Chapter 10

Pharmakeia

Poisoned

Have You Ingested Paul’s Medicine?...

We’ve come to a place I could never have imagined. I had expected that errant translations and misinterpretations of Galatians had been responsible for Christendom promoting the myth that the Torah had been annulled. But in actuality, Paul has been the problem. He has gone well beyond simply relegating the Torah to a bygone era. He has assailed the Covenant codified therein, calling it a source of slavery, rather than liberation.

Paul has hung himself with his own words. And if that were it, so be it. But unfortunately, Paul’s noose was woven into a net which has ensnared billions of Christian souls. And for that reason, we will press on, unraveling his trap.

As we turn the page and open the fifth chapter of Galatians, Paul remains fixated on the distinction between the liberty he promises and the servitude he has associated with observing the Torah. And in the context of having made Yahweh’s Covenant man’s mortal enemy, the concluding clause is exceptionally demeaning, even for Sha’uwl. "[With] this (te), our (ego) freedom (eleuthera – liberty) [in] Christos (ΧΡΣ – the Messiyah (without the definite article, the errant name Christos is a better grammatical fit than the title "the Implement of Yah") He was set free (eleutheroo – are liberated) intending you all to stand and persevere (steko – to persist and be established). And (kai) therefore (oun) do not (me) go back again (palin – again) [to] a yoke (zygos) [of] subservience (douleia – slavery and bondage), to you all being hostilely opposed, unfairly burdened, and controlled by someone holding a grudge (enechomai – to you all surrendering and submitting to someone who bears ill-will, feeling resentment for having been violently harassed and forcibly controlled by an individual who is quarrelsome)." (Galatians 5:1)

There is a rather complex grammatical situation occurring in the initial clause which can only be appreciated through close scrutiny. Eleutheroo was written eleutherosen, in the third person singular (he), past tense (aorist indicative). It therefore conveys "He was set free." The associated verb, steko, was rendered stekete, in the second person plural (you all) present tense imperative mood (expressing a command or purpose), and thus it conveys: "intending all of you to stand." And since the only way to render these verbs accurately and sensibly is to convey everything that is being communicated by way of the Greek grammar, we are confronted by something rather "a-Paul-ling." You see, Paul is suggesting that "Christos" Himself "was set free" of "the enslaving Torah" with the "intent of establishing our" "freedom." And while separating Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Torah is Sha’uwl’s modus operandi, it is the exact opposite of what actually occurred, as the Messiyah Yahshua was held accountable to the Torah so that we would be freed and established.

So that you don’t assume that the pendulum has swung to the point I’m working against Sha’uwl, here is the same verse as presented in the Nestle-Aland: "In the freedom us Christ freed stand then and not again in yoke of slavery be held in." But here, they ignored the Greek grammar in the initial clause and the intent of the concluding verb enechomai was inadequately, perhaps even inaccurately conveyed. According to the ten most respected lexicons, its primary meaning is "to bear a grudge against someone and to violently control, harass, and burden them against their will in a hostile fashion." It speaks of "the hatred and resentment which flows from being ensnared and entangled in a trap, and thus having to surrender and submit to a hostile foe."

And keep in mind, Sha’uwl has relentlessly sought to identify this "yoke of slavery" which "ensnares, burdens, and controls" its victims as being Yahweh’s "Torah." But this is personal. Paul has now gone so far as to slander God and demean His character.

So as to remove any doubt that I have inappropriately associated enechomai with Yahweh’s influence over humankind (at least from Paul’s perspective), recognize that it was written as enechesoe, in the second person plural, present passive imperative. The passive voice signifies that "you all" (from the second person plural) are being acted upon by a verb which is in this case quite maniacal. And since the imperative mood is used to express a command and one’s intent, Sha’uwl is saying that our forced submission is the intended result of God’s announced declaration.

Therefore, the opening stanza of the fifth chapter of Galatians actually conveys: "With this, our freedom in Christos, He was set free intending you all to stand and persevere. And therefore do not go back again to a yoke of subservience, slavery, and bondage, to you all being hostilely opposed, unfairly burdened, and controlled by someone holding a grudge, surrendering and submitting to someone who bears ill-will, and who has violently harassed and forcibly controlled you." (5:1) That was hard to write, much less read.

So, based upon Paul’s attitude, and the nature of his completely misguided and inverted thesis, it wasn’t much of a stretch for the New Living Translation to suggest: "So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law." Paul’s intent is obvious. So as a thought for thought translation, the NLT nailed it.

By comparison, the KJV was a bit slow on the uptake: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." At least the King James accurately reflected one aspect of enechomai with "entangled." And it was even a slight departure from the Latin Vulgate which is rare. Jerome wrote: "Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage."

Galatians continues to be as painful as it is pernicious. This is blatantly "I Paul" am more credible than God. "Look (ide – behold, see and notice this), I (ego), Paulos (Paulos – transliterated Paul, whom Strong’s called "the most famous of the Apostles;" the name is of Latin origin and means "small"), say to (lego) you all (umeis) that (hoti – because) if (ean) you are circumcised (peritemno), Christos (ΧΡΣ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant name Christos is a better grammatical fit than the correct title "the Implement of Yah") [is] for naught, nobody useful, and nothing of value, annulling the possibility that (oudeis – totally worthless and completely meaningless, negating the idea that) He will be helpful to (opheleo – beneficial, profitable, useful, advantageous, or of assistance to) you (umas)." (Galatians 5:2) According to this statement, to believe Paul’s word you must reject God’s Word.

Since this is blasphemous in the extreme, with Paulos saying, "if you follow Yahweh’s advice in the Torah you cannot be saved by Yahshua," let’s examine the three verbs carefully. The first one, "lego – I say," pits Paul against Yahshua: "the ‘logos – word’ made flesh." It was written in the first person singular, present active indicative. So, even though the pronoun "I" is designated in the verb, Sha’uwl added "ego – I" separately, in addition to his name, "Paulos," to emphasize that he alone was the source of this "declaration, narration, command, assurance, and recommendation." The present tense indicates that "Paulos," as the writer, was portraying his statement as not only being valid currently, but remaining valid. In the active voice, the verb confirms that Sha’uwl was the sole source, and solely responsible for this statement and for its consequence. The indicative mood attests to the notion that Paul wanted his audience to believe that what he was portraying was real and completely accurate. As such, he has negated the notion that he was speaking for the Messiyah as His Apostle. Paul is speaking for himself, and he is misappropriating the impetus behind Yahshua’s mission. Simply stated, Sha’uwl is disassociating the Messiyah from the Torah, and thereby completely nullifying His purpose.

"Peritemno – you are circumcised" was written as peritemnesoe in the second person plural, present passive subjunctive. The passive voice combined with the subjunctive mood signifies that there is somewhere between a possibility and a probability that the subject is being acted upon, suggesting in this case that Sha’uwl wanted us to believe that the Galatians may have been hoodwinked or compