Chapter 3

Yaruwshalaym

Source of Salvation

What Really Happened in Yaruwshalaym?...

Sha’uwl continued his travelogue and autobiography with what we now know was an inaccurate recollection—at least with respect to the timing. "Later (epeita), through (dia) the passage of another (palin) fourteen (ekatessares) years (etos), I went up (anabaino) to (eis) Yaruwshalaym (Hierosoluma – transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning source of salvation) along with (meta) Barnabas (Barnabas – of Aramaic origin from bar, son of, naby, a prophet), and also bringing along (symparalambano – taking with us) Titus (Titos – of Latin origin meaning honorable)." (Galatians 2:1)

Yaruwshalaym is where the Covenant was conceived and confirmed. It is the place Yahshua fulfilled His promise to save us. It is the source of our salvation. So it is incomprehensible to me that Sha’uwl would spend nearly two decades within walking distance of the place and people who witnessed the most important three days in human history, and not stop by on occasion to soak it all in.

And yet, since Sha’uwl will associate Yaruwshalaym with the enslavement of mankind two chapters hence, his disdain for God’s favorite place on Earth shouldn’t be all that surprising. Sha’uwl, and the faith he conceived, would ultimately become adverse to Yahweh’s Chosen People, Promised Land, Torah, Commandments, and Called-Out Assemblies.

"But then (de) I went up (anabaino) with regard to (kata) a revelation (apokalypsis – a disclosure and vision, an unveiling which makes manifest), and explained (anatithemai – set before and declared, communicating) to them (autos) the healing and beneficial message (euangelion) which (o) I was preaching (kerysso – proclaiming and announcing, publicly heralding) among (en) the nations (ethnos – to people from different races, places and cultures) with reference to (kata) certain individuals (idios),..." (Galatians 2:2)

In due time, we will discover that the reason that the nature of this "revelation" wasn’t disclosed, is because there was no "vision." Paul was compelled to go to Yaruwshalaym as a result of a conflict between his message and the Torah’s instructions. As for the "certain [nameless] individuals," that was misleading as well. This summit would include the most influential men on the planet, Yahshua’s Disciples, in addition to the leadership of the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia.

That is not to say, however, that this passage wasn’t helpful. In it we find the Greek noun euangelion, which was accurately translated "healing and beneficial message," and the Greek verb kerysso, which was correctly rendered "to preach and to proclaim." By having used euangelion and kerysso together, we can now be certain that if Sha’uwl wanted to say "preach" he would have used kerysso, not euangelizo, in this and in previous verses. And this realization exposes the ubiquitous and indefensible translation errors manifest throughout the King James and New Living bibles.

As we are discovering, the epistle to the Galatians was Sha’uwl’s attempt to reestablish his initially tattered reputation—one that had been called into question because he alone among those claiming to speak for God, was willing to contradict God. And one of the best ways for him to appear credible while doing so, would be for him to tell us that he and his message had been approved and endorsed by Yahshua’s Disciples, and specifically by Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan, the three most influential Apostles.

So, if this letter is accurate, it appears that they may have given it to him—a favor Paul would not reciprocate. "...then (de) they were of the opinion (dokei – they presumed and held that it appeared) that in no way (pos me) was I progressing (trecho – running) or (e) striving (trecho – rapidly propagating a teaching) in vain (kenos – devoid of truth, effect, purpose, or result)." (Galatians 2:2)

This is the first of five times we will confront "dokei – were of the opinion" in the context of this letter. Its primary meaning is "to suppose, presume, and consider," as well as "to hold an opinion based upon appearances." Dokei conveys the idea of "wanting to see something a certain way, or of someone being predisposed to a certain viewpoint." Therefore, dokei could have been translated: they "were reputed to suppose and presume...," and thus it isn’t a ringing endorsement.

Cutting to the chase, dokei conveys a "subjective opinion," as opposed to an objective conclusion. So, in the context of an endorsement on a topic which is literally life and death, and one so easily verified by way of the undisputed standard, this is a red flag of unimaginable proportions.

Far worse, however, is that what Paul just said may not be true, or at the very least, it may be purposefully misleading. You see, there is another account, one more credible and detailed than this, expressing what actually happened during this meeting. And that is why this may be more what politicians would call "spin," as opposed to an outright lie. It’s not actually an endorsement of Paul, his message, or his mission. It only states that "certain individuals were of the opinion that I was not running for nothing." It doesn’t even say what he was running to, for, or from.

In that Protestant Christianity is predicated in large degree on the King James Bible’s interpretation of Paul’s theology, it’s incumbent upon me to tell you that their rendering of this verse is atrocious, by any standard. There is no basis for "Gospel" or "privately," and "Gentiles" and "which were of reputation," are a real stretch. KJV: "And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." Why would Sha’uwl consider running from them? He had come to visit with them. And it had been he who had persecuted them, not the other way around.

You should also know, by adding "privately" to this text without justification, biblical scholars, inadvisably trusting their King James Bibles, have tended to disassociate Paul’s description of this meeting in Yaruwshalaym from the detailed account of the very public "Apostolic Council" presented in Acts 15. I can only assume that they do so because when the divergent testimonies are compared, Paul’s credibility, rather than being enhanced, is shattered—and with it, their religion.

It is easy to see where the KJV went wrong. Rather than deal with the Greek, they twisted the Latin Vulgate, the text which gave rise to Roman Catholicism. LV: "And I went up according to revelation, and I debated with them about the evangelium that I am preaching among the Gentibus/Gentiles, but away from those who were pretending to be something, lest perhaps I might run, or have run, in vain." "Privately" was thus Francis Bacon’s attempt to steer clear of the Latin phrase "but away from those who were pretending to be something." However, by translating dokei "pretending to be something," Jerome and the Roman Church, were inferring that Paul was going out of his way to demean Yahshua’s Disciples. And indeed he was.

The Latin Vulgate also infers that Paul was in competition with others, debating with them. In this context, and based upon what is revealed elsewhere, from Sha’uwl’s perspective that probably means that he believed that the Disciples were pretending to be Apostles, while he believed that he was uniquely called by God for this mission.

Equally concerning, if Paul actually believed that he was working with Yahweh, and doing what He wanted done, nothing would have caused him to run away from the very men with whom Yahshua had entrusted His witness. And this is especially disturbing considering what follows, where Sha’uwl condemns Shim’own for running in fear.

It is easy to see why Christians are in the dark. The popular New Living Translation perpetuates the myths inherent in the King James, and then adds some of their own. "I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing." If this is supposed to be "literal," I must have missed the part of the text which says "while I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church."

In addition to rebuking the New Living Translation for their artificial insertion of the "church leaders" into this passage, I am compelled to point out once again, that those who know that they are presenting the Word of God do not seek the endorsement of others. Further, no matter the response, the time we spend sharing Scripture is never "wasted." While most human endeavors are "run in vain," Yahweh’s servants never "run the race for nothing."

My speculation here is that those lost in a world of "faith" don’t know, so they are compelled to seek human approval. Perhaps the inadequate faith of the translators themselves seeped into their translations. It is why so many Christians get upset when others don’t agree with them. The insecure nature of their faith can’t handle the strain of knowing that others don’t believe what they have been led to believe. It is as if the slightest chip on the veneer of their faith will cause everything to crumble. Questioning scares them, so they react by reinforcing one another and collectively pushing the perceived threat away.

Before we press on to the next verse, let’s linger here a moment longer. Opinions are to conclusions as faith is to trust. Since Yahshua’s Disciples had at their disposal a way to know for certain if Paul was speaking for Yahweh or for himself, there was no reason for them to presume anything. Yahweh’s test is a simple one. It contains six elements (with six being the number of man):

1. Is the person a naby’: someone who claims to speak on behalf of God? (This is a screening codicil. If a person admits that they are speaking for themselves, then they are excluded from this test because there would be no reason for anyone to associate their message with God’s.)
2. Is the person zyd: someone who oversteps their bounds, acting presumptuously with an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties, someone who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while demeaning competitors, someone who rebels against the rule of law and is prone to anger, someone who seethes with frustration and is often furious, overbearing, rude, or conceited? (As we shall discover over time, this could be written to say: does the person act like Paul.)
3. Does the person dabar dabar ba shem: openly and publicly preach to others, communicating their message in the name of God? (As was the case with the first codicil, this is also a screening test. If the person has an insignificantly small audience, if their preaching is done in private, if their influence is limited in time and place, then there would be no reason to apply this test. That individual would be disqualified.)
4. Is the person’s message ‘lo tsavah: inconsistent with what God has instructed and directed, does their message conflict with what God appointed, constituted, and decreed, does it vary from His Commandments?
5. Does the person dabar ba shem ‘aher ‘elohym: speak in the name of gods other than Yahweh?
6. Does the person hayah: accurately convey what is happening and what has happened in the past, and do their predictions of the future bow’: materialize and come to exist as they have stated them?

We are way too early in our review of this epistle to apply this test to Paul. But it has been presented here in connection with the reference to the "dokei – subjective opinion" delineated in the previous verse, and so that you will be prepared to quarrel with Sha’uwl if he violates clauses two (of which we already have serious concerns), four (which will serve as the crux of our evaluation), and five (of which Charis/Gratia/Grace is a problem).

We’ll also be looking for historic chronologies (such as his testimony regarding the Yaruwshalaym Summit) as well as prophetic predictions, because without them, Yahweh’s signature and endorsement will be missing. And Yahweh’s prophetic trademark is required if this letter is to be considered Scripture. Also, so that you aren’t left wondering, once we have completed our review of Galatians, we will use Yahweh’s test to objectively determine with absolute certainty whether or not Sha’uwl spoke for God.

Here is the actual text from which Yahweh’s test emerges: "Surely (‘ak – indeed) the person who proclaims a message on behalf of a deity (naby’ – a prophet and spokesperson) who (‘asher – relationally) oversteps their bounds (zyd – acts presumptuously with an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties, who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising others, who rebels against the rules and is prone to rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious, overbearing, rude, and conceited) to (la) speak (dabar – communicate) words (dabar) in (ba) My (‘any) name (shem – renown and reputation) which (‘asher – relationally) I have not instructed nor directed him (lo’ tsavah huw’ – I have not appointed, constituted, decreed, or commanded: i.e., that which is in conflict with God’s Word) to (la) speak (dabar), and (wa) who (‘asher) speaks (dabar) in (ba) the name (shem) of other (‘aher – different) gods (‘elohym), indeed then (wa) that (ha huw’) prophet (naby’ – person who proclaims a message on behalf of that false deity) shall die (muwt – is absent of life and is destructive and deadly)." (Deuteronomy 18:20) Muwt, "shall die," is designed to tell us that a false prophet’s message is "deadly and destructive," and those who believe them "shall die." It also tells us that we should do everything we can to "kill it" before it infects and destroys unwitting souls.

"And if (ky) you say (‘amar – or ask) in (ba) your (‘athah) heart (lebab – inner nature), ‘How (‘eykah) shall we know (yada’ – possess the information required to distinguish, discriminate, understand and acknowledge) if the (ha) words (dabar) which (‘asher) he (huw’) speaks (dabar) are not (lo’) Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s)?’ If that statement (dabar) which (‘asher) is spoken (dabar) by the one who proclaims the message (naby’ – prophet) in Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s) name (shem – reputation and renown) does not (lo’) exist (hayah – did not happen), and does not (lo’) come to be (bow’ – arrive upon the scene), the message (dabar) which (‘asher) he (huw’) has spoken (dabar) is not (lo’) Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s). He (huw’) has spoken (dabar) in (ba) arrogance and presumptuousness (zadown – imprudently insulting contemptuous and shameless speech, taking great liberty while overstepping all due bounds, in disobedience to the law and judge). His (huw’) message (dabar) is not (lo’) prophetic (naby’ – is not a message from God). Stir up trouble for and quarrel with (guwr min) him (huw’)." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

It should be noted that while "hayah – exist" and "bow’ – come to be" seem to convey the same thought in English; they don’t in Hebrew. By using them, Yahweh is speaking of history, both past and future. Those who speak for Him, must accurately describe what has occurred in addition to accurately predicting what will occur. And while you might discount the difficulty of flawlessly reporting prior events, neither Paul nor Muhammad could do it, and thereby failed the test of history past.

