1Questioning Paul
Devil’s Advocate
…Plague of Death
1
Stoicheion | Mythology
Hard to Believe…
The third chapter of Galatians came to an abysmal conclusion, going well beyond where Satan had dared. Paul’s animosity toward God, His Torah, Covenant, and People knew no bounds. He disavowed his calling and annoyed the Almighty in so many ways it behooves us to provide a brief, albeit cynical, accounting.
Sha’uwl began this rather unappealing chapter by calling his audience, those who had rejected him and his preaching, ignorant, irrational, and unreasonable. He claimed that they were seduced and bewitched, and as a result, they were now slandering him.
The issue was the Towrah. The Galatians recognized that it was vastly more credible than any of Paul’s duplicitous rants. In rebuttal, Paul told them that his religious faith was now the sole means to acquire the spirit. Simultaneously, the Towrah was denigrated in Gnostic fashion and besmirched as “flesh.”
According to the Father of Lies, Yahowah’s Teaching and Guidance was vexing and annoying. His was a chaotic plan, even an unremitting source of suffering. Anyone sufficiently foolish to respond to Yahowah’s Towrah by acting upon God’s instructions was obviously being counterproductive.
The entirety of Yahowah’s witness regarding the 2formation of the Covenant, its conditions and benefits, was dismissed. That history was replaced with a single word: “Faith.” It became synonymous with Paul’s new religion – about which he rambled incoherently. As a result, rather than Yisra’elites being the sons of Abraham, the torch was passed to Christians. We call this sleight of hand “Replacement Theology.”
Around the 10th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians Sha’uwl goes beyond the pale. Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching is said to curse all who act upon what God has committed to writing on our behalf. Paul had the audacity to claim that, “with the Torah, no one is vindicated or saved.” This is evidently because, if we do one thing God asks, we have to do everything He commands, or we will die. That, of course, would be news to God. Then straining credulity, Paul’s answer is faith in the undisclosed. And to prove it, he misquotes the Torah.
Digging himself into the pit of She’owl | Hell, the Devil’s Advocate would have us believe that Christos “bought us back from the evil and malicious curse of the Towrah.” When all the while we have been led to believe that the Passover Lamb suffered, opening the Door to Life, so that we could live with God. He died to rid us of God’s “evil and hateful influence” in our lives. Somehow, I do not suspect that either Yahowah or Yahowsha’ are going to see the humor in this claim. But alas, Paul once again misappropriated something God said to “validate” his assertion.
While I do not follow the logic, this somehow means that Gentiles are healed, not by the Word of God, but instead by the “beneficial word of Abram” which “becomes in Christo Iesou the promise of the spirit” and is “possessed by faith.” Got it?
The nincompoops Paul claimed were morons are now addressed as “brothers according to man.” I suppose we 3should turn the other cheek and let bygones be a thing of the past unless we are assailing God’s credibility. Then… “Nonetheless, I say a man having been validated with an agreement, no one accepts added provisions,” which is, of course, what Paul is doing.
This leads to the great “seed” caper. Bypassing the seed being sown, its germination, taking root, and growing, then bearing fruit, we go from faith to faith, tossing out the Towrah which provided the seeds and told us how to plant them. “Nonetheless,” to cite the Father of Lies, thanks to Sha’uwl we can now dispense with all of the prophets from Moseh to Shamuw‘el and from Dowd to Mal’aky, because nothing of merit occurred in the ensuing 2000 years between Abraham and Yahowsha’. Therefore, it goes without saying, we ought to invalidate the 545 years which transpired between Abraham and the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el. And that means we can dispense with the revelation of the Towrah through the introduction of the Miqra’ey – not that they are relevant to Sha’uwl’s story, anyway. This is “because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God,” or some such nonsense.
Should you wonder why Yahowah bothered with the Towrah, even the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el from slavery, Paul generously provides the answer: “until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised, even commanded by messengers in the hands of the middleman.” Well, that’s perfectly sensible. After all, “but now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one.” Which is good to know. Otherwise, we may have been confused.
Having arrived at the 21st verse, we are surprised to learn that “indeed, the Torah is against the promises of God. Or, maybe not.” But at least we have the assurance that if the Towrah could vindicate, there would be some who are vindicated.
4Fortunately, all that confusing nonsense was now a thing of the past. Paul has cleared it up for us with the “bringing of the Faith.” Based upon his stalwart assurances, he has freed us from those nasty Towrah entanglements, God’s obvious errors, and His mean-spirited restrictions. And the people shouted, “Hallelujah!” Free at last, praise Paul Almighty we are free at last. Free from God, of course, but let’s not sweat the details.
And good thing because, according to the Devil’s Advocate, “the Towrah had become an enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor.” Moses, the Great Liberator, had obviously regressed and had become no better than the cruel taskmaster he had killed for tormenting his people. Nevertheless, the moment Paul revealed his Faith, there would be no return to Torah-induced slavery. The incarcerating and pedantic, overbearing nature of the Towrah had been replaced with “doing nothing” and still “being justified.” Yes, indeed, with a little religion we are now able to kick that unsavory habit of listening to God. We even get to toss out the first statement Yahowah etched in stone, about Him liberating His people, because it does not jibe with Paul’s story.
