Traditional theology tends to honour the incomprehensible as if it were much to be preferred to that which is clear. Unless there is a mystery or a paradox involved, it is not true religion and we have been somehow short changed.
Romans chapter one is no less like this, as I have recently discovered. In Rom. 1:20 we are told that ever since creation, people have been able to understand God’s eternal nature, his invisible qualities, by virtue of looking at what is visible. Cranfield in his Commentary on Romans also seems to jump on the bandwagon by assuming that Paul intends a paradox here. He doesn’t of course explain the paradox and merely assumes that everybody will know exactly what he means (understandably of course, given nearly two thousand years of such interpretation). A moment’s thought is enough, though, to suggest not so much a paradox as an outright contradiction in terms, a logical impossibility.
Well, sorry, but I really don’t know what that means and neither apparently do the countless millions of unbelievers who have been told by countless millions of Christians that they have no excuse not to believe in God. It is obviously illogical as any atheist will tell you. It also contradicts the ethic Paul explicitly affirms a few verses later in Rom. 2:1 in which he reprimands all those who judge (and after all, isn’t this a form of judgement of others?) Perhaps most embarrassingly it is in direct conflict with what Paul says in 1:17 where God’s judgement in the Gospel is revealed altogether by faith. Lastly, there is 2:15 where, far from being without excuse, some Gentiles demonstrate that God’s law is written on their hearts.
Above all, however, this passage is used by so many Christians because it is easy to believe. It is easy to believe because it justifies the believer at the expense of all non-believers. It gives rise to a Christianity which is fundamentally no different from any other proselytising religion, Islam included. It makes the believer feel inwardly right and able to look down upon all those who don’t believe and the sad thing is that while he goes on with his evangelism, with his interfering in the laws and customs of his culture, convinced of his rightness and of the need that all others have of his message, he is the only person who cannot see how stupid he is.
I’d like to propose a new (I think) interpretation of this passage based on the meaning of τοις ποιημασιν which is taken in all the translations I have read in the same context as κτισεως κοσμου, i.e. from the creation of the world… the things he has made (created). That’s because a) the theological presupposition is always there and b) because ποιημασιν is from the root word poieo, to do or to make. Hence poiema = thing made.
However, the use of the word poiema does not justify that. From classical ancient Greek to modern Greek, the word has simply meant a poem or a work of art. So it seems to me that something more than just ‘thing made’ is called for in this passage, something more specific. The only other use of the word I can find in Paul is in Ephesians 2:10: αυτου γαρ εσμεν ποιημα - for we are his handiwork… This seems more correct as a translation, given Greek usage, not "We are his thing made" or "We are made by him". And of course the context is anything but a reference to the creation of the world.
But in Romans 1:20, is Paul merely using poiema in conjunction with κτισεως, i.e. as a poetic way of describing the creation of the world? I don’t think so, because there is obviously a special emphasis in the use of the phrase τοις ποιημασιν νοουμενα. In other words, something has to be thought through or perceived in order to see the invisible things of God. The invisible things are not simply visible in creation; there has to be a νοουμενα. Thus:
20 τα γαρ αορατα αυτου απο κτισεως κοσμου
For the invisible things of him (God) from the creation of the world
τοις ποιημασιν νοουμενα
when perceived by (through) his handiwork (artwork)
καθοραται
appear as (are made) visible (or are clearly seen but note the obvious contrast αορατα/καθοραται - invisible/visible)
η τε αιδιος αυτου δυναμις και θειοτης
his eternal nature and divine power
εις το ειναι αυτους αναπολογητους
so that they are without excuse.
What then is this handiwork or poem, that men should consider and thus see God’s invisible attributes, and who are the people who are without excuse? To answer this, we need only go back to Paul’s introduction where he states his desire to preach the Gospel in Rome, “for (Rom 1:16) it is the power of God to salvation to all who believe, both to Jew first and to Greek”. His subject, therefore, is the Gospel. He then goes on to say in 17 that God’s righteousness is revealed in it. It is surely in the verses that follow that Paul explains how God’s righteousness is revealed in the Gospel. Not how his righteousness is revealed in creation.
