Questioning Paul Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

7 Towrah Teaching and Guidance

Are We Saved or Enslaved by Observing the Towrah At long last we have arrived at the brace of verses cited by a New Zealand Christian radio program which ultimately prompted this review of Galatians. The clerics message, one predicated upon Pauls epistle, stressed that we are not required to pay attention to the Torah because it had been replaced by faith in the Gospel of Grace. And while that is consistent with Shauwls message, it is stunning in a way. The verses he, and thus they, cited were set into the context of the story of Abraham, a relationship between God and man that would not have been known to us apart from the Torah. But before we consider Pauls assault on Yahs Torah, since most readers may be somewhat unfamiliar with Yahowahs Teaching, a quick review of Gods perspective on His Torah is in order. However, for those of you who would prefer a more complete presentation of Torahs role in our lives, this would be a wonderful time to take a break from Questioning Paul to systematically consider what God has to say about His foundational text. In An Introduction to God (www.IntroToGod.org), Volume Three, you will find a comprehensive evaluation of Yahowahs Towrah Teaching. Part One presents what the Towrah says about itself. Part Two delves into what can be gleaned from comments made about the Towrah in the Proverbs and Psalms. Part Three is my favorite, because it is devoted to greatest song ever written to Dowd / Davids lyrics on how to properly observe, actually understand, and intelligently respond to the Towrah. And then in Part Four, most everything Yahowah revealed about His Towrah through His prophets is presented for your consideration. Now, for those of you who would prefer a quick review, please consider the following Scripture citations... Listen (shama receive and acknowledge this message) children (ben sons) to the correct instruction (muwsar to the correcting teaching) of the Father (ab) and pay attention (qasab accept this information as true and

respond appropriately to it) so as (la) to know and acknowledge (yada to find, become aware of, to become familiar with, to care about, to respect, and to choose) understanding and discernment (bynah to gain knowledge through observation and insight and wisdom through consideration, so as to be intelligent and distinguish between right and wrong, fact and fiction). For indeed (ky this is important, trustworthy, and reliable), such teaching and learning (leqah receiving instruction and coming to possess comprehension) is good, beneficial, and helpful (towb is proper, prosperous, favorable, beautiful, pleasing, enjoyable, valuable, and healing). For this reason I have given you (la natan therefore, for this purpose, I have actually provided and bestowed you with the completed gift of) My Towrah (Towrah: from tow My signed, written, and enduring, towrah way of treating people, tuwr giving you the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah the source from which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb provides answers that facilitate your restoration and return, even your response and reply to that which is towb good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes you to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr / tohorah purifying and cleansing you, towr so as to provide you with an opportunity to change your thinking, attitude, and direction). You should not forsake, neglect, or reject it (al azab without it you will be forsaken, neglected, rejected, abandoned, separated, and left behind). Indeed (ky this is important, reliable, and true), I have and will actually come to exist as (hayah I was, am, and will be as) a Son (ben) to approach the kind and merciful Father (la rak ab on behalf of My compassionate, gentle, and tenderhearted Father), the only begotten and unique Son (yahyd as the one and only child) by way of (la) the Mothers (em) presence (paneh). And He has and will teach Me (yarah He has and will become the source of My instruction, guidance, and direction). And He said to Me (amar la He told Me), Accept, uphold, fulfill, and keep (tamak receive, grasp hold of, and retain) My Words (dabar My message) upon Your heart (leb). Focus upon and closely observe (shamar carefully examine, thoughtfully contemplate, thoroughly evaluate and consider) My terms and conditions (mitswah My authorized directions and instructions regarding the covenant contract) and live, being restored to life (chayah embracing the source of continuous and sustained life, healthy and beneficial nourishment, and abundant growth, accepting the promise of renewal, restoration, favor, and blessings). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 4:1-4)

The Towrah (Towrah the signed, written, and enduring means to search for, find, and choose the instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction, which provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return that are good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, purifying, and cleansing) is Light (owr) and (wa) the Way (derek the Path) of Life (chay the source of continuous and sustained existence, abundant growth, of revival, renewal, and restoration, the promise of the most favorable of circumstances, prosperity, and blessings). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 6:23) My son (beny My child), choose to actually observe (shamar elect to focus upon, carefully examine, diligently consider, and thoughtfully evaluate, agree to pay close attention to and genuinely care about (qal imperative indicating that an actual relationship will be established between Father and son should the child choose of their own volition to pay attention to this exhortation to revere and regard)) My Words (emer My answers, explanations, and promises). And (wa) My Terms and Conditions (mitswah My authorized directions and binding instructions regarding My covenant contract) you should habitually treasure and store (tsaphan you should value and keep (qal imperfect affirming the relationship between us and Yahs terms and conditions ought to be genuine because by properly valuing them, their influence will be ongoing, producing everlasting results)) with you (eth). Choose to keep focused upon, closely examine, and carefully consider (shamar elect to actually observe, pay close attention to, and genuinely care about (qal imperative)) My Terms and Conditions (mitswah My authorized instructions and binding directions regarding the covenant agreement) and (wa) live (chayah be restored and renewed, be nourished and grow, electing to exist forever as a result of Gods promise and favor) (qal imperative affirming that our decision to observe the Terms and Condition of Yahs binding Covenant is equivalent to choosing to be restored to life and living forever)). My Towrah Teaching (Towrah My Torah Instruction, Guidance, and Direction: from tow My signed, written, and enduring, towrah way of treating people, tuwr giving you the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah the source from which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb provides answers that facilitate your restoration and return, even your response and reply to that which is towb good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes you to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr / tohorah purifying and cleansing you, towr so as to provide you with an opportunity to change your thinking, attitude, and direction) should be as (ka should be considered as and akin to) the pupil, the center, and the focus (iyshown the extant essence and individual nature) of your eyes and understanding (ayin your sight and

perceptions, your perspective and thoughts). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 7:1-2) The wicked (rasa the guilty and condemned who deserved to be punished, those in violation of the standard) arrogantly boast and make fools of themselves (halal they are flashy, and while pretending to be bright and enlightened they display an improper attitude of haughtiness, glorifying themselves, praising themselves they mock and slander) by abandoning and rejecting (azab by forsaking and separating from, by neglecting and disassociating from, by departing from and ignoring) the Towrah (Towrah the signed, written, and enduring means to search for, find, and choose the instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction which provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return that are good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, purifying and cleansing, thereby giving us the opportunity and means to change our thinking, attitude, and direction to the way which is more fortuitous and beneficial). And (wa) those who observe, focusing upon (shamar those who closely examine and carefully consider) the Towrah (Towrah Instruction, Teaching, Guidance, and Direction), they take the initiative to oppose and resist them (garah ba they are overtly hostile to them and they provoke them, they actively engage against them and irritate them by not conforming to their pressure or power). Evil (ra wicked and violent, mischievous and malignant) individuals (ysh men) do not (lo) apprehend or teach (byn consider, realize, perceive, understand, instruct, or implement) good judgment (mishpat the proper means to resolve disputes, to be discriminating, to be fair, to obtain justice, and to make sound decisions). But (wa) those who diligently seek (baqas those whose search and investigation allows them to procure the information necessary to learn about) Yahowah () consider and understand (byn apprehend, perceive, and realize) everything (kol). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 28:4-5) The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ozen min shama the one who avoids listening and paying attention to) the Towrah (Towrah the source of instruction and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah his pleas and petitions for intervention) also (gam) will be considered detestable (towebah will be seen as a disgusting abomination). The one who misleads (sagah the one who deceives and leads astray) the upright (yashar the straightforward) in the way (ba derek) of evil (ra in that which is harmful, malignant, afflicting, and adversarial, severing the relationship), into the pit (ba shachuwth the place where one is brought down, prostrating themselves in worship before false gods and reduced to despair) he will fall and

be cast down (huw naphal he will descend from a higher position to a lower one, wasting away), but the innocent (tamym those who have been perfected, who are genuine and unblemished) will enjoy a good, generous, festive, and beneficial inheritance (towb nachal will inherit and acquire that which is agreeable, moral, joyous, and valuable). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 28:910) Without revelation (ba lo chazown with no communication from God, without prophecy; from chazah without seeing and perceiving, without understanding) people (am) take charge and run wild (para they are ignorant and unkept, they take their own initiative and behave like an uncontrolled and unrestrained mob). But (wa) he is happy and blessed, he walks upright on the correct path (esher / ashur he finds good fortune and experiences great joy along the restrictive but valid, straight way to stand safe and secure) who observes and focuses upon (shamar who closely examines and carefully considers) the Towrah (Towrah Teaching, Instruction, Direction, and Guidance). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 29:18) Blessed and happy is (asry by walking the straight path the enjoyment of a favorable outcome awaits) the individual (ha iysh) who (asher) does not walk (lo halak) in (ba) the plans and schemes (esah the strategy, advice, and counsel) of the wicked who violate the standard (rasa of those who are evil and unrighteous). And in (wa ba) the way (derek path) of sinners (hata of the offensive who have missed the way), he does not stand (lo amad he does not appear and is not even present). In the assembly (wa ba mowshab in the dwelling places and settlements, the communities and households) of those who arrogantly mock (lys of those who boast and interpret which showing no respect), he does not stay (lo yasab dwell, live, settle down, sit, or remain). To the contrary (im) instead (ky), in (ba) the Towrah of Yahowah ( ) the Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction of Yahowah), he finds enjoyment and pleasure (chephets he prefers, refers, and desires). And regarding (wa ba) the Towrah (Towrah teaching, instruction, guidance, and direction), he speaks thoughtfully and purposefully (hagah he reviews the material, meditates upon the information, considers its implications, and then makes the decision to roar, declaring these conclusions forcefully, emotionally, and powerfully (qal imperfect telling us that these informed declarations on behalf of Yahs Instructions are genuine and ongoing)) in the daytime (yowmam in the heat of the day) and at night (wa laylah in the darkness and shadows). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 1:1-2) Yahowahs () Towrah (Towrah Source of Teaching and Instruction and the Place from which Direction and Guidance Flow) is wholly complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect, lacking nothing, totally correct, sound,

genuine, right, helpful, healing, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb turning around, bringing back, changing, and renewing) the soul (nepesh our consciousness). Yahowahs () restoring testimony (eduwth enduring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (aman is instructive, informative, verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam making education, learning, and enlightenment to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy easy for those who are receptive). Yahowahs () directions (piquwdym instructions and prescriptions, precepts and guidance; from paqad that which we should pay especially close attention to, care about, look at, and examine so that we respond appropriately) are right (yashar are straight (and thus neither crooked or circuitous) and upright (and thus are disassociated from bowing down), they are approved, esteemed, correct, proper, and pleasing), causing the heart to rejoice (leb samah facilitating an attitude of elation). Yahowahs () terms and conditions (mitswah His authorized instructions regarding the codicils of His covenant contract) are morally pure and are purifying (bar paving the way to inheritance, to enlightenment, and to understanding) shining a light toward understanding (owr ayn illuminating the proper perspective, shedding a brilliant light on the path to enlightenment). Revering and respecting (yirah) Yahowah () is cleansing and restoring (tahowr purifying and perfecting) sustaining and establishing (amad causing one to be established, standing upright) forever (ad). The just means to resolve disputes of (mishpat the means used to achieve justice and exercise good judgment of) Yahowah () are trustworthy and reliable (emeth are enduring, dependable, honest, and true). They are wholly (yahdaw all together and completely) vindicating (tsadaq justifying, causing the recipient to be righteous and innocent). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7-9)

With that introduction from God, here is what the man who claimed to speak for God, wrote: For (gar) as long as (hosos as much as) they exist (eisim) by means of (ek) doing the assigned tasks and activities of (ergon by works and by observing in the sense of doing what is says in) the Torah (nomou Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are (eisin) under

(hupo influenced by the auspices of) a curse (katara they are denounced and detested, and will not have their burdens lifted or their souls raised), because (gar) it is written (grapho inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti): All (pas) [are] accursed (epikataratos exposed and subject to judgment, and bereaved of salvation) who (hos) do not (ou) remain alive in and who do not persevere with (emmeno continue to be faithful to, hold fast to, carefully obey, recognizing the trustworthiness of, and continually abide with, keep, endure, and survive by way of) all (pas) that (tois) is written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (biblion documented record) of the Torah (nomou Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), doing (poieomai) it (autos). (Galatians 3:10) Pauls opening salvo is in opposition to his justification. And since his justification is the Torah, it means that Pauls message is contrary to Yahowahs Word. As such, Galatians 3:10 is suicidal logically and spiritually. On my first pass through this material I translated ergon nomou legalistic works, in hopes of reconciling Pauls opening statement with the Torah citation. In that way, the passage could be construed to say: For as long as they are trying to save themselves by way of legalistic works they are cursed, because all are cursed who dont remain alive in all that is written in the Torah, doing what it says. But the problem with that is legalistic is the most generic, nonspecific translation of nomos law conceivable, while the singular genitive nature of nomou is restrictive and dictates one unique specific characterization. In the singular genitive case, even Rabbinical Law wont work because it is a nonspecific amalgamation of sources including the Oral Law, Rabbinical edicts, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, Halakah, and religious tradition. Further, the Torah asks us to ergon accomplish specific assigned tasks and activities like those associated with the Sabbath, Miqraey, and Yowbel years, the very things which Paul will specifically denounce. And due to Pauls animosity for the Torah, he would have readily promoted the misconception that being Torah observant is to perform rituals as opposed to closely scrutinize all of the words. And that leaves us with very strange bedfellows. Paul has said: The Torah cant save because all who are saved are saved by the Torah. Having thought about this passage now for several months, having come to understand Pauls strategy relative to dissolving and dismantling the Torah, and now viewing it within the context of Pauls overall thesis as it is presented in Galatians 3:6 to 4:31, I am convinced that Paul was trying to use the Torah to demonstrate that the Torah was a curse. This is the most reasonable interpretation,

because there isnt another rational explanation for why Paul would juxtapose otherwise conflicting statements. There are two proclamations delineated here. The first is false: For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse. The second is true: All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it. The first statement is from Paul. The second statement is from Yahowah. Since they are mutually exclusive, who do you think is trustworthy? Its true: we cannot work for our salvation. And the Torah is the source of life. But this context, and considering Pauls word choices, we are precluded from thinking that this is what he intended to say in his proposition or justification. The only point of connection between his declaration and the Scriptural quotation is the word curse. So his argument hinges upon it. By citing a passage that includes curse and Torah, Shauwl was hoping that his audience would believe that he was right in stating that the Torah is a curse. Beyond the fact that his proof statement contains the same verb and noun of his proposition, it would otherwise have been counterproductive to cite Deuteronomy 27:26 in this context. After all, this verse says nothing about working for our salvation, and many other Torah passages do, especially those pertaining to the Sabbath and the special Sabbaths associated with the Miqraey. So, if Pauls purpose had been to reinforce the idea that we cannot work for our salvation, he would have used a completely different proof text. But if Paul was intending to say that observing the Torah cannot save us because we have to do everything that is written in the scroll of the Torah or be accursed by it, then the verse fitsat least in a twisted sort of way. Therefore, the most reasonable interpretation of Pauls point is: since you cant do everything the Torah says, the curse of the Torah is inevitable. (But be careful. The Torah has a specific solution for that problem.) Translated curse, in Shauwls proposition, it is fair to say that katara is a difficult term to nail down. It is an adjective, comprised of a compound of kata, meaning according to, down from, or against, and ara, meaning a prayer or supplication, which is an earnest request. Ara is based upon airo, which conveys the ideas of raising up, elevating, and lifting up, bearing someones burdens, taking them by the hand, and carrying them away. So, with the exception of down from and against all of this sounds pretty good. Therefore the curse connotation of this word is derived from kata negating the benefits of ara. And that means that the curse is not being lifted up, and not having ones burdens carried away. It isnt that the accursed are being punished, but

instead, as a result of a just evaluation, they wont receive any help. And, so that you know, epikataratos, appearing later in this same verse, is a derivative of katara. In this light, the second half of this passage, which is a flawed Greek rendering of Deuteronomy 27:26, actually says: Everyone (pas) is exposed and subject to judgment and bereaved of salvation (epikataratos) who does not remain alive in and who does not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it. They katara are not going to have their prayers answered, burdens removed, or souls lifted. Clearly then, even in the Greek rendition, the Torah passage does not infer that a person has to do everything the Torah says, nor does it suggest that the Torah is a curse. Before we contemplate the full intent of Shauwls message, and say for certain that we understand it, lets consider the Scriptural verse he cited. The conversation begins with the first verse of the 27th chapter, where a long list of blessings are delineated, all of which flow from observing the Torah. Then starting with the 9th verse, we find that those who live with God are asked to be silent and listen, because this day you have become a family unto Yahowah (), your God. Listen to the voice of Yahowah (), your God, act upon and engage (asah celebrate and profit) with (eth) His terms and conditions (mitswah codicils of His Covenant), and with (eth) His (huw) inscribed prescriptions for living (choq written instructions which cut us into the relationship), which relationally (asher and beneficially) I instruct (sawah guide and teach) you today. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:9-10) In other words, our Heavenly Father is telling His children to listen to Him and to observe His Torah instructions. From this point, Yahowah delineates a series of behaviors which He promises will engender an unfavorable response. Cursed (arar invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is the man who makes idols, and detestable crafted images with their hands, who lightly esteems his Father and Mother, who steals his neighbors property, who misleads a blind person, who denies justice to a stranger or foreigner, an orphan, or a widow, who commits any form of incest, who commits bestiality, who strikes and beats his neighbor, and who accepts a bribe and thereby harms an innocent person. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:15-25) We should not be surprised, therefore, that those who perpetrate these unsavory behaviors will be shunned by God. This list is then followed by a summary conclusion: Invoking harm upon oneself (arar making oneself unlikable) is whoever (asher) is not (lo) established (quwm restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (eth) the words (dabar the message) of this (zoth) Towrah (towrah guidance,

directions, teachings, and instructions), engaging (asah gaining by acting upon and doing useful and productive things, and working) with (eth) them (hem). And (wa) the entire (kol) family (am nation) said (amar answered, promised, and declared), This is true, acceptable, and reliable (aman affirming, supportive, and verifiable). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26) Therefore, we can now say for certain, that according to Yahowah: Cursed are those who are not established and renewed by the message of the Torah, who do not celebrate and benefit from it. This is true and reliable, aman! And that means that any attack on the Torah, any belittlement of it, any attempt to negate or annul it, any statement which suggests that it is a curse, would be directly opposed to Yahowahs position and Word. Reinforcing this essential instruction, the very next verse says: It shall exist (hayah it was, is, and will be) that if you really listen to (shama shama pay extremely close attention to and actually hear) the voice of Yahowah (), your God, and you closely examine and carefully consider (shamar observe and scrutinize, care about, cling to, become secure in, and benefit from) act upon (asah accomplish and celebrate, engaging in) all My terms and conditions (mitswah codicils of the covenant) that I instruct (sawah and direct, teaching and guiding) you this day, Yahowah (), your God will place and appoint you (natan grant you the opportunity to be) as the most high (elyon) among and above (al) all (kol) the nations (Gowym people from different races and places) of the earth (erets). And flowing over you will be all of the blessings (barakah beneficial promises and valuable gifts), continuing to overtake and inundate (nasag) you, if you listen to the voice of Yahowah (), your God. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 28:1-2) The Torahs message is as wonderful as it is consistent, as rewarding as it is enlightening. God just said that the Torahs instructions exist to bless us. Paul not only removed the cited Deuteronomy passage from the context which illuminated its meaning, he misquoted it. Please compare Pauls: All are accursed who do not continually obey all that is written in the scroll of the Law, doing it (Galatians 3:10), with Yahowahs: Cursed is whoever is not established (quwm restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and caused to endure) by the words (dabar the message) of this Towrah (towrah), engaging (asah acting upon and gaining by doing useful and productive things) with them. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26) This will not be the last time Shauwl will misquote the Torah. In fact, he will make a practice of it. Along these lines, please make a note of Yahowahs instruction in Deuteronomy 28:1-2, where He has asked us to really listen to the voice of Yahowah our God, repeating the request twice. Shauwl will twist Yahowahs

listen to Me into the Torah cannot hear you before we are through with Galatians. By not bothering to examine the passage Shauwl cited in the Torah, as it was written in Hebrew, by not bothering to accurately translate emmeno, meaning to remain alive in and persevere with the Torah, Bacons King James, and Jeromes Vulgate, misquoted Shauwl and Yahowah. And by doing so, they demeaned the source of life. KJV: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. LV: For as many as are of the works of the law (operibus legis) are under a curse. For it has been written (Scriptum): Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things that have been written in the book of the Law (Libro legis), so as to do them. After considerable study and thought, Im convinced that while the New Living Translation is inconsistent with the Greek text, they have accurately conveyed Pauls intended message: But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in Gods Book of the Law. Youll notice of course, that the NLT had to corrupt the Deuteronomy quotation to keep it from refuting Pauls thesis. But that is precisely what Paul wanted them to do, what he expected them to do, which is why he thought he could get away with citing a passage in support of his declaration when he knew that it was actually in direct opposition to it. Pauls strategy here, as it will be in each of the four passages which comprise the foundation of his thesis, will be to play off word pairs and patterns. In Galatians 3:10 the operative words associating Pauls premise with the inaccurately cited verse are cursed law doing. Each of these words appear in both statements, albeit to communicate different thoughts. Unaware of Pauls tactic, of his willingness to twist Scripture to serve his agenda, Christians have been cursed by the legacy of Galatians because they have now been led to believe that the Torah is not just irrelevant and pass, but is actually a curse to be avoided. And yet, Gods instruction is clear. It is neither hidden nor obscure. This is hard to misinterpret: Invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable is whoever is not established (restored, supported, lifted up, and caused to endure) by the words of this Towrah (guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction), engaging with them. And the entire family said, This is true, acceptable, and reliable (affirming, supportive, verifiable, and established). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26) In light of this statement, and the ones which precede and follow it in Deuteronomy, Pauls thesis is torn asunder. According to God, the Torah isnt just

the means to eternal life, it is the only way. And yet Christians the world over have managed to justify the juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive thoughts, one from man, the other from God, to infer that the Torah is a curse, rather than the source of salvation. Continuing to play off word patterns, Shauwl said: But (de moreover) with (en or in) that (oti) Law (nomo Torah (dative tense use for an indirect object with which something is done)), no one (oudeis) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo made or shown to be right, acquitted or set free) alongside (para) God (), because (oti) [it is] clearly evident (delos): The upright and just (dikaios those in accord with the standard) live (zao are alive) out of (ek) faith (pistis originally trust and reliance but now faith and belief). (Galatians 3:11) Its not every day that we come across a quotation from Habakkuk. But we have one here. So, at the very least, we know that Shauwl knew the Tanakh. Opening the Covenant Scriptures to Habakkuk 2:4, we discover that there are two aspects to this verse: the dark and the bright side. It begins: Behold (hineh) the puffed up (apal): his soul (nepesh) is not (lo) considered to be upright (yasar is not right, straightforward, on the straight and narrow path, in compliance with the law or approved) in (ba) him (huw). Apal, literally means puffed up, and thus it conveys the idea of arrogance and pridethe self-admitted hallmark of Shauwls nature. Curiously, however, it is also the Hebrew word for hemorrhoid. And that may be because, from Gods perspective, such people are a royal pain in the behind. Those who are selfassured and self-reliant, seldom avail themselves of Yahowahs help, and without His assistance, there is no salvation. And that is why souls of prideful people are considered lost. On the bright side: The upright and vindicated (tsadyq the innocent, just, and guiltless, those who are in accord with the standard, the acquitted who are declared not guilty) live, are restored to life, and are kept alive (hayah/chayah are revived, renewed, healed, nurtured, and preserved, having their lives sustained) by (ba) trusting that which is trustworthy and reliable (emunah by finding security and safety in that which is firmly established, consistently faithful, always steadfast, helpful, healthy, beneficial, dependable, honest, and true). (Habakkuk 2:4) There are three things which are consistently trustworthy and reliable, dependable, honest and true, and they are the same thing: Yahowah, the Torah, and Yahowsha (the Word made flesh). So, if you think that living, being restored to life, being kept alive, being renewed, being healed, nurtured, preserved, and sustained is something you might be interested in, you now know who to trust and what to rely upon.