Best of all, the meaningless promises that the “old” God had made, well they were suddenly valid again, albeit with a caveat. In a senior moment He forgot to whom He had made these promises, so Paul solved that problem by revealing that Gentiles were now the real Jews. They were heirs to the Covenant that, well, no longer existed.
Okay, this catapults us into the 21st century, a time of multiculturalism and gender ambiguity. Freed of all reality, Paul would have us believe that we are all Abraham’s seed. But, how is that possible if there was only one of them. But I digress, let’s not look too closely at the man behind the curtain. It will tarnish the illusion.
5With the 3rd chapter of Galatians behind us, nothing changed. Paul remained committed to denouncing the Torah. Word by word Paul would build his case for Faith. It would be so simple; it would appeal to a child.
“So (de – but) I say (lego), as long as (epi – upon / hosos – as much / chromos – time) the (o) heir (kleronomos – one who receives an inheritance by lot) exists as (estin) a small child (nepios – an infant or baby, childish, immature, uneducated, and undisciplined), he is no different than (oudeis diaphero – he is no more valuable than) a slave (doulos), belonging to (on – being) the lord and master (kurios – the ruler and owner, one who controls and has possession) of everyone and everything (pas – of all).” (Galatians 4:1)
Say what? Slaves are owned and thus do not own. And in that slaves are subject to lords, they cannot act as lords. Therefore, we cannot render on as “belonging to” or “being.” And yet as you shall soon discover, most every English bible translation, conflicted over the concept of the “Lord,” opted to advance an oxymoron.
More importantly, those who speak for God write: “Yahowah said....” Those advancing their own agenda in opposition to Him offer: “But I say.” And those who speak for Him don’t suggest that His Torah enslaves, or that God acts like a “lord, controlling everyone.”
Inspiring the political slogan that swept Barack Obama into power, Paul has laid his foundation for “Change we can believe in.” Too bad the wannabe apostle and president sought to lord over everyone, leading them in the wrong direction.
Realizing also that this statement is an adjunct to what we have just considered, Sha’uwl is attempting to say that while the “small child is an heir” to the promise there is “no benefit” “so long as the child remains” “enslaved” to the “Lord” of the Torah. He is implying that if believers were 6to reject the Torah and accept his “Promise” on faith they would be free to grow. And yet since the terms and conditions associated with our growth are delineated in only one place, the Towrah’s depiction of the Covenant remains indispensable to those who want to be with God and indefensible to those who prefer Paul.
In the end, it all comes down to a simple choice: do you believe Paul or do you trust Yahowah? God tells us to cling to His Towrah as if our lives depended upon it, and Sha’uwl has insisted that we discard it so that we might be free of God’s abuse. If Yahowah is trustworthy, Paul is not. If Yahowah is reliable, Paul is His adversary.
Most Christians would interpret this “verse” as demarking the change between “being held in bondage to the Law” and the “freedom given to those who place their faith in the Gospel of Grace.” For them it denotes the transition from the “Old Testament” to their “New Testament,” with the latter being vastly superior, less demanding, and infinitely more accommodating.
Christian apologists would also say that Paul’s letters provide the nourishment “New Testament” children need to grow once they are free of the Torah and its mean-spirited Lord. But in reality, Paul never provides anything of value which is required to grow, preferring instead to dish out his own personal brand of poison. Truth is upended and inverted. According to Yah, His Towrah’s pivotal story is the liberation of His children from bondage so that those who accept His Covenant might become His heirs.
Paul’s Greek was so lacking that a handful of words had to be added to resolve the grammatical deficiencies in this sentence. For example, in the Nestle-Aland, we find: “I say but on as much as time the inheritor infant is nothing he differs of slave master of all being.” Yet since the King James Version was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, these deficiencies were irrelevant. It reads: “Now I say, That the 7heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.” Even as Yahowah’s child, we are not “lord of all.” Moreover, being Yahowah’s “servant” is something to aspire to, not disdain. However, it is evident that Jerome’s Vulgate inspired the English bible: “As long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.”
As if they felt authorized to write their own letter, the New Living Translation magically transformed Paul’s meager, inadequate, and errant suggestion into: “Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had.”
This may have been exactly what Paul intended. If so, it is the antithesis of what we experience as children in Yahowah’s Covenant. Paul’s deception is fostered by the implication that Yahowah acts like a “Lord,” when it is the Adversary who seeks to lord over mankind while God strives to be our Father. It is as if Paul is gazing into a mirror. Everything is backward.
Before we move on to Paul’s next point, there is something curious about kurios. It was translated as “the lord and master” in this passage because that is the word’s primary meaning. It could have also been rendered “owner” which, while accurate, would have been an uncommon depiction. Kurios is from kuros, which means “supremacy in the sense of being powerful, strong, and authoritative.”
When the disciples are translated using it in reference to Yahowah or Yahowsha’, it was always represented by a Divine Placeholder, which stood for “Yahowah” or the “Upright One” respectively, consistent with how the same placeholders were deployed throughout the Septuagint. And yet on those 667 occasions, “New Testament” 8translators universally ignored their established symbolism and printed “Lord” instead. In the relatively few times in which kurios was written out, as it is here, it is rendered “lord,” with a lowercase “l” 54 times, as “master” 11 times, and as “sir” 6 times by these same religious publications.
Since Sha’uwl’s Greek remains wanting, let’s continue to reach out to the Nestle-Aland for help. “But under governors he is and managers until the purpose of the father.” Considering this synopsis, it appears as if Paulos is attempting to combine his first two codicils. According to the wannabe apostle: those who observe the Torah are subservient to a taskmaster, therefore the Torah which imposed this condition was designed for obsolescence. Then if we are to believe the Nestle-Aland, “the purpose of the father” wasn’t expressed by His earlier contrivances, even though God clearly authored those arrangements. So why, if we are to take this translation of Paul seriously, would our Heavenly Father conceive a plan that was opposed to His will?
“Certainly (alla – but yet and by contrast with an adversarial implication), he is (eimi) under the auspices of (hypo) foremen who control the workers (epitropos – the manager or governor in charge over laborers (plural)) and (kai) administrators (oikonomos – managers of an estate who have legal authority over an inheritance; from oikos, household, and nomos, a nourishing allotment to become an heir (plural)) until (achri) the (o) previously appointed time set (prothesmia – the period prearranged, established, and fixed beforehand; from pro, before, and tithemi, to arrange and set in place) of the (tou) Father (ΠΡΣ).” (Galatians 4:2)
The intent is now obvious, albeit incredulous. There is only one God, one Author of the Towrah. He cannot be both the foreman and the Father, at one point mean and the other kind.
9Epitropos, rendered “foremen who control the workers,” is a compound of epi, “by,” and tropos: “a manner, way, or fashion.” It speaks of “those who are in control,” whether they are “managers, foremen, political officials, or even governors.” It is another way of saying that the God of the Torah is authoritarian and controlling, and that His approach is burdensome and laborious. These mischaracterizations are designed to make Paul and his Faith appear preferable. The tactic is known as a Straw Man.
Sha’uwl continues to deploy one derogatory metaphor after another to besmirch the Towrah and its Author. Since he first foisted paidagogos, “enslaved leader of boys” or “taskmaster,” in Galatians 3:24, this approach has become blasphemous to say the least.
Positioning God, who is an advocate of freewill, liberty, and empowerment in this manner, and depicting Him as controlling while stunting the growth of His children, puts Sha’uwl in a demonstrably adversarial position. In his tortured attempt to make the Towrah appear passé, the principal author of the Christian New Testament is steadfastly undermining his dubious credentials.
Even in this sentence, the epitropos, “foremen,” and oikonomos, “estate administrators,” are strange bedfellows. The first reference is to those who, on behalf of a political authority, direct and control common laborers. The second describes property and money managers hired by a homeowner. They are incompatible concepts, and neither is appropriate in reference to the Torah, even when trying to belittle it.
Especially troubling, Paul is attempting to say that the Torah was a temporary administrator, but both epitropos and oikonomos are plurals. And yet there is only one Torah, so this was clearly a gaffe in reasoning. And while there is more than one source of Rabbinic Law, we can’t use this 10as an excuse because the “foremen” and “managers” are working on behalf of the “Father” at the end of the passage, and religious Jews seldom refer to God as Father.
To their credit, the New American Standard Bible accurately conveyed Paul’s message, but unfortunately, the resulting rendering promotes the idea that the Father appointed a time in which His initial foremen and managers would become obsolete. NASB: “But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.” The only rational, although inaccurate, conclusion is that Paul was saying that God planned for the Torah to be outmoded and superseded. But if that’s true, then neither Yahowah, the Torah, nor Yahowsha’ can be trusted because they said that every aspect of the Torah would remain in effect for as long as the universe exists. Therefore, this statement once again pits Paul against God and against reason. It is becoming increasingly difficult for an informed and rational person to believe him.
The KJV rendition of this passage mistranslated “epitropos – foremen” and “oikonomos – household managers”: “But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.” And they did so because the Authorized King James Bible is nothing more than an English translation of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate: “But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father.”
Since there is no basis for “they have to obey their” or “until they reach whatever” in the Greek text, the NLT is little more than a flight into the realm of fantasy. “They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their father set.” Further, “Father” was rendered with a Divine Placeholder, meaning that ΠΡΣ was meant to be capitalized and represent our Heavenly “Father.”
Moving on, we find Paul’s word choices in this next statement deteriorating appreciably, becoming far more 11damaging than in the previous ones. Therefore, let’s begin our review with the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. “Thusly also we when we were infants under the elements the world we were having been enslaved.” As we have seen, while slavishly accurate grammatically, they have taken great liberty in their renderings of the words, themselves. Translating stoicheion (pronounced stoy·khi·on) as “elements,” completely subverts its intent.
