Chapter 6

Pistis

Trust and Reliance

Whom Do You Trust?...

At long last the Galatians epistle has moved beyond Paul. So let the Great Debate begin. Should we believe his "Gospel of Grace" or should we trust Yahweh’s Torah?

"Understand (oida – intuitively appreciate, perceive and remember, use your perceptions to realize and become acquainted) that because (hoti) no (ou) man (anthropos) is vindicated (dikaioo – is justified or put right, acquitted and shown to be in compliance, or judged innocent) out of (ek – by means of) legalistic (nomou – established societal customs, rules, traditions, and laws governing conduct) works (ergon – assigned tasks and undertakings, accomplishments and activities) if (ean) not (me) by way of (dia) trust in and reliance on (pistis) [the] Messiyah (ΙΗΥ), Yahushua (ΙΗΝ)." (Galatians 2:16)

Before we deal with the text, let’s consider the message, because it bears repeating. If the precise way this translation reads accurately reflects Sha’uwl’s position, then he was saying "realize that no man is acquitted based upon legalistic works, if not by way of trust in and reliance upon the Messiyah Yahshua." The realization that we cannot work for our salvation, and that no one can earn a trip to heaven, is firmly established throughout Scripture. Salvation is the gift of God. But so is the realization that salvation comes by way of trusting Yahweh and relying upon Yahshua’s fulfillment of the Called-Out Assemblies. This is not just the Way to God; it is the only Way.

So if each Greek word is rendered exactly this way, in precisely this order, then the proposition isn’t between the "Law" and "Grace," but instead between "works" and "reliance."

Now for the housekeeping issues. For those following along using an interlinear, the de, meaning "yet or but" found in modern-Greek manuscripts, and thus in our translations, isn’t found in Papyrus 46, the oldest codex containing this letter, but the rest of the words are accurately attested.

Next, you should be aware that of the three Greek words for "know," oida, which was translated "understand," is the softest, and most focused on "perceptions" as opposed to a conclusion predicated upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence. I don’t know why Sha’uwl chose it, when exhaustive research into the Torah would confirm the same conclusion. Had Sha’uwl written "ginosko – know relationally," or even "epiginosko – know for certain based upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence," it would have been better than using "oida – perceive." And it’s not as if he didn’t understand the relative difference between the words. Elsewhere in Galatians he will use ginosko.

Now to the meat of the issue: depending upon the context, nomos, rendered here in the masculine singular as nomou, is usually translated "law," and even "Law," as in the Torah. But instead, I rendered it as "legalistic," for three reasons. First, by following the noun "ergon – works," it is apparent that nomou is modifying ergon. In Greek, as in most languages, it’s "law good," not "good law."

Second, we are required to arbitrarily add "of the" between "ergon – works" and "nomos – law" if the order is not reversed to accommodate the peculiar nature of English grammar. That said, Paul is notorious for dispensing with prepositions and articles, and his grammar is as deficient as his Greek, so this is a very weak argument.

Third, nomos can be written to reflect either gender, but in this case, it is nomou, which is masculine. Towrah is a feminine noun. And yet, we will find far too many exceptions to this rule to put any significant weight on it. Paul will use the masculine nomou in subsequent passages to reference the Torah.

But no matter which "law," Sha’uwl was addressing in the sixteenth verse, the Oral Law of the Rabbis, the political law of the Romans, or the Torah’s instructions, no one is acquitted by way of what they do. We are saved based upon what Yahshua has done.

These things considered, the remainder of this epistle will serve to affirm that the "nomos/nomou – law" Paul is addressing is the Torah. In that case, at least narrowly translated, the conditional conjunction, "if not by way of," suggests that we can be justified by the Law if we place our trust and reliance in the Messiyah, Yahushua’s fulfillment of the Torah. While our works and our salvation are mutually exclusive, the Torah and Yahshua’s works are synonymous.

And that brings us to pistis, which was translated "trust and reliance." While it is almost always rendered "faith" or "belief" in English bibles, the Greek word originally conveyed "confidence and assurance in what is known." It spoke of "reliability and proof," as well as "persuasion based upon a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence." At the time this epistle was written, pistis was about "conviction in the veracity of the truth." Pistis was "that which evoked trust and that which could be relied upon as being dependable." And as such, pistis was once the opposite of "faith and belief." When the evidence is sufficient to know and understand, faith is irrelevant—even counterproductive because it tends to stall inquiry.

However, languages evolve. Influential individuals shape the meanings of words. And pistis is the lever upon which Pauline Doctrine pivots. It is therefore likely that his epistles changed the lexicon and caused pistis to evolve from "trust" to "belief," from "reliance" to "faith." I say this because Paul never once provides the kind of evidence which would be required for someone to know Yahweh or understand His plan of salvation well enough to trust God or rely upon the Way. In the context of Galatians, "trust" is a fish out of water, while "faith" survives swimmingly. As a result of Paul’s transformation, "faith" is now synonymous with "religion" and "believers" are equated to "Christians."

And the moment we acquiesce to the inevitable, and change our rendering of pistis to "faith," the things Paul wrote which would otherwise be accurate, now become deceptive. Consider this verse as a prime example: "Be aware, because no man is put right out of works of the Law, if not by way of faith in the Messiyah Yahushua." What was right, is now wrong. This changes the paradigm from being an affirmation that we cannot save ourselves to a referendum on religion.

The sum and substance of most religious systems is embodied in the means its members deploy to earn salvation. Depending upon the religion, the faithful either follow religious edicts, make significant monetary contributions, lead a good life, advance the common good, deny themselves, or engage in jihad.

In Judaism, for example, one achieves righteousness by religiously observing Rabbinical Law. Becoming liberated from this works-based salvation scheme would have been cathartic for Sha’uwl, literally turning his world upside down. Right would be wrong. Wrong would be right. Good would be bad and bad would be good. To develop a relationship with Yahweh, everything he had been told, everything he had experienced, everything he had believed, and everything his family and friends held dear had to be rejected. And sadly, based upon what Paul told his detractors in Acts, he was never able to take this step.

His own internal turmoil, no doubt led to Paul’s crusade against legalism. And while he was right to expose and condemn the religious myth of works-based salvation, he was wrong in not clearly identifying which set of laws he was impugning. But in all likelihood, that was by design. By being equivocal, he diminished his susceptibility to criticism. So, at least in this case, it wasn’t what Paul said that has led to the confusion, but what he didn’t say.

During the time Galatians was written in around 50CE, Yahuwdym represented the overwhelming preponderance of the followers of The Way. As a result, most everyone understood the relationship between Yahshua and the Torah. And yet, it seems reasonable to assume that many of these people were also unable to remove the Talmud from their systems as it was ingrained in their culture. For example, even though I know that Christmas is purely pagan, it is such a pervasive part of our society, that it’s nearly impossible to completely eliminate its influence.

Sha’uwl was equally conflicted. As a student of Gamaliel, he had a working knowledge of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. But he was also steeped in Jewish Oral Law, and as a Pharisee in training, he would have known it better than he knew the Word of God.

And therein lies one of our biggest challenges with Sha’uwl’s epistles. For him, and for the preponderance of religious Jews, then and today, "the Law" was not the "Torah," but instead Rabbinical Law derived from Oral Traditions, known as "Halakhah." Meaning "the path that one walks," Halakhah is Jewish Law, a complete set of rules and practices that Jews are compelled to follow, including commandments instituted by Rabbis and other binding customs. While the Torah is credited as being one of many sources of "Jewish Law," 99% of the rules which comprise Halakhah were conceived by men. In fact, Paul’s ubiquitous "But I say" statements are very similar in style and format to what we find in the Talmud.

Rabbi Maimonides referenced the Torah to usurp its credibility for his religion (as did Paul, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith). Twisted and truncated paraphrases served as the launching point from which he conceived the list of 613 Mitzvot he compiled in his Mishneh. The Talmud is similar in that it was comprised of Rabbinical arguments on how to interpret the Torah—and in that way it reads like Paul’s epistles. And like the Qur’an, which the Talmud and to a lesser degree Pauline Doctrine inspired, Rabbinical Law referenced the Torah simply to give Rabbis the pretence of authenticity, but Akiba’s rantings like Paul’s, and like Muhammad’s after them, were nothing more than a litany of one man’s twisted religious ideas.

The reason I have brought this to your attention is to let you know that one of the many failings of Paul’s letters is that they do not distinguish between Jewish Law and the Towrah. Both are represented by the Greek word for "law" nomos. Yahshua solved this problem by adding "Prophets and Psalms" to His Towrah references, and thereby making it obvious that He was speaking of His Scriptures. But unfortunately, Sha’uwl didn’t follow God’s example—in this or any other way. When Yahshua criticized the inappropriateness of Jewish Law, He always did so in the context of its authors, the Rabbis. But Sha’uwl only makes this distinction once, leaving us to guess which law he was talking about: Jewish Law or Yahweh’s Torah.

However, that’s not entirely true. If Galatians 2:16 through 5:15 is viewed as one cohesive argument, then every reference to nomos should be translated: "Torah." There isn’t a single verse referencing Rabbinical Law, and there are many which explicitly reference the Torah. Moreover, as Paul builds to the climax of his argument in the fourth chapter of Galatians, any doubt that he was assailing the Torah vanishes.

In this light, I’d like you to consider a different translation of Galatians 2:16—one more in keeping with Paul’s Gospel. "Know (oida – intuitively appreciate, understand, and remember) that because no man is vindicated (dikaioo – justified, acquitted, or saved) by means of (ek – or out of) the assigned tasks, accomplishments, and activities (ergon – works (observing in the sense of doing the edicts)) of the Torah (nomou) if not through (dia) faith in (pistis) Christon ‘Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – divine placeholders for Messiyah, the Implement of Yahweh, Yahushua, Yahweh Saves [However, since the primary purpose of this epistle is to disassociate Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Towrah, it would be irrational to assume that Sha’uwl would have used these placeholders to reconnect that which he has striven to separate.])." (Galatians 2:16)

In this way, "faith in Jesus Christ" is Paul’s solution to the failure of the Torah’s assigned Called-Out Assemblies and Commandments to save humankind. It is now the Torah versus the Gospel. It is Trust in Yahweh versus Paul’s version of faith in Jesus.

But who is "Jesus" if He is not Yahweh? If the Torah isn’t trustworthy, how can "Jesus" be reliable? If the Torah’s assigned tasks of Passover and Unleavened Bread were incapable of producing vindication, then why did "Jesus" fulfill them? If the Torah wasn’t the answer, why did "Jesus" quote or refer to it to answer most every question?

As we shall discover, Paul is committed to negating the Torah’s purpose, to severing the connection between the Torah and Yahshua, and to pitting the Messiyah against the Word. But when any of these things are done, Yahshua’s life becomes irrelevant, His words lose their meaning, and His sacrifice is nullified. There is no salvation and life is for naught.

While Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of these epistles, uses Divine Placeholders for Yahshua’s name and title, it is extremely unlikely that Sha’uwl wrote or intended to convey "Messiyah Yahshua" because God’s name and title contradict his thesis. If the Savior is "the Messiyah – the Implement of Yahweh," then He is a tool designed and wielded by Yahweh to fulfill the Torah’s promises and plans. And if the Savior is "Yahushua – Yahuweh Saves" then He is Yahuweh, and it is Yahweh who is saving us. When the name and title are properly communicated Yahshua cannot be separated from Yahweh and the Messiyah becomes a derivative of the Torah, together negating Pauline Doctrine. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that the Divine Placeholders were added by scribes one or more generations after Paul penned his epistles, or that he deployed them knowing that his animosity for the Torah would conceal their actual meaning.

Considering this background, we should not be surprised that Paul repeats himself, creating a mirror image in the second half of the verse. But this time, I’m going to dispense with the elaborate attempt to reconcile Sha’uwl’s message. Here it is as he intended (that is to say, translated consistently with the rest of this epistle).

"And (kai) we (ego) in (eis) Christon ‘Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – divine placeholders for Messiyah (Implement of Yah), Yahushua, (Yah Saves) However, since this epistle has disassociated Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Towrah, it’s misleading to connect that which he has severed.), believe (pisteuo) in order to (hina) be acquitted and vindicated (dikaioo – to be set free) out of (ek) faith in (pisteuo) Christou (ΧY – Messiyah (without the definite article, the errant name Christou is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title), and (kai) not (ou) out of (ek – by means of) the assigned tasks, accomplishments, activities, and observing (ergon) the Towrah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), because (hoti) out of (ek) observing the assigned functions of the Towrah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization))  no aspect of (ou pas) flesh (sarx) is acquitted or judged innocent (dikaioo – justified or vindicated)." (Galatians 2:16) It’s the same errant and lifeless message, only in reverse order.

As a master communicator, Yahweh presents His story from every imaginable perspective, using a countless array of characters, word pictures, and symbols. But more often than not, man simply repeats himself. Consider the entirety of Galatians 2:16 as a prime example: "Know that because no man is vindicated or justified by means of the assigned tasks, accomplishments, and activities (and by observing the edicts) of the Torah if not through faith in Christon ‘Iesoun. And we in Christon ‘Iesoun believe in order to be saved out of faith in the Christou, and not out of observing the Torah, because out of doing what the Torah says, no aspect of flesh is judged innocent." (2:16)

It is a very short step in this context to move from "works of the Law," to "observing the Torah." While one has the potential of being right, the other is dead wrong. And the fourth chapter of Galatians affirms that Paul intended to infer that "no man is saved by observing the Torah."

Since there is no "faith of Jesus Christ," why did the King James say that there was? "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." The notion that God, who knows and understands everything, would have "faith" is odd in the extreme.

And it appears as if we have Jerome and his Latin Vulgate to blame for the anomaly of reason: "And we know that man is not justified by the works of the legis/law, but only by the fidem/faith of Iesu Christi. And so we believe in Christo Iesu, in order that we may be justified by the fide/faith of Christi, and not by the works of the legis/law. For no flesh will be justified by the works of the law."

Not that it is difficult, Galatians must be twisted for Christianity to survive, so the always entertaining New Living Translation makes their faithful contribution with: "Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law."

Each of the following words were added without textual justification to satisfy the whims of the religious: "yet, we know, a person, is made right, with God, faith, Jesus Christ, obeying, the, we have, believed, Christ Jesus, so that, we might, be made, with God, because, our faith, in Christ, we have obeyed, the, for, no one, will ever, be made right, with God, by obeying, the." But they were on solid footing with "that, by, in, not, by, law, and, in, right, because, law, law." But in fairness, the NLT accurately conveyed Paul’s intended message. Too bad it wasn’t true.

In God’s attack on the Rabbis in Matthew 23, Yahshua specifically told us not to do works associated with them. "Then Yahushua spoke to the large crowds and to His followers and students, saying: ‘The Scribes (liberal political types) and the Pharisees (conservative religious fundamentalists) have seated themselves in a position of authority (kathizo – appointed themselves in charge, put themselves in a high position) in the important teaching and judgmental seat of Moseh. Therefore if (ean – conditionally), and to the degree (hosos – so long as) all that they might convey (euposin – if perhaps they communicate) to you to do (poieomai – to perform or act in a certain way based upon something they have authored), be observant (tereo – be on your guard and carefully and closely attend to and scrutinize this (in this case, comparing it to the authored path articulated by Moseh)), but do not do according to their works, deeds, and practices (kata de ta erga auton me – do not be like them, don’t conform to what they do, or what they profit from) or their actions and authorship (poieomai – their renderings, constructs and promises); because indeed they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men.’" (Matthew 23:1-7)

Yahshua was blunt when He exposed and condemned Rabbinical Law. His advice was clear: scrutinize everything they say and don’t do anything they do. And in this context it is worth noting that Sha’uwl has told us that he was trained to be an outstanding Rabbi.

But there was more to Yahshua’s instruction. Under the surface, He was contrasting man’s legalistic religious schemes with His perspective on relationship. Men place burdens on people, oppressing them. Religions are works based, and thus one’s salvation is predicated upon what they do. But God requires nothing of us, save we reach up and grasp His hand, and rely upon His work and guidance to save us. Said another way, God lifted the burden of sin from us, taking it upon Himself.

These insights, one superficial, the other lingering right beneath the surface, are what I miss in Paul’s writings. On the surface, his communication skills are deplorable. And the deeper one looks, the more obvious it becomes that Paul was engaged in weaving a cleverly-crafted web to surreptitiously ensnare his victims.

There would be no point to Yahshua’s willingness to acquit us if we were not sinners. So that cannot be the purpose of this passage: "But (de) if (ei) we try to find (zeteo – seek, desire, demand, and try to obtain) acquittal (dikaioo – vindication and innocence) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christou used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title "the Implement of Yah"), and (kai) we (autos) are found (heuriskomai – discovered) [to be] sinners (hamartolos – devoted to wickedness), should not we be anxious (ara) Christos (ΧΣ – placeholder for the Messiyah) serves (diakonos) sin (hamartia – wrong-doing and being evil) not (me) my desire for the possibility of him belonging to a new existence (ginomai – the writer wanting the subject to be different)?" (Galatians 2:17) We have returned to the realm of poor writing.

And speaking of poor writing, consider the KJV: "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." LV: "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christo, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, would then Christus be the minister of sin? Let it not be so!" If this was Scripture, and Divinely inspired, why was it necessary to add an answer to the question?

While some may applaud the NLT for attempting to make sense of the senseless, the arrogance of independently authoring something they have the audacity to pass off as Scripture, is appalling—even reprehensible. "But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not!" A-Paul-ing indeed.

Digging deeper into the seventeenth verse, we find that the verb ginomai, written as genoito, was used in the aorist, middle, optative tense, which is to say that the subject (Christos’ service) is being affected by its own action as a snapshot in time, and that the writer meant to express his own personal desires regarding the portrayal of a potential new outcome. Paul was therefore communicating his own personal longings, his desired outcome, with this statement, and not God’s will or plan. And as a snapshot in time, Paul viewed Yahshua’s life apart from its foundation in the Torah. Further, Paul wanted his audience to view his "Christ" as a new paradigm, as a "New Testament," and as a new and different possibility or way. Such is the essence of Pauline Doctrine.

With this in mind, if the sixteenth through twenty-first verses are evaluated as one cohesive thought, then the seventeenth verse transitions from incomprehensible to unconscionable. According to Paul, the source of sin, the very definition of sin, is the Torah. Just as sin is wrong, Paul believes that doing what the Torah says is wrong. So what he is actually saying here is: "But if you are trying to find salvation in Christo, but are found to be sinning (by observing the Torah), shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos serves (the Torah’s) sinful nature, and not my desire for the possibility of him advocating a different way?" (Galatians 2:17)

Sha’uwl is attempting to besmirch the Word of God by saying that it has been replaced by his way, his Gospel. Sha’uwl’s goal is to sever the connection between Yahweh and Yahshua, and between the Torah and the Messiyah. He doesn’t want anyone to believe that the Messiyah Yahshua served as an implement of Yahweh to fulfill and enable the Torah.

But in actuality, the moment that Yahshua’s Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices are separated from the Torah’s promises, His ordeal no longer has any purpose or benefit. Apart from the Torah, Yahshua’s life was a lie and He died for nothing.

What follows is awkwardly worded, so it wasn’t until I came to understand Sha’uwl that I was prepared to decipher his arrogant and obnoxious claim. He wrote: "Because (gar) if (ei) that which (os) I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled (kataluo – I have put down and destroyed), [if] this (houtos) home is rebuilt (oikodomeo – household is reconstructed) anew (palin – again), I myself (emautou) demonstrate (synistao – put together, establish, stand with, and recommend) transgression and lawlessness (parabates – leaving the previously established path, or Torah-lessness)." (Galatians 2:18)

Kataluo was written katelusa, which is first person, singular, aorist, active, indicative. First person singular active means that Sha’uwl is personally taking credit for what he has done. The aorist indicative tells us that Sha’uwl has already performed this feat in actuality or reality. Cognizant of these grammatical nuances, katelusa says: "I have already torn down" "this home and household." It means "I have really put [the household] down in the sense of demeaning it," as well as "I have actually dismantled, dissolved, and destroyed" "the home."

More telling still, katalusa also means: "I have actually loosened that which was previously bound and have removed a burden." It properly refers to "travelers loosening their own burdens and those of their animals when they arrive home at the end of a journey." Therefore, Sha’uwl not only believes that "he has personally dissolved" the Torah and "dismantled it," he believes that "he has personally and actually untied the yoke" of the Torah and "removed this burden" from his believers.

Now that Sha’uwl has belittled and dissolved the Torah, the last thing he wants is for someone to resurrect it anew. So, in an ironic twist, he says that to observe the Law is to be "parabates – lawless." How’s that for circular reasoning?

In that Paul’s rhetoric is clever, this bears repeating. The reason he stated in the sixteenth verse that "no one is saved by observing the Torah," not once but twice, is that he wants to dissolve the Torah, dismantling and destroying the Word of God. So now that he has established his "New Testament" in the seventeenth verse, in the eighteenth he is saying that he doesn’t want God’s "Old Testament" to be reestablished.

But the depths of Sha’uwl’s depravity knows no bounds. He is fully aware that the Hebrew word beriyth, meaning "Covenant Relationship," is based upon beiyth, the Hebrew word for "family and home." And that is where oikodomeo comes in. It is usually translated "built or rebuilt," but that obfuscates Sha’uwl’s intent and the verb’s actual meaning. You see, oikodomeo is a compound of oikos, "house, home, household, and familial dwelling place," and doma "building a home." Therefore, the "house, home, and familial dwelling place" Sha’uwl wants "torn down, destroyed and never rebuilt" is the "House of Dauwid/Love," the "Home of God which is Heaven," and the "Familial Dwelling Place which is the Familial Covenant Relationship."

The one thing Paul got right, however, is his conclusion: "I myself demonstrate, establish, stand with, and recommend Torah-lessness and transgression." And even with this confession, Sha’uwl was mocking God and playing his audience for fools. The operative term of the "Beriyth – Familial Covenant Relationship" is halak, in which Yahweh said: "walk with Me." Parabates is from parabaino, which means "to turn away from, to depart from, to overstep, and neglect the path, to go a different way without passing through or touching the previously established route." It is a compound of para, "with and beside" and baino, "walking." Therefore, Sha’uwl wants believers to follow him on a new path which not only bypasses the established route of the Torah, but also walks away from God.

The message Paul should have conveyed is that there are two reasons that it isn’t appropriate for us to habitually sin after we have been saved. First, when we accept our Heavenly Father’s Torah advice on how to live, our lives are more joyous and productive. And our relationship with God is enhanced. Second, while our sin doesn’t lead to our expulsion from Yahweh’s family and home, it can influence the choices others make with regard to associating with God. If it is obvious that we don’t respect what Yahweh has told us, if we don’t observe the Torah, then why would anyone trust what we have to say regarding Yahweh’s Word?

While you have to smile at the use of "prevaricator," it would be unfair to criticize these translations based upon what they had to work with. KJV: "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." LV: "For if I rebuild the things that I have destroyed, I establish myself as a prevaricator." Moreover, since neither Bacon nor Jerome understood the Covenant, they were oblivious to Paul’s claim of having dissolved it.

Here we can blame the New Living Translation’s anti-Torah and Covenant rhetoric on Paul. This is very close to what he said. "Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down." This is in Paul’s voice, so it is saying that Paul believes that he would be a sinner, not based upon breaking Yahweh’s law, but instead by trying to reestablish it. And yet, the Renewed Covenant is nothing more than the reestablishment and renewal of the Covenant. The last thing that God wants is to have His Torah, His foundation, torn down and dismantled.

I understand that dissolving the Torah and replacing it with Paul’s "Gospel of Grace" is in Christendom’s DNA. And I realize that most Christians have no conception of how the Torah and Rabbinical traditions differ. For them, the Law is Judaism. So, if the church, a pastor, or a professor made this claim, I’d simply attribute it to religious confusion. But this repudiation of the Torah is from Paul, in a letter Christians believe is inspired Scripture. And that is why it is so devastating—so damning.

In the 19^th verse, the Greek word for "law" is repeated twice, side by side, even in the oldest extant manuscripts. So, the pieces which comprise Sha’uwl’s next puzzle, in the order of their appearance in the Greek text, read: "I (ego) then (gar – because or for) by (dia) the Towrah’s (nomou – the Law’s (rendered in the possessive genitive restrictive form denoting a specific characterization) law (nomo – law (dative form denoting an indirect object)) actually died and was separated (apothnesko) as a result (hina) God (ΘΩ) I probably live (zao) Christo (ΧΡΩ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christou used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title "the Implement of Yah") I was actually crucified with (Ω suneotrai)." (Galatians 2:19)

Before we reorder Sha’uwl’s words, and then add some words of our own, to make sense of this, let’s first examine the key words under an etymological microscope. Nomos is derived from the Greek word meaning: "to assign in the sense of allotting and parceling out by way of custom what someone can and cannot do personally, or with their property." Nomos was used to describe "the natural laws of the universe," and to convey the "order assigned to life." Greek Sophists, known as philosophers (men of rhetoric and reason), often wrote of the nomos being "a collection of false opinions formed by the majority," while the Greek Stoics (who held that men should be free from passion, unmoved by grief or joy, and submissive to natural law) saw the nomos as "universal truth." So, to say that there was a dichotomy of opinion regarding the meaning of nomos, would be an understatement.

Our lexicons say that nomos was used to describe societal laws in general, any laws, as opposed to one particular set of laws, although that too was a possible application. According to most Greek dictionaries, the nomos spoke of rules related to civil rights, to human conduct, and of obligations within a system of justice.

Strong’s defines nomos as "anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command; representing any law whatsoever." As such, the nomos could be "societal customs, political regulations, or religious traditions." It was not until their tenth definitional clause that Strong’s associated nomos with "the Mosaic law." The "Torah" was not mentioned by Strong’s.

In the Renewed Covenant Writings specifically, nomos was most often directed at one of two incompatible and mutually exclusive edicts: Yahweh’s Torah and Rabbinical Law. As such, there are times where Yahshua uses nomos interchangeably with Torah, such as in Matthew 7:12, where the nomos/Torah is equated to "our Heavenly Father’s good, healing, and beneficial gift," and "to the narrow doorway to life."

There are other times where nomos is used in correlation with the Rabbinical Pharisees, and thus refers to their Oral Law, such as in Luke 5:17. In John 8:17, Yahshua spoke of "your nomos" in a discussion with the Pharisees, men whose very existence revolved around their Traditions. So when we are considering Greek references to "law," we have to let the context dictate whether the Torah or Judaism’s Oral Law is represented by nomos.

But in this context, the first occurrence of nomos was written in the genitive singular as nomou. The genitive is a restrictive form of a noun which denotes a very specific characterization—in this case the nomou being "the Towrah." The genitive also serves to "mark a noun as the possessor of something," much like adding an apostrophe s after a noun, making it possessive. So nomou is "the Towrah’s." The second application of nomos was in the dative form (nomo), denoting that it was a less specific indirect object. And that means that nomou nomo is "the Torah’s law."

In the Hebrew Scriptures, there are a plethora of words which provide different shadings on the related concepts of laws, commandments, ordinances, authoritative directions, orders, instructions, guidance, and prescriptions for living. For example, Towrah is a proper noun, as well as a word which conveys all of these things, albeit, a relatively small portion of the Torah is dedicated to establishing laws. In Hebrew, dath is a "law," in the sense of a "decree, edict, regulation, or rule." A choq, sometimes transliterated hoq, is a "statute which is prescribed. Similarly, a haqaq is a "clearly communicated written ordinance." A tsavah is a "command." A mitzvah can be a "commandment," a "tradition," or a "custom." A mishpat is a "judgment or judicial ordinance."

In total, we find nomos used 195 times in the Renewed Covenant Writings. Most of these are found in Paul’s letters, especially Galatians with 32 inclusions. I find it interesting, however, that nomos is not found in either of Shim’own’s letters, even though he was criticized for something related to it, and Ya’aqob, who allegedly sent the men who frightened "the Rock," mentions the law ten times in his relatively short epistle to the twelve tribes.

Moving on to the second interesting term in the 19^th verse, we find that apothnesko is a compound of apo and thnesko. Thnesko denotes "mortality," and thus "the separation of the soul from the body." Apo, which also means "separation," used with thnesko, conveys the idea that there is yet another separation, and that could only be separation of the soul from the Spirit of God. As such, it denotes spiritual death. Further apothnesko was written as apeoanon, in the first person singular aorist active indicative. That means that Paul is saying, "I actually died and was really separated." From whom is the question.

Zao was written zeso, in the first person singular, aorist, active, subjunctive. This means that Sha’uwl "believed that it was probable, but not certain," that the subject (in this case God) at "some undisclosed time" caused him "to live, breathe, and behave in a particular manner."

Finally, sustauroo, translated "was crucified with," but literally meaning "to be literally affixed to the pillar upright with," wasn’t actually written in the oldest Greek witness of this letter. A placeholder, using the capitalized letter Omega with a horizontal line over it designating an association with Divinity, was used instead, but this time with the addition of suneotrai. And that means that there is something about the word which isn’t properly conveyed in Greek, and which is better understood in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures.

If the placeholder and word had been written out, it would have read sunestauromai. Sun means "with" in Greek. And estauromai is the first person singular perfect passive indicative form of stauroo, which is the verb form of stauros, meaning "to affix to an upright pole." As we have learned, the indicative tense tells us that Paul actually believes that this really happened—that "I was literally crucified with Christo." The passive tense tells us that Paul believes that his God did this to him—that he was acted upon as opposed to choosing to do this himself. The perfect tense tells us that Paul believes that his crucifixion was endured right along with Christo’s—that it was perfectly completed in the past rendering the present state of affairs.

As I mentioned, the Greek verb itself, is derived from stauroo (to affix to a stake which is placed upright), and stauros (upright pole or pillar), which most all lexicons explain are themselves based upon the root histemi, meaning "to stand upright so as to enable others to stand." Stauros’ Hebrew equivalent is ‘edon, meaning "Upright Pillar," a Divine title which is applied to Yahweh and Yahshua in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms—and thus the reason for the Ω placeholder. The Hebrew equivalent of histemi is quwm, meaning "to stand up and establish."

These things known, let’s see if we can decode Sha’uwl’s riddle. "For (gar – then) by (dia) the Torah’s (nomou) law (nomo) I (ego) actually died and was separated (apothnesko – experienced the separation of soul from body, and spirit from soul). As a result of (hina) God (ΘΩ) I was actually crucified with (Ω suneotrai) Christo (ΧΡ – the Messiyah) so I may live (zao)." (Galatians 2:19)

While it is possible to "die and be separated from" Yahweh, this is the fate of those who dismantle the Torah, and not of those who observe it. Therefore, if we were to change the word order just a bit, Paul would have been completely right in saying: "For then as a result of and by way of the Torah’s law I died and was separated from God."

But he was not "actually crucified with the Messiyah." He wasn’t even a witness to the fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Bread, much less a beneficiary. For had he benefited from Passover, he would not have died. And if he had benefited from Unleavened Bread, he would not have been separated. That is the purpose of the first two Miqra’ey.

Instead of benefiting from the Messiyah’s fulfillment of Yahweh’s promises and plan, Sha’uwl wanted to be the Messiyah. So he imagined that he too had been crucified. Rather than accepting Yahweh’s gift, Sha’uwl wanted his believers to see him as the one who provided it.

But based upon his god’s credibility problem, even Sha’uwl was uncertain of his destiny. To which I have good news and bad news. Based upon his own admission of his spiritual affiliation, Sha’uwl lives and will never die. But he is separated from God, spending his eternity with Satan in the Abyss.  

According to Scripture, the Torah had to be fulfilled by Yahshua for us to live with God. While the Torah delineates the Way, that Way had to be facilitated for us to be acquitted. Yahweh provided the path and Yahshua paid the toll. Therefore, these aren’t separate things, one which kills and the other which provides life, but instead God’s depiction of the path to life which He, Himself, enabled.

During my first pass through this material, back when I was unaware of Sha’uwl’s purpose, and was earnestly trying to reconcile Galatians with the Torah, I wrote: "Left to his own devices, and following Rabbinical law, Sha’uwl died and was separated from God because his life was not lived in complete compliance with Yahweh’s Torah instructions. But as a result of the promises contained in the Torah, notably Passover and Unleavened Bread, the consequence and penalty for sin, death and separation, were endured by the Messiyah. Since God took our failings upon Himself, it is as if we were crucified with Him."

In support of Paul, I even postured this idea: "As a potentially interesting insight, I think that there might be a reason the law attributed with separation was masculine (nomou), while the law associated with life, and with the Messiyah’s fulfillment, was feminine (nomo). Perhaps that is because Towrah is a feminine noun, and the other "law" is associated with man, the very definition of masculine. In that way, the law which caused death and separation was the Talmud, something Sha’uwl had followed religiously, while the source of life was the Torah. (Although this means of differentiation works in this passage, and elsewhere, it’s not a universal fix to the confusion regarding which law Paul was addressing.)" Unfortunately, I was wrong. Both nomou and nomo are masculine, and the distinction is simply genitive versus dative. I was confused because there are two Greek letters for o: Omicron and Omega. The omicron nomo (νόμο) is feminine while the omega nomo (νόμῳ) is masculine. But I share this with you to affirm that my initial intent was to reconcile Paul with Yahweh, not associate Sha’uwl with Satan.

Recognizing what the Greek actually says, let’s consider whether the King James and Vulgate are, in the strict sense, translations. The KJV reads: "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." Now for the Latin Vulgate (at least as it has been revised): "For through the legem/law, I have become dead to the legi/law, so that I may live for God. I have been confixus/nailed to the cruci/cross with Christo." The NLT was similar, but then couldn’t restrain themselves and conspired to create a point of their own with: "For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God." But to be fair, these are all reasonably close to: "For then by the Torah’s law I actually died and was separated. As a result of God I was actually crucified with Christo so I might live."