In addition, hayah is not only the basis of Yahweh’s name, it is related to the Hebrew word for "life," hay. And the primary meaning of bow’ is "to go from one place to another, and to arrive, coming upon the scene." As such, by using hayah and bow’, Yahweh, who is the source of life, is predicting the arrival of Yahshua, tangibly demonstrating the power of prophecy. After all, predicting the arrival of the Messiyah, and knowing how to recognize Him, was the primary purpose of Deuteronomy 18.

Also, depending where the negation provided by lo’ is placed in the concluding thought, Yahweh could be saying that a false prophet should "not be revered or respected, neither dreaded nor feared."

In the most favorable light, what comes next, had it been set into a different context, might have been designed to reflect the "shamar – observational" view of the Torah. Many, if not all, of its rules are vastly more valuable to us when we study and understand them, than they are to us when we habitually do them without thinking. In this regard, the symbolism of circumcision is more important than the act.

That is not to say that we should ignore Yahweh’s instructions. If you want to be included in the Covenant, if you want to be adopted into Yahweh’s family, and if you want to enter heaven, if you are not currently circumcised, get circumcised. As we shall see, with Yahweh, male circumcision is a life and death issue, one in which He is unwilling to compromise. So, my point is simply that we should seek to understand all of Yahweh’s signs in the light of His plan of salvation.

These things known, Paul’s statement is misleading. In fact, without the proper perspective, it is actually counterproductive. "To the contrary (alla), Titus [, who was with me], a Greek (Hellen), was (eimi) not even (oude) compelled (anagkazo – encouraged or pressured, made to feel obligated) to be circumcised (peritemno – to be cut off and completely separated; from peri, concerning the account of, near, and all around, and tomoteros, to cut something so as to create separation)." (Galatians 2:3) An explanation would have gone a long way toward helping people understand the symbolism involved. (The reason for bracketing the clause "who was with me," is that it isn’t found in Papyrus 46, the oldest witnesses of this passage.)

The complimentary acts which symbolize our entry into the Covenant are circumcision and baptism. Since the Covenant focuses on a human family—the Yahuwdym—the Scriptural sign demonstrating a person’s acceptance of the conditions and benefits of the Covenant, and denoting their desire to be included in it, was circumcision. The symbolism is hard to miss, as this sign deals with the part of the male anatomy responsible for conceiving new human life.

And since the Renewed Covenant focuses on a spiritual family—the Ekklesia – Called-Out Assembly—the symbolic act demonstrating a person’s acceptance of the conditions and benefits of the Covenant, is baptism. We are immersed in water as an outward declaration that we have chosen to be born anew from above into God’s family, becoming adopted children. Understanding both is essential. Doing both is advisable.

By consistently filling in words which aren’t actually in the Greek text to improve readability, without designating them as being added by way of brackets or italics, translators have artificially elevated the status of this epistle, far beyond what the words themselves deserve. But other than that, the KJV rendering is permissible: "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:" LV: "But even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentilis/Gentile, was not compulsus /compelled to be circumcidi/circumcised," Jerome, a Roman, couldn’t write "Greek," even though the text required it. That’s funny in a way.

Arbitrarily putting words into Paul’s mouth has lost its charm. There is no basis for the NLT’s opening clause: "And they supported me and did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile." Do you suppose that the team of scholars and religious leaders who compiled this translation really thought that "Hellen" meant "Gentile"?

The reason that I suggested that this passage, without a proper explanation, was counterproductive, is that it could be construed to suggest that Paul and others were in a position to annul one of Yahweh’s most important instructions. Rabbis would in fact claim this power for themselves, albeit, not regarding circumcision. Akiba promoted the view that a majority vote by Rabbis could override the Torah on any subject that was of interest to them. This arrogant assertion eventually became the basis of Judaism as it is practiced today. And in a roundabout way, it is also the basis of Catholicism, whereby a Pope, elected by Cardinals, is seen as having the authority to establish new rules, even those which contradict God’s rules. Therefore, this is one of many places where Sha’uwl’s lack of specificity has become problematic.

But that’s not the only issue at play here. First, by transitioning from "But then I went up with regard to a revelation, and explained to them the healing and beneficial message which I was preaching among the nations with reference to certain individuals, then they were of the opinion that in no way was I progressing or striving in vain," to "To the contrary, Titus, a Greek, was not even compelled to be circumcised," without any intervening explanation is a sure sign that: 1) The purpose of the Yaruwshalaym Summit was designed to deal with Paul’s message regarding circumcision. 2) That Paul was opposed to circumcision. 3) That Paul wanted it to appear as if the Disciples agreed with his position even though it was in opposition to God. 4) That this particular issue was so fresh in everyone’s mind that no transition or introduction was required to connect the reason for the meeting, Paul’s message, and circumcision. As such, for this reason and many more, it is apparent that Galatians was written immediately after the Yaruwshalaym Summit in 50CE, which was before Sha’uwl’s first visit to Thessalonica, Corinth, or Rome—the other candidates for his initial epistle.

Second, as we will learn, Titus was strongly encouraged to be circumcised at this meeting. Therefore Paul’s testimony regarding his recent past is once again erroneous—or at the very least, intentionally misleading. And that means that he has violated the hayah clause of Yahweh’s prophetic test a second time. He has failed to accurately report what has already happened.

Third, as we shall soon discover, Yahweh’s position on circumcision is clearly stated, as is Sha’uwl’s position. And they are the antithesis of one another. And if what I’m claiming is true, it begs the question: how then can an informed, rational person believe that Paul was authorized to speak for God under these circumstances? To think that Yahweh changed His position on an issue in which He was unequivocal, is to believe that God is capricious and unreliable. And if that’s the case, we cannot trust anything He says, nor anyone who claims to speak for Him. Therefore, there is no possible way for Paul to be credible in this conflict.

But speaking of credibility, what follows should cause us pause. The next clause is unrelated to Galatians 2:3—at least on the surface. It comes out of nowhere. Grammatically, it isn’t the start of a new sentence and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Titus being a Greek or being uncircumcised (at least it would appear). It is as if documenting this part of the meeting prompted Paul to lambast someone he did not like.

My problem with it, at least apart from the fact that the required transition is nonexistent, is that there is no reason to criticize someone without demonstrating that what they said or did was inconsistent with Yahweh’s instructions. Paul didn’t. And it won’t be the last time.

And yet the following passage transitions from being inappropriate, to being devastating, when seen as Sha’uwl’s opening salvo against the Torah. By sequencing from not being required to be circumcised, to his foes trying to enslave him, it’s hard to miss the association between this statement and Paul’s underlining contention that the Torah enslaves.

So without further introduction, here is Galatians 2:4: "...now because (de – moreover then) on account of (dia) the (to) false brothers (pseudadelphos – men who faked their kinship) brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses (pareisaktos – joining secretly), who (hostis) slipped into the group (pareiserchomai – crept in by stealth) to secretly observe (kataskopeo – to closely investigate, evaluate, consider, and contemplate) the freedom and liberation (eleutheria – the liberty and release from slavery and bondage, the emancipation) we (ego) possess (echo – hold on to and wear) in (en – with and because of) the Messiyah (ΧΡΩ), Yahushua (ΙΗΥ) in order to (hina) enslave us (katadouloo ego – making us subservient)." (Galatians 2:4)

If we are to believe Sha’uwl’s words, they suggest that someone who claimed to be born anew into our Heavenly Father’s family, but who had not actually availed themselves of the adoption process, wanted to "enslave Paul and his companions, making them subservient" to someone else or something else. But since the liberty the Messiyah Yahshua provides is eternal, this isn’t possible. Therefore, a plain reading of the words does not reflect Sha’uwl’s intent.

While no person, spirit, government, or religious institution has the power or authority to revoke our liberties as part of God’s family, in this culture, at this time, in this place and context, there were only two human agencies which sought temporal submission and which had the power to enslave individuals during their mortal existence: the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Roman government. But if these men were representative from these institutions, why not identify them? Moreover, why associate "liberty in Yahshua" which is both spiritual and eternal, with human submission, which is neither?

And why even speak of "surreptitiousness, false pretences, slipping in, and secrecy?" Shim’own Kephas had preached directly to all manner of religious and political leaders on the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths. Yahshua spoke to people of all walks of life as well. Yahweh’s plan of salvation isn’t a secret. Not only shouldn’t we concern ourselves with someone hearing the Word of God who shouldn’t, we should want everyone to hear it, even if they reject it and us. The liberation we experience in our relationship with Yahweh should be so joyously expressed, that it becomes contagious.

This passage sounds a bit like Paulos was part of a secret society, such as the Rosicrucians or Freemasons, and that he was concerned that the mysteries, the clandestine symbols, the secret handshakes and insider slogans, known only to the initiated, were somehow on the verge of being compromised by a spy. But nothing we say in the name of God should be conveyed surreptitiously.

Beyond the covert nature of this, we must also deal with the rather peculiar sequencing. In context, Paul has just connected mutually exclusive concepts and inconsistent conclusions. On one hand, he has said that the Disciples were somewhat supportive of his message, and that no one suggested that a Greek be circumcised, strongly inferring that everyone was in agreement with his position. But now, in the next breath, we discover that Paul is facing such severe opposition, that he is compelled to exclude and demean his foes—a sure sign that he could not effectively refute their message.

And we cannot blame these incompatible associations on scribal error. Papyrus 46 dates to within thirty-five to seventy-five years of the time Sha’uwl connected these conflicting statements. Further, there is no discrepancy between the Nestle-Aland and the oldest surviving manuscript. Further, we cannot even blame these conflicting notions on the difficulty of translating words from one language into another. In this case the words are perfectly clear. There is no dispute regarding their meanings—only the message.

And yet the least of our problems is the absurd transition from not compelling circumcision to enslaving surreptitious spies. What Paul said is nonsense. At issue here is that Yahweh’s willingness to free us from human oppression isn’t a secret and it cannot be invalidated by anyone—it’s the foundational message of the Torah, the Covenant, the Exodus, the Miqra’ey, and even the Commandments—and it’s an everlasting promise.

Also at issue is the fact that these men are identified in the book of Acts. They were neither Romans nor members of the Sanhedrin. They had been, but were no longer, Pharisees. Further, they were elders in the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia, which means that they were not "false brothers." They did not sneak into the meeting; but instead were invited. And they were active participants, not secret observers.

Unless something changes, we are on the cusp of having to acknowledge the unavoidable. The evidence is all too quickly becoming undeniable. It does not appear that God inspired these words. They are Paul’s. And they are wrong on all accounts.

Those who would excuse Galatians 2:4 forfeit the high ground of reason. And yet, theologians are driven to protect the man responsible for inspiring their faith—their religion. They do so to keep from ostracizing themselves from their fellow Christians—those who believe that the Renewed Covenant Writings are not only Scripture, but that they are inerrant. Yet that is impossible. Such an assumption is a religious myth akin to the Greek Charities and the Roman Graces.

 While the KJV’s publication of "Christ Jesus" isn’t appropriate, their translation is otherwise accurate. In this case, the problem is with Paul’s Greek,  not Bacon’s English or Jerome’s Latin: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:"

The Vulgate acknowledges that this verse is in fact a continuation of the previous sentence: "but only because of false brothers, who were brought in subintroductos/unknowingly. They entered subintroierunt/secretly to spy on our liberty, which we have in Christo Iesu, so that they might reduce us to servitude." Jerome’s rendering also associates the reason for not compelling circumcision with the arrival of the false brothers. So other than the transliteration of a nonexistent name and title (those of the Messiyah Yahushua), the Latin translation was quite literal.

Being literal, however, simply illuminates the senselessness of Sha’uwl’s words. Therefore Jerome explained: " ~ The sub prefix of both ‘subintroductos’ and ‘subintroierunt’ indicate secrecy or a lack of knowledge about the action of the verb. In other words, the true brothers did not realize at first that these others who were brought into the Faith were false brothers. They entered while their intentions and falseness were unknown." But this doesn’t help. Once saved, always saved. Once freed, always free. No man has the power or authority to alter what Yahweh has said and what Yahshua has done.

When reading a novel, I prefer style over substance. But the Renewed Covenant isn’t marketed by bible publishers as a work of fiction. And yet, based upon the liberties they have taken, the NLT is a work of fiction. "Even that question came up only because of some so-called Christians there—false ones, really—who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations." In that Yahweh told us that: "being presumptuous, overstepping one’s bounds, and taking liberties" serves as proof that someone is a false prophet, methinks Tyndale Publishing House, Inc. just hung themselves.

Nothing in the passage Sha’uwl wrote said anything about being "forced to follow their Jewish regulations." There was no subject or race mentioned. And while the NLT was wrong, they weren’t completely wrong. Based upon what we learn in the Acts 15 accounting of this meeting, a disagreement arose over whether or not God’s children should follow God’s example, and thus observe the Torah. This known, there is no correlation between the Torah and "Jewish regulations." They are all derived from Rabbinic Traditions and the Oral Law. And yet this is a very common Christian misconception, bred out of ignorance, disdain for the Torah, affinity for Paul, religious rivalry, and anti-Semitism.

As you contemplate Sha’uwl’s response to the alleged "false brothers," recognize that "submission," from hypotage, isn’t found in Papyrus 46, the late first-century witness of this letter, even though it is included in more recently compiled texts (following eiko, meaning "yield"). Additionally, euangelion, rendered "Gospel" in most English translations, but more accurately translated "healing and beneficial message," is not extant in the earliest manuscripts either (after the placeholder for Yahuweh). Further, a placeholder for Yahweh’s name or title exists between "aletheia/truth" and "diameno/would continue to exist" in the oldest Greek text, but not in the Textus Receptus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, nor the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, even though the first claimed to be the "text received directly from God," and the other two have claimed to have corrected every error of the former by referencing older manuscripts.

So, the two things we know for sure are: we are not the first to be troubled by what Paulos said, and others have already tried to fix these problems. At the very least, this response is the product of considerable meddling and copyediting. "With regard to (pros) whom (os), we did not (oude) yield (eiko – surrender) [in submission (hypotage)] in order that (hina) the truth (aletheia – that which is an eternal reality and in complete accord with history and the evidence) of God (ΘΥ) [’s beneficial and healing message (euangelion)] would continue to exist (diameno – stand firm, remain unchanged, and permanently endure) advantageously among (pros) you (sou)." (Galatians 2:5) Since no one can diminish Yahweh’s gift, I am at a loss to see how Sha’uwl’s failure to yield to these men had any material effect on anyone. But I do see an ego of gargantuan proportions.

While it is irrelevant in this context, should you be curious, the only people with the authority to imprison Paulos, and thus silence him, would have been representatives of the Roman government or members of the Sanhedrin, the last of whom Sha’uwl would have known personally based upon his religious past. And as we have learned, Rome imprisoning Paulos didn’t silence him. Moreover, if it had, and if he were actually speaking for God, Yahweh would have found another witness. So, Sha’uwl’s response was as flawed as was his proposition.

Christian theologians, knowing what Sha’uwl will say next, would have us believe that the meaning of this troubling exchange is that Paul was speaking of being free of the Torah. And that is because they despise the Torah, as they don’t understand it. And they would also insist that the "false brothers" who were advocating on behalf of the Torah, were "Judaizers," because Christians don’t know that Judaism is predicated upon Rabbinic Law, as opposed to Mosaic Law. And that means Christian theologians would be wrong on every account, that is, except their premise. It saddens me to say that it is obvious: Sha’uwl despised the Torah as much as they do.

Yahweh’s position, if that still matters, is the antithesis of Paul’s and Christianity’s. The fulcrum upon which the Torah pivots is the Exodus: the story of Yahweh freeing His people from religious and political oppression in Egypt.

This is why the First Commandment begins: "I am Yahuweh, your God, who delivered you from the crucible of Egypt, out of the house of bondage and slavery." The Exodus serves as a historical portrait of Yahweh’s plan of liberation, one which is prophetically portrayed in the seven Called-Out Assemblies.

And the Miqra’ey, which grew out of the Exodus, free us all from being subject to mankind’s political and religious schemes. Therefore, it would be blasphemous for Sha’uwl to say that he considered the Torah to be a source of bondage, or for Christians to promote such an idea, especially since the path to freedom delineated, commemorated, predicted, and explained in Yahweh’s seven Called-Out Assemblies gave birth to the Called-Out Assembly Sha’uwl was addressing.

Genesis chronicles Abraham’s journey away from the religious climate of Babylon, and into a liberating personal relationship with God. For only the second time in human history, the Creator and His creation walked side by side as friends. This led to the establishment of the Covenant, which served as the foundation of the Exodus, from which the Called-Out Assemblies were derived, predicting the arrival of the Messiyah who fulfilled Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, giving birth to the Called-Out Assembly on Seven Sabbaths, so that we might be freed from our sins and all forms of human oppression, reconciled unto Yahweh and adopted into His family. It is one cohesive story from beginning to end. There are no turns in the path. There are no changes or modifications along the way.

In this light, the best definition of the Hebrew title Towrah isn’t "Law," but instead "Prescriptions for Living." The Towrah is our "Owner’s Manual" written by life’s Architect. It is the soil from which the Tree of Life grows. Its fruit is salvation, delivering Divine anointing oil by way of word pictures and symbols—all of which contribute to knowing God and understanding His plan of reconciliation. Every word of the Towrah exists to highlight the path to God.

As we discussed briefly a moment ago, circumcision is like baptism in this regard. The acts themselves don’t save us. It’s what they represent that matters. So long as we understand and accept that circumcision is symbolic of being separated and set-apart from man’s desires and oppressive religious schemes so that we can enter into the "beriyth – Familial Covenant Relationship" with God, we are spiritually circumcised. So long as we understand and accept that baptism is symbolic of being reborn by way of the Set-Apart Spirit, of being immersed in Her Garment of Light, and of having our souls purified and cleansed by our Spiritual Mother, we are spiritually baptized. That said, all those who value Yahweh’s instructions will outwardly demonstrate this inward condition by acting out both symbols as a sign of respect.

Slavishly devoting oneself to a rigorous regime of doing everything the Torah says, however, at precisely the right time and in precisely the right way, and never doing anything contrary to its instructions, has never saved anyone. But coming to understand the towrah, and then capitalizing upon the means to reconciliation articulated therein, has ransomed many—in fact, everyone who has been redeemed, has been saved in this way.

Returning to the passage, here is what the King James Version says relative to Galatians 2:5, not that I understand it: "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If it is possible to make Paul sound worse than he already does, credit the English for revealing it.

Since the Latin Vulgate reads: "We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the evangelii would remain with you," we know why "subjection" and "gospel" were included in more recent compiled Greek texts, and in every subsequent translation. And yet, no one was trying to hold anyone in "subjection," and Yahweh doesn’t have a "gospel."

But you wouldn’t know it by reading the New Living Translation. In another break from their "Essentially Literal and Dynamic Equivalent" philosophy, one which has consistently rendered euangelion as "Good News," this time they wrote "Gospel" (even though euangelion wasn’t actually written in the Greek text). "But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you." It’s too bad the Tyndale brain trust wasn’t as committed to "preserving the truth." (Not that it’s found in Paul’s epistles.)

As I have previously stated, my initial goal in writing this review of Galatians was to resolve the apparent discrepancies between Yahweh’s Word and Pauline Doctrine. But once I reached the fourth chapter of this epistle, that goal was no longer possible, because the differences became irreconcilable. And so during my "resolution phase," and before I studied Acts 15, and became aware of the actual status and statements of those Sha’uwl was demeaning, I wrote: "speaking of those who think that they are special because of their position in a religious or political group, Sha’uwl adroitly undercut the notion of status with God, while also devastating the value of opinions. With this sentence Paul has transitioned back into the realm of reason (albeit briefly)."

"Moreover (de – but), from (apo) those (tov) who were of the opinion (dokei – who choose to believe) [that] they were (eimi) someone important (tis) based upon some sort of (hopoios) former (pote) existence (eimi), I (ego) am indifferent (oudeis diaphero – do not care and don’t see them as having any particular merit). In the presence (prosopon) of God (ΘΣ), men (anthropos) cannot (ou) claim authority or rank (lambano – cannot grab hold of power for themselves). To be sure (gar), the opinionated (dokei) added nothing advisable to the conversation (ouideis prosanatithemai – did not provide useful counsel or comments)." (Galatians 2:6) That’s an interesting comment to make considering Paul’s penchant for offering unsubstantiated opinions as if they were snowflakes in the Arctic.

This is the second time over the course of five verses that we have confronted "dokei – were of the opinion." And in this context, it is dokei’s subjective side which unequivocally prevails. According to Paul, these men "purported" to be important, and they "considered" themselves authorities.

This passage should have been a warning to the Roman Catholic Church. Sha’uwl has just said that his god, the Christian god, does not recognize human hierarchies. Those who claim rank in relationship to the Pauline god, such as popes, not only have no such authority, they are operating in direct opposition to the founder of their faith.

So while it is good that Sha’uwl affirmed that religious and political hierarchies have no standing with God; it would have been even better if he had identified the nature of the organization to which these men had once belonged, and also listed the invalid positions they had articulated. As it is, we have to turn to Luke’s testimony in Acts to know that their status, if indeed they claimed any, would have been derived from their former association with the Pharisees. And so that you are not left wondering what issues they raised, they encouraged everyone to observe the Torah. And that revelation is devastating to Paul’s credibility, because speaking of those who had promoted the Torah; he just said that they "added nothing to the conversation." With Paul it remains one step forward and nineteen backwards.

Since this verse was devastating to King James’ claim to divine authority, which was the entire purpose behind the publication of the King James Bible, the passage was edited to say that "God accepteth no man’s person." I kid you not. KJV: "But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:" Last time I checked, the purpose of salvation was so that God could "accepteth man’s person."

Jerome had the same problem with his pope, so he authored: "and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me." Sha’uwl’s line: "In the presence of God, men cannot claim authority or rank," was something they were unwilling to convey. So they copyedited the letter to suit their leader’s agenda.

The NLT must have considered the words: "Moreover (de), from (apo) those (tov)" unimportant, so they omitted them from their rendering. And they evidently wanted Paul to be seen referencing "the leaders of the church," so they arbitrarily added this clause. Likewise, the NLT "translators" must have thought it would have been nice for Paul to have written "to what I was preaching," so they included this thought into the text of the epistle as well. And "By the way" must have seemed like the way Paul would have conveyed his thought had he been as articulate as the Tyndale team. Similarly the NLT’s inclusion of "great leaders" and "favorites" was without textual support. So much for being Essentially Literal: "And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)" To the contrary, God has favorites. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moshe (to whom the Torah was revealed), David, and Yo’shyahu (after the discovery of the Torah) immediately come to mind. And of course, Paul has gone out of his way to tell us that he was preferred over all others.

 The transition from the derogatory, "those who were of the opinion that they were someone important, based upon some sort of former existence," to "Petros" in this next sentence is concerning. Since Shim’own had been a Disciple, and was now the most respected member of Yaruwshalaym’s Called-Out Assembly, it infers that Paul thought that Peter’s "opinions added nothing to the conversation."

In support of this unflattering conclusion, Galatians 2:7 begins with not one but two conjunctions. "Rather (tounantion), on the contrary (alla), see (horao – observe closely, notice, and perceive), trusting (pisteuo) that (oti – because) the (to) healing and beneficial message (euangelion) [is being communicated to] the uncircumcised (akrobystia), inasmuch as (kathos) Petros (Petros) [is communicating it to] the circumcised (peritome)." (Galatians 2:7) Shim’own Kephas and Sha’uwl were assigned the same mission, but to different people, according to Paul.