In many ways, faith is the antithesis of trust, just as belief is the inverse of reliance. This dichotomy exists because trust is predicated upon knowing, and upon understanding, while faith fills the voids associated with not knowing and understanding. From this perspective, the King James, a revision five times over of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, itself a blended translation three times over of the Hebrew text, is worse than misleading with regard to the Torahs message. They are wrong. KJV: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. The King James position is illogical, albeit since its a translation it is not their fault. Even if no one was justified by the Torah, that does not infer that the just shall live by faith. Rather than cause and effect, these are mutually exclusive ideas. It is like saying: Islam does not work so it is evident we should all be atheists. The Roman Catholic text reads: And, since in the law no one is justified with God, this is manifest: For the just man lives by faith. That is not what Moseh or Habakkuk wrote, and it is not true. Nor is this: NLT: So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, It is through faith that a righteous person has life. And yet, Paul has not been clear, because the passages he has quoted have contradicted his statements. Moreover, the Scriptures dont say anything about faith, much less that belief leads to being righteous. Here is something you may want to consider: if Gods Word cant save us, then whose words can? Should faith actually be the key to salvation, who and what should we believe? Said another way: who would be so foolish as to believe a man who said that he spoke for a god who could not be trusted? A very thoughtful friend sent a note in which he wrote: When I was agnostic I would ask Christians why I should place my faith in their religion, and not believe the Islamic god, Buddha, or even the Hindu gods. Not one of them was ever able to give me a rational answer. All they could say was that they felt the presence of god in control of their lives. And yet I realized that most all good Muslims would say the same thing, with many of them willing to kill and die for their faith. So I came to realize that faith was this fuzzy nebulous concept which required no thought, no actual evidence, and no proof. With faith a person does not have to learn anything or ever think, which is obviously very appealing to people. Sidestepping the religious interpretations and this conundrum for a moment, the instant we come to understand the nature of trust and reliance, and how trust differs from faith, some, but not all of what Shauwl was saying can be resolvedat least if we step back in time. At issue here is whether or not Paul intended for pistis to convey its primary meaning in the first-century CE, or whether he was hoping that most people would place their faith in him, and

believe what he said, as the religious community has done. As a direct result of Pauls letters, Christians refer to themselves as believers, and use faith as if it were synonymous with their religion. So while Ive done all of the etymological archeology necessary to prove that pistis meant trust and reliance to Greeks circa 50 CE, it would also be accurate to say that Pauls letters caused its meaning to migrate to faith and belief. As evidence, the Latin Vulgate, and every English bible translates pistis as such. But if we dig just a bit deeper, we quickly discover why this has universally occurred. Paul never provides the basis of trust, which is evidence, or the basis of reliance, which is understanding. Pauls letters are focused upon articulating his contrarian opinions, his unique conclusions, and his peculiar status. And he does this by way of rhetoric, not proof. Not once in the entirety of this epistle has Paul, or will Paul, provide appropriate evidence in the context of his use of pistis to properly exercise the original meaning. Even here where he has cited a portion of two verses, neither validates his point. Instead, both mirror his rhetoric. So, based upon the way that Paul has used pistis, a reader would be incapable of trusting his position, limiting believers to putting their faith in him. Therefore, on my first and second edits of this material, I correctly translated pistis, reflecting its actual meaning circa 50CE: trust and rely. But once I discovered that this meaning could not be achieved in the context of Galatians, I acquiesced to the modern interpretation: faith and belief. After all, it would be absurd to ask someone to trust or rely without giving them sufficient evidence or reason to do so. But it would be perfectly appropriate to ask them to believe that which they do not know, that which was neither explained nor verified, much less rational. Therefore, the most logical and informed conclusion based upon the corpus of evidence available to us is that Paul established his faith, his religion, with these words, rendered as he intended them: In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result of faith, we can come to exist as Abrahams children. (3:7) And then the Written Scripture, foreseeing that out of faith, people from different races and places would be put right and become upright with God, the good news was announced ahead of time to Abraham, saying that in you all races will be blessed. (3:8) As a result, out of faith and belief we are blessed together with the faithful and believing Abraham. (3:9) For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all

that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it. (3:10) But with that Law, no one is vindicated or justified alongside God, because it is clearly evident: The justified live by faith. (3:11) Based upon that which has come before, and that which follows, this is what Paul meant to say. It is the basis of Pauline Doctrine. It is what Christians believe. It is wrong. The Torah on the other hand says that Yahowah will shower us with blessings, and He will lead us to salvation, so long as we heed the advice He has shared in His Torah. And based upon the fulfilled prophecies He has articulated therein, we can trust Him, and rely upon Him. That does not mean that we have to do everything God recommends. While heeding His Fatherly advice is always a good thing, our salvation is predicated upon understanding what He has said in His Torah sufficiently to trust and rely upon His message and plan. No one has ever been saved because they performed Passover perfectly. And yet, all who are saved trust in and rely upon Yahowsha having performed Passover perfectly. The reason Yahowah consistently uses the Hebrew word samar, meaning observe, in connection with His Torah prescriptions, is because He wants us to examine the Torah closely, to look at it intently, to investigate it thoroughly, to not only move in close and scrutinize its jots and tittles, but to step back and visualize how its threads are woven into a comprehensive and cohesive tapestry. In this regard, samar and sama are related concepts. Sama means listen to and samar means observe. By combining our senses of hearing and sight our understanding grows. By inspecting the Torah as if our life depended upon it, by listening to what Yahowah had to say, by understanding the message, and coming to know its Author, we are in a position to trust Him, and rely upon His Word. And that is the sum and substance of our salvation. Yahowah told us what to eat and what to avoid consuming, not only because His advice, if heeded, would keep us healthy, and enable us to live longer, more enjoyable lives, but because He wants us to look at words as if they too were food. Consume too many unhealthy and poisonous words, and eventually they will kill you. Dine on the feast of trustworthy words in the Torah, and you will live. No one has ever been saved because they never ate pork, but if you roll around in the mud with pigs, you are going to die. There is a reason that Chawah, Esau, and Yahowsha were tempted with things which were not good to eat. There are things which will kill us if we consume them. And nothing is more deadly than a deceitful and destructive message.

God wants us to know Him and understand His message, so that we can objectively and rationally choose to trust and rely upon Him. He doesnt want us to jump into the darkness with our eyes closed, in a giant leap of faith, because that will get us killed. He wants us to walk with Him into the light, with our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds open and receptive to His message. *** Thankfully, this next passage also includes a Covenant citation (albeit another truncated misquote) from the Torah (Leviticus 18:5), or we would be helpless to make sense of these words: The Law (nomos Torah (singular nominative or subject)) exists (eimi) not (ou) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis originally trust and reliance but now faith and belief), but to the contrary (alla), The (o) one who performs (poieomai does) them (autos) lives (zao) in (en with and by) them (autos). (Galatians 3:12) To satisfy our quest for understanding, the Leviticus 18:5 passage is set into the context of: You shall not do what is done (ka maaseh anything similar to the works, customs, and traditions practiced) in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do anything similar to the works, customs, and traditions practiced (ka maaseh) in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you. You shall not walk (halak follow) in their laws, regulations, statutes, customs, or traditions (chaqah) against (eth) My stipulations, judgments, decisions, and prescriptions (misphat plans and regulations, authoritative pronouncements). You shall celebrate and profit from (asah do) My laws, statutes, regulations, and prescriptions (chaqah), observing (samar closely and carefully examining) and walking (halak) in them. I am Yahowah, your God. (Leviticus 18:2-4) This Fatherly advice serves as an open indictment against religion and politics. It is a call to expose and condemn most all of the rituals and festivals of Christendom. Then, the cited verse reads: Observe (shamar closely examine and carefully consider) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My engraved instructions which cut you into a relationship with Me) and My means to resolve disputes (mishpat My means to exercise good judgment). Whoever (asher relationally) acts upon and engages (asah endeavors to celebrate and profit, preparing themselves and accomplishing things of value) with (eth) them, that man (adam person) is restored to life and lives (hayah is revived, renewed, nurtured, spared, kept alive, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish) in (ba)

them (hemah). I am (any) Yahowah (). (Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5) So, rather than saying that the law is dead, as Christians protest, Yahowah is telling us that restoration and life eternal are a direct derivative of observing His means to resolve disputes which serve as prescriptions for living. Paul has once again abbreviated, misquoted, and misapplied a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of a common word, this time perform, in conjunction with the Law would be sufficient to convince the impressionable and ignorant, that God agrees with his position. Paul said: The ones who perform them live in them in Galatians 3:12. Yahowah had Moseh write: Whoever acts upon and engages (asah endeavors to celebrate and profit, preparing themselves and accomplishing things of value) with them, that man is restored to life and lives (hayah is revived, renewed, nurtured, spared, kept alive, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish) in them. I am Yahowah, in Qara / Leviticus 18:5. A horrible pattern is immerging. And while Yahowahs message is clear, Shauwls was not. What on earth does the law exists not out of faith and belief or trust and reliance mean? What is the connection or contrast between this clause and Yahowahs statement in Leviticus? Why did Paul only misquote the end of the verse when its meaning is derived from its introduction? Since Pauls castrated citation of this passage was as inappropriate as his statement was undecipherable, lets turn to those hypnotized by his spell for the Christian interpretation. The King James reads: And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them. At least its clear that it was derived from the Latin Vulgate which says: But the law is not of faith; instead, he who does these things shall live by them. The fervent Pauline apologists at the New Living Translation wrote: This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, It is through obeying the law that a person has life. Apart from changing observe to obey, what the NLT has said is true, but not in the way they meant it. The way of faith is indeed so different from the way of the Torah, that one is the opposite of the other, telling us that the way of faith actually leads in the opposite direction. If nothing else we know that Peter was right in saying that Pauls letters would be twisted, such that they would deceive the ignorant and malleable, robbing them of their salvation. But like so many prophecies, just because its true, doesnt mean that anyone would want to be associated with its fulfillment.

In that Paul was fanning the flames he was using to burn Yahowahs Torah, I am convinced that he meant to say: The Torah is not like the way of faith, but to the contrary, it requires you to do what it says in order to live. (Galatians 3:12 reflecting Pauls intended message.) At this point we must ask ourselves: can Pauls faith, his religion, be unlike the Torah and still facilitate a relationship with God? Is it possible that God could have endorsed a plan which is counter to the one He authored? Irrespective of the answer (which is obvious), at least the battle lines have been drawn. According to Pauls verses, it is now the Torah versus Christianity. We are now immersed in the Great Galatians Debate: Are we to trust Yahowahs Torah or believe Pauls Gospel of Grace? Before we press on, since the context of the Leviticus passage was particularly germane to Pauls Galatians epistle, a letter which serves as the foundation of Christendom, Id like to reinforce Yahowahs advice. God told His people not to follow the laws, customs, and traditions of the Egyptians and Canaanites. That means we are to avoid doing things which were done in Babylon, Greece, and Rome whose civilizations either inspired or copied them. And that means we should not celebrate New Years Day, Saint Valentines Day, Lent, Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, nor gather in churches on Sundays. The key to understanding this next verse is katara. As we discovered at the beginning of this discussion, kata is being used as a negation of ara, and its root, airo, and thus the curse is not having ones prayer answered, not having ones burdens lifted, and not having ones soul lifted up and carried away to heaven. Christos ( placeholder for Maaseyah [it is unlikely in this context that Shauwl would have associated the Maaseyah with Yahowah]) redeemed (exagorazomai worked effectively and advantageously to make use of the opportunity to pay the ransom to buy us back for Himself; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) us (ego) from (ek) the curse (katara from not having our burdens lifted or our souls raised) [of] the (tov) Torah (nomou the Law (singular genitive and thus specific)), coming to exist as (ginomai) a curse (katara one who did not have our burdens lifted or His soul raised) for our sake (hyper ego), because (hoti) [it is] written (grapho inscribed in Scripture, speaking of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms): Accursed (epikataratos) [is] everyone (pas) [who] is hanging (kremamai) upon (epi) wood (xylon). (Galatians 3:13) While an amplified definition of katara salvages Shauwls message, to be honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that even if Paul understood the words etymological composition (which is highly unlikely), he would have

known that not one in a million people would read it that way. So, Paul is reaffirming his diagnosis: the Torah is a curse. As all good spellbinding liars have done throughout history, Paul has woven good thread and bad together in his tapestry. The Maaseyah redeemed us, but not from the curse of the Torah. Our redemption was based upon the Torah. Yahowshas sacrifice apart from the Torah was useless, because there would have been no reason for it, nor any benefit from it. Unless the Maaseyah fulfilled Passover and Unleavened Bread in perfect harmony with the Torahs promises, His sacrifices were irrelevant. In fact, if the Torah didnt depict Yahowahs enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha was a liar who should not be trusted. Seeking the light through the fog of rhetoric, and as a result of extensive lexicon gymnastics, I choose to see this passage as Yahowshas prayer, hoping that the pain of being the Passover Lamb could be avoided. But the Maaseyahs earnest plea for Yahowahs Spirit to remain with Him while He hung on Golgothas wooden pole was not heeded. So just as Yahowah had planned and promised, our burdens were placed on Yahowshaliterally associated with Him in accordance with His Second Samuel 11 prophecy. Yahowah could not absolve the Maaseyah of punishment without reneging on His promises and violating His plan. As a result, Yahowshas soul, rather than being lifted up, was sent down to Sheowl. And because of what He did, the kata of ara was removed from us. Our prayers were answered, our souls were unburdened, and thus we are destined to rise. The Scripture reference Shauwl quoted also comes from the Torah. It is Deuteronomy 21:23. And Shauwl was right in recognizing that it is Messianic. It tells us that Yahowsha would be judged to be guilty of a sin worthy of death, that He would be suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set, that his lifeless body would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that as a result of having our sins associated with Him, the Maaseyah would be the scorned and despised of God. But while the passage is powerful in the sweeping nature of its predictions, it was not even remotely appropriate within the context Paul used it. The passage reads: When (ky indeed) it comes to pass (hayah) that (ba in) an Individual (ysh a Man) is judged (mispat and sentenced) guilty of a sin (chata) worthy of death (mawet), and He is put to death (muwth), and you suspend (talah hang) Him on a wooden timber (esh or tree), do not allow His dead body (nebelah lifeless corpse) to stay overnight (lyn remain after sunset) on the timber (esh wood). Rather instead (ky) you shall surely prepare His dead body for a tomb and place it inside (qabar qabar it is essential that you bury him in a sepulcher) on that same (huw) day (yowm).