As you may know, there were no numerical verse designations in manuscripts prior to the Geneva Bible published in the late 16^th century, but the spacing on P46 suggests that the sentence "I was crucified with the Messiyah" belongs with the placeholder for God, ΘΩ, and thus exists as part of the previous verse. However, most modern revisions remove the ΧΡ and Ω placeholders from the previous sentence and attach them to this next verse. Also, while the Textus Receptus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, and the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, as well as most all English translations read "the Son of God," the oldest witness to Sha’uwl’s letter does not.

On the pages of codex known as Papyrus 46 we find ΘΥ followed by "kai ΧΡΥ. "But now (de) I (ego) no longer (ouketi) live (zao). Now (de) I (ego) am alive (zao) in (en) Christos (ΧΣ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christos used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title "the Implement of Yah"). That is (os) because (de) now (nym – at the present) [my] life (zao) is lived (zao) in (en) [the] flesh (sarx) by (en) believing (pistis – meant trusting and relying, but was changed to faith) that God (ΘΥ) and (kai) Christou (ΧΡΥ – the Messiyah) love (agapao – tangibly demonstrate their devotion to me, regard me as valuable, welcome me, because they are entertained by and take pleasure in) me (ego), and also (kai) surrendered and entrusted (paradidomi – committed and delivered, even betrayed) Himself (heautou) for my sake (hyper ego)." (Galatians 2:20) I recognize that this passage doesn’t flow well in English, but I double checked the oldest manuscript, and this is exactly how it reads.

The key to understanding Sha’uwl’s intended message in the midst of his arrogant boast to have dismantled and dissolved the Torah, is to contemplate the meaning of paradidomi, translated "surrendered and entrusted." In the culture of the time, it was used to say that "someone was betrayed, delivered up, and handed over to the control of another."

Yahshua used the word in the context of "on the way to court with an adversary, settle differences expeditiously so that your accuser doesn’t  hand you over (paradidomi) to the judge, who will throw you into prison." (Matthew 5:25) It is used again in Mark 15:1 to say: "The leading priests and the rabbis of the religious law bound Yahshua, and handed Him over (paradidomi) to Pilate, the Roman governor."

Then in Luke 20:20 we find a dissertation on Sha’uwl’s duplicitous nature and intent: "And having observed Him closely (paratereo), they prepared and dispatched (apostello) spies (egkathetos – people who secretly lie in wait, and who cleverly bribe and entrap), themselves pretending (hypokrinomai – themselves duplicitous insincere hypocrites, using the statements of another to feign and separate under false pretenses) to be upright and justified (dikaios – Torah observant) in order to seize control of (epilambanomai – to take Him into their custody against His will along with) His word (logos – [Torah pronouncements]) so that they could betray Him, cause Him to surrender, and hand Him over to the control of (paradidomi) to the supreme ruling authority (arche): the governor with the freedom to judge (exousia)." Substitute Sha’uwl for "the duplicitous men separating people from God under false pretences," and Satan for "the supreme ruling authority," and you will understand the purpose of Galatians 2:20. And while I realize that this would be a stretch as an isolated passage, it’s the only reasonable interpretation in this context.

Paradidomi is a compound of para, "over to the side of" and didomi, "to give." Written in the aorist, active, participle, masculine, singular, genitive, as paradontos, the verbal adjective is being restricted to a singular individual and relationship. It thus conveys that the Messiyah was betrayed, that He surrendered, and then entrusted Himself to Sha’uwl. And thereby, Sha’uwl no longer lived. He was now "Christis" in the flesh.

There is an interesting "catch 22" evident here in my diagnosis of Pauline Doctrine. It’s obvious that this letter was poorly written, making the specificity and frequency of my criticisms seem a bit unfair. And if Paul were an average fellow, unskilled in the art of communication, who openly stated that these letters contained his opinions, then the strident nature of this evaluation would be obnoxious. But that is not the case. Paul has repeatedly protested that he is the Messiyah’s Apostle, and that his message is from God. So from that perspective, considering the consequence, every misstatement and errant nuance is worth evaluating.

And all of this brings us face to face with something else Paul got wrong, and which has subsequently influenced Christianity. In this verse, and in countless others like it, the Messiyah has become the focus, when our eyes should be on the Father. Yahshua is Yahweh’s implement, a tool. He is a substantially diminished manifestation, or representation of God. The Christian perspective is like being captivated by a toenail while ignoring the person from whom it has emerged. Yahshua is important, but immeasurably less so than Yahweh.

Additionally, this passage says: "God (ΘΥ) and (kai) the Cristou (ΧΡΥ) love." "And" tends to separate them as if they were different individuals, and they are not. It would be more accurate, and more instructive, to say, "Yahshua was set-apart from Yahweh to demonstrate His love for us."

I wish that Paul had said: "the moment we come to trust and rely upon Yahweh, we cease to be mortal. We become a new creation, one which lives eternally with God. And this is possible because Yahweh tangibly demonstrated His love for us, regarding us sufficiently valuable to pay the price to redeem us, enabling God to welcome us because He is entertained by, and takes great pleasure in, our relationship with Him." But he didn’t.

The KJV’s rendering has become so familiar to us, it’s a shame that it isn’t accurate: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads: "I live; yet now, it is not I, but truly Christus, who lives in me. And though I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God (in fide vivo Filii Dei), who loved me and who delivered himself for me." In the NLT we find: "My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." While much of this is wrong, to their credit, at least on this occasion, team Tyndale actually translated pistis correctly.

The first portion of what follows would have been sage advice if not for the name of the pagan goddess. Apart from the invalid association, and violation of the First, Second, Third, and Ninth Commandments, it would otherwise underscore the life and death decision we are all given the opportunity to evaluate. "Do not (ou) reject or disregard (atheteo – consider as invalid or refuse to recognize) the (o) Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis) of God (ΘΥ)."

The second half of this passage is more challenging to interpret, because of its hypothetical nature, and because the identity of the law Sha’uwl was addressing is only distinguished by the genitive nature of the noun. "Because (gar) if (ei) righteousness (dikaiosyne – becoming acceptable and upright, being exposed in a court and still being able to enter a plea acceptable to a just judge) comes by way of (dia) the Torah (nomou – the Law (restricted to a singular and specific characterization in the genitive)), the possibility exists (ara – perhaps, then, accordingly and consequently) [that] Christos (ΧΡΣ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christos used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title "the Implement of Yah") died and was separated (apothnesko) for no reason (dorean – undeservedly, without purpose)." (Galatians 2:21)

The best possible spin we could put on this is to suppose that the point Paul was trying to make was that if it were possible for a single, hypothetical man, woman, or child to do everything the "Torah" says, they wouldn’t need a savior. So this might be inferring that if one person could use "the Torah" to save themselves, everyone could, and thus there would not have been a legitimate reason for Yahshua to have endured the agony of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Said another way, from a slightly different perspective, if the Yisra’elite slaves could have escaped from Egypt, endured the hardships of the wilderness, and then established themselves as an independent nation and survived in the Middle East, they wouldn’t have needed Yahweh’s assistance.

If Paul had wanted to say that fundamentalists who adhere to the Oral Law cannot save themselves, because Rabbinic teaching is in conflict with the Torah, then he should have said so—and provided examples as Yahshua had done. And if Paul had wanted to say that we need a savior because we aren’t perfect, he could easily have phrased this in a way that everyone could understand. But he didn’t. Instead he postured an ill-defined hypothetical, one which pits the "Torah" against the Messiyah’s fulfillment of it, and which ignores the conflict between human nature and Godly perfection.

The perception of most Christians is that Paul wrote this to undermine the value of the Torah, and thereby elevate the merit of the "Christ’s" sacrifice on the "cross." In their mind, it is as if there was no connection between the two. But without the Torah, Yahshua’s sacrifice was in vain. Unless Yahweh had a plan to reconcile sinful man, one which Yahshua enabled, then "the cross" was nothing more than a gruesome scene.

Since this is literally life and death, let’s be as clear and unequivocal as possible. Yahshua’s existence, His words, His deeds, and His sacrifice, are irrelevant without the Torah. Apart from the Torah, Yahshua’s life was a lie and His sacrifice was a complete waste of time. If not for the Torah no one would have been saved by Yahshua. Therefore, as a standalone concept, "believing in Jesus Christ" is as meaningless as the names are erroneous.

The only reasons that Yahshua’s life matters are that it was lived in complete and total compliance with the Torah, providing us with an example of how to live in harmony with God’s Word. And, by honoring the Torah’s promises, Yahshua paid the penalty for our noncompliance, making it possible for a just God to accept otherwise flawed children into His presence. So it is by viewing Yahshua’s life from the perspective of Yahweh’s Word, from the viewpoint of the Torah, that we can come to appreciate who He is and understand what He did. Then, based upon this understanding we have the opportunity to trust and rely upon Yahweh’s provision as it is presented in the Torah.

Yahweh has conceived, articulated, and facilitated a seven-step path for us to follow to achieve His ultimate objective, which is to camp out with His creation. Yahweh calls His Way the Miqra’ey—Called-Out Assemblies. Yahshua fulfilled the first three, Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, which is the reason He was sent. 

Worse even than the senseless carnage which would otherwise be the legacy of Yahshua’s sacrifice, by devaluing the Torah relative to its fulfillment, this line of reasoning pits Sha’uwl against the Messiyah. Yahshua explained His sacrifice from the perspective of the Torah, and Paul is attempting to sever that connection. As such, there is no way for Paul to be right, to be trustworthy. It is irrational to claim that Yahshua is God, to claim to be Yahshua’s apostle, and then contradict Yahshua.

It is impossible for anyone, to "frustrate the mercy of God," so why does the KJV say: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." The source of the King James translation is obvious. The Latin Vulgate reads: "I do not reject the grace of God (gratiam Dei). For if justice is through the legem/law, then Christus died in vain."

If the NLT’s rendering is accurate, then Paul’s intent was as I have stated: to devalue the Torah and to sever the connection between the path to salvation delineated in God’s Word from the toll Yahshua paid along the Way. "I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die." The exact opposite is true. The Torah is the reason for the Messiyah’s sacrifice.

