133Questioning Paul
Devil’s Advocate
…Plague of Death
5
Eremos | Forsaken
Birth Pangs…
We will continue to plod our way through Paul’s letter, recognizing that he was a fallible individual suffering severe psychosis writing on his own recognizance. There will be no pretense of Galatians representing the inspired word of God or of Paul telling the truth. We will credit God when Paul affirms something which is accurate, should that ever occur, and will continue to expose and condemn Paul when he errs, recognizing that the cost of his delusions can be counted in the billions of human souls.
Sha’uwl’s next lie reads:
“So now (de – but) Hagar (Agar) exists as (to estin – is) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina) in (en) Arabia (te Arabia – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Arab), therefore (de), corresponding to (sustoicheo – stands in parallel with, is aligned with, and resembles) the present (te nun) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yaruwshalaim, meaning source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flow).
She is enslaved (douleuo – she is subjected to slavery) because of (gar) being associated with (meta – among) the children (ton teknon – the sons and daughters) of her (autes – third person singular feminine and thus referring to Hagar).” (Galatians 4:25)
134I am growing weary of trying to make sense of this cavalcade of blasphemy. There appear to be no depths beyond which Paul will not plunge.
The straw man “Hagar exists as Mount Sinai” is invalid. She was never associated with Sinai, the formation of the Covenant, or the revelation of the Towrah. She was banished from the Promised Land and her son was excluded from the Covenant. By the time the Towrah was inscribed, she had been dead for over five hundred years. This is pure fantasy, not unlike Muhammad saying that David was a Muslim and Allah’s prophet. If there were a deceit scale, this would be off the charts.
Not only is there is no correlation between Hagar and Sinai, neither correspond with Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem – past or present. There is no similarity in geography nor community. Hagar had been dead for 900 years and Yahowah’s meeting with His people on Sinai occurred 400 years before the city was founded by Dowd. One remains isolated and uninhabited and the other is the most contested city on earth. They are as different as Arabia and Israel. He may as well have said that Rome was the new Jerusalem.
Further, at the time of Paul’s writing, Jerusalem was not enslaved. The city was under Roman control, not Hagar’s descendants through Ishmael. And it would be another 600 years before his ultimate descendants, Muslims, would raid the world, claiming Jerusalem as their prize. There was, therefore, no correlation between Hagar’s children and Yaruwshalaim, much less enslavement.
Paul hated Jerusalem for all of the reasons Yahowah loves it. It was the home of God’s favorite son, the site of His Temple, the capital of His people, and the place where the Beryth was confirmed and the Miqra’ey fulfilled. Paul despised one and all. And in addition, Jerusalem was where he had been rebuked by Yahowsha’s disciples.
The name Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem means “Source 135from which Teaching and Guidance Regarding Reconciliation Flow.” It is the city of God – His Home on Earth. Outside of what occurred in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem during Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven, there is no means to eternal life, to being perfected by God, to becoming part of Yah’s Covenant family, or to being enriched and empowered by the Covenant relationship. Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem is the antithesis of what Paul writes of her.
While Hagar was one of many slaves belonging to Abraham and Sarah, she was set free at Sarah’s direction, with Abraham’s support, with Yahowah’s encouragement, and a mal’ak | spiritual messenger providing lifesaving direction along the way. While she plays no role in the formation of the Covenant, her life’s trajectory was from slavery to freedom, not the other way around.
Based upon what the Towrah reveals of Hagar, she had only one son, not children. And her son, Yshma’‘el | Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant.
Paul’s progression goes from bad to worse. What a surprise it is going to be for all of those who have led Bible Studies over the ages to see their favorite saint sentenced to an eternity in She’owl | Hell.
He writes…
“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21)
For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22)
Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)
Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these 136then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)
Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children.” (Galatians 4:25)
One thing is now certain. Paul is deliberately trying to mislead believers and antagonize God. He could not have gotten so many things wrong by just being stupid.
Sha’uwl has perverted the concept of “observing the Towrah,” which is to closely examine and carefully consider its Teaching and Guidance.” He is attempting to rob God’s word of its authority to enlighten, enrich, empower, and emancipate. He is attacking the most brilliantly worded book ever written with the dumbest letters ever penned.
In pathetic fashion, Paul is propping up the flimsiest of straw men. His first is the result of contriving an artificial distinction between the birth of Ishmael “being of the flesh” and causing others to be “enslaved.” Yitschaq was the child of “promise,” but not Paul’s promise. His birth was a result of Yahowah performing a miracle.
Paul is then errantly associating the Towrah’s Covenant with Mount Sinai. Abraham never went near the place. In fact, associating the events which led to the Covenant with Mount Sinai is like saying that Noah sailed around the mountain in Arabia because that is where his story was first told.
The Devil’s Advocate was as desperate, as are Christians, to propose two covenants. Without this myth, there is no New Testament, no place for Paul, no hope for Christians.
And yet this moronic diatribe is the only 137“justification.” Even the place favored by Christians, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 works against the religion as does Yahowsha’s Instruction on the Mount – even the entirety of Yahowah’s Word from Bare’syth to Mal’aky.
That is why Paul went out on this broken branch. He knew that there was no truth to what he was claiming – but without it, his every word was a lie.
Paul’s animosity toward Yahowah had reached such epic proportions, he would have the faithful believe that everything associated with Yahowah – His Towrah, His Covenant, His Mountain, His City, even His Children were enslaving. The Great Liberator was now an enduring oppressor. It is upon these lies that the Christian religion was conceived and endures. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Paul has taken believers back to the dark and desolate wilderness of lifelessness and ignorance.
Sustoicheo is the most intriguing word in this rant. Translated “corresponding to,” it is from sun, meaning “with and together,” and stoicheo, “proceeding to march like soldiers in a row, to walk, and to direct one’s life.” It literally conveys “to be in a series with, to be in the same row or rank, and to stand in the same line.” Figuratively, sustoicheo is “used in logical discussions of things which have distinctive features which fit in the same category,” and thus it means “to correspond.”
Therefore, in the context of an allegory, the “corresponds” rendering seems the most appropriate. And that means that Paul is associating Hagar, the Covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai, and Jerusalem with slavery when there is no connection between Hagar and the Covenant or the Towrah with being enslaved. But Paul never let the truth get in his way. In fact, the reason that Sha’uwl was opposed “to the present Yaruwshalaim” is obvious: he was rebuked there for his opposition to 138circumcision.
I would be remiss if I did not remind you that sustoicheo is related to stoicheion, which Sha’uwl used in Galatians 4:3 to demean the Torah, saying: “And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, we were subservient slaves.”
He deployed stoicheion again six statements later, this time in context with “douleuein – to be controlled as a slave,” to further demean the Torah when he wrote:
“Certainly, on the other hand, not having known or acknowledged god, you were enslaved to nature, not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8)
But now having known god, but what’s more, having been known under god, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, the worthless, belittling, and terrifying elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology representing the inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed the first step which is backward again and again. You are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by observing and attending to days, and months, and seasons, and years.” (Galatians 4:10)
It was during our review of these earlier Galatians statements that we discovered that stoicheo conveyed a host of derogatory connotations, from “demonic supernatural powers or spirits” to “that which is basic, improperly formed, underdeveloped, and simplistic.” Something which is stoicheo is “initial, rudimentary and natural and thus associated with the elements which comprised the universe.”
Stocheion suggests that “something’s usefulness has come to an end.” It conveys the idea of “a first step” as well 139as something which is “primitive, underdeveloped, childish, and worldly.” Because stocheion is indicative of the “command and control aspects of a military regime,” and of “soldiers following orders, and marching in conformity,” it is the antithesis of freewill.
Everything Paul has written here is wrong. There is one Covenant, not two. The Covenant was formed with Abraham and Yitschaq after him, not with Hagar or her son Ishmael, who were specifically excluded from the Covenant and banished from the Promised Land. And the only reason this Covenant is known to us is that it was announced and memorialized in the Towrah which was handed down and recited on Mount Sinai / Choreb.
The Covenant commemorated the emancipation of the Yisra’elites from religious, political, military, and economic oppression, and it provides the means to our entry into God’s Family. Each of the Covenant’s promises was enabled by Yahowah when He fulfilled the first four Miqra’ey in Yaruwshalaim – a name which means “the source of teaching and guidance regarding reconciliation.” Curiously, Jerusalem was neither enslaved at the time, nor was it occupied by Hagar’s descendants. Not only was she and her son freed from slavery, the city was not even Towrah observant at the time of Paul’s writing or since, causing him to be wrong on all accounts.
The details, which actually correspond between the Covenant forged with Abraham and memorialized on Mount Sinai with Moseh are that all who rely on Yahowah’s Word are liberated from man’s religious schemes and adopted by God. But Paul is saying the opposite, that the Mount Sinai Covenant codified in the Torah is associated with Hagar, and that it leads to slavery. He is also saying that Yaruwshalaim is no different than Sinai in this regard. Rather than standing for the “Source of Salvation,” in Paul’s twisted mind, Yaruwshalaim is now a coconspirator in the enslavement of humankind. 140After having pierced Yahowah in the heart, Paul has now poked his finger in God’s eye.