Poiema therefore in this context means the Gospel itself, the life, works, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection lives of his followers. This is God’s artwork, his specially crafted poem (see Eph 2:10 quoted above as an example) and which displays his nature that had been invisible since the creation of the world. It is the preaching of the Gospel that leaves unbelievers without excuse, not the mere observation of the created world (or else why would Paul need to state in chapter 10 the need for preaching?) The power of the Gospel, apart from its ability to change lives, is that it resolves any uncertainty as to a person’s spiritual stance such that both faith and unbelief are clarified – like the field in Jesus’s parable, where the weeds had to wait until harvest to be distinguished from the wheat and eventually burned.
This interpretation also makes much better sense of Rom 2:1, which the commentators don’t really know how to take. Paul comes in with a big “Therefore” but no one seems to have a grasp of why the fact that unbelievers are without excuse leads to an exhortation not to judge. Yet in the light described above, the message is quite clear: “You, the saved, have already heard the Gospel and have been set free from judgement, therefore you of all people should not be judging others because when you do judge, it is because you are not righteous yourselves.”
This is the kernel of an idea and indeed there are certainly some objections to it. Perhaps we can develop it together?
Re: More than just made
My understanding has always been that the issue here is not whether God exists or whether it is logical to believe in him. I quite agree with you that the existence of God is not self-evident from the things that have been made - indeed, you make the point very well. But what Paul is talking about, surely, is the nature of God: the ‘visible’ things that have been made reveal something of, help us to understand or grasp, the ‘unseen things’ of God, namely his ‘everlasting power and deity’ - in other words, that he cannot be adequately represented by manufactured objects. Those who worship idols are without excuse because ‘although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him’ (1:21 ESV).
So Paul is not addressing the (modern) reader who denies that God exists. He is addressing - consistent with a traditional Jewish critique of idolatry - the ancient reader who has ‘exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles’ (1:23).
However, the question of whether tois poiēmasin refers to created reality as such remains an interesting one and I think you may be right to raise doubts about the traditional understanding. Behind Ephesians 2:10 is probably Isaiah 29:16 LXX: ‘Shall the thing formed (to poiēma) say to him that formed it…?’ But Psalm 142:5 LXX (cf. 92:4 LXX) may be more relevant: ‘I remembered the days of old; and I meditated on all your doings: I meditated on the works (poiēmasin) of your hands’. Here the word refers not to created things but to what YHWH has done in the past, not least in delivering his people from their enemies.
Re: More than just made
Thank you Andrew for a very considerate reply. What you say
does raise another issue which I also thought about whilst considering this passage, namely that of the universal applicability of Paul’s argument. I first thought of it in the homosexuality context: the principal argument of the pro-homosexuals is that the context is culturally limited. I would not argue that there are no valid points in favour of the homosexual camp here but I would argue that this at least is not one of them. Because if it is, then it is not possible (for either Paul or the modern orthodox theologian) to make a case that all men have fallen short of God’s glory on the basis that they all knew he existed and were aware of his attributes.
The same applies here: if Paul’s message is that those who knew god existed but refused to recognise his divine attributes are without excuse, then this says nothing about those who had no belief in god at all. It almost even exonerates them. But I also think that Paul would hardly have done the same, that he would be thoughtless enough to believe that the world only consisted of those in his personal cultural experience. That is why I think he is not making a generalisation at all. He is giving his own experiences of what the preaching of the Gospel does.
The other thing I would say in reply is that the same cautions arise whether we talk of God’s existence or his attributes. I just don’t see how you can look at creation and even if you already believe God exists, be able to have some knowledge of his character merely by looking at what you see around you. It is simply too subjective. I certainly wouldn’t blame you for thinking that God was ephemeral given how many things appear to naturally decay (taking a Platonist perspective) and I wouldn’t blame you for thinking he was a merely a principle of randomness (taking a moden evolutionary perspective) as examples.
This does raise other questions and I am sure you or another will think of some obvious ones!
Re: More than just made
I don’t think we should demand too much from Paul’s argument - he develops it within a limited space and for a limited purpose. There are always going to be gaps and inconsistencies.
