Chapter 7

Towrah

Prescriptions for Living

Are We Saved or Enslaved by Observing the Torah?...

At long last we have arrived at the brace of verses cited by a New Zealand Christian radio program which ultimately prompted this review of Galatians. The clerics’ message, one predicated upon Paul’s epistle, "stressed that we are not required to pay attention to the Torah because it had been replaced by faith in the Gospel of Grace." And while that is consistent with Sha’uwl’s message, it is stunning in a way. The verses he, and thus they, cited were set into the context of the story of Abraham, a relationship between God and man that would not have been known to us apart from the Torah.

Here is what the man who claimed to speak for God wrote: "For (gar) as long as (hosos – as much as) they exist (eisim) by means of (ek) doing the assigned tasks and activities of (ergon – by works and by observing in the sense of doing what is says in) the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are (eisin) under (hupo – influenced by the auspices of) a curse (katara – they are denounced and detested, and will not have their burdens lifted or their souls raised), because (gar) it is written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti): ‘All (pas) [are] accursed (epikataratos – exposed and subject to judgment, and bereaved of salvation) who (hos) do not (ou) remain alive in and who do not persevere with (emmeno – continue to be faithful to, hold fast to, carefully obey, recognizing the trustworthiness of, and continually abide with, keep, endure, and survive by way of) all (pas) that (tois) is written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (biblion – documented record) of the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), doing (poieomai) it (autos).’" (Galatians 3:10)

Paul’s opening salvo is in opposition to his justification. And since his justification is the Torah, it means that Paul’s message is contrary to Yahweh’s Word. As such, Galatians 3:10 is suicidal logically and spiritually.

On my first pass through this material I translated ergon nomou "legalistic works," in hopes of reconciling Paul’s opening statement with the Torah citation. In that way, the passage could be construed to say: "For as long as they are trying to save themselves by way of legalistic works they are cursed, because all are cursed who don’t remain alive in all that is written in the Torah, doing what it says." But the problem with that is "legalistic" is the most generic, nonspecific translation of "nomos – law" conceivable, while the singular genitive nature of nomou is restrictive and dictates one unique specific characterization. In the singular genitive case, even Rabbinical Law won’t work because it is a non-specific amalgamation of sources including the Oral Law, Rabbinical edicts, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, Halakah, and religious tradition.

Further, the Torah asks us to "ergon – accomplish specific assigned tasks and activities" like those associated with the Sabbath, Miqra’ey, and Yowbel years, the very things which Paul will specifically denounce. And due to Paul’s animosity for the Torah, he would have readily promoted the misconception that being "Torah observant" is to "perform rituals" as opposed to closely scrutinize all of the words.

And that leaves us with very strange bedfellows. Paul has said: "The Torah can’t save because all who are saved are saved by the Torah."

Having thought about this passage now for several months, having come to understand Paul’s strategy relative to dissolving and dismantling the Torah, and now viewing it within the context of Paul’s overall thesis as it is presented in Galatians 3:6 to 4:31, I am convinced that Paul was trying to use the Torah to demonstrate that the Torah was a curse. This is the most reasonable interpretation, because there isn’t another rational explanation for why Paul would juxtapose otherwise conflicting statements.

There are two proclamations delineated here. The first is false: "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse." The second is true: "All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." The first statement is from Paul. The second statement is from Yahweh. Since they are mutually exclusive, who do you think is trustworthy?

It’s true: we cannot work for our salvation. And the Torah is the source of life. But this context, and considering Paul’s word choices, we are precluded from thinking that this is what he intended to say in his proposition or justification. The only point of connection between his declaration and the Scriptural quotation is the word "curse." So his argument hinges upon it.

By citing a passage that includes "curse" and "Torah," Sha’uwl was hoping that his audience would believe that he was right in stating that "the Torah is a curse." Beyond the fact that his proof statement contains the same verb and noun of his proposition, it would otherwise have been counterproductive to cite Deuteronomy 27:26 in this context. After all, this verse says nothing about working for our salvation, and many other Torah passages do, especially those pertaining to the Sabbath and the special Sabbaths associated with the Miqra’ey. So, if Paul’s purpose had been to reinforce the idea that we cannot work for our salvation, he would have used a completely different proof text.

But if Paul was intending to say that "observing the Torah" cannot save us because we have to do "everything that is written in the scroll of the Torah" or be "accursed" by it, then the verse fits—at least in a twisted sort of way. Therefore, the most reasonable interpretation of Paul’s point is: since you can’t do everything the Torah says, the curse of the Torah is inevitable. (But be careful. The Torah has a specific solution for that problem.)

Translated "curse," in Sha’uwl’s proposition, it is fair to say that katara is a difficult term to nail down. It is an adjective, comprised of a compound of kata, meaning "according to," "down from," or "against," and ara, meaning "a prayer or supplication," which is "an earnest request." Ara is based upon airo, which conveys the ideas of "raising up, elevating, and lifting up, bearing someone’s burdens, taking them by the hand, and carrying them away." So, with the exception of "down from and against" all of this sounds pretty good. Therefore the "curse" connotation of this word is derived from kata negating the benefits of ara. And that means that the "curse" is "not being lifted up," and "not having one’s burdens carried away." It isn’t that the "accursed" are being punished, but instead, as a result of a just evaluation, they won’t receive any help. And, so that you know, epikataratos, appearing later in this same verse, is a derivative of katara.

In this light, the second half of this passage, which is a flawed Greek rendering of Deuteronomy 27:26, actually says: "Everyone (pas) is exposed and subject to judgment and bereaved of salvation (epikataratos) who does not remain alive in and who does not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." They "katara – are not going to have their prayers answered, burdens removed, or souls lifted." Clearly then, even in the Greek rendition, the Torah passage does not infer that a person has to do everything the Torah says, nor does it suggest that the Torah is a curse.

Before we contemplate the full intent of Sha’uwl’s message, and say for certain that we understand it, let’s consider the Scriptural verse he cited. The conversation begins with the first verse of the 27^th chapter, where a long list of blessings are delineated, all of which flow from observing the Torah. Then starting with the 9^th verse, we find that those "who live with God (Yisra’el)," are asked to "be silent and listen," because "this day you have become a family unto Yahuweh, your God. Listen to the voice of Yahuweh, your God, accomplish and celebrate (‘asah – gaining from and working) with (‘eth) His precepts (miswah – authoritative directions and prescriptions), and with (‘eth) His (huw’) decrees and clearly communicated thoughts (hoq – statutes and prescribed written decrees), which relationally (‘asher) I instruct (sawah – direct) you today." (Deuteronomy 27:9-10) In other words, our Heavenly Father is telling His children to listen to Him and to observe His Torah instructions.

From this point, Yahweh delineates a series of behaviors which He promises will engender an unfavorable response. "Cursed (‘arar – invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is the man who makes idols, and detestable crafted images with their hands..., who lightly esteems his Father and Mother..., who steals his neighbor’s property..., who misleads a blind person..., who denies justice to a stranger or foreigner, an orphan, or a widow..., who commits any form of incest..., who commits bestiality..., who strikes and beats his neighbor..., and who accepts a bribe and thereby harms an innocent person." (Deuteronomy 27:15-25)

We should not be surprised, therefore, that those who perpetrate these unsavory behaviors will be shunned by God. This list is then followed by a summary conclusion: "Cursed (‘arar – invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is whoever (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth) the words (dabar – the message) of this (zo’t) Towrah (towrah – law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), accomplishing and celebrating (‘asah – gaining from, doing useful and productive things, and working) with (‘eth) them (hem). And (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – nation) said (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – affirming, supportive, and verifiable).’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)

Therefore, we can now say for certain, that according to Yahweh: "Cursed are those who are not established and renewed by the message of the Torah, who do not celebrate and benefit from it.... This is "true and reliable, ‘aman!" And that means that any attack on the Torah, any belittlement of it, any attempt to negate or annul it, any statement which suggests that it is a curse, would be directly opposed to Yahweh’s position and Word.

Reinforcing this essential instruction, the very next verse says: "It shall exist (hayah – it was, is, and will be) that if you really listen to (sama’ sama’ – pay extremely close attention to and actually hear) the voice of Yahuweh, your God, and you revere, keep, and carefully observe (samar – closely examine and scrutinize, care about, cling to, become secure in, and benefit from) and do (‘asah – accomplish and celebrate) all My precepts (miswah – authoritative directions and prescriptions) that I instruct (sawah – and direct) you this day, Yahuweh, your God will place and appoint you (natan – grant you the opportunity to be) as the most high (‘elyon) among and above (‘al) all (kol) the nations (Gowym – people from different races and places) of the earth (‘erets). And flowing over you will be all of the blessings (barakah – beneficial promises and valuable gifts), continuing to overtake and inundate (nasag) you, if you listen to the voice of Yahuweh, your God." (Deuteronomy 28:1-2) The Torah’s message is as wonderful as it is consistent, as rewarding as it is enlightening. God just said that the Torah’s instructions exist to bless us.

Paul not only removed the cited Deuteronomy passage from the context which illuminated its meaning, he misquoted it. Please compare Paul’s: "All are accursed who do not continually obey all that is written in the scroll of the Law, doing it" (Galatians 3:10), with Yahweh’s: "Cursed is whoever is not established (quwm – restored, supported, caused to stand, lifted up, confirmed, and caused to endure) by the words (dabar – the message) of this Towrah (towrah), accomplishing and celebrating (‘asah – gaining from, doing useful and productive things, and working) with them." (Deuteronomy 27:26) This will not be the last time Sha’uwl will misquote the Torah. In fact, he will make a practice of it.

Along these lines, please make a note of Yahweh’s instruction in Deuteronomy 28:1-2, where He has asked us to "really listen to the voice of Yahuweh our God," repeating the request twice. Sha’uwl will twist Yahweh’s "listen to Me" into "the Torah cannot hear you" before we are through with Galatians.

By not bothering to examine the passage Sha’uwl cited in the Torah, as it was written in Hebrew, by not bothering to accurately translate emmeno, meaning "to remain alive in and persevere with" the Torah, Bacon’s King James, and Jerome’s Vulgate, misquoted Sha’uwl and Yahweh. And by doing so, they demeaned the source of life. KJV: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." LV: "For as many as are of the works of the law (operibus legis) are under a curse. For it has been written (Scriptum): "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things that have been written in the book of the Law (Libro legis), so as to do them."

After considerable study and thought, I’m convinced that while the New Living Translation is inconsistent with the Greek text, they have accurately conveyed Paul’s intended message: "But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’" You’ll notice of course, that the NLT had to corrupt the Deuteronomy quotation to keep it from refuting Paul’s thesis. But that is precisely what Paul wanted them to do, what he expected them to do, which is why he thought he could get away with citing a passage in support of his declaration when he knew that it was actually in direct opposition to it.

Paul’s strategy here, as it will be in each of the four passages which comprise the foundation of his thesis, will be to play off word pairs and patterns. In Galatians 3:10 the operative words associating Paul’s premise with the inaccurately cited verse are "cursed – law – doing." Each of these words appear in both statements, albeit to communicate different thoughts.

Unaware of Paul’s tactic, of his willingness to twist Scripture to serve his agenda, Christians have been cursed by the legacy of Galatians because they have now been led to believe that the Torah is not just irrelevant and passé, but is actually a curse to be avoided. And yet, God’s instruction is clear. It is neither hidden nor obscure. This is hard to misinterpret: "Cursed (invoking harm upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is whoever is not established (restored, supported, lifted up, and caused to endure) by the words of this Towrah (law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), accomplishing and celebrating with them. And the entire family said, ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (affirming, supportive, verifiable, and established).’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)

In light of this statement, and the ones which precede and follow it in Deuteronomy, Paul’s thesis is torn asunder. According to God, the Torah isn’t just the means to eternal life, it is the only way. And yet Christians the world over have managed to justify the juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive thoughts, one from man, the other from God, to infer that the Torah is a curse, rather than the source of salvation.

Continuing to play off word patterns, Sha’uwl said: "But (de – moreover) with (en – or in) that (oti) Law (nomo – Torah (dative tense use for an indirect object with which something is done)), no one (oudeis) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo – made or shown to be right, acquitted or set free) alongside (para) God (ΘΩ), because (oti) [it is] clearly evident (delos): ‘The upright and just (dikaios – those in accord with the standard) live (zao – are alive) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally trust and reliance but now faith and belief).’" (Galatians 3:11)

It’s not every day that we come across a quotation from Habakkuk. But we have one here. So, at the very least, we know that Sha’uwl knew the Tanakh.

Opening the Covenant Scriptures to Habakkuk 2:4, we discover that there are two aspects to this verse: the dark and the bright side. It begins: "Behold (hineh) the puffed up (‘apal): his soul (nepesh) is not (lo) considered to be upright (yasar – is not right, straightforward, on the straight and narrow path, in compliance with the law or approved) in (ba) him (huw’)."

‘Apal, literally means "puffed up," and thus it conveys the idea of "arrogance and pride"—the self-admitted hallmark of Sha’uwl’s nature. Curiously, however, it is also the Hebrew word for "hemorrhoid." And that may be because, from God’s perspective, such people are a royal pain in the behind. Those who are self-assured and self-reliant, seldom avail themselves of Yahweh’s help, and without His assistance, there is no salvation. And that is why souls of prideful people are considered lost.

On the bright side: "The upright and vindicated (sadyq – the innocent, just, and guiltless, those who are in accord with the standard, the acquitted who are declared "not guilty") live, are restored to life, and are kept alive (hayah/chayah – are revived, renewed, healed, nurtured, and preserved, having their lives sustained) by (ba) trusting that which is trustworthy and reliable (‘emunah – by finding security and safety in that which is firmly established, consistently faithful, always steadfast, helpful, healthy, beneficial, dependable, honest, and true)." (Habakkuk 2:4)

There are three things which are "consistently trustworthy and reliable, dependable, honest and true," and they are the same thing: Yahweh, the Torah, and Yahshua (the Word made flesh). So, if you think that "living, being restored to life, being kept alive, being renewed, being healed, nurtured, preserved, and sustained" is something you might be interested in, you now know who to trust and what to rely upon.

In many ways, faith is the antithesis of trust, just as belief is the inverse of reliance. This dichotomy exists because trust is predicated upon knowing, and upon understanding, while faith fills the voids associated with not knowing and understanding. From this perspective, the King James, a revision five times over of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, itself a blended translation three times over of the Hebrew text, is worse than misleading with regard to the Torah’s message. They are wrong. KJV: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith.’" The King James’ position is illogical, albeit since it’s a translation it is not their fault. Even if no one was justified by the Torah, that does not infer that the just shall live by faith. Rather than cause and effect, these are mutually exclusive ideas. It is like saying: Islam does not work so it is evident we should all be atheists.

The Roman Catholic text reads: "And, since in the law no one is justified with God, this is manifest: "For the just man lives by faith." That is not what Moseh or Habakkuk wrote, and it is not true. Nor is this: NLT: "So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’" And yet, Paul has not been "clear," because the passages he has quoted have contradicted his statements. Moreover, the Scriptures don’t say anything about "faith," much less that belief leads to being "righteous."

Here is something you may want to consider: if God’s Word can’t save us, then whose words can? Should "faith" actually be the key to salvation, who and what should we believe? Said another way: who would be so foolish as to believe a man who said that he spoke for a god who could not be trusted?

A very thoughtful friend sent a note in which he wrote: "When I was agnostic I would ask Christians why I should place my faith in their religion, and not believe the Islamic god, Buddha, or even the Hindu gods. Not one of them was ever able to give me a rational answer. All they could say was that they felt the presence of god in control of their lives. And yet I realized that most all good Muslims would say the same thing, with many of them willing to kill and die for their faith. So I came to realize that faith was this fuzzy nebulous concept which required no thought, no actual evidence, and no proof. With faith a person does not have to learn anything or ever think, which is obviously very appealing to people."

Sidestepping the religious interpretations and this conundrum for a moment, the instant we come to understand the nature of trust and reliance, and how trust differs from faith, some, but not all of what Sha’uwl was saying can be resolved—at least if we step back in time. At issue here is whether or not Paul intended for pistis to convey its primary meaning in the first-century CE, or whether he was hoping that most people would place their "faith" in him, and "believe" what he said, as the religious community has done. As a direct result of Paul’s letters, Christians refer to themselves as "believers," and use "faith" as if it were synonymous with their "religion."

So while I’ve done all of the etymological archeology necessary to prove that pistis meant "trust and reliance" to Greeks circa 50 CE, it would also be accurate to say that Paul’s letters caused its meaning to migrate to "faith and belief." As evidence, the Latin Vulgate, and every English bible translates pistis as such.

But if we dig just a bit deeper, we quickly discover why this has universally occurred. Paul never provides the basis of trust, which is evidence, or the basis of reliance, which is understanding. Paul’s letters are focused upon articulating his contrarian opinions, his unique conclusions, and his peculiar status. And he does this by way of rhetoric, not proof. Not once in the entirety of this epistle has Paul, or will Paul, provide appropriate evidence in the context of his use of pistis to properly exercise the original meaning. Even here where he has cited a portion of two verses, neither validates his point. Instead, both mirror his rhetoric. So, based upon the way that Paul has used pistis, a reader would be incapable of trusting his position, limiting "believers" to putting their "faith" in him.

Therefore, on my first and second edits of this material, I correctly translated pistis, reflecting its actual meaning circa 50CE: "trust and rely." But once I discovered that this meaning could not be achieved in the context of Galatians, I acquiesced to the modern interpretation: "faith and belief." After all, it would be absurd to ask someone to "trust or rely" without giving them sufficient evidence or reason to do so. But it would be perfectly appropriate to ask them to "believe" that which they do not know, that which was neither explained nor verified, much less rational.

Therefore, the most logical and informed conclusion based upon the corpus of evidence available to us is that Paul established his faith, his religion, with these words, rendered as he intended them:

"In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result of faith, 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 good news 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)

"For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (3:10) But with that Law, no one is vindicated or justified alongside God, because it is clearly evident: ‘The justified live by faith.’ (3:11)

Based upon that which has come before, and that which follows, this is what Paul meant to say. It is the basis of Pauline Doctrine. It is what Christians believe. It is wrong.

The Torah on the other hand says that Yahweh will shower us with blessings, and He will lead us to salvation, so long as we heed the advice He has shared in His Torah. And based upon the fulfilled prophecies He has articulated therein, we can trust Him, and rely upon Him.

That does not mean that we have to do everything God recommends. While heeding His Fatherly advice is always a good thing, our salvation is predicated upon understanding what He has said in His Torah sufficiently to trust and rely upon His message and plan. No one has ever been saved because they performed Passover perfectly. And yet, all who are saved trust in and rely upon Yahshua having performed Passover perfectly.

The reason Yahweh consistently uses the Hebrew word samar, meaning "observe," in connection with His Torah prescriptions, is because He wants us to "examine the Torah closely, to look at it intently, to investigate it thoroughly, to not only move in close and scrutinize its jots and tittles, but to step back and visualize how its threads are woven into a comprehensive and cohesive tapestry. In this regard, samar and sama’ are related concepts. Sama’ means "listen to" and samar means "observe." By combining our senses of hearing and sight our understanding grows.

By inspecting the Torah as if our life depended upon it, by listening to what Yahweh had to say, by understanding the message, and coming to know its Author, we are in a position to trust Him, and rely upon His Word. And that is the sum and substance of our salvation.

Yahweh told us what to eat and what to avoid consuming, not only because His advice, if heeded, would keep us healthy, and enable us to live longer, more enjoyable lives, but because He wants us to look at words as if they too were food. Consume too many unhealthy and poisonous words, and eventually they will kill you. Dine on the feast of trustworthy words in the Torah, and you will live. No one has ever been saved because they never ate pork, but if you roll around in the mud with pigs, you are going to die. There is a reason that Chawah, Esau, and Yahshua were tempted with things which were not good to eat. There are things which will kill us if we consume them. And nothing is more deadly than a deceitful and destructive message.

God wants us to know Him and understand His message, so that we can objectively and rationally choose to trust and rely upon Him. He doesn’t want us to jump into the darkness with our eyes closed, in a giant leap of faith, because that will get us killed. He wants us to walk with Him into the light, with our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds open and receptive to His message.

Thankfully, this next passage also includes a Covenant citation (albeit another truncated misquote) from the Torah (Leviticus 18:5), or we would be helpless to make sense of these words: "The Law (nomos – Torah (singular nominative or subject)) exists (eimi) not (ou) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis – originally "trust and reliance" but now "faith and belief"), but to the contrary (alla), ‘The (o) one who performs (poieomai – does) them (autos) lives (zao) in (en – with and by) them (autos).’" (Galatians 3:12)

To satisfy our quest for understanding, the Leviticus 18:5 passage is set into the context of: "You shall not do what is done (ka ma’aseh – anything similar to the works, customs, and traditions practiced) in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do anything similar to the works, customs, and traditions practiced (ka ma’aseh) in the land of Cana’an where I am bringing you. You shall not walk (halak – follow) in their laws, regulations, statutes, customs, or traditions (chaqah) against (‘eth) My stipulations, judgments, decisions, and prescriptions (misphat – plans and regulations, authoritative pronouncements). You shall celebrate and profit from (‘asah – do) My laws, statutes, regulations, and prescriptions (chaqah), observing (samar – closely and carefully examining) and walking (halak) in them. I am Yahweh, your God." (Leviticus 18:2-4)

This Fatherly advice serves as an open indictment against religion and politics. It is a call to expose and condemn most all of the rituals and festivals of Christendom.

Then, the cited verse reads: "Observe (samar – closely and carefully examine, keeping and revering) My prescriptions (chaqah) and my stipulations (misphat). Whoever (‘asher – relationally) works (‘asah – makes due and endeavors to complete useful tasks, celebrating and profiting from, preparing themselves and  accomplishing things of value, performing) with (‘eth) them, that man (‘adam – person) is restored to life and lives (hayah – is revived, renewed, nurtured, spared, kept alive, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish) in (ba) them (hemah). I am (‘any) Yahuweh." (Leviticus 18:5) So, rather than saying that the "law is dead," as Christians protest, Yahweh is telling us that restoration and life eternal are a direct derivative of observing His prescriptions and stipulations.

Paul has once again abbreviated, misquoted, and misapplied a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of a common word, this time "perform," in conjunction with "the Law" would be sufficient to convince the impressionable and ignorant, that God agrees with his position.

Paul said: "The ones who perform them live in them" in Galatians 3:12. Yahweh had Moseh write: "Whoever works (‘asah – makes due and endeavors to complete useful tasks, celebrating and profiting from, preparing themselves and  accomplishing things of value, performing) with them, that man is restored to life and lives (hayah – is revived, renewed, nurtured, spared, kept alive, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish) in them (hemah). I am (‘any) Yahuweh," in Leviticus 18:5. A horrible pattern is immerging.

