193Questioning Paul
Liars Lie
…Contradicting God
6
Thanatoo Nomo | Killing the Torah
Really?...
Although the words Paulos selected, taken on their own merits, provide convincing proof that the scheme he was proposing was nefarious, since the accusation that I have leveled against him, if true, would make him the most revolting man in human history, I would like to share something germane from this same man’s sixth letter, the one he wrote to the Romans.
This particular discussion begins in clever fashion, albeit in an arrogant and condescending manner. It deploys the logical fallacy known as the straw man. Before I share it, it is important that you know that the Towrah provides very few instructions regarding marriage. It reveals that men and women become one in marriage and that adultery is highly inadvisable – not in the sense of having more than one wife, but instead, God does not want us to be unreliable. It speaks against incest, homosexuality, and bestiality.
There is some guidance regarding a woman’s menstrual period and on showing compassion to enslaved women. And as for divorce, it is as simple as having the man hand his estranged wife a certificate and asking her to leave. The lone rule regarding divorce says that if the woman remarries and divorces again, the first husband cannot have her back. Beyond this, there is a non-binding recommendation on how a man can assist his brother’s 194widow in the case of a childless marriage.
Against this backdrop, Sha’uwl | Paul opined…
“Or alternatively (e), are you presently ignorant (agnoeo) brothers (adelphos)? Knowing and understanding (ginosko) then (gar) the Torah (nomon), I say (laleo) that (hoti) the Torah (nomos) is like a lord and master, ruling over (kyrieuo) the man (anthropos) for (epi) however long and to whatever degree that (hosos chronos) he lives (zao).” (Romans 7:1)
The Romans were hardly ignorant, but since they knew very little about the Torah, they were susceptible to what may be one of the most twisted and disingenuous arguments ever perpetrated. Here, Paul is claiming that he is an expert on the Torah, telling the Romans that he “knows and understands it.” But rather than revealing what it actually says, Paul speaks of the Torah being akin to a “Lord and Master.”
His straw man, however, bears no correlation with the truth. There is no correlation between Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching and Guidance and the mannerisms of Satan, who is the Lord. Moreover, the Towrah emancipates the Children of the Covenant from slavery, from being oppressed by human religious and political institutions. And as a liberating document from our Heavenly Father, it does not function as a “lord.” Therefore, Paul’s premise is invalid. Any conclusion drawn from a false premise is worthless. Had this been a debate, Paul has already lost.
Undaunted by the truth, Sha’uwl | Paul continued to reveal why Yahowah called him “the Plague of Death.”
“To explain (gar), under the male (huphadros – subject to a man’s authority), a woman (gyne) to (to) a living (zao) man (andri) is bound, restricted and imprisoned (deo – tied, compelled, and forced, under his authority) in the Torah (nomo).
195But (de) if (ean) the man (o aner) should die (apothnesko), it provides release (katageomai – it makes inoperative, it abolishes and invalidates this, discharging her) from (apo) the Torah (tou nomou) of the (tou) man (andros).” (7:2)
Ironically, it is Paul’s letters which subject women to men. The Torah says no such thing. So this, the preamble of Paul’s argument, is not only untrue, he knows that it is invalid. Therefore, Paul was lying through his teeth when he set up this argument to explain how he claims we have been released from the “old written system” “of the Torah.” But by considering his overture, we are witnessing just how devious and convoluted a misguided man’s arguments can be.
“As a result then (ara), accordingly (oun) with the man living (zao tou andros), an adulteress (moichalis) she will be considered (chrematizo – based upon what God makes known and instructed) if (ean) she may come to be (ginomai) with another man (heteros andri).
But (de) if (ean) the man (o aner) might die (apothnesko), she is (estin) free (eleutheros – no longer a slave) from (apo) the Torah (tou nomou), her (auten) not being (me einai) an adulteress (moichalis) by being with (ginomai) another (etero) man (andri).” (7:3)
Here again, after mischaracterizing the Torah, Paul is negating reason. The woman’s relationship to the Torah is unchanged by her husband’s death. If I were to die, for example, while my wife would be free of me, she would not be released from the American judicial system. The Constitution of the United States is unaltered by my demise, as would be my widow’s rights under it.
The only reason that the widow would not be considered an adulteress for being with another man is that she is no longer married. Her changed status is irrespective of the Torah. Paul is being illogical.
196He is also pandering to the Romans…
“So as a result (hoste), brothers (adelphos) of mine (mou), also (kai) you all (umeis) were put to death (thanatoo – you were all executed, made to die and deprived of life, even exterminated, ceasing to exist) in the (to) Torah (nomo) by way of (dia – through) the body (tou soma – the physical being) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement) into (eis) you all (umas) become (ginomai) of another (etero), to the (to) dead (nekros) having been awakened and arising (egeiromai – being aroused and raised to life) in order to (hina) bear fruit (karpophoreo) of the (to) God (ΘὨ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God).” (7:4)
This is a leap out of irrational ignorance into mind-numbing stupidity. There is no correlation between the widow’s husband dying and the Romans being put to death. And while Romans murdered hundreds of thousands of Torah-observant Jews, very few Romans were killed because of the Torah – and none in Paul’s audience. Yahowsha’s body, serving as the Passover Lamb, upheld and affirmed the Towrah so that we might live. Therefore, to suggest that the fulfillment of Passover equates to the death of the Torah is a non sequitur.
“For (gar) when (ote) we were (emen) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx), the suffering and misfortune (pathema – the evil afflictions and uncontrollable impulses and sexual desires) of being evil, offensive, and errant (hamartia – of being misled and of being sinful, doing wrong) was a result of (dia – by, through, and on account of) the (tou) Torah (nomou) operating and functioning (energeo – bringing about and producing) in (en) our (emon) bodies (melos – members) to (eis) bear the fruit (karpophoreo) of (to) death (thanatos – the plague, pestilence, and pandemic disease associated with dying and punishment).” (7:5)
197Paul equates Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching and Guidance to the “flesh” because he was overtly opposed to the sign of the Covenant which is circumcision. In addition, Sha’uwl was also appealing to the Roman affinity for all things Greek, especially Gnosticism, whereby the flesh is seen as inferior (unless it is Greek).
So by the “flesh,” Paul means “evil” – something he admits by calling the Torah a source of “pathema – suffering, misfortune, and evil afflictions.” He even goes so far as to say that as a result of the Torah, “hamartia – that which is evil, offensive, and errant” is brought about in us. In other words, according to Paul: the Torah is the source of all evil.
Forgetting for a moment that the opposite is true, where is the logic which connects the death of a woman’s husband to this absurd mischaracterization of Yahowah’s Torah? And how is it that God’s teaching regarding what is good and bad, suddenly becomes the source for bringing about that which is bad? That is like saying that a documentary film on the hazards of using illicit drugs is responsible for drug abuse.
Moreover, if you think being Towrahless makes a person good, you might want to look around and check out the current state of man.
Lastly, since Yahowsha’s body, representing the Passover Lamb, opened the doorway to life, something which was affirmed and celebrated during Firstborn Children, it ought not be equated with death.
