367Questioning Paul
Towrahless
…Without Guidance
9
Baskaino | Bewitched
Ignorant and Irrational…
The third chapter of Galatians opens with some pejorative language. After propping himself up, it was time to tear everyone else down. It is a classic trait of narcissists.
“O (o) ignorant and irrational (anoetos – foolish and senseless, lacking knowledge and understanding, unintelligent and unreasonable, unthinking and mindless) Galatians (Galatai – land of the Gauls; from Galatia, pronounced gal-at-ee-ah). To whom (tis) you (humeis) bewitched, deceived, and slandered (baskaino – practiced black magic and deluded, brought evil upon and seduced)?” (Galatians 3:1)
Since this is already the second time, the first occurring at the beginning of the letter’s second sentence, this one-sided rebuke of those who had rejected Paul’s apostleship, inspiration, and message, it sounds eerily similar to the ongoing rant between Muhammad and the Meccans in the Qur’an – and it’s almost as poorly written. Those who had heard this narcissist present his psychotic diatribe knew that he was full of excrement – a reasonable deduction that escapes the preponderance of people today. They have instead invited the Father of Lies, Son of Evil, and Plague of Death into their homes to molest their children.
If you think this assessment is harsh, the least bit 368unfair, you have not been paying attention.
Anoetos is a compound of a, the Greek form of negation, and noeo, “the ability to be judgmental, to be discerning and perceptive, to think or understand.” I am quite familiar with the term, because I use its English equivalent quite often when speaking of those bewitched by religion and politics in America and the West.
Neither fact nor reason will influence the overtly religious. They will even reject God’s testimony. When their faith is challenged, a religious mind becomes impervious. When the evidence needed to make an informed decision is provided, the faithful refuse to process the facts logically. And the same is true today of the overtly political and conspiratorial, whether they be on the far right or left.
I am also familiar with baskaino, translated as “bewitched and deceived.” Based upon phasko, it appears to be telling us that Paul thought that the Galatians had been fooled by people who “affirmed that what they were professing” was Godly, when it, at least according to Paul, was Satanic. Either that or that the Galatians were now criticizing Paul, and he was slandering them for having done so. No matter, it is a bogus bill and an ad hominem fallacy.
Based upon the evidence at our disposal, and consistent with what we learned in Acts and have read thus far in Galatians, the opposite of what Paul was inferring was actually true. Those Paul was slandering told the Galatians that Yahowah had instructed us to observe the Towrah, while Paul has sought to dissolve and dismantle the Word of God. It is like the Qur’an once again. The one who was doing the misleading, in that case Muhammad, recited words he attributed to God which were designed to convince his audience that the liar (Muhammad) was telling the truth, and that those who were telling the truth 369(the Meccans) were lying. And now it appears as if Paul invented the trick to achieve the same result. Moreover, like Muhammad, Paul got away with it. With access to one side of these “arguments,” billions believe that both deceivers were messengers of God.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is always appropriate to expose ignorance and criticize deception when the subject is the Word of God. It is even Godly to infer that people have been bewitched and bewildered by religion and politics. It is especially compassionate to hurt someone’s feelings by condemning their religion when it is obvious that their faith is leading them astray.
Withholding the truth is selfish.
It is hypocritical when Christian apologists attack those who use the same terms Paul deployed, protesting that applying such labels is not Godly. If so, then how could Paul have been speaking for God and used them. And while it is clear to those who are neither ignorant nor irrational that Paul is the furthest from being Godly, this is a bit of a conundrum for the faithful.
Had Sha’uwl told the truth, as opposed to weaving his lies in and out of God’s Torah tapestry, his bluntness might have been admirable. When sharing what we know about Yahowah, and telling people who He is and what He has done, we should never be concerned about what people think about us, or be concerned about the derogatory labels those we offend will apply. Whether they realize it or not, we are doing them a favor.
That said, there is an important nuance to all of this. We ought to limit our criticism to pervasive religious, political, economic, militaristic, cultural, or conspiratorial ideas rather than excoriate individuals. That is except those who are outspoken, public, and famous for conceiving and promoting misleading or counterproductive religious, political, economic, militaristic, cultural, or conspiratorial 370notions – such as Paul, Akiba, and Muhammad – are appropriate targets of our disdain. And even then, to be effective, we must present the evidence accurately and in context and be rational in our analysis.
It is, however, uncouth and inappropriate to besmirch the charlatan’s prey – which is what Paul is doing. We should care sufficiently about the victims of religious and political malfeasance to help them understand how they have been deceived so that they can be liberated from the lies.
The height of ignorance is to do what Paul has done. His adversaries were likely right, and he demeaned them all the same. He offered no explanation of what they thought, nor how his understanding differed. As a result, he never elevated his rant above mudslinging. It served no purpose, except to expose Paul’s lack of character, civility, and intelligence.
Since it was and remains common knowledge that Yahowsha’s purpose was predicted in the Torah and Prophets, saying so was a waste of breath. His audience was not disputing the obvious. It would have been another thing altogether to explain the nature of the prophecies he fulfilled – especially those associated with our salvation, such as Passover. But no, nothing Paul wrote was ever revealing. This is no exception…
“To whom (os – which) down from (kata – extended downward toward and according to) eyes (ophthalmos) Iesous Christos (ΧΡΣ ΙΗΣ – Divine Placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Iesou Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement (an errant title), and Yahowsha’ (Yahowah Saves); but since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha’ from Yahowah, it’s misleading to connect that which Sha’uwl has deliberately severed) described beforehand in writing (prographo – was documented in written prophecy) to be affixed to an 371upright pillar (ΕΣΤΡΟΣ – placeholder for stauroo).” (Galatians 3:1)
Actually, there are no prophecies predicting anyone named Iesous or Christos. Look as you might, they are not there.
Also, there is surprisingly little said about Yahowsha’. He is not mentioned by name anywhere in the Towrah, Prophets, or Psalms. Moreover, apart from the prophecy of the Passover Lamb in Yasha’yah 53, his arrival to be cut off in Daniel 9, and the eyewitness account of what would occur on Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in Psalms 22 and 88, every other prophecy, thought to foretell his arrival, is actually descriptive of Dowd | David.
Prographo, rendered “described beforehand in writing,” is a compound of pro, meaning “beforehand,” and grapho, the Greek word for “writing.” So while Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Passover was predicted in advance, and in writing, no aspect of it was fulfilled before Sha’uwl’s eyes or those of the Galatians – no matter how one deals with “down from eyes.” Moreover, if Sha’uwl had wanted to resolve the perceived issue of Galatian “ignorance,” and had he sought for them to be “rational,” he would have cited any one of the many prophecies predicting Yahowsha’s and the Set-Apart Spirit’s fulfillment of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and Seven Shabats. But he didn’t, and that speaks volumes. We should never call someone “ignorant and irrational” unless we are prepared to resolve this condition. Paul never does.
It is also interesting that Sha’uwl scribed prographo in the passive which suggests that “Iesous Christos” was acted upon, as opposed to the active voice which would have correctly revealed that Yahowsha’ chose to observe the Towrah, engaging in and acting upon its guidance. I do not suspect that this was a careless mistake.
372The antidote which has the power to protect people from the beguiling and bewitching influences of political and religious pontifications is Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching. In this regard, Yahowsha’ consistently explained his life in the context of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. So, if you want to inoculate yourself from man’s ignorant and irrational schemes, if you want to understand Yahowah’s merciful gift of salvation, if you want to benefit from the path home God has provided, if you want to capitalize on Yahowsha’s sacrifice, turn to the seven Called-Out Assemblies presented in the heart of the Torah.
Or you could choose to wallow in the swamp of man’s translations. And speaking of them, you should know that there is no mention whatsoever of “the truth,” or of “obedience” in the Greek text in reference to this passage. So, not only are the King James and Vulgate translations erroneous, the fact that their errors are identical is proof that they are associated with one another, as opposed to being related to the Greek text. KJV: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” LV: “O senseless Galatæ, who has so fascinated you that you would not obey the truth, even though Iesus Christus has been presented before your eyes, crucifixus/crucified among you?”