Before we move on, I would like you to consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear and other renditions of Paul’s ongoing thesis. “The but Hagar Sinai hill is in the Arabia it lines up together but in the now Jerusalem she is enslaved for with the children of her.” LV: “For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children.” KJV: “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” Then the NLT augmented Paul’s words to more accurately convey his blasphemy: “And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law.”
Based upon this letter, the Christian Church would forever be like Hagar and Ishmael – estranged from the Covenant and banished from the Promised Land.
Paul’s next statement is inaccurate but not as reprehensible. Having nullified the Covenant’s benefits by negating everything Yahowah, Yahowsha’, and the Set-Apart Spirit accomplished in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem in 33 CE by fulfilling Pesach | Passover, Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, and Shabuw’ah | Sevens, the Plague of Death invented a pretend Jerusalem to go along with his imaginary covenant...
“But (de) the (e) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem) above instead (ano – upward and opposite; from anti – in opposition), free and independent (eleutheros – released, unbound, and exempt) is (eimi – exists) who (hostis) is (eimi) our (emon) mother (meter).” (Galatians 4:26)
I wonder if Sha’uwl had one too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and then borrowed Muhammad’s Burāq | Winged Ass to fly up to and check out the mother ship? Just speculation on my part, but how else is one to explain 141such delirium?
All we know for sure is that Yaruwshalaim was too real for Sha’uwl. It did not fit into his story. So he had to replace it along with Yahowah, Yitschaq and the Covenant, Moseh and the Towrah, Dowd and the Mizmowr and Mashal, Yahowsha’ and Pesach, and the disciples and what actually occurred.
Without the Miqra’ey, which were fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim, there is no way to engage the Set-Apart Spirit in our lives, and thus no access to our Spiritual Mother. But no matter. Paul had a replacement for everything. After suffering the birth pangs, he would serve as the Mother of the Faithful. His nest in the “free and independent Jerusalem” would rise above the one Yahowah cherished.
And the duplicity here is not a function of the translation, but instead in the Greek text. Consider the NAMI: “But the up Jerusalem free is who is mother of us.” After a steady diet of deceptions, it would be unreasonable to attempt an interpretation which would make sense of this.
Sha’uwl, and the dark spirit he was serving, came to despise what occurred on Mount Sinai with the revelation of the Towrah, and what occurred in Yaruwshalaim with the fulfillment of some of its most important promises, so, just as they had created their own covenant in opposition to God, they conceived a mythical city, one floating in the sky, that was “free and independent” of Yahowah. There is such a place, and it was named after Sha’uwl: She’owl | Hell. Paul will be the Resident Advisor, and he will have his heart’s desire – no God.
To add insult to injury, Paul’s coconspirators at the New Living Translation HQ decided to take their Apostle’s mythical metaphor to the next level. Consider the NLT: “But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly 142Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother.” Why not? In the process of inventing a new god, a New Testament, a new covenant, a new religion, and a new flying city, why not resurrect and repurpose Sarah. After delivering Yitschaq | Isaac when she was 90, I’m sure she wouldn’t mind having a few billion more children. If she laughed at God, what might her response be to this?
Here is the Catholic and Protestant translation. LV: “But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother.” KJV: “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Silly me, all this time I thought I was born in Pasadena.
One day, likely around year 7000 Yah, about a thousand years from now, there will be a New Jerusalem. It is presented in Zechariah and elaborated upon again in Isaiah. Only one problem for Paul and the Christian faithful: Dowd will be King, it is filled with those pesky Jews, and it will be designed for the 12 tribes of Yisra’el. And of course, there is another problem – that old, enslaving God will be there too.
Nearly 3000 years after Galatians was written, the creation of Heavenly Jerusalem remains in our future. It will be constructed by Yahowah as part of His creation of a new heaven and earth at the end of the millennial celebration of Sukah and the Shabat.
And just when we thought it could not get any worse, Paul’s Greek deteriorates to the point where we once again need to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a compass to navigate Paul’s twisted realm. “It has been written for be merry sterile the not giving birth rip and cry aloud the one not having birth pains because many the children of the desert more or of the having the man.” This brings to mind one of my favorite sayings: “I know you think you heard what you believe I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
143Perhaps an even more literal and complete rendering of Paul’s word salad will help solve the conundrum. Please consider:
“For indeed (gar – for because then), it has been written (grapho), ‘Be glad (euphrainomai – celebrate and rejoice) infertile (steira – barren and sterile incapable of childbirth) the (e – feminine singular article (referring to Yaruwshalaim) nominative (conveying to be or to become)), not (ou) giving birth (tikto – bearing a child, being productive, growing, or producing), violently lacerating (rhegnymi – throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping things to pieces, distorting and convulsing while breaking apart) and (kai) cry aloud (boao – crying and shouting), becoming the (e) not (ou) suffering birth pains (odino – in great anguish, labor, and physical effort, engaging in long and hard work) because (hoti – that and namely) many (polys) the children (ta teknon) of the desolate (tes eremos – of the forsaken and deserted, of the solitary and lonely, and of the abandoned and lifeless), more (mallon – instead and by contrast as an alternative) than (e – or) of the (tes) possessing (echo – holding on to, having, and experiencing) the man (ton andra – the human).’” (Galatians 4:27)
While that is not entirely decipherable, or even discernible, without a dose of secret mythos and religious jargon, or, failing that, a decoder ring, the citation is allegedly from Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:1. It may be of assistance.
Cognizant of that prophecy and the wannabe apostle’s tactics, it becomes obvious that Sha’uwl is trying to fool his audience into believing that Yahowah’s prophecy regarding the Set-Apart Spirit’s role in our lives on Shabuw’ah, following the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, was actually about a new replacement covenant. I’m sure that will come as a surprise to Isaiah.
144Nonetheless, in our quest for verification, we’ll have to go back in time and consider what God revealed through a prophet named “Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah” to see if we can affirm that Yasha’yah 54 was actually about our Spiritual Mother’s involvement on Shabuw’ah | Seven Shabats in Yaruwshalaim to enable the final benefits of the Covenant. Then, we will strive to understand how and why Paul twisted the prophecy to serve his ill-conceived thesis.
In that context is always an essential component of understanding, the cited passage follows one of the most vivid portrayals of Yahowsha’s redeeming sacrifice as the Passover Lamb found anywhere in the Towrah or Prophets. Incompatible with Paul’s disdain for the Towrah, that portion of the prophecy would have to be omitted for Sha’uwl to promote his new theory.
The last statement of the 53rd chapter speaks of what Yahowah did for us on Pesach and Matsah: “Yet He, Himself, bore the sin of many, and He interceded for the transgressors.” Pesach and Matsah work in harmony to immortalize and perfect the Covenant Family.
“Sing for joy (ranan – choose to convey the lyrics of a delightful and happy song in a melodic and rhythmic manner, actually focusing on the joy being expressed, crying out for having overcome (the qal imperative conveys that which is both genuine and is an expression of freewill)), woman who has not yet given birth (‘aqar – female who has not yet experienced motherhood and thus without descendants).
And (wa – in addition [from 1QIsa and 4QIsa (not in the MT)]) She, who has not yet borne many children (lo’ yalad – she who has not during this confined period of time brought forth, beget, and delivered (the qal perfect conveys an actual relationship with a completed timeframe, and thus not ongoing, condition)), will be genuinely serene as 145She begins (patsach – be at peace, without negative concerns nor distress, sparkling and happy, gleaming, bright, and cheerful, as She starts (qal imperative)) to openly communicate, expressing Her joyful message (rinah – to convey Her requests in song, happily proclaiming and entreating; from ranan – to overcome).
Then (wa) She will be brilliant in Her verbal communication, electing to shine (tsahal – She will convey a radiant message and appearance, light beaming and while She shouts (qal imperative)), not waiting any longer (lo’ yachal – not delaying any more past this moment in time (qal perfect)).
For then indeed (wa ky), greater and more abundant will be the children (rab beny – more numerous and abounding in influence, is the offspring) of the appalled and dismayed (shamem – the devastated and deserted, abandoned and ravaged) than the children (min beny – compared to the offspring) controlled by the Lord Ba’al (Ba’al – of those who were betrothed to the Adversary, possessed and ruled by Satan, lorded over and owned by the master (in the qal passive participle this is literally done to them)),’ says (‘amar – answers and promises) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1)
The prophetic text of Yasha’yah 53 presents the fulfillment of Passover and UnYeasted Bread 700 years prior to their realization in 33 CE, which was the year 4000 Yah. Then in the transition from the 53rd to the 54th chapter of Isaiah we are exposed to the fulfillment of Firstborn Children, which occurred the following day. At that moment, our Spiritual Mother, the Maternal aspect of the Set-Apart Spirit, was finally able to accomplish her mission, that of adopting the Covenant’s Children. This is a celebration of that occasion.
146We also see the Spirit in Her element, doing what She does best, which is to communicate with Her children. Her message is as uplifting and enlightening as Yahowah’s Word. Father and Spirit are singing the lyrics of the same song.