“But (de) now at the present time (nyni – at this very moment), we have been released and removed from (katageomai apo – we have made inoperative, abolished, and invalidated, having been discharged from the uselessness of) the Torah (tou nomou), having died (apothnesko) in (en) that which (o) inappropriately hindered and restrained us, holding us down (katecho – 198possessed and controlled us, holding us back) in order to (hoste – for the purpose and so as to) enslave us (douleuo emas – subjecting us to servitude, slavery, and forced obedience), to (en – in or with) different and completely new (kainotes – extraordinarily recent, unused, unprecedented, uncommon, and unheard) of spirit (pneuma) and not (kai ou) the old, inferior, obsolete, and former age and way of (palaiotes – the antiquated and arcane system, the ancient and worn out state of affairs of) that which was written (gramma – the written document).” (7:6)
This is so incongruous it staggers the mind to realize that billions of souls have been beguiled by Paul’s rubbish. There is absolutely no connection between the death of a woman’s husband and her being released from the Torah. And there is no correlation between that hypothetical death and either the Torah dying or us being released from it.
I would be surprised if there was a single individual in Paul’s audience who had chosen to be bound to the Torah, which means he could not be released from it – nor would he want to be. The choice to accept or reject the Torah, and its promises and provisions, is ours alone. Yahowah does not impose His Teaching and Guidance, or its benefits derived from it, upon us.
According to God, His Torah liberates us, freeing us from slavery, from death, and from judgment. But not according to Paul. His garbled and concocted version of the Torah hinders and enslaves.
Paul’s answer is to reject the “palaiotes gramma – the old and obsolete way which was written” with a “kainotes pneuma – a completely different and recent spirit.” But at least now we have come face to face with Paul admitting that my interpretation of his opening statement in Galatians was correct. The “Old System” that he was calling “poneros – corrupt and harmful” was none other than the 199Torah.
Based upon his incessant use of Torah in this argument, we are left with no other viable alternative. Moreover, for those who would claim that Paul was assailing the Oral Law of the rabbis, the Talmud, think again. Paul’s enemy was the “gramma – written” “nomos – Torah.” And let’s never lose sight of the fact that, in Galatians 3:10, a statement we considered in a previous chapter, Paul, himself, translates the Hebrew word “towrah” using the Greek term “nomou.”
Of course, by calling the Torah a “palaiotes – an old, inferior, obsolete, antiquated, and arcane system of a previous age,” Paul is once again projecting a message which is in complete and irreconcilable conflict with Yahowsha’s testimony regarding Yahowah’s Towrah. One is not speaking for the other. Sha’uwl is contradicting Yahowsha’ on behalf of a “kainotes pneuma – a completely different and recent, unprecedented and unheard of spirit.” And that means that the spirit Paul is advocating cannot be Yahowah’s Spirit, the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” of the Towrah.
Therefore, what spirit do you suppose Paul is advocating? Do you know of a spirit adversarial to Yahowah who is also opposed to His Towrah? I know of him and I suspect you do as well. So all I can say is that I’m glad to have this wicked man and his demonic spirit out of my life. Christians, you can have them.
As ignorant and irrational as this argument has been thus far, it is about to get ludicrous – ridiculous to the point of comical.
“What (ti), therefore (oun), shall we say (eroumen)? The Torah (o nomos) is misleading, errant, and offensive (hamartia – is evil, sinful, and wrong)? If only it were not so (me ginomai – may it not be or I wish it was not true (in the aorist, this state exists without regard to any 200process or plan, in the middle voice the subject, which would be Paul as the speaker, is acting on his own initiative, and with the optative mood, the implied subject is conveying his personal wishes and desires regarding a mere possibility)).
Nevertheless (alla – but however, making an emphatic and certain contrast), I would not have actually known (ouk ginosko – I would not be familiar with or recognize (aorist active indicative)) that which is evil, sinful, and wrong (hamartia – that which is misleading, errant, and offensive) if not (ei me) through (dia – by) the Torah (nomou).
For (gar – because) also (te – in addition to this), lust and craving (epithymia – strong impulses and desires), I would not have been aware of (ouk oida – I would not have been able to recognize (pluperfect active indicative)) if not (ei me) for the (o) Torah (nomou) saying (lego), ‘You will not have strong desires (ouk epithymeo – you will not long, lust, or crave, you will not be sexually perverted or licentious (future active indicative)).’” (7:7)
If this had not beguiled billions of souls, tearing them away from Yahowah and handing them over to worship Satan, I would be laughing, not vomiting. How is it that a notion so absurd became the foundation of a religion that influences so many?
Since Yahowah is the author of the Towrah, Paul is saying that God and His testimony are “hamartia – misleading, errant, and offensive.” And yet at the same time, he wants you to believe that this same God is not only speaking through him, but that He has authorized him to vilify Him. Beyond this, he wants us to believe what he has to say about the God who has deliberately misled everyone thus far. It is little wonder faith and religion are synonymous. This is }*@#)$%^\{! | Bull Excrement!
The God Paul claims enslaved and killed everyone, 201now under Paul’s stewardship, is suddenly transformed as a new and different spirit providing freedom and life. And the means to Pauline salvation is by disassociating everyone from God’s foundational thesis. Moreover, the book which discourages us from going astray and being evil is actually the source of evil. Really?
The basis of his argument is as follows: 1) you are ignorant, 2) Paul is brilliant, 3) he says the Torah acts like a Lord, 3) women are under men, 4) the Torah binds, restricts, and imprisons women to men, 5) when a man dies a woman is released from the inoperative Torah, 6) as a result, the woman is no longer an adulteress, 7) when the widow goes to be with another man she is no longer a slave to the Torah, 8) as a result, you were put to death by the Torah, 9) the body of Christou caused you and the Torah to die, 10) you came to another by dying, 11) by being awakened you bear the fruit of Paul’s god, 12) for then in the flesh you suffer evil afflictions and uncontrollable urges, 13) you are evil, offensive and wrong because the Torah is operating within you producing the fruit of death, 14) but now, you have been released from the invalidated Torah, 15) so you have died, 16) you were inappropriately hindered and held down by the Torah, 17) so the Torah’s purpose was to enslave you, 18) but you have been released into the care of a different and completely new spirit, 19) such that you have been freed from the old, obsolete, and inferior way which was written in the Torah, 20) therefore, we should say that the Torah is misleading, evil, and wrong, 21) even though we don’t want to say this, 22) nonetheless, Paul would not have known that he was evil if it had not been for the Torah, 23) so therefore, the Torah is responsible for Paul’s lustful cravings, coveting, and sexual perversions, 24) it also killed him, but he is not dead. Got it?
On what planet does any of this make sense? I do not suppose that with such sublime rhetoric anyone is going to 202confuse Paul with Plato anytime soon.
“But now (de) the opportunity, excuse, and pretext (aphorme – the basis and starting point of the favorable environment and the opportune circumstance) to grasp hold of and experience (lambano – to select and be exploited by) that which is evil, sinful, and wrong (hamartia – that which is misleading, errant, and offensive) through (dia) the commandment (entole – the regulation) it was brought about thoroughly (katergazomai – it was performed, effected, committed, accomplished, and worked) in (en) me (emoi), including every and all (pasan) deep desire and longing (epithymia – lust and craving, uncontrollable urges, sexual perversion, and licentiousness).