And while Yahweh’s message is clear, Sha’uwl’s was not. What on earth does "the law exists not out of faith and belief or trust and reliance" mean? What is the connection or contrast between this clause and Yahweh’s statement in Leviticus? Why did Paul only misquote the end of the verse when its meaning is derived from its introduction?

Since Paul’s castrated citation of this passage was as inappropriate as his statement was undecipherable, let’s turn to those hypnotized by his spell for the Christian interpretation. The King James reads: "And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them." At least it’s clear that it was derived from the Latin Vulgate which says: "But the law is not of faith; instead, "he who does these things shall live by them."

The fervent Pauline apologists at the New Living Translation wrote: "This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’" Apart from changing "observe" to "obey," what the NLT has said is true, but not in the way they meant it. The "way of faith" is indeed so "different from the way of the Torah," that one is the opposite of the other, telling us that the way of faith actually leads in the opposite direction.

If nothing else we know that Peter was right in saying that Paul’s letters would be twisted, such that they would deceive the ignorant and malleable, robbing them of their salvation. But like so many prophecies, just because it’s true, doesn’t mean that anyone would want to be associated with its fulfillment.

In that Paul was fanning the flames he was using to burn Yahweh’s Torah, I am convinced that he meant to say: "The Torah is not like the way of faith, but to the contrary, it requires you to do what it says in order to live." (Galatians 3:12 reflecting Paul’s intended message.)

At this point we must ask ourselves: can Paul’s faith, his religion, be "unlike" "the Torah" and still facilitate a relationship with God? Is it possible that God could have endorsed a plan which is counter to the one He authored?

Irrespective of the answer (which is obvious), at least the battle lines have been drawn. According to Paul’s verses, it is now the Torah versus Christianity. We are now immersed in the Great Galatians Debate: Are we to trust Yahweh’s Torah or believe Paul’s Gospel of Grace?

Before we press on, since the context of the Leviticus passage was particularly germane to Paul’s Galatians epistle, a letter which serves as the foundation of Christendom, I’d like to reinforce Yahweh’s advice. God told His people not to follow the laws, customs, and traditions of the Egyptians and Cana’anites. That means we are to avoid doing things which were done in Babylon, Greece, and Rome whose civilizations either inspired or copied them. And that means we should not celebrate New Year’s Day, Saint Valentine’s Day, Lent, Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, nor gather in churches on Sundays.

The key to understanding this next verse is katara. As we discovered at the beginning of this discussion, kata is being used as a negation of ara, and its root, airo, and thus the "curse" is "not having one’s prayer answered, not having one’s burdens lifted, and not having one’s soul lifted up and carried away" to heaven.

"Christos (ΧΡΣ – placeholder for Messiyah [it is unlikely in this context that Sha’uwl would have associated the Messiyah with Yahweh]) redeemed (exagorazomai – worked effectively and advantageously to make use of the opportunity to pay the ransom to buy us back for Himself; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) us (ego) from (ek) the curse (katara – from not having our burdens lifted or our souls raised) [of] the (tov) Torah (nomou – the Law (singular genitive and thus specific)), coming to exist as (ginomai) a curse (katara – one who did not have our burdens lifted or His soul raised) for our sake (hyper ego), because (hoti) [it is] written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture, speaking of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms): ‘Accursed (epikataratos) [is] everyone (pas) [who] is hanging (kremamai) upon (epi) wood (xylon).’" (Galatians 3:13)

While an amplified definition of katara salvages Sha’uwl’s message, to be honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that even if Paul understood the word’s etymological composition (which is highly unlikely), he would have known that not one in a million people would read it that way. So, Paul is reaffirming his diagnosis: "the Torah is a curse."

As all good spellbinding liars have done throughout history, Paul has woven good thread and bad together in his tapestry. "The Messiyah redeemed us," but not "from the curse of the Torah." Our redemption was based upon "the Torah." Yahshua’s sacrifice apart from the Torah was useless, because there would have been no reason for it, nor any benefit from it. Unless the Messiyah fulfilled Passover and Unleavened Bread in perfect harmony with the Torah’s promises, His sacrifices were irrelevant. In fact, if the Torah didn’t depict Yahweh’s enduring plan of salvation, then Yahshua was a liar who should not be trusted.

Seeking the light through the fog of rhetoric, and as a result of extensive lexicon gymnastics, I choose to see this passage as Yahshua’s prayer, hoping that the pain of being the Passover Lamb could be avoided. But the Messiyah’s earnest plea for Yahweh’s Spirit to remain with Him while He hung on Golgotha’s wooden pole was not heeded. So just as Yahweh had planned and promised, our burdens were placed on Yahshua—literally associated with Him in accordance with His Second Samuel 11 prophecy. Yahweh could not absolve the Messiyah of punishment without reneging on His promises and violating His plan. As a result, Yahshua’s soul, rather than being lifted up, was sent down to She’owl. And because of what He did, the kata of ara was removed from us. Our prayers were answered, our souls were unburdened, and thus we are destined to rise.

The Scripture reference Sha’uwl quoted also comes from the Torah. It is Deuteronomy 21:23. And Sha’uwl was right in recognizing that it is Messianic. It tells us that Yahshua would be judged to be guilty of a sin worthy of death, that He would be suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set, that his lifeless body would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that as a result of having our sins associated with Him, the Messiyah would be the scorned and despised of God. But while the passage is powerful in the sweeping nature of its predictions, it was not even remotely appropriate within the context Paul used it.

The passage reads: "When (ky – indeed) it comes to pass (hayah) that (ba – in) an Individual (‘ysh – a Man) is judged (mispat – and sentenced) guilty of a sin (chata’) worthy of death (mawet), and He is put to death (muwth), and you suspend (talah – hang) Him on a wooden timber (‘esh – or tree), do not allow His dead body (nebelah – lifeless corpse) to stay overnight (lyn – remain after sunset) on the timber (‘esh – wood). Rather instead (ky) you shall surely prepare His dead body for a tomb and place it inside (qabar qabar ­– it is essential that you bury him in a sepulcher) on that same (huw’) day (yowm). Indeed because (ky) He who is hanged (talah – suspended and displayed) is the disparaged and degraded (qalalah – is the maligned, abused, vilified, scorned, cursed, and despised; from qalal, the one viewed and treated as if he were worthless and insignificant) of God (‘elohym). Do not cut into (‘eth) your soil (‘adamah) which relationally (‘asher) Yahuweh, your God (‘elohym) gave (natan) to you as an inheritance (nahalah), making it unclean (tame’ – impure and defiled)." (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) This is a prophetic picture of the Messiah’s fulfillment of the Torah’s presentation of Passover and Unleavened Bread. It confirms that the source of our salvation is based upon the very book Christians have been led to believe Paul is demeaning and annulling.

Recognizing that Sha’uwl quoted a snippet from the Deuteronomy passage, and recognizing that his Greek was a woefully inaccurate rendering of it, we are compelled once again to question the veracity of Paul’s letter and the nature of his intentions. There is a very significant difference between "Accursed everyone is hanging upon wood," and: "Indeed because He who is hanged (talah – suspended and displayed), is the disparaged and degraded (qalalah – is the maligned, abused, vilified, scorned, and despised; from qalal, the one viewed and treated as if he were worthless and insignificant) of God."

That means that either Sha’uwl misquoted the past three verses out of ignorance, something I doubt, or he purposefully changed them to suit his thesis, something I suspect. The only other option requires us to view most every Greek manuscript of the Renewed Covenant as being unreliable, including the highly professional Papyrus 46 codex dated to the vicinity of 85 CE.

In the referenced Hebrew passage, both "qalalah – disparaged" and "talah – hanged," are singular. And in the singular, it is Messianic, and appropriately cited, but not as "everyone," as it appears in Galatians. Moreover, the one who was scorned, was "of God" in the Hebrew, explaining the process, but not in the Greek.

Paul is stuck in a rut. Each Scriptural quotation has been chosen, not because it affirmed his position, but because of word linkage. He has gone from "cursed – law – doing," to "law versus faith – justified," to "law versus faith – performing," and then to "curse – comparing crucifixion to hanging on wood." In all four couplets, he has abridged the Scripture passage and then twisted it to make it appear as if his preaching was consistent with God’s teaching. To excuse this pattern of malfeasance as "being an honest mistake," "being God’s will," "being inspired by the Spirit," or "being a product of scribal error" is to be played for a fool.

Paul is a false prophet. He is purposefully misquoting and twisting Yahweh’s Word in order to establish his doctrine. This is evil in the worst sense of the word. And the consequence has been catastrophic. Billions of souls have been ensnared in this hideous trap.

Unwilling to consider the Greek or Hebrew text, and relying instead on the Latin Vulgate, the Christian theologians who created the revision known as the King James Bible missed the fact that the Torah predicted what Yahshua fulfilled: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’" If the King James has accurately reflected Paul’s thought, then the Torah is a curse. Rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahshua ransomed us from it. And rather than being the prefect Lamb of God, Yahshua embodied all the negativity a "curse" implies.

Had Jerome created his Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, as opposed to blending his preferred readings from Old Latin variations, he would have seen the light as well. But alas, he didn’t. "Christus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, since he became a curse for us. For it is scriptum/written: ‘Cursed is anyone who hangs from a tree.’"

The only curse pronounced by the Torah is upon those who disregard it, and Christians are wont to do just that. NLT: "But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’" When they added "he was hung on the cross," it became obvious that they noted the very same pattern I’ve been warning you about. The NLT translation team, like their patriarch, aren’t oblivious, they are mischievous.

At least Paul is consistent. This is also untrue. Abraham’s words do not comprise the "healing and beneficial message," Yahweh’s do. And there is no connection between Abraham’s statements and the Messiyah, but instead between Yahweh’s Word and the Messiyah. "As a result (hina), with reference to (eis) the people from different races and places (ethnos – the nations), the beneficial and healing word (eulogia – the favorable gift of the message; from eu and logos, beneficial and healing Word) of (toe) Abraham (Abraam – the Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate Father), came to exist (ginomai) in (en) Christo ‘Iesou (ΧΩ ΙΗΥ – 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.) in order to (hina) experience (lambano – select, receive, grasp hold of, acquire, and adorn ourselves in) the beneficial and healing word (eulogia – the favorable gift of the message) of the Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝΣ) through (dia) faith (pistos)." (Galatians 3:14) Papyrus 46 includes a second eulogia, "beneficial and healing word" before the placeholder for Ruwach, so it has been included in the verse.

The story of Abraham, and his relationship with Yahweh is detailed for us in the Torah so that we might choose to avail ourselves of the same personal and familial relationship with God he did—and the same way Abraham achieved it—by trusting and relying upon Yahweh. But, it’s Yahweh’s message, Yahweh’s plan, Yahweh’s prediction, Yahweh’s promise, Yahweh’s Word, Yahweh’s Messiyah, and Yahweh’s Ruwach/Spirit, not Abraham’s. And yet Sha’uwl would have you believe that all of this occurred because of Abraham, because that way he could bypass the Torah and separate Yahshua from Yahweh. The result is Christianity.

While the promises made by Yahweh to Abraham were showcased to reveal the Covenant relationship he developed with God, this isn’t Scripture’s most adroit connection between the Messiyah and the Covenant. Had Paul wanted to make an irrefutable case from which his audience could build a solid foundation of understanding, he would have referenced what happened on Mount Mowriyah where the Messiyah’s sacrifice was foreshadowed. But he didn’t.