Gathering this portion of Paul’s thesis together, and adjusting the text to more accurately reflect his intended message based upon the whole cloth of this epistle, the ultimate abomination of desolation reads:

"Know that because no man is vindicated or justified by means of the assigned tasks, accomplishments, and activities (and by observing the edicts) of the Torah if not through faith in Christon ‘Iesoun. And we in Christon ‘Iesoun believe in order to be saved out of faith in Christou, and not out of observing the Torah, because out of doing what the Torah says, no aspect of flesh is judged innocent. (2:16) But if you are trying to find salvation in Christo, but are found to be sinning (by observing the Torah), shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos serves (the Torah’s) sinful nature, and not my desire for the possibility of him advocating a different way? (2:17) Because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled, if this home and household is rebuilt anew, I myself demonstrate, establish, and recommend Torah-lessness and transgression. (2:18) For then by the Torah’s law I actually died and was separated. As a result of God I was actually crucified with Christo so I might live. (2:19) But now I no longer live. Now I am alive in Christis. That is because now, at the present, my life is lived in the flesh by believing that God and Christou love me, and also surrendered and delivered himself for my sake. (2:20) Do not reject the Charis/Grace of God, because if righteousness comes by way of the Torah, the possibility exists that Christos died and was separated for no reason and without any purpose." (2:21)

After enduring this breathtakingly toxic display of Sha’uwl’s egotism in dismissing Yahweh’s Torah; here is a breath of fresh air from Yahshua’s Rock, Shim’own Kephas. Speaking of Paulos, it’s now apparent that Peter was right: "Paulos, through the human wisdom that had been given to him, wrote to you. And even as in all [Paulos’] epistles, inside they use circular reasoning to speak around and about this [God’s steadfastness with regard to the process of our salvation as delineated in the Torah]. Within them, that is to say, there are some things difficult to understand, hard to comprehend, and detrimental to understanding, which the uneducated and ignorant, as well as those who are malleable misinterpret and distort, also like the remaining inferior writings, to the consequence of their own individual destruction and annihilation. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this in advance, be on your guard, keep away from this and be especially observant, in order that you are not led astray, associating with the deception and delusion of Torah-lessness, forsaking and falling away from one’s individual guarantee of salvation and perseverance." (2 Peter 3:15-17)

The third chapter of Galatians opens with some fairly insulting language. "O (o) ignorant and irrational (anoetos – foolish and senseless, lacking knowledge and understanding, unintelligent and unreasonable) Galatians (Galates – land of the Gauls; from Galatia, pronounced gal-at-ee-ah). Who (tis) bewitched and deceived (baskaino – practiced black magic and deluded you, brought evil upon you and seduced) you (humeis)?" (Galatians 3:1) This sounds eerily similar to the ongoing rant between Muhammad and the Meccans in the Qur’an.

Anoetos is a compound of a, the Greek form of negation, and noeo, "the ability to be judgmental, to be discerning, to perceive, think, and understand." I am quite familiar with the term, because I use its English equivalent quite often when speaking of those bewitched by religion and politics in America and the West. No amount of fact or reason has any influence on the preponderance of people living today. They remain blissfully ignorant. And sadly, even when the evidence needed to make an informed decision is provided, because they are irrational as well, they are incapable of processing the data logically. Far too many people have become: ignorant and irrational.

I am also familiar with baskaino, translated "bewitched and deceived." Based upon phasko, it tells us that Paul thought that the Galatians had been fooled by people who "affirmed that what they were alleging and professing" was Godly, when it, at least according to Paul, was Satanic. Pastors and politicians fit this bogus bill today.

But, based upon the evidence at our disposal, based upon what we learned in Acts and have read thus far in Galatians, I’m convinced that the opposite of what Paul was inferring was actually true. Those Paul was slandering told the Galatians that Yahweh had instructed us to observe the Torah, while Paul has sought to dissolve and dismantle the Word of God. So it is like the Qur’an once again. The one who was doing the misleading, in that case Muhammad, recited words he attributed to God which were designed to convince his audience that the liar (Muhammad) was telling the truth, and that those who were telling the truth (the Meccans) were actually lying. And now it appears as if Paul invented the trick to achieve the same result. And like Muhammad, Paul got away with it. Billions believe that both liars were the Messenger of God.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that it is Godly to expose and condemn ignorance, as well as failures in thinking. It is even Godly to infer that people have been bewitched and deceived by religion and politics. And the reason that this is so, is because it is merciful and compassionate to hurt someone’s feelings if in the process you prompt them to change their thinking and their affiliations, so that they might come to know Yahweh, and thus save their soul.

Had Sha’uwl told the whole truth, as opposed to weaving his lies in and out of God’s Torah tapestry, I would have admired him for having the compassion and courage to confront ignorance, irrationality, and the bewitching nature of religion, even though it would alienate him from many. We should never care what people think about us, or be concerned over how we will be received, but instead care about sharing what we know about Yahweh, and telling people who He is and what He has done.

And that is precisely what Sha’uwl did next...well, sort of. It is one thing to say that Yahshua’s life and deeds were predicted in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It is another to explain the nature of the prophecies He fulfilled—especially those associated with our salvation, such as Passover and Unleavened Bread. "‘Iesous Christos (ΧΡΣ ΙΗΣ – divine placeholders for Messiyah (the Implement of Yah), and Yahushua (Yah Saves); but since this epistle has disassociated Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Towrah, it’s misleading to connect that which he has severed), who (os) accordingly, before (kata) [your] eyes (ophthalmos) was described and predicted in writing (prographo – was documented in written prophecy) to be affixed to an upright pillar (EΣTPOΣ – placeholder for stauroo)." (Galatians 3:1)

Prographo, rendered "was described and predicted in writing," is a compound of pro, meaning "before hand" and grapho, the Greek word for "writing" which is often the Renewed Covenant’s designated term for "written Scripture." And while every significant aspect of the Messiyah Yahshua’s life was predicted in advance, and in writing, no aspect of it was fulfilled before Sha’uwl’s eyes or those of the Galatians. Moreover, if Sha’uwl had wanted to resolve Galatian "ignorance," and actually encourage them to be "rational," he would have cited any one of the hundreds of prophecies predicting Yahshua’s fulfillment of Passover. But he didn’t, and that speaks volumes. We should never call someone "ignorant and irrational" unless we are prepared to resolve their condition.

The vaccine which has the power to immunize people from the beguiling and bewitching influences of political and religious pontifications is Scripture—especially prophetic depictions of the Messiyah. In this regard, Yahshua consistently explained His life in the context of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. So, if you want to inoculate yourself from man’s ignorant and irrational schemes, if you want to understand Yahweh’s merciful gift of salvation, if you want to benefit from the path home God has provided, if you want to capitalize on Yahshua’s sacrifice, turn to the seven Called-Out Assemblies presented in the heart of the Torah and rely upon the Messiyah’s fulfillment of these prophetic announcements.

Or you could choose to wallow in the swamp of man’s translations. And speaking of them, you should know that there is no mention whatsoever of "the truth," or of "obedience" in the Greek text in reference to this passage. So, not only are the King James and Vulgate erroneous, the fact that their errors are identical, is proof that they are associated with one another, as opposed to being related to the Greek text. KJV: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?" LV: "O senseless Galatæ, who has so fascinated you that you would not obey the truth, even though Iesus Christus has been presented before your eyes, crucifixus/crucified among you?"

The way the NLT dispenses with the Scriptural references is indeed bewitching: "Oh, foolish Galatians! Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a picture of his death on the cross." Speaking of deceiving with "a picture of his death on the cross," there is no reference to a "picture" in the passage, and the image of a "cross" would be pagan. Then adding insult to injury, the placeholder (EΣTPOΣ) represented a verb, not a noun (and thus not "cross"), and therefore the reference was to an event, not an icon or graven image.

Sha’uwl continues by asking a rhetorical question: "This (houtos) alone (monon – only) I wish (thelo – want and desire) to learn (manthano – understand): from (apo) out of (ek) your (sy) observance of (ergon - the assigned tasks, accomplishments, and activities and works of) the Towrah ([n]omou – the Law, (genitive: singular and specific)) did you acquire (lambano – grasp hold of and receive, select and experience, obtain and become possessed by) the Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝΑ – placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma), or (e) out of (ek – from) listening to (akoe – hearing and responding to) that which can be believed (pistis – meaning that which is trustworthy and true, but corrupted to mean faith as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles)?" (Galatians 3:2)

In the vernacular of our day, the question was: "Could you just answer one question for me: did you receive the Spirit as a result of something you found in the Torah, or because you decided to believe the message I presented to you?" As such, Sha’uwl has openly admitted that his preaching differed materially from Yahweh’s Word, and has inferred that his message was more effective. That is a confession. Paul is guilty of committing the most heinous of all crimes: being a false prophet. Case closed.

Before we contemplate Yahshua’s position on this topic, let’s review the Christian translations of the false prophet’s statements. The KJV published: "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" "Hearing of faith" is a very odd concept, one obviously inherited from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: "I wish to know only this from you: Did you receive the Spiritum/Spirit by the works of the law (operibus legis), or by the hearing of faith (auditu fidei)?"

Since the New Living Translation theologians know that there was no modifier associated with the placeholder for "Spirit" in this passage, why do you suppose they added the pagan term "Holy" before Her title? Additionally, do you suppose that men who purported to be Greek scholars didn’t know that there was no reference in this passage to "obeying," no reference to "Moses’" name, no answer to the rhetorical question being asked? Did they lack the professional integrity to explain that pistis has evolved to mean "believed," but at the time this was written meant "trusted?" "Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ."

So I suppose another question is in order: why did the NLT change Paul’s message? Since they call Galatians "Scripture," are they suggesting that their god is such a poor communicator that he needs their help? Or are they knowingly advancing a fraud, trying simultaneously to alter Paul’s message to suit their religion while at the same time elevating the writing quality in order to make their corruption seem credible? Or are they just frustrated authors, and saw this as an opportunity to publish their first novel?

Yahweh introduced the gender, power, scope, and purpose of the "Ruwach of ‘Elohym" to us in the opening statement of the Torah. Let’s listen to God: "In the beginning (re’shiyth – the first born) the Almighty (‘elohym – God) created (bara’ – fashioned and conceived, giving birth to) and was alongside and closely associated with (‘eth ‘eth) the heavens (samayim – the spiritual abode of God) and the material realm (‘erets – the physical world). And the material realm (‘erets – the physical world) existed (hayah) as a formless (tohuw – in a state of lifeless confusion, as something which would dissipate into nothingness without energy added), empty void (bohuw – a deserted and unoccupied space, desolate of life), and darkness (hosek – ignorance and obscurity, without light) was upon (‘al) the presence (paneh – face and appearance) of great commotion (tahowm – descriptive of She’owl and the Abyss; from huwm: that which is deeply anxious, agitated, perplexed, loud and distracting). The Almighty’s (‘elohym – God’s) Ruwach/Spirit (ruwach – a manifestation of the divine power of God; from ruwych: that which can be accepted and is acceptable, that which can be touched and tangibly experienced, that which is delightful, and aids in perception and understanding, that which is enormous and brings relief, revival, renewal, restoration and the breath of life; a feminine noun) hovered over, ministered to, and cleansed (rachap – caringly moved over, served, washed, and purified) according to (‘al) the presence (paneh – face and appearance) of the waters (mayim). And God (‘elohym – the Almighty) said (‘amar – spoke, communicated, and declared) let there be (hayah) light (‘owr) and there was light (‘owr). And God (‘elohym) saw (ra’ah) relationally that (‘eth) the light (‘owr) indeed (ky) was good, beneficial, valuable, festive, beautiful, agreeable, enjoyable, nurturing, and pleasing (towb), and the Almighty (‘elohym) divided and separated (badal – drew a distinction between, severed His relationship from one side, and withdrew) between and among (bayin) the light (‘owr – that which shines, brightens, illuminates, enlightens, provides sight, warms, and enables life and growth) and the darkness (hosek – obscurity, the absence of light, and people who are unknown)." (Genesis 1:1-4)

Therefore, in the Torah’s opening statement, the Ruwach Spirit is credited with the "formation," and thus "birth," of the universe—giving it life, affirming Her role as our Spiritual Mother. Bigger than all of the galaxies combined, She (Ruwach is a feminine noun) filled the "void," just as she does in our lives, enabling us to live eternally in Yahweh’s presence. And as a result of Her work, Her enlightenment, we would be able to avoid "the ignorant confusion" of lifeless deceptions, and thus preclude "dissipating into nothingness," and descending into the "Abyss." By "hovering over" the "darkness" She perfected creation, just as Her Garment of "Light" makes us look perfect in God’s eyes.