But I would also suggest that it is a mistake in any case to suppose that he is constructing a universal argument that is meant to cover all possible situations. Why not just accept the fact that he is addressing specifically the failings of Greek-Roman paganism? My view is that when he speaks of the wrath of God coming upon pagan world he has in mind not a universal judgment but judgment specifically on ancient paganism, not least as it opposed the church. God will bring this whole system, characterized in Paul’s mind by the link between idolatry and immorality, to an end.
He does not attempt to answer our rather different modern questions about the rational grounds for believing in God.
Re: More than just made
I guess this is where interpretation of this passage and indeed the whole book of Romans should be heading. It has benefits in that if you say less you have less to prove. You have more modest but at the same time more realistic principles to follow. I just accidentally read through an earlier debate on homosexuality here and I can see the advantages of this kind of realistic approach. I haven’t finished going through Romans this time around (I have hardly started!) but I suspect I will be reading it more along the lines of a comment on the Jewish/Gentile divide amongst believers. I’ve already debunked a lot of Calvinistic interpretations in the later chapters on earlier readings because they assume too much. I’m still struggling a bit with these early chapters though, but in the past I have found that persistence in exegesis is very rewarding.
Thanks for your comments.
Re: More than just made
Andrew wrote:
But Psalm 142:5 LXX (cf. 92:4 LXX) may be more relevant: ‘I remembered the days of old; and I meditated on all your doings: I meditated on the works (poiēmasin) of your hands’. Here the word refers not to created things but to what YHWH has done in the past, not least in delivering his people from their enemies.
Yes, I agree. My first thought was that poiema referred mainly to acts rather than objects but although I thought that was probably nearer to the meaning, it was not specific enough theologically. Both acts and objects, the distinction is not really relevant, the significant feature being that they carry a signature as a personal work with the name YHWH written on it. Creation per se doesn’t qualify for that honour.
Re: More than just made
Perhaps I am missing something, but doesn’t the LXX use the verbal form of poiema when referring to creation in Genesis 1:1 "ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν"? I agree with your main argument (that we should not be content to relegate contradictions to mystery whenever we experience a contradiction. But I am not troubled by the fact that I may not understand the point Paul was trying to make. I would also not be troubled to discover that Paul argued from a limited cultural perspective (and may not have taken the cultural experience of others into account). But his worldview was more closely related to the pagans he proclaimed the Gospel to, than it is to ours. The modern phenomenon of atheism, and our materialistic assumptions about the universe move us pretty far off the map. I believe he is referring to the invisible God and his attributes as creator - in contrast to the gods we create ourselves. I believe he is saying that the Gentiles were perfectly capable of calling out to an “unknown God” but substituted the works (which they knew) were of their own hands and imaginations.
Re: More than just made
Thanks. However, I am speaking about the use of the noun fom poiema.
Although it derives from the verb poieo, to do or to make, poiema is used solely (according to my research) to mean work of art, usually poem but also metal work or sculpture. Of course, like almost every word, it has its metaphorical uses and if a passage talks about creation as a poiema, then it it is a metaphorical usage because the physical world isn’t a poem by any normal understanding. But it shouldn’t simply have the non-metaphorical meaning of ‘thing made’ because poiema doesn’t have that meaning according to actual usage.
This is not an unusual linguistic phenomenon. After only a moment’s thought I remembered the word make-up. Which in English only has one specific meaning, namely the cosmetics women use on their face. But the word make-up is from the very broad verb to make.
Hope this helps.
Re: More than just made
I agree. As would the apostle Peter. However I am troubled by the fact that so many understandings (as recorded in translations and commentaries) are plainly nonsensical. Calvin was one fo the worst at this in my view, even making black white and white black, for example in his commentary on Rom 9:10-18. Unfortunately his interpretation has become standard fare for Christians the world over and they believe it in the main unquestioningly because a) it is ingrained in the culture anyway such that there is no alternative available, b) because it gives them a sense of self-righteousness, as I explained before and c) because it arouses mystery due to its plain nonsensical nature.
I would point out, though, that Calvin was only developing Catholic theology inherited from Augustine, which in turn was inherited from Plato (and the neo-Platonists). I would argue that the so called emergent church needs to emerge not only from evangelicalism but from many other forms of orthodoxy too. The reason I guess why the issue of evangelicalism is to the fore now in terms of the emerging church being specifically a reaction against it, is that much of the credal positions adopted by modern evangelicals were the response (in my view) to liberal currents in theology and these credal stances became much too dogmatic and authoritarian; and in polarising themselves, they have both lost important aspects of Christian character. One of the tasks of an emerging church should surely be to allay the fears amongst evangelicals of liberalism and that there are indeed some good points to be drawn out of that.