The way the NLT dispenses with the “Scriptural” references is indeed bewitching: “Oh, foolish Galatians! Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a picture of his death on the cross.” Speaking of deceiving with “a picture of his death on the cross,” there is no reference to a “picture” in the passage, and the image of a “cross” would be pagan. Then adding insult to injury, the placeholder (ΕΣΤΡΟΣ) represented a verb, not a noun (and thus not “cross”), and therefore the reference was to an event, not a religious icon or graven image.
373Of this demeaning declaration, the NA published: “O unmindful Galatians who you bewitched to whom by eyes Jesus Christ was written before having been crucified.” If this is divinely authored, God is illiterate.
Sha’uwl advances his theory by asking a rhetorical question. And by doing so, he is revealing the reason he demeaned the Galatians. They agreed with God regarding the Towrah rather than Paul.
“This (houtos) alone (monon – only) I wish (thelo – I propose, want, and desire) to learn (manthano – to be appraised of) from (apo – speaking of dissociation and separation) you (sy): out of (ek – by means of) acts (ergon – works, tasks, accomplishments, and activities) of the Towrah ([n]omou – of the allotment which is parceled out for the purpose of nurturing those with and inheritance, nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used by heirs, precept which was apportioned, established, and is received as a means to be proper and approved, prescription to become an heir (genitive: singular and specific)) the spirit (ΠΝΑ – placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma) you received (lambano – acquired, grabbed hold of, and obtained or exploited by deception were possessed by) or (e – alternatively) out of (ek – from) hearing (akoe – listening to) of faith (pistis – of belief (the meaning migrated from trust and reliance as a result of the popularity of Sha’uwl’s epistles))?” (Galatians 3:2)
Again, if this is to be considered the inspired word of God as Paul and Christians protest, I hereby declare that we should find a much smarter, more articulate, and more dependable deity. And fortunately, I know right where to find Him: in the very Towrah Sha’uwl was assailing with this toxic drivel.
In the vernacular of our day, and buffed up a bit, the question may well have been: “Could you just answer one question for me: did you receive the spirit as a result of 374something you learned by observing the Towrah, or because you decided to believe the message I preached to you?” As such, Sha’uwl has openly admitted that his preaching differed materially from Yahowah’s Word, and he has inferred that his message delivered superior results to God’s instructions.
If this is true, and I do not see any way around it, then this is a confession. Paul is guilty of committing the most heinous of all crimes: bearing false witness about God. Case closed.
Before we contemplate Yahowsha’s position on this topic, let’s review the Christian translations of the charlatan’s statements. The NA wrote: “This alone I want to learn from you from works of the law the spirit you received or from hearing of trust?” Of which, the KJV published: “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” “Hearing of faith” is a very odd concept, one obviously inherited from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: “I wish to know only this from you: Did you receive the Spiritum/Spirit by the works of the law (operibus legis), or by the hearing of faith (auditu fidei)?”
To their credit, while these read poorly, they are reasonably consistent with the underlying text, which says: “This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief?”
Since the New Living Translation theologians know that there was no modifier, or adjective, associated with the placeholder for “Spirit” in this passage, why do you suppose they added the pagan term “Holy” before Her title? Additionally, do you suppose that men who purported to be Greek scholars did not know that there was no reference in this passage to “obeying,” no reference to “Moses’” name, no answer to the rhetorical question being 375asked, no basis for “message” or to “Christ?” Just perhaps, there is the possibility that they may have lacked the professional integrity one might expect of those claiming to publish the inerrant word of God? “Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ.”
Another question is in order: why did the NLT change Paul’s message? Since they call Galatians “Scripture,” are they suggesting that their god and his messenger were such poor communicators that they needed their help? Or are they knowingly advancing a fraud, trying simultaneously to alter Paul’s message to suit their religion while at the same time elevating the writing quality in order to make the resulting piece of fiction seem credible? Or are they just frustrated authors, and saw this as an opportunity to publish their first novel?
Since Sha’uwl has posed this question regarding the receipt of an undesignated spirit, it is beneficial to know that Yahowah introduced the gender, power, scope, and purpose of the “ruwach of ‘elohym” to us in the opening statement of the Towrah. Let’s listen to God:
“In the beginning, at the start of time (ba re’shyth), the Almighty (‘elohym), for accompaniment and association (‘eth), created, conceiving and causing a new existence (bara’) of the spiritual world of the heavens (ha shamaym) along with (wa ‘eth) the material realm (ha ‘erets). (1:1)
The material realm (wa ha ‘erets) existed (hayah) formless and without shape, lacking organization (tohuw), a disorderly and chaotic space (wa bohuw), dark and unknowable (wa choshek) in proximity to (‘al) the presence (paneh) of the vast power and unapproachable energy of the big bang (tahowm).
Then (wa) the Ruwach | Spirit (ruwach – the 376maternal manifestation of Divine power; a feminine noun) of the Almighty hovered over and quickly administered to, cherishing (rachaph ‘al – She moved back and forth, supervising everything, brooding over Her infant creation, She served by energizing and promoting growth through superintendence) the appearance (paneh) of the waters (maym). (Bare’syth / Genesis 1:2)
In addition (wa) God (‘elohym) said (‘amar), ‘Let there continuously be (hayah) light (‘owr) and (wa) light (‘owr) exists (hayah).’ (1:3)
And so (wa) the Almighty (‘elohym) saw (ra’ah) that the association with (‘eth) the light (ha ‘owr) was truly (ky) good, beneficial and productive, having desirable and positive qualities (towb).
Then (wa) God (‘elohym) caused the ongoing separation (badal) between (bayn) the light (ha ‘owr) and (wa) its association with (bayn) the darkness (ha choshek).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 1:4)
In the Towrah’s opening statement, the Spirit of God is credited with the “formation,” and thus “birth,” of the universe and its “expansion” and thus growth – giving it life, affirming Her role as our Spiritual Mother. Bigger than all of the galaxies combined, She (Ruwach is a feminine noun) filled the “void,” just as She does in our lives, enabling us to live eternally in Yahowah’s presence, cleansing us with Her living waters. And as a result of Her work, Her enlightenment, we can avoid “the ignorant confusion” of lifeless deceptions, and thus preclude “dissipating into nothingness.” She encourages understanding, enriching us with insights into Yahowah’s Teaching, helping us better appreciate the Light. She perfected creation, just as Her Garment of “Light” makes us look perfect in God’s eyes.
The Spirit is the “manifestation of God’s power and enlightenment who we can personally experience.” If “we 377accept Her, She makes us acceptable.” The ruwach “renews and restores us, reconciling us with God.” She is not only the “breath of eternal life,” She “enlightens us.”
The nature of the spirit which a person is receptive to and receives determines whether they spend eternity with Yahowah or with the Adversary in She’owl. So it is interesting to note that the rach root of rachap, translated “hovered over, ministered to, and cleansed,” conveys many spiritual attributes. Rachamah depicts a “mother’s womb.” Rechem is a matrix, the source from which life originates, develops, and takes form.” Rachmany is a “compassionate woman,” whereas rachuwm is simply “compassion.” Racham is “love, deep, tender, affectionate, nurturing, familial, compassionate, merciful, and motherly love.” Rachats is a “trusted female servant at a bath who washes and cleanses.” Rachsah is “to wash and cleanse, removing all contaminants and filth.” Rachem is “mercy.” Rachab is “expansive, enormous in scope and breadth,” even “enlarging, growing, and liberating.” Rachash is “to move and stir, to awaken, invigorate, and motivate.” A rachath is a feminine noun depicting a “winnowing implement, something which is used to separate the wheat from the chaff.”
The ruwach | Spirit is always associated with “waters,” as She is here, because of their life-giving and cleansing properties. The ruwach | Spirit is always associated with “light” as She is here, because “‘owr – is that which shines, brightens, illuminates, enlightens, provides sight, warms, and enables life and growth.” And the ruwach | Spirit is always associated with “separation” as She is here, because Yahowah wants us to be set apart unto Him. He delights in those who are enveloped, covered, and adorned in the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit’s” Garment of Light, but He does not know those shrouded in darkness.