The reason "[is being communicated to]" was placed in brackets is that both ancient and modern manuscripts contain euangelion, a noun, not the verb euangelizo. Also, the sentence needs, but does not include, the preposition "to" before uncircumcised and circumcised. And the verb clause "is communicating it to" is required before "the circumcised," but was not extant in the Greek text. So, while this sentence is less grammatically deficient than Galatians 1:10, you should know these things because understanding is seldom served by ignoring that which is troubling.

The Greek actually reads: "Rather (tounantion), on the contrary (alla), see (horao), trusting (pisteuo) that (oti – because) the (to) healing and beneficial message (euangelion) the uncircumcised (akrobystia) inasmuch as (kathos) Petros (Petros) the circumcised (peritome)." As has been the case previously, we cannot blame the scribes for these deficiencies. The Greek text reads exactly this way in every ancient manuscript, including Papyrus 46—which dates to as early as 85CE.

Examining the words which comprise Galatians 2:7 more closely, tounantion literally means "opposite," although it can be rendered "rather" or "instead." While it is usually translated "but," the previous sentence begins with de, which is the common Greek term for the conjunction. Likewise, alla conveys the stronger sense of "to the contrary," indicating that there is a "significant contrast or distinction being made."

The problem with any of these terms, and most especially the use of tounantion in conjunction with alla, is that this clause isn’t related to God’s disdain for hierarchies, or to self-promoting types not adding anything to this conversation. So as back to back comparative terms denoting a very significant contrast, they were deployed to demonstrate that Paul sharply disagreed with what was being said at the meeting. And that means that Galatians 2:7 is not only about divvying up the world, with Paul taking a 99.99% share for himself, his use of tounantion alla screams that neither his power grab nor his disdain for the Torah were well received. So he was telling Yahshua’s Disciples to capitulate—to see things his way, to accept their fate and his, and to live with it.

From henceforth, Sha’uwl would be the Torah’s principle antagonist, and in pursuit of his new faith, he would do everything in his power to keep those who disagreed with him away from his target audience—the world apart from Jews. And in so doing, from Sha’uwl’s perspective, Jews became competitors and opponents—his rivals and thus enemies. So while Yahweh’s Chosen People had faced the wrath of the Egyptians, the Philistines, the Hittites, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans, Paul would be their most formidable foe. The religion he conceived with this statement and with this letter would be a two-thousand-year curse and lead directly to the death of more Jews than any villain in their history.

Prior to this parting of the ways, the overwhelming preponderance of the followers of The Way had been Torah observant Yahuwdym who had come to know and trust the Messiyah Yahushua through the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, inviting and welcoming Gowym into their ranks with open arms. But as a result of Sha’uwl’s mindset and this meeting, his new faith would reflect his views, and drive a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s "church" would henceforth view Yahweh’s Chosen People as a conniving and ruthless enemy, and they would come to discount their God, His Land, and Word.

Even the Shim’own bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 133CE which led to the Diaspora was rooted in Sha’uwl’s animosity for his own people. The false messiah’s sponsor, Rabbi Akiba, was able to wage his revolt by completing the job Sha’uwl had begun, completely isolating and marginalizing the Jewish members of The Way so that they had no safe harbor. Hated by everyone, they were destroyed before Akiba’s loyalists were routed by Rome, severing the connection between Yahuwdym and the Land as well as The Way.

Rather than Yahweh’s Spirit guiding him, Sha’uwl’s ego blinded him. His anti-Torah message would be in direct opposition to Yahweh’s instructions. The constraints he put on Shim’own Kephas’ mission were now in direct opposition to Yahshua’s instructions. So if Sha’uwl was opposed to Yahweh and Yahshua, who was he aligned with and promoting?

Other than four conjunctions (rather, on the contrary, that, and in as much as), one nickname (Petros/Rock), a pair of nouns (uncircumcised and circumcised), three definite articles (the), and the two verbs horao/see and pisteuo/trust, that’s all we have to work with when trying to translate Galatians 2:7. So before I share my thoughts on why these deficiencies exist, let’s consider how Bacon and Jerome dealt with this passage. KJV: "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;" As we shall see, the King James Bible is setting the stage for Paul’s "Two Covenant Theory."

The KJV added "when they" and "that" without textual support. They errantly replaced euangelion with "Gospel." They added "of," ostensibly to make Sha’uwl’s message something different than the one presented by Yahweh and fulfilled by Yahshua. The King James also added the clause "was committed to me," without any justification in the Greek text. They repeated "gospel" a second time, even though there was no basis for doing so. Then they added, again without support in the Greek, "was and unto" before Petros. In other words, there is almost no correlation between the Greek manuscripts and the English found in the King James.

 But as a result of all of their contribution to Paul’s epistle, it was now: "the gospel of the uncircumcision" which "was committed unto [Paul]." So while this wasn’t an accurate translation, as an occultist, Francis Bacon had no difficulty conveying Paul’s intended message.

Jerome’s take on the verse was astute. While he had to add the words "it was," "since," "they," "me," and "to," at least his definition of pisteuo as "was entrusted to," was reasonable. However, by doing so, he undermined his translation of pisteuo as "faith" elsewhere. Jerome also had to significantly alter the word order. Yet, these things aside, considering what he was working with, it was a respectable effort. At least he did not create a "new gospel for the uncircumcised." "But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the evangelium to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the circumcised to Petro."

But then from: "Rather (tounantion), on the contrary (alla), see (horao), trusting (pisteuo) that (oti – because) the (to) healing and beneficial message (euangelion) the uncircumcised (akrobystia), inasmuch as (kathos) Petros (Petros) the circumcised (peritome)," the NLT produced: "Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews." And yet there is no indication, apart from Sha’uwl’s power grab, that this was true. In fact to the contrary, Yahshua called Petros "the rock upon which I will build My called-out assembly." So either Yahshua was lying, or Paul was.

The reality that we must confront here, at least to be honest with ourselves, is that this sentence doesn’t even approximate Godly perfection. In fact, even if it had been appropriately worded, it wasn’t true. According to Acts 15, neither Shim’own nor Ya’aqob supported Sha’uwl’s position. And since we are compelled to think, I want to deal openly and thoughtfully with what Sha’uwl has written. After all, we are encouraged to test messages, searching to know if they are from God or from man.

The first step with regard to these deficiencies is to admit the obvious: the writing quality is poor. It is most certainly beneath God’s talent to have inspired this. And while we cannot blame Paul for "Gospel," we cannot excuse his replacement of Yahweh’s fortuitous gift with the Greek goddesses "Charis," or their Roman counterparts, the "Gratia." Further, there is too much ambiguity in this letter for it to be considered Divine. More often than not, the nature of the problems Sha’uwl was encountering was inadequately developed. And soon, we will be left wondering which law Paul was promoting or assailing—the Torah or the Talmud.

So, for what it is worth, and that may be nothing, here is my view, one which has been reinforced by what we are reading. I think that the best explanation for these defects is that Sha’uwl was dictating this as a letter to a community of people he had come to know, in response to an attack on his qualifications and on his message. While it was conveyed by way of a friend, as opposed to a professional scribe, the bigger issue was that Paul was angry, hurt, and overly emotional, and he let his ego get in the way.

To infer, without any textual support, that Sha’uwl’s letters were inspired, word for word as the Set-Apart Spirit moved his lips, is to demean Yahweh’s ability to communicate. Unlike what we find in the Torah, there is no Godly instruction to write these words down, to pass them on to future generations, or to leave them exactly like they are, without any additions or subtractions. There is no comparison between the magnificently profound, mind-expanding, and soul-stirring presentation we consistently experience in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and what we are reading here. Moreover, much of Sha’uwl’s message has been untrue—and all of it has been unsupported.

My favorite litmus test, at least apart from Deuteronomy 18, for determining that which is from man, and that which was created by God, is the comparison between the pin and the lily. Both serve a purpose, but one is beautiful, no matter how closely you look. Examine a pin under a microscope, as we are doing here with Paul’s letters, and the flaws become pervasive. Not so with the lily, where like Scripture, the more it is magnified, the more obvious it becomes that it was conceived by God.

Therefore, I am convinced that Paul’s letters are from Paul, not God. And Paul, like all of us, experienced good days and bad ones. Galatians reflects one of the darkest episodes in this controversial man’s life—and thus this epistle remains his most haunting legacy. That is the best, most consistent, most reasonable and rational, explanation of the evidence at our disposal—at least at this point in our investigation. We still have a great deal to learn.

But even if you don’t agree with my conclusion, it would be preposterous to conclude that the manuscript copies of this letter, both ancient and modern, replete as they all are with numerous grammatical deficiencies and inaccurate statements, represent the perfect and inerrant, the divinely-breathed and inspired, Word of God—Scripture. The God I have come to know in the Torah, does not make mistakes.

So that you know, I am comfortable with this distinction because Yahweh has said, and has demonstrated, that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are perfect, complete, trustworthy, and reliable—easy to understand and totally sufficient with regard to our spiritual renewal. Therefore, while Paul’s letters are worthy of consideration, I don’t need his epistles to be Scripture to know what Yahweh revealed and promised, or what Yahshua said and did. My salvation is not predicated upon Paul, his credibility, his letters, or his mission, but instead upon Yahweh, His credibility, His Word, and His mission.

Before we move on, let’s summarize where we have just been. Paul’s relentless onslaught of conjunctions has tied all of these thoughts, many of which are conflicting and errant, together:

"Later, through the passage of another fourteen years, I went up to Yaruwshalaym along with Barnabas, and also bringing along Titus. (2:1) But then I went up with regard to a revelation, and explained to them the healing and beneficial message which I was preaching among the nations with reference to certain individuals, then they were of the opinion that I was not running for nothing. (2:2) To the contrary, Titus, a Greek, was not even compelled to be circumcised (2:3) now because on account of the false brothers brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who slipped into the group to secretly observe the freedom and liberation we possess in the Messiyah, Yahushua in order to enslave us. (2:4) With regard to whom, we did not yield in order that the truth of God would continue to exist among you. (2:5) Moreover, from those who were of the opinion that they were someone important based upon some sort of former existence, I am indifferent. In the presence of God, men cannot claim authority or rank. To be sure, the opinionated added nothing advisable to the conversation. (2:6) Rather, on the contrary, see, trusting/believing that the healing and beneficial message to the uncircumcised, inasmuch as Petros to the circumcised." (2:7)

 * * *

The realization that Galatians cannot possibly be Scripture, however, does not infer that a spirit wasn’t engaged at certain times in Sha’uwl’s mission. By using energeo in the next verse, Sha’uwl was saying that something was "functioning" in him, "facilitating" the results the Christian world has come to acknowledge.

"For indeed (gar – because), the (o) functionality (energeo – the power, ability, and effect) inside (eis – by means of) [the] Apostle (apostole – one who is prepared to be sent out with a message) Rock (Petros) [to] the circumcised (peritome), also (kai) facilitated (energeo – enabled) me (ego) to (eis) the nations (ethnos – the people from different places and races)." (Galatians 2:8)

If this had been true, if Sha’uwl had identified the Set-Apart Spirit as the source of his power, and if he had not improperly divided the world, limiting Shim’own, this would have been the song sung by all who have been empowered by God. While it is still divisive, Sha’uwl was at least suggesting that he and Shim’own were on the same team, and were producing results the same way.

One of the reasons that I prefer the insights we glean through amplification, is because of words like energeo. By examining them, we not only plumb the depths of what’s being conveyed, we also come to understand that words like ethnos convey a much broader, and more all-encompassing, idea than "Gentiles"

Energeo, as a participle, exhibits the characteristics of both a verb and an adjective. Translated "functionality" and "facilitated," the two times it appears in Galatians 2:8, it speaks of "being active and working, producing an effect." But it is an amoral term, without any inference as to whether the power is good or bad, whether the effect being produced is right or wrong, or whether the result is beneficial or harmful. So all we know for sure is that Paul wanted his audience to believe that there was no difference between his "power and ability," and Shim’own’s.