For indeed (gar – because certainly), without (choris – apart from, by itself, or separately from) the Torah (nomou), that which is misleading, errant, and offensive (hamartia – that which is evil, sinful, and wrong, even guilt and the consequence of sin) is dead and no longer an issue (nekros – is lifeless and has departed, and thus is useless, futile, ineffective, and powerless).” (7:8)
Beyond the fact that there are no “Commandments,” but instead “Three Statements and Seven Instructions,” not one of them says: “You will not lust, crave, desire, long, or have uncontrollable urges.” There is none which speaks of restraining a person’s capacity to engage in “sexual perversions” or “licentiousness,” either. Apart from the fact that passion and promiscuity are not addressed, not one of the Ten Statements was written in the future tense. They were scribed in the imperfect conjugation, which speaks of ongoing and habitual behavior without reference to time. Additionally, reasonable people realize that a document which discourages harmful behaviors, does not facilitate them.
Also relevant, adultery, murder, lying, and stealing 203don’t go away by discarding the book which opposes these things. If anything, if everyone ignored the Torah, there would be more adverse behavior, not less. Moral individuals the world over have always known that adultery, murder, lying, and stealing are wrong.
However, since Paul has been fixated on his lustful urges, since he never married, and since the only person he admits to actually loving was a young man named Timothy, it’s hard to ignore the possibility that he was a homosexual, especially now that he has said that his sexual urges were not only uncontrollable, but that he was motivated to do what the Torah disapproves. So I suspect that we are witnessing yet another confession. And as usual, rather than blaming himself for his licentiousness, Paul is blaming God. He is inferring that God made him a pervert.
As an interesting aside, Yahowah does not condemn homosexuality in His Towrah – only incest, pedophilia, rape, and bestiality. As we will discover in future books, the passages which infer otherwise are errantly translated. That is not to say that many homosexuals are not tormented by their sexual orientation and the effect it has on their lives and family. They are, as was Paul.
Speaking of Paul’s obvious sexual conflict, a few chapters hence we will discover that through His prophetic warning against Sha’uwl, Yahowah exposed Paul’s fascination with male genitalia. It is almost as if God read Paul’s letters before commenting upon them – and that He came to the same conclusion.
Mind you, so long as he was not a rapist, incestuous, or a pedophile, as was the case with Muhammad, Sha’uwl’s sexual orientation is irrelevant up to a point. It becomes fair game, however, when he denounces what he, himself, practices, whether that be homosexuality or promiscuity. Beyond this, since Paul is fast becoming a 204model for the man known as the “Antichrist,” it is relevant to note that he, too, will be gay.
And on the subject of gaiety, what are we to make of the connection between Paul’s uncontrollable lusts and the Charities, known as the Gratia or Graces in Rome? After all, these naked beauties were the pagan embodiment of lasciviousness.
The indulgent and unrestrained one’s fixation on death continues, along with his animosity toward God’s Towrah...
“So then (de – therefore) I (ego) was living (zao – was alive) apart from and without (choris – disassociated from and independent of, separated from and devoid of any relationship with) the Torah (nomou). But (de) once (pote – at the point that) having happened upon (erchomai – come to) the commandment (tes entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept), the evil sin (hamartia – errant wrongdoing, being misleading and offensive) sprung to life again (anazao – became alive again, was revived, started anew, functioning and operating once more). (7:9)
They say that confession is good for the soul. But methinks this isn’t helping. Paul has again admitted that “evil and sin are all thriving within him, having sprung to life.” He is “operationally offensive and functionally errant.”
Now if we are to believe Paul, a mythical commandment, saying, “Thou wilt not be passionate, indulgent, lustful, or sexually perverted,” killed him.
“So then (de – therefore), I (ego) died (apothnesko – ceased to exist) when (kai) was found (heuriskomai – was discovered and experienced) in me (moi) the commandment (e entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) with reference to (e eis) living (zoe – 205how to live life), this (aute) brought (eis) death (thanatos). (7:10)
If only.
“For indeed (gar), this evil sin (e hamartia – this means to be mistaken and to mislead, this offensive wrongdoing, this moral consequence, and the guilt) took hold of this opportunity (aphorme lambano – ceased this pretext to grab hold of and exploit) through (dia – on account of) the commandment (e entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) to thoroughly deceive and completely beguile me (exapatao me – to systematically entice and utterly delude me, unscrupulously and methodically cheating me), and so (kai) through it (dia autes), it killed (apoktenno – deprived me of life). (7:11)
Then proving that he was wholly beguiling and completely delusional, the unscrupulous and illogical one, after systematically attacking the enslaving and murderous Torah and its evil and deadly commandment, wrote...
“So as a result (hoste) this (o) affirms (men – shows and reveals) the Torah (nomos) is holy (hagios – sacred, dedicated, and consecrated) and also (kai) the commandment (e entole – the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) is worthy of veneration (hagion – sacred, holy, and sincere), also (kai) good (agathos – valuable and generous).” (Romans 7:1-12)
If nothing else, by praising what he has invested the previous 11 statements destroying, the religious can now assert with reckless abandon that Paul actually supports the Towrah. If that is not enough to make your head spin and stomach queasy, Paul, after contradicting God, is now contradicting himself.
Sadly, this all reminds me of the Qur’an where, after Allah tells us that there should be no compulsion in 206religion, he orders Muslims to kill all non-Muslims in addition to any Muslim who rejects the Islamic religion.
But perhaps even in the swirling tornadic winds of circular reasoning, there is an explanation for Paul’s conclusion, whereby he negated his own ridiculous rant. Maybe it was good from his perspective that the Torah killed him. That way he could present himself rising from the dead to serve as mankind’s savior, especially now that the Torah had schooled him in all manner of unscrupulous methods and beguiling deceit. And of the latter, he was now lord and master.
There has always been an unspoken and ignoble aspect of Christianity that Romans 7 seems to foster. The old god, the god of the old system, died, which is why his witness was relegated to an Old Testament and why his words are no longer considered relevant. Laying the foundation for this myth, Paul has the husband, which is a metaphor Yahowah applies to Himself in relation to both Yisra’el and the Covenant, dying. This thereby frees believers from the deceased deity and his arcane methods. Christians will of course deny that their religion killed God, but there is no denying that they treat Him as if He were dead. From the Christian perspective, Yahowah was replaced by “Jesus Christ.” And in the process, a real and rewarding relationship with God devolved into swimming in the cesspool of one man’s perverted imagination.