Indeed because (ky) He who is hanged (talah suspended and displayed) is the disparaged and degraded (qalalah is the maligned, abused, vilified, scorned, cursed, and despised; from qalal, the one viewed and treated as if he were worthless and insignificant) of God (elohym). Do not cut into (eth) your soil (adamah) which relationally (asher) Yahowah, your God (elohym) gave (natan) to you as an inheritance (nahalah), making it unclean (tame impure and defiled). (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) This is a prophetic picture of the Messiahs fulfillment of the Torahs presentation of Passover and Unleavened Bread. It confirms that the source of our salvation is based upon the very book Christians have been led to believe Paul is demeaning and annulling. Recognizing that Shauwl quoted a snippet from the Deuteronomy passage, and recognizing that his Greek was a woefully inaccurate rendering of it, we are compelled once again to question the veracity of Pauls letter and the nature of his intentions. There is a very significant difference between Accursed everyone is hanging upon wood, and: Indeed because He who is hanged (talah suspended and displayed), is the disparaged and degraded (qalalah is the maligned, abused, vilified, scorned, and despised; from qalal, the one viewed and treated as if he were worthless and insignificant) of God. That means that either Shauwl misquoted the past three verses out of ignorance, something I doubt, or he purposefully changed them to suit his thesis, something I suspect. The only other option requires us to view most every Greek manuscript of the Christian New Testament as being unreliable, including the highly professional Papyrus 46 codex dated to the vicinity of 85 CE. In the referenced Hebrew passage, both qalalah disparaged and talah hanged, are singular. And in the singular, it is Messianic, and appropriately cited, but not as everyone, as it appears in Galatians. Moreover, the one who was scorned, was of God in the Hebrew, explaining the process, but not in the Greek. Paul is stuck in a rut. Each Scriptural quotation has been chosen, not because it affirmed his position, but because of word linkage. He has gone from cursed law doing, to law versus faith justified, to law versus faith performing, and then to curse comparing crucifixion to hanging on wood. In all four couplets, he has abridged the Scripture passage and then twisted it to make it appear as if his preaching was consistent with Gods teaching. To excuse this pattern of malfeasance as being an honest mistake, being Gods will, being inspired by the Spirit, or being a product of scribal error is to be played for a fool. Paul is a false prophet. He is purposefully misquoting and twisting Yahowahs Word in order to establish his doctrine. This is evil in the worst sense

of the word. And the consequence has been catastrophic. Billions of souls have been ensnared in this hideous trap. Unwilling to consider the Greek or Hebrew text, and relying instead on the Latin Vulgate, the Christian theologians who created the revision known as the King James Bible missed the fact that the Torah predicted what Yahowsha fulfilled: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. If the King James has accurately reflected Pauls thought, then the Torah is a curse. Rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha ransomed us from it. And rather than being the prefect Lamb of God, Yahowsha embodied all the negativity a curse implies. Had Jerome created his Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, as opposed to blending his preferred readings from Old Latin variations, he would have seen the light as well. But alas, he didnt. Christus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, since he became a curse for us. For it is scriptum/written: Cursed is anyone who hangs from a tree. The only curse pronounced by the Torah is upon those who disregard it, and Christians are wont to do just that. NLT: But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. When they added he was hung on the cross, it became obvious that they noted the very same pattern Ive been warning you about. The NLT translation team, like their patriarch, arent oblivious, they are mischievous. At least Paul is consistent. This is also untrue. Abrahams words do not comprise the healing and beneficial message, Yahowahs do. And there is no connection between Abrahams statements and the Maaseyah, but instead between Yahowahs Word and the Maaseyah. As a result (hina), with reference to (eis) the people from different races and places (ethnos the nations), the beneficial and healing word (eulogia the favorable gift of the message; from eu and logos, beneficial and healing Word) of (toe) Abraham (Abraam the Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate Father), came to exist (ginomai) in (en) Christo Iesou ( divine placeholders for Maaseyah (Implement of Yah), Yahowsha, (Yah Saves) However, since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha from Yahowah and the Maaseyah from the Towrah, its misleading to connect that which he has severed.) in order to (hina) experience (lambano select, receive, grasp hold of, acquire, and adorn ourselves in) the beneficial and healing word (eulogia the favorable gift of the message) of the Ruwach/Spirit () through (dia) faith (pistos). (Galatians 3:14) Papyrus 46

includes a second eulogia, beneficial and healing word before the placeholder for Ruwach, so it has been included in the verse. The story of Abraham, and his relationship with Yahowah is detailed for us in the Torah so that we might choose to avail ourselves of the same personal and familial relationship with God he didand the same way Abraham achieved it by trusting and relying upon Yahowah. But, its Yahowahs message, Yahowahs plan, Yahowahs prediction, Yahowahs promise, Yahowahs Word, Yahowahs Maaseyah, and Yahowahs Ruwach/Spirit, not Abrahams. And yet Shauwl would have you believe that all of this occurred because of Abraham, because that way he could bypass the Torah and separate Yahowsha from Yahowah. The result is Christianity. While the promises made by Yahowah to Abraham were showcased to reveal the Covenant relationship he developed with God, this isnt Scriptures most adroit connection between the Maaseyah and the Covenant. Had Paul wanted to make an irrefutable case from which his audience could build a solid foundation of understanding, he would have referenced what happened on Mount Mowriyah where the Maaseyahs sacrifice was foreshadowed. But he didnt. The reason that we are indirectly blessed by way of Abraham is because he trusted and relied upon Yahowah at the second most pivotal moment in all of human historyduring the dress rehearsal for Passover. It was then forty Yowbel later that Yahowsha completed what Yahowah had predicted, fulfilling the promises He made to Abraham and to the rest of us. Yahowahs message does not change from beginning to end. It is one story. Everything points to the same solution. Returning to the conclusion of Pauls preamble, ethnos speaks of people of all races, living in all places, not specifically of Gentiles. But more troubling, eulogia, which literally means the beneficial and healing word, was rendered promise in English and Latinand thats despite epaggelia, the Greek word for promise, appearing just two verses later. KJV: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. LV: This was so that the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentibus through Christo Iesu, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritus/Spirit through faith. The first fifteen words of the NLT are wrong, either mistranslated or simply not represented in the Greek text: Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith. Following Abraham, the next seven words are unjustified, as are four of the six following

receive. In total, 26 of the 30 found in the New Living Translation were not translated, but instead authored. Its little wonder Christians are deceived. Pauls comments are out of sync with his preposition when pistis is translated trust or reliance in the 11th, 12th, or 14th verses. It is only by rendering pistis faith or belief, in these passages that the distinction he is making fits his thesis. So, he has not only defined the fulcrum of his argument, but has also presented the opening salvo of Pauline Doctrine. He proposed: In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result of faith, we can come to exist as Abrahams children. (3:7) And then the Written Scripture, foreseeing that out of faith, people from different races and places would be put right and become upright with God, the good news was announced ahead of time to Abraham, saying that in you all races will be blessed. (3:8) As a result, out of faith and belief we are blessed together with the faithful and believing Abraham. (3:9) For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it. (3:10) But with that Law, no one is vindicated or justified alongside God, because it is clearly evident: The upright and just live out of faith. (3:11) The Law exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, The one who performs them lives by them. (3:12) Christos redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, coming to exist as a curse for our sake, because it is written: Accursed is everyone who is hanging upon wood. (3:13) As a result, with reference to the people from different races and places, the beneficial word of Abraham, came to exist in Christo Iesou in order to experience the beneficial word of the Spirit through faith. (3:14) In this way, Pauls message came full circle in the manner of great spellbinders. The the good word came from Abraham, not Yahowah, making a man responsible for the Maaseyah, not God. So as with the other mistakes, was this the product of carelessness or intent? While Im not yet ready to disclose Pauls motivation or inspiration, it is long past time that we acknowledge that his words demonstrate that he was a liar, and thus a false prophet. ***

In the midst of rebuking and nullifying Yahowahs Torah, Shauwl writes that men know how to honor covenants, and that they neither invalidate nor disregard them. So he is either oblivious to what he, himself, is doing, or he no longer thinks he is human. The strategy which Paul is deploying is to distinguish between the conversational promises God made to Abraham and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah. The fact that there are none was apparently irrelevant to his argument. He simply wants Christians to believe that they can bypass the Torah and still have a relationship with God. He accomplishes this in part by suggesting that adding to and rearranging the promises, which is something the Torah does relative to the Covenant, would somehow invalidate the oral agreement. Therefore, the argument is: to capitalize upon the promises made to Abraham, Christians ought not consider Yahowahs stipulations, but instead ignore them. That is because as a man Moshe was not in a position to delineate conditions for participation. The fact that Shauwl does this very thing, of course, is something he wants Christians to overlook. Just because Paul is deceitful, doesnt mean that he isnt clever. After all, Yahowah warned us way back in Eden that Shauwls guiding spirit was cunning and beguiling. With these words, Paul positioned the second plank in his thesis. Brothers (adelphos), according to (kata) mans (anthropos) way of (homos) speaking (lego spoken or written affirmations), man (anthropos) validates (kyroo ratifies and affirms) a solemn agreement between parties (diatheke a binding business relationship); no one (oudeis) rejects [it] (atheteo regards it as invalid, disregards, sets aside, voids, nullifies, abrogates, or refuses to recognize the validity of it) or (e) adds to that which is arranged and prescribed (epidiatassomai). (Galatians 3:15) As is the case with so many of Pauls statements, this example only works if you dont think about it. But it is laughably absurd. Man has elevated the violation of agreements to an art form. Legions of attorneys attest to this sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that Paul is himself in the process of rejecting and invalidating the Torah, where Yahowahs Covenant agreement is memorialized. It should be noted here, that in the Sermon on the Mount, Yahowsha said that the Heavenly Fathers gift is the Torah and Prophets, and that the Torah and Prophets represent the narrow gate to life. This occurs in the same discussion where Yahowsha obliterated the Christian theological position that the Law was annulled by Grace, by affirming that He came to fulfill the Torah, not annul it, saying that every jot and tittle of the Torah would remain in effect as long as the universe lasts, and until its every promise is fulfilled. So, the only way Christians

can be right, is for Yahowsha to be wrong. And if Yahowsha was wrong, Christians cant be right. And therein lies the rational conundrum the religious are unwilling to confront. For the religion of Christianity, properly understood, this passage is its death nail. The Christian interpretations of this passage are as errant as Pauls statement. KJV: Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a mans covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. LV: Brothers (I speak according to man), if a mans testament has been confirmed (confirmatum testamentum), no one would reject it or add to it. Men and women have disavowed vastly more covenants than they have upheld. And this Covenant is Gods, not mans. Politically correct and charming, the NLT presents: Dear brothers and sisters, heres an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case. The inspiration for Shauwls next point is Genesis 17:8, which says: Based upon the everlasting Covenant, your Godgives to you and to your seed (zera descendant, posterity, and offspring (singular/masculine)) after you, this land where you are living as an alien, and all of the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession So, recognizing a minor nuance in this Torah passage, Shauwl nurtured a seed into a full born theory. But (de) to (to) Abraham (Abraam a transliteration of the Hebrew, ab and raham, meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father) were said (erreoesan were spoken and verbally communicated) these (ai) announced promises (epaggelia the heralding of the consent approval and agreement, from epaggello, meaning to announce and promise that you are going to do something and furnish it voluntarily by your own accord, and that you have the ability and authority to do as you have sworn, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger) and (kai) [to] his (autos) seed (sperma descendant (singular)). And (kai) [it does] not (ou) say (lego) seeds (spermasin descendants (plural)), as in the manner of (hos) upon (epi) many (polys), but to the contrary (alla) upon (epi) one (heis), and (kai) your (sy) seed (sperma descendant and offspring (singular)), who (hos) exists as (eimi) Christos ( Maaseyah (while the placeholder represents the Implement of Yah, Shauwl avoids associating Him with Yahowah)). (Galatians 3:16) It is widely known that the promise to bless all humankind through Abraham was fulfilled through Yahowsha. So Paul is acknowledging the obvious although, his methods are not altruistic. Somewhere along the line, Shauwl turned on his own people and became anti-Semitic. What he is attempting here is to sidestep the lineage of the Covenant through Yitschaq and Yaaqob, who

became Yisrael. By writing them out of the story, he can jump directly from Abraham to the Maaseyah and bypass the Torah, the Promised Land, and the Chosen People. The legacy of this ploy is Christianity. But credit to where credit is due. In the whole of the Greek language, it would be difficult to find a more appropriate term in this context than epaggello. It embodies the essence of the healing and beneficial message Yahowsha brought to the world. It says that Yahowah made a promise to voluntarily, on His own accord, furnish the Maaseyah, the Messenger who was in a position, and had the ability and authority, to do what He had announced in the Torah. I love it when the words come alive in our presence. But I would be remiss if I didnt point out that Shauwls specificity here with regard to zera being seed singular, not plural, suggests that I was right when I said that it was unlikely that he accidentally quoted the four Scriptural passages which served to convince his readers that his message was supported by God. How is it that this man could have missed the fact that the Messianic prophecy related to Passover was singular, not plural, and yet isolate one aspect of zera? Missing the magnificence of the word which served to unify the Torahs promises with their fulfillments, the inadequate KJV writes: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. The Catholic Churchs Latin Vulgate reads: The promises were made to Abrah and to his offspring. He did not say, and to descendents, as if to many, but instead, as if to one, he said, and to your offspring, who is Christus. To this Jerome added: ~ The Promise was certainly made to many descendents of Abraham, since God used the figure of the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore. But Paul is saying that the word used for offspring can be taken in the singular sense, because the promise is primarily about Christ, (the one offspring who redeems all other offspring), and only secondarily about the physical and spiritual descendents of Abraham. The Roman theologian is saying that Paul made a big deal out of nothing, and I concur. Speaking of making something out of nothing, the New Living Translation would have us believe that zera and sperma both mean child. God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn't say to his children, as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says to his childand that, of course, means Christ. Therein we see one of the problems of Pauls writing and reasoning exposed. His words and thoughts are far too easily misconstrued and misrepresented.