It is also interesting to note that She will be serene, providing quiet confidence to those She is inspiring, making their lives exciting and worth living, even at the culmination of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles.
The most encouraging aspect of this prophecy is its conclusion. We discover that the Spirit’s children will finally outnumber and outshine those Paul and company have caused to worship the Lord Ba’al, a.k.a. Satan. Having been rightfully appalled and dismayed by what Christians have said and done, especially in the name of their “Holy Ghost,” She will finally have the last word.
Sometimes God’s testimony conveys more than what we see at first blush. For example, the primary meaning of the verb ranan is predicated on the idea of “expressing joy for having overcome a formidable obstacle,” thereby “announcing and celebrating having finally accomplished” what the Spirit “has striven to achieve.”
Along these lines, while ‘aqar can mean “infertile, sterile, and barren,” it also speaks of “offspring in successive generations.” What is fascinating is that ‘aqar is the verbal root. It would normally define the noun, especially when it is spelled identically. And yet ‘aqar speaks of “uprooting something, plucking it out and cutting it down.” The root speaks of “uprooting that which will be abandoned for having become ruined, completely eliminating an entire population with a focus on their destruction.” Therefore, those who have been harmful “will be hamstrung and crippled, negating their ability to press on.” These renderings seem to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit is going to be celebrating the incapacitation 147and removal of something which has hindered the growth of Her family: Pauline Christianity, perhaps?
We will compare Yahowah’s prophecy to Sha’uwl’s misappropriation of it in a moment. But first, let’s consider what Yahowah predicted would happen as a result of Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children following the fulfillment of Passover and UnYeasted Bread. In anticipation of Reconciliations and Camping Out, the final two Miqra’ey, the Set-Apart Spirit is asked to enlarge God’s brilliantly illuminated home such that it will accommodate His entire family. Then we discover Her making the arrangements for the celebration of Sukah | Tabernacles using metaphors harmonious with Camping Out in an expansive and protected fashion.
“Enlarge (rachab – make expansive and roomy, choosing to joyfully take advantage of the opportunity to expand the special dimensions (in the hifil imperative, the subject, who is the Set-Apart Spirit, enables the object, those about to camp out with God, to participate in the action, which is to be made greater, expanding dimensionally)) the shining and sheltered place (maqowm – the protected dwelling conducive to life, the location to take a stand and abode; from ma – to consider the implications of and quwm – rising up, standing up, confirming, and establishing) of Your home and brilliantly illuminated dwelling (‘ohel ‘atah – of Your dazzling encampment and illuminating tent for camping out within Your enlightened residence).
And (wa) the shelter (yarya’ah – the protective curtain and interwoven fabric) of Your tabernacle (mishkan ‘atah – of Your dwelling to abide and reside; from my – to consider the implications of shakan – settling down, residing, and living) continuously spread for them under the auspices of freewill (natsah – outstretched and extended on an ongoing basis so that they can choose to be raised up and increased (the hifil stem, imperfect 148conjugation and jussive mood show the Set-Apart Spirit constantly facilitating this result on behalf of those who elect to participate)).
Do not withhold (lo’ chasak – do not hold back (qal imperfect jussive)) dimensionally increasing (‘arak – lengthening in time and space) Your cords for those who remain (mythar ‘atah – the tent strings which hold up, enlarge, and secure Your dwelling for the remnant; from my – to question seeking answers regarding yathar – those who remain).
Then (wa) strengthen, restoring and renewing (chazaq – intensify the learning experience and potential to respond, being resolute and firm, empowering and encouraging by firmly establishing (piel imperative – of Your own volition choose to restore)) Your tent pegs (yathed ‘atah – Your stakes which provide added safety and security). (Yasha’yah 54:2)
Indeed (ky), to the right and on the left (yamyn wa simo’wl – right and left hand; speaking of Yisra’elites and Gowym) You will speak to, encourage, and spread out the increase of those born to You (parats – You will communicate with and inspire, reassuring the proliferation of many from Your womb).
Then Your seed, and thus descendants (wa zera’ ‘atah – Your seed, offspring, and children) will inherit and take possession of (yarash – they will displace and acquire (qal imperfect plural – the “seed” are many and they will genuinely and on an ongoing basis come to own and occupy)) the gentile nations (gowym – the places and countries which had been occupied by people estranged from and in opposition to Yisra’el) and (wa) will inhabit (yashab – will settle and dwell within, living, staying, and remaining in (hifil imperfect – indefinitely making them their own)) the desolated and deserted cities (‘iyr shamem – depopulated and abandoned urban areas).” 149(Yasha’yah / Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:3)
Now we know the answer to the question I posed earlier, wondering if ‘aqar was being used to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit would be celebrating the removal of the Pauline Christians who had hampered the growth of Her family. They are not only gone, those born into Yahowah’s Spiritual Family will inherit their nations and live in their depopulated cities.
This is stunning in a way. Just as Paul cited a passage from the prophet who called him the “Plague of Death,” he is now drawing upon a prophecy which reveals that those who believe him will lose everything, including their lives. The beneficiaries of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah, leading to Taruw’ah, Kipurym, and Sukah, will prevail. Born into Yahowah’s Spiritual Family, they will Camp Out with their Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother without ever having to be annoyed by the likes of Paul again. Gone and good riddance.
Christian apologists, steeped in the poisonous brew of Pauline Doctrine, will tell you that the self-pronounced Apostle cited this verse to suggest that Sarah, who was once barren, would become fertile, and that as such, she became the mother of the faithful. In their mind, this, in turn, explains why there are so many Christians, and why they became so powerful. They perceive themselves as the “children who would be greater in number and status.”
That, however, is not what this prophecy was predicting. Sarah’s infertility was resolved 1300 years before Yasha’yah penned these words (which would have made him a prophet predicting the past). Moreover, Sarah’s son, Yitschaq, fathered Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el – not a goyish church – negating the Christian claim.
Further, once upon a time prior to Christianity, there were no chapter or verse designations in Yahowah’s 150revelations. What is now designated Isaiah 54:1-2 was and remains part of the same story revealed in the preceding “chapter.” And what is now labeled Isaiah 53 speaks not of Abraham, Sarah, and Yitschaq but of the fulfillment of Passover, Unyeasted Bread, Firstborn Children in year 4000 Yah (33 CE) in Yaruwshalaim! It is then the continuing story of how the Promise of Seven enables the Covenant’s growth, which in turn makes Reconciliations and Shelters possible.
By misappropriating and misquoting a prophetic revelation, and taking it out of context, Paul hoodwinked unthinking Christians into believing that this was about Sarah and Yitschaq rather than the Ruwach and the Miqra’ey. Rather than celebrate the prophecy that explained the reason Yahowsha’, as the Passover Lamb, would fulfill Pesach, and how that would lead to the enablement of the Covenant’s promises, the Devil’s Advocate beguiled billions into believing that this was God’s promise to the people He would ultimately eliminate.
Stupid is as stupid says and believes. The birth of Yitschaq | Isaac was now ancient history. Sarah had but one child, and he was the father of the patriarch of the Yisra’elites. And they would become the heirs to the Covenant Paul had condemned. And in the end, when the last Miqra’ is fulfilled, the Children of the Covenant will inherit depopulated gentile nations and cities.
Yisra’el has not been replaced – but Christians will be. So much for the theory of Replacement Theology.
If we distance ourselves from Paul’s polluted mantra, it becomes obvious that the “Mother” being described in Yasha’yah 54 is someone very special. This prophecy is telling us that our Spiritual Mother will give birth to the Covenant’s children in concert with Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, enriching and empowering God’s Family on 151Shabuw’ah | the Promise of Seven Shabats. This would lead to Kipurym | Reconciliations and to Sukah | Camping Out with God.
Our Spiritual Mother adorns us in a “Garment of Light,” which is suggested in “tsahal – let your light shine.” She is responsible for enlightening us as well, illuminating the path to God. She also empowers the Covenant’s children to “rinah – sing out the lyrics” of Yahowah’s message, singing from Dowd’s Mizmowr | Songs. The Spirit is the power behind Yowm Taruw’ah, where we are called to “joyously proclaim the Good News” of Yahowah’s Way, while also “shouting out a warning” to those headed in the wrong direction. Reinforcing this, on Shabuw’ah, Taruw’ah, Kipurym, and twice on Sukah, we are expressly asked to approach the Maternal aspect of God’s Light so that we can enjoy all of the rights and privileges of being part of our Heavenly Father’s Covenant Family.
As an interesting aside, once we understand the promise and purpose of Yahowah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, we recognize that each resolves an aspect of our current nature, preparing us for adoption into Yahowah’s family and for camping out with our Heavenly Father. Therefore, those who answer God’s engraved Invitations, and those who observe the seven Miqra’ey in accordance with Yahowah’s Towrah | Instructions, receive the promised benefits.