The reason that we are indirectly blessed by way of Abraham is because he trusted and relied upon Yahweh at the second most pivotal moment in all of human history—during the dress rehearsal for Passover. It was then forty Yowbel later that Yahshua completed what Yahweh had predicted, fulfilling the promises He made to Abraham and to the rest of us. Yahweh’s message does not change from beginning to end. It is one story. Everything points to the same solution.

Returning to the conclusion of Paul’s preamble, ethnos speaks of "people of all races, living in all places," not specifically of "Gentiles." But more troubling, eulogia, which literally means "the beneficial and healing word," was rendered "promise" in English and Latin—and that’s despite epaggelia, the Greek word for "promise," appearing just two verses later. KJV: "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." LV: "This was so that the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentibus through Christo Iesu, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritus/Spirit through faith."

The first fifteen words of the NLT are wrong, either mistranslated or simply not represented in the Greek text: "Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith." Following "Abraham," the next seven words are unjustified, as are four of the six following "receive." In total, 26 of the 30 found in the New Living Translation were not translated, but instead authored. It’s little wonder Christians are deceived.

Paul’s comments are out of sync with his preposition when pistis is translated "trust or reliance" in the 11^th, 12^th, or 14^th verses. It is only by rendering pistis "faith or belief," in these passages that the distinction he is making fits his thesis. So, he has not only defined the fulcrum of his argument, but has also presented the opening salvo of Pauline Doctrine. He proposed:

"In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result of faith, 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 good news 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)

"For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (3:10) But with that Law, no one is vindicated or justified alongside God, because it is clearly evident: ‘The upright and just live out of faith.’ (3:11)

"The Law exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, ‘The one who performs them lives by them.’ (3:12) Christos redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, coming to exist as a curse for our sake, because it is written: ‘Accursed is everyone who is hanging upon wood.’ (3:13) As a result, with reference to the people from different races and places, the beneficial word of Abraham, came to exist in Christo Iesou in order to experience the beneficial word of the Spirit through faith." (3:14)

In this way, Paul’s message came full circle in the manner of great spellbinders. The "the good word" came from Abraham, not Yahweh, making a man responsible for the Messiyah, not God. So as with the other mistakes, was this the product of carelessness or intent?

While I’m not yet ready to disclose Paul’s motivation or inspiration, it is long past time that we acknowledge that his words demonstrate that he was a liar, and thus a false prophet.

In the midst of rebuking and nullifying Yahweh’s Torah, Sha’uwl writes that men know how to honor covenants, and that they neither invalidate nor disregard them. So he is either oblivious to what he, himself, is doing, or he no longer thinks he is human.

The strategy which Paul is deploying is to distinguish between the conversational promises God made to Abraham and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah. The fact that there are none was apparently irrelevant to his argument. He simply wants Christians to believe that they can bypass the Torah and still have a relationship with God.

He accomplishes this in part by suggesting that "adding to and rearranging" the promises, which is something the Torah does relative to the Covenant, would somehow invalidate the oral agreement. Therefore, the argument is: to capitalize upon the promises made to Abraham, Christians ought not consider Yahweh’s stipulations, but instead ignore them. That is because as a man Moshe was not in a position to delineate conditions for participation. The fact that Sha’uwl does this very thing, of course, is something he wants Christians to overlook. Just because Paul is deceitful, doesn’t mean that he isn’t clever. After all, Yahweh warned us way back in Eden that Sha’uwl’s guiding spirit was cunning and beguiling.

With these words, Paul positioned the second plank in his thesis. "Brothers (adelphos), according to (kata) man’s (anthropos) way of (homos) speaking (lego – spoken or written affirmations), man (anthropos) validates (kyroo – ratifies and affirms) a solemn agreement between parties (diatheke – a binding business relationship); no one (oudeis) rejects [it] (atheteo – regards it as invalid, disregards, sets aside, voids, nullifies, abrogates, or refuses to recognize the validity of it) or (e) adds to that which is arranged and prescribed (epidiatassomai)." (Galatians 3:15) As is the case with so many of Paul’s statements, this example only works if you don’t think about it. But it is laughably absurd. Man has elevated the violation of agreements to an art form. Legions of attorneys attest to this sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that Paul is himself in the process of rejecting and invalidating the Torah, where Yahweh’s Covenant agreement is memorialized.

It should be noted here, that in the Sermon on the Mount, Yahshua said that "the Heavenly Father’s gift is the Torah and Prophets," and that "the Torah and Prophets represent the narrow gate to life." This occurs in the same discussion where Yahshua obliterated the Christian theological position that the "Law was annulled by Grace," by affirming that He "came to fulfill the Torah, not annul it," saying that "every jot and tittle of the Torah would remain in effect as long as the universe lasts, and until its every promise is fulfilled." So, the only way Christians can be right, is for Yahshua to be wrong. And if Yahshua was wrong, Christians can’t be right. And therein lies the rational conundrum the religious are unwilling to confront. For the religion of Christianity, properly understood, this passage is its death nail.

The Christian interpretations of this passage are as errant as Paul’s statement. KJV: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." LV: "Brothers (I speak according to man), if a man’s testament has been confirmed (confirmatum testamentum), no one would reject it or add to it." Men and women have disavowed vastly more "covenants" than they have upheld. And this Covenant is God’s, not man’s.

Politically correct and charming, the NLT presents: "Dear brothers and sisters, here’s an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case."

The inspiration for Sha’uwl’s next point is Genesis 17:8, which says: "Based upon the everlasting Covenant, your God...gives to you and to your seed (zera’ – descendant, posterity, and offspring (singular/masculine)) after you, this land where you are living as an alien, and all of the land of Cana’an, as an everlasting possession..." So, recognizing a minor nuance in this Torah passage, Sha’uwl nurtured a seed into a full born theory.

"But (de) to (to) Abraham (Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew, ‘ab and raham, meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father) were said (erreoesan – were spoken and verbally communicated) these (ai) announced promises (epaggelia – the heralding of the consent approval and agreement, from epaggello, meaning to announce and promise that you are going to do something and furnish it voluntarily by your own accord, and that you have the ability and authority to do as you have sworn, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger) and (kai) [to] his (autos) seed (sperma – descendant (singular)). And (kai) [it does] not (ou) say (lego) seeds (spermasin – descendants (plural)), as in the manner of (hos) upon (epi) many (polys), but to the contrary (alla) upon (epi) one (heis), ‘and (kai) your (sy) seed (sperma – descendant and offspring (singular)),’ who (hos) exists as (eimi) Christos (ΧΡΣ – Messiyah (while the placeholder represents the Implement of Yah, Sha’uwl avoids associating Him with Yahweh))." (Galatians 3:16)

It is widely known that the promise to bless all humankind through Abraham was fulfilled through Yahshua. So Paul is acknowledging the obvious—although, his methods are not altruistic. Somewhere along the line, Sha’uwl turned on his own people and became anti-Semitic. What he is attempting here is to sidestep the lineage of the Covenant through Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el. By writing them out of the story, he can jump directly from Abraham to the Messiyah and bypass the Torah, the Promised Land, and the Chosen People. The legacy of this ploy is Christianity.

But credit to where credit is due. In the whole of the Greek language, it would be difficult to find a more appropriate term in this context than epaggello. It embodies the essence of the healing and beneficial message Yahshua brought to the world. It says that Yahweh made a promise to voluntarily, on His own accord, furnish the Messiyah, the Messenger who was in a position, and had the ability and authority, to do what He had announced in the Torah. I love it when the words come alive in our presence.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Sha’uwl’s specificity here with regard to zera’ being "seed" singular, not plural, suggests that I was right when I said that it was unlikely that he accidentally quoted the four Scriptural passages which served to convince his readers that his message was supported by God. How is it that this man could have missed the fact that the Messianic prophecy related to Passover was singular, not plural, and yet isolate one aspect of zera?

Missing the magnificence of the word which served to unify the Torah’s promises with their Renewed Covenant fulfillments, the inadequate KJV writes: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

The Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate reads: "The promises were made to Abrahæ and to his offspring. He did not say, "and to descendents," as if to many, but instead, as if to one, he said, "and to your offspring," who is Christus." To this Jerome added: "~ The Promise was certainly made to many descendents of Abraham, since God used the figure of the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore. But Paul is saying that the word used for offspring can be taken in the singular sense, because the promise is primarily about Christ, (the one offspring who redeems all other offspring), and only secondarily about the physical and spiritual descendents of Abraham." The Roman theologian is saying that Paul made a big deal out of nothing, and I concur.

Speaking of making something out of nothing, the New Living Translation would have us believe that zera’ and sperma both mean "child." "God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn‘t say ‘to his children,’ as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says ‘to his child’—and that, of course, means Christ." Therein we see one of the problems of Paul’s writing and reasoning exposed. His words and thoughts are far too easily misconstrued and misrepresented.

The less evident, but more intriguing, message related to the use of "zera’ – seed," is found by connecting this promise to the one made in the Garden of Eden. There Yahweh predicted that the "zera’ – seed" of woman would bruise Satan on his head, which is precisely what the Messiyah did.

Apart from the connection between Yahweh’s blessing by way of Abraham and the Messiyah, this is all much ado about nothing. "Seed" in English, and indeed its counterpart in most languages, implies the plural even in the singular form. A bag of seed contains many seeds, just as we seed a field using more than one. So Abraham’s seed would be both the Messiyah, singular, and Abe’s descendants, plural. God obviously meant to convey both the plural and the singular aspect of zera’, and spoke vociferously of both the Children of Yisra’el and the Messiyah. And indeed, as the children of the Covenant God made with Abraham, those who are born into Yahweh’s family are the Merciful Father’s seed.

Again, citing the book Christians are wont to claim Galatians was nullifying, Sha’uwl’s next sentence is based upon Genesis 15:13. The Torah reads: "He said to Abraham (‘Abraham – Merciful and Gracious Father), know for certain (yada’ yada’ – be completely aware and totally recognize and accept) that your descendants will exist as strangers in a land which isn’t theirs, and they will work for them for four hundred years."

The duration of time between the Covenant being announced through Abraham, and it being affirmed through Moseh, was 430 years. While Yisra’elites lived in bondage for 400 years, Abraham didn’t leave the Promised Land immediately after the agreement was reached, and the Yisra’elites were welcomed guests initially in Egypt. Therefore, the Torah is right with 400 years of bondage and Sha’uwl is right with regard to the overall duration of time, because the Torah itself uses both numbers.

"But (de) this (houtos) I say (lego – communicate and affirm), ‘A covenant agreement between parties (diatheke – a binding relationship arrangement to award heirs) was established and validated in advance (prokyroo – was sanctioned and ratified beforehand; from kuroo, to promise and confirm publicly that something is valid, and thus truthful and reliable, and pro, ahead of time) by (hupo – because of, under the auspices of, by the means of, and for the reasons that) God (ΘΥ). After (meta – with) four-hundred and thirty (tetrakosioi kai triakonta) years (etos), having become (ginomai – having appeared on the scene and arrived upon the stage of history as) the Torah (nomos – Law) does not (ou) revoke it (akyroo – invalidate, nullify, contradict, or void it, or deprive it of authority) so as to (eis) invalidate (katargeo – abolish, idle, or inactivate, diminish, delay, remove the force of) the (o) announced promise (epaggelia – the heralding of the consent approval and agreement).’" (Galatians 3:17)

It is inappropriate, although not out of character, for Paul to begin this statement with "But this I say." It is as if he thinks his opinions and ideas are superior to God’s. Yet, Paul’s insights are only valuable when and if they illuminate something Yahweh has written, so that we might understand it better. But here he is trying to get us to ignore Yahweh’s testimony. Rather than affirm that the Covenant established with Abraham was validated and memorialized in the Torah 430 years later, Sha’uwl is saying that the Torah "did not revoke or invalidate" it. In that way, rather than the Torah being essential to the Covenant, it is irrelevant to it. His strategy was ingenious and insidious.