Yahowah invites us to come into the presence of the maternal manifestation of His light on the Miqra’ of 378Matsah, the day each year where we are perfected by God. We are also encouraged to answer His invitation to approach this same feminine aspect of God’s light on Yowm Kipurym, the Day of Reconciliations. Souls who do not respond to Yahowah’s Invitation on either occasion, die, ceasing to exist, or they will be permanently separated from God in She’owl, where they will spend eternity with Sha’uwl. And between, on Seven Shabats, Yahowah’s Set-Apart Spirit empowers and enriches the Covenant’s children, helping them learn and grow.
Had Sha’uwl asked Yahowchanan, the appointed Apostle and chosen disciple would have told the imposter that the only way the ruwach | Spirit could be acquired was by observing the Torah. After all, he transcribed the following spiritual conversation. But as we listen in, please be mindful, this was spoken in Hebrew. We do not know when, where, or by whom it was translated into Greek, but we do know that the underlying Greek text was carelessly maintained and routinely altered. And while the “Gospel of John” does not pass the test Yahowah provided in the Towrah to qualify as the “Word of God,” the following is, nonetheless, interesting…
“Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of Yahuwdah’s ruling council. He came to Yahowsha’ at night and said to him, ‘Teacher, we know you have come from God. For no man could perform the inspiring signs you are doing if God were not inside of him.’
In reply Yahowsha’ declared, ‘I teach you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born from above.’
‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be reborn.’
Yahowsha’ answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one 379can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit.
You should not be surprised or marvel at my saying, you must be born from above. The Spirit blows like the wind and breathes life wherever she desires. You are endowed with the faculty to hear her voice, yet you do not know from where she comes and becomes known or where she is going. In this manner, he who is to have eternal life, each and everyone is born and delivered by the Spirit.’
Nicodemus said, ‘In what manner can this happen, becoming a reality?’
Yahowsha’ answered, ‘You are Yisra’el’s teacher, and do you not understand this? Most assuredly, I tell the truth concerning this. We speak of what we have known and bear witness to what we have seen, but still you do not receive our testimony.’
If I have spoken of the earthly and human, and you do not trust, how then might you rely when I speak of trusting the heavenly? No one has ever ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven – the son of man.
Just as Moseh lifted up the snake in the desert, so likewise, in the same way and manner, the son of man must be lifted up, in order that everyone who relies on him may have eternal life.
For Yahowah so loved the world that He gave His son, that whoever trusts and relies upon him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever relies upon him is not judged, separated, or condemned, but whoever does not rely stands 380condemned already because he has not trusted in the name of God’s son.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness instead of light, because their behavior was annoying.
Everyone who practices evil hates the light and will not come into the light concerned that his behavior and deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, in order that it may be seen plainly, that what he has done is taking place in close proximity to God.” (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 3:1-21)
As a Pharisee in Yahuwdah | Judah, Nicodemus | to Conquer and Fetter (in that this name was based upon that of the Greek god of Victory and means “to bind in chains,” it is likely errant) should have been considerably more aware of what the Torah teaches regarding the Set-Apart Spirit, our spiritual birth into the Covenant, and the role the Invitations to Meet with God play in our receipt of the Spirit. Nonetheless, after chiding him for his ignorance, Yahowsha’ explained the process of our adoption into our Heavenly Father’s Family. And I suppose he did so, because “Nicodemus” was receptive, something he demonstrated by his search and his questions, things religious individuals all too often avoid.
Returning to Galatians, in a case of darkness calling the night black, Sha’uwl protested:
“In this way (houto), ignorant and irrational (anoetos – lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically, foolish and senseless, dimwitted and without understanding) you are (eimi – you exist). Having begun (enarchomai – having commenced by way of) with spirit (ΠΝI – used by the Disciples as a placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma), now (nyn – at the same time) in flesh (sarx) you are completing (epiteleo – you are undergoing and finishing, bringing to a close (present tense which portrays 381an uncompleted action in process, middle voice reveals that those Sha’uwl is calling ignorant are doing this to themselves, and indicative mood indicating that this assessment is real))?” (Galatians 3:3)
Therefore, according to “God’s gift to the world,” the Galatians were ignorant and irrational because their answer to the following question was consistent with Yahowah, His Towrah, Yahowsha’, his disciples, and the community at large, but inconsistent with Paul: “out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief?”
When considered together (Galatians 3:2 through 3:5), it is obvious that Paul was associating the Torah with the flesh, and disassociating it from the Spirit in Gnostic fashion. Fortunately, however, these Galatians were better informed and more rational than Christians today and chose God’s approach over Paul’s. They recognized that the Set-Apart Spirit acts in a manner which is consistent with the Word of God – just as She did for Yahowsha’. Once we have been born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother as a result of the Towrah, Beryth, and Miqra’ey, we are adopted into God’s Family, perfected, enriched, enlightened, and empowered – just as was the case with Yahowsha’ during Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children following Pesach and Matsah.
Therefore, the Galatians were informed and reasonable, even right. Paul was either ignorant, irrational, or duplicitous. He was also rude, projecting his faults on those who would not capitulate.
Also relevant, the moment we are born anew from above as a result of the Beryth, Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, we are eternal and perfected children of the Covenant. Therefore, once we have begun with the Spirit, there is nothing left to do relative to our status, rendering Paul’s protestation oblivious and unenlightened.
382In this case, these translations are correct, but the message they have translated is wrong. NA: “Thusly unmindful you are. Having begun in spirit, now in flesh you are thoroughly completing.” KJV: “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” LV: “Are you so foolish that, though you began with the Spirit, you would now end with the flesh?”
But alas, there is an exception to every rule. NLT: “How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort?” It is clearly Christians who make Christianity deceptive. This is not what Paul wrote. Shame on them.
We do not “pascho – suffer” in our approach to Yahowah. The five conditions and five benefits of the Covenant are pleasing and enjoyable. They are liberating, enlightening, enriching, and empowering. And the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah to which Yahowah is inviting His children, are celebrations of life and family. Paul’s proposition and accusations are wrong from beginning to end.
“So much (tosoutos – so many, so great, and so long these things) you suffered (pascho – you were affected, and you were vexed, annoyed, and angry) without reason or result (eike – without purpose or cause, in vain, randomly and chaotically without a plan). If (ei) indeed, really (ge) and yet then (kai – and also) thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause (eike – without reason, result, or purpose, and for naught).” (Galatians 3:4)
Sha’uwl is insinuating that Yahowah’s plan of salvation, which consists of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths, and which Yahowsha’ devoted his life to fulfilling, is comprised of thoughtless, random, and chaotic events that are neither part of an overall plan nor productive, and that by answering God’s 383invitations to celebrate these festival feasts with Him the participant suffers greatly, they are vexed and annoyed without benefit. Perhaps he is even insinuating that being observant is a complete waste of time because his replacement can be accepted impulsively and thoughtlessly – by faith no less. He is also suggesting that our Spiritual rebirth can be aborted. But none of this is so.
The primary meaning of pascho, rendered “you suffered,” speaks of “an experience which is typically unpleasant,” but at its heart it is mostly about “feeling” rather than thinking. It is about being “affected emotionally” rather than using evidence and reason to form a rational and reliable conclusion. So Sha’uwl is trying to turn the tables on those who are observant, accusing them of what he demands: belief in the unknown rather than trust in what has been revealed and can be known. Disingenuous politicians deploy this tactic to confuse the unsuspecting and to make it more difficult for their opposition to attack their weaknesses. In reality, ignorance is required to believe Paul and Yahowah is known to those who are observant.
If Paul had been speaking for God, he would not have asked his question nor made his accusation because both were ridiculous. It’s akin to asking someone if they have traveled across a bridge if after crossing it they retreat and go back to the original side.
In that this has all been so devious and deceitful, demeaning and demonic, let’s check the NA just to make sure Sha’uwl’s message is being conveyed accurately: “Such things you suffered without cause. If indeed also without cause.”