The less evident, but more intriguing, message related to the use of zera seed, is found by connecting this promise to the one made in the Garden of Eden. There Yahowah predicted that the zera seed of woman would bruise Satan on his head, which is precisely what the Maaseyah did. Apart from the connection between Yahowahs blessing by way of Abraham and the Maaseyah, this is all much ado about nothing. Seed in English, and indeed its counterpart in most languages, implies the plural even in the singular form. A bag of seed contains many seeds, just as we seed a field using more than one. So Abrahams seed would be both the Maaseyah, singular, and Abes descendants, plural. God obviously meant to convey both the plural and the singular aspect of zera, and spoke vociferously of both the Children of Yisrael and the Maaseyah. And indeed, as the children of the Covenant God made with Abraham, those who are born into Yahowahs family are the Merciful Fathers seed. Again, citing the book Christians are wont to claim Galatians was nullifying, Shauwls next sentence is based upon Genesis 15:13. The Torah reads: He said to Abraham (Abraham Merciful and Gracious Father), know for certain (yada yada be completely aware and totally recognize and accept) that your descendants will exist as strangers in a land which isnt theirs, and they will work for them for four hundred years. The duration of time between the Covenant being announced through Abraham, and it being affirmed through Moseh, was 430 years. While Yisraelites lived in bondage for 400 years, Abraham didnt leave the Promised Land immediately after the agreement was reached, and the Yisraelites were welcomed guests initially in Egypt. Therefore, the Torah is right with 400 years of bondage and Shauwl is right with regard to the overall duration of time, because the Torah itself uses both numbers. But (de) this (houtos) I say (lego communicate and affirm), A covenant agreement between parties (diatheke a binding relationship arrangement to award heirs) was established and validated in advance (prokyroo was sanctioned and ratified beforehand; from kuroo, to promise and confirm publicly that something is valid, and thus truthful and reliable, and pro, ahead of time) by (hupo because of, under the auspices of, by the means of, and for the reasons that) God (). After (meta with) four-hundred and thirty (tetrakosioi kai triakonta) years (etos), having become (ginomai having appeared on the scene and arrived upon the stage of history as) the Torah (nomos Law) does not (ou) revoke it (akyroo invalidate, nullify, contradict, or void it, or deprive it of authority) so as to (eis) invalidate (katargeo abolish, idle, or inactivate, diminish, delay, remove the force of) the (o) announced promise (epaggelia the heralding of the consent approval and agreement). (Galatians 3:17)

It is inappropriate, although not out of character, for Paul to begin this statement with But this I say. It is as if he thinks his opinions and ideas are superior to Gods. Yet, Pauls insights are only valuable when and if they illuminate something Yahowah has written, so that we might understand it better. But here he is trying to get us to ignore Yahowahs testimony. Rather than affirm that the Covenant established with Abraham was validated and memorialized in the Torah 430 years later, Shauwl is saying that the Torah did not revoke or invalidate it. In that way, rather than the Torah being essential to the Covenant, it is irrelevant to it. His strategy was ingenious and insidious. To understand why Shauwl used such twisted logic, we have to consider this statement within the context of the point he has been trying to advance. Paul is linking the promise made to Abraham with the Maaseyah and then to believing the message he has been preaching, while at the same time bypassing the Torah. Therefore, he is telling the Galatians that since the Torah cannot revoke or invalidate the promise, the Torah is extraneous to the promise. The reason this clever, albeit ridiculous, line of reasoning prevailed, is that the natural tendency of people ensnared in a religious system is to give their Apostles the benefit of the doubt. I am embarrassed to say, that I missed the purpose of these last three verses during my initial pass through this material. And that is why I shared my preconceived thoughts regarding Galatians at the outset of this evaluation. I was predisposed to solve the discrepancies between the Christian interpretation of this epistle and Yahowahs testimony by correcting the text to reflect the oldest manuscripts, to more accurately translate the words Paul selected, to appropriately identify whether Mosaic or Rabbinic Law was being assailed or affirmed, and then clarify Pauls message by associating it with Yahowahs witness. Had Shauwl stopped after saying that the Covenant was validated by God after 430 years, becoming the Torah, he would have been correct. But he had an entirely different agenda. And not recognizing it initially, I saw Paul affirming that the Torah didnt invalidate the promise. But that is like saying Moby Dick didnt invalidate Ahabs vow to get the whale. Every last detail associated with the promise would be completely unknown without the Torah. In this light, please ponder: Brothers, according to mans way of speaking, man validates an agreement between parties; no one rejects it or adds to that which is prescribed. (3:15) But to Abraham were said these announced promises and to his seed. And it does not say seeds, as in the manner of upon many, but to the contrary upon one, and your seed, who exists as Christos. (3:16) But this I say, a covenant agreement between parties was established and validated in advance by God. After four-hundred and thirty years, having

become the Torah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the announced promise. (3:17) The twist here is invalidate as opposed to validate. In reality, the Covenant promise which was discussed between Yahowah and Abraham was affirmed, that is to say validated, 430 years after it was initially established with the rescue of the Children of Yisrael from bondage in the crucible of Egyptthe central story of the Torah. And it is this same promise memorialized in the Towrah between Abraham and Yahowah, which Yahowah augmented and Yahowsha ultimately fulfilled (at least in part). (The reason He is returning is to fulfill the final three Called-Out Assemblies.) Therefore, rather than the Torah being bypassed, or even brought to an end, the Covenant is the basis of the promise made between God and man, and it is enduring. To demonstrate how horribly I was fooled, here is what I said about this verse as I was initially compiling this chapter. Speaking of the relationship between the Covenant and the Torah, and especially of prokyroo validated in advance (in the initial clause), I wrote: And this realization would make this message accurate and pertinent. In fact, the deeper we peer into the words Shauwl selected, the more magnificent the passage becomes. There are bright, shining moments in Pauls epistles, and this is one of them. I swallowed the hook, the line, and the bait. It is ironic in a way. I will be vilified for having turned over and exposed the rocks Paul has hurled at the Torah, but I will actually be guilty of letting my desire to validate Pauls message taint my judgment. But at least I had the good sense at the time to buffer my unwarranted praise for this passage, initially adding: And yet, this realization stands in stark contrast to Pauls positioning of the Torah before and after this verse. While this verse was sound, this approach is nonetheless out of character with Pauls depiction of the Torah throughout this epistle. Turning to the translations, we find the KJV inferring that since the Law cannot invalidate the promise, the Law must be wrong, which is worse than, albeit a natural extension of, what Shauwl was trying to say. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. The Latin Vulgate isnt wrong; its just inadequate: But I say this: the testament confirmed by God (testamentum confirmatum a Deo), which, after four hundred and thirty years became the Law (Lex), does not nullify, so as to make the promise empty.

The New Living Translation published: This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise. After all, Paul was composing the lyrics for their hymnals. At this point the writing quality suddenly deteriorates. This next verse requires a complete reordering of the words, the addition of two verbs, a preposition, and three articles Because (gar for) if (ei) inheritance (kleronomai possession of a gift or patrimony, becoming an heir) [comes] out of (ek) the Torah (nomou Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), [it is] no longer (ouketi) from (ek by means of) [a] promise (epangelia), but (de) God () provided Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charizomai Charis in action) [to] Abraham by (dia) an announced messenger and by way of [a] promise (epaggelia). (Galatians 3:18) Yahowah most assuredly did not offer, provide, or even discuss the pagan Charities with Abraham. And what He did offer him, He presented in personnot by way of a messenger. Kleronomai is a compound of kleros which is a means of selecting someone by random chance, and specifically, to cast or draw lots, and the all too familiar nomos, law. It is therefore a random chancy means of determining ones inheritance which is being wrongly associated with the Law. The notion that because something is written, it ceases to be a promise, is absurd. A promissory note is a written pledge to pay someone what is owed them. A legal contract stipulates responsibilities and delineates the things each party promises to perform. The contract does not change the nature of the promises, it simply holds the parties accountable to the promises they have made. Likewise, a marriage license is an affirmation of a husbands and wifes vow of fidelity. The Torah contains Yahowahs promise to save us from ourselves. The essence of the Torah is summarized in epaggelia: the announcement of a messenger, the heralding of a consent agreement, the promise that [Yahowah] had the ability and authority to voluntarily furnish the [Maaseyah] to facilitate His accord. This passage combined with the previous one preclude us from pretending that Paul was referencing the Oral Law or Traditions of the Rabbis. Therefore, he actually said: For if inheritance comes out of the Towrah, it is no longer from a promise, and thereby severed, at least in his warped mind, the relationship between the Covenant made with Abraham and the Torah in which this Covenant was memorialized. This is an either or proposition. According to Shauwl, you can fail with the Torah or succeed with Grace. He was dead wrong.

What we are witnessing here is another blow in Pauls relentless attack onGods Word. This time he has gone so far as to say that the Torah cannot come between the verbal promise God made to Abraham and the provision of his goddess Charis. According to Pauline Doctrine, the Torah must be bypassed for the promise to remain valid and for believers to be inherited by his god. Christians will say that Paul was right, because in their faith (due to Pauls letters), the Torah represents a works-based means to salvation, while, again from a Pauline perspective, a promise requires nothing on behalf of the beneficiary (i.e., Grace Alone). However, the Torah isnt a works-based scheme, but instead a depiction of Yahowah doing everything required to redeem us. Moreover, the Covenant agreement forged with Abraham had caveats Abraham was asked to honor. If he didnt leave Babylon, if he didnt walk with Yahowah, if he wasnt conversant with God and upright with Him, if he didnt trust Yahowah with his sons life, he would have negated his sons inheritance. Its little wonder Paul has failed to mention these conditions, and that Christians are ignorant of them. In this case, the problem isnt with the translations, but instead with the original document. KJV: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. It was a precisely accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate. For if the inheritance is of the lege/law, then it is no longer of the promise. But God bestowed it to Abraham through the promise. Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, and Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, working under the auspices of Mark Taylor, the Chief Stylist, Daniel Taylor, the Senior Stylist, and Philip Comfort the N.T. Coordinating Editor, collectively known as Team Tyndale with regard to Galatians, coordinated this stylish theological twist whereby the promised inheritance was nullified by trying to keep the law. Then for good measure, they tossed in an extra grace, just to be sure they had paid proper homage to Pauls goddess. For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting Gods promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise. Yahowah and Yahowsha have consistently affirmed that the Torah is the document which explains the nature of the inheritance we receive as a result of being adopted into our Heavenly Fathers family. Gods foundational text details the promises Yahowah has made to us. Other than being in writing, as opposed to being verbal, the promise Yahowah made to Abraham is identical to the one He confirmed through Moses.