To understand why Sha’uwl used such twisted logic, we have to consider this statement within the context of the point he has been trying to advance. Paul is linking "the promise made to Abraham" with "the Messiyah" and then to "believing the message he has been preaching," while at the same time bypassing the Torah. Therefore, he is telling the Galatians that since the Torah cannot revoke or invalidate the promise, the Torah is extraneous to the promise.

The reason this clever, albeit ridiculous, line of reasoning prevailed, is that the natural tendency of people ensnared in a religious system is to give their Apostles the benefit of the doubt. I am embarrassed to say, that I missed the purpose of these last three verses during my initial pass through this material. And that is why I shared my preconceived thoughts regarding Galatians at the outset of this evaluation. I was predisposed to solve the discrepancies between the Christian interpretation of this epistle and Yahweh’s testimony by correcting the text to reflect the oldest manuscripts, to more accurately translate the words Paul selected, to appropriately identify whether Mosaic or Rabbinic Law was being assailed or affirmed, and then clarify Paul’s message by associating it with Yahweh’s witness.

Had Sha’uwl stopped after saying that the "Covenant was validated by God after 430 years, becoming the Torah," he would have been correct. But he had an entirely different agenda. And not recognizing it initially, I saw Paul affirming that the Torah didn’t invalidate the promise. But that is like saying Moby Dick didn’t invalidate Ahab’s vow to get the whale. Every last detail associated with the promise would be completely unknown without the Torah. In this light, please ponder:

"Brothers, according to man’s way of speaking, man validates an agreement between parties; no one rejects it or adds to that which is prescribed. (3:15) But to Abraham were said these announced promises and to his seed. And it does not say ‘seeds,’ as in the manner of upon many, but to the contrary upon one, ‘and your seed,’ who exists as Christos. (3:16) But this I say, a covenant agreement between parties was established and validated in advance by God. After four-hundred and thirty years, having become the Torah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the announced promise." (3:17)

The twist here is "invalidate" as opposed to "validate." In reality, the Covenant promise which was discussed between Yahweh and Abraham was affirmed, that is to say "validated," 430 years after it was initially established with the rescue of the Children of Yisra’el from bondage in the crucible of Egypt—the central story of the Torah. And it is this same promise memorialized in the Towrah between Abraham and Yahweh, which Yahweh augmented and Yahshua ultimately fulfilled (at least in part). (The reason He is returning is to fulfill the final three Called-Out Assemblies.) Therefore, rather than the Torah being bypassed, or even brought to an end, the Covenant is the basis of the promise made between God and man, and it is enduring.

To demonstrate how horribly I was fooled, here is what I said about this verse as I was initially compiling this chapter. Speaking of the relationship between the Covenant and the Torah, and especially of "prokyroo – validated in advance" (in the initial clause), I wrote: "And this realization would make this message accurate and pertinent. In fact, the deeper we peer into the words Sha’uwl selected, the more magnificent the passage becomes. There are bright, shining moments in Paul’s epistles, and this is one of them." I swallowed the hook, the line, and the bait.

It is ironic in a way. I will be vilified for having turned over and exposed the rocks Paul has hurled at the Torah, but I will actually be guilty of letting my desire to validate Paul’s message taint my judgment.

But at least I had the good sense at the time to buffer my unwarranted praise for this passage, initially adding: "And yet, this realization stands in stark contrast to Paul’s positioning of the Torah before and after this verse. While this verse was sound, this approach is nonetheless out of character with Paul’s depiction of the Torah throughout this epistle."

Turning to the translations, we find the KJV inferring that since the Law cannot invalidate the promise, the Law must be wrong, which is worse than, albeit a natural extension of, what Sha’uwl was trying to say. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

The Latin Vulgate isn’t wrong; it’s just inadequate: "But I say this: the testament confirmed by God (testamentum confirmatum a Deo), which, after four hundred and thirty years became the Law (Lex), does not nullify, so as to make the promise empty."

The New Living Translation published: "This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise." After all, Paul was composing the lyrics for their hymnals.

At this point the writing quality suddenly deteriorates. This next verse requires a complete reordering of the words, the addition of two verbs, a preposition, and three articles...

"Because (gar – for) if (ei) inheritance (kleronomai – possession of a gift or patrimony, becoming an heir) [comes] out of (ek) the Torah (nomou – Law (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), [it is] no longer (ouketi) from (ek – by means of) [a] promise (epangelia), but (de) God (ΘΣ) provided Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charizomai – Charis in action) [to] Abraham by (dia) an announced messenger and by way of [a] promise (epaggelia)." (Galatians 3:18) Yahweh most assuredly did not offer, provide, or even discuss the pagan Charities with Abraham. And what He did offer him, He presented in person—not by way of a messenger.

Kleronomai is a compound of kleros which is "a means of selecting someone by random chance," and specifically, "to cast or draw lots," and the all too familiar nomos, "law." It is therefore a random "chancy" means of determining one’s inheritance which is being wrongly associated with the Law.

The notion that because something is written, it ceases to be a promise, is absurd. A "promissory note" is a written pledge to pay someone what is owed them. A legal contract stipulates responsibilities and delineates the things each party promises to perform. The contract does not change the nature of the promises, it simply holds the parties accountable to the promises they have made. Likewise, a marriage license is an affirmation of a husband’s and wife’s vow of fidelity.

The Torah contains Yahweh’s promise to save us from ourselves. The essence of the Torah is summarized in epaggelia: "the announcement of a messenger, the heralding of a consent agreement, the promise that [Yahweh] had the ability and authority to voluntarily furnish the [Messiyah] to facilitate His accord."

This passage combined with the previous one preclude us from pretending that Paul was referencing the Oral Law or Traditions of the Rabbis. Therefore, he actually said: "For if inheritance comes out of the Towrah, it is no longer from a promise," and thereby severed, at least in his warped mind, the relationship between the Covenant made with Abraham and the Torah in which this Covenant was memorialized. This is an "either – or" proposition. According to Sha’uwl, you can fail with the Torah or succeed with Grace. He was dead wrong.

What we are witnessing here is another blow in Paul’s relentless attack on God’s Word. This time he has gone so far as to say that the Torah cannot come between the verbal promise God made to Abraham and the provision of his goddess Charis. According to Pauline Doctrine, the Torah must be bypassed for the promise to remain valid and for "believers" to be "inherited" by his god.

Christians will say that Paul was right, because in their faith (due to Paul’s letters), the Torah represents a works-based means to salvation, while, again from a Pauline perspective, a promise requires nothing on behalf of the beneficiary (i.e., "Grace Alone"). However, the Torah isn’t a works-based scheme, but instead a depiction of Yahweh doing everything required to redeem us. Moreover, the Covenant agreement forged with Abraham had caveats Abraham was asked to honor. If he didn’t leave Babylon, if he didn’t walk with Yahweh, if he wasn’t conversant with God and upright with Him, if he didn’t trust Yahweh with his son’s life, he would have negated his son’s inheritance. It’s little wonder Paul has failed to mention these conditions, and that Christians are ignorant of them.

In this case, the problem isn’t with the translations, but instead with the original document. KJV: "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." It was a precisely accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate. "For if the inheritance is of the lege/law, then it is no longer of the promise. But God bestowed it to Abraham through the promise."

Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, and Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, working under the auspices of Mark Taylor, the "Chief Stylist," Daniel Taylor, the "Senior Stylist," and Philip Comfort the "N.T. Coordinating Editor," collectively known as "Team Tyndale" with regard to Galatians, coordinated this stylish theological twist whereby the promised inheritance was nullified by trying to keep the law. Then for good measure, they tossed in an extra "grace," just to be sure they had paid proper homage to Paul’s goddess. "For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise."

Yahweh and Yahushua have consistently affirmed that the Torah is the document which explains the nature of the inheritance we receive as a result of being adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family. God’s foundational text details the promises Yahweh has made to us. Other than being in writing, as opposed to being verbal, the promise Yahweh made to Abraham is identical to the one He confirmed through Moses.

Along these lines, since the Torah is the affirmation and amplification of the one and only Covenant, it makes no sense whatsoever to differentiate between "Old" and "New" Testaments. The Covenant was renewed, but that does not make the original old, especially in the sense of being outdated, nor its renewal new, in the sense of being original or different.

Paul was trying to drive a wedge between the Torah’s Merciful message and his own "Gospel of Grace." For doing so, he is a dead man as are those who have believed him.

There are two scribal additions to this next passage, both of which have been included within the brackets, because without them, the second sentence is incomplete and incomprehensible. "Why (tis) therefore (oun) this specific (ton) Law (nomos – Towrah)? [Walking away from (parabasis – twisting and turning so as to breach) the purpose of the favor of loving kindness (charin – the reason for the gift of mercy and acceptance), they continued to add to it (prostithemai – expanding the text for money)] [It was] until (achri – the point in time) [the] seed (sperma – descendant) who (hos) was announced, promised, and furnished (epangellomai – the messenger who engaged voluntarily with the ability and authority to perform as promised and proclaimed) came (erchomai) [by way of (dia)] the ordained and prescribed (diatasso – by the arrangement and command of the) Messenger (aggelos – the representative who was sent with the message) in (en) the person and power of (cheir – presence and authority of) a mediator and reconciler (mesites – one who intervenes to restore peace and friendship, reconciling and ratifying a covenant)." (Galatians 3:19)

Now that Paul has made the Torah obsolete by bypassing it, he is required to tell us why God even bothered with it. So, that is why he wrote: "Why therefore this Law? It was until the seed who was promised came: the arranged Messenger in the person of a mediator." But since Yahweh said countless times that His Word would abide forever, Paul’s words remain diametrically opposed to God’s.

There is nothing in the Torah which suggests that it was a "temporary" solution, and if there were, you could bet your last shilling Paul would have cited it. Yahweh completes every essential instruction in the Torah with the provision that "this is to be an "olam – eternal and everlasting" statute.

The promised Messiyah is the one who reconciles us unto God, the one who intervenes to restore the Covenant. And yet His message is the antithesis of Paul’s. He expressly refuted the notion that He came to annul the Torah, and said that even the smallest strokes on the letters which comprise the words which proclaim its message would endure as long as the universe exists and until every last promise is fulfilled. So since Paul’s message is in direct conflict with the "prescribed Messenger," who is Paul speaking for? It cannot be Yahweh or Yahshua.

For those who were hoping to salvage Paul’s epistle by substituting Rabbinical Law for the Torah, this is one of many passages where that argument becomes impossible. Rabbinical Law was still in its infancy during the Messiyah’s arrival. Unlike Christians who were beguiled by Paul into believing that Yahshua put an end to the Law, Rabbis never postured such a claim.

The Torah does not say that it was given because of "transgressions." But that didn’t stop the KJV from saying: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." The inspiration for those words came from the Latin Vulgate: "Why, then, was there a lex/law? It was established because of transgressions, until the offspring would arrive, to whom he made the promise, ordained by Angelos through the hand of a mediator."