Therefore, trying to put lipstick on this pig, “So much and so long these things you suffered, you were vexed and annoyed without reason or result, even chaotically without a plan. If indeed, and yet then also 384thoughtlessly and for nothing without reason or result,” the KJV proposed: “Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.” LV: “Have you been suffering so much without a reason? If so, then it is in vain.” Our adoption into God’s Covenant Family is a joyous affair, which is why Yahowah’s Seven Invitations to Meet with Him are Festival Feasts. Further, the message of Yowm Kipurym, the Day of Reconciliations, is that God has restored our relationship with Him so that we can celebrate and enjoy Sukah – camping out with our Heavenly Father.
The Covenant and the Way to participating in it is the most beneficial agreement in the universe and the most enjoyable path to follow, yet ignorant of this, the NLT proposed: “Have you experienced so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it?”
Possessed, Paul cannot refrain from belittling the Torah. He has a vendetta against the Word of God.
“The one (o) therefore (oun – consequently or then) supplying further (epichoregeo – providing and supporting) you (ou) the spirit (to ΠΝI – placeholder used by the Disciples for Ruwach (a feminine noun in Hebrew) using pneuma (a neuter noun in Greek)), and (kai) causing to function and operating (energeo – bringing about and producing to grant the ability of (present tense, active voice, participle (verbal adjective), nominative (to be or to become), singular, masculine (thereby misrepresenting the maternal nature of the Ruwach Qodesh))) powers (dunamis – abilities, authorities, and supernatural capabilities (feminine plural)) in (en) you (sou) out of (ek) acting upon and engaging in (ergon – observing and working on the tasks assigned in) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out for the purpose of nurturing those with an inheritance (singular genitive and thus specific)) or (e) from (ek – out of) hearing (akoe – listening) faith (pistis – belief (the original meaning was trust but migrated to faith as a result of Sha’uwl’s 385letters))?” (Galatians 3:5)
If you are still clinging to the myth that this was inspired by God, you may be thinking that my translations are unfairly making Sha’uwl appear inarticulate. So please, consider this from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, or NA for short: “The one then supplying further to you the spirit and operating powers in you from works of law or from hearing of trust.”
Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym are prerequisites, enabling the benefits of Shabuw’ah, where the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit enriches, empowers, and enlightens the Children of the Covenant. That is God’s plan. It is what the Towrah teaches.
You and I are free to accept Yahowah’s gift, reject it, or remain oblivious to it. But we are not at liberty to besmirch it, change it, or replace it.
I do not know if Paul, as is the case with other rabbis, was unaware that these Invitations to Meet with God enable all five of the Covenant’s benefits – eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and Spiritual empowerment – or he was deliberately misleading his audience. But since he claimed to have been inspired by God, it does not matter if the resulting deception was deliberate or unintentional.
By contrast, Yahowah is an effective communicator. God is trustworthy, as is His Towrah. His Covenant Family is welcoming. His Invitations to be Called Out and Meet are enjoyable. He is exceedingly brilliant, remarkably kind, and exceptionally generous. Yahowah is consistent and reliable. And He just so happens to be God, the Creator of the universe and Architect of life. He is everything Sha’uwl | Paul is not.
There is no dichotomy, therefore, between the Towrah 386and the Spirit, between the Towrah and God. It is unfortunate for mankind that Sha’uwl postured a conflict between them.
Paul is saying that it is not only better to believe what he has verbally communicated than it is to trust what is written in the Towrah, he is claiming that God’s testimony is harmful. Then incomprehensibly, he wants us to believe that he is speaking for the same God whose proven witness he is assailing.
This is the preposterous proposition upon which Christianity totters. It requires us to believe that God failed and was impotent and that His Towrah was cruel and counterproductive. God was unable to save anyone. Recognizing His ineptitude, the Almighty dispensed with the prophets, passed on “Jesus,” rebuked the disciples, and turned to this megalomaniac and moron to come up with a new plan to save Gentiles while condemning His Chosen People – inspiring an irrational narcissist to contradict and misquote Him. And we are to believe that the resulting schizophrenic word salad supersedes and annuls fifteen hundred years of inspired prophetic testimony. That is what is required to believe what Paul has written. Little wonder his religion was based upon faith.
Incredulously, Paul is saying that believing his preaching provides direct access to spiritual power and that the Torah’s guidance leads to suffering. By making this claim, this distinction, Paul is affirming that his message not only differs substantially from God’s, but also that his message is superior. If you believe him, you are a Christian, duly intoxicated and incapacitated.
It is as clear as Paul’s muddled rhetoric allows. He was attempting to devalue the Torah relative to his preaching. And having read both, that was an arrogant and foolish thing for him to propose.
The most effective lies not only contain an element of 387truth, they twist and corrupt the truth. In this regard, the passage is blowing in the wind without support. We are empowered because of the things we do, which is why the Beryth | Covenant has conditions. They must be known, understood, accepted, and acted upon. The same is true with the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. One cannot trust the unknown nor rely upon something incomprehensible.
The right answer is the former and the wrong approach is the latter…“The one therefore supplying you the spirit, and functioning to become powers and supernatural capabilities in you out of acting upon and engaging in the Torah or from hearing faith?”
Turning to the KJV: “He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” Now the LV: First in Latin: “Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum, et operatur virtutes in vobis: ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei?” Now in English: “Therefore, does he who distributes the Spirit to you, and who works miracles among you, act by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?”
And then for the fictional version we have the NLT: “I ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you believe the message you heard about Christ.” Christianity happens when an errant statement is translated dishonestly.
The Spirit’s power in our lives is directly attributable to the first four Miqra’ey, the presentation of which sits at the heart of the Towrah. For example, the influence of the Set-Apart Spirit was unknown to the disciples until the fulfillment of the fourth Invitation to be Called Out: Seven Shabats. As a direct result of the fulfillment of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, the Set-Apart 388Spirit came upon the members of Yahowah’s family on Shabuw’ah, empowering them to convey Yahowah’s healing and beneficial message to the world. And it occurred without Paul’s contribution or interference. How do you suppose that was possible?
Shim’own | “Peter” experienced the Seven Shabats’ transformation in person, just as he had been a beneficiary of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children being fulfilled in advance of this day. Paul had missed them all, and as a result, was oblivious to the most important connections between the Towrah and Yahowsha’, between the Set-Apart Spirit and the Invitations to Meet with God, and between those Festival Feasts and the Covenant.
On the predicted and promised day of the Spirit – Shabuw’ah – Yahowah enabled every member of His Covenant Family to share His Towrah testimony with people of every race and language. In that he is in denial of this essential aspect of Yahowah’s plan, Galatians is revisionist history.
In that it is often helpful to see an author’s thoughts in unison, one sentence flowing to the next, the first five verses of Galatians 3 reveal:
“O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable Galatians. Who bewitched, deceived, and slandered you, seducing you with this evil? (3:1) This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (Galatians 3:2)
In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (Galatians 3:3)
So much and so long these things you suffered, you were vexed and annoyed without reason or result, even 389chaotically without a plan. If indeed, then also thoughtlessly and for nothing without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)
The one therefore then supplying you the spirit and causing to function and operating powers in you out of acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Towrah or out of hearing faith?” (Galatians 3:5)
It’s hard to believe.
Paraphrasing God’s Word to advance his next point, Sha’uwl will say that Abram had faith in Yahowah before the Torah was written. While his assumption is invalid, making this argument a straw man, his intent will be to demonstrate that the Torah was, therefore, irrelevant to the Covenant. He will continue to develop this theory throughout the remainder of this chapter and into the next. His logic is so flawed that it is a wonder he fooled so many people on such a crucial issue: the relationship between the Torah and Covenant.
Before we begin, I would like to point out the obvious: it is impossible to invalidate the Towrah on the basis that the story of Abraham and the Covenant came before the Towrah because they are only known to us through the Towrah. Literally nothing would be known of Abraham had Yahowah not shared His experience with him in His Towrah. It would be like saying: Captain Ahab’s obsessive quest of the White Whale, and the adventure introduced by Ishmael, came before Herman Melville wrote Moby-Dick in 1851.