Along these lines, since the Torah is the affirmation and amplification of the one and only Covenant, it makes no sense whatsoever to differentiate between Old and New Testaments. The Covenant has not yet been renewed, and when it ultimately is renewed on Yowm Kippurym in Year 6000 Yah, that reaffirmation of the familial relationship will be predicated upon a full integration of the Towrah with Yah, Himself, placing His teaching inside of His Covenant Children. So this idea that the Towrah and its Covenant are somehow outdated, necessitating new versions of each, is inconsistent with Yahowahs testimony. Paul was trying to drive a wedge between the Torahs Merciful message and his own Gospel of Grace. For doing so, he is a dead man as are those who have believed him. There are two scribal additions to this next passage, both of which have been included within the brackets, because without them, the second sentence is incomplete and incomprehensible. Why (tis) therefore (oun) this specific (ton) Law (nomos Towrah)? [Walking away from (parabasis twisting and turning so as to breach) the purpose of the favor of loving kindness (charin the reason for the gift of mercy and acceptance), they continued to add to it (prostithemai expanding the text for money)] [It was] until (achri the point in time) [the] seed (sperma descendant) who (hos) was announced, promised, and furnished (epangellomai the messenger who engaged voluntarily with the ability and authority to perform as promised and proclaimed) came (erchomai) [by way of (dia)] the ordained and prescribed (diatasso by the arrangement and command of the) Messenger (aggelos the representative who was sent with the message) in (en) the person and power of (cheir presence and authority of) a mediator and reconciler (mesites one who intervenes to restore peace and friendship, reconciling and ratifying a covenant). (Galatians 3:19) Now that Paul has made the Torah obsolete by bypassing it, he is required to tell us why God even bothered with it. So, that is why he wrote: Why therefore this Law? It was until the seed who was promised came: the arranged Messenger in the person of a mediator. But since Yahowah said countless times that His Word would abide forever, Pauls words remain diametrically opposed to Gods. There is nothing in the Torah which suggests that it was a temporary solution, and if there were, you could bet your last shilling Paul would have cited it. Yahowah completes every essential instruction in the Torah with the provision that this is to be an olam eternal and everlasting statute. The promised Maaseyah is the one who reconciles us unto God, the one who intervenes to restore the Covenant. And yet His message is the antithesis of Pauls. He expressly refuted the notion that He came to annul the Torah, and said

that even the smallest strokes on the letters which comprise the words which proclaim its message would endure as long as the universe exists and until every last promise is fulfilled. So since Pauls message is in direct conflict with the prescribed Messenger, who is Paul speaking for? It cannot be Yahowah or Yahowsha. For those who were hoping to salvage Pauls epistle by substituting Rabbinical Law for the Torah, this is one of many passages where that argument becomes impossible. Rabbinical Law was still in its infancy during the Maaseyahs arrival. Unlike Christians who were beguiled by Paul into believing that Yahowsha put an end to the Law, Rabbis never postured such a claim. The Torah does not say that it was given because of transgressions. But that didnt stop the KJV from saying: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. The inspiration for those words came from the Latin Vulgate: Why, then, was there a lex/law? It was established because of transgressions, until the offspring would arrive, to whom he made the promise, ordained by Angelos through the hand of a mediator. A disclaimer is in order: what you are about to read is not Scripture. It is not true. Using the New Living Translation may be harmful to your health. Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people. That is not what Paul wrote, and thus this is not a translation. This is not what Yahowah said about the Torahs purpose, so this message is counter to Scripture. And this position is the opposite of Yahowshas statements regarding the Torah. That means the NLTs Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and their stylists Mark and Daniel Taylor, and Philip Comfort, are deceivers. How do you suppose these scholars reconcile their but the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised, with the Child of the promise saying: Do not assume that I have come to weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish the Torah/Law or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and the earth pass away not one jot (iota the smallest letter, or yodh in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by (be ignored or disobeyed, be disregarded) from that which was established in the Torah/Law (nomos prescriptions for living in Scripture) until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses

(invalidates or abolishes) the least of these commandments or teaches (indoctrinates or instructs) people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven. (Mattityahu/Matthew 5:19) Many, if not most of the prophecies established in the Torah are yet unfulfilled. Yahowsha has not returned. Yahuwdym have not been reconciled. The Millennial Sabbath has not commenced. The Antichrist has not arisen. The Tribulation has not occurred. Neither the Magog nor Armageddon wars have been waged. Therefore, the Torah could not have ended its useful life, even if such a thing was possible, 2,000 years ago. Paul is wrong once again. I do not know what this means, and based upon the translations, Im not alone. But now (de) the mediator and reconciler (mesites one who intervenes to restore peace and friendship, reconciling and ratifying the covenant (singular/masculine)) does not (ouk) exist as an identical representation of (estin) one (heis), but (de) God () exists as (estin) one (heis). (Galatians 3:20) The supposedly-literal interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek Text read: But the mediator one not is the but God one is. In the King James we find: Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Jerome wrote: Now a mediator is not of one, yet God is one. The NLT suggests: Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham. The self-proclaimed literal NASB published: Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. To their credit, they used italics to indicate that party only and only were not written in the Greek text. The NIV, a popular paraphrase conveys: A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. As an eternal optimist, Im compelled to convey something sensible. So, here is my best shot. The mediator and reconciler is Yahowsha, the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah. As such, Yahowsha does not exist as an identical representation of God who is one. Further, since a mediator exists to reconcile differences between parties, Yahowsha came to reconcile humankind unto God. And while thats true, and consistent with what Yahowsha said of Himself, it is an extremely awkward fit in this context. However, in the midst of a tirade against the Torah, such profound insights are pearls in a pigsty. In all likelihood, Shauwl is suggesting that Yahowsha does not exist as an identical representation of Gods WordHis one and only Torah. Then in addition to differentiating Yahowsha from Gods Word,

Paul is also separating Yahowsha from Yahowah by suggesting that He wasnt an identical representation of God and that God cannot be divided nor exist in multiple manifestations. Pauls next statement is true, but not in this context. Indeed (oun therefore and consequently), the (o) Torah (nomos) cannot be (me ginomai cannot come to exist) contrary to (kata) the (tou) promise of the consent agreement of approval (epaggelia the announcement that He was going to do and furnish something voluntarily by His own accord, and that He would have the ability and authority to do as He had sworn). (Galatians 3:21) Pauls point isnt to affirm that the Torah confirms the agreement made with Abraham (which is obvious to those who know the Torah), but instead to suggest that the Torah is irrelevant. This is part of a long argument, one that started with the 15th verse, which was cleverly designed to bypass the Torah, moving directly from the promise made to Abraham to salvationwith nothing in between. Pauls purpose is to limit the Torah, telling his audience what it cannot be, as opposed to describing what it is. Paul continued: For (gar) if (ei) the Torah (nomos Law) produced (didomi gave and granted) the power (dynamai) to impart life (zoopoieo to beget and restore life), certainly (ontos surely and truly) in (en) the Torah (nomos Law) would (an) be (en) the (o) upright (dikaiosyne those who are acceptable and approved in a judicial hearing). (Galatians 3:21) (While recently compiled Greek texts have ek, meaning out of, rather than en, meaning in, before the last reference to the Torah, as is extant in P46, it doesnt make much difference.) Paul is demeaning the Torahs power to redeem. In direct contradiction to Gods Word, he is suggesting that no one was considered righteous and thus saved from the time the Torah was written to the time Yahowsha arrived. If hes right, Yahowah is wrong, because He called David righteous. For Paul to be right, Moseh is estranged from God. If Paul is correct, the eyewitness accounts depicting the fulfillment of FirstFruits, whereby the graves of the upright were opened, are incorrect. If we are to believe Paul, the Exodus was a hoaxnothing but a cruel charade. So are we to accept Pauls assessment and thereby believe that the same God who came to earth in the form of a man to save men, was so sadistic prior to that time that He conceived a plan in which everyone was destined to fail? Were Yahowahs instructions on atoning sin by way of His seven Called-Out Assemblies a complete waste of time? Was blood shed in vain? Were the Miqraey for naught? And if so, why did Yahowsha fulfill Passover and Unleavened Bread?

Perhaps it was Paul who created Marcion, rather than the other way around. Marcion just wanted to write Yahowah, Yahuwdym, and Yisrael out of His canon. Paul wants to demean them. Despite the claims made in the King James, Latin Vulgate, and New Living bibles, Gods title does not appear in this Greek text once, much less twice. Moreover, there is no basis for a question in this text, much less an answer. But so that you come to appreciate just how divergent these supposed translations are from the Greek text, consider the Nestle-Aland interlinear: If for had been given law the one being able to make live really from law was the rightness. Now, compare that to the KJV: Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Or the Latin Vulgate upon which it was based: So then, was the law contrary to the promises of God? (Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei?) Let it not be so! For if a lex/law had been given, which was able to give life, truly justice would be of the lege/law. And now, the New Living Translation which contradicts itself: Is there a conflict, then, between Gods law and Gods promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it. The fact that these three translations agree with one another and disagree with the Greek text, demonstrates that they are but revisions. Publishers are businessmen and they know familiarity sells. Struggling verse after verse to make sense of what Paul was trying to say has become exasperating, especially since his message has been so un-Godly. So the time has come for me to provide you with a scholarly frame of reference. We are going to use the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Interlineartodays most trusted textual resourceas a handrail in Pauls inverted world. Please consider their rendition of Galatians 3:22: But closed together the writing the all under sin that the promise from trust of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones trusting. Now, Ill let you decide if Ive done any better. To the contrary (alla), the (o) written Scripture (graphe often used to designate the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) completely encloses (sugkleio restricts, traps, nets, confines, and shuts up all together, on all sides) everything (pas) under the auspices of (hupo because of and under the control of) error and evil (hamartia sin, disinheritance, wandering away from the path, missing the mark) in order that (hina) the (e) promised agreement (epangelia) from (ek) the faith (pistis trust migrated to faith) of Iesou Christou ( placeholders for the Maaseyah Yahowsha whose association with Yahowah Shauwl attempted to sever) can be given to (didomi granted and bestowed to) the ones who believe (pisteuo those who trust and rely became those who believe as a result of Shauwls epistles). (Galatians 3:22)

There are two significant problems with this statement. First, sugkleio speaks of netting fish, and trapping and imprisoning people, binding and tying them up. It is from sun, with, and kleio, to shut a door and withhold something, making it inaccessible. To be sugkleio is to be devoid of pity, and to obstruct the entrance to heaven. And here, Shauwl is saying that Scripture closes the door, blocks the entrance, and makes heaven inaccessible. He is calling Gods Word a trap and a prison. And as bad as that is, he will connect sugkleio with phroureo held in custody as a prisoner in the next verse, exacerbating the negative association with the Torah. Second, there is no faith of Iesou Christou. He did not have or promote a religion, and with complete knowledge and understanding faith is nonsensical. But since the dearth of evidence and reason in Pauls epistles makes trust and reliance impossible, he obviously meant to convey faith, and believing and thereby establish his Faith on believing: To the contrary, Scripture completely shuts the door on inheritance, imprisoning everything under the auspices of error and evil in order that the promised agreement from the faith of Iesou Christou can be given by believing. Christian translations agree. KJV: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. LV: But Scriptura/Scripture has enclosed everything under sin, so that the promise, by the faith of Iesu Christi, might be given to those who believe (ut promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus). Writing their own epistle, the NLT proposed: But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive Gods promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ. While it is obvious that these renderings diverge somewhat from Pauls script, the task of deciphering the wannabe Apostle is even more difficult than translating him. So even if we were to limit sugkleio to enclose and restrict, the Torah is not a vessel filled with error or evil. The Maaseyah Yahowsha had no faith, and no religion. And belief is completely irrelevant to our salvation. Moving on, please consider the difficulty the Nestle-Aland interlinear had with the following text before reading my attempt to decipher Pauls message. Before the but to come the trust under law we were being guarded being closed together for the being about trust to be uncovered. While Im appreciative of the fact that the most respected Greek textual resource consistently renders the term upon which the Galatians debate pivots, pistis, as trust, as opposed to faith, the evidence indicates that this was not what Paul intended to say.