Re: More than just made
Desert Reign, that’s a fascinating reading of a passage that I also suspect that we often take too much for granted.
Poesis is a very common word, but it certainly has a range of meanings and uses. I am somewhat reminded of Jesus "do this" from the final passover and have sometimes wondered whether he was not enjoining something even more radical than just drinking wine or breaking bread together "in remembrance".
I have a slightly different theory on Rom 1-2 based on the rhetorical flow of Paul’s argument and that has been critiqued by Andrew and Peter before here at OST.
Live to serve : Serve to live
Re: More than just made
Thanks Sam, that was an interesting comment on the thread you linked.
One slight technical issue:
The word ποίησις is not the same as ποίημα. The former is a more abstract noun whereas the latter, as used here in Romans, is quite concrete.
Upon reflection, and after considering some of the comments to my original post, I think rather than be specific about ποίημα referring to the Gospel, I would translate it as "special works" hence ‘what are invisible in his nature from the creation of the world become visible when considered through his special works.’ That leaves open whether this is a specifically Israel related thing or not.
I did briefly consider if Paul was quoting someone else but you will perhaps agree that this is unnecessary a position to adopt (given that it is rather lacking in evidence) when taken with 2:14, would give a similar result. Let me then explain what I mean in reference to 2:14f;
The KJV has this as the translation:
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Now even Cranfield thinks that this is wrong. In the Greek text, the ‘by nature’ appears directly between "which have not the law" and "do the things of the law". thus
(I’ve underlined the two arms of the phrase and you can see φυσει (by nature) directly in between the two)
hence could apply to either of those ideas. However, the KJV and many other translations leave no room for ambiguity here. See how it places the ‘by nature’ after the word ‘do’, which makes it impossible for the English reader to read the other side of the ambiguity:
"For when the Gentiles which by nature have not the law, do the things of the law…"
You need to think carefully about what this could mean. The KJV version (which is the version taught in most orthodox and evangelical churches) argues that Gentiles do not need the law because they have the law written on their hearts, whereas the Jews (somehow!) didn’t have the law written on their hearts and needed a written law to keep them in decent moral order.
Aside from the obvious and indeed grotesque anti-semitic implication here, the KJV translation also relies on what I think is a serious translation / cultural error that frequently appears elsewhere and particularly in Calvin. It is this: "written on the heart" does not mean "there by instinct" but rather "wilfully and knowledgeably committed to". Thus the correct (in my view) translation of this passage is
Paul is obviously speaking of proselytes here and this lays open to question who the epistle is addressed to in the first place: Jew first and also Greek. But the letter is surely addressed to the entire Christian community in Rome, therefore it makes sense to suppose that Paul is distinguishing between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile (proselyte) Christians. The criticism is therefore either against the Jewish sector of the believers or against the implied Jewish community as a whole. This is made completely explicit in 2:17ff. The meaning of the latter part of ch. 1 is therefore more logically:
"We know" (referring to the identity of Jews as being teachers of the world and advocates of God’s true wisdom - see 2:18f) that God’s justice is visited on all forms of unrighteousness, etc., etc, but be careful because you Jews in particular are equally guilty and you won’t get away with it just for being Jews.
And then, coming back to ποίημα, this would relate, assuming the validity of the above reasoning, only to those who were aware of God’s special works, in this case the Jews.
Re: More than just made
I have given some further thought to your post, and in light of recent comments in this post, I am warming to your position. you state
I believe this is an improvement upon your initial argument. Because the Gospel (which chronologically has its origins in the first century) would not leave humanity "without excuse," if the expression "from the foundation of the world" refers to the creation. The "special works" of God however, while concentrated in Israel, are not specific to Israel. God has acted in gentile history - whether they were aware of it or not.
Karl Barth’s rejection of natural theology and teleological arguments for the existance of God, were the basis of his insistance on humanity’s need for "special revelation" in order to have knowledge of the true God.