‘Ohel, meaning “covered shelter,” describes “pitching a tent to camp out.” It is indistinguishable in the text from ‘ahal, “to shine a pure and clear light.” We have within this word a depiction of how our Spiritual Mother protects Her children. It becomes even more obvious when we recognize that ‘ohel is a “dwelling place, a household, and tabernacle.” Addressing this, the next word, maqowm, and its root, quwm, describe the “standing place” where Yahowah “stood up for us so that we could stand with 152Him.” Yahowsha’, as the Passover Lamb, is the living embodiment of quwm. And of course, “maqowm – the standing place” would be Yaruwshalaim – Paul’s coconspirator along with Sinai in our supposed enslavement.
Fortunately, there is a bright side to all of this. One of the benefits of having Paul routinely misappropriate and misquote the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is that it gives us the chance to spend some quality time reading something which is enlightening and uplifting, not to mention, comprehensible, in the midst of the Pauline rhetorical rubbish. At least it keeps our brains from turning to mush and our souls from withering.
There is a provocative insight, one which was included to negate Sha’uwl’s bombastic misrepresentations. Remember back in Galatians 3:16 when Paul began his entire diatribe on the moronic notion that since “zera’ – seed” was singular, we could dispense with the Towrah. Then in Galatians 3:29, he capitalized upon this straw man by claiming that those who believed him were “Abraham’s seed,” thereby replacing Yisra’el with his gentile believers, planting the seed that would grow into Replacement Theology. Well, in Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:3, the Great Isaiah Scroll, the only completely intact book found in Qumran, specifically reveals that the “descendants” who would be greater and more numerous, were our Spiritual Mother’s zera’ | seed. And while the “more numerous” depiction ought to have been enough for even the religious to recognize that zera’ implied more than “one,” the 1QIsa (a.k.a., the Great Isaiah Scroll) presents yarash, the verb translated “will inherit and take possession” in the plural. It therefore reveals that “‘they’ will acquire and possess,” not “he” or “it” will inherit. There would be many, not one, seed. Sorry, Paul.
I am particularly fond of the 4th and 5th prophetic declarations of the 54th chapter of Yasha’yah / Isaiah. I 153thought you might enjoy them too.
Yahowah is speaking to the Children of the Beryth, who will be overwhelmingly Yisra’elite. They are beneficiaries of the Miqra’ey and will be celebrating Yahowah’s return with Dowd – honoring His promises. After removing the abusive religious believers, mostly Christians but also religious Jews, Muslims, and Socialist Secularists, the prophet, speaking for God, reveals how different things will be for Yahuwdym | Jews now that they are no longer being humiliated and mistreated by gentiles…
“Fear not (‘al yare’), because you will not be humiliated or distressed again (ky lo’ bowsh – for you will never be disapproved nor shamed (qal imperfect)). Nor will you be mistreated (wa ‘al kalam – you will not be deprived, especially of what is needed to live and prosper (nifal imperfect jussive – by choice you will be given what you want and need to achieve your rightful place)).
By contrast (ky), you will not be dismayed or confused (lo’ chaphar – you will not be dishonored or have your rightful status diminished or confiscated (hifil imperfect jussive)).
Indeed (ky), you will forget (shakach – you will no longer be mindful of (qal imperfect)) being disappointed and shamed (bosheth – the disconcerting and ignominious experiences) when you were younger (‘aluwmym ‘atah – of your youth).
And then (wa) the contemptible and dishonorable condition (cherphah – the lowly status, reproach, and insults) of being widowed and forsaken (‘almanuwth ‘atah – of being bereaved by the loss of your spouse) you will no longer remember (lo’ zakar – you will no longer recall (qal imperfect)) ever again (‘owd – forevermore).
154Because then (ky) your husband (ba’al ‘atah – you will be married to and you will rule alongside with) will be the One who engaged and acted on your behalf (‘asah ‘atah – will be your Maker who fashioned and formed you).
Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) of hosts (tsaba’ – of the vast array of spiritual implements) is His name (shem huw’ – is His proper designation and renown), your Redeemer and Liberator (wa ga’al ‘atah – the One who removed you from harm’s way, freeing you, providing emancipation and liberty as your kin), the Set-Apart One (qodesh) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God).
Almighty God (‘elohym) of the entire material realm (kol ha ‘erets – the entire earth) He will be invited as, summoned and proclaimed (qara’ – He is called, read and recited aloud as, met with, known as and encountered).” (Yasha’yah / Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:4-5)
I love Yahowah and enjoy His prophets, so this is music to my ears.
Leaving our respite in Heaven for another round in Hell, we find that Sha’uwl | Paul not only misquoted Yasha’yah | Isaiah, he improperly associated Sarah with a prophecy depicting our Spiritual Mother’s fulfillment of the Invitations to Meet with God. In this light, please consider how different Paul’s Greek is from Yasha’yah’s Hebrew:
Sha’uwl: “For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’” (Galatians 4:27)
155Yahowah: “‘Sing for joy, conveying the lyrics of an uplifting song, woman who has not yet given birth. And She, who has not yet borne many children, will be genuinely serene and at peace, gleaming brightly as She openly conveys Her joyful message.
She will be brilliant in audible communication, no longer hesitating to sing. For then indeed, greater and more abundant will be the children of the appalled and dismayed than the offspring controlled by the Lord Ba’al, says Yahowah.” (Yasha’yah 54:1)
While our intent was to discern what Paul tried to say, and then determine why he said it, the one thing I know for sure is that Yahowah is articulate, and is indeed a profound communicator, and Paul is neither.
Recognizing that Sha’uwl once again misquoted, twisted, and misapplied Yahowah’s Word to imply that he had Divine authority for his blasphemous position, let’s consider how the religious community handled his mistakes. The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: “For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband.” The Protestant King James therefore says: “For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.”
The Evangelical New Living Translation accurately assessed Paul’s intent, but misrepresented his Greek text by attempting a paraphrase of the Hebrew passage instead: “As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’” In a moment, I will share the Christian interpretation of Paul’s message so that you will be able to 156more fully appreciate how this lie was woven into the fabric of his faith.
Continuing with the Galatians epistle, please note that the following statement contains a pronoun, a conjunction, a preposition, four nouns, and one lone verb hanging out at the end of the “sentence.” Of these elements of speech, the NAMI composed: “You but brothers by Isaac promise children you are.” It is hard to explain Paul’s point when his words don’t make any sense.
Examining the same words, I concur, that is what the self-proclaimed mother of the Christian faith wrote. Too bad it required Paul to contradict himself. Just a moment ago, he equated the Towrah memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, Ishmael’s mother. But now, he would like you to forget all of that and consider...
“But (de) you (umeis) brothers (adelphos) according to (kata – literally down from or opposite of) Yitschaq (Isaak – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yitschaq, meaning laughter) of promise (epaggelia – of announced declaration or agreement) children (teknon) you are (eimi).” (Galatians 4:28)
Even if Paul had not mangled and denounced the Towrah’s Covenant, this wouldn’t be true. The only promises that matter are the ones Yahowah made to Abraham, all of which He recorded for our benefit in His Towrah. Yitschaq was himself a beneficiary of those engraved vows, just as are we.
And last time I checked, Yitschaq had two children – twins as it turns out, not hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of children. One of his two sons, his firstborn, Esau, Yahowah despised – so that’s not an appealing option. Although in this regard, Sha’uwl and Esau share the distinction of being the only two individuals Yahowah calls out by name to demean.
157Yitschaq’s second son, Ya’aqob, became Yisra’el, and thus he represents the nation and the race Sha’uwl has been denouncing. Ya’aqob was the father of the twelve tribes known collectively as “Yisra’el.” And yet Galatians has established, and Thessalonians will affirm, that Jews and Israel were Paul’s mortal enemy, so Ya’aqob is not a viable option either. Therefore, even the details which comprise Paul’s attempted recasting of Yahowah’s message are inaccurate, inappropriate, and contradictory. As such, his argument was designed to fool those prone to be religious, the ignorant and the irrational.
Even metaphorically, the Gowym who are adopted into Yahowah’s family are not Yitschaq’s children, but instead we are the product of our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And this adoption process is only possible when we accept the terms and conditions of Yahowah’s Covenant, the one memorialized in the Torah, something Paul rejected as have Christians after him. And thus, Sha’uwl’s statement is wholly fraudulent.
Simply stated, the opposite of what Paul is claiming is true. A faith based upon Paul’s words is worthless.
We find the following in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Which was then reflected in the King James: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” And then this was augmented in the NLT to convey: “And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac.” It was a case of money see, monkey do.” Unwilling to admit the “announced promise” is contained in the Torah, and that the “assured agreement” was the “Covenant,” each religious tome parroted Paul’s inaccurate and uninspired drivel.
Since nothing more needs to be said with regard to exposing Christians to the fact that Paul should not be trusted, let’s move on to his next line. The Nestle-Aland 158McReynolds Interlinear proposed the following: “But as indeed then the by flesh having been born pursued the by spirit thusly also now.” Perhaps if we were insane like Paul, or demon-possessed, this might make so much sense it would appear inspired. But since we are not, this is the best I can do...