But that false impression evaporates when we examine the Greek text even more closely. Energeo was written as energesas, which is masculine singular. The Ruwach/Spirit is feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek (although the neuter pneuma is universally rendered with a Divine Placeholder, effectively negating its Greek characteristics). Therefore, the source of Paul’s power was masculine, and thus could not have been Yahweh’s Set-Apart Spirit—which was most assuredly the source of Shim’own’s power (as documented in Acts 2). Fortunately (or unfortunately depending upon your perspective), as we shall soon see, Sha’uwl wasn’t mum on the identity of the spirit who possessed him.

These things known, save one glaring issue, the translations which follow are reasonable, albeit, inadequate. KJV: "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" The adjective-verb energesas, which we have been addressing, was accurately translated "wrought effectually" in its first occurrence, but even though it is singular and masculine in the Greek text, it was not rendered in the second person, making "For ‘he’ that" inappropriate, albeit telling.

And while there was no basis for "he" in the Greek text, it’s once again apparent that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate served as the basis of the King James: "For he who was working the Apostolatum/Apostleship to the circumcised in Petro, was also working in me among the Gentes/Gentiles."

As usual, the NLT has been presumptuous. Paul did not identify the source of his power: "For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles."

Since the New Living Translation inappropriately associated the force working with Paul as "God," I am compelled to provide another option for your consideration. And while I will present the entire context of this discussion in an upcoming chapter, for now think about the implications of this stunning confession: "For (gar) if (ean) I wanted (thelo – and decided) to brag (dauchaomai – boast and glorify myself) based upon what has happened (aletheia – truthfully), it would not be (ouk esomai) inappropriate or unjustified (aphron – without reason). So then (gar) I will say (ero) I will abstain (pheidomai – avoid this). But (de) someone (tis) [who is] not (un) me (eme) might logically think (logizomai – use their mind and reason to calculated and conclude) beyond (hyper – over and above and because of) this (o). He will see and understand (blepo – he will look at, consider, discern the nature of, actually face, and beware of) me (me), or (e) he will listen to (akouo – pay attention, receive the news) something (ti) from (ek) me (emou), continuing (kai) the extraordinary (hyperbole – extreme, abundant, exceedingly excellent, and excessive) exposure and disclosure (apokalypsis – revelation of the truth, unveiling and baring of the true nature). Therefore (dio) in order that (hina) I not become overly conceited (me hyperairomai – not lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant), I (moi) was given (didomi – offered, granted, assigned, bestowed, and furnished) a sharp pointed prod (skolops – a troublesome, injurious, irritating, and painful sharp stick, a stake, splinter, thorn, or scorpion’s stinger) [in] the flesh (sarx – the physical body and human nature) [by way of] Satan’s (Satanas – the Adversary’s) spiritual representative (aggelos – supernatural envoy and messenger), in order that (hina) he would strike and torment (kolaphizo – beat and violently punish, correct, chastise, restrain, afflict, and prune) me (ego) in order that (ina) I not become overly conceited (me hyperairomai – not lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant)." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)

In the next chapter, "Kataginosko – Convicted," we will consider what Paul just said in the context of the Dionysus quote attributed to the flashing light he encountered on the road to Damascus. But suffice it to say for now, Paul just admitted that he was driven by his ego and controlled by a demon.

Without the clutter of the Greek text, the Adversary’s Apostle testified: "For if I wanted to brag based upon what has happened, it would not be inappropriate or unjustified. So then I will say I will abstain. But someone who is not me might logically think beyond this. He will see and understand (he will look at, consider, discern the nature of, actually face, and beware of) me, or he will listen to something from me, continuing the extraordinary and excessive exposure and disclosure. Therefore in order that I not become overly conceited, I was given (assigned, bestowed, and furnished) a sharp pointed prod (a troublesome, injurious, irritating, and painful sharp stick, a stake, splinter, thorn, or scorpion’s stinger) in the flesh by way of Satan’s spiritual representative (supernatural envoy and messenger), in order that he would strike and torment (correct, chastise, restrain, and afflict) me in order that I not become overly conceited (lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant)." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)After you catch your breath, we’ll move on.

As we have come to expect with Paul, after stepping sideways, he stumbles again. "And (kai) knowing and recognizing (ginosko – understanding and acknowledging) the Charis-Charity/Gratiam-Grace (charis – mercy, joy, loving kindness, goodwill, and favor) given to (didomi – offered and bestowed, assigned, furnished, and experienced by) me (ego), Ya’aqob (Iakobos – a transliteration of Ya’aqob), the Rock (Petros – a transliteration of the Greek word for stone), and (kai) Yahuchanan (Ioannas – a Greek transliteration of Yahuwchanan, a compound of Yahuw and chanan meaning Yah is gracious, shows mercy, and favor), the presumed and regarded (dokei – considered, supposed, opinionated, and assumed) existing (eimi) pillars (stulos – metaphorically used to symbolize a very important, authorized and authoritative leader, especially someone who establishes, upholds, and supports), gave (didomi – offered, granted, and extended) the right hand (dexia) of fellowship (koinonia – of close mutual association, of companionship and partnership) [to] me (ego) and Barnabas to (eis) the nations (ethnos), but (de) they (autos) to (eis) the circumcised (peritome)." (Galatians 2:9)

While the Greek doesn’t flow exceptionally well into English, the message translates that Sha’uwl claimed that the three men closest to Yahshua, His brother Ya’aqob, the excitable, albeit thoughtful, Shim’own Kephas, and the most beloved disciple, the man named for this very mission, Yahuchanan (Yah is Merciful), all "recognized and knew the Charis/Charity Gratia/Grace bestowed upon" him. But that was misleading at best. Yahshua’s Disciples would have recognized the Greek and Roman goddess, and may have suspected Paul of associating with the Charities, but that’s not a good thing. (Although we will never know for sure, because this conversation would have been in Aramaic. It was Paul who translated it into Greek.)

Beyond associating with false gods, and taunting the First Commandment, the evidence suggests that Paul’s declaration was another half truth. In Galatians, this statement follows the earlier assertion that the Disciples had listened to Paul’s presentation of his past preaching. Therefore, the use of "ginosko – knowing and recognizing" at this juncture portends that Ya’aqob’s, the Rock’s, and Yahuchanan’s acceptance of him should be equated to an acceptance of his message. But in Acts we learn that this welcoming and greeting occurred before, not after, Paul presented his case, and therefore it did not serve as an endorsement of his ministry.

On the positive side, it is instructive to note that men who had witnessed Yahshua’s transformation into Light, who had witnessed His every word and deed, were "considered pillars." The Greek word stulos is related to stauros, the "upright pillar" upon which Yahshua hung, opening the door to heaven. This is one among many affirmations that His sacrifice as the Upright Pillar (the ‘edon) on the upright pole (stauros) was "symbolic of the authorized and authoritative leader who establishes and upholds (stulos)."

Stulos, which literally means "a pillar or column which stands and supports something," is used four times in the Renewed Covenant Writings, the first of which is in this letter. It appears again in 1Timothy 3:15, where "the Called-Out Assembly is the Household of the living God, the pillar (stulos) and the foundation of the Truth."

The next two occurrences are found in Revelation 3:12 and 10:1. The ‘edon concept of the "Upright One who is the Foundation of the Tabernacle" is advanced by: "All who are victorious will become pillars (stulos) in the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of My God..." (Revelation 3:12).

In Revelation 10:1 the stulos symbolism is reminiscent of Yahweh going before the Children of Yisra’el by day as a pillar-shaped cloud, and by night as a pillar of light. "Then I saw another mighty messenger coming down from heaven, surrounded by a cloud, with a rainbow over His head. His face shone like the sun, and His feet were like pillars (stulos) of fire."

On the less than admirable side of the ledger, while the metaphor being established here is uplifting, there is a disturbing tone to some of this which needs to be considered. While dokei can convey the idea of "choosing to think and of thought," its primary meaning is more along the lines of "supposition and presumption," and thus of "imagination and opinion." That is not to say that dokei cannot be translated as "recognized and regarded," as evidenced by the verb dokimazo, which means to "examine, to regard as worthwhile, and to judge as good, genuine, worthy." But recognizing and acknowledging that Sha’uwl’s intent was to label Ya’aqob, Petros, and Yahuchanan "the supposed, presumed, and opinionated" pillars, would be more accurate.

So we must ask: why would Sha’uwl choose to refer to the three most important Disciples as the "dokei – assumed" pillars, when he could have used "epiginosko – acknowledged" pillars? Epiginosko speaks of "a thoughtful conclusion which is formed after becoming thoroughly acquainted with the evidence." Epiginosko is the "synthesis of knowledge and understanding, of having sufficient information and the ability to process it rationally." Epiginosko is "objective" while dokei is "subjective." Epiginosko speaks of "an informed conclusion" while dokei is "an unfounded opinion." Therefore, in our search for truth, in our desire to know that which is trustworthy and reliable, epiginosko is the epitome of that quest, while dokei leads us backwards into the murky and mystical religious realm of faith. Further, dokei continues to pit Paul against the Disciples, as opposed to unifying them and their mission.

Twice now Paulos has divided the room, and this time inaccurately and unfairly, claiming that the preaching of Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan, was limited to the Jews, while his mission encompassed the whole world—the nations and races. This simply was not true.

Yahuchanan’s mission wasn’t limited. If anything, it was focused on the "uncircumcised," especially the Greco-Roman world. He lived and preached in Ephesus—the largest, most influential Greco-Roman city in the world. And Yahuchanan was the leader of the ekklesia there, not Sha’uwl. Moreover, Yahuchanan’s eyewitness account of Yahshua’s words and deeds was written in Ephesus, a city which lay well beyond the province of Galatia from the perspective of Judea.

In this light, if we were to consider the Torah as the treasure in the chest of the Ark of the Covenant, then Yahuchanan’s eyewitness account of Yahushua’s life is the key to unlocking its most profound truths. Said another way, I have come to understand the Torah largely due to what Yahuchanan wrote. And I’m sure I’m not alone.

While the eyewitness account of Mattanyahu (meaning: Yah’s Gift) was written from the perspective of a Jew and to Jews, Yahuchanan’s testimony was written to appeal to the Western mind, to enlightened Greeks. Its opening chapter is a soaring treatise on the Logos becoming flesh and tabernacling among us—a concept that resonated with, and inspired, Greeks and those who learned to think like them. To my mind, Yahuchanan’s commentary is among the most brilliant presentations ever written.

Further, Yahuchanan’s eyewitness account of Yahushua’s Revelation, which was developed on the Greek Island of Patmos, provides the key which is needed to unlock the words of the prophets, especially those predictions which pertain to the last two-thousand years of human history. Without the book of Revelation, we would understand a lot less of what the prophets predicted.

I share this with you because to this Gentile, Yahuchanan’s writings were vastly more influential (reliable and accurate) than Paul’s. And in my opinion, without Yahuchanan’s testimony, the seeds spread throughout the nations would not have grown.

So, not only was Sha’uwl wrong in limiting Yahuchanan’s influence, claiming it for himself, in conjunction with his use of "dokei – presumed" with regard to his status, this letter has taken on an undeserved egotistical tint.

And as we have just discovered, Paul’s ego was so enormous the Devil prodded him to control him—to keep him in line. That was not only the thorn in Paul’s side; it was the reason for it. After all, Sha’uwl was a scholar, a self-proclaimed expert on all things pertaining to the Jewish religion. And He was a Roman citizen from Tarus, the center of Greco-Roman enlightenment. Adding to his resume, Sha’uwl had studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, and had built a reputation for being an extraordinary student. And in Sha’uwl’s mind, he had been personally selected by God to be His chosen messenger to the entire world. And by comparison, Ya’aqob was a lowly Jewish carpenter from Nazareth, and Shim’own and Yahuchanan were fishermen from backwater towns in Galilee. So while Sha’uwl protests (when it serves his interest) that men hold no rank with God, among men, Paulos seemed to rank himself well above others.