A disclaimer is in order: what you are about to read is not Scripture. It is not true. Using the New Living Translation may be harmful to your health. "Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people." That is not what Paul wrote, and thus this is not a translation. This is not what Yahweh said about the Torah’s purpose, so this message is counter to Scripture. And this position is the opposite of Yahshua’s statements regarding the Torah. That means the NLT’s Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and their stylists Mark and Daniel Taylor, and Philip Comfort, are deceivers.

How do you suppose these "scholars" reconcile their "but the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised," with the Child of the promise saying: "Do not assume that I have come to weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish the Torah/Law or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and the earth pass away not one jot (iota – the smallest letter, or yodh in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia – the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by (be ignored or disobeyed, be disregarded) from that which was established in the Torah/Law (nomos – prescriptions for living in Scripture) until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses (invalidates or abolishes) the least of these commandments or teaches (indoctrinates or instructs) people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven." (Mattityahu/Matthew 5:19)

Many, if not most of the prophecies established in the Torah are yet unfulfilled. Yahshua has not returned. Yahuwdym have not been reconciled. The Millennial Sabbath has not commenced. The Antichrist has not arisen. The Tribulation has not occurred. Neither the Magog nor Armageddon wars have been waged. Therefore, the Torah could not have ended its useful life, even if such a thing was possible, 2,000 years ago. Paul is wrong once again.

I do not know what this means, and based upon the translations, I’m not alone. "But now (de) the mediator and reconciler (mesites – one who intervenes to restore peace and friendship, reconciling and ratifying the covenant (singular/masculine)) does not (ouk) exist as an identical representation of (estin) one (heis), but (de) God (ΘΣ) exists as (estin) one (heis)." (Galatians 3:20)

The supposedly-literal interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Greek Text read: "But the mediator one not is the but God one is." In the King James we find: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one." Jerome wrote: "Now a mediator is not of one, yet God is one." The NLT suggests: "Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham." The self-proclaimed literal NASB published: "Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one." To their credit, they used italics to indicate that "party only" and "only" were not written in the Greek text. The NIV, a popular paraphrase conveys: "A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one."

As an eternal optimist, I’m compelled to convey something sensible. So, here is my best shot. The "mediator and reconciler" is Yahshua, the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahweh. As such, Yahshua "does not exist as an identical representation of" "God who is one." Further, since a mediator exists to reconcile differences between parties, Yahshua came to reconcile humankind unto God. And while that’s true, and consistent with what Yahshua said of Himself, it is an extremely awkward fit in this context.

However, in the midst of a tirade against the Torah, such profound insights are pearls in a pigsty. In all likelihood, Sha’uwl is suggesting that Yahshua "does not exist as an identical representation of" God’s Word—His "one and only" Torah. Then in addition to differentiating Yahshua from God’s Word, Paul is also separating Yahshua from Yahweh by suggesting that He wasn’t an identical representation of God and that God cannot be divided nor exist in multiple manifestations.

Paul’s next statement is true, but not in this context. "Indeed (oun – therefore and consequently), the (o) Torah (nomos) cannot be (me ginomai – cannot come to exist) contrary to (kata) the (tou) promise of the consent agreement of approval (epaggelia – the announcement that He was going to do and furnish something voluntarily by His own accord, and that He would have the ability and authority to do as He had sworn)." (Galatians 3:21)

Paul’s point isn’t to affirm that the Torah confirms the "agreement" made with Abraham (which is obvious to those who know the Torah), but instead to suggest that the Torah is irrelevant. This is part of a long argument, one that started with the 15^th verse, which was cleverly designed to bypass the Torah, moving directly from the promise made to Abraham to salvation—with nothing in between. Paul’s purpose is to limit the Torah, telling his audience what it "cannot be," as opposed to describing what it is.

Paul continued: "For (gar) if (ei) the Torah (nomos – Law) produced (didomi – gave and granted) the power (dynamai) to impart life (zoopoieo – to beget and restore life), certainly (ontos – surely and truly) in (en) the Torah (nomos – Law) would (an) be (en) the (o) upright (dikaiosyne – those who are acceptable and approved in a judicial hearing)." (Galatians 3:21) (While recently compiled Greek texts have ek, meaning "out of," rather than en, meaning "in," before the last reference to the Torah, as is extant in P46, it doesn’t make much difference.)

Paul is demeaning the Torah’s power to redeem. In direct contradiction to God’s Word, he is suggesting that no one was considered righteous and thus saved from the time the Torah was written to the time Yahshua arrived. If he’s right, Yahweh is wrong, because He called David righteous. For Paul to be right, Moseh is estranged from God. If Paul is correct, the eyewitness accounts depicting the fulfillment of FirstFruits, whereby the graves of the upright were opened, are incorrect. If we are to believe Paul, the Exodus was a hoax—nothing but a cruel charade.

So are we to accept Paul’s assessment and thereby believe that the same God who came to earth in the form of a man to save men, was so sadistic prior to that time that He conceived a plan in which everyone was destined to fail? Were Yahweh’s instructions on atoning sin by way of His seven Called-Out Assemblies a complete waste of time? Was blood shed in vain? Were the Miqra’ey for naught? And if so, why did Yahshua fulfill Passover and Unleavened Bread?

Perhaps it was Paul who created Marcion, rather than the other way around. Marcion just wanted to write Yahweh, Yahuwdym, and Yisra’el out of His canon. Paul wants to demean them.

Despite the claims made in the King James, Latin Vulgate, and New Living bibles, God’s title does not appear in this Greek text once, much less twice. Moreover, there is no basis for a question in this text, much less an answer. But so that you come to appreciate just how divergent these supposed "translations" are from the Greek text, consider the Nestle-Aland interlinear: "If for had been given law the one being able to make live really from law was the rightness."

Now, compare that to the KJV: "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Or the Latin Vulgate upon which it was based: "So then, was the law contrary to the promises of God? (Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei?) Let it not be so! For if a lex/law had been given, which was able to give life, truly justice would be of the lege/law." And now, the New Living Translation which contradicts itself: "Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it." The fact that these three translations agree with one another and disagree with the Greek text, demonstrates that they are but revisions. Publishers are businessmen and they know familiarity sells.

Struggling verse after verse to make sense of what Paul was trying to say has become exasperating, especially since his message has been so un-Godly. So the time has come for me to provide you with a scholarly frame of reference. We are going to use the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Interlinear—today’s most trusted textual resource—as a handrail in Paul’s inverted world. Please consider their rendition of Galatians 3:22: "But closed together the writing the all under sin that the promise from trust of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones trusting."

Now, I’ll let you decide if I’ve done any better. "To the contrary (alla), the (o) written Scripture (graphe ­– often used to designate the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) completely encloses (sugkleio – restricts, traps, nets, confines, and shuts up all together, on all sides) everything (pas) under the auspices of (hupo – because of and under the control of) error and evil (hamartia – sin, disinheritance, wandering away from the path, missing the mark) in order that (hina) the (e) promised agreement (epangelia) from (ek) the faith (pistis – trust migrated to faith) of Iesou Christou (ΙΗΥ ΧΥ – placeholders for the Messiyah Yahshua whose association with Yahweh Sha’uwl attempted to sever) can be given to (didomi – granted and bestowed to) the ones who believe (pisteuo – those who trust and rely became those who believe as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles)." (Galatians 3:22)

There are two significant problems with this statement. First, sugkleio speaks of "netting fish," and "trapping and imprisoning people, binding and tying them up." It is from sun, "with," and kleio, "to shut a door and withhold something, making it inaccessible." To be sugkleio is "to be devoid of pity," and "to obstruct the entrance to heaven." And here, Sha’uwl is saying that "Scripture closes the door, blocks the entrance, and makes heaven inaccessible." He is calling "God’s Word a trap and a prison." And as bad as that is, he will connect sugkleio with "phroureo – held in custody as a prisoner" in the next verse, exacerbating the negative association with the Torah.

Second, there is no "faith of Iesou Christou." He did not have or promote a religion, and with complete knowledge and understanding "faith" is nonsensical.

But since the dearth of evidence and reason in Paul’s epistles makes "trust and reliance" impossible, he obviously meant to convey "faith," and "believing" and thereby establish his Faith on believing: "To the contrary, Scripture completely shuts the door on inheritance, imprisoning everything under the auspices of error and evil in order that the promised agreement from the faith of Iesou Christou can be given by believing."

Christian translations agree. KJV: "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." LV: "But Scriptura/Scripture has enclosed everything under sin, so that the promise, by the faith of Iesu Christi, might be given to those who believe (ut promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus)."

Writing their own epistle, the NLT proposed: "But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ." While it is obvious that these renderings diverge somewhat from Paul’s script, the task of deciphering the wannabe Apostle is even more difficult than translating him.

So even if we were to limit sugkleio to "enclose and restrict," the Torah is not a vessel filled with "error or evil." The Messiyah Yahshua had no faith, and no religion. And belief is completely irrelevant to our salvation.

Moving on, please consider the difficulty the Nestle-Aland interlinear had with the following text before reading my attempt to decipher Paul’s message. "Before the but to come the trust under law we were being guarded being closed together for the being about trust to be uncovered." While I’m appreciative of the fact that the most respected Greek textual resource consistently renders the term upon which the Galatians debate pivots, pistis, as "trust," as opposed to "faith," the evidence indicates that this was not what Paul intended to say.

So Sha’uwl’s next derogatory statement actually reads: "But (de) before (pro) the (tou) arrival of (erchomai) the (ten) faith (pistis ­– once trust but now belief), under (hupo) the Law (nomou – Towrah (accusative case making it a direct object of the verb)), we were held in custody (phroureo – kept as a prisoner, officially guarded, confined, strictly controlled, and watched over), restricted and trapped (sugkleio – bound and imprisoned, netted and confined) until (eis) the inevitable future arrival (mello – the time of the expected and intended) of the faith (pistis) was revealed (apokalypto – uncovered, disclosed, and unveiled)." (Galatians 3:23) To say that Sha’uwl and Yahweh didn’t see things the same way would be the understatement of the millennia.

Since "But before the arrival of the ‘trust’" is awkward, and "the arrival of the ‘faith’" is a natural fit, this is another affirmation that Sha’uwl intended pistis to convey its present religious connotation—something further affirmed by his final clause. Paul’s faith was built upon the ruins of the Torah.

Here are the Christian interpretations. KJV: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." LV: "But before the faith arrived, we were preserved by being enclosed under the lege/law, unto that faith which was to be revealed." NLT: "Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed." In this case, the English translations aren’t nearly as harsh as the words Sha’uwl selected. But, based upon what has and will be said, this accommodation isn’t deserved. We are about to meet Paul’s "guardians and taskmasters."

Even though the next verse is part of this same paragraph, it began so long ago, a quick review is in order.

 "Because if inheritance comes out of the Torah, it is no longer from a promise, but God provided Grace to Abraham by an announced messenger and by way of a promise. (3:18) Why therefore this Law? It was until the seed who was promised came, the arranged Messenger in the person and power of a mediator. (3:19) But now the mediator does not exist as an identical representation of one, but God exists as one. (3:20) Indeed, the Torah cannot be contrary to the promise of the consent agreement. For if the Torah produced the power to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous. (3:21) To the contrary, Scripture completely shuts the door on inheritance, imprisoning everything under the auspices of error and evil in order that the promised agreement from the faith of Iesou Christou can be given by believing. (3:22) But before the arrival of the faith, under the Law, we were held in custody, restricted and trapped until the inevitable future arrival of the faith was revealed." (3:23)

Also, now that the text of the Nestle-Aland interlinear is being provided with some regularity in advance of my translations, I’d like to explain the process I go through in rendering a verse, whether it be Hebrew or Greek, Scripture or a man’s letter. If the text is Greek, I read it as it appears in a popular manuscript like the Nestle-Aland. If there is a pre-Constantine manuscript, I compare the older version to the more modern text. Then I examine every word under an etymological microscope, even those with which I am totally familiar, consulting a variety of lexicons and dictionaries, so that all possible shadings are considered. Then I share their full amplified meanings.