The Ruwach is a "manifestation of God’s power who we can personally experience." If "we accept Her, She makes us acceptable." The Ruwach "renews and restores us, reconciling us with God." She is not only the "breath of eternal life," She "enlightens us."

The rach root of rachap, translated "hovered over, ministered to, and cleansed," conveys many additional Spiritual insights. Rachamah depicts a "mother’s womb." Rechem is a matrix, the source from which life originates, develops, and takes form." Rachmany is a "compassionate woman," whereas rachuwm is simply "compassion." Racham is "love, deep, tender, affectionate, nurturing, familial, compassionate, merciful, and motherly love." Rachats is a "trusted female servant at a bath who washes and cleanses." Rachsah is "to wash and cleanse, removing all contaminants and filth." Rachem is "mercy." Rachab is "expansive, enormous in scope and breadth," even "enlarging, growing, and liberating." Rachash is "to move and stir, to awaken, invigorate, and motivate." A rachath is a feminine noun depicting a "winnowing implement, something which is used to separate the wheat from the chaff."

The Ruwach-Spirit is always associated with "waters," as She is here, because of their life-giving and cleansing properties. The Ruwach-Spirit is always associated with "light" as She is here, because "‘owr – is that which shines, brightens, illuminates, enlightens, provides sight, warms, and enables life and growth." And the Ruwach-Spirit is always associated with "separation" as She is here, because Yahweh sees people differently. He delights in those who are enveloped, covered, and adorned in the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light, but He does not know those shrouded in darkness.

Had Sha’uwl asked Yahuchanan about whether or not the Ruwach-Spirit can be acquired by observing the Torah, he might not have made his foolish statement. After all, the Apostle and Disciple transcribed the most important Spiritual conversation in human history. Let’s listen in:

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Yahushua at night and said, ‘We know you are from God, a teacher. For no man could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not inside of him.’

In reply Yahushua declared, ‘I teach you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born from above.’

‘How can a man be born when he is old?’ Nicodemus asked. ‘Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be reborn.’

Yahushua answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Ruwach-Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Ruwach-Spirit gives birth to Ruwach-Spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born from above.’ The Ruwach-Spirit blows like the wind and breathes life wherever He [God the Father] desires. You are endowed with the faculty to hear the voice and language, yet you do not know the household of God, what place He appears and becomes known or where He is going. In this manner he who is to have eternal life, each and everyone is born, brought forth, and delivered by the Ruwach-Spirit.’

Nicodemus said, ‘In what manner or way can this exist and happen?’

Yahushua answered, ‘You are Yisra’el’s teacher, and do you not understand this? ‘Most assuredly, I tell the truth concerning this. We speak of what and whom we know and bear witness to what and whom we have seen, but still you do not receive our witness.’ (Yahuchanan 3:1-12)

If I have spoken of the earthly and human and you do not trust Me, how then will you rely on Me if I speak of the heavenly? No one has ever ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moseh lifted up the snake in the desert, so likewise, in the same way and manner, the Son of Man must be lifted up, in order that everyone who relies on Him may have eternal life.

For Yahuweh so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever relies upon Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever relies upon Him is not judged, separated, or condemned, but whoever does not rely stands condemned already because he has not trusted in the name of God’s only Son.

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved the darkness instead of light, because their behavior was annoying. Everyone who practices evil (paulos – the corrupt, worthless and unhelpful way) hates the Light, and will not come into the Light concerned that his behavior and deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the Light, in order that it may be seen plainly, that what he has done is taking place in close proximity to God." (John 3:1-21)

As a Pharisee and a teacher in Yisra’el, Nicodemus had studied the Torah, and thus he should have known what the self-proclaimed Pharisee Apostle renounced, that one acquires enlightenment, truth, the Spirit, and salvation by closely observing the Torah.

In a case of darkness calling the night black, Sha’uwl repetitively ranted: "You are (eimi – exist as) ignorant and irrational (anoetos – lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically, foolish and senseless, dimwitted and devoid of understanding) in this way (houto). Having begun with (enarchomai – having commenced by way of) the Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝI – placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma), are you now (nyn) completed and established (epiteleo – finished and perfected, attaining the goal) [in the] flesh (sarx)?" (Galatians 3:3)

When considered together (Galatians 3:2 through 3:5), it becomes obvious that Paul is associating the Torah with the flesh, and disassociating both from the Spirit in unbridled Gnostic fashion. But the informed and rational recognize that the Set-Apart Spirit is a product of the Word and She completes and established us in the flesh. Further, once we have been born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, we are a completely new creation. Therefore, even if his connections and disassociations were accurate, which they are not, his premise is flawed. The moment we are born anew from above, we are established, we are eternal, and we are perfect, at least in our Heavenly Father’s eyes. And His perspective is the only one which counts. So, once we have begun with the Spirit, there is nothing left to do relative to our status, rendering Paul’s premise "ignorant and irrational."

In this case, it’s not that these translations are wrong; it’s the message they translated which is wrong. KJV: "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" LV: "Are you so foolish that, though you began with the Spirit, you would now end with the flesh?" But alas, there is an exception to every rule. NLT: "How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort?" It’s clearly Christians who make Christianity deceptive.

"Did you experience such a great thing (pascho toioutos – undergo or endure as much) for no purpose (eike – without result and in vain)? If (ei) indeed, it really was (ge) without result (eike ­– randomly, thoughtlessly, rashly, without a purpose or a plan)." (Galatians 3:4) Sha’uwl is insinuating that the Messiyah’s Passover and Unleavened Bread gifts can be accepted impulsively and thoughtlessly. And he is inferring that our Spiritual rebirth can be aborted. That isn’t so.

The primary meaning of pascho, rendered "undergo an experience," is not "suffer," at least in the derogatory sense, as our English translations suggest. There is no "suffering" involved in our Spiritual birth, or in our salvation (at least on our part). Affirming this truth, toioutos means "great." There is no greater, or more magnificent, experience than being born anew from above. It is transforming, renewing, and empowering. Rather than being a burden, it lifts all of life’s burdens from us. Why muddle around in the flesh when we can soar in the Spirit?

If Paul was speaking for God, he would not only have known if the Galatians had been born anew from above, he would have known that his question was unanswerable. It’s akin to asking someone if they have stopped beating their wife.  "Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain." LV: "Have you been suffering so much without a reason? If so, then it is in vain." Our salvation is a joyous affair, which is why Yahweh’s Called-Out Assemblies are Festival Feasts. Further, the message of Yowm Kippurym, the Day of Reconciliations, is that God suffered for us so that we might be able to celebrate enjoy Sukah—camping out with our Heavenly Father.

To their credit, the NLT didn’t fall into the same trap with suffer: "Have you experienced so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it?"

Paul cannot refrain from belittling the Torah. "Consequently (oun – therefore), does the [One who] provides (o epichoregeo – supplies, and furnishes abundantly, at His own expense) the Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝI – placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma) to you all (sou), and (kai) [who] brings about (energeo – causes and facilitates the effective use of) power and ability (dunamis – supernatural strength and inherent influence, resources, authority, capability, and might) in (en) yourselves (sou) [do so] from (ek) performing the assigned activities and tasks (ergon – observing) the Torah (nomou – the Law (singular genitive and thus specific)) or (e) from (ek) listening (akoe – hearing) and believing (pistis – was trust but migrated to faith)?" (Galatians 3:5)

Yahweh is trustworthy and reliable, as is His Torah. Yahshua is trustworthy and reliable because He is the human manifestation of the Word—the living embodiment of the Scriptures contained in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. The Set-Apart Spirit is trustworthy and reliable, because She is the one who interprets Scripture for us.

There is no dichotomy, however, no either or, between the Torah and the Spirit, between the Torah and Yahshua, between the Torah and God’s trustworthy and reliable message, between the Torah and possessing Yahweh’s power and ability. So it is unfortunate that Sha’uwl postured a conflict between them.

As plainly as words allow, Paul is saying that it is better to believe what he has verbally communicated than it is to trust what is written in the Torah. In fact, he is saying that believing his preaching provides direct access to spiritual power and that the Torah’s teaching does not. By making this claim, this distinction, Paul is stating that his message not only differs substantially from God’s, but also that his message is superior. If you believe him, you are a Christian.

Simply stated: Paul was attempting to devalue the Torah relative to his preaching. And having read both, that was an arrogant and foolish thing for him to do.

The most effective lies contain an element of truth. In this regard, the passage devoid of the either/or, might have had some value if it was interpreted to say that we are not empowered because of things we do, but instead based upon trusting in and relying upon the things Yahweh has done. In this light, dunamis, translated "power and ability," doesn’t mean "miracle," but instead, "sufficient power, strength, skill, resources, authority, and ability to accomplish whatever task is necessary." Deployed in the business of saving souls, this capability is infinitely superior to having the power to dazzle people with a display of miracles (signs and wonders in Paul’s parlance).

But even that hint of truth is obscured by these translations: KJV: "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" LV: First in Latin: "Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum, et operatur virtutes in vobis: ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei?" Now in English: "Therefore, does he who distributes the Spirit to you, and who works miracles among you, act by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?" And then in the fictional version (NLT): "I ask you again, does God give you the Holy Spirit and work miracles among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It is because you believe the message you heard about Christ."

The Spirit’s power in our lives is directly attributable to the Miqra’ey, which sit at the heart of the Towrah. For example, the power of the Set-Apart Spirit was unknown to the Called-Out Assembly until the fulfillment of the fourth Called-Out Assembly: Seven Sabbaths. As a direct result of the fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, the Set-Apart Spirit came upon the members of Yahweh’s family on Shabuwa, empowering them to convey God’s healing and beneficial message to the world.

Peter experienced the Seven Sabbaths transformation in person, just as he had witnessed the Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits requirements being fulfilled in advance of this day. Paul had missed them all, and as a result, seemed to be missing the most important connections between the Torah and Yahshua, between the Set-Apart Spirit and the Called-Out Assemblies, and between the Called-Out Assembly and our salvation.

On the predicted and promised day of the Spirit—Shabuwa—Yahweh enabled every member of His Called-Out Assembly to preach His saving message to people of every race in every language. The Spirit gave us the power to share Yahweh’s Torah, His prescriptions for living, with all mankind.

In that it is often helpful to see an author’s thoughts in unison, one sentence flowing to the next, the first five verses of Galatians three say:

"O ignorant and irrational Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you? ‘Iesous Christos, who accordingly, before your eyes was described and predicted in writing to be affixed to an upright pillar. (3:1) This alone I wish to learn: from out of your observance of the Torah did you acquire the Spirit, or out of listening to that which can be believed? (3:2) You are ignorant and irrational in this way. Having begun with the Spirit, are you now completed and established in the flesh? (3:3) Did you undergo such a great experience for no purpose? If indeed, it really was without result. (3:4) Consequently, does the One who provides the Spirit to you all, and who brings about power and ability in yourselves do so from observing the Torah or from hearing and believing?" (3:5)

Paraphrasing Scripture to advance his next point, Sha’uwl will say that Abraham had a relationship with Yahweh before the Torah was written. His intent will be to demonstrate that the Torah was therefore, irrelevant to the Covenant. He will continue to develop this theory throughout the remainder of this chapter and the next. His logic, however, will be so flawed it is a wonder he fooled so many people on such a crucial issue: the relationship between the Torah and Covenant.