Returning to Paul’s initial diatribe, when last we were in Galatians, we found:
“Paulos (Paulos), an apostle (apostolos), not (ouk) from (apo) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the means of (dia) man (anthropou), but to the contrary 207(alla) on behalf of (dia) Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ) and (kai) Theos | God (ΘΥ), Patera | Father (ΠΡΑ) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened (egeiromai) him (autos) out of (ek) a lifeless corpse (nekros), (Galatians 1:1) and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers (adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias), (Galatians 1:2) Grace (charis) to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene) from (apo) Theos | God (ΘΥ), Father (pater) of us (emon) and (kai) Kurios | Lord (ΚΥ), Iesou (ΙΗΥ) Christou (ΧΡΥ), (Galatians 1:3) the one (tou) having given (didomi) himself (heautou) on account of (peri) the (ton) sins (hamartia) of us (emon), so that (hopos) he might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos) which (tou) had been in place (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful trash, indeed pornography (poneros) in opposition to (kata) the desire and will (to thelema) of the (tou) Theos | God (ΘΥ) and (kai) Paters | Father (ΠΡΣ) of us (ego),…” (Galatians 1:4)
Sha’uwl’s long and deeply troubling initial sentence concludes with the following clause:
“…to whom (o) the assessment of the brilliant splendor (e doxa – the opinion regarding the glorious radiance, the view or perspective on the appearance of the shining light, the estimation of amazing greatness, and as a characterization of a manifestation of god’s reputation, glorified and dignified) by means of (eis – to, on behalf of, and with reference to) the old and the new systems (tous aionas ton aionon – the past and present circumstances), Amen, let it be so (amane – verily and surely, this is indeed as it ought to be, also Amen, the name of the Egyptian sun god).” (Galatians 1:5)
This time with aionos, without a verb in sight, and now in the plural form, tous aionas ton aionon becomes “the old and the new systems.” We are witnessing the birth of the 208“Old” and “New Testaments.”
It should be noted that Paul, in his second of three conflicting accounts on what he saw and heard on the road to Damascus, in Acts 22:11, used doxa, which was translated here as an “assessment of the brilliant splendor.” But since by comparing Acts 26:14 with 2 Corinthians 12:7 in a previous chapter, we know that the encounter was with Satan, we are compelled to consider doxa’s | glorified and dignified association with the Adversary.
Searching Strong’s Lexicon we learn that its primary connotation is “to express an opinion, to present one’s own view or estimate regarding someone or something.” It is from dokeo, meaning “to be of the opinion and to repute,” thereby saying: “it seems and is pleasing to me to question and to suppose.” The Complete Word Study Dictionary concurs, writing that doxa is “to think or suppose, to be of the opinion that something is so.”
It is, therefore, Paulos’ assessment that Satan is Lord. He sees him as brilliant, radiant, and beautiful. It is how the Adversary sees himself, so that is reassuring and convenient. While it is their self-assessment, and they would be wrong, it is instructive for us to be aware of it.
They were now a team, with one goading the other. The Master had his Apostle place him on the pedestal he craved. The Lord, in Paulos’ estimation was a manifestation of Theos | God. He was glorious. And it would be by transitioning from the Old System to the New System that Sha’uwl’s Lord would be empowered. He even concluded his opening statement with the name of the god of Egypt, Amen, saying: “Let it be so....”
Sha’uwl has undermined Yahowsha’ while equating His Lord, Satan, to a “messenger of light.” He would say the same thing of Satan in 2 Corinthians 11:14. Even his depictions of the “flashing light” he experienced on the road to Damascus, as chronicled in Acts 9, 22, and 26, are 209identical to Yahowsha’s depiction of Satan’s fall from heaven as recorded in Luke 10:18-19 – passages which we will analyze and compare in due time.
The Greek word amane is a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘aman, meaning “trustworthy and reliable.” Capitalized as “Amen,” it becomes a transliteration of the name of the Egyptian sun god: Amen Ra. And as such, Amen is the name of the god to whom Christians pray when they say, “in god’s name we pray, Amen.” So, based upon its position at the end of this clause, and its reemergence in Sha’uwl’s signoff at the end of this letter, there would be no justification for translating the meaning of the word, strongly suggesting that the inappropriate transliteration was intended.
It is interesting in this regard to note that among many of the obelisks around Rome, including one now at the center of the Vatican, their bases are inscribed with testimonials to the sun. In fact, one in front of St. John’s Basilica still has the inscription “The Name of our God is Amen.” Such obelisks were then sanctified by Christian clerics and became church steeples replete with crosses.
Bringing this to a conclusion, the opening sentence of Paulos’ first letter concludes as follows according to the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “to whom the splendor into the ages of the ages amen.” And so as we probe the King James and Vulgate, it appears obvious that they wanted us to believe that the Egyptian sun god, Amen Ra, was eternal and glorious. The KJV reads: “To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” The LV says: “To him is glory forever and ever. Amen.”
But they were not alone. The NLT conveys the same message: “All glory to God forever and ever! Amen.” The only difference between them is that the NLT arbitrarily added “God,” and thereby associated this title with “Amen.”
210It didn’t take Paulos very long to reveal whose side he was on. This was not an auspicious beginning.
What follows affirms that Paul’s preaching had failed. The moment he had left town, the Galatians ignored what he had told them. Accentuating the problem, this is just the second sentence of his first letter.
“I marvel (thaumazo – I am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised) that (hoti – namely) in this way (houto – in this manner) quickly (tacheos – suddenly in haste) you change, desert, and depart, becoming disloyal apostates (metatithemai – you are waylaid, abandoning your loyalty, you are transposed, transferred to another, becoming traitors (in the present tense this is the current condition, in the middle voice they have done this to themselves under their own volition, and in the indicative mood the writer is revealing that this was actually occurring)) away from (apo) your (sou) calling in the name of (kaleo en – summons in reference to the name) Charis (Charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which “Grace” is derived) to (eis) a different (heteros – another) healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelion – a compound of eu meaning beneficial, healing, and prosperous and aggelos, which is messenger and sometimes message),…” (Galatians 1:6)
It is hard to imagine this getting worse, but that may be the case. There are five serious problems associated with the opening portion of Paulos’ second sentence.
First, God’s spokesmen know, they do not “wonder.” God’s prophets are aware of what is going to happen, they 211are not “surprised.”
Second, the benefits of Yahowah’s teaching and guidance endure. Those exposed to His Towrah, those who understand the benefits of His Covenant, those who act upon Yahowah’s guidance do not go astray. They are transformed by His Instructions, and not for a moment, but forever.
Third, by selecting metatithemai, Paulos is speaking of a mutiny. He is criticizing the Galatians because they have all turned on him. This has become personal. The Galatians’ disdain was being directed at Paulos, himself. And because he saw himself as the founder of a new religion, he considered these traitors to be apostates.
Fourth, following kaleo, Paulos has now affirmed that he was using Charis as a name. And while these girls were alluring, they were mythological. God does not call us to false gods, even when they are cute.
And fifth, by saying that the Galatians had embraced a “different” healing message and messenger, what are we to make of Paul and his competition? Was he fighting against Yahowsha’, and was his foe the Torah?
Having studied Sha’uwl’s initial letters, I have come to the conclusion that he never provided his audience with a sufficient number of appropriate Towrah references for them to understand God’s plan of salvation. His style was to issue a wide range of unsupported opinions under the banner: “But I say….” So rather than deliver the information they would need to know Yahowah, and the reasons to trust Him, Sha’uwl asked the faithful “to believe him.” He even encouraged them to “imitate” him.
The other reason that Paul had so much trouble with his first three assemblies, the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, is that his message was so radically different from Yahowah’s, Yahowsha’s, and the disciples. And 212since the overwhelming preponderance of the first people to capitalize upon God’s teaching were Yahuwdym (more commonly known as Jews), they not only knew the Towrah, they had come to recognize Yahowsha’ through the Towrah. And they realized that Sha’uwl lacked the authorization to annul any part of it.