If I were to play devil’s advocate, and give Paul the benefit of the doubt, I would say that it was simply an oversight on his part to reposition the Disciple’s right hand of acceptance following the delineation of his message so that it appeared as if it was an endorsement, rather than just being a polite gesture. Perhaps his job description and mission statement were designed to demonstrate his focus on Gentiles as opposed to being seen as limitations upon the others. And maybe Paul actually intended the secondary meaning of dokei this time, even though he intended the derogative connotation previously. Perhaps there was nothing to Paul’s boasting about his accomplishments in Judaism, or in the breadth of his mission. Maybe I’m being too literal. So while it is our responsibility to consider everything that is revealed in the Renewed Covenant, what you ultimately decide about Paul and his writings is up to you.

Continuing to deal with this controversial passage, we find the KJV affirming the "supposed" connotation of dokei: "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

Jerome’s Vulgate blend of Old Latin texts revealed: "And so, when they had acknowledged the gratiam/grace that was given to me, and Iacobus, Cephas and Ioannes, who seemed like pillars, gave to me and to Barnabæ the right hand of fellowship, so that we would go to the Gentes/Gentiles, while they went to the circumcisionem/circumcised," Jerome also picked up the less than flattering nature of dokei with "seemed to be" and "seemed like."

Writing their own bible, the New Living "Translation" authored the following verse: "In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews." In this case, they weren’t even consistent with their beloved charis translating it as "gift," rather than transliterating the Roman goddess’ name.

This malfeasance highlights the most serious problem with Galatians 2:9. This is the second of 107 times that Paul blurred the line between Yahweh and paganism. He said: "knowing the Charis given to me." Charis is the name given to the Greek "Charities," just as Gratiam identifies the Roman "Graces."

Had Paul wanted to say that he had been the recipient of Yahweh’s "loving kindness" he would have selected the Greek word associated with the Messiyah and His followers: chrestos. Elsewhere in the Renewed Covenant, chrestos is rendered "kind," "good," "fit for use," "useful," "benevolent," "virtuous," and "moral," as in "upright." Chrestos is even translated "gracious" on occasion. In this light, it is little wonder the Messiyah was called Chrestus in Greek, or that those who served with Him were known as Chrestucians. Knowing the appropriateness and history of chrestos, it saddens me more than words can express that Paul didn’t use it instead of charis.

Should you be curious, had Paul had wanted to say "favor," he would have used eunoia. If he had wanted to say "gift," didomi would have been the perfect choice. If his intent was to say "fortuitous," tucheros would have worked. "Love" is agape. "Joy" is chara.

More appropriate still, the Greek word for "mercy" is eleeo, and "merciful" is eleemon. Eleeo speaks of "demonstrating mercy through helping the poor and afflicted by providing aid in the form of an unearned gift." As such, it was a vastly superior term. But there is more. Eleos also conveys "mercy, loving kindness, and goodwill toward those who are troubled." Ideally, eleos "demonstrates a willingness to help the humble by offering them clemency." The related eleemosune even speaks of a "merciful gift which is charitably donated to the poor."

So with two practically perfect words at his disposal, chrestos and eleos, why on earth did Paul choose to promote the name of a pagan goddess and select Charis? And while I do not know the answer, I know the result. He discredited himself and led billions of souls the wrong way, down a dead end street.

Since Paul’s path has led so many souls away from the Torah, it’s important for everyone to recognize that the concept we have come to know as "grace" is advanced more aggressively in Yahweh’s Scriptures than it is in Paul’s letters. While I’m sure that is shocking to Christians, the fact remains that God inspired His prophets to write chen and its verb form chanan, the Hebrew words for "the unearned gift of mercy and loving kindness, of unmerited favor and acceptance," twice as often as Sha’uwl scribed charis. So, the problem isn’t with the concept of "grace" as we know it today, but instead with Paul’s choice of words.

What we know for certain, however, is that Yahshua’s words and deeds set an important example for us to follow. Therefore, we must recognize that we are called to nourish both body and soul. And that is why the carpenter and fishermen admonished the scholar: "[They said] only (monon – just) to remember (mnemoneuo – and be mindful of) the cause of (hina) the (o) poor (ptochos – those destitute of wealth, power, or influence), who (hos) also (kai) myself (autos) eagerly did my best (spoudazo – quickly making an effort) to do (poieomai – to accomplish) this (houtos)." (Galatians 2:10)

I’m not sure which was more impoverished, Sha’uwl’s Greek, or Bacon’s English. KJV: "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." (So much for the notion that Francis Bacon wrote the Shakespearian plays.)

Jerome wrote fluidly and fluently. LV: "asking only that we should be mindful of the poor, which was the very thing that I also was solicitous to do." But for readability, the NLT is always smooth as silk: "Their only suggestion was that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do."

Recapping Sha’uwl’s eighth paragraph, we find: "For indeed, the functionality inside the Apostle Rock to the circumcised, also facilitated me to the nations. (2:8) And knowing the Charis/Grace given to me, Ya’aqob, Petros, and Yahuchanan, the presumed existing pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas to the nations, but they to the circumcised. (2:9) They said only to remember the cause of the poor, who also myself eagerly did my best to do this." (2:10)

As I have suggested along the way, there is considerable reason to believe that Paul was lying with regard to the purpose and outcome of this meeting—indeed, with regard to most aspects of it. I say this because the Yaruwshalaym Summit, also called the "Council of Jerusalem" and the "Apostolic Conference," between Sha’uwl and Yahshua’s Disciples, is also presented in the book of Acts, dominating the 15^th chapter. And Luke’s account stands in stark contrast to what Paul has told the Galatians.

Beginning with the 15^th chapter, we read: "And some men having come down from Yahuwdah (Ioudaia – transliteration of Yahuwdah, meaning Related to Yah, known today as Judaea) were teaching (didasko – instructing) the brethren (adelphos – brothers) that if (oti ean) you are not circumcised (me peritemno) as prescribed in the Mosaic Law (Mouses ethos – custom, manner, and practice established in the law and instituted by Moses;– a transliteration of Moseh, meaning To Draw Out), none (ou) of you are able (dynamai – possess the means or permission) to be saved (sozo – rescued and healed)." (Acts 15:1) Luke just did something Paul has been unable, or at least unwilling to do. He pointed out what "Law" the Torah advocates were advocating.

Before we consider the impact of this testimony, let’s check to see if the message these Yahuwdym were preaching was consistent with Scripture. Yahweh’s instructions regarding circumcision are initially presented in Genesis 17.

"God (‘elohym) said (‘amar) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – from ‘ab, father, and raham, compassionate, merciful and forgiving): ‘You shall closely and carefully observe (samar – personally examine, intently look at, care about, revere, study, heed, keep, and be preserved by) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth), and your descendants after you throughout their generations (dowr – dwelling places and time)." (Genesis 17:9)

"This is My Covenant (beriyth – family-oriented agreement) which relationally (‘asher) you shall closely, personally, and carefully observe (samar – intently study, examine, and keep) between (bayin) Me and you, and between your descendants after you: every (kol) male (zakar – man at any age or stage of life) among you shall be circumcised (muwl – have the foreskin of his penis removed)." (Genesis 17:10)

"And you shall be circumcised (muwl) in the flesh (basar – physical body and genitalia) of your foreskin (‘aralah – fold of skin that covers the conical tip of the penis); and it shall be (hayah – exist as) accordingly (la) the sign (‘owt – the mark and non-verbal symbol, the example and standard) of the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beriyth – marriage vow and binding agreement between parties; from beiyth, family, home, and households) between Me and you." (Genesis 17:11)

"Absolutely circumcise (muwl muwl) those born in your home (bayith).... This shall exist as My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth) in your flesh, as an everlasting and eternal (‘owlam – completely unlimited in time, location, or situation) Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth)." (Genesis 17:12-13)

"But the uncircumcised (‘arel) male (zakar – man at any age or stage of life) who (‘asher – relationally) is not (lo’) circumcised (muwl) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh (basar – physical body and genitalia) of his (huw’) foreskin (‘aralah – fold of skin that covers the conical tip of the penis), that (huw’) soul (nepesh) shall be cut off (karat – severed and banished, killed and eliminated) from (min) being with (‘eth – associating with and accompanying) Her (hiy’) family (‘am – people), breaking and nullifying (parar – violating and disassociating from) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth).’" (Genesis 17:14) There can be no doubt, according to Yahweh, circumcision and the Covenant are related.

Circumcision is a signature, signed in blood, declaring our desire to be born anew by way of our Spiritual Mother into God’s family. And in that light, there is an interesting affirmation of the purpose our Spiritual Mother plays in our adoption at the end of this passage. Yahweh told Moseh to write "Her family," not "the family," or "His family." As a result, those willing to "samar – closely examine" His "beriyth – Familial Covenant Relationship" recognize that God was connecting several aspects of His message together for us.

First, God has a Paternal and Maternal nature. The Set-Apart Spirit (the feminine Ruwach Qodesh in Hebrew) performs Yahweh’s maternal responsibilities with regard to His family. Second, "beriyth – covenant" is a feminine noun, as is the Greek "ekklesia – Called-Out Assembly," confirming the role of our Spiritual Mother plays in the conception of both.

Third, by using "hiy’ – Her" in association with "nepesh – souls" being "karat – cut off and separated" from God’s "’am – family," as a result of not heeding His advice, we are provided with yet another insight into the reason the souls of those who ignore Yahweh’s Day of Reconciliations (Yowm Kippurym) summons are cut off and destroyed. This occurs because they have rejected our Spiritual Mother’s provision.

And fourth, this feminine connection with God’s family in association with male circumcision, links circumcision with the Renewed Covenant’s sign, "baptisma – immersion" which is symbolic of being covered and cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit.

While the more subtle innuendoes were instructive, the primary message here was clear and unequivocal. Yahweh established circumcision as the sign of the Covenant for all of the descendants of Abraham—for all of God’s children, for every male member of Yahweh’s family, regardless of race, place, or time. According to our Heavenly Father, there will be no uncircumcised males in Her Family or in His Covenant. And that means that circumcision is required to enter into heaven.

For those of you who cringe at the notion that Yahweh might have established a "requirement," which somehow negated freewill, relax. Circumcision is optional. We all are given the choice to be circumcised, and to circumcise our sons, or not. The choice is ours to make. All Yahweh is saying is that it is His "beiyth – home," His "beriyth – covenant," and His "’am – family," and that if we want to participate and to be included in them, then we must make the choice to be circumcised—spiritually and physically. As with all fathers, it is His Shelter/Family/Covenant/and House, and therefore: His rules. You don’t have to do what He says unless you want to live under His roof.

And yet adversarialy, Paul has used "not being circumcised" as the fulcrum of his assault on the Torah, calling it irrelevant with regard to one’s salvation—even enslaving. Therefore, Yahweh’s message is the antithesis of Paul’s.

And so is what follows. Ezekiel was given a prophetic preview of Yahshua’s return to Earth, during which time he received the following instructions regarding the Torah and, by association, circumcision. "And Yahuweh said to me, ‘Son of man, place on your heart, see with your eyes, and listen with your ears to all which I am saying to you concerning all of the statutes (huqah – clearly communicated prescriptions) of the House (beiyth – Home and Household) of Yahuweh, and concerning His entire Towrah (towrah – law, direction, teaching, and prescriptions for living). Place it on your heart (sym leb ‘athah – closely examine [the Towrah], carefully list what [the Towrah] reveals, be preserved by [the Towrah], and appoint [the Towrah’s] message within your core), on the path and entrance to (mabow’ – the way to and entry of) the Household (beiyth – Home and House) and with regard to you setting forth from (mosa’ – going forth on a journey from) the Temple (miqdash – the Sanctuary, from qadash – the purifying place which is set apart).’" (Ezekiel 44:5)

The Torah is the path which leads to the entranceway of Yahweh’s Home. There is no other way; no other door. Go forth and tell this to all those who want to live with God.

Yahweh is not fond of those who rebel against Him or those who diminish the value of His instructions. In this next verse, God specifically criticizes Yisra’elites (like Sha’uwl) for inviting those who have ignored the sign of the Covenant into His Home—calling what Paul has done: "the greatest and most detestable of all abominations."