So Shauwls next derogatory statement actually reads: But (de) before (pro) the (tou) arrival of (erchomai) the (ten) faith (pistis once trust but now belief), under (hupo) the Law (nomou Towrah (accusative case making it a direct object of the verb)), we were held in custody (phroureo kept as a prisoner, officially guarded, confined, strictly controlled, and watched over), restricted and trapped (sugkleio bound and imprisoned, netted and confined) until (eis) the inevitable future arrival (mello the time of the expected and intended) of the faith (pistis) was revealed (apokalypto uncovered, disclosed, and unveiled). (Galatians 3:23) To say that Shauwl and Yahowah didnt see things the same way would be the understatement of the millennia. Since But before the arrival of the trust is awkward, and the arrival of the faith is a natural fit, this is another affirmation that Shauwl intended pistis to convey its present religious connotationsomething further affirmed by his final clause. Pauls faith was built upon the ruins of the Torah. Here are the Christian interpretations. KJV: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. LV: But before the faith arrived, we were preserved by being enclosed under the lege/law, unto that faith which was to be revealed. NLT: Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed. In this case, the English translations arent nearly as harsh as the words Shauwl selected. But, based upon what has and will be said, this accommodation isnt deserved. We are about to meet Pauls guardians and taskmasters. Even though the next verse is part of this same paragraph, it began so long ago, a quick review is in order. Because if inheritance comes out of the Torah, it is no longer from a promise, but God provided Grace to Abraham by an announced messenger and by way of a promise. (3:18) Why therefore this Law? It was until the seed who was promised came, the arranged Messenger in the person and power of a mediator. (3:19) But now the mediator does not exist as an identical representation of one, but God exists as one. (3:20) Indeed, the Torah cannot be contrary to the promise of the consent agreement. For if the Torah produced the power to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous. (3:21) To the contrary, Scripture completely shuts the door on inheritance, imprisoning everything under the auspices of error and evil in order that the promised agreement from the faith of Iesou Christou can be given by believing. (3:22) But before the arrival of the faith, under the Law, we were held in custody, restricted and trapped until the inevitable future arrival of the faith was revealed. (3:23)

Also, now that the text of the Nestle-Aland interlinear is being provided with some regularity in advance of my translations, Id like to explain the process I go through in rendering a verse, whether it be Hebrew or Greek, Scripture or a mans letter. If the text is Greek, I read it as it appears in a popular manuscript like the Nestle-Aland. If there is a pre-Constantine manuscript, I compare the older version to the more modern text. Then I examine every word under an etymological microscope, even those with which I am totally familiar, consulting a variety of lexicons and dictionaries, so that all possible shadings are considered. Then I share their full amplified meanings. Next, I order these words as is required to transfer the thoughts they convey into the structure of English grammar. At this point, I check verb tenses and other grammatical references, and then complete the translation with an eye on the surrounding context. And as a rule, if the passage is Scripture, I always try to render the words in a manner which is consistent with Yahowahs nature and plan. Then, if the etymology of a word exceeds what can comfortably be placed within the sentence or inside a parenthetical, without the text being overly distracting, Ill write a separate descriptive paragraph on the most interesting words. And then I strive to share whatever the Spirit reveals to me regarding the passage, adding those insights into my commentary. Lastly, when a verse is complete, Ill go back and try to write introductions and consider transitions which aid in understanding. And while that is what I have attempted to do here, this particular paragraph has been so antagonistic toward Yahowahs Word, on my first pass through this material I simply translated each statement and moved on, hoping that the next passage would help modify the previous one. But nothing seemed to help. So in my struggle to deal with writings this hostile to the Torah, I did something I have not done before, which was to consider interlinear translations. My hope was to extricate Shauwl from the pit he had dug for himself, and the hell (sheowl) for which he had been named. So the bottom line here is that Im very uncomfortable with what Shauwl is saying. Therefore, Im lessening this burden by exposing you to the interpretive translations of others. For example, the Nestle-Aland interlinear presentation of the next verse reads: So that the law tutor of us has become to Christ that from trust we might be made right. In comparison to that, this almost seems sane: As a result (hoste so then therefore), the (o) Law (nomos Towrah) came to exist as (ginomai) our (ego) taskmaster (paidagogos enslaved leader of boys, guardian, custodian, trainer, and supervisor of children who strikes and smites them, an enslaved

disciplinarian) until (eis) Christon ( placeholder for the Maaseyah (but without the definite article its obvious that Shauwl meant Christon to represent a name, not a title)) so that (hina) by means of (ek out of) the faith (pistos formerly trust, but now in the singular genitive a specific characterization or system of belief)) we could be acquitted (dikaioo could be vindicated, declared innocent, and be set free). (Galatians 3:24) The unflattering example which lies at the heart of this sentence provides us with a window into Shauwls mind. From his perspective, the Torah is a paidagogos tough taskmaster lording over us as if we were slaves. In ancient Greece, paidagogos, meaning a leader of young boys, was used to describe slaves from other nations who supervised and directed the lives and morals of children belonging to the privileged class. It is from pais and ago. Pais means: a child, especially a young boy or infant. Its secondary meaning is servant and slave. It is from paio, meaning to strike or smite, to wound and stingthus making taskmaster the most literal definition. Ago means to lead. Therefore a paidagogos was a foreign slave who was forced to make adolescent boys from wealthy families behave. They were compelled disciplinarians who knew nothing of freedom, and nothing of Yahowah. Using paidagogos to describe the role of the Torah was especially demeaning. Up to this point, Shauwl has advanced his case by misquoting, truncating, twisting, dismantling, dissolving, and demeaning the Torah. There has been no reason to delve into the realm of Greek society, slavery, and oppression. But since he has now gone down this path, we are compelled to reveal its failings. The paidagogos were not associated with schools, or learning, but instead with harsh discipline, so the KJV would be wrong with schoolmaster. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. LV: Itaque lex pdagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur. And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith. NLT: Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. There is no basis for it protected us in the Greek text. If we were to deprive paidagogos of its cultural baggage, wed be left to resolve a whole new set of issues inherent in Shauwls next sentence. When you start with a bad metaphor, things go from bad to worse. Such is the case with: But now that (de) the (tes) faith (pistos formerly trust, but now in the singular genitive a specific characterization or system of belief)) has come (erchomai), [we] no longer (ouketi) exist (eimi) under (hupo because of, under the auspices of, and by the means of) a taskmaster (paidagogos enslaved leader of boys,

guardian, custodian, trainer, and supervisor of children who strikes and smites them, an enslaved disciplinarian). (Galatians 3:25) In other words, believers have been liberated from the supervision and discipline of the Torah. Yahowahs Word no longer exists as a meaningful guide. And we no longer exist as a result of Gods revelation. According to Shauwl, the Torah is pass; its dominion is overa thing of the past. So lets see if the most influential Christian translations followed their leader down this ungodly dead end road. KJV: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. LV: But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian. NLT: And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. Keeping in mind that the schoolmaster and guardian is the Torah, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who dont consider Yahowah to be their teacher, who dont value His Torah as the ultimate source of instruction, who dont consider themselves to be under His guardianship, are headed toward a rude awakening. Pauls message in Galatians 3:25 isnt salvageable. For the paidagogos guardian or disciplinarian metaphor to work, the one who leads us as little children to our Heavenly Father has to be Yahowshathe Word made flesh. But since our salvation cannot be independent of Him, the second half of the verse is invalid. The best possible spin that can be put on this is to say that Shauwl might be saying that while the Torah may have led us, however harshly, to the point where we could embrace the faith, its value ends once we have done so. And that means that Yahowahs life-saving advice is suddenly beneath believers. But how is it that Pauls faith can soar above the Word of God? Beyond this realization, how is anyone going to grow in their relationship with our Heavenly Father without solid food, without devouring the Word of God, without being nourished by God? The fact is, Yahowsha, Himself, explained His ministry from the perspective of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. According to Him, observing it is the only way to understand who He is, what He said, and what He did. And while I am obviously troubled by Shauwls paidagogos metaphor, it isnt one which helps Christendom either. Pastors and priests present themselves, as well as their churches, as if they were still the guardians, supervisors, and teachers, of their flock, as opposed to Yahowsha having usurped that role. So all they have done is put themselves in the role of the Torah, and thereby neglected the Maaseyah.

Before we press on, a little perspective is in order. Mired in the midst of the third chapter of Galatians, we are discovering that almost nothing Paul has written is true. And the remainder is either incomprehensible or irrelevant. Therefore, one has to be ignorant of what Paul wrote, or irrational, to consider Galatians Scripture inspired by God. By claiming it as such, your god becomes a vacillating, inconsistent, unreliable, and incomprehensible nincompoop. This next line, removed from this abysmal context, would offer a glimmer of hope, had Paul meant pisteos to say trust and reliance instead of the faith. And that is what the word meant at the time he wrote this epistle. But that meaning isnt possible in the context of Galatians, because Paul not only hasnt provided any evidence for the reader to rely upon, he has relentlessly assailed the Torahthe worlds only source of universal truth. For (gar) every (pas) son (huios child) [of] God () exists (este) by way of (dia) the (tes) faith (pisteos formerly trust, but now in the singular genitive a specific characterization or system of belief)) in (en) Christo Iesou ( placeholders for the Maaseyah Yahowsha who Shauwl overtly disassociates from Yahowah (and thus would not have reconnected them by virtue of the Maaseyah Yahowshas actual name and title)). (Galatians 3:26) Trust is not possible if no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the Maaseyah Yahowsha is the Son of God. And that message is one of the prime directives of the Torah. It is why Yahowahs Word is filled from Genesis to Malachi with Messianic prophecies. And faith is irrelevant, especially apart from the Torah. In whom and in what are the faithful being asked to believe? Apart from the Torah, Yahowsha is without identity or purpose. The Maaseyahs life is a lie and His sacrifice is for nothing if He is removed from His foundation. By changing the order, and by rendering pistis faith, the King James has captured Pauls intended meaning: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. However, we are not all children of God. In fact, most of those Paul preached to, and all of those who subsequently believed his letters, are specifically excluded from Gods family because they were victimized by a false prophet. Our Spiritual Mother enables our adoption into our Heavenly Fathers family based upon our commitment to know and love Yahowah and our decision to trust and rely upon the Maaseyah Yahowshas fulfillment of the Torahs promises. But since one cannot trust that which they do not understand, nor rely upon someone they do not know, to be Gods child, we must first come know Him and understand what He said by carefully observing His Word.

In his attempt to convey Pauls thoughts, Jerome missed this point as well. LV: For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christo Iesu. (Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, qu est in Christo Iesu.) NLT: For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Its telling that each translation was arranged in the same order, one which flows in opposition to the Greek. Because (gar) as many as (hosos) are cleansed and immersed (baptizomai submerged and washed) into (eis) Christon (N placeholder for Maaseyah (but without the definite article its obvious that Shauwl meant Christon to represent a name, not a title)), Christon (N) has clothed you (enduo has dressed you all). (Galatians 3:27) Either Paul is unaware of the discrete roles preformed by the Son and the Spirit, or he knows them and is being purposefully deceitful. But either way, none of this is true. We are immersed and cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit, not the Son. And it is our Spiritual Mother who adorns us in Her Garment of Light, not the Maaseyah. This occurs once we come to know Yahowah, come to understand His plan of salvation, and come to rely upon Yahowshas fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Breadall of which Paul failed to report. Scripture from beginning to end exists to delineate these profound truths, all of which Shauwl corrupted with the stroke of a pen. There are some other issues with this passage. This is the fourth time in as many verses that it has become obvious that a scribe, not Shauwl, supplied the Divine Placeholder XPN, which would normally be symbolic of Maaseyah the Implement of Yah. But without a definite article, its readily apparent that the original author wrote Christon as if it were a name, and not a title. Further, since the primary purpose of this epistle has been to totally separate Yahowsha from Yahowah and from His Word, it would have been completely counterproductive for Shauwl to reconnect them by way of their actual names and titles. Lastly, enduo, written as enedusasoe, and rendered has clothed you, is a compound of en, meaning in, and duno, to plunge and sink. Duno was most commonly used in reference to the setting sun. In that Satans name is Halal ben Shachar, which conveys the brilliant and self-exalting son of the rising sun, associating the Maaseyah with the setting sun is a pathetic demonic pun. Further, the compound of en and duno literally means to sink or be plunged into something. And thats troubling because the souls of Shauwls victims sink into sheowl the pit and unwittingly take the plunge into Sheowl the place deceased souls await questioning and thus judgment.

The verb enedusasoe was written in the second person, plural, aorist, middle, indicative. The aorist indicative indicates something which has actually happened in the past. And the middle voice signifies that subjects of this verb had been affected by their own actions. In fact, enduo actually conveys the idea of having clothed and dressed oneself as opposed to having been adorned by the Spirit in Her Garment of Light. The inference then is that those who are immersed into Shauwls faith of Christon, the basis of which speaks of the application of drugs, have taken the plunge and have clothed themselves in his religion. Not recognizing any of Pauls mistakes, the King James Version published: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. We dont wear Christ, and common words like baptizomai should be translated, not transliterated. But again demonstrating the KJV was a translation of the Roman Catholic Latin text, and not Pauls Greek, we find the same wording in Jeromes Vulgate: For as many of you as have been baptizati/baptized in Christo have become clothed with Christum. There is no reference to united or new in the Greek text, and yet the authors of the New Living Translation wrote: And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes. And I thought enedusasoe was a verb, not a noun. This next statement isnt accurate either. No longer (ouketi) Ioudaios (Ioudaios Jewish; a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahuwdym meaning Related to Yah) nor (oude) Greek (Hellen), no longer (ouketi) slave (doulos) nor (oude) free (eleutheros released), no longer (ouketi) male (arsen) and (kai) female (thelys), because (gar) you (sy) all (pas) exist as (este) one (heis) in (en) Christo ( placeholder for Maaseyah (but without the definite article its obvious that Shauwl meant Christo to represent a name, not a title)) Iesou ( placeholder for Yahowsha (Yah Saves) whom Shauwl has disassociated from Yahowah). (Galatians 3:28) While our Heavenly Father has but one family, and while we can become His children whether we are natural-born Yahuwdym or adopted Gowym, there is still a very significant difference from Yahowahs perspective between Yahuwdym and Gowym, and between Yisrael and the rest of the world. Most unfulfilled prophecy deals with the reconciliation of Yahuwdym with Yahowah. Further, Genesis reveals that mankinds masculine and feminine nature was modeled after Yahowah, suggesting that this will remain unchanged. And lastly, as a result of God rescuing us we are not only free, we are forever free. And spiritually, there is an enormous difference between remaining a slave to mans religious and political schemes and being liberated from the crucible of Egypt.