To be fair, almost every Pauline advocate is stumped by the selection of stoicheion, rendered stoicheia here in the accusative plural. And that is perhaps why it was timidly and inadequately translated “elements” in the NA interlinear. The provocative term was often acknowledged in Plato’s writings and is common in the philosophy and cosmology of Greek antiquity, especially among the Stoics. Specifically, stoicheion was used to “differentiate between the various cults associated with the earth, water, air, and fire, as well as the celestial bodies, all of which were worshiped as deities through Hellenistic syncretism.” Stoicheion is, therefore, a pagan religious concept, and would have been read as such by enlightened Greeks, especially when deployed in conjunction with “kosmos” in a religious text.
This is a problem of considerable magnitude because Paul is using it to describe, or more specifically, to mischaracterize Yahowah’s Towrah – a book which universally denounces religion, especially the worship of the physical world and celestial bodies. But now Sha’uwl wants us to believe that God’s Towrah is advocating what it condemns. This is not unlike his claim in Romans 7 that the Towrah was the source of his personal perversions.
In that stoicheion is the most dishonest and disdainful criticism Paul has wielded against God’s Word, and especially His Towrah, since he implied that God’s “Old System” was “malicious” in Galatians 1:4, before we consider an amplified translation of Galatians 4:3, we must 12come to terms with why this word was selected and what it actually meant. Toward this goal, let’s turn to the lexicons at our disposal.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, as the name implies, is a Christian publication. They are, therefore, committed to defending Paul even if they have to incriminate themselves in the process. After conveying the perspective I have already presented, they opined: “It is much disputed whether stoicheia (Galatians 4:3 and 4:9) is to be understood within this syncretistic context [of pagan mythology], and resolution of the question depends on whether Paul has picked up a catchword used by his Galatian adversaries. If this is the case, then the false teachers demonstrate not only a Judaizing tendency (Galatians 5:1-4), but also a Hellenistic syncretistic tendency that included worship of the cosmic elements and observance (Galatians 4:10) of the special dates and festivals.”
That is funny. There is no such thing as a “Judaizer,” and yet nonetheless, rather than hold Paul accountable for saying something that is wildly inappropriate, his mistake is blamed on his imaginary foes. And yet if that were the case, then how does one pretend that the one who is confused is speaking for God?
In that it is uncommonly used, should you be curious, syncretism is defined as the “amalgamation and combination of different forms of belief, intermixing and commingling religious myths.” In this context, it refers to the “incorporation of pagan mythology into Christianity” by the Roman Catholic Church “to make the subsequent religion more popular and appealing.” All three so-called “Abrahamic religions,” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are guilty of syncretism, but Christianity and Islam are nothing but syncretistic – little more than an amalgamation of prior religious myths.
13Although Christianity and Islam run afoul of their monotheistic claims with their Trinity and Satanic Verses, the biggest concern is the festivals, religious rites, and symbols of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythologies that were incorporated into the more modern religions, allowing the myths associated with many gods to reside along with their one god.
Also, as I will continue to affirm, “Judaizers” were invented by Paul. They are as mythical as today’s “Palestinians.” There is no mention of them anywhere in history. Apart from the psychotic recesses of this man’s mind, and in the minds of those he beguiled, there has never been a “Judaizer.”
More twisted still, “Judaizing” is a complete misrepresentation of what it means to be Torah observant. We are asked to closely examine and carefully consider the Towrah for our own edification. God’s instructions ought to be reflected in our lives and families. We are not told to share Yahowah’s message nor encouraged to compel anyone to His way of thinking. If someone says something erroneous about God in our presence, we will typically offer a correction. The misguided can accept or reject God’s advice on their own recognizance.
For example, it is not my business to tell you how you respond to this assessment of Paul’s letter. And yet it is appropriate for me to explain my response. You can accept it or reject it. Books are easier to put down than they are to pick up.
My goal remains to help those seeking help. If you have questions, I’m happy to provide Yahowah’s answers. But if you believe that Paul wrote the inerrant word of God and that the Torah was enslaving and has been replaced, then please just go away. While it is unlikely that such an individual actually read Volume 1 of Questioning Paul and is now embarking on Volume 2, if so there is nothing I can 14or want to do for you.
In reality, Judaizer is a straw man, a debate fallacy whereby the presenter, rather than refuting the merits of his opponent’s case, creates an imaginary foe who is easier to defeat. But all that proves is that the presenter, in this case Paul, is both incompetent and deceptive. Paul has the market cornered on straw men, producing them in rapid fashion.
Also, if it is true that “Paul picked up a catchword used by his Galatian adversaries” then he was not inspired by God, thereby, once again undermining the foundation of the Christian religion. Further, if historians were to define religious Jews with a single word, their designation would be “monotheistic.” The last thing an informed and rational individual would ascribe to Yahuwdym would be the idea of deifying the physical world, the earth, sun, moon, planets, and stars. And yet these Christian scholars are proposing to justify the inappropriate incorporation of stoicheion into Paul’s letter.