Let’s listen now as this false prophet begins to weave the spell which has become known as Pauline Doctrine. "In as much as (kathos – to the degree that) Abraham (Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew, ‘ab and raham, meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father) believed (pisteuo – originally meant trusted; from pistis – to think so as to be persuaded by the evidence; but evolved to had faith in) God (ΘΩ), He (autos) was thought to be (logizomai – recorded, counted, and reasoned to be) upright (dikaiosune – just, pure, acceptable, and correct; from dikaios and dike, meaning in accord with the law)." (Galatians 3:6)

In the previous chapter, we were told by Peter, that Paul wrote around and about dikaiosune, the word translated "upright." We discovered that it "describes the manner in which souls are approved by God." Dikaiosune speaks of "thinking correctly so as to become acceptable." Its dikaios root conveys the idea of "becoming upright by observing God’s law." More to the point, dikaios is based upon dike and deiknuo which speak of "exposing the evidence to teach and prove that which is consistent with the law." And indeed, we will be required to think our way through this material, comparing Paul’s rhetoric to Yahweh’s testimony, if we are to avoid falling into the trap which has ensnared so many.

Once again, context is important. If we were to remove this testimony from that which has come before it, and more importantly, from that which will follow, we could easily be led to believe that Abraham was considered to be justified, not because of the law, but because of a promise God made to him. What makes this misconception so enticing is that it is so close to the truth. It veils the fact that Abraham was "upright and acceptable" because he trusted and relied upon the Author of the Covenant and Torah, which therefore makes this distinction irrelevant.

Further, it was possible for Abraham to trust Yahweh, because God spoke directly to him, walked with him, and ate with him. And while God personally revealed Himself to Abraham, he was not unique in this way. Yahweh has spoken to the rest of us through His Torah. He has personally revealed Himself to us through His Word made flesh—Yahshua. So we too can come to know Yahweh. We can come to trust Him, and as a result, we too can be considered upright.

But in actuality, Paul is trying to establish a distinction between the promises made to Abraham and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, as if they were separate things. And then he will use this illusion to demean the Torah by suggesting that Abraham didn’t need it to be right with God. But we do, and that is one of many crucial issues Paul has missed. We are incapable of becoming a beneficiary of the Covenant made with Abraham without understanding it, as well as the means God delineated to participate in it. Such information is found in just one place.

Further, this realization affirms that Peter was right with regard to his evaluation of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Paul uses "circular reasoning to speak around and about dikaiosune," but not in a positive sense as the rest of Peter’s assessment portends. Paul twists the facts, and then uses flawed reasoning to suggest that the Torah is worse than irrelevant; he will conclude that it is our foe.

Also at stake here is the meaning of pisteuo, which I have translated using its current meaning, "believed," as opposed to its original connotation: "to trust and rely upon." Pisteuo is from pistis, "to think so as to be persuaded by the evidence." But considering the fact that Sha’uwl never provides sufficient evidence "to trust," and his logic is too flawed "to rely," it is obvious that he intended to convey "faith and belief," concepts which thrive in the absence of information and reason.

In this case, Sha’uwl wants Christians to believe that Abraham had faith in God. And then he wants to equate Abraham’s alleged faith with the merits of believing his preaching. But in the context of meeting directly with God, conceiving a child at 90, and witnessing the salvation of his nephew and demise of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham’s firsthand experience trumps belief, destroying Sha’uwl’s equation.

In spite of what the Christian translations suggest, Abraham knew God; he walked, spoke, ate, and drank with God. Believing, which is accepting that which is not assured, was not relevant in his situation. KJV: "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." LV: "It is just as it was scriptum/written: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." NLT: "In the same way, ‘Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.’" In direct opposition to the NLT, KJV, and even the Qur’an, Abraham didn’t have a faith; he enjoyed a relationship. Abraham knew Yahweh, and as such, faith was beside the point.

It begs to be noted at this juncture, however, that Abraham’s name confirms that what we have come to call "grace" isn’t new, nor is it the lone prerogative of the "New Testament." The Covenant was established with a man whose name means "Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father."

Paul’s next point sounds reasonable until you really think about it. He said: "Come to know and recognize (ginosko – acquire the information necessary to learn and become aware, perceive, understand, and acknowledge) as a result (ara), out of (ek) that which (hoti) can be believed (pisteuo – trusted changed to faith as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles) [that] we can come to exist as (eimi) Abraham’s (Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew, ‘ab and raham, meaning the Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father’s) children (huios – sons)." (Galatians 3:7)

On my first pass through this material, trying to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, and not fully appreciating that this was but the preamble to Pauline Doctrine, I interpreted this verse metaphorically, seeing the potential symbolic merit in it. But then I realized that the symbolic meaning was torn asunder by its disassociation from the Torah. And the moment anyone steps beyond the metaphorical to the idea of physical lineage, the value of being a descendant dissipates.

So in actuality, what Sha’uwl wrote is not true, nor is it relevant. The message of the Covenant is that we can become Yahweh’s spiritual children as a result of trusting our Heavenly Father and relying upon His provision. Abraham was a mere mortal. No one can choose to be one of his descendants. And that means that the next plank in Paul’s thesis was wrong spiritually and literally.

For example, both of Abraham’s children, Ishma’el and Yitschaq, died, and one is still dead. So merely being Abraham’s child had no value beyond their temporal lives, no matter how upright Abraham may have been. The only reason Yitschaq still lives is that he personally benefited from Yahweh’s direct intervention and provision on Mount Mowriyah. It is the only way any of us can survive our mortal existence.

Abraham became the forefather of a great (in the sense of being important) family by way of Yitschaq, and a great (in the sense of being numerous) people by way of Ishma’el. But the distinction between them speaks only of their respective DNA, and their potential to inherit the Covenant. Yistchaq’s descendants became Yisra’elites, and thus Yahuwdym, for whom the Covenant was conceived. Ishma’el’s descendants became Arabs, and thus Muslims, those expressly excluded from the Covenant.

But simply being invited to participate in the Covenant, being hand delivered an invitation (the Torah), doesn’t in itself enable anyone to transcend mortality, no matter who they may be related to. It’s how we respond to Yahweh’s invitation that matters. We have the opportunity to answer God’s summons and participate in His Called-Out Assemblies, or we can dismiss the invitation, and believe someone else’s promises. We can accept Paul’s "Gospel of Grace" on faith, or we can come to know and trust Yahweh’s Torah. The choice is ours, and so are the consequences.

Metaphorically, we are Abraham’s children if we choose to accept the same Covenant he elected to participate in. This metaphor is derived from the fact that Abraham’s name affirms that he was a stand-in for our Merciful and Forgiving Heavenly Father. But since our adoption into Yahweh’s family is by way of the Covenant which was memorialized in the Torah, this is only possible when we make the association between Abraham and Yahweh, and between the Covenant and the Torah. And yet these are the very connections which Paul severs.

Beyond this, faith is for fools; it is the residue of ignorance, and it is the stuff of religion. A relationship with Yahweh is based upon knowing Him through His Word, and then trusting and relying upon that which we come to know. But according to the KJV: "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." LV: "Therefore, know that those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham." NLT: "The real children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God." They would all be wrong on all accounts.

Paraphrasing the Torah to prove a point, is a point lost on the preponderance of Christians. Paul said: "And then (de) the (o) Written Scripture (graphe – the written word; primarily used in the Renewed Covenant to describe the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms), foreseeing (proorao – with the ability to see things in advance of them occurring and thus realizing ahead of time) that (hoti) out of (ek) faith (pistis – reliance which evolved over time to belief), people from different races and places (ethnos – the nations) would be put right and become upright with (dikaioo – be acquitted, released, and set free, all guilt removed, to be rendered as, shown to be, and declared just, and in compliance with the law as a result of a judicial decision) God (ΘΣ), the beneficial and healing message was announced ahead of time to (proeuangelizomai) Abraham (Abraam – meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father), [saying] that (hoti) in (ev – with regard to and by) you (sy) all (pas) races (ethnos) will be blessed (emeulogeo – from eulogeo, meaning: will receive benefits and will be praised and celebrated through beneficial and healing words)." (Galatians 3:8)

If it were not for the point Paul was trying to make, this would have been a practically perfect presentation. The central message of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is Yahweh’s promised plan to reconcile fallen man back into a relationship with Him. The Covenant with Abraham was ratified on Mount Mowriyah, with a dress rehearsal, or prophetic picture if you prefer, of Passover, whereby Yahshua mercifully enabled this Familial Covenant Relationship forty Yowbel later on that same mountain by paying the toll Himself. The gift of salvation was conceived, presented, promised, predicted, and gift wrapped in the Torah so that it could be unveiled before us, opening our eyes.

But as we press on, we will quickly learn that this wasn’t what Paul was trying to say. He wants his audience to move from the oral promise made to Abraham to bless his descendants, directly to the Messiyah, bypassing the Torah along the way. It will be as if the promise made to Abraham was somehow in conflict with the only document which memorialized and explained it. And Sha’uwl wants his audience to equate listening to and believing him with Abraham’s alleged faith in what he heard from God. Sure, that’s a stupid argument, but it lies at the heart of Pauline Doctrine.

And while it is a small issue, "Scripture" does not "foresee." Yahweh foresees. And neither the Torah nor the Covenant exist because God foresaw that different people from different races would be blessed by way of the message delivered to Abraham. This is simply one of many benefits of the Covenant and Torah.

Along the way we have been confronted with a steady diet of pistis, a noun meaning "trust and reliance," and the related verb, pisteuo, meaning "to trust" and "to rely." Opening the pages of the world’s most acclaimed lexicons and Greek dictionaries, we discover that the primary definition of the noun and verb in the first-century CE, convey the ideas of "confidence, assurance, commitment, fidelity, reliability, proof, persuasion, conviction, truth, veracity, reality, that which can be known, that which can be trusted, that which evokes trust, that which can be relied upon as being dependable, that which is reliable, that which enables the absolute assurance of a promise being kept, and the use of one’s conscience to test and thus prove that something is reliable and true."

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament says of pistis and pisteuo: "The noun and verb occur 243 times each in the NT. Neither occurs in Second or Third John. In the Book of John, we only see the verb. And in Colossians, Philemon, Second Peter, and Revelation, only the noun is used. But since the same statement is expressed by the noun and verb, they should be considered together." The ED of the NT reveals: "They were not used as catchwords for those engaging in religious propaganda in the Hellenistic world, nor among those involved in Judaism. They were not religious terms, nor used in religious contexts."

And yet today, largely as a result of our errant religiously and politically inspired English translations, faith and religion have become synonymous. A person’s faith is their religion. And yet this view is completely incompatible with the Greek terms which were convoluted to give this erroneous impression. To a large degree, the religion of Christianity was founded upon this particular and peculiar translation error.

But was it an error? A careful reading of Galatians demonstrates that "faith" and "belief" are actually a more comfortable fit in every passage than "trust" or "reliance," because Paul never provides anything to trust or rely upon. Word meanings evolve over time, driven in part by the way that they are wielded by influential authors. In all likelihood, Paul’s epistles changed the way people came to view pistis, associating it over time with faith in his Gospel, as opposed to reliance on Yahweh’s testimony.