Also, I am in full agreement with your comment on 2:14. You rightly locate this statment at the center of the Jewish and Gentile conflict in the early church. This was the first major issue facing the church of the day. It is prevelant in the NT. Does a gentile need to accept the Law (become Jewish) in order to be saved. Paul is not saying that the Jews need the Law and the Gentiles do not. But rather, that the evidence of the Gentiles obedience to the Law which they have hertofore not known (i.e. a new character) - is the sign that God has accepted them. Similar to the sign of tongues with Cornelius (Acts 10). Like you, I have not found any commentators who favor this interpretation. However Sholem Asch, in his novel The Apostle (about the life of Paul), does have this view. Being Jewish himself, I really value his portrayal of Paul. It is an excellent book.
http://mschellman.blogspot.com
Re: More than just made
Mschellman, thanks for your positive comment.
Technical point:
It’s actually not ‘foundation’ (katabole) but creation (ktisis). (Although I know there are many who would dispute that katabole means foundation).
In the light of your comments, if I amended the last paragraph of my earlier post to this:
do you think that would make more sense? Paul’s position would not then be about humanity as a whole but about both Jews and proselytes:
"Salvation is for both Jews and Greeks equally (a tactful way of saying "therefore the Jewish Christians can’t assert any superiority over the Gentile ones"). All of you have had special revelations from God therefore none of you can judge."
Obviously I can’t claim to be being objective here, I am trying to see if there is any way of softening the very universal black/white kind of doctrine that these passages have engendered. While the Calvinists by whatever name are still insisting in our own day and age on the total depravity of man, the Israelis and Jordanians are considering a canal project which would potentially turn the Dead Sea into a fishable lake in fulfillment of Isaiah’s vision, thus bringing us clearly into a new world age! Well, the project might not happen but the message of depravity pushers clearly doesn’t have a meaning today.
Re: More than just made
Sorry for the (katabole/ktisis)confusion. I was quoting the passage from memory, and miss quoted.
I believe that the verses in chapter one makes a charge of liability, on the part of humanity - which (for the most part?) has responded to the special revelation of God with the illigigimate response of idolatry. Instead of saying the invisible God did this, they have fashioned a god from their own hands and minds and gave it the credit. So their minds are darkened because they are moving away from pursuit of the unknown (true).
I believe that the verses in chapter four attempt to silence the claims of the Judaisers. By arguing that it is obedience to the Law and not knowledge of it, which is the sign of the people of God. Therefore, if the Gentiles do by their (new) nature, that which is required of the Law - they do not need to take on the burden of the Mosaic Law to be complete members of the body.
I believe it would be helpful for the sake of discussion, to make three categories: Jews, Gentiles, and Proselytes, because chapter one is dealing with a different issue than chapter four. Distinguishing between Proselytes (Gentiles who are seeking the true God ch4), and Gentiles in general (who have made idols for themselves ch 1) will keep the two from getting confused.
Regarding your last comment on the canal project; I am extremely frustrated when I see how theological presuppositions have historically caused Christians to reject genuine good and in many cases persue evil. I believe I would like to start a discussion in this regard.
Grace and Peace, Mike
http://mschellman.blogspot.com
Re: More than just made
Yes, it’s those little parentheses that do us in at times! Perhaps unfortunately, my job involves drafting very technical documents of a legal nature. So I am used to noticing these small things…
But even by taking a traditional reading of this passage there are some things that need noting:
1. God’s judgement is upon all forms of unrighteousness not upon all men.
2. God’s judgement is upon those who, though knowing God’s nature, reject the truth. There is absolutely no indication here of an assumption that all men have rejected that truth. (Even though it might be arguable that all of them have had the proposed special revelation) It would even seem likely in my view that there is an implication that at least some men have accepted it and therefore don’t fall into this category of supposed universal depravity.
3. Such an assumption is all the more difficult if you take my proposed translation because that would imply that some men (indeed the majority) have not had a special revelation and therefore can’t be deemed unrighteous in the manner this passage describes. (Perhaps they can be deemed unrighteous on other counts but I deal with that possibility in point 5.)