So it became an issue of credibility. They could trust Yahowah or believe Paul. And initially, based upon the evidence contained in the five epistles to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, the people who actually met with Paul, who listened to his preaching, overwhelmingly chose God over Paulos. In fact, considering Paul’s desperate admission to Timothy, for a while all of Asia rejected Paul: “You know this, that all those in Asia have turned away from me....” (2 Timothy 1:15). What did they recognize that Christians are ignoring today?
Galatians 1:6 is enlightening in this regard. It states that there were two competing “euangelion – healing messengers and beneficial messages.” Obviously, the messenger and message he was touting was himself and his preaching. And as we make our way through his initial letter, we will come to realize that he was not being received very well. But then who was or were his competitors?
Our options are Yahowah and His Towrah, Yahowsha’ and that same Towrah, or one or more of the disciples, namely Shim’own Kephas | Peter, Yahowchanan | John, or Ya’aqob | James, but their message was the same as Yahowah’s. And that leaves only one potential competitor: God. Perhaps that is why Paulos spoke of his preference, that of “their calling in the name of Grace,” as being superior to being called in Yahowah’s name. The Gratia were more attractive, at least from Paul’s perspective.
213One of the reasons our options are so constrained is because the challenger was said to be wielding a different “euangelion – healing messenger and beneficial message.” Therefore, Paulos’ foe could be neither Judaism nor Rome. At this place and time, Rome and the Rabbis were beginning a war with one another and were the antithesis of healing or beneficial. Furthermore, in his subsequent letters and in Acts, Paul will speak glowingly about both Judaism and Rome, eliminating them as adversarial candidates. Reinforcing this conclusion, Yahowsha’ denounced Judaism and was convicted and tortured by Rome, so they cannot be considered beneficial or healing from this perspective.
Even though the answer is obvious, the reason that it is not seen as such is because of Paul’s approach. By claiming to speak on behalf of the individual and message he is opposing and against the spirit he is promoting, to discover the truth, a person has to compare God’s testimony to Paul’s. But by disparaging Yahowah’s revelation and by ignoring Yahowsha’s testimony, those who are swayed by Paul are predisposed to discard this evidence against him. So long as the audience remains religious, operating in the realm of faith, Paul’s scheme prevails. To understand who is opposing whom, we have to be willing to examine the evidence and process it judgmentally.
In reality, Paul defined his foe in the first sentence of his first letter. He wrote that we were being plucked away from the counterproductive and laborious Old System, more accurately known as the Towrah. If it were not his enemy, poneros would not have been used to demean it. So now in the second sentence, Paulos is distinguishing his approach from God’s. And he is showing his bewilderment and frustration that those he spoke to in Galatia prefer that old God to his new plan.
Had it not been for two clever tricks, the obvious 214answer would have become apparent to most everyone centuries ago. The first of these is that, by pretending to speak for God, by pretending to be a brother, Sha’uwl became the wolf in sheep’s clothing. He was seen for other than what he was. He was accepted and viewed as being one with them, even while he was devouring them.
It is why Yahowah admonishes us for not questioning Sha’uwl. It is why Sha’uwl changed his name. It is why Yahowsha’ warned us, telling us that a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a man now named “Paulos – Lowly and Little,” would seek to discredit and discard the Towrah.
The second ploy is found in the writing style, which blends circular reasoning and all manner of logical flaws with a myriad of inappropriate word choices. The opening sentence is a prime example. Due diligence is required as is thoughtful consideration to understand why a violent verb was deployed against a pornographic and arcane system. But those who have been conditioned by their political, religious, academic, and media institutions to avoid being judgmental, even critical, read right through Paul’s confession and are left wondering.
Also with regard to Galatians 1:6, please note that Sha’uwl did not write “Gospel” at the end of his sentence. Euangelion, pronounced “yoo·ang·ghel·ee·on,” is a compound of two common Greek words. It is not a name or a title. And if it were a name or title, it should have been transliterated, “Euangelion,” which was done in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, but not in any modern English translation. For example, in the King James, euangelion was neither translated nor transliterated, but instead, the Greek word was replaced by the religious term “Gospel.”
The King James conveys: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” But here, now for the second time, we cannot blame Jerome for the mistake found in the KJV. 215There is no “Gospel” in the Latin Vulgate: “I wonder that you have been so quickly transferred, from him who called you into the grace of Christi, over to another evangelium.” We can, however, blame Jerome for the inclusion of “Christi,” which is errant on every account. According to P46, the oldest witness to this letter, Paul did not include the misappropriated title in this sentence, neither by placeholder nor by having his amanuensis write it out.
This affirms two things. First, the King James Version is a translation of the Latin Vulgate not the Greek text – as are most subsequent translations. And second, Paul called his faithful to “Charis / Gratia / Grace,” not to the teaching and guidance of Yahowah’s Towrah, which was different in every imaginable way.
The Christian misnomer, “Gospel” was first deployed in Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, forerunners of the King James Version, which itself was published in the early 17th century. It cannot be found in John Wycliffe’s translation, the first made in the English language. Wycliffe used “euangelie,” not “Gospel,” in the late 14th century.
Let’s juxtapose the New Living Translation against Sha’uwl’s actual words so that you might fully appreciate the liberties they have taken: “I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News…” Compared to the NA: “I marvel that thusly quickly you change from the one having called you in favor of Christ into other good message.” And as a reference, this is literally what Paulos conveyed: “I marvel and am amazed, even astonished, that in this way how quickly and in haste you changed, deserting and becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis to a different healing message and beneficial messenger,…” (1:6)
216As a result of some religious tampering, whereby euangelion was replaced with “Gospel,” Christians now believe that Paul’s preaching was in harmony with the lone eyewitness and three hearsay accounts contained in what have become errantly known as the “Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” But there are many problems with that theory. First, Sha’uwl never quoted a single line from any of them. He did not even reference them. And second, these accounts were not called “Gospels.”
At the time this letter to the Galatians was written in 50 CE, all of the contemporaneous and credible historical evidence affirms that Lowy’s | Levi’s eyewitness account was still in its original Hebrew. And while it was cherished in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem, it was not widely distributed beyond Yahuwdah | Judea due to the fact it was written in Hebrew. So it would have been irrelevant to Sha’uwl.
Moving on to Mark, Eusebius wrote: “Markus, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully…all that he remembered of Yahowsha’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard Yahowsha’ or been one of his followers, but later, he was one of Peter’s followers.” I do not think that this is true. The only time Mark is mentioned, he is part of Paul’s posse.
Origen, Tertullian, and Clement concurred, writing at the end of the 2nd century that “Mark compiled his account from Peter’s speeches in Rome.” If so, Galatians predates Mark by a decade. Therefore, a connection between Mark’s hearsay account cannot be made. Also, we must be careful. While the historical evidence suggests that Markus compiled the book attributed to him in Rome, there is no credible evidence that suggests that his primary source, Shim’own, was ever in Rome. And that is the other reason I attribute Mark to Paul’s influence, as he famously died miserable and alone in Rome.
Lucas was yet unknown to Paulos and to Yahowsha’s 217disciples at the time Galatians was scribed. Therefore, his hearsay portrayal in favor of Paul had not been written, making any association between it and Paulos’ use of euangelion at this time in Galatians 1:6 ill-advised.