“Otherwise (alla – on the contrary, nevertheless, or certainly) just as (hosper) at that time (tote – then) this (o) accordingly (kata), flesh (sarx – the physical body) having given birth (gennao – having been born) pursued, persecuted, and expelled (dioko – hastily pressed forward, putting others to flight, running over them and driving them away, harassing and oppressing) this (ton) according to (kata – down from) spirit (ΠΝΑ) and so it continues (kai houto – also likewise it follows) even now (nyn – at the present time).” (Galatians 4:29)
Let’s be honest in our appraisal. This “sentence” is incomprehensible. So rather than attempt to comment on what Paul actually wrote, let’s consider the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. Jerome ventured: “But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now.” I would not know where to begin if asked to “translate” this.
The King James appears to be taking a racist approach, suggesting that Yahowah’s Jews were persecuting Paul’s Christians: “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” While there was a very limited history of Jews harassing Jews, there is no indication that Jews persecuted Gentiles.
As we have come to expect, the authors of the New Living Translation embraced this potentially anti-Semitic slant and made the most of it: “But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, 159the child born by the power of the Spirit.” While I cannot quarrel with the realization that this may well encapsulate Paul’s intent, it isn’t even remotely close to what he actually wrote.
There is no association between “to observe” and “to keep” or between the “Towrah” and “law.” There is no correlation between the “Covenant” and “Ishmael,” and both “Ishmael” and “Isaac” were conceived “by the human effort” of Abraham. Further “Isaac” was not “persecuted.” Yitschaq was not “born by the power of the Spirit.” While Ishmael is said to have teased Yitschaq, that’s a world away from “dioko – persecution.” Moreover, since dioko means “to persecute by hastily pursuing someone, to oppress and harass him, and thereby cause the victim to flee and ultimately be expelled,” it is the wrong verb to apply to the intermittent taunts Ishmael launched in Yitschaq’s direction, especially since it led to Ishmael’s, not Yitschaq’s, expulsion from the Promised Land. Therefore, no matter how Paul’s message is interpreted, it is consistently wrong. And one thousand lies do not make a religious text credible.
And speaking of mistaken...
“Otherwise (alla – on the contrary, nevertheless, or certainly) what (tis) says (lego) the Writing (e graphe), ‘Throw out and expel (ekballo – cast, drive, and send out) the (ten) slave girl (paidiske) and (kai) the (ton) son (huios) of her (autes) [not (me – the first of the two negations is not extant in P46)] for (gar – because then) will not receive (me kleronomeo – will not gain possession or inherit through a chance throwing of lots; from kleros – to cast or draw lots) the son (o huios) of the slave girl (tes paidiske) with (meta) the son (tou huios) of the free (tes eleutheros – free, unrestrained and not bound).’” (Galatians 4:30)
Once again, Paul’s attempted citation of the Torah was 160garbled and inaccurate. But so that we have another perspective from which to consider his misquotation of Genesis 21:10, let’s turn to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear and consider what they have published: “But what says the writing: Throw out the servant girl and the son of her not for not will inherit the son of the servant girl with the son of the free.”
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads: “But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.” So we should not be surprised that the KJV conveys the same thing: “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Other than confirming that Paul was attempting to quote the Torah, the NLT’s rendering is very similar: “But what do the Scriptures say about that? ‘Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’”
The Torah passage Sha’uwl cited begins similarly but ends differently. Most importantly, it is in Sarah’s voice, not God’s:
“Sarah (Sarah – to struggle and strive or to engage and endure) saw (ra’ah – perceived and envisioned) the son (‘eth ben) of Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale), the Mitsry (Mitsry – from the guarded crucible of chronic oppression and serious impairment, anguish, and distress, the Egyptian), who had relations with (‘asher) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome), bearing a child (yalad), laughing (tsachaq – laughing and playing around).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:9)
161We are left to wonder if Hagar and Ishmael were laughing at Sarah trying to deal with Yitschaq at ninety years of age, or if the joking around included ‘Abraham. But either way, Sarah was not amused.
Hagar’s name could be based upon hagyg or hegeh, which would be “to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing,” or “lamentable words which tell a woeful tale.” Either sounds a lot like the Qur’an – a sorrowful tale originally recited by Muhammad, who claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael.
Also interesting, hagah means “to be removed and expelled, driven out.” That would be consistent with what follows, and of Muhammad’s plight in Mecca. Muhammad even used Hagar’s name to describe his mythical flight on the winged ass from Mecca to Jerusalem, calling the high-flying affair “the Hegira.” Islam has long represented a return to slavery.
“So (wa) she said (‘amar) to ‘Abraham (‘Abraham), cast out and banish (garash – remove, expel, divorce, and drive away (piel imperative – of your own volition cause them to be expelled, sending away)) this slave woman (ha ‘amah ha zo’th – the female servant, this piece of property and lowlife of a woman) along with her son (wa ‘eth ben hy’), because (ky) the son of this piece of property and lowlife of a woman (ha ben ha ‘amah ha zo’th – the child of the female servant and slave) shall not share in an inheritance (lo’ yarash – shall not be an heir) with my son (‘im ben ‘any), Yitschaq | Laughter (Yitschaq – I thought it was funny and laughed).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:10)
Sarah was jealous, but so is God. Not everyone shares in the inheritance. Sarah was now a mother and she was protective.
It is also likely that her relationship with Hagar and with Ishmael changed appreciably. Hagar had served at her 162bequest as a surrogate mother and bore her husband’s child. Her status would have risen. However, now Yitschaq was the star of the show. Uncomfortable with the turn of fortune, Hagar evidently copped an attitude that was unbecoming.
Nonetheless, ‘Abraham had divided loyalties…
“But (wa) this statement (ha dabar – these words and manner of speaking) was exceedingly (ma’od – tremendously and utterly, highly and greatly) distressing and inappropriate (ra’a’ – troubling and hurtful, displeasing and sad, disturbing and harmful) in the sight of (ba ‘ayn – from the perspective of) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) on account of (al ‘owdowth – because of) his son (ben ‘any).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:11)
Yahowah’s loyalties were not divided. Ishmael had been Sarah’s idea and ‘Abraham’s mistake. Yahowah had made it possible for them to conceive Yitschaq, and he would be their heir.
“God (wa ‘elohym – the Mighty Ones) said (‘amar – explained) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘You should not perceive this in a negative way (‘al ra’a ba ‘ayn ‘atah – you should not see this as hurtful nor harmful, avoid viewing this as wrong, and do not be seen appearing anxious) before (‘al – or against) the boy (ha na’ar – the teenager; from na’ar – to be shaken over the emptiness and lack of adherence and to shake off and free) or because of (wa ‘al) your female servant (‘amah ‘atah).
Whatever (kol – everything) for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – which, to show the way to get the greatest joy out of life) Sarah (Sarah – to struggle and strive or to engage and endure) says to you (‘amar ‘el 163‘atah), listen (shama’) to the sound of her voice (ba qowl hy’) because, indeed (ky – for the reason that surely by contrast), with Yitschaq | Isaac (Yitschaq) your offspring (la ‘atah zera’) shall be called out and summoned (qara’ – invited and welcomed, designated and known).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:12)
It was a short meeting with a simple and clear intent. Listen to your wife when she addresses the benefits associated with your relationship. What she is saying is in your interests. It was now time to “garash – cast out and remove” his possessions, freeing the boy and her mother in the process. Those in and out of the Covenant would not live together. Turf wars and feuding over misperceptions would lead to conflict and bloodletting.
Therefore, let’s review what the Towrah says and juxtapose it next to Paul’s citation.
The Towrah says: “So she said to ‘Abraham, cast out and banish this slave woman along with her son, because the son of this piece of property and inferior woman shall not share in an inheritance with my son, Yitschaq | Laughter.” (Bare’syth 21:10)
But Galatians reads: ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.”
Why do you suppose Paul removed “And she said to Abraham” from the beginning of this sentence? After all, he was positioning Sarah as the “Mother of the faithful” so her words should have carried Divine authority. Also, since Paul makes women subservient to men, his credibility in doing so is undermined by God asking this man to listen to his wife.
More importantly, why did Paul corrupt the ending of the sentence, changing what Sarah said: “because the son of this piece of property and inferior woman shall not 164share in an inheritance with my son, Yitschaq | Laughter” to: “for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.”
Beyond the fact that it is poor form for the creation to misquote the Creator, it is obvious that Sha’uwl misrepresented God’s statement because he wanted the passage to support his ploy. So when Sarah didn’t differentiate between “the son of the slave girl and the son of the free,” Sha’uwl changed the text to create the illusion that he had a Divine sanction for his faith.
What is so deeply troubling about all of this is that Sha’uwl knew that this particular passage was one of many which affirm that there was no covenant established with Hagar or Ishmael. They were banished into the desert, and were separated from God and from the Children of Yisra’el. Thus the basis for Sha’uwl’s adversarial covenant, the one allegedly memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, which enslaves us, is torn asunder by the very Towrah he cited.
It is, therefore, once again evident that Paul was playing his audience for fools, banking on the hunch that they were too poorly informed and too irrational to connect these things and thereby rebuke him. And as it turns out, his assessment was accurate.