4. Clearly, not all men in our own experience are idolaters and even if you take the term idolatry in a very wide manner, it is too hard to make the accusation that all men are such sinners. You only have to look at a sample of doctors who may be working in third world countries for no other obvious reason than that they want to give their lives for others. And that’s just the tip of a very large iceberg. It is simply untenable to suggest that everyone falls into that category of sinfullness.
5. Homosexuality in the passage is the result of these people’s rejection of the truth, not the defining act of such rejection. And there are lots of people who are obviously very unrighteous and even idolatrous but who are not homosexual. This would put the lie to the notion that God gives (as a universal rule) such people over to homosexuality. And of course it is easy to say that Paul is only giving examples pr a caricature, but that’s not what the text says. It clearly says that God gave them over to degrading passions, not just some of them. If one still insists that this is an example or caricature then it makes the universal argument even weaker because you can’t say that "all forms of unrighteousness and wickedness of men" is in any way intended to be only an example. Homosexuality and lesbianism are obviously not a valid type of subject for a caricature of this sort. Paul is talking about forms of deliberate, wilful unrighteousness here, not about some kind of universal condition which might affect each of us in different ways, some more, some less.
Thus, the assertion of universal depravity cannot be made from this passage and when Paul later says "as we have charged" that all are under sin, he simply can’t be referring to this passage. Either he is referring to another passage or we have somewhere along the line totally misunderstood him.
The problem with universal depravity is that it doesn’t allow any hesitant "(for the most part?)"s. It’s that tiny little exception which demolishes the entire structure.
I hope that’s clear, I was tired when I wrote it.
Re: More than just made
Not simply the first major issue, I would argue, but the defining issue. Circumcision was the definitive sign of entry into the covenant. The issue of whether or not (or, in fact, how) Gentiles were to observe God’s Torah (meaning "Teaching," "Instruction," not "Law" as we understand it today) was effectively asking the question: How do Gentiles enter the covenant relationship and the covenant community?
The argument continues that through the new covenant and "a new commandment" — which is really not new, as the apostle John writes (1 John 2.7 / Matthew 22.37) — which elevates love and fellowship, shalom and the reality of the broken-down m’chitzah above all other Torah commands, so that whether one is a Torah-observant Jew (as to an individual they were within the early church) or a Gentile Follower of the Way, unity was a practical and spiritual reality shown "by the love you have for one another."
The Torah to which all are required to submit, the Torah which the Spirit writes upon human hearts (Jeremiah 31.31/Hebrews 10.16) is "the Torah of the Messiah" — a transformation of Torah, brough about by the Messiah and enlarged upon by the apostolic teaching:
These translations are from the Complete Jewish Bible. The arguments above were developed within and extracted from my recent Thesis (The Eternal Purpose of God, A Biblical Theology of Covenant, Creation and Community) and incorporate inportant aspects from the commentary of Dr David Stern (The Jewish New Testament Commentary), both of which are sympathetic to the concept that the New Testament did not abrogate Torah, but transformed it through the Messiah, the New Covenant and the Breath of God, breathed upon and into the New Covenant Community.
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood this aspect of your post, not least because it is not about the main thrust of your argument, however I thought you might appreciate this contribution, in light of your comments about the ‘lack of commentators…’ etc.
shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)
Re: More than just made
Thanks John.
If you mean Torah as a lifestyle then I would agree. But if you mean Torah as a means of justification, then not. As a lifestyle, yes, because the freedom of the Spirit sets us free from all forms of law since our justification is by faith. Since we are free, then we are free to follow Torah or anything else we choose consistent with the Spirit filled life.
Re: More than just made
Freedom from…, freedom to…
I quoted from the CJB, regarding "the Torah of the Messiah," which i identified as "Torah as upheld by the Messiah," and as Torah as "Teaching"or "Instruction" rather than ‘law’ as we understand it today. Look at Psalm 119 for a sense of relationship with God’s Torah that is about the freedom to embrace, to love, to obey God’s instructions, his teaching, to follow his leadership.
The point is that the Spirit sets us free from the wrong kind of relationship with God’s Teaching, from one that distorts it into a legalistic framework, which leads to bondage and death. He makes us free to follow him, from the heart, from the depth of our inner beings, not simply with the outer actions, with the Torah of the Messiah and the Spirit or Breath of God working together to lead us into all the Truth.
shalom! - john (eternalpurpose.org.uk)