Based upon the enormous popularity of Yahowchanan’s eyewitness account, as evidenced by the sheer quantity of extant pre-Constantine manuscripts, had his portrayal of Yahowsha’s life been circulated by this time, Paul would have been compelled to reference it. But he did not. Not in this letter, and not in any of his subsequent letters. In all likelihood, it had not yet been composed.
So we know for certain that Paulos was not writing on behalf of nor promoting the portrayals and myth pursuant to Yahowsha’s life found in Matthew, Markus, Lucas, or Yahowchanan. At the time the Galatians letter was written, Divine Writ was comprised solely of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It still is. Every statement Yahowsha’ made affirms this reality, as do the disciples in their portrayals of his life.
Should you be wondering why in his subsequent letters Paulos never so much as even refers to the existence of a biographical portrayal of Yahowsha’s life, the answer is twofold. First, his message was the antithesis of that which can be derived from Yahowsha’s words and deeds. The caricature of “the Lord Iesou Christou” painted by Paulos differs so substantially in identity, nature, style, and substance from the actual Yahowsha’ that they have precious little in common.
And second, Paul’s ego got in the way. He was in competition with him and them. After all, he wanted us to believe that he was both “co-savior” and “co-author,” the chosen one completing what God, Himself, could not accomplish without his assistance. Someone of his status would never cite a lesser individual.
218The Old English moniker, “Gospel,” like the use of the Greek goddesses’ name, Charis, known by the Latinized “Gratia – Grace,” has caused millions to believe that the “Gospel of Grace” replaced the Torah, when instead the Torah is the source of “mercy.” To know the Towrah is to know “chanan – unearned favor” and the liberty it provides. So this bears repeating: there never was such a thing as a “Gospel.” There still isn’t.
No matter where you look, Christian apologists say that “Gospel means ‘good news.’” But if that is true, why not simply write “good news.” Or more to the point, since euangelion actually means “healing messenger and beneficial message,” why not translate the Greek term accurately?
Christian dictionaries go so far as to say that “gospel is from go(d) meaning ‘good,’ and spell meaning ‘news.’” But “god” was never an Old English word for “good.” Instead, “god” is a transliteration of the Germanic “Gott,” an epithet for Odin. The Old English word for “good” was “gud.” And the Middle English “spell” is from the Old English “spellian,” which means “to foretell, to portend, or to relate.’” As such, “gospel” does not mean “good news,” and is therefore not a translation of euangelion as Christians protest.
Other dictionaries suggest that gospel was “derived from an Anglo-Saxon word which meant ‘the story concerning God,’” even though there is no etymological history of such a term in the annals of the Anglo-Saxons.
While we are on this subject, it is insightful to know that, according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the English word, “spell,” came to us “from Old English by way of Middle English.” And “circa 1623 (which would be around the time the KJV was being popularized) a spell 1) was a spoken word or form of words which were held to have magic power, 2) was a state of 219enchantment, or 3) was used in the context of casting a spell.”
Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary says: “The word ‘god’ is common to the Teutonic tongues…. It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the Christian sense.”
Further affirming that “Gospel” conveyed being under “Gott’s spell,” Merriam Webster explains: “god is from Old English by way of Middle English and is akin to the Old High German got, which was derived before the 12th century CE.” Along these lines we learn that gottin is the Old High German word for “goddess.”
Digging a little deeper in our quest to understand the religious origins of “gospel,” circa 17th century Europe, when the religious connotation was conceived and initially promoted, the Encyclopedia Britannica says that “God is the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worship…applied to all superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies. The word god upon the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being.” Therefore, in the manner common to most every Christian corruption of Yahowah’s Word, the religious term is drenched in paganism.
By comparison, there is nothing particularly special about the Greek word, euangelion. The first recorded use was in the feminine, as euanggelia, as opposed to the neuter form most common to the Greek eyewitness and historical accounts. It was attributed to Augustus in 9 BCE in Priene where the Roman Caesar was hailed as the “Savior of the world for the ‘beneficial proclamation’ of 220the Julian calendar.”
As I have mentioned, euangelion is a compound of two common Greek words. Eu means “beneficial, healing, and prosperous,” and aggelos is the Greek word for “messenger” and thereby “message.” So while Christians will protest that something which heals and is beneficial is by definition “good,” and that a message can be “news,” there is no reason to extrapolate when the primary meaning is readily apparent. Therefore, those who seek to know and share the truth are compelled to translate euangelion accurately so that others will understand its intended meaning.
Along these lines, if aggelos meant “news,” as opposed to “message,” the aggelos, or “spiritual messengers,” would be “newscasters,” instead of Yah’s spiritual envoys, representatives, and messengers. Moreover, while eu can be translated “good,” “beneficial and healing,” there are far more accurate and descriptive definitions of Yahowah’s plan. After all, if the intent was to communicate “good,” as in “Good News,” the preferred Greek words for “good” are kalos and agathos. And while the Hebrew is towb, Yahowah is far less interested in “good” than He is in being “right.” Further, Yahowsha’ is translated using the former in Matthew 5:16, saying: “Thusly, let your light shine before men so that they might see within you the responses and endeavors which are good (kalos), thereby wonderfully attributing them to your Heavenly Father.” And with the latter, Yahowsha’ says “I am good (agathos),” in Matthew 20:15.
But before I present Yahowah’s perspective on what is actually “towb – good,” I’d be remiss if I didn’t share the fact that the same light and endeavors Yahowsha’ spoke about in His Instruction on the Mount are equated to Yahowah and his Towrah in the 105th Psalm, which proclaims: “Because they focus upon and observe, 221closely examining and carefully considering, His clearly communicated prescriptions of what we should do in life to live, and His Torah, His Source of Teaching and Instruction, they are saved, radiating Yah’s light.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 105:45)
With this connection established, and especially now that Yahowah and His Towrah have become Sha’uwl’s enemy, let’s take a moment more and consider the position articulated by the other side in this debate.
While I cited much more of what Dowd | David was inspired to write in the 19th Psalm concerning Yahowah’s message, His Guidance and His Towrah in a previous chapter, please consider this reminder...
“Yahowah’s Towrah (Towrah) is complete and entirely perfect, lacking nothing, helpful, healing, beneficial, and true (tamym), returning, restoring, and transforming (shuwb) the soul (nepesh). Yahowah’s testimony (‘eduwth) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
In the following Proverb, this same Towrah is called “towb – good.” This means, according to God, the “good news” and His Towrah are synonymous, making Paul’s claims ridiculous.
“Consistently listen (shama’) children (ben) to the correct and disciplined instruction (muwsar) of the Father (‘ab) and (wa) pay attention (qasab) so as (la) to know and discover (yada’) understanding and discernment (bynah).
For indeed, such teaching and learning, instruction and direction (laqah) are good, beneficial, and helpful (towb – is proper, prosperous, favorable, pleasing, enjoyable, valuable, and healing). For this reason, I have 222given you (la natan) My Towrah (Towrah). You should not forsake, neglect, or reject it (‘al ‘azab).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 4:1-2)
Dowd’s 119th Psalm is comprised of inspiring and beautiful lyrics. It is an ode to the Towrah. Let’s turn to it next…
“You have actively engaged and accomplished (‘asah) good, beneficial, and generous things (towb) with and through (‘im) Your associate and coworker (‘ebed), Yahowah (Yahowah), in accordance with (ka) Your Word (dabar).