Perhaps this explains one of the reasons Sha’uwl spurned Jews. They knew the Towrah and would have held him accountable for twisting it. Recognizing that his ploy would not prevail before an informed audience, Paul marketed his ideas exclusively to Gentiles who didn’t know any better. It is one of the reasons there are so few Jewish Christians today.
Also, since I have made the comparison, Satan’s other messenger, Muhammad, turned against Jews for exactly the same reasons. He had purchased Talmud readings from them, which he twisted into Qur’an surahs. And since the 165Jews knew where he had gotten his “inspiration,” they had to be eliminated before exposing Muhammad as a fraud.
Before we move on, I would like you to consider something. If we were to put aside the big picture for a moment, where Paul’s message has been the antithesis of Yahowah’s, how can anyone believe that this poorly written and illogical letter is “Scripture,” as in the inspired and inerrant Word of God? All one has to do is compare Paul’s quotations to the original source and it becomes obvious that they are inconsistent and inaccurate. And by definition, inaccurate is not inerrant, thereby, destroying the most important precept of the Christian faith.
If you are a Christian, your options to resolve this problem are limited. They include blaming the source of inspiration. That is to say, you can accept the fact that Paul wasn’t inspired by the Spirit who revealed the Towrah, but that means Paul didn’t speak for God, and was thus a liar.
You can also blame scribes, thereby, claiming that they changed Paul’s words. But this justification is devastating, because only Papyrus 75, which covers part of Luke and most of Yahowchanan / John, is more reliable. And it was written one hundred years after Papyrus 46, which documented all of Galatians in the 2nd century. So if scribal error significantly changed the text of Galatians over this short period of time, then nothing in the so-called “Christian New Testament” could be considered remotely reliable, save perhaps isolated portions of Yahowchanan. As such, the entire foundation of Christendom crumbles.
The only other option is to side with Marcion, and believe that God, Himself, was so incompetent and senile that He could no longer remember what He said and, therefore, was no longer relevant. Worse, that God, if He was still alive, came to realize that His original plan was so hopelessly flawed that He needed to have someone correct it for Him. And yet how is that possible since Yahowsha’ 166affirmed every aspect of Yahowah’s Word and plan? How is it possible since today’s newspapers read like Yahowah’s prophetic promises?
And that notwithstanding, Paul has alleged that his message is the same as Yahowsha’s and that it was inspired by the God from whom he came. Besides, if God authorized Paul to contradict Him, and change His message and plan of salvation, why is Paul quoting from the failed plan which has been annulled?
Considering the options, it is little wonder Paul based his “faith” on “believing him.” Those who are informed, and who are willing to think for themselves, will overwhelmingly conclude that he was untrustworthy. Removed from a religious context where the faithful will believe almost anything, Paul’s thesis is not the least bit credible.
By the way, even Paul’s insistence on Hagar and Ishmael remaining enslaved is torn asunder by the Towrah.
“Beside (wa gam – also as an alternative) the son of the slave woman (ha ben ha ‘amah) I will move into and put in a different place (sym la – I will relocate and set in another location) as a confluence of ethnicities and cultures (la gowy – becoming a people from different races and places, albeit the walking dead who are heathens estranged from Yisra’el).
Indeed he (huw’ ky – surely, making a contrast with him), he is your offspring (zera’ ‘atah huw’ – he is the seed you have sown).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:13)
The realization that Ishmael was the seed Abraham had sown is why Abraham’s name carries such positive and negative connotations: ‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up for mercy and the father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome.
167This known, sym does not imply that Yahowah was nation-building with Gentiles – as is conveyed in English Bibles. It means “to put or set something in a different place.” He relocated Yshma’‘el | Ishmael toward what would become the Muslim Middle East.
God’s statement carries overtones of His desire to walk Abraham off the cliff of feeling rather than thinking. Abraham doted over Ishmael, largely because the two men enjoyed similar passions. And that was a problem. So Yahowah not only needed to separate them for the Covenant to prevail, He had to do so in such a way that Abraham would continue to listen to Him – to trust Him. God would put Ishmael in his place to get Abraham’s mind in the right place.
Hagar and Ishmael were freed. They were sent away with provisions. It is how I would deal with the errantly named and misinformed “Palestinian” Muslims in Israel, today. However, based upon the propensity for terror and targeting Jews, Yahowah will not be as kind.
“‘Abraham (‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) arose early in the morning (shakam ba ha boqer – started the day at dawn and) grasped hold of (laqach – obtained) a loaf of bread (lechem) and a skin of water (wa chemeth maym) and gave them (wa nathan – he offered them) to (‘el) Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale), placing them (sym – setting and putting them) on (‘al) her shoulder (shakem hy’ – her upper back), along with the child (‘eth ha yeled). And then he sent her away (wa shalach hy’ – he dispatched her, directing her to leave).
So she began walking (wa halak – walked away), and 168wandered around aimlessly in error (wa ta’ah – she went astray intoxicated, staggering around without understanding, traveling place to place without purpose) into (ba) lifelessness, the desolation devoid of the word (ba midbar – desert wasteland, the wilderness, a place of illiteracy where the word is questioned; a compound of my – to question and dabar – the word) of Ba’er Sheba’ (Ba’er Sheba’– the pit of swearing).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:14)
Directly contradicting Sha’uwl’s testimony, Hagar and Ishmael were freed. They were no longer slaves and therefore could not represent bondage. Furthermore, they were sent away many centuries before Yahowah dictated His Towrah | Teaching on Mount Sinai, having long ago disassociated them from the Covenant He codified thereupon.
Excluding both mother and son from the Covenant’s promise of eternal life in God’s family was one thing, but robbing him of his earthly life would have violated the oath Yahowah made to his father.
“When the water from the skin (wa ha maym min ha chemeth) was gone (kalah – was finished), she threw (shalak – she hurled and flung, casting down and rejecting) the young man (ha yeled – the boy and adolescent child) beneath (tachath – under) one (‘echad) of the bushes (ha syach – shrubs; from syach – complaint and expression of discontent).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:15)
There is a violent tone to the Hebrew word shalak with nothing maternal or loving about it. She threw the young man down, hurling him to the ground. Syach is also an intriguing word in that it is “a place of anguish and discontent where one contemplates foolishness while expressing anxiety.”
“And she took a walk (wa halak), settling down 169(yashab – remaining in place for an indefinite period) such that she went well beyond (la hy’ min neged), far enough away to avoid any association (rachaq – a great distance, to be aloof, severing the relationship), similar to a bowshot (ka tachah qeshet – about as far as an arrow can be hurled). And she said (wa ‘amar), ‘I do not want to witness (‘al ra’ah) the death (ba maweth – the process of dying associated with the plague) of the teenage boy (ha yeled – of the young man).’ And as she settled down (yashab – remaining in place for an indefinite period) opposite and beyond (min neged), she raised her voice (wa nasa’ ‘eth kol hy’) and wept (wa bakah – wailed, sobbed, cried, and mourned).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:16)
It is a bit strange, seeing that Ishmael was a taunting teenager, that his survival instincts and his will to live were surpassed by his mother. It does not speak well of his work ethic or character. And in this regard, Yahowah said this of Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12) Therefore, Islam’s every flaw was being manifest before our eyes. But nonetheless, adjacent to a spring, yesterday’s troubadours of today’s trouble gave up.
Aware of the boy’s plight, God did not send him back to Abraham or Yisra’el. He simply did as Abraham had done – He had an envoy provide for him. This messenger offered some encouragement and then sent mother and son on their way.
“And God (wa ‘elohym) heard (shama’) the sounds (‘eth qowl – the noise and voice) of the teenage boy (ha na’ar – the young man and former servant, even the lost 170sheep who had strayed away and into harm’s way). So a messenger (wa mal’ak – a spiritual implement and heavenly envoy) of God (‘elohym) summoned (qara’ – called out to) Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale) from the heavens (min ha shamaym – out of the spiritual realms).
And he asked regarding her (wa ‘amar la hy’ – so concerning her he said), ‘What is your objective (mah la ‘atah – What is your purpose and why are you concerned), Hagar (Hagar – one devising this sorrowful plot with all the lamentable words telling a woeful tale)? Have you no respect (‘al yare’ – have you no regard, esteem, admiration, or reverence)? In actuality (ky – by contrast), God (‘elohym) has heard (shama’) the intent (‘el – the goal) of the young man’s (ha na’ar – the teenager’s) sounds (qowl – noises and audible cries) in relation to where he is over there (ba ‘asher huw’ sham).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:17)
Such a simple, and yet probing, question: “What is your objective, and why are you concerned, Hagar?” She was the problem. She had no respect or regard for Yahowah. And so, by contrast, it was Yahowah who was concerned about the young man’s life. She had, after all, walked away.
Unlike His encounters with Abraham and Sarah, Yahowah did not meet with Hagar or Ishmael. They would not enjoy a familial covenant relationship with God. The Almighty sent a messenger – and a troubled one at that.