Next, I order these words as is required to transfer the thoughts they convey into the structure of English grammar. At this point, I check verb tenses and other grammatical references, and then complete the translation with an eye on the surrounding context. And as a rule, if the passage is Scripture, I always try to render the words in a manner which is consistent with Yahweh’s nature and plan.

Then, if the etymology of a word exceeds what can comfortably be placed within the sentence or inside a parenthetical, without the text being overly distracting, I’ll write a separate descriptive paragraph on the most interesting words. And then I strive to share whatever the Spirit reveals to me regarding the passage, adding those insights into my commentary. Lastly, when a verse is complete, I’ll go back and try to write introductions and consider transitions which aid in understanding.

And while that is what I have attempted to do here, this particular paragraph has been so antagonistic toward Yahweh’s Word, on my first pass through this material I simply translated each statement and moved on, hoping that the next passage would help modify the previous one. But nothing seemed to help. So in my struggle to deal with writings this hostile to the Torah, I did something I have not done before, which was to consider interlinear translations. My hope was to extricate Sha’uwl from the pit he had dug for himself, and the hell (she’owl) for which he had been named.

So the bottom line here is that I’m very uncomfortable with what Sha’uwl is saying. Therefore, I’m lessening this burden by exposing you to the interpretive translations of others. For example, the Nestle-Aland interlinear presentation of the next verse reads: "So that the law tutor of us has become to Christ that from trust we might be made right."

In comparison to that, this almost seems sane: "As a result (hoste – so then therefore), the (o) Law (nomos – Towrah) came to exist as (ginomai) our (ego) taskmaster (paidagogos – enslaved leader of boys, guardian, custodian, trainer, and supervisor of children who strikes and smites them, an enslaved disciplinarian) until (eis) Christon (ΧΡΝ – placeholder for the Messiyah (but without the definite article it’s obvious that Sha’uwl meant Christon to represent a name, not a title)) so that (hina) by means of (ek – out of) the faith (pistos – formerly trust, but now in the singular genitive a specific characterization or system of belief)) we could be acquitted (dikaioo – could be vindicated, declared innocent, and be set free)." (Galatians 3:24)

The unflattering example which lies at the heart of this sentence provides us with a window into Sha’uwl’s mind. From his perspective, the Torah is a "paidagogos – tough taskmaster lording over us as if we were slaves."

In ancient Greece, paidagogos, meaning "a leader of young boys," was used to describe "slaves from other nations who supervised and directed the lives and morals of children belonging to the privileged class." It is from pais and ago. Pais means: "a child, especially a young boy or infant." Its secondary meaning is "servant and slave." It is from paio, meaning "to strike or smite, to wound and sting"—thus making "taskmaster" the most literal definition. Ago means "to lead." Therefore a paidagogos was a foreign slave who was forced to make adolescent boys from wealthy families behave. They were compelled disciplinarians who knew nothing of freedom, and nothing of Yahweh. Using paidagogos to describe the role of the Torah was especially demeaning.

Up to this point, Sha’uwl has advanced his case by misquoting, truncating, twisting, dismantling, dissolving, and demeaning the Torah. There has been no reason to delve into the realm of Greek society, slavery, and oppression. But since he has now gone down this path, we are compelled to reveal its failings.

The paidagogos were not associated with schools, or learning, but instead with harsh discipline, so the KJV would be wrong with "schoolmaster." "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." LV: "Itaque lex pædagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur." "And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith." NLT: "Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith." There is no basis for "it protected us" in the Greek text.

If we were to deprive paidagogos of its cultural baggage, we’d be left to resolve a whole new set of issues inherent in Sha’uwl’s next sentence. When you start with a bad metaphor, things go from bad to worse. Such is the case with: "But now that (de) the (tes) faith (pistos – formerly trust, but now in the singular genitive a specific characterization or system of belief))  has come (erchomai), [we] no longer (ouketi) exist (eimi) under (hupo – because of, under the auspices of, and by the means of) a taskmaster (paidagogos – enslaved leader of boys, guardian, custodian, trainer, and supervisor of children who strikes and smites them, an enslaved disciplinarian)." (Galatians 3:25)

In other words, "believers have been liberated from the supervision and discipline of the Torah." Yahweh’s Word "no longer exists" as a meaningful guide. And we no longer exist as a result of God’s revelation. According to Sha’uwl, the Torah is passé; its dominion is over—a thing of the past.

So let’s see if the most influential Christian translations followed their leader down this ungodly dead end road. KJV: "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." LV: "But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian." NLT: "And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian." Keeping in mind that the "schoolmaster and guardian" is the Torah, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who don’t consider Yahweh to be their teacher, who don’t value His Torah as the ultimate source of instruction, who don’t consider themselves to be under His guardianship, are headed toward a rude awakening.

Paul’s message in Galatians 3:25 isn’t salvageable. For the "paidagogos – guardian or disciplinarian" metaphor to work, the one who leads us as little children to our Heavenly Father has to be Yahshua—the Word made flesh. But since our salvation cannot be independent of Him, the second half of the verse is invalid.

The best possible spin that can be put on this is to say that Sha’uwl might be saying that while the Torah may have led us, however harshly, to the point where we could embrace the faith, its value ends once we have done so. And that means that Yahweh’s life-saving advice is suddenly beneath believers. But how is it that Paul’s faith can soar above the Word of God?

Beyond this realization, how is anyone going to grow in their relationship with our Heavenly Father without solid food, without devouring the Word of God, without being nourished by God? The fact is, Yahshua, Himself, explained His ministry from the perspective of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. According to Him, observing it is the only way to understand who He is, what He said, and what He did.

And while I am obviously troubled by Sha’uwl’s paidagogos metaphor, it isn’t one which helps Christendom either. Pastors and priests present themselves, as well as their churches, as if they were still the guardians, supervisors, and teachers," of their flock, as opposed to Yahshua having usurped that role. So all they have done is put themselves in the role of the Torah, and thereby neglected the Messiyah.

Before we press on, a little perspective is in order. Mired in the midst of the third chapter of Galatians, we are discovering that almost nothing Paul has written is true. And the remainder is either incomprehensible or irrelevant. Therefore, one has to be ignorant of what Paul wrote, or irrational, to consider Galatians Scripture inspired by God. By claiming it as such, your god becomes a vacillating, inconsistent, unreliable, and incomprehensible nincompoop.

This next line, removed from this abysmal context, would offer a glimmer of hope, had Paul meant pisteos to say "trust and reliance" instead of "the faith." And that is what the word meant at the time he wrote this epistle. But that meaning isn’t possible in the context of Galatians, because Paul not only hasn’t provided any evidence for the reader to rely upon, he has relentlessly assailed the Torah—the world’s only source of universal truth.

"For (gar) every (pas) son (huios – child) [of] God (ΘΥ) exists (este) by way of (dia) the (tes) faith (pisteos – formerly trust, but now in the singular genitive a specific characterization or system of belief)) in (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ – placeholders for the Messiyah Yahushua who Sha’uwl overtly disassociates from Yahweh (and thus would not have reconnected them by virtue of the Messiyah Yahshua’s actual name and title))." (Galatians 3:26)

Trust is not possible if no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the Messiyah Yahshua is the Son of God. And that message is one of the prime directives of the Torah. It is why Yahweh’s Word is filled from Genesis to Malachi with Messianic prophecies.

And faith is irrelevant, especially apart from the Torah. In whom and in what are the faithful being asked to believe? Apart from the Torah, Yahshua is without identity or purpose. The Messiyah’s life is a lie and His sacrifice is for nothing if He is removed from His foundation.

By changing the order, and by rendering "pistis – faith," the King James has captured Paul’s intended meaning: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

However, we are not all children of God. In fact, most of those Paul preached to, and all of those who subsequently believed his letters, are specifically excluded from God’s family because they were victimized by a false prophet.

Our Spiritual Mother enables our adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family based upon our commitment to know and love Yahweh and our decision to trust and rely upon the Messiyah Yahshua’s fulfillment of the Torah’s promises. But since one cannot trust that which they do not understand, nor rely upon someone they do not know, to be God’s child, we must first come know Him and understand what He said by carefully observing His Word.

In his attempt to convey Paul’s thoughts, Jerome missed this point as well. LV: "For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christo Iesu. (Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, quæ est in Christo Iesu.)" NLT: "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." It’s telling that each translation was arranged in the same order, one which flows in opposition to the Greek.

"Because (gar) as many as (hosos) are cleansed and immersed (baptizomai – submerged and washed) into (eis) Christon (ΧΡN – placeholder for Messiyah (but without the definite article it’s obvious that Sha’uwl meant Christon to represent a name, not a title)), Christon (ΧΡN) has clothed you (enduo – has dressed you all)." (Galatians 3:27)

Either Paul is unaware of the discrete roles preformed by the Son and the Spirit, or he knows them and is being purposefully deceitful. But either way, none of this is true.

We are immersed and cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit, not the Son. And it is our Spiritual Mother who adorns us in Her Garment of Light, not the Messiyah. This occurs once we come to know Yahweh, come to understand His plan of salvation, and come to rely upon Yahshua’s fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Bread—all of which Paul failed to report. Scripture from beginning to end exists to delineate these profound truths, all of which Sha’uwl corrupted with the stroke of a pen.

There are some other issues with this passage. This is the fourth time in as many verses that it has become obvious that a scribe, not Sha’uwl, supplied the Divine Placeholder XPN, which would normally be symbolic of "Messiyah – the Implement of Yah." But without a definite article, it’s readily apparent that the original author wrote "Christon" as if it were a name, and not a title. Further, since the primary purpose of this epistle has been to totally separate Yahshua from Yahweh and from His Word, it would have been completely counterproductive for Sha’uwl to reconnect them by way of their actual names and titles.

Lastly, enduo, written as enedusasoe, and rendered "has clothed you," is a compound of en, meaning "in," and duno, "to plunge and sink." Duno was most commonly used in reference to the "setting sun." In that Satan’s name is Halal ben Shachar, which conveys "the brilliant and self-exalting son of the rising sun," associating the Messiyah with the "setting sun" is a pathetic demonic pun.

Further, the compound of en and duno literally means "to sink or be plunged into" something. And that’s troubling because the souls of Sha’uwl’s victims "sink into" "she’owl – the pit" and unwittingly take the "plunge into" "She’owl – the place deceased souls await questioning" and thus judgment.

The verb enedusasoe was written in the second person, plural, aorist, middle, indicative. The aorist indicative indicates something which has actually happened in the past. And the middle voice signifies that subjects of this verb had been affected by their own actions. In fact, enduo actually conveys the idea of "having clothed and dressed oneself" as opposed to having been adorned by the Spirit in Her Garment of Light. The inference then is that those who are "immersed into" Sha’uwl’s "faith of Christon," the basis of which speaks of "the application of drugs," "have taken the plunge and have clothed themselves" in his religion.

Not recognizing any of Paul’s mistakes, the King James Version published: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." We don’t "wear ‘Christ,’" and common words like "baptizomai" should be translated, not transliterated. But again demonstrating the KJV was a translation of the Roman Catholic Latin text, and not Paul’s Greek, we find the same wording in Jerome’s Vulgate: "For as many of you as have been baptizati/baptized in Christo have become clothed with Christum."