This peculiar argument only prevails with those who are unaware of Yahowah’s Towrah – its proof of inspiration, Authorship, content, meaning, and purpose. 390And besides, God told us in His Towrah that He had shared His towrah with Abraham. Listen...
“Therefore (wa), I will grow and thrive (rabah – I will greatly increase) with (‘eth – alongside) your offspring (zera’ – seed) in connection with (ka – corresponding to) the highest and most illuminated (kowkab – speaking of the light emanating from stars in the loftiness of) heavens (shamaym – spiritual realm of God).
I will give (nathan – I will bestow and deliver, I will grant a gift) to (la) your offspring (zera’ – seed) everything (kol) associated with (‘eth) the (ha) realm (‘erets – land and region) of God (‘el).
Also (wa), all (kol) people from every race and place (gowym – gentile individuals) on earth (‘erets – in the realm and land) can be blessed with favorable circumstances (barak – they will be greeted and adored) through (ba – with and because of) your offspring and what you sow (zera’ ‘atah – your seed).
This is because (‘eqeb – this is the result and consequence of), beneficially as a result of the relationship (‘asher – for the purpose of developing a close and favorable association), ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched and merciful father, or father of the multitudes who are confused and troublesome) listened to (shama’ – he heard and paid attention to) the sound of My voice (b-qowl-y – My verbal communication and call; from qara’ – My invitation, summons, and pronouncement to be called out, My offer to meet and be welcomed by Me) and (wa) he continuously observed, closely examined, and carefully considered (shamar – he kept his focus upon and diligently evaluated, he paid attention to the details so that he could understand) My observances (mishmereth – My things to carefully examine; from my – to ponder the implications of shamar 391– being observant), My terms and conditions (mitswah – My binding covenant contract and authorized relationship agreement), My inscribed prescriptions for living (chuqah – My clearly communicated and engraved instructions regarding what you should do to be cut into the relationship), and My Towrah (Towrah – My teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction; from tow – My signed, written, and enduring, towrah – way of treating people, tuwr – providing the means to explore, seek, find, and choose, yarah – the source from which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb – provides answers that facilitate restoration and return by responding to towb – that which is good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes you to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr – purifying and cleansing you, towr – to provide you with the opportunity to change your thinking, attitude, and direction toward Me).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 26:4-5)
And therein lies the demise of Paul’s premise.
In that it is also germane to negating Paul’s spurious attack and replacing trust in the Towrah with faith in his mumblings, let’s turn back a few pages and consider the quotation Sha’uwl is about to corrupt. It reads:
“Now look up and pay attention, something important is being accentuated. Be observant at this moment in time, and notice the details in this statement, considering the context because it will change your perspective: The Word, the insight and instruction, of Yahowah moved closer to him, approaching to say, ‘This suggestion as a concept and provision, this individual within the scope of the idea being proposed, shall not be the recipient of your inheritance.
On the contrary, and as a condition, the means to show the way to the beneficial relationship shall be 392brought forth, continually extended and delivered with unfolding consequences throughout time from your inner being and as a result of your judgment. This will be the inheritance for you.’ (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:4)
It was then He took him in such a way that enabled him to participate with Him, taking him outside to an expansive place. And He said, ‘Please, I am asking you with a sense of urgency to focus. Be especially observant at this moment and choose to consider the heavens along with the spiritual realm.
Accurately relate to them while making a declaration regarding this event because it is designed to provide documented proof of the agreement.
This perspective will illustrate, enumerate, and validate the qualities associated with the light of the stars and the heavenly powers. It is designed to demonstrate what it would be like to exist as light.
Are you able to comprehend this, and thereby endure forever? Are you capable of recognizing the meaning of these insights which, when properly considered, empower you to accomplish something extraordinary?
Can you process the implications and boldly embody an attitude of absolute confidence by accounting for these things in the resulting written document?’
Then He made a promise, saying to him, ‘Your extended family will actually exist like this. They will possess the characteristics inherent herein, appearing in this manner and place.’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:5)
“And so (wa) he completely trusted in and totally relied upon (‘aman ba – he displayed complete and total confidence in, recognizing as trustworthy and true, reliable and dependable, verifiable and unwavering, nurturing and 393caring, therefore engendering a comprehensive assurance in the overall veracity of (hifil perfect – the subject, ‘Abram, causes the object, Yahowah, to participate in the action, which is now mutual trust as a result of a single act of reliance which is viewed as total and complete)) Yahowah (Yahowah).
Therefore (wa), based upon this thinking and His plan, He credited and accounted it as (chashab huw’ – He decided and determined predicated upon this thoughtful and rational consideration, and based upon His formulation to logically and appropriately impute it as) being correct, and thus vindicated (tsadaqah – being right, just, innocent, and righteous) with him (la huw’).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:6)
Everything would be based upon evidence and reason, shared experiences and thoughtful conversations. God mentioned nothing remotely akin to “faith.” He did not say, nor did He infer, that the benefits of the Covenant occurred because “Abraham believed Him.” And as such, you can discard Paul’s letters, including Galatians.
The fulcrum upon which Paul’s preposterous proposition pivots is his feeble attempt to bypass the Torah by saying that Abram’s righteousness was the result of this man’s “faith.” Paul would have you believe that it had nothing to do with his willingness to listen to Yahowah’s instructions or observe the conditions of His Covenant as they were articulated through Yahowah’s Towrah teaching.
The Father of Lies wrote…
“Just as (kathos – to the degree that, in as much as, and accordingly) Abram (Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew, ‘ab-ram, Abraham’s name before the Covenant was consummated) believed (pisteuo – had faith in; as it evolved over time based upon Sha’uwl’s usage) the God (to ΘΩ) and (kai) it was reasoned (logizomai – it was 394recorded and accounted) to Him (autos) to (eis) righteousness (dikaiosune – justice, being upright and virtuous; from dikaios and dike, meaning in accord with divine instruction, virtuous, and innocent from a judicial decree).” (Galatians 3:6)
In the previous chapter, we were correctly informed by Shim’own | Peter, that “Sha’uwl | Paul wrote around and about dikaiosune,” the word translated “righteousness” in Galatians 3:6. And he was correct. We discovered that it “describes the manner in which souls are approved by God.” Dikaiosune speaks of “thinking correctly so as to become acceptable.” The dikaios root of this word conveys the idea of “becoming upright by observing God’s instructions.”
More to the point, dikaios is based upon dike and deiknuo which speak of “exposing the evidence to teach and prove that which is consistent with the law, as in resolving a dispute with a just verdict.” The comparable term in Hebrew and in the Towrah is “mishpat – to exercise good judgment regarding the just means to resolve disputes.” And indeed, we should think our way through this material, judicially comparing Paul’s rhetoric to Yahowah’s testimony, if we are to avoid falling into the trap which has ensnared so many.
In this light it is helpful to know that mishpat is a compound of my – to inquire about the who, what, where, why, and when of shaphat – making good decisions, distinguishing between fact and fiction, good and bad, truth and deception.
As always, context is critical. If we were to remove Paul’s statement from those which have come before it and, more importantly, from those which will follow, we could be led to believe that Abram was considered righteous because he trusted the promises God made to him. What makes this misconception so enticing is that it is a clever 395variation of the truth. It veils the fact that Abraham was “upright and acceptable” because he trusted and relied upon the Author of the Covenant and Torah, which therefore makes this distinction irrelevant.
Further, it was possible for Abraham to trust Yahowah because God spoke directly to him, walked and explored with him, even argued and dined with him. And while God personally revealed Himself to Abraham, he was not unique in this way. Yahowah has spoken to the rest of us through these words. We are witnesses to this conversation. Therefore, we too can know Yahowah. We can come to trust Him, and as a result, we too can be considered right.
Paul is trying to establish a distinction between the promises made to Abraham and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, as if they were somehow separate things. And then he will use this illusion to demean the Towrah by suggesting that Abraham did not need it to be right with God. And yet everything that can be known about their relationship, and its consequence, is found in the Towrah.