“‘Stand up (quwm – get up), pick up (nasa’ – lift up) the young man (‘eth ha na’ar) and hold him firmly (wa chazaq ba huw’ – grasp him strongly and resolutely, even harshly and with a degree of intensity) with your hand (‘eth yad ‘atah – under your influence). Indeed (ky – surely), I will move him into a different place in another 171location (sym – I will relocate him, setting him elsewhere) as a substantial confluence of ethnicities and cultures (gowy gadowl – to become multitudes of strange and estranged people from different races and places, many akin to the walking dead, a sizable animalistic and Godless community of non-Yahuwdym, representing a different nation).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:18)
“Then (wa) God (‘elohym) had her ability to be perceptive enhanced (paqach ‘eth ‘ayn hy’) and she saw (wa ra’ah) a pit (be’er – well or shaft) of water (maym). So she walked over (wa halak) and filled up (wa male’) the skin (‘eth ha chemeth) with water (maym) and gave a drink (shaqah) to the young man (‘eth ha na’ar – to the teenage boy).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:19)
She had been so caught up in her own miserable existence, after disowning the boy, she did not even bother to look for water. The well had been right there, beside her, all of the time. And yet to honor His promise, He had to work around humankind’s ineptitude. And apparently, a sip of water was all it took for Hagar and Yshma’‘el to be on their way.
“So God (wa ‘elohym) remained (hayah – continued to be) opposed to (‘eth – against) the young man (ha na’ar – was a lost sheep). He would become exalted (wa gadal – he would garner status and acclaim and be honored and glorified) living (yashab – dwelling and remaining) in the desert (ba ha midbar – in the wilderness where the word is questioned). And he came to be (wa hayah) great at shooting arrows from a bow (rabah qashath – a formidable and superior archer and hunter).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:20)
In other words, apart from being acclaimed as the forefather of Muhammad and Islam, he was a formidable killing machine. His mother should be so proud.
172The story of the Covenant was just beginning, but the story of Ishmael was over, at least in relationship to God, His Towrah, and His Covenant. The next time we hear of Ishmael, it was at Abraham’s burial. Then we learn that Esau earned Yahowah’s wrath for having married one of Ishmael’s daughters. From that point, the bastard child fades into oblivion, only to be resurrected by Muhammad to serve Allah and Islam.
Paul knew that there was no covenant established with Hagar or her son. He knew that Hagar was not associated with the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai. And that is why it was so unconscionable for him to state otherwise.
I suppose that Paul’s parting salvo on the mythical second covenant might be valid if it were prophetic, and not historic, and you darted six centuries ahead in time, and associated Ishmael with Islam.
“Therefore (ara – so then [as found in P46 as opposed to dio in the NA]), brothers (adelphos), we are not (ou eimi) children (teknon) of slave girl (paidiske), to the contrary (alla), the free (tes eleutheros).” (Galatians 4:31)
In reality, neither Sarah nor Hagar conceived again. But a religion was conceived from these words – one which would be astonishingly anti-Semitic and ardently opposed to the Torah.
Regarding this concluding statement, the NAMI offered: “Therefore, brothers not we are of servant girl children but of the free.” Jerome embellished his Latin Vulgate with: “So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christus has made us free.” Surprisingly, the KJV removed the reference to “Christus:” “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
Rather than simply consider the New Living 173Translation’s rendition of this passage, a more comprehensive view seems appropriate. Interpreting and trumpeting Paul’s blasphemous manifesto, these Evangelical Christians wrote:
“Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.
These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother. As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’
And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? ‘Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman's son.’ So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman.” (NLT Galatians 4:21-31)
174In my quest to understand the Christian justification for Paul’s fictitious improvisation regarding a second covenant, with his view that the one formalized on Mount Sinai was associated with Hagar, as opposed to Ya’aqob and Yisra’el, and of it leading to slavery, as opposed to liberation, I found uniformity. It was as if someone wrote a plan for how to deal with Paul’s willingness to demean the Towrah and contradict God, and thereafter everyone thoughtlessly parroted the same script.
Each of the scores of Christian religious sites I scoured said that Paul was condemning the “Judaizers,” as if there actually were such people. But since it sounds nasty, and because hating Jews has become a religious obsession, “Judaizers” became the ubiquitous explanation for Paul’s mythical second covenant.
Before we delve into Christian apologetics, so that Paul’s thesis is fresh in our minds, here is a recap of his position:
“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21)
For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22)
Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)
Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)
Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present 175Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children. (Galatians 4:25)
But the Yaruwshalaim above is in opposition, free and independent is who is our mother. (Galatians 4:26)
For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’ (Galatians 4:27)
But you are brothers according to Yitschaq. You are of promised children. (Galatians 4:28)
Otherwise just as at that time accordingly, flesh having given birth pursued and persecuted this according to the spirit and so it continues even now. (Galatians 4:29)
Nevertheless, what says the Writing, ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.’ (Galatians 4:30)
Therefore, brothers, we are not children of slave girl, to the contrary, the free.” (Galatians 4:31)
According to Protestant Christianity: “the allegory of Hagar and Sarah was written to persuade us (along with the Galatians) not to follow the ‘Judaizers’ into slavery with Hagar and Ishmael.” This comes courtesy of the Baptist Church. And yet, the Towrah clearly states that, at Yahowah’s insistence, Hagar was freed, and Ishmael was never a slave. Therefore, if this is what Paul meant to say, he chose the wrong examples.
From a site operating under the acronym CCEL.org (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), and under the heading, “Sermons from Galatians,” we find: “It is important to note that Paul does not deny the actual 176historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law.” Yet in fact, Paul’s hypothesis contradicts every aspect of the Towrah’s presentation of Hagar, Ishmael, the Covenant, as well as what occurred on Mount Sinai. His “illustration” thus represents a complete “denial of the actual historical narrative.”
They wrote: “Our threat today might not be from Judaizing teachers, but from those who would have us turn away from Christ, such as voices in the world and false religions.” For example, they might follow Christian preachers and come to believe the false religion of Christianity.
The Sacra Eloquia provided this twist: “The Apostle Paul, like Morpheus in the film The Matrix, had been a slave to his former religion of Judaism. And the Judaizers wanted the Galatians to be slaves as well.” In actuality, it appears that Paul never escaped religion, and stepped from one into another.
The Lectionary Studies of the New Testament provided this perfectly prepared presentation of Pauline Doctrine: “By the use of the Hagar-Sarah illustration Paul makes his strongest argument: forward in the Christian life, or backward to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. The message is that the Torah enslaves and condemns us. Yet the Judaizers argue that only those who submit to the Sinai covenant share in the promised Abrahamic blessings and thus Gentile believers must submit themselves to the Mosaic Law if they are to share in Isaac’s blessings, as opposed to being cast out with Ishmael.”
As is the case with Paul, this is wrong from beginning to end. And yet, in these words we find the religious script unveiled which has been deployed to pit Christianity against the Torah, against Yahowah, its author, against His 177one and only Covenant, against His seven Invitations, against the Ten Statements He etched in stone, and lest we forget, against Yisra’el and Yahuwdym – His Chosen People. And it is a plot whose mythological origins are rooted in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
Spreading the Light Ministries Network under the heading “Sermons,” protests: “Paul illustrates the difference between believers who rest in Christ only and Judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael.”
However, Paul’s story isn’t “from” the account of Yitschaq and Yshma’‘el, but is instead the antithesis of it. Moreover, there is no comparison between the banishment of Hagar and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah. Further, Yahowsha’ consistently told those interested in knowing him and understanding what he came to accomplish that they must ground their perspective in the Towrah.
This Christian organization says: “He tells the Galatians that they are making a big mistake by falling away from the truth.” And yet, according to Yahowah, and thus, Yahowsha’, the Towrah is the truth.
“These things Paul said are an allegory, besides being literal and historical.” It is hard to believe that the proponents of this plot are so stupid that they don’t recognize that Paul wasn’t calling his version “allegorical,” but instead Yahowah’s, and that Paul’s thesis was neither literal nor historical. Religion does crazy things to people’s minds.
“Hagar represents the Mosaic Law, slavery.” This is only true in Paul’s twisted mind and in the hearts of those sufficiently ignorant and irrational to believe him. Yahowah says just the opposite.
Spreading the Light Ministries Network protested: 178“Mount Sinai represents Jerusalem under slavery to Rome and the Jews…who are under the curse of the Law.” The only association between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem is that one predicts, explains, and leads to the other. They are linked, not in “curses” or “slavery,” but in being steps along the path to our redemption. The Towrah’s Covenant promises were honored on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of the Shabat in Yaruwshalaim – the Source of Teaching and Guidance Regarding Reconciliation.
The Bible Study Guide to Galatians suggests: “Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sarah as a picture of the relationship between God and man. Paul tells the Galatians that Hagar represents the covenant given on Mt. Sinai, which is the law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping. In so doing, Paul warns us about complying with the Judaizers.”
The opposite of this is true. Abraham, and through him, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el), represent the Covenant between Yahowah and His family, not Sarah. And Hagar was specifically disassociated from the Covenant centuries before it was codified in the Towrah on Mount Sinai. Further, the “law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping” isn’t the Towrah, which means “Teaching,” but instead, Jewish Oral Law codified in their Talmud.