Indeed, to all of those who are opposed to Yahweh, Yisra’el, Yahuwdym, or the Towrah, Yahweh says: "And you shall say to the rebellious ones (mery – to those who are resist My authority, and who are disobedient and opposed), to (‘el) the House of Yisra’el, this is what My Foundation, the Upright Pillar (‘edon – the upright foundation of the Temple), Yahuweh (YaHuWeH), says: ‘Your greatest (rab), most (min) detestable abomination (tow’ebah – repulsive, loathsome, immoral, and abhorrent practice) of all (kol) in the House of Yisra’el is including (bow’ – pursuing) sons (ben) of foreigners (nekar – strangers), uncircumcised (‘arel) of heart (leb) and uncircumcised (‘arel) of flesh (basar – body) to exist (hayah) in My Temple (miqdash – Sanctuary, from qadash – purifying place which is set apart) to defile and profane it and Him (halal huw’ – to desecrate and pollute it, treating Him with contempt [with huw’, meaning it or Him serving to unify Yahshua and the Temple]) alongside (‘eth) My Home (beiyth – House and Household)..." (Ezekiel 44:6-7)

It isn’t that God is opposed to foreigners entering His Home. But instead, the message here is that we Gowym must follow the same path to Yahweh’s Household that Yahuwdym do—and that is by way of the Covenant and Called-Out Assemblies. There aren’t two paths to God, or two doorways to heaven, one for Jews the other for Gentiles. There is but one Passover, one Unleavened Bread, one Messiyah, one Way.

The inference here is that by ignoring and rejecting the sign of the Covenant—circumcision—some Yisra’elites have treated Yahweh, Yahshua, and God’s Home, with contempt. And considering that Sha’uwl’s principle argument with the Torah has been and will be circumcision, his ministry and letters sit at the crosshairs of this prophetic warning. It’s hard to imagine Yahweh’s disgust being directed at anyone other than Sha’uwl in this regard. No one else in all of human history even came close to Paul’s influence regarding the specific topic of disassociating circumcision from salvation.

This is one of the most specific, and yet devastating Scriptural passages on the topic of disrespecting the Torah, and especially the sign of the Covenant. In it, Yahweh is speaking about His return on the Day of Reconciliations (Yowm Kippurym), five days before the beginning of the Millennial Sabbath on the Miqra’ of Sukah. And in the context of bringing the Tribulation to a close, the one thing that He wants Ezekiel to tell His people above all else is that inviting non-circumcised Gentiles into His Sanctuary (which serves as a metaphor for Sukah and thus heaven), is the single most repulsive and immoral thing any Yisra’elite would ever do.

Yahweh is therefore predicting that there would be a devastating consequence associated with Paul’s preaching on this matter—where he flaunted his rejection of the Torah and circumcision. And that is because disassociating circumcision from the Covenant, demeaning the Torah, and disassociating the Upright Pillar (Yahshua) from Yahweh’s instructions, has nullified God’s plan of salvation for billions of souls, causing Yahweh to prophetically tell us that the letter Sha’uwl would write to the Galatians would be an "abomination."

By profaning the human sign, or signature, of the Covenant, the Spiritual signs, or metaphors of the Covenant would also be defiled: bread, oil, wine, and blood. "...in (ba) your coming near and approaching (qarab) My bread (lehem), My finest and choicest oil and wine (halab – mother’s milk as a nurturing food for children), and My blood (dam), you broke (parar – severed, violated, and nullified, revoked, frustrated, and thwarted) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth) by all your detestable abominations (tow’ebah – repulsive and loathsome acts)..." (Ezekiel 44:7) Our collective unwillingness as a people to take Yahweh and His Word seriously has led to the nullification of the Covenant for many. And this problem has become ubiquitous primarily as a result of Galatians.

Specifically, Paul’s antagonism toward circumcision is mixed with references to the Messiyah, represented by "bread," the Spirit, represented by "oil," and the Festival Feasts, denoted by "blood and wine." So by demeaning one, Paul demeaned all. He broke the connection between them and thereby nullified the Covenant and thwarted its intent.

For Yahweh to be this angry at this one thing—inappropriately inviting uncircumcised Gentiles into His family and home—it strongly suggests that God is using Sha’uwl’s most notorious single act of rebellion against His Torah to alert us to the consequence of Sha’uwl’s message as a whole. Pauline Doctrine, by severing the connection between the Messiyah and the Torah, rendered Yahshua’s sacrifice irrelevant and of no effect for billons of Gentile Christians. While Sha’uwl has invited people of every race and place into God’s family and home, Yahweh has put us on notice that Paul’s invitation was a fraud, and that the self-acclaimed Apostle was the greatest abomination in human history.

And this will not be the last time Yahweh lashes out at Sha’uwl prophetically. He and thus we have just begun.

One ill-advised letter was sufficient to separate Christians from God, because as a direct result of the canonization of Paul’s epistles, far too few Christians observe the Torah or teach the "required function" of Yahweh’s "Set-Apart Ones," the Messiyah Yahshua and the Set-Apart Spirit. "...and not (lo’) closely and personally observing (samar – carefully examining, being aware of, paying close attention to) the required function (mismeret – responsibility and mandatory mission) of My (‘any) Set-Apart and Purifying Ones (qadash / qodesh – set apart and cleansing (plural)).’" (Ezekiel 44:8) One God, two manifestations, different roles, same result. The Set-Apart Spirit and the Son, are both set-apart from Yahweh to serve us.

The "required function and mission" of Yahweh’s "Set-Apart Ones" is something we are "to closely observe and personally be aware of." Therefore, God wants us to understand the roles His Son and Spirit play in our salvation—and specifically appreciate their contribution to the enablement of the seven Called-Out Assemblies. The entire Torah exists in large part to convey this information to us because our lives depend upon it. And yet it is this connection that Sha’uwl severed. As a result, faith in his Gospel became nothing more than the belief in a ghoulish spectacle.

You’ll also notice that their functions were listed as "mandatory." When God makes a promise, such as those delineated in His seven-step plan of salvation, He is committed to fulfilling what He has vowed. And that is what makes Him and His Torah trustworthy.

To appreciate this, we are encouraged to carefully observe the Torah so that we can properly convey what it says regarding the path we must follow to reach the doorway of Yahweh’s Home. "And you were appointed (sym) to personally and carefully observe (samar – to care about) this required function (mismeret – responsibility and mission) concerning My Temple (miqdash – Sanctuary, from qadash – purifying place which is set apart) on your behalf.’" (Ezekiel 44:8) But most Jews and Christians have rejected Yahweh’s instructions in favor of their debilitating faith. Far too few personally and carefully observe what the Torah has to say about Yahweh’s Temple and how we are to get there. And some like Paul, have actually spoken against the path Yahweh has provided.

What follows is revealed in God’s voice. It is unequivocal. "Thus says My Foundation, the Upright Pillar (‘edon – the upright foundation of the Temple), Yahuweh (YaHuWeH): ‘Every (kol) foreign (nekar) son (ben) who is uncircumcised (‘arel) in heart (leb) and in the flesh (basar) shall not (lo’) be included (bow’ – be pursued, arrive, or come into) inside (‘el – and among) My (‘any) Temple (miqdash – Sanctuary and Tabernacle, from qadash – purifying place which is set apart).’" (Ezekiel 44:9) To be circumcised in the heart is to understand and accept the symbolic significance of circumcision. To be circumcised in the flesh is to have one’s foreskin cut.

Therefore, if as I suspect, Yahweh’s "miqdash – set-apart Sanctuary, His purifying place, His Temple and Tabernacle," is synonymous with "Sukah – Shelters," which serves as a metaphor for heaven, then this is the second time that Yahweh has told us that He is so serious about the significance of circumcision, that He will not associate with anyone who has rejected His instruction in this regard. But regardless of what Yahweh’s Sanctuary symbolizes here, God has already told us in Genesis that the souls of males who are not circumcised will die, separated from Him and thus from Heaven. Equally important, since the foundation of Galatians is the negation of circumcision and the Torah, it is unequivocally wrong—as is any religious institution predicated upon it.

Also, while some may protest and say that this is just an advisory notice regarding the Millennial Temple, you’ve got three things working against you. First, Revelation 3:12 tells us: "All who are victorious will become pillars in the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of My God..." "All" means "all," that’s all all means.

Second, during the Millennial Sabbath there won’t be any uncircumcised individuals because the One Thousand Year Right is a celebration of the Covenant. And during this time, Yahweh Himself will rule the world from His Millennial Temple, making such ubiquitous malfeasance impossible.

And third, the Millennial Sabbath is a celebration of the Miqra’ of Sukah. As such, it embodies all that the seventh Festival Feast represents, making it the ultimate party. Even the Earth will be remade in the image of the Garden of Eden, and thus will be a joyous paradise. This therefore isn’t the kind of environment or atmosphere in which the most detestable abomination in human history could transpire.

These things known, I am haunted by two questions. With Yahweh’s position on circumcision being so clearly stated, so vital, unequivocal, and nonnegotiable, why did Sha’uwl choose this issue to pick a fight with the Disciples and with God? And with Yahshua’s position on the Torah being so clearly stated, so vital, unequivocal, and nonnegotiable, how is it that Sha’uwl thought he could contradict Him and not be repudiated and dismissed for having done so?

While I’d love to linger here in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and ponder the import of each word and phrase, having proven that the Yahuwdym depicted in Acts 15:1 were correct with regard to the connection between circumcision and salvation, our mission at the moment is to determine whether or not Paul was telling the truth regarding the Yaruwshalaym Summit. So, let’s return to the book of Acts.

Recognizing that the testimony the Yahuwdym from Yahuwdah (Jews from Judea) had delivered in Antioch regarding the connection between circumcision and salvation was accurate, Luke’s historic depiction continues with: "But (de) a rebellion (stasis – heated quarrel and open discord, an insurrection against the authority and law) occurred (ginomai – came to exist), even (kai) an argument (zetesis – dispute, controversy, and debate), which was not (ouk) small (oligos – insignificant or short lived). Paulos (Paulos – Paul) and Barnabas (Bar-Naby) against (pros) them (autos), gave the order and assigned the task (tasso) to go up (anabaino), Paulos and Barnabas, and some (tinas) others (allos) from (ek) them (autos) to (pros – or against) the Apostles (apostolos – those who are prepared and sent out) and elders (presbyteros) in Yaruwshalaym (Ierousalem – transliteration of Yaruwshalaym, meaning the Source of Restoration) with regard to (peri) this (toutou) controversy (zetema – point of dispute, and debate regarding the law)." (Acts 15:2) So much for the notion of going to Yaruwshalaym because of a "revelation from God." It was actually an all out rebellion which prompted the visit. Paul’s message denouncing circumcision was under attack by those who knew better.