The good and positive aspects associated with (towb) exercising good judgment, the whole process of informed, rational, decision-making (ta’am), leading to (wa) understanding based upon knowledge (da’ath) teaches me so that I will benefit by choosing to respond appropriately (lamad).
So indeed (ky), in (ba) the terms and conditions of Your binding covenant agreement (mitswah), I completely trust and totally rely because they are verifiable and enduring (‘aman). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:65)
Prior to the time that I responded and answered this invitation, before I was thoughtful, spoke truthfully, and composed these songs, I was preoccupied and (terem ‘anah) I (‘any) unintentionally erred, I inadvertently wandered aimlessly without deliberation and sinned without meaning to do so because I was unwittingly deceived and therefore placed my faith in mistaken opinions (shagag).
But (wa) now, at this point in time (‘atah), I literally keep my eyes totally focused upon, carefully and completely observing, closely examining, diligently exploring the totality of (shamar) Your Word, Your 223Instruction, and Your Promise (‘imrah). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:66)
You (‘atah) are good (towb – generous and pleasing, enjoyable and festive, beautiful and pleasant to be around), Yahowah (Yahowah), and (wa) are doing what is good and beneficial by (yatab) helping me learn, becoming better acquainted, while teaching me how to properly respond to (lamad) Your clearly communicated prescriptions of what I should do to share life with You (choq). (Mizmowr / Psalm 119:67)
The self-important, self-motivated, and presumptuous (zed) lie, they mislead and deceive with their speeches promoting worthless beliefs (sheqer).
Smearing and slandering with misinformation, their scribes conceal what I have said on behalf of God by plastering over it with their official message (‘al taphal). (Mizmowr / Psalm 119:68)
I will (‘any), with all my heart, with all my intent and personal commitment, my sense of purpose (ba kol leb), engage my Savior by keeping close to and by observing (natsar) Your precepts, those instructions which You have entrusted to us, encouraging us to pay close attention to and examine for guidance so that we respond appropriately to You (piquwdym). (Mizmowr / Psalm 119:69)
Your Towrah (Towrah) is actively engaged in my life because I delight in it, something I find totally enjoyable (sha’a). (Mizmowr / Psalm 119:70)
It is good and beneficial for me (towb la) that indeed (ky) You responded, providing Your testimony (‘anah) for the purpose of (ma’an) teaching me how to properly respond to (lamad) Your engraved and clearly communicated prescriptions of what I should do to be cut into this relationship (choq). (Mizmowr / Psalm 224119:71)
The Towrah teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance (towrah) of Your mouth (peh) is better and more prosperous for me (towb la) than (min) thousands of (‘eleph) gold and silver coins (zahab wa keseph).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:65-72)
In that Dowd | David is speaking to and on behalf of Yahowah and His Towrah, his insights and perspective regarding both are relevant to this discussion. It is little wonder Yahowah anointed him the Mashyach | Messiah and refers to him as His beloved “ben – son.”
In the 25th Psalm, we find him saying...
“The sins (chata’ah) of my youth (na’uwrym) and rebellion (pesha’) do not remember (lo’ zakar) as (ka) Your love and mercy for me is remembered (chesed zakar la ‘atah) on account of (ma’an) Your goodness (towb – Your perfect nature), Yahowah (). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:7)
Yahowah (), the Most High (‘al), is good (towb – moral, perfect, beautiful, pleasing, joyful, cheerful, happy, favorable, beneficial, generous) and always right, completely correct and consistently straightforward (yashar), therefore (ken), He is the Source of teaching and instruction, and He guides and directs (yarah) sinners (chata’) along the Way (ba ha derek). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:8)
He enables the way of (darak) the unpretentious and sincere who respond and actively engage (‘anaw) with this means to exercise good judgment and to achieve justice by resolving disputes (ba ha mishpat). He provides the information to teach (lamad) those who respond to His call and act upon (‘anaw) His Way (derek). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:9)
All (kol) the mannerisms and conduct (‘orah) of 225Yahowah () are merciful and beyond reproach (chesed) and they are trustworthy and reliable (‘emeth) for (la) those who are preserved by (natsar) His Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth) and His enduring Witness and restoring Testimony (‘edah). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:10)
As a result (ma’an) of Your name (shem), Yahowah (), You will choose to genuinely and completely forgive (wa salah) my sin (la ‘awon), which (ky huw’) is great (rab). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:11)
Hence (zeh), whatever (my) individual (‘ysh) respects and reveres (yare’) Yahowah (), He will teach and guide him (yarah) in (ba) the Way (derek) he should choose (bachar). (Mizmowr / Psalm 25:12)
His soul (nepesh), in (ba) the most favorable, pleasing, and festive circumstances (towb – goodness, beauty, prosperity, and enjoyment), will dwell and endure (lyn), and his descendants (zera’) will inherit (yaras) the realm (‘erets). (Mizmowr / Psalm 25:13)
A very close and intimate fellowship with (sowd) Yahowah () is certain for (la) those who respect and revere Him (yare’). And His Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth), He makes known to him (yada’).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:7-14)
Speaking of “towb – good,” here is another insight from the man Yahowah said was “tsadaq – right”...
“And then (wa) I encourage you to consider acting upon and actively engaging in (‘asah) that which is good, beneficial, moral, agreeable, generous, and pleasing (towb – that which is in accord with the standard, is valuable, prosperous, ethical, just, worthy, and worthwhile) and as a result (wa) live (sakan) forever (la ‘owlam).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 37:27)
A bit more comprehensive illustration regarding the 226enduring merits of Yahowah’s Towrah is advanced in the 40th Mizmowr / Psalm. And once again, these lyrics were scribed by a man whose name means “Beloved.” If you want God to view you similarly, this is good advice...
“At that time (‘az) I shared (‘amar), ‘Behold (hineh), I am coming (bow’) with (ba) the scroll (magilah) of the written document (sepher) which was dictated and scribed (kathab) on my behalf (‘aly) regarding (la) the work You have done and will do to accept me, God (‘asah ratsown ‘elohy). I genuinely want and willingly accept this (chaphets). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 40:8)
Your Towrah – Your Instruction and Teaching, Your Guidance and Direction – is within the midst (tawek) of my inner nature (me’ah).
I have proclaimed the good news of (basher) vindication as a result of being right, fairly and accurately, responsively, honestly, and correctly (tsadaq) in (ba) the great assembly and esteemed community (rab qahal).
Behold (hineh), my lips (saphah) have not been restrained (lo’ kala’), Yahowah (). (Mizmowr / Psalm 40:9)
You (‘atah), Yourself, know, You respect and acknowledge (yada’) that I have not hidden nor concealed (lo’ kasah) Your means to achieve righteousness through being correct (tsadaqah) in the nature of my thinking (ba tawek leb). (Mizmowr / Psalm 40:10)
I have spoken about (‘amar) Your trustworthiness and reliable nature (‘emuwnah) and (wa) Your salvation (yashuw’ah).