Also telling, in this same letter, Paul will say that the Covenant presented in the Torah, the one scribed for our benefit on Mount Sinai, enslaves, because it was established with Hagar, not Sarah, Abraham’s wife. Of course, the opposite of what Paul claims is true. The Covenant was affirmed with Sarah’s child, Yitschaq, while Hagar’s child, Ishmael, was expressly excluded.
Therefore, Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s epistle has become as schizophrenic as its author. Since Abraham and this Covenant are completely unknown apart from the Torah, citing the Torah he is discrediting to validate his denunciation of the Towrah is insane.
He cannot have it both ways.
This realization affirms that Shim’own | Peter was right 396with regard to his evaluation of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He said, Sha’uwl uses “circular reasoning to speak around and about dikaiosune,” but not in a positive sense as the rest of Peter’s assessment portends. Paul twists the facts, and then deploys a plethora of logical fallacies to suggest that the Torah is worse than irrelevant; it is our foe.
At stake here is the definition of pisteuo, which I have translated using its current meaning, “believed,” as opposed to its original connotation: “to trust and rely upon.” Pisteuo is from pistis, “to think so as to be persuaded by the evidence.” But considering that Sha’uwl never provides sufficient evidence “to trust” anyone or anything, and his logic is too flawed “to rely” on anyone or anything, it is obvious that he intended to convey “faith and belief,” concepts which thrive in the absence of information and reason.
In this case, Sha’uwl wants Christians to believe that Abram had faith in God. And then he wants to equate Abraham’s alleged faith with the merits of believing his preaching. But in the context of meeting directly with God, exploring the heavens with Him, conceiving a child when he was 100 years old with a wife who was 90, and witnessing the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham’s firsthand experience trumps belief, destroying Sha’uwl’s premise. Furthermore, those who observe the Towrah know that Yahowah conveyed His Towrah | Teaching to Abraham, completely undermining the foundation of Pauline Doctrine.
In spite of what the Christian translations suggest, Abraham knew God; he walked, spoke, explored, ate, and drank with God. Believing, which is accepting that which is not assured, was not relevant in his situation. Therefore, it was inappropriate for Paul to write: “Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the God so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness, having disputes justifiably resolved.” NA: “Just as 397Abraham trusted the God and it was reasoned to him for rightness.” KJV: “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” LV: “It is just as it was scriptum/written: “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.” NLT: “In the same way, ‘Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.’” In direct opposition to the NLT, KJV, and even the Qur’an, Abraham did not have a faith; he enjoyed a genuine and personal relationship with God. Abraham knew Yahowah, and he understood His Towrah, and because of those facts, faith was beside the point.
It begs to be noted at this juncture that Abraham’s name confirms that “mercy” isn’t new, nor is it the lone prerogative of the so-called “Christian New Testament.” The Covenant was established with Abraham, a man whose name means “Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father.” And that is something Sha’uwl cannot accept, which is why he consistently refers to Abraham as Abram, by his pre-Covenant moniker, by the name he was born with rather than the name Yahowah gave him. But you will notice that every English translation corrected Paul’s backhanded swipe at God.
Paul’s next point sounds reasonable, at least up to the point that we pause long enough to really think it through. He wrote:
“You know (ginosko – you have the information necessary to recognize, perceive, understand, and acknowledge) as a result (ara – consequently) that (hoti – because) the ones (oi) out of (ek – from) faith (pisteuo – belief), these (outoi) sons (huios – male children) are (eimi – exist as (present tense conveying an action in process, active voice suggesting that “the ones” are acting on themselves, indicative mood saying that are actually)) Abram (Abraam).” (Galatians 3:7)
Abraham was a mere mortal. No one can choose to be 398one of his descendants. And that means that this plank in Paul’s thesis was wrong spiritually and literally.
For example, both of Abraham’s children, Ishmael and Yitschaq, died. Expressly excluded from the Covenant, Ishmael remains deprived of life. Likewise, Esau, a direct descendant of Abraham, is most assuredly dead (or worse) because God has told us that He hates him for having married two of Ishmael’s daughters, thereby rebelling against the Towrah and Covenant. So being Abraham’s child has no merit beyond one’s temporal life, no matter how upright Abraham may have been.
The only reason Yitschaq still lives is that he personally benefited from Yahowah’s direct intervention and provision on Mount Mowryah. It is the only way any of us can survive our mortal existence.
Abraham became the forefather of a great (in the sense of being important and empowered) family, the Covenant, by way of Yitschaq initially, the firstborn of the Covenant. Yitschaq’s son, Ya’aqob, became Yisra’el, and his son, Yahuwdah, brought us Dowd and Yahowsha’ – the Shepherd and the Lamb.
Being invited to participate in the Covenant, being hand-delivered an invitation in the Towrah, does not enable the recipient to transcend mortality, no matter to whom they may be related. It is how we respond to Yahowah’s Covenant that matters.
In support of this, we have the opportunity to answer God’s invitations and participate in seven annual festival feasts, or we can dismiss them and Him, placing our faith instead in someone else’s promise. We can accept Paul’s “Gospel of Grace” on faith, or we can come to know and trust Yahowah through His Towrah. The choice is ours, and so are the consequences.
Metaphorically, we become Abraham’s children when 399we choose to accept the same Covenant in which he elected to participate. But since our adoption into Yahowah’s family is by way of His one-and-only Covenant, the one which was memorialized in the Torah, this is only possible when we appreciate the connection between Abraham and Yahowah, between the Covenant and the Torah, and between observing and responding. And yet these are the very associations which Paul severs.
Therefore, what Sha’uwl wrote is not true. The message of the Towrah is that we can become Yahowah’s Covenant children by acting upon its terms and conditions. There are five of these. First, Yahowah asked us to walk away from our country and all things associated with Babylon, specifically national and religious dependence. Second, God asks us to trust and rely exclusively upon Him, which necessitates coming to know Him and understanding what He is offering. Third, He wants us to walk to Him and become perfected, the means to which is made possible through the seven Invitations to Meet with God. Fourth, Yahowah asks us to closely examine and carefully consider His Covenant, which is accomplished by studying the Towrah. And fifth, God asked that all men be circumcised with parents circumcising their sons so that we remember to raise them to become Children of the Covenant.
Beyond this, faith is for fools; it is the residue of ignorance, and it is the stuff of religion. A relationship with Yahowah is based upon knowing Him through His Word, and then trusting and relying upon that which we come to know.
Nonetheless, according to the KJV: “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” LV: “Therefore, know that those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham.” NLT: “The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God.” They would all be wrong on all 400accounts, but because Paul was wrong, not on account of their translations of: “You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these sons are Abraham.” And just for verification, the NA published: “You know then that the ones from trust these sons are Abraham.”
If Sha’uwl intended pistis to mean “trust and reliance” in this next statement, and indeed elsewhere, then it would have been incumbent upon him to validate the Towrah, conveying its teachings, because this is the only place where God can be known and His plan for vindication can be understood. But instead, he has consistently discounted it. While the original meaning of pistis, which is “trust and reliance,” remains valid, that connotation is possible only when the source of the promise and the nature of the offer is known and valid. Faith, however, is operative even in the face of ignorance – which is why there are so many religious people.
Therefore, while this too is very poorly written, what Paul appears to be saying is that his god, knowing beforehand that Paul would be advancing an alternative plan of salvation for the Gentiles based upon faith, predicted the advent of his plan. Of course, that prediction is supposedly in the Torah, the book Paul is invalidating, thereby negating the merits of the argument.
