that of the law only but also to that of [the] faith of Abraham who is [the] father of all of us.” Romans 4:16 Greek Interlinear 

Just to double check I then went to the Aramaic Peshitta and here it is:

“Therefore it is by faith, which is through grace, that we are justified, that the promise might be firm unto all his seed; not to that which is of the Law only, but also to that which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Romans 4:16 Aramaic Peshitta

So, take that KJV translators!