To their credit, and to their religion’s shame, the Christian theologians who contributed to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament acknowledged that Paul was using stoicheion to renounce the Torah. And in doing so, they showed their bias for many of Sha’uwl’s most egregious mischaracterizations, writing: “More likely Paul uses this term, known to him from (Stoic) popular philosophy, on his own initiative to designate collectively both the Jewish Torah, which the false teachers understood as a path to salvation and advised the Galatians to follow at least in part (Galatians 5:3), and the previous Gentile piety of the Galatians (4:3 and 4:8). He considered both to be manifestations of that power presently enslaving human beings (4:3, 4:5, 4:8), a power that nonetheless appears “beggarly” compared to the huiothesia [adoption] of verse 5, such power was the basis of human religious existence before Christ.” If this assessment is accurate, God is a liar.
15This is as good a time as any to affirm that Christian theologians readily acknowledge that Paul was attacking the Torah, just as they are doing here. And they view such denunciations as valid, even though it means repudiating the testimony of the God Paul claims inspired him. So, like Paul, they perpetuate the myth of a “Jewish Torah,” using “Jewish” as a pejorative term, because accurately labeling it “Yahowah’s Towrah” would make it obvious that their religion was in opposition to God and His Word. In an informed and rational world, this argument alone would be sufficient to negate the veracity of the religion.
But even in the midst of their religious chicanery, there is a nugget of truth. The “teachers” Sha’uwl has been opposing, “understood” that “the Torah” represented the “path to salvation.” The disciples, therefore “advised the Galatians to follow” the Towrah’s teaching and guidance. It is what Yahowah said, it is what Yahowsha’ taught, so we should not be surprised that it is what the disciples Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan conveyed. Everyone was singing the same song except Sha’uwl. And this means that in Paul’s world, a “false teacher” was anyone who shared God’s Word and therefore undermined His words.
Then affirming that the depravity haunts the soul of Christendom, the lexicon refers to Yahowah as “that power presently enslaving human beings,” a “power that nevertheless appears ‘beggarly’ compared to adoption” into Paul’s religion. They have ingested the poison and it has rendered these theologians as averse to God as was their mentor.
These same Christian clerics, after admitting that Paul wrote stoicheia to besmirch the Torah, calling it the “essence of pagan religious philosophy,” translate the word again to present the “elemental spirits” in Colossians 2:8 and 2:20. These evil spirits “undoubtedly make use of the terminology of the false teachers in Colossae, in whose 16mystery-oriented philosophy such spirits might have played a significant role.” To which they conclude speaking of stoicheion, “according to Stoic doctrine, the elements will perish in the final conflagration,” signifying Paul’s ultimate triumph over God, I suppose.
Now that we know that stoicheia was used in Greece to describe the “religious pagan cults that grew out of the ‘elements’ of earth, water, air, and fire as they interacted with the deified celestial bodies,” and that Paul equates it with “mystery spirits,” let’s examine the text of Galatians 4:3...
“And also (kai), in this way, it follows that (outos – thus) when (ote – as long as and while) we (ego) were (emen – existed as) infants (nepios – small children and babies) under (upo) the (ta) elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology (stoicheion – simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars) of the (tou) universal system (kosmos – worldly order, global disposition, arranged structure, or government constitution of that arrangement), we were (emeoa) subservient slaves (doulos – controlled, enslaved, and subject to obligations).” (Galatians 4:3)
Sha’uwl unleashed his “children” metaphor way back in Galatians 3:7. He is now exploiting “as a result of the Faith, we can come to exist as Abram’s children.” This was in opposition to becoming Yahowah’s children by responding to His Covenant. The proposition was advanced again with the first of several references to an “inheritance” beginning in Galatians 3:21-23: “Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For it had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (3:21) To the contrary, the writing imposed 17restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (3:22) But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed.” (Galatians 3:23)
It was then that Sha’uwl introduced the first of his four Towrah substitutes, beginning in Galatians 3:24-25: “As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, extending until Christon in order that, by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come forth and arrived the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist under the auspices of an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, old-dated methods.” (Galatians 3:25)
This infantile metaphor was augmented by: “So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father.” (Galatians 4:2)
This brings us to the current extrapolation of this theme: “And also, in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural 18powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the world, we were subservient slaves.” (Galatians 4:3)
In this context, as these passages flow out of Galatians three and into the fourth chapter with its jarring climax, we have only one viable alternative with regard to the “paidagogos – disciplinarians,” “kurios – the lord and master,” “epitropos – the controlling foremen,” and “oikonomos – the administrators of the inheritance” relative to the “stoicheion – rudimentary principles of religious mythology.” Paul has deployed them to describe and demean Yahowah and His Towrah.