“Having seen before (proorao – having seen beforehand, having obtained the ability to see things in advance of them occurring) then (de – but by contrast) the (o) writing (graphe – the written word; used to describe the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms), that because (hoti) out of (ek) faith (pistis – belief, recognizing that the original connotation of trust and reliance evolved to accommodate these letters) makes right (dikaioo – causes acquittal, being right, and pronounced just, is justification, vindication, and righteousness, with guilt removed so as to be declared innocent, in compliance with the standard as a result of a judicial decision (present, active, indicative – at 401the present time faith actually produces righteousness in)) the people from different races and places (ethnos – the nations and ethnicities, specifically Gentiles), the God (o ΘΣ), He before beneficial messenger acted (proeuangelizomai – acted in advance of the positive messenger; from pro – before and euaggelizo – good, beneficial, and healing messenger (presented in the aorist middle indicative, collectively revealing past tense whereby the subject, “the God,” is being affected by His own action)), to the (to) Abram (Abraam – a transliteration of Abraham’s name before the Covenant was affirmed), that (hoti – because) they will in time be spoken of favorably (eneulogeo – they would be kindly conferred benefits; from en – in a fixed position in place or time and eulogeo – beneficial words, and therefore well-spoken praise (future, passive, indicative)) in (en) you (soi) all (pas) the races (ta ethnos – the ethnicities, peoples, and nations).” (Galatians 3:8)
Since this is senseless, the truth is that in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Yahowah proposed and enabled a specific plan to reconcile misguided men and women back into a relationship with Him. The Covenant with Abraham was ratified on Mount Mowryah as a dress rehearsal. It served as a prophetic picture of Passover, whereby Yahowah promised to provide the lamb and facilitate the benefits of His Familial Relationship agreement, doing so forty Yowbel later on that same mountain by fulfilling Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah. The gift of salvation, as a byproduct of reconciling the relationship, was conceived, presented, predicted, promised, and gift wrapped in the Towrah so that it could be unveiled before us, opening our eyes to this knowledge and understanding.
As we swim deeper into Sha’uwl’s swamp, the chief polluter wants his audience to float from the oral promise made to Abram to bless his descendants, directly to his Christou, bypassing the Torah along the way. It will be as 402if the promises were somehow in conflict with the only document which memorialized and explained them.
Further, Sha’uwl wants his audience to equate listening to and believing him with Abraham’s alleged faith, because he also listened to God. Sure, that is an extraordinarily weak argument, but it lies at the foundation of Pauline Doctrine.
And while it is a small issue, “Scripture” does not “foresee.” Yahowah foresees. And neither the Torah nor the Covenant exists because God foresaw that different people from different races would be blessed by way of the message delivered to Abraham. This is a benefit of the Covenant, not the reason it was conceived. Moreover, Sha’uwl’s version of it is incongruous with Yahowah’s depiction, negating Paul’s prophetic implications.
Thus far we have been confronted with a steady diet of pistis, a noun which, as you know, originally meant “trust and reliance.” It is from the verb, pisteuo, meaning “to trust” and “to rely upon.” Opening the pages of the world’s most acclaimed lexicons and Greek dictionaries, we discover that the primary definition of the noun and verb in the 1st century CE conveyed the ideas of: “confidence, assurance, commitment, fidelity, reliability, proof, persuasion, conviction, truth, veracity, and reality.” Once upon a time, pistis addressed that which “can be known, that which can be trusted, that which evokes trust, that which can be relied upon as being dependable, that which is reliable, that which enables the absolute assurance of a promise being kept, and the use of one’s conscience to test and thus prove that something is reliable and true.”
Unfortunately, Paul’s use in this context precludes any of these connotations because he was devaluing the lone source of knowledge and understanding which would have made these things possible. And therefore, since Paul’s letters are the most influential ever penned in Greek, and 403recognizing that the traditional definition of pistis is wholly dysfunctional in his epistles, the perception of pistis evolved to “faith and belief” among the world’s religious devotees.
Taking this a step further, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament says of pistis and pisteuo: “The noun and verb occur 243 times each in the NT. Neither occurs in Second or Third John. In the Book of John, we only see the verb. And in Colossians, Philemon, Second Peter, and Revelation, only the noun is used. But since the same statement is expressed by the noun and verb, they should be considered together.” The ED of the NT reveals: “They were not used as catchwords for those engaging in religious propaganda in the Hellenistic world, nor among those involved in Judaism. They were not religious terms, nor used in religious contexts.”
And yet today, as a direct result of Paul’s promotion of faith, and the influence of the religion that flowed out of it, faith and religion have become synonymous. A person’s faith is their religion – their belief system. And yet while this view is completely incompatible with the word’s original meaning, its connotation was convoluted to give the erroneous impression that those who believe are saved. Worse, by misrepresenting the story of Abraham, so that it is perceived to be about salvation rather than a relationship, the Covenant is left out of the equation. It is as if Paul wants his audience to believe that his god is willing to save people who do not know him and who are averse to his message. But to a large degree, the religion of Christianity was founded upon this particular and peculiar error in perception.
A careful reading of Galatians demonstrates that the concepts of “faith” and “belief” fit comfortably in every passage where Paul writes pistis and neither “trust” nor “reliance” are ever acceptable because Paul never provides anything to trust or rely upon. Word meanings evolve over 404time, driven in part by the way that they are wielded by influential authors. Paul’s epistles changed the way the populous came to view pistis, and indeed faith, associating it with believing in Paul’s letters as opposed to relying upon Yahowah’s testimony.
But this is now and that was then: according to the ED of the NT: “Pistis and pisteuo’s closest Hebrew equivalent would have been ‘aman.” ‘Aman means “to be firmly supported, established, built up, and nurtured by that which can be confidently trusted and relied upon.” ‘Aman was used in connection with ‘edon, the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle. It conveyed the idea that “something or someone was trustworthy and faithful, and thus reliable, making them dependable.” As a verb, “‘aman meant ‘to trust,’ and was used to say: ‘Dany’el trusted God,’ in Dany’el 6:23-24.” ‘Aman affirmed that we can “depend upon someone and can give credence to their message, so long as it is understood.”
The ED of the NT would go on to write: “In secular usage, pistis and pisteuo conveyed that someone should: ‘give credence to a message and to the messenger…. Depending upon the context, they mean “consider something true and trust it.”’” And this is important only because the Disciple Yahowchanan | John is translated using pisteuo in conjunction with Yahowsha’, necessitating the pre-Pauline perspective.
The Christian New Testament’s “Hebrews” was written by Sha’uwl | Paul, or at the very least by one of his disciples. It is every bit as errant and misleading as are the other thirteen Pauline epistles. And yet it provides an interesting laboratory in which to contrast the old and new connotations of pistis. This is because its author attempts to translate many Hebrew verses into Greek. In one sentence, in particular, we find the Greek words for “true,” “trust,” “certainty,” “belief,” “faith,” and “hope.”
405They are all developed in Hebrews 10:22-23, where: “We approach and draw near with the genuine and true (alethinos – totally accurate, in absolute accord with the evidence, and in complete harmony with the one true name, and thus the opposite of a counterfeit) heart (kardia – inner nature) by trusting and relying (pistis) with complete certainty (plerophoria – in full assurance and total confidence and conviction based upon a complete understanding), cleansing and purifying (rhantizo – sprinkling and splashing) the heart (kardia – our inner nature) from a worthless and defective (poneros – morally corrupt and malicious) conscience (suneidesis – mental faculty used to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lies; from suneido, to see and be perceptive, to perceive, comprehend, and understand), and also bathing (louo – washing and cleaning a wound, removing deadly impurities from) the body (soma – physical being) [with] clean and pure (katharos) water, continuing to believe (katecho – holding fast and suppressing doubt) the profession of faith (homologia – the confession that you agree with others; from logos, spoken words, and homou, together with others in an assembly) and unwavering (aklines – and unfading) hope (elpis – the basis of anticipatory faith in an expectation as opposed to an actuality), because (gar) we are trusting and relying upon (pistos) the (o) messenger (epangellomai – from epi, by way of, the aggelos, the messenger).” (Hebrews 10:22-23)
Since the purpose of this exercise was to explore the evolution of pistis while being introduced to the palette of Greek words pertaining to these concepts, we will not dissect this passage further. To the degree the terminology is valid, it is marginalized because there was nothing presented therein to believe or trust.