But that is now and this was then: according to the ED of the NT: "Pistis and pisteuo’s closest Hebrew equivalent would be ‘aman." ‘Aman means "to be firmly supported, established, built up, and nurtured by that which can be confidently trusted and relied upon." ‘Aman is used in connection with ‘edon, the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle. It conveys the idea that "something or someone is trustworthy and faithful, and thus reliable, so that you can depend upon them." As a verb, "‘aman means ‘to trust,’ and is used to say: ‘Daniel trusted God,’ in Daniel 6:23-24.". ‘Aman affirms that we can "depend upon someone and can give credence to their message, so long as it is understood." In fact, the Hebrew ‘aman is so similar to the Greek pistis, that the first proof text Paul will cite relative to trusting the Torah will conclude with ‘aman—"this is trustworthy and reliable."

The ED of the NT would go on to write: "In secular usage, pistis and pisteuo conveyed that someone should: "give credence to a message and to the messenger.... Depending upon the context, they mean ‘consider something true and trust it.’"

So now you know: pistis and pisteuo mean "trust and rely," not "belief or faith." But don’t be so sure, I can hear some of you saying. The Renewed Covenant text doesn’t seem to agree with the dictionaries and lexicons. Read Hebrews 10 and 11. And we’ll do just that, since Hebrews provides the ultimate laboratory in which to compare these terms. In one sentence in particular we find the Greek words for "true," "trust," "certainty," "belief," "faith," and "hope."

They are all developed in Hebrews 10:22-23, where "We approach and draw near with a genuine and true (alethinos – totally accurate, in absolute accord with the evidence, and in complete harmony with the one true name, and thus the opposite of a counterfeit) heart (kardia – inner nature) by trusting and relying (pistis) with complete certainty (plerophoria – in full assurance and total confidence and conviction based upon a complete understanding), cleansing and purifying (rhantizo – sprinkling and splashing) the heart (kardia – our inner nature) from a worthless and defective (poneros – morally corrupt and malicious) conscience (suneidesis – mental faculty used to distinguish right from wrong, truth from lies; from suneido, to see and be perceptive, to perceive, comprehend, and understand), and also bathing (louo – washing and cleaning a wound, removing deadly impurities from) the body (soma – physical being) [with] clean and pure (katharos) water, continuing to believe (katecho – holding fast and suppressing doubt) the profession of faith (homologia – the confession that you agree with others; from logos, spoken words, and homou, together with others in an assembly) and unwavering (aklines – and unfading) hope (elpis – the basis of anticipatory faith in an expectation as opposed to an actuality), because (gar) [we] are trusting and relying upon (pistos) the (o) messenger who announced the message (epangellomai – from epi, by way of, the aggelos, message and messenger)." (Hebrews 10:22-23)

"Truth" is from alethinos, which designates that which is "totally accurate and in absolute accord with the evidence." Alethinos describes that which is "real, genuine, sincere, honest, and true, sure and certain," and thus "trustworthy and dependable." It is "applied to someone who cannot lie." Strong’s Lexicon takes a slightly different tact, by saying that alethinos represents "the actual name and corresponding resemblance or manifestation." They say it is from alethes, meaning "true." Alethes in turn is a compound of a, the Greek negation, and lanthano, describing "that which is hidden, secret, and unknown." So alethinos is the opposite of being ignorant because someone has hidden the evidence. Simply stated, God is knowable because He has revealed Himself in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

"Complete certainty" is from plerophoria, which means "to have full assurance and total confidence in someone or something based upon a complete understanding." In other words, "to be convinced beyond any doubt based upon the totality of the evidence." Plerophoria is from plerophoreo, meaning: "full and complete assurance, lacking nothing." Its component parts delineate the path to assurance as well as its benefit. Plerophoria is from pleres, "full and complete" and phoreo, which conveys the ideas of "bearing constantly," and "wearing protective garments." To become "convinced," we must diligently seek and carefully observe the available evidence, considering it thoughtfully. And when the subject is the Torah, we learn to confidently trust Yahweh’s provision, and as a result, receive His protection. And the only way to obtain this level of conviction is to have access to the evidence and then the will and ability to consider it rationally and morally.

And that leads us to suneidesis, rendered "conscience." This is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew nesamah. It is the means Yahweh gave us to properly exercise freewill, because we use our conscience to "distinguish right from wrong and truth from lies." Suneidesis endows us with the ability to be moral and judgmental, to be discerning and discriminating, and to think rationally. It is derived from suneido, meaning "to closely observe so as to be perceptive, which in turn leads to understanding." This is the tool we must use to transition the void between the dark and mystical, unknown and nebulous realm of "belief and faith" to the enlightened realm of "trust and reliance" in that which is known and understood.

If our "suneidesis – conscience" is defective, corrupted, or unused, we are rendered incapable of bridging this gap, remaining mired in the myth of religion, which is why clerics teach that it is a sin to be judgmental and discriminating. It isn’t per chance that "Political Correctness," the replacement moral code of man, holds the same view, imploring its unthinking and amoral victims to be tolerant, and accepting of everything, even mutually exclusive ideas.

The next three words are all related and essential to our understanding. If there were no Greek words for "belief," "faith," and "hope," other than the misapplication of pistis, we would not be unable to be nearly as dogmatic in our translations. But all three exist within the Greek lexicon.

"Belief" is from katecho. It means "to hold fast and suppress doubt." It is a compound which begins with kata, the ubiquitous term denoting everything from "down, through, according to, and with regard to," but also "the opposite of and against." The suffix is echo, the most common Greek term denoting: "having, holding, possessing, keeping, owning, wearing, or clinging to." Katecho is therefore "being about desperately clinging to something, trying to hold on." Our lexicons tell us that someone who "katecho – believes" is likely to "quash messages" and "suppress evidence" they are uncomfortable considering. People who "believe" hold on to the object of their faith as if their soul depended upon the unremitting tightness of their grip as opposed to the trustworthiness and merit of the individual or thing to which or whom they are clinging.

The idea of a "profession of faith" hails from homologia. It speaks of the "group dynamics" inherent within religious "assemblies" where "pressure to agree with others" prompts a "spoken confession of faith." For example, devoted Catholics speak with one voice, with everyone conforming to the edicts of the Pope.

"Faith" in the sense of "hope," which is "a favorable expectation regarding an unknown or uncertain outcome," is from elpis—the final word in our linguistic laboratory. It expresses "an expectation based upon something which cannot be proven as opposed to something which is an actuality." Elpis is "an anticipatory prospect." And in this case, "hope" was strengthened by "aklines – unwavering and unfading," suggesting "unremitting faith in a hopeful outcome."

Had the author of Galatians wanted to convey the idea of "persuading someone to believe" he would have used peitheo. Derived from peitho, it means "to believe" and "to express one’s faith." Similarly, peitho speaks of "inducing a desired response" of "tranquillizing someone," and of "seducing them to yield," in addition to "pacifying or inciting them." However, peitho, and especially its derivative pepoitha, can communicate the somewhat more positive connotation of "convincing an audience to believe by way of one’s rhetoric."

So now that we have examined the full pallet of linguistic terms at Paul’s disposal, we can say with absolute confidence that pistis should have been used to convey "trust and reliance," not "faith, hope, or belief." But whether or not that was Paul’s intent is now just a rhetorical question, because most every Christian translation is convinced Paul meant pistis to mean "faith."

These lessons known, it’s time to consider the English and Latin variations of Galatians 3:8. The KJV reads: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Sha’uwl didn’t write "God," "heathen," "faith," or "gospel." So why does the King James contain these words? And why was the King James a willing accomplice in the advancement of Pauline Doctrine when reason dictates that there was no association between Abraham and faith, or between Abraham and Paul’s "Gospel?"

Regardless of the answers, two of the four corruptions found in the KJV came from the Roman Catholic Jerome. His Latin Vulgate says: "Thus Scriptura/ Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentes by faith, foretold to Abraham: ‘All nations shall be blessed in you.’"

It isn’t that the assemblage of pastors and authors responsible for the NLT didn’t know that pistis meant "trust and reliance;" it’s that saying so would be bad for business. "What’s more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would declare the Gentiles to be righteous because of their faith. God proclaimed this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’"

And while it is possible that none of these "scholars" did the research we have just done regarding "katecho – belief," "homologia – faith," and "elpis – hope," as compared to "pistis – trust and reliance," ignorance is neither ally nor excuse. They have passed off their product as Scripture, the inerrant Word of God, when it’s not even accurate.

Continuing to develop his thesis using this divisive line of reasoning, Sha’uwl told the Galatians: "As a result (hoste), out of (ek) faith and belief (pistis – that which can be known, trusted, and relied upon; but shaded by religious custom to mean faith and belief) we are blessed (eulogeo – receive benefits and are praised and celebrated by way of beneficial and healing words) together with (syn) the faithful and believing (pistos – trusting and relying changed to faithful and believing as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles) Abraham (Abraam – the Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father)." (Galatians 3:9)

On Mount Mowriyah, Abraham demonstrated that he was willing to trust Yahweh, not that he, himself, was trustworthy. So once again, Paul has twisted the Torah to serve his agenda. He has artificially elevated the status of a man instead of acknowledging the status of God.

As the years progressed, Abraham’s continued relationship with Yahweh was strengthened by God’s ability to fulfill His promises. As a result of what God had done for him, Abraham grew steadfast in his allegiance to the Covenant and was therefore willing to do whatever Yahweh asked of him, no matter the cost, even if it meant sacrificing his only son, Yitschaq.

But it was Yahweh, not Abraham, who proved that He was trustworthy and reliable, because He provided the sacrificial lamb this day, and again 2,000 years later. It was God, therefore, not man, who facilitated the promise He had made to bless all mankind.

The Familial Covenant Relationship was enabled on Mount Mowriyah by the trustworthy and reliable Yahweh. And we, by coming to know, by walking and talking with, and by trusting and relying upon the God revealed in this saga, one known to us because of the Torah, can become beneficiaries of that same Covenant.

There are seven essential stories in the Torah, and this is one of them. Yahweh explained how and why He created the universe and life in it. He told us about Eden, so that we might understand our relationship to God and appreciate the purpose of choice. This was frustrated by man, which is why we are regaled with the story of the Noah and his ark. Next, we are told about the Covenant, and we witness its promise in the life of Abraham.

As the narrative progresses, we see the Covenant expanded from an individual relationship to a family of people with the Exodus. It is the story of the journey out of religious and political oppression and into the Promised Land. Soon thereafter, the Torah was revealed to Moseh, and we learn who God is, what He wants, and how to join Him in paradise. And finally, in the very heart of the Torah, the Called-Out Assemblies are presented as the path to paradise and the means to salvation.

But some just never seem to get it. Mired in the milieu of religion, and unable to escape from the shadow of the Catholic Vulgate, the KJV says: "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." It was plagiarized from Jerome, who wrote: "And so, those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." NLT: "So all who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing Abraham received because of his faith." Even if the NLT hadn’t arbitrarily inserted "Christ," their willingness to replace "trust" with "faith" was sufficient to miss the point.

And now as we turn the page to a new chapter, let’s give Paul the last word:

"In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result, out of that which can be believed that we can come to exist as Abraham’s children. (3:7) And then the Written Scripture, foreseeing that out of faith, people from different races and places would be put right and become upright with God, the beneficial and healing message was announced ahead of time to Abraham, saying that in you all races will be blessed. (3:8) As a result, out of faith and belief we are blessed together with the faithful and believing Abraham." (3:9)