This known, in Galatians 4:3, kosmos sounds familiar because it has been transliterated from Greek to become the English word “cosmos.” So while it is often translated “universe, earth, or world,” kosmos more accurately represents things as different as: “an arranged constitution, a decorated adornment, an estranged people who are hostile to God, and a new world order, speaking of a system of political or religious governance.” It can be translated as “universal system or global dispensation.” Kosmos is from komeo which conveys the idea of “administrative control and the disposition of power” – which speaks to Paul’s intentions. Beyond this, some lexicons state that komeo is “a temperamental, self-absorbed personality intent on transferring custody or possession of individuals, carrying them away from one person to another.” It even describes the idea of “trying to take back and recover something which was previously thought to be one’s own.” So lurking under the surface there are a plethora of Satanic notions associated with kosmos—a word which appeared innocent at first blush.
And as we now know, there is nothing innocent associated with Paul’s use of stoicheion (pronounced stoy·khi·on). No matter how it is translated, it is very, very 19troubling when associated with Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance. I say that for six very specific reasons.
First, stoicheion, translated “elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology” in Galatians 4:3, is used again in Colossians 2:20. There, the New Living Translation says that “Christ” “has set you free from the supernatural powers (stoicheion) of this world,” thereby making the stoicheion “demonic spirits.” And in this Colossians passage, Paul then asks, “So why do you keep on following the rules of the world as such?” Therefore, by juxtaposing his use of stoicheion in his first letter with his last epistle, it becomes rather obvious that Paul wants the faithful to believe that the Torah is comprised of “demonic religious mythology.”
But that’s not the end of the disparaging associations. Stoicheion also indicates that Paul wants Christians to believe that the Torah may have been nothing more than a derivative of the “initial rudimentary and natural elements which comprised the universe,” and was therefore “of the world,” as opposed to being from God. Another belittling connotation of stoicheion suggests that Paul was implying that the Torah’s usefulness had come to an end, in that it was just “the first step,” and a “primitive, underdeveloped and childish” step at that. This is in conflict, however, with the fact that Yahowah and Yahowsha’ say that Passover is the first step toward inheriting eternal life, and that each of the remaining six steps travels through the Towrah. It is also at odds with Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, whereupon concurrent with His return, Yahowah promises to write a copy of His Towrah inside of us.
Yet another unflattering definition of stoicheion is derived from its root. Stoicheo speaks of “soldiers marching off (as in away from the Torah) from one place to another (as in from the “Old Testament” to the “New Testament”). Stoicheo is somewhat reminiscent of Yahowah’s depiction of His “mal’ak – spiritual 20messengers” being “tsaba – organized into a command and control regimen where they follow His orders.” In this light, stoicheo describes “soldiers in orderly ranks, with each combatant simply following the leader, and with everyone moving in a structured line.” It conveys the idea of “existing in conformity” with the instructions they have been given. There is no hint of freewill in stoicheion, thereby undermining the purpose of creating humankind or of providing us with the Torah, which was to provide the information we would require to choose to engage in a relationship with Yahowah.
However, as a fallen spiritual messenger, stoicheion accurately describes the only condition Satan knows—the one he rebelled against. So now Yahowah’s Adversary is having his messenger ascribe the condition he despised to the Torah, hoping that believers will swallow Sha’uwl’s poison and, like lemmings, plunge to their deaths. In this regard, the root meaning of kosmos may come into play. Remember komeo conveys the idea of “administrative control and the disposition of power,” speaking of “a temperamental, self-absorbed personality intent on transferring custody or possession of individuals, carrying them away from one person to another.” More telling still, it describes the idea of “trying to take back and recover something which was previously thought to be one’s own.” Therefore, it is beginning to look like someone has let their guard down, letting us peek behind the veil.
But there are more disparaging connotations. When we investigate stoicheion’s etymological history, we find that it is akin to sustoicheo, meaning “to march in a line, one person following the other, all acting and looking the same.” Paul will use this very word, translated “corresponds to,” in Galatians 4:25, to associate Yaruwshalaim with the Torah in a derogatory fashion, stating that both enslave.
Words which share a common root with stoicheion 21describe Sha’uwl’s nature and tactics and include: “sustasiastes – one who revolts and joins an insurrection,” “sustatikos – introduce something,” “sustauroo – to crucify someone or something,” “sustello – to abridge, diminish, shorten, and enshroud so as to terminate or conceal,” “sustenazo – to audibly express suffering,” “sustratiotes – to be a soldier,” “sustrepho – to twist something so as to change its intended meaning,” and “sustrophe – to be a disorderly and rebellious individual acting in a coalition or conspiracy inappropriately blending things together in a poorly disclosed and hidden combination” so as to get people to: “suschematizo – conform, following the example set by another, and thereby change their mind, attitude, and perspective.” In a word, we have Sha’uwl.
As we learned a moment ago, Greek philosophers used stoicheion to describe what they considered to be the four rudimentary and essential elements which comprised the universe: earth, water, air, and fire. As such, the Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament states the inescapable: “In Galatians 4:3, Paul calls the ceremonial ordinances of the Mosaic Law worldly elements.” And in truth, we must strike “ceremonial ordinances” from this conclusion, because there is no such distinction being made by Paul, leaving us with the stark reality that the man who claimed to be speaking for God was alleging that the book Yahowsha’ said defined his life was of the world, and therefore not of God.