In that we will be comparing these two presentations, Luke’s Acts and Paul’s Galatians, I’d like to proceed by reviewing what Paul had written regarding this meeting. He said: "Later, through the passage of another fourteen years, I went up to Yaruwshalaym along with Barnabas, and also bringing along Titus. (2:1) But then I went up with regard to a revelation (apokalypsis – a disclosure and vision, an unveiling which makes manifest), and explained to them the healing and beneficial message which I was preaching among the nations with reference to certain individuals, then they were of the opinion that I was not running for nothing." (2:2)

"To the contrary, Titus, a Greek, was not even compelled (anagkazo – encouraged or pressured, made to feel obligated) to be circumcised (2:3) now because on account of the false brothers (pseudadelphos – men who faked their kinship) brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses (pareisaktos – joining secretly), who slipped into the group (pareiserchomai – crept in by stealth) to secretly observe (kataskopeo – to closely investigate, evaluate, consider, and contemplate) the freedom and liberation we possess in the Messiyah, Yahushua in order to enslave us." (2:4)

"With regard to whom, we did not yield in order that the truth of God would continue to exist among you. (2:5) Moreover, from those who were of the opinion (dokei – who choose to believe) that they were someone important based upon some sort of former existence, I am indifferent (oudeis diaphero – did not care and did not see them as having any particular merit). In the presence of God, men cannot claim authority or rank (lambano – cannot grab hold of power for themselves). To be sure, the opinionated (dokei) added nothing advisable to the conversation (ouideis prosanatithemai – did not provide useful counsel or comments). (2:6) Rather, on the contrary, see, trusting/believing that the healing and beneficial message to the uncircumcised, inasmuch as Petros to the circumcised." (2:7)

"For indeed, the functionality inside the Apostle Rock to the circumcised, also facilitated me to the nations (ethnos – the people from different places and races). (2:8) And knowing the Charis/Grace given to me, Ya’aqob, Petros, and Yahuchanan, the presumed (dokei – considered, supposed, opinionated, and assumed) existing pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas to the nations, but they to the circumcised. (2:9) They said only (monon – just) to remember the cause of the poor, who also myself eagerly did my best to do this." (2:10)

That was Sha’uwl’s version of the events. Now, let’s turn to the book of Acts, and consider the historian’s perspective on the Yaruwshalaym Summit. This monumental meeting was dated to 50 CE—seventeen years after Yahshua’s Passover and Unleavened Bread Sacrifice and the fulfillment of FirstFruits and Seven Sabbaths.

Now that we know that the pretence for this meeting was misrepresented by Paul, how about the spies? Were they false brothers unknown to Paul? "Having arrived in Yaruwshalaym, they [Paul and Barnabas] were received (paradechomai – were welcomed and accepted in fellowship) by the called-out assembly (ekklesia) and the Apostles (apostolos) and elders. Reporting (anangello) as much as God (ΘΣ) had done (poieomai) with (meta) them, there stood up (exanistamai) some important individuals who (tines – certain specific people) had been from (apo) the religious party (hairesis – faction based upon false teaching) of the Pharisees (Pharisaios – rabbinical religious fundamentalists; a transliteration of the Hebrew parash, meaning to separate), who had come to trust and to rely (pisteuo – depending upon and placing their confidence in the Trustworthy One). They said (lego – and affirm) that (hoti) it is necessary (dei – binding and established, right, proper, and beneficial) to circumcise (peritemno) individuals (autous). They conveyed the message (parangello – they instructed and directed those who were listening) to observe (tereo – to keep and obey) the Mosaic (Mouseos) Law (nomon)." (Acts 15:4-5)

Once again, Luke has made it unequivocally clear that these individuals were advocating and endorsing the Torah, not Rabbinic Law. And since they were Paul’s antagonists, it would be ridiculous to suggest that Paul’s foe was anything other than the Torah. This is a devastating detail relative to Paul’s credibility.

The men who "stood up...had come to trust and rely," which means that they were not "false brothers." They did not "sneak into the meeting under false pretenses," as they were elders within the Called-Out Assembly of Yaruwshalaym. They did not come to "secretly observe," but to the contrary, to stand up and speak. And like Paul, these individuals as former Pharisees, and now followers of The Way, were part of a group so unique, Sha’uwl would have recognized them.

While Paul’s first five statements regarding this meeting have all crumbled in the face of the historical evidence, his sixth, seventh, and eighth assertions are also in jeopardy. Paul had written in Galatians 2:9 that he had presented his case, and then after having done so, he had been accepted by Ya’aqob, Petros, and Yahuchanan. But Luke says that the welcome occurred prior to exchange of ideas and Paul’s presentation of his message and ministry. And that means that the "right hand of fellowship" was not an endorsement as Paul had alleged.

Then contrary to Paul’s claim that everyone was accepting of the uncircumcised condition of his Greek associate Titus (in Galatians 2:3), we find that the elders strongly encouraged circumcision, calling it "necessary." And that means that Paul’s eighth recollection, that he was only told to "remember the poor," was also untrue. He was told to remember the Torah generally and circumcision specifically.

Now, let’s see if the agreement allegedly reached in the meeting to divide the world, limiting Peter to the circumcised, while granting Paul authority over every other nation and race was accurately represented. Luke writes: "And then (te) demonstrating leadership (sunago – drawing people together; from sun, with, and ago, to lead), the Apostles (apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out; speaking specifically of Yahushua’s Disciples) and (kai) the elders (presbuteros), clearly saw, considered, and paid attention (horao – perceived, recognized, and were aware) concerning (peri – because of and with regard to) this (toutou) Word (legos – statement, reason, account, declaration, affirmation, treatise, decree, and mandate)." (Acts 15:6) In other words, the Apostles and elders supported the men who stood up and affirmed the Torah—the Word of God—placing all of them at odds with Paul.

"But then (de) with considerable and extensive (polys – very great) debate (zetesis – questioning and controversy, mediating and reasoning, contentious argument and deliberation) happening (ginomai), the Rock (petros – meaning rock) stood up (anistamai – took a stand, was fixed, firm, and unmovable), saying to (eipon) them (autos), ‘Men (aner), brothers (adelphos), you all (umeis) are acquainted with, have thought about, and have understood (epistamai – possess sufficient information to know, to comprehend, and to take a stand) that (hoti) from (apo) in (en) the beginning (archaios – existing for a long time in the past) you all (umin) chose (eklegomai – selected) Yahuweh (ΘΣ) on account of (dia) my (mou) spoken words (stoma – message from my mouth), listening to and considering (akouo – receiving, hearing, paying attention to, comprehending, and understanding) the Word (legos), the healing and beneficial message (euangelion) to the races and nations (ethnos), and considered it to be trustworthy and reliable (pisteuo).’" (Acts 15:7)

Yahshua had personally trained Shim’own, guiding him every step of the way, equipping him to preach His healing and beneficial message to the world—and then God authorized the Rock to represent Him. Everyone gathered in this room, save Paul, knew it because they had either witnessed all of this, or they themselves had been the beneficiary of the Word shared by Shim’own.

And let’s be very clear about this. Shim’own did not say that his words had saved anyone. The Rock’s role in their salvation was sharing the Word—Scripture. Better trained and prepared than anyone else on the planet (save Yahuchanan and Ya’aqob perhaps), this Apostle knew Yahshua, he understood Yahweh, he acknowledged the importance of the Torah, and therefore he was an especially effective witness.

By acknowledging his history and theirs, Peter confirmed what Yahshua had promised and thereby pulverized Paul’s ninth conclusion. The "Rock" upon which the "Ekklesia – Called-Out Assembly" would be established, was Shim’own’s pronouncement of Yahweh’s Word, whereby he proclaimed that Yahshua was the Messiyah, the Son of God.

Beyond this, everyone who was part of the Called-Out Assembly in Yaruwshalaym during the fulfillment of the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths, was specifically equipped by the Set-Apart Spirit to share the healing and beneficial message with the entire world, regardless of what languages the Gentiles spoke. Simply stated, the ministry of the Apostles had never been limited to Jews as Paul had claimed. In fact, for Sha’uwl to be right, the fulfillment of the Miqra’ of Shabuwa, which serves as the foundation of the Ekklesia, and the impetus for the book of Acts, had to be a complete fabrication.

These things known, when we place Luke’s account of this meeting as it is presented in Acts next to Paul’s description of it in Galatians, we find that the historical account is markedly different.

• Paul began preaching within a few days of his "flashing light from the sky" experience, negating the possibility of a three-year training session in Arabia. (Galatians 1:17-18)
• The Yaruwshalaym Summit occurred seventeen years after Yahshua’s fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, and the Set-Apart Spirit’s fulfillment of Seven Sabbaths, so it could not have occurred seventeen to nineteen years after Paul had been struck by lightning on the road to Damascus, as it would mean that Paul’s conversion occurred prior to Yahshua’s crucifixion. (Galatians 1:18 & 2:2)
• A massive disagreement over Paul’s antagonism toward circumcision compelled the meeting, not a revelation from God. (Galatians 2:2)
• The Yaruwshalaym Summit included the Apostles, elders, and the leadership of the Yaruwshalaym Called-Out Assembly, not just "certain individuals." If Luke was right, a multitude of people were in attendance. (Galatians 2:2)
• The Apostles and elders did not agree with Paul, and indeed opposed what he said. (Galatians 2:2)
• Titus was encouraged to be circumcised. (Galatians 2:3)
• Those who spoke in support of the Torah were not false brothers. They were elders in the Ekklesia. Paul unjustly slandered them. (Galatians 2:4)
• Those who spoke in support of the Torah did not sneak into the room. They were invited because they were part of the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia. (Galatians 2:4)
• Those who spoke in support of the Torah were not secret observers, they were active contributors. (Galatians 2:4)
• There is no connection between observing the Torah and being enslaved as Paul testified. The Torah presents God’s plan of salvation. (Galatians 2:4)
• Paul’s position on circumcision was challenged on Scriptural grounds during the meeting, with those in attendance siding with God’s Word and against Paul. And Paul did yield to them. He personally circumcised Timothy, the next Gentile he encountered. (Galatians 2:5 & Acts 16:3)
• Paul was no longer an advocate for the truth or for freedom. For Paul to be right, God had to be wrong. So Paul’s stand was the antithesis of "firm," "enduring," "beneficial," "healing," or "advantageous." (Galatians 2:6)
• If those who spoke on behalf of the Torah were not "important" because they were formally Pharisees, then why did Paul brag about his achievements within this sect? (Galatians 1:13-14 & 2:6)
• Those who spoke on behalf of circumcision cited the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, so they added God’s perspective to the meeting. (Galatians 2:6)
• Shim’own quoted Yahshua as proof that he had been called to preach to the uncircumcised in opposition to Paul’s assessment. (Galatians 2:7)
• Shim’own specifically referenced the Gentiles in the room who had been saved as a result of the words he had spoken, negating Paul’s claim of exclusivity. (Galatians 2:8)
• Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan welcomed Paul before the meeting began, not after Paul’s presentation ended, and thus their handshake was not given in recognition of Charis/Grace given to Paul, as Paul alleges. This misrepresentation, which was designed to be seen as an endorsement, speaks volumes about Paul’s willingness to twist the evidence to salvage and promote his reputation. (Galatians 2:9)
• The Apostles were important because they were personally trained by the Messiyah, Yahshua. There is nothing "supposed" about their positions. They serve as pillars along the path to heaven. It was completely inappropriate for Paul to disparage them. (Galatians 2:9)
• The Acts testimony is in direct conflict with Paul’s claim that Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan agreed to limit their preaching. There is no indication whatsoever that the Apostles supported Paul’s exclusive right to witness to Gentiles. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. (Galatians 2:9)
• Those who spoke at the meeting told Paul to remember many things, and foremost among them was the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, circumcision, the fact that everyone, and most especially Peter and the Apostles, were called to witness to the Gentiles, that there was no difference between Yahuwdym and Gowym as it relates to the process of salvation, and that everyone should observe the Torah’s instructions regarding things which are inappropriate to eat. (Galatians 2:10)

In conclusion, if Paul cannot be trusted to accurately present what happened during the two most important meetings of his life (Arabia and Yaruwshalaym), why should he be trusted with regard to his message? This is a wakeup call for those who have been led to believe that Paul was right when he said that the Torah had been replaced by "faith in his Gospel of Grace."

If you haven’t already recognized that it is rationally impossible for Paul to be a reliable witness when he contradicts the God and Messiyah he claimed to represent, then the realization that Paul cannot be trusted to accurately relay conversations between men, should be sufficient for you to discount his testimony regarding God.

So that we are clear, I’m not saying that everything Paul wrote has been discredited, just a third of Galatians (at least thus far), and with it the foundation of Christendom. The remainder of Paul’s letters will be examined in due time. But the realization that the first third of his first epistle has been deficient in every conceivable way should suffice to indicate that his remaining letters aren’t Scripture either. It is obvious that they never should have been elevated to this status. God’s standard is perfection, and Paul never approaches this benchmark.

Therefore, while it requires study and thought, Paul’s epistle to the Galatians has taught us a valuable lesson: we must be careful. Yahweh is trustworthy and men are not.