So just because something rolls off the tongue and sounds accepting and tolerant, doesnt make it so. Yahowah said no such thing, and in fact, says the opposite. Paul composed this verse to undermine the value of Yahuwdym and Yisrael in Yahowahs ongoing story. And as we have just seen, Shauwl isnt fond of the paternal and maternal roles Yahowah plays in our salvation. So that would make the last comparison on the list window dressing. Yet ironically, in the next chapter, he will contradict himself and say that those who observe the Torah are still enslaved by it. And lastly, what little chauvinism exists in the so-called New Testament hails from Pauls poison pen, where women are told to be subservient to their husbands. The familiar prose of the King James Bible has come to resonate in religious circles: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. But to the contrary, according to Scripture there are still Yahuwdym, Yisrael endures, there continue to be male and female individuals, and thanks to what Yahowsha has done, there are those of us who have been freed from mans religious schemes, setting us apart and distinguishing us from those who have not been liberated. Jeromes Latin Vulgate reads similarly: There is neither Iudus nor Grcus; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christo Iesu. Recognizing the popularity of Pauls prose are promoted by the King James, and knowing that familiarity sells, even the adventurous New Living Translation left the lie alone: There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet, to their credit, apart from butchering the Saviors name and title, all three translations accurately presented the words Paul wrote. Now if only Pauls words were accurate. Some may think that Im being too critical here, and that this was just a figure of speech, a bit of soaring oratory. And your point would be valid if Paul were a politician, and if Galatians was part of an election campaign rather than a treatise on salvation. Moving from faulty conclusions to faulty logic, Shauwl concludes his line of reasoning by contradicting his initial point. If you recall, he said that seed was singular because it spoke not of Abrahams descendants, but instead just of the Maaseyah. But now according to Paul, we all exist as Abrahams seed. Paul had used this distinction to suggest that there was a difference between the promise made to Abraham and the Torah which announced and described that promise. And while his reasoning was flawed, even if it were valid, he just harpooned his own rationale.

The initial clause obviously needs a verb, but Im not inclined to speculate the kind of action Shauwl was recommending: But (de) if (ei) you all (sy) Christou ( placeholder for Maaseyah, the Implement of Yahowah), then (ara) you exist as (este) Abrahams (Abraam transliteration of the name meaning Merciful and Gracious Fathers) seed (sperma descendant and offspring) with respect to (kata down from, against, or according to) [the] promised and announced (epaggelia the heralding of consent approval and agreement, from epaggello, to announce and swear under oath that something will be done by way of voluntarily furnishing a something which the one making the pledge has the ability and authority to perform, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger to) heirs (kleronomos someone who receives their legal portion by chance). (Galatians 3:29) As we have already discovered, kleronomos, translated heirs, is a compound of kleros and nomos, meaning both law, and manmade tradition. A kleros was a lot or stone with a persons name inscribed on it, which along with other names on other stones, was tossed into a jar, shaken, and then selected purely by chance as a result of which stone fell to the ground first. So, once again, this isnt the most appropriate word to describe our adoption into Yahowahs family. We are not selected by random chance, and the casting of lots is akin to divination, something Yahowah says is an abomination. But the problem is actually much bigger than that. Since the crux of Pauls argument continues to be an artificial, and indeed contrived, contrast between the Law and the promise made to Abraham, selecting a word for heir based upon nomos, defeats the purpose and demonstrates a complete disregard for the intelligence of his audience. The KJV managed to turn a simple, albeit flawed, statement into a question: And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise. Jerome was a smart fellow, so Im convinced that he recognized that Paul had just contradicted himself. LV: And if you are Christi, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise. There is nothing akin to And now that you belong to in the Greek text, so why is it in the NLT: And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to you. There is also no justification for you, the, true, children, of, you, are, his, and, Gods, to, (the second) Abraham, belongs, to, or you. At this point, the second codicil of Pauline Doctrine is in the books. Combined with Shauwls first plank, it is presented here for your evaluation. Know that because no man is vindicated or justified by means of the assigned tasks, accomplishments, and activities (and by observing the edicts)

of the Torah if not through faith in Christon Iesoun. And we in Christon Iesoun believe in order to be saved out of faith in the Christon, and not out of observing the Torah, because out of doing what the Torah says, no aspect of flesh is judged innocent. (2:16) But if you are trying to find salvation in Christ, but are found to be sinning (by observing the Torah), shouldnt we be anxious that Christ serves (the Torahs) sinful nature, and not my desire for the possibility of him advocating a different way? (2:17) Because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled, if this home and household is rebuilt anew, I myself demonstrate, establish, and recommend Torah-lessness and transgression. (2:18) For then by the Torahs law I actually died and was separated. As a result of God I was actually crucified with Christo so I might live. (2:19) But now I no longer live. Now I am alive in Christis. That is because now, at the present, my life is lived in the flesh by believing that God and Christou love me, and also surrendered and delivered himself for my sake. (2:20) Do not reject the Charis/Grace of God, because if righteousness comes by way of the Torah, the possibility exists that Christos died and was separated for no reason and without any purpose. (2:21) O ignorant and irrational Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you? Iesous Christos, who accordingly, before your eyes was described and predicted in writing to be affixed to an upright pillar. (3:1) This alone I wish to learn: from out of your observance of the Torah did you acquire the Spirit, or out of listening to that which can be believed? (3:2) You are ignorant and irrational in this way. Having begun with the Spirit, are you now completed and established in the flesh? (3:3) Did you undergo such a great experience for no purpose? If indeed, it really was without result. (3:4) Consequently, does the One who provides the Spirit to you all, and who brings about power and ability in yourselves do so from observing the Torah or from hearing and believing? (3:5) In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result of faith, we can come to exist as Abrahams children. (3:7) And then the Written Scripture, foreseeing that out of faith, people from different races and places would be put right and become upright with God, the good news was announced ahead of time to Abraham, saying that in you all races will be blessed. (3:8) As a result, out of faith and belief we are blessed together with the faithful and believing Abraham. (3:9) For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it. (3:10) But with that Law,

no one is vindicated or justified alongside God, because it is clearly evident: The upright and just live out of faith. (3:11) The Law exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, The one who performs them lives by them. (3:12) Christos redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, coming to exist as a curse for our sake, because it is written: Accursed is everyone who is hanging upon wood. (3:13) As a result, with reference to the people from different races and places, the beneficial word of Abraham, came to exist in Christo Iesou in order to experience the beneficial word of the Spirit through faith. (3:14) Brothers, according to mans way of speaking, man validates an agreement between parties; no one rejects it or adds to that which is arranged and prescribed. (3:15) But to Abraham were said these announced promises and to his seed. And it does not say seeds, as in the manner of upon many, but to the contrary upon one, and your seed, who exists as Christos. (3:16) But this I say, a covenant agreement between parties was established and validated in advance by God. After four-hundred and thirty years, having become the Torah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the announced promise. (3:17) Because if inheritance comes out of the Torah, it is no longer from a promise, but God provided Grace to Abraham by an announced messenger and by way of a promise. (3:18) Why therefore this Law? It was until the seed who was promised came, the arranged Messenger in the person and power of a mediator. (3:19) But now the mediator does not exist as an identical representation of one, but God exists as one. (3:20) Indeed, the Torah cannot be contrary to the promise of the consent agreement. For if the Torah produced the power to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous. (3:21) To the contrary, Scripture completely shuts the door on inheritance, imprisoning everything under the auspices of error and evil in order that the promised agreement from the faith of Iesou Christou can be given by believing. (3:22) But before the arrival of the faith, under the Law, we were held in custody, restricted and trapped until the inevitable future arrival of the faith was revealed. (3:23) As a result, the Law came to exist as our taskmaster until Christon so that by means of the faith we could be acquitted). (3:24) But now that the faith has come, we no longer exist under a taskmaster. (3:25) For every son of God exists by way of the faith in Christo Iesou. (3:26) Because as many as are cleansed and immersed into Christon, Christon has clothed you. (3:27) No longer Ioudaios nor Greek, no longer slave nor free, no longer male and female, because you all exist as one in Christo Iesou. (3:28) But if you all Christou, then you exist as Abrahams seed with respect to the promised and announced heirs. (3:29)

While there have been a few isolated moments of clarity, confusion has been more prevalent. While we have read things pertaining to our salvation which have not been totally misleading, most of what we have read has been inaccurate. In order to set all of this in perspective, based upon my understanding of Yahowahs nature, His purpose and plan as articulated by Yahowsha and by Yahowah in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, here is how I would categorize the first seventy-four Galatians verses. Irrelevant: 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.18, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15. (7 @ 8%) Accurate: 0. (0 @ 0%) Insufficient: 1.4, 1.5, 1.9, 1.11. (5 @ 6%) Half Truth: 2.20, 3.1, 3.6, 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26. (7 @ 8%) Confusion over which Law: 0. (0 @ 0%) Inaccurate: 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 1.8, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28. (50 @ 61%) Unintelligible: 1.7, 1.10, 2.7, 2.12, 2.14, 2.18, 2.19, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.29. (14 @ 17%) (Note: some verses were listed in two classifications.) Therefore, not one of the seventy-four passages presented in the first half of Galatians represent a completely accurate depiction of salvation. And just 8% were partly accurate, but not necessarily sufficient to advance our understanding. So it would be fair to say that nothing that Paul has written thus far in Galatians has been helpful. While 8% of all verses were unrelated to our salvation, thats only a problem in that Paul has been overly concerned about promoting himself, and on establishing his unassailable credentials as an Apostle. And while a partially accurate verse is acceptable in a letter, it isnt in Scripture, and there are seven of them in the first half of Galatians. Prior to having scrutinized Pauls every word, I was inclined to believe that most of the difficult issues associated with Galatians were the result of an inadequate resolution between the Towrah and Rabbinical Law. But in the context of this letter there has been no doubt that Shauwls intent has been to dissolve and dismantle the Torah. He has left no doubt in this regard. I was surprised to find that nearly one out of every six sentences in Galatians was unintelligible. Either the words in the text were insufficient to register a cogent thought, or the point being made was incomprehensible 16% of the time.

But the fact that 50 of the 74 passages, almost two out of every three verses, fully 61% are wrong (that is to say they are in conflict with Yahowahs Word and Yahowshas testimony), is devastating to Pauls credibility and to the veracity of his epistle. And when it comes to evaluating the credibility of a letter considered to be Scripture by billions, we must also add incomprehensible and insufficient to this total, increasing that which is unintelligible to an astounding 19 of 74 verses, over 20% of the total. But in this case we cannot pin the blame on scribal error or careless transmission. There is no older or more reliable Greek manuscripts than Papyrus 46, in which we find copies of Pauls epistles, including Galatians. Recovered alongside the oldest manuscript copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts in Papyrus 45, both codices are highly respected and are the product of careful and professional scribes. The most comprehensive dating evaluation concluded that P46 was scribed as early as 85CE, with the most pessimistic evaluations placing it in the early second century. Moreover, Papyrus 46 is remarkably consistent with modern manuscripts which are based upon majority texts. At least apart from the absence of placeholders in manuscripts such as the Nestle-Aland, Papyrus 46 corresponds to the NA27 almost 95% of the time. So, if we cannot trust the textual accuracy of Galatians, the rest of the New Testament becomes highly suspect. Based upon the evidence before us, and recognizing that we are still in the midst of Pauls letter, we are in a position to make some preliminary conclusions about the epistle to the Galatians. It would be fair to say that nothing Paul has written in Galatians has been completely accurate or useful, and thus it has added nothing to our understanding of God or His plan of salvation. But over three quarters (78%) of what we have read has been inaccurate or incomprehensible. And the remaining is either irrelevant or too easily twisted to be of any value. But to be fair, Galatians is widely considered to be Pauls worst letter. (Although I dont think that is so. There are others which are worse.) So if it were not for the fact that it has been used to say that we should no longer observe the Torah, but instead believe this mans Gospel of Grace, it probably would have vanished along with Pauls letter to the Laodiceans. If only LE: YY 01-08-2013