Paul’s use of stoicheion in Colossians eliminates any chance we might otherwise have to strip the Greek word of its derogatory mythological and religious connotations. While it can convey “fundamental teachings,” and “elementary doctrines,” this definition simply transfers the problem we are wrestling with to the Colossians epistle. If stoicheion conveyed “a fundamental teaching,” we’d have to ask ourselves why we are told by Paul in Colossians that his Iesou wanted to lead us away from it. And if stoicheion 22was the Torah’s “elementary doctrine,” why would such enlightenment be considered as a source of authoritarian control that stunts our growth here in Galatians?
What I don’t understand is how Christians have come to accept Paul’s inverted portrayal of the Torah. God’s Word describes our Heavenly Father’s relationship with us, details the liberation of God’s children, and articulates the path to Yahowah’s Home. So how do they construe this to be about “enslaving” us? As unbelievable, inaccurate and counterintuitive as Sha’uwl’s upside down and revisionist world has become, it’s hard to understand why billions of people believe that his perspective is correct.
But we do know that the most important early catalyst for Pauline deception occurred when Marcion inappropriately elevated Paul’s epistles to “Scriptural” status, and as a result, this troubled man’s letters were ultimately included in the Latin Vulgate. And here with regard to Galatians 4:3, Jerome provided a somewhat faithful, albeit grossly inadequate, translation of Paul’s errant statement: “So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.” The KJV copied them with: “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:” Based upon this context, it is highly unlikely that Paul used stoicheion to convey “elements.”
From this, the NLT extrapolated: “And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came. We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world.” The liberty these translators have taken with Paul’s text is breathtaking. Compare this to: “And also in this way, it follows that when we were small children under the universal arranged constitution of religious mythology, we were slaves.” They have fanned the flames of Paul’s blasphemy.
However, while the words were grossly mistranslated, 23especially “and that’s the way it was with us before Christ came,” and their “basic spiritual principles,” the message was not misrepresented. Based upon the evidence, the Christian Church has correctly interpreted these passages to say that Paul thought that the Torah was elementary and childish, a crude first step, and a cruel taskmaster which oppressed and enslaved all those who observed it.
According to Paul, and thus the Church he fathered, the Torah was poorly conceived and it had a negative influence on people’s lives. Apart from ignorance, there is no escaping this unGodly conclusion, one which puts Paul and the Church in direct opposition to God. Yet since the religious institution and its founding father claim to have derived their authority from God, if God cannot be trusted, they are unreliable.
If the Torah had been designed to last for a limited and preordained time, why did God tell His children to observe it forever? If the Torah no longer mattered after the arrival of the Passover Lamb, why did Yahowsha’ quote it so often and say otherwise? If the Torah’s influence ended with the “birth of ‘Jesus’,” why did he observe it? Was it merely a coincidence that Yahowsha’ played his part in fulfilling the Miqra’ey of Pesach in the precise manner described in the Towrah and on the days established therein? Or if it became obsolete after his sacrifice in 33 CE, why did he tell us that not one “jot or tittle” of the Torah would be passed by until it was entirely fulfilled?
While this may be among the most important questions ever contemplated, my words pale in comparison to Yahowsha’s farewell message to his disciples.
“Now he said to them (de lego pros autos), ‘These words of mine (outos o logos) which I spoke to you while (ego os laleo pros ou) I was with you (on sun su), because (hoti – namely by way of identification or explanation) it is necessary to (dei – inevitable and logical, beneficial and 24proper, as part of the plan to) completely fulfill (plerooenai – carry out fully, totally perform, accomplish, proclaim, giving true meaning to, realizing the prophetic promises of) everything (pas – all) that is written (ta grapho) in (en – in unison with and with regard to) the Towrah (to nomo) of Moseh (Mouseos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, altered to conform to Greek grammar by a scribe), the Prophets (propetais – those who proclaimed and foretold God’s message), and the Psalms (psalmois) about (peri – because of, with regard to, on behalf of, and concerning) me.’” (Luke 24:44) Why isn’t anyone listening?
“Then he fully opened their minds (dianoigo nous – he explained and enabled the proper attitude and way of thinking, completely facilitating reasoning) so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand (syniemi – to bring things together and make the proper connections to be enlightened, clearly perceive, gain insight, and comprehend) the Writings (graphas).” (Luke 24:45)
Yahowsha’ opened their minds and pointed them to the Writings – the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms – knowing that this was the only place where Yahowah could become known and what He was offering understood. In context, this confirms something I have long realized and professed: our opportunity to know and understand Yahowah is as good, if not considerably better, as anyone at any time, including the Yisra’elites during the Exodus and Yahowsha’s disciples. Even after having spent three years at his side, they did not understand who he was or what he had done until he opened their minds and directed their attention to Yahowah’s testimony.
And that is likely why only one of the twelve disciples shared anything of Yahowah’s life. They realized that everything we need to know is already available in writing in Yahowah’s Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.