Bereft of the notion that “proof” requires “evidence,” McGarvey and Pendleton’s Commentary published: “Paul proves that Christians are not required to keep the Jewish Sabbath or festivals of Judaism even though the Judaizers insisted upon them.”
The only thing Paul has proven is that his Greek is impoverished and that he feels no qualms about misquoting and contradicting God. Equally uninformed, McGarvey and Pendleton as anti-Semites want Christians to believe 179that the Shabat, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, the Promise of Seven, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters are the customs of “Judaizers” rather than being Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.
And by the way, if we were to believe the myth that Christians became part of the family as a result of Sarah, or as a result of Christo, or as a result of Paul, then can someone explain the reason for Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations. With whom is Yahowah restoring His relationship, unless with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah.
M&P wrote: “Paul imagines that the Galatians are seeking the instruction of the Judaizers, as they had once sought him.” While Paul has a vivid imagination, there is no evidence for “Judaizers,” much less that the Galatians sought Paul’s instructions. To the contrary, the text of the epistle indicates that the Galatians rejected Paul and his message. (If only the rest of the world had as well.)
Reading Galatians through glasses fitted at a Christian bookstore, McGarvey and Pendleton wrote: “And Paul, knowing the passion of the Judaizers for allegory, meets them with their own weapon, and presents his case argumentatively and logically.”
Nothing Paul has said has been logical, albeit his rhetoric has been plenty argumentative. There is no indication that rabbis used allegory. It is Yahowah who has a passion for parables, metaphors, and word pictures. And they are not “weapons,” but instead teaching aids. And yet by saying this, these Christians have demonstrated their disdain for God in deference to Paul.
Further, they have demonstrated that Christianity renders its victims unable to think. Anyone who has read this passage in Greek understands that Paul specifically differentiated the allegorical meaning of the story, whatever it may have been, from his personal interpretation 180of it. Paul did not say that the two covenants were allegorical, but instead said “these then exist as two covenants.” And again, while Paul is undeniably “argumentative,” he is the antithesis of “logical.”
From an organization called “From Pentecost to Patmos,” we find confusion between religious rhetoric and sound argument: “Paul’s thesis, presented in Galatians chapter 4, verses 8-31, provides a series of arguments for his conviction that justification comes by faith alone, and he contrasts this with the improperly motivated zeal of the Judaizers.” This begins well. Galatians is “Paul’s thesis.” And therein lies the problem. Paul’s thesis and Yahowah’s message differ on every essential issue.
Pentecost to Patmos’ insistence that “justification comes by faith alone” is invalid according to God. But it is true that faith operates alone, without evidence or support. Whereas trust, which is based upon knowledge and understanding, requires a foundation of supporting evidence.
Since these alleged “Judaizers” were such a legendary foe, I wonder why no one has actually named one. Why hasn’t anyone been able to identify their leadership, determine what they believed, uncover a text written by them, found where they met, or provide any evidence that such people even existed. Unlike early Christians, rabbis documented everything from friend or foe – and there is no mention of a Judaizer in any rabbinical text.
The longest, most errant, and yet most unapologetically Christian, comparison between Genesis 17:15-21 and Galatians 4:21-31 is found on a Presbyterian site. A pastor on behalf of the “Orthodox Presbyterian Church,” wrote the following anti-Semitic rant: “The Judaizers [in actuality, Jews seldom, if ever, attempt to convert anyone and in fact, make conversion difficult] entered the Galatian churches [there is no reference to a 181“church” in these Greek manuscripts, but instead an ekklesia, referring to the Called Out], which were primarily Gentile [while this excuse is ubiquitous, the content of Galatians demonstrates that the audience was aware and fond of the Torah, meaning that they were mostly Yahuwdym, not Gowym], and argued that true believers [“true believer” is an oxymoron, moreover, God wants us to know and understand so that we can trust and rely upon the truth He revealed in His Torah] had to be engrafted into the lineage through circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses.”
This misconstrues the symbolism of circumcision and it confuses “observance” with “obedience.” Being aware leads to knowing. Obedience leads to submission. Further, the “Law of Moses” is akin to calling the prophecies Yahowah revealed to Yasha’yah the “Edicts of Isaiah.” Moseh was simply the scribe who wrote Yahowah’s teaching and guidance on a scroll. It is a wonder these theologians do not attribute the Declaration of Independence to the calligrapher.
Failing to appreciate the difference between “stating” and “demonstrating,” the Presbyterian pastor exclaimed: “But Paul demonstrates that the Mosaic Law itself has come to an end with the coming of the true seed, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the end of the Law.” Paul does make this claim, but by doing so, he directly contradicts Yahowsha’s position on the Towrah. Therefore, since Yahowsha’ said that he did not bring an end to the Towrah, Paul proved that he was wrong and should not be trusted.
“But sadly the Galatians had begun to buy into the Judaizers’ argument. [Galatians only hints at the nature of Paul’s foe and the arguments they proposed.] They had already capitulated and were being told to observe the fasts and festivals of the Jewish calendar. [Wrong again. There are no fasts, and the festivals are Yahowah’s. They are dated on His calendar, not a Jewish one.] But we are no 182longer slaves to the Law of Moses, and are no longer regulated by its commandments.” If the Towrah isn’t guidance for liberation, then Yahowah is a liar and Yahowsha’ fulfilled Passover and UnYeasted Bread in vain. Under this condition, there would be no freedom from human oppression nor vindication from sin.
I was appalled not long ago to see the Presbyterian Church release a stunningly immoral and inaccurate press release following their General Assembly against Jews and Israel and in favor of the Muslims who were terrorizing them. And now, I understand the source of their anti-Semitism. “So Paul turns the Judaizers’ use of the Old Testament against them.” Calling the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the “Old Testament” demonstrates that Christians have remained mired in Paul’s polluted rhetoric. Yahowah’s message to His creation begins with the “Towrah,” and it concludes with the “Prophets.” And because Paul misquoted and misapplied Yahowah’s testimony, he used the “Old Testament” against himself.
According to Orthodox Presbyterian Church: “Paul tells them that the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai where the Law was mediated through Moses in the presence of the angels was a covenant of slavery and bondage.” There are no “angels,” only mal’ak | messengers, and the Towrah was not “mediated through Moses.” To mediate is “to intervene.” Yahowah spoke for Himself and acted on His own behalf.
Further, the explicit purpose of the Torah is to detail the role Yahowah played in the liberation of the children of Yisra’el from the crucible of human religious and political oppression and bondage in Egypt, leading them to a life of freedom in the Promised Land. Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet delineate this same path for the rest of us.
“Paul’s gospel is not related to Hagar, the Judaizers 183are.” Paul can be blamed for many things, but “gospel” is not among them. He used euangelion, meaning “profitable messenger and beneficial message.” “Gospel” is a Christian myth based upon pagan nomenclature.
This same Presbyterian entity demonstrated its ignorance when they postured: “The message of the Torah is one of slavery.” According to Paul, this is true, but not according to Yahowah. Therefore God’s Torah instructions and man’s religious teachings on this foundational issue are diametrically opposed. How is it then that Christians remain oblivious to this conflict? Search as I might, I was unable to find a single theologian who even attempted to reconcile this catastrophic problem.
The Christian apologist, having skipped the lecture on the Instruction on the Mount at seminary school, wrote: “Since the city of Jerusalem had become a symbol for the Mosaic Covenant, when that Covenant/Law came to an end, so did all the hopes that were rooted in that city, including the land and temple.” Yaruwshalaim is the symbol of salvation, not the symbol of the Covenant. And according to Yahowah, His Word is eternal, never-ending.
Presbyterian Christians have separated themselves from Yahowah, from His Torah, from God’s Path home, from Yaruwshalaim the source of reconciliation, and thus from the Promised Land, symbolic of Heaven. “No longer for the Christian is Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the law of Moses the center of our hope. The Christian’s hope is not to be found in whether or not a nation today called Israel locates itself in the Middle East, or if they are able to slaughter enough Arabs to take over the city of Jerusalem, or if they are able to take control of the temple Mount and rebuild the Temple. These things are all vain hopes. They are Jewish empty dreams. They are simply the confused dog chasing his shadow in the yard.” While it is hard not to envision Yahowah’s anguished expression at the trial of the Christian pastor who scribed these words, it would do these 184fellows a world of good to read the Prophets sometime.
“Rather the Christian has become heirs of the realities, not the shadows. Let the Jews continue to place their hopes in the shadows which have come to an end. Amen.” And yet, Christianity remains mired in the myths of Mystery Babylon, confused by Satan’s shadows, his counterfeits. “Amen,” indeed.
For Paul’s thesis to be true, for the Torah to be an agent of enslavement, and for it to be annulled, Yahowah, the God who created the universe and conceived life, would have to have concluded that He was wrong and that He was incapable of resolving man’s condition. As a result, He would have had to recognize that Paul was superior in intellect and ability to Himself. Then, God would have had to have asked Paul to correct Him, and to solve these problems a different way – all while twisting and demeaning everything He had previously revealed. If you believe that is what occurred, that Paul had the authority and ability to correct God, congratulations, you are a Christian.