There is no reference to "united" or "new" in the Greek text, and yet the authors of the New Living Translation wrote: "And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes." And I thought enedusasoe was a verb, not a noun.

This next statement isn’t accurate either. "No longer (ouketi) ‘Ioudaios (Ioudaios – Jewish; a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahuwdym meaning Related to Yah) nor (oude) Greek (Hellen), no longer (ouketi) slave (doulos) nor (oude) free (eleutheros – released), no longer (ouketi) male (arsen) and (kai) female (thelys), because (gar) you (sy) all (pas) exist as (este) one (heis) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ – placeholder for Messiyah (but without the definite article it’s obvious that Sha’uwl meant Christo to represent a name, not a title)) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – placeholder for Yahushua (Yah Saves) whom Sha’uwl has disassociated from Yahweh)." (Galatians 3:28)

While our Heavenly Father has but one family, and while we can become His children whether we are natural-born Yahuwdym or adopted Gowym, there is still a very significant difference from Yahweh’s perspective between Yahuwdym and Gowym, and between Yisra’el and the rest of the world. Most unfulfilled prophecy deals with the reconciliation of Yahuwdym with Yahweh. Further, Genesis reveals that mankind’s masculine and feminine nature was modeled after Yahweh, suggesting that this will remain unchanged. And lastly, as a result of God rescuing us we are not only free, we are forever free. And spiritually, there is an enormous difference between remaining a slave to man’s religious and political schemes and being liberated from the crucible of Egypt.

So just because something rolls off the tongue and sounds accepting and tolerant, doesn’t make it so. Yahweh said no such thing, and in fact, says the opposite.

Paul composed this verse to undermine the value of Yahuwdym and Yisra’el in Yahweh’s ongoing story. And as we have just seen, Sha’uwl isn’t fond of the paternal and maternal roles Yahweh plays in our salvation. So that would make the last comparison on the list window dressing. Yet ironically, in the next chapter, he will contradict himself and say that those who observe the Torah are still enslaved by it. And lastly, what little chauvinism exists in the Renewed Covenant, hails from Paul’s pen, where women are told to be subservient to their husbands.

The familiar prose of the King James Bible has come to resonate in religious circles: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." But to the contrary, according to Scripture there are still Yahuwdym, Yisra’el endures, there continue to be male and female individuals, and thanks to what Yahshua has done, there are those of us who have been freed from man’s religious schemes, setting us apart and distinguishing us from those who have not been liberated.

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads similarly: "There is neither Iudæus nor Græcus; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christo Iesu." Recognizing the popularity of Paul’s prose are promoted by the King James, and knowing that familiarity sells, even the adventurous New Living Translation left the lie alone: "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." Yet, to their credit, apart from butchering the Savior’s name and title, all three translations accurately presented the words Paul wrote. Now if only Paul’s words were accurate.

Some may think that I’m being too critical here, and that this was just a figure of speech, a bit of soaring oratory. And your point would be valid if Paul were a politician, and if Galatians was part of an election campaign rather than a treatise on salvation.

Moving from faulty conclusions to faulty logic, Sha’uwl concludes his line of reasoning by contradicting his initial point. If you recall, he said that "seed was singular" because it spoke not of Abraham’s descendants, but instead just of the Messiyah. But now according to Paul, we "all exist as Abraham’s seed." Paul had used this distinction to suggest that there was a difference between the promise made to Abraham and the Torah which announced and described that promise. And while his reasoning was flawed, even if it were valid, he just harpooned his own rationale.

The initial clause obviously needs a verb, but I’m not inclined to speculate the kind of action Sha’uwl was recommending: "But (de) if (ei) you all (sy) Christou (ΧΡΥ – placeholder for Messiyah, the Implement of Yahweh), then (ara) you exist as (este) Abraham’s (Abraam – transliteration of the name meaning Merciful and Gracious Father’s) seed (sperma – descendant and offspring) with respect to (kata – down from, against, or according to) [the] promised and announced (epaggelia – the heralding of consent approval and agreement, from epaggello, to announce and swear under oath that something will be done by way of voluntarily furnishing a something which the one making the pledge has the ability and authority to perform, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger to) heirs (kleronomos – someone who receives their legal portion by chance)." (Galatians 3:29)

As we have already discovered, kleronomos, translated "heirs," is a compound of kleros and nomos, meaning both "law, and manmade tradition." A kleros was "a lot or stone with a person’s name inscribed on it, which along with other names on other stones, was tossed into a jar, shaken, and then selected purely by chance as a result of which stone fell to the ground first." So, once again, this isn’t the most appropriate word to describe our adoption into Yahweh’s family. We are not selected by random chance, and the casting of lots is akin to divination, something Yahweh says is an abomination.

But the problem is actually much bigger than that. Since the crux of Paul’s argument continues to be an artificial, and indeed contrived, contrast between the Law and the promise made to Abraham, selecting a word for "heir" based upon nomos, defeats the purpose and demonstrates a complete disregard for the intelligence of his audience.

The KJV managed to turn a simple, albeit flawed, statement into a question: "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Jerome was a smart fellow, so I’m convinced that he recognized that Paul had just contradicted himself. LV: "And if you are Christi, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise."

There is nothing akin to "And now that you belong to" in the Greek text, so why is it in the NLT: "And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God‘s promise to Abraham belongs to you." There is also no justification for "you, the, true, children, of, you, are, his, and, God’s, to, (the second) Abraham, belongs, to, or you."

At this point, the second codicil of Pauline Doctrine is in the books. Combined with Sha’uwl’s first plank, it is presented here for your evaluation.

"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 Christon, 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 Christ, but are found to be sinning (by observing the Torah), shouldn’t we be anxious that Christ 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)

"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)

"In as much as Abraham believed God, He was thought to be upright. (3:6) Come to know and recognize as a result of faith, 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 good news 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)

"For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (3:10) But with that Law, no one is vindicated or justified alongside God, because it is clearly evident: ‘The upright and just live out of faith.’ (3:11) The Law exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, ‘The one who performs them lives by them.’ (3:12) Christos redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, coming to exist as a curse for our sake, because it is written: ‘Accursed is everyone who is hanging upon wood.’ (3:13) As a result, with reference to the people from different races and places, the beneficial word of Abraham, came to exist in Christo Iesou in order to experience the beneficial word of the Spirit through faith." (3:14)

"Brothers, according to man’s way of speaking, man validates an agreement between parties; no one rejects it or adds to that which is arranged and prescribed. (3:15) But to Abraham were said these announced promises and to his seed. And it does not say ‘seeds,’ as in the manner of upon many, but to the contrary upon one, ‘and your seed,’ who exists as Christos. (3:16) But this I say, a covenant agreement between parties was established and validated in advance by God. After four-hundred and thirty years, having become the Torah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the announced promise. (3:17) Because if inheritance comes out of the Torah, it is no longer from a promise, but God provided Grace to Abraham by an announced messenger and by way of a promise." (3:18)

"Why therefore this Law? It was until the seed who was promised came, the arranged Messenger in the person and power of a mediator. (3:19) But now the mediator does not exist as an identical representation of one, but God exists as one. (3:20) Indeed, the Torah cannot be contrary to the promise of the consent agreement. For if the Torah produced the power to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous. (3:21) To the contrary, Scripture completely shuts the door on inheritance, imprisoning everything under the auspices of error and evil in order that the promised agreement from the faith of Iesou Christou can be given by believing." (3:22)

"But before the arrival of the faith, under the Law, we were held in custody, restricted and trapped until the inevitable future arrival of the faith was revealed. (3:23) As a result, the Law came to exist as our taskmaster until Christon so that by means of the faith we could be acquitted). (3:24) But now that the faith has come, we no longer exist under a taskmaster. (3:25) For every son of God exists by way of the faith in Christo Iesou. (3:26) Because as many as are cleansed and immersed into Christon, Christon has clothed you. (3:27) No longer ‘Ioudaios nor Greek, no longer slave nor free, no longer male and female, because you all exist as one in Christo Iesou. (3:28) But if you all Christou, then you exist as Abraham’s seed with respect to the promised and announced heirs." (3:29)

While there have been a few isolated moments of clarity, confusion has been more prevalent. While we have read things pertaining to our salvation which have not been totally misleading, most of what we have read has been inaccurate.

In order to set all of this in perspective, based upon my understanding of Yahweh’s nature, His purpose and plan as articulated by Yahshua and by Yahweh in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, here is how I would categorize the first seventy-four Galatians verses.

Therefore, not one of the seventy-four passages presented in the first half of Galatians represent a completely accurate depiction of salvation. And just 8% were partly accurate, but not necessarily sufficient to advance our understanding. So it would be fair to say that nothing that Paul has written thus far in Galatians has been helpful.

While 8% of all verses were unrelated to our salvation, that’s only a problem in that Paul has been overly concerned about promoting himself, and on establishing his "unassailable credentials as an Apostle." And while a partially accurate verse is acceptable in a letter, it isn’t in Scripture, and there are seven of them in the first half of Galatians.

Prior to having scrutinized Paul’s every word, I was inclined to believe that most of the difficult issues associated with Galatians were the result of an inadequate resolution between the Towrah and Rabbinical Law. But in the context of this letter there has been no doubt that Sha’uwl’s intent has been to dissolve and dismantle the Torah. He has left no doubt in this regard.

I was surprised to find that nearly one out of every six sentences in Galatians was unintelligible. Either the words in the text were insufficient to register a cogent thought, or the point being made was incomprehensible 16% of the time.

But the fact that 50 of the 74 passages, almost two out of every three verses, fully 61% are wrong (that is to say they are in conflict with Yahweh’s Word and Yahshua’s testimony), is devastating to Paul’s credibility and to the veracity of his epistle.

And when it comes to evaluating the credibility of a letter considered to be "Scripture" by billions, we must also add incomprehensible and insufficient to this total, increasing that which is unintelligible to an astounding 19 of 74 verses, over 20% of the total.

But in this case we cannot pin the blame on scribal error or careless transmission. There is no older or more reliable Renewed Covenant manuscript than Papyrus 46, in which we find copies of Paul’s epistles, including Galatians. Recovered alongside the oldest manuscript copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts in Papyrus 45, both codices are highly respected and are the product of careful and professional scribes. The most comprehensive dating evaluation concluded that P46 was scribed as early as 85CE, with the most pessimistic evaluations placing it in the early second century.

Moreover, Papyrus 46 is remarkably consistent with modern manuscripts which are based upon majority texts. At least apart from the absence of placeholders in manuscripts such as the Nestle-Aland, Papyrus 46 corresponds to the NA27 almost 95% of the time. So, if we cannot trust the textual accuracy of Galatians, the rest of the Renewed Covenant becomes highly suspect.

Based upon the evidence before us, and recognizing that we are still in the midst of Paul’s letter, we are in a position to make some preliminary conclusions about the epistle to the Galatians. It would be fair to say that nothing Paul has written in Galatians has been completely accurate or useful, and thus it has added nothing to our understanding of God or His plan of salvation. But over three quarters (78%) of what we have read has been inaccurate or incomprehensible. And the remaining is either irrelevant or too easily twisted to be of any value.

But to be fair, Galatians is widely considered to be Paul’s worst letter. (Although I don’t think that is so. There are others which are worse.) So if it were not for the fact that it has been used to say that we should no longer observe the Torah, but instead believe this man’s Gospel of Grace, it probably would have vanished along with Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans. If only...