I have not hidden nor concealed (lo’ kachad) Your mercy (chesed) or (wa) Your integrity, honesty, and 227steadfast reliability (‘emeth) on behalf of (la) the esteemed community and great assembly (qahal rab). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 40:11)
Yahowah (), You (‘atah) will not withhold (lo kala’) Your love and mercy (rachamym) from me (min), Your unfailing devotion, love, and unearned favor (chesed).
Moreover (wa), Your integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness (‘emeth) continually (tamyd) protect me from harm and they spare my life (nasar). For indeed (ky), You are surrounding me, providing a covering for me, God (‘aphaph ‘al). (Mizmowr / Psalm 40:12)
For the entire duration of time (‘ad), evil and wrongdoing will not be counted against me (ra’ah lo’ ayn ‘aown | ‘awon).
And (wa) I will not (lo’ yakol) witness them (la ra’ah) though they be more numerous (‘atsam) than (min) the hairs on my head (sa’arah ro’sh). (Mizmowr / Psalm 40:13)
So (wa) my heart (leb) is restored (‘azab), accepting and delighted with (rasah) Yahowah () saving me (nasal).
Yahowah () is prepared and ready, even excited about (chuwsh), helping and supporting me, influencing and assisting me (‘ezrah).’” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 40:8-14)
Like Yahowah, I would rather listen to Dowd than Sha’uwl. Nothing has changed in 3000 years.
Let’s consider one last word of advice, some of which also appeared at the end of a previous chapter. This next morsel of guidance comes from the Towrah, itself. Moseh is summarizing what he has learned for our benefit.
“That which is undisclosed (satar) is for Yahowah 228(la ), our God (‘elohym).
Those things which are revealed and made known (galah) belong to us (la), and are for (la) our children (ben) eternally and forever (‘ad ‘owlam), to act upon and conduct ourselves in accordance with (‘asah ‘eth) all (kol) the words (dabar) of this (ze’th), the Towrah (ha Towrah – the signed, written, and enduring way of treating people, giving us the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose the source from which instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, that provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return, even our response and reply to that which is good, pleasing, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, purifying and cleansing us so as to provide an opportunity to change our thinking, attitude, and direction). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 29:29)
Indeed, truly and surely (ky), you should actually listen to (shama’ ba) the voice and the call, the invitation and summons (qowl), of Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), for the purpose of observing, closely examining, and carefully considering (la shamar) the terms and conditions of His binding covenant contract (mitswah) and His clearly communicated prescriptions regarding life (wa chuwqah) which are inscribed (ha katab) in (ba) the written scroll (ha sepher) of this (ze’th), the Towrah – the Instruction and Teaching, the Guidance and Direction (ha Towrah).
That is because (ky) you will actually be transformed, be changed, be restored, and return (shuwb) to (‘el) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart and thinking (leb), and with all (wa ba kol) your soul and consciousness (nepesh). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:10)
For (ky) these (ze’th) terms and conditions of the 229agreement (mitswah) which beneficially (‘asher), I am (‘anky) instructing and guiding you (tsawah) this day (ha yowm), they are not too difficult for you. They are not a hardship (huw’ lo’ pala’) for you (min), nor are they beyond your reach (wa lo’ huw’ rachowq). (30:11)
For indeed (ky), the exceedingly powerful and great (ma’od) Word (ha dabar) of your God (‘el) facilitates your approach and brings you near, enabling you to engage in a close and personal relationship (qarowb) – as part of your speech (ba peh), and in your heart, influencing your thinking (wa ba leb) – to engage with, capitalize upon, and celebrate Him (la ‘asah). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:14)
Open your eyes, establish this perspective, and become aware (ra’ah): I am offering (nathan) on your behalf and in your presence (la paneh) this day (ha yowm) an association with (‘eth) the Life (ha chay) and (wa) an association with (‘eth) that which is Good (ha towb). But also (wa) that which is associated with (‘eth) death (ha maweth) and (wa) an association with (‘eth) that which is bad, evil, wicked, harmful, and destructive (ra’). (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 30:15)
Because, that which (‘asher) I am (‘anky) instructing and guiding you (tsawah) this day (ha yowm) is for the purpose of (la) you really wanting to genuinely love, and you choosing to actually demonstrate your affection in a personal and familial relationship (‘ahab) so as to be closely associated with (‘eth) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), and achieving this result by (la) actually walking (halak) in His Ways (ba derek).
It is also (wa) for the purpose of (la) actually observing, closely examining, and carefully considering (shamar) His terms and conditions as they pertain to His binding relationship agreement (mitswah), His clearly communicated and engraved prescriptions of what we 230should do in life to live (chuwqah), and (wa) His means used to exercise good judgment and justly resolve disputes (mishpat), as well as (wa) to restore your life and keep you alive, renewing and preserving your life (chayah), (wa) to make you great, increasing you exponentially so that you grow in every possible way (rabah).
In addition (wa), Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), will kneel down, diminishing Himself in love to greet, welcome, and bless you, invoking loving favors upon you (barak) in the realm (ba ha ‘erets) where relationally (‘asher) you (‘atah) are going to, and will be included within (bow’ la), this named place of renown (sham / shem), receiving it as an inheritance (la yarash). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:16)
But if (wa ‘im) you turn your heart away from Him (panah / paneh leb), and if you do not listen (wa lo’ shama’), and you are lured away (wa nadah), and you bow down in worship (hawah) to other gods (la ‘acher ‘elohym), and you actively engage with and serve them (wa ‘abad), (30:17) I am reporting the following message, warning, and verdict (nagad la) this day (ha yowm) that indeed (ky) you will be utterly destroyed and completely annihilated, ceasing to exist, and thus (‘abad ‘abad) not elongating your days (lo’ ‘arak yowmym) upon (‘al) the earth (‘adamah). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:18)
I have testified repeatedly to restore and warn (‘uwd) you in (ba) this day (ha yowm) with regard to (‘eth) the spiritual realm (ha shamaym) and with regard to (‘eth) the material world (ha ‘erets), and about life (wa ha chay) and death (wa ha maweth).
I have freely offered (nathan) on your behalf and in your presence (la paneh) the blessing which restores the relationship (barakah) and also (wa) the curse of being 231abated and seen as worthless (qalalah).
So (wa) you should actually choose in favor of (bachar ba) continued life and renewal, of nourishment and growth (chay), so that (ma’am) you (‘atah) and your offspring (zera’) are restored to life, renewed, and are spared (chayah). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:19)
This is accomplished by (la) choosing to genuinely love and by closely associating with (‘ahab ‘eth) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), by (la) really listening to (shama’) His voice and His call (qowl), and by (wa la) choosing to stay especially close to Him (dabaq).
For indeed (ky), He (huw’) is the source of your life, and of renewal (chay), and of lengthening (wa ‘orek) your days (yowm), enabling you to dwell (la yatsab) in the realm (‘al ‘adamah) which (‘asher) Yahowah () promised (saba’) to your fathers (la ‘ab), to Abraham (la ‘Abraham), to Yitschaq (la Yitschaq), and to Ya’aqob (wa la Ya’aqob), to give it as a gift (nathan) to them (la).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:20)
Yahowah’s perspective, His Towrah | Guidance, is sufficiently clear to guide those who are seeking to know Him, who are seeking to understand what He is offering, and who are seeking to learn what He is asking in return.
And there is no correlation of any kind between Yahowah and Paul. They are life and death.