25Yahowsha’s statement is reminiscent of his favorite prophet, the Messiah and son of God, Dowd | David. In his Mizmowr / Psalm 19, we read: “Yahowah’s Towrah is complete and entirely perfect, returning and restoring the soul. Yahowah’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the open-minded.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
Yahowsha’, speaking Hebrew, continued to address his disciples...
“He said to them, ‘Because (hoti – namely by way of explanation) in this way (houto – thus it follows), it is written (grapho) that the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah (ΧΝ) must undergo and experience suffering (pascho – be afflicted because it is sensible) and rise up amidst (anistemai – to establish by taking stand in one’s midst; a compound of histemi, to stand and establish, and ana, into the midst, amidst, among, and between) out of (ek) lifeless separation (nekros) the third day.” (Luke 24:46)
He was speaking of his role in the fulfillment of the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym – the three most important days in human history. This is the way to God that Sha’uwl is demeaning.
So that you are not misled by this statement, Yahowsha’ previously defined the Hebrew word translated nekros as “separation” from the father in his parable of the prodigal son, which is recorded in Luke 15:11-32. Therefore, he was predicting His reunification with the Father on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children,” not a bodily resurrection from a corpse. In this light, anistamai speaks of His soul “rising up” from She’owl and “into the midst” of the living.
After telling his disciples that his life and sacrifice could only be understood from the perspective of 26considering what was written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms with an open mind, Yahowsha’ said...
“And it should be announced publicly (kerysso – proclaimed in a convincing manner to persuade and warn, to herald, publish, and pronounce with authority) upon (epi) His (autos – His [not “my,” and thus in Yahowah’s]) name (onoma), ‘Change your perspective, attitude and thinking (metanoeo) to be forgiven and pardoned from (aphesis – to be released and liberated from) wandering from the path and missing one’s inheritance (hamartia – the consequence of being mistaken; from a, not and meros, being assigned an allotment with regard to one’s destiny),’ to all (pas) nations, races, and places (ethnos – ethnicities), commencing and leading (archomai – first beginning) from (apo) Yaruwshalaim (‘Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yaruwshalaim, the Source of Instruction on Reconciliation).” (Luke 24:47)
“Metanoeo – change your perspective, attitude, and thinking,” a translation of the Hebrew shuwb, is an important concept. Unless and until we are willing to reject religion, and view Yahowsha’ as the Passover Lamb from the perspective of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, thinking differently by making the appropriate connections, there is no way to extend our lives, much less understand the path to God.
Yahowsha’ prepared his disciples to present his life such that it could be understood from the perspective of fulfilling the Torah. The truth would be made available to “pas ethnos – every ethnicity, to every race and nation,” thereby undermining Paul’s principal claim.
“You are witnesses to (martys – those with firsthand experience and knowledge who can testify to ascertainable facts regarding) these things (houtos).” (Luke 24:48)
The disciples were privy to information and experiences which, when viewed from the Towrah’s 27perspective, lead to understanding. And since neither Abraham nor faith have been mentioned, but God the Father and His Towrah have, Yahowsha’ is affirming to his disciples that Yahowah’s promises can be found in the place Paul is attempting to demean and discard.
“And behold (kai idou – now pay attention), I, myself, have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message (ego apostello – I have equipped you to deliver the word, sent forth) of my Father’s (mou ΠΡΣ) promise (epaggelia – to vow and an agreement to do something beneficial which leads to the assurance of approval and reconciliation) upon you (epi su).
But now (de), you remain (su kathizo) in the city (en te polis) until the time when (heos os) you are clothed (enduo – dressed [speaking of the Spirit’s Garment of Light) in power and ability (dynamis) from (ek) above (hypsos – heaven on high).’” (Luke 24:49)
This occurred right on schedule, on the Miqra’ of Shabuw’ah, when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon the beneficiaries of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in Yaruwshalaim – enriching and empowering them – just as Yahowah promised in Qara’ | Called Out, the central book of His Towrah | Teaching. With its fulfillment, the Covenant’s promises were enabled by God.
Those who answer Yahowah’s Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on “Pesach – Passover” become immortal. The beneficiaries of “Matsah – UnYeasted Bread” are perfected and considered right in our Heavenly Father’s eyes. This leads to “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children” where God’s now immortal and innocent sons and daughters are adopted into His Covenant Family. Then because He wants us to grow, and because He wants us to share what we have come to know, we are enriched and empowered by the Set-Apart Spirit on “Shabuw’ah – Promise of the Shabat.” This is Yahowah’s message to Yisra’elis and Gowym. It is the 28reason the Towrah was written.
Since Paul’s position is ludicrous in light of Yahowsha’s testimony, we have but two options relative to his letter. If what we are reading is what Paul actually wrote, if the text of his letter has been faithfully preserved, then Paul is to be condemned for leading billions of people away from God. His words and God’s Word are diametrically opposed. But if what we are reading has been corrupted in transmission, if every early copy of Paul’s letter differs substantially from what he actually said, then Paul may be redeemable, but his epistles are not. For the Christian religion, that is a lose-lose proposition.