That said, there was obviously a viable Greek word to express “belief,” katecho. It means “to hold fast and 406suppress doubt.” It is a compound which begins with kata, the ubiquitous term denoting everything from “down, through, according to, and with regard to,” but also “the opposite of and against.” The suffix is echo, the most common Greek term denoting: “having, holding, possessing, keeping, owning, wearing, or clinging to.” Katecho is therefore “being about clinging to something, trying to hold on.” Our lexicons tell us that someone who “katecho – believes” is likely to “quash messages” and “suppress evidence” they are uncomfortable considering. People who “believe” hold on to the object of their faith as if their soul depended upon the unremitting tightness of their grip as opposed to the trustworthiness and merit of the individual or thing to which or whom they are clinging.
The idea of a “profession of faith” hails from homologia. It speaks of the “group dynamics” inherent within religious “assemblies” where “pressure to agree with others” prompts a “spoken confession of faith.” For example, devoted Catholics speak with one voice, with everyone conforming to the edicts of the Pope.
“Faith” in the sense of “hope,” which is “a favorable expectation regarding an unknown or uncertain outcome,” is from elpis—the final word in our linguistic laboratory. It expresses “an expectation based upon something which cannot be proven as opposed to something which is an actuality.” Elpis is “an anticipatory prospect.” And in this case, “hope” was strengthened by “aklines – unwavering and unfading,” suggesting “unremitting faith in a hopeful outcome.”
So now that we have examined the full array of linguistic terms at Paul’s disposal, we can say with absolute confidence that pistis originally conveyed “trust and reliance,” not “faith, hope, or belief,” but that Paul misappropriated the term, corrupting its meaning. And since it has been Paul’s unrelenting nature to corrupt Yahowah’s words, twisting them, he did so by design.
407Realistically, determining the intended meaning of pistis has become a rhetorical question, because most every Christian translation assumes that Paul meant pistis to convey “faith” because the context allows no other option. Frankly, this conclusion is impossible to argue since faith has become synonymous with the Christian religion. Playing off Paul, a Christian will introduce himself or herself as “a person of faith,” and they will often use faith and religion interchangeably.
These lessons known, it is time to consider the English and Latin variations of Galatians 3:8: “Having seen beforehand then by contrast, the writing, that because out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the God, He before beneficial messenger acted, to the Abram that they would in time be spoken of favorably in you all the races.” Or if you prefer, in the Nestle-Aland, you will find: “Having seen before but the writing that from trust makes right the nations the God he told good message before to the Abraham that they will be well spoken in you all the nations.”
From this, the KJV produced: “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” Sha’uwl did not write “heathen,” “faith,” or “gospel.” So why does the King James contain these words? And why was the King James a willing accomplice in the advancement of Pauline Doctrine when reason dictates that there was no association between Abraham and faith, or between Abraham and Paul’s “Gospel?”
Regardless of the answers, two of the four corruptions found in the KJV came from the Roman Catholic Jerome. His Latin Vulgate says: “Thus Scriptura / Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentes by faith, foretold to Abraham: ‘All nations shall be blessed in you.’”
408It is not that the assemblage of pastors and authors responsible for the NLT didn’t know that pistis meant “trust and reliance;” it’s that saying so would be bad for business. “What’s more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would declare the Gentiles to be righteous because of their faith. God proclaimed this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’”
I suppose it is possible that none of these “scholars” did the research we have just done regarding “katecho – belief,” “homologia – faith,” and “elpis – hope,” as compared to “pistis – trust and reliance.” Ignorance is neither ally nor excuse. They have passed off their product as the inerrant Word of God when it is not even accurate.
And finally, here is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “Having seen before but the writing that from trust makes right the nations the God he told good message before to the Abraham that they will be well spoken in you all the nations.”
Since the only meaningful departure between it and my rendering was proeuangelizomai, which I translated “before beneficial messenger acted,” I’d like you to know that the reason that “messenger” was chosen over “message” is because proeuangelizomai is a compound of “pro – before,” “eu – beneficial,” and “aggelos – messenger,” not “message.” Over time, the noun, euangelion, which is derived from this verbal form, became “gospel,” which was then construed to mean “good news.” Therefore, this Christian publication is advancing the religious evolution of this term – much like what I have done with pistis.
Also, while we are considering proeuangelizomai, I found it odd that Paul presented it in the aorist middle indicative, whereby the subject, “the God,” was affected by 409His own action sometime in the past. This infers that the perceived superiority and popularity of Pauline Doctrine changed God.
The concluding verb is also an odd choice. It goes directly against something Yahowsha’ said during the Instruction on the Mount. It was his testimony that anyone who sought to negate or nullify any aspect of the Towrah’s Teaching “would be called by the name lowly and little.” And yet Paulos, which means “lowly and little,” is suggesting that he and his faithful will “eneulogeo – in time be spoken of favorably, even praised.”
Continuing to develop his thesis using this divisive line of reasoning, Sha’uwl | Paul told the Galatians he had labeled ignorant and irrational:
“As a result (hoste – therefore), the ones (oi) out of (ek) faith (pistis – belief (while it originally conveyed that which can be known, trusted, and relied upon, the popularity and influence of these letters, shaded by religious custom, altered the connotation so that it is now synonymous with religion)), we are spoken of favorably (eulogeo – we are praised, the objects of beneficial and healing words) together with (syn) the faithful (to pistos – the believer and thus the full of faith and religious) Abram (Abraam – a truncated transliteration of the Hebrew Abraham meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father).” (Galatians 3:9)
On Mount Mowryah, Abraham demonstrated that he was willing to trust Yahowah, not that he, himself, was trustworthy. So once again, Paul has twisted the Torah to serve his agenda. He has artificially elevated the status of a man instead of acknowledging the status of God.
Abraham, his life, and that of his son, Yitschaq, and grandson, Ya’aqob, are unknowable apart from the Towrah and irrelevant apart from Yahowah. To pretend that Abraham’s faith matters while disparaging and then 410dispensing with their Covenant and the book which brought both is illogical.
As the years progressed, Abraham’s continued relationship with Yahowah was strengthened by God’s willingness to work with him and fulfill His promises. As a result of what God had done for and with him, Abraham grew from a man of questionable character to righteous, from wrong most of the time to right.
But it was Yahowah, not Abraham, who proved that He was trustworthy and reliable. God promised and then provided the sacrificial lamb this day, and again exactly 2,000 years later in the same place. It was God, therefore, not man, who facilitated the promise He had made to bless all mankind through this Covenant.
The Familial Covenant Relationship was enabled on Mount Mowryah by Yahowah because He was trustworthy and reliable. The name of the mountain even means “Revere and Respect Yahowah.” And we, by coming to know, understand, and accept the same terms and conditions of the Covenant Abraham embraced, become God’s children.
There are seven essential stories in the Towrah, and this is one of them. Yahowah explained how and why He created the universe and life in it. He told us about the Garden of Eden, so that we might understand the nature of the relationship He intended and appreciate its purpose. This, of course, was frustrated by man, which is why we were introduced to Noah, the Ark, and the subsequent rainbow. Then we are exposed to the Covenant, witnessing its conditions and promises as Yahowah’s relationship with Abraham grows and develops.
As the narrative progresses, we see the Covenant expanded from an individual relationship to a family with the Exodus. It is the story of the journey out of religious and political oppression and into the Promised Land. And 411as the Yisra’elites began their walk with Yahowah, the Towrah was revealed through Moseh, so that we might learn who God is, what He is offering, and what He expects in return. This leads to the very heart of the Torah, to Qara’ where the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God are presented as the means to the Covenant’s blessings. This is the path to our salvation.
But some just never seem to get it. Mired in the milieu of religion, and unable to escape from the shadow of the Catholic Vulgate, the KJV says: “So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” It was plagiarized from Jerome, who wrote: “And so, those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.” NLT: “So all who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith.” Even if the NLT had not arbitrarily inserted “Christ,” their willingness to replace “trust” with “faith” was sufficient to miss the point.
And now as we turn the page to a new chapter, let’s give Sha’uwl the last word:
“Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the God so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these sons are Abram. (Galatians 3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast, the writing, that because out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the God, He before beneficial messenger acted, to the Abram that they would in time be spoken of favorably in you all the races. (Galatians 3:8)
As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram.” (Galatians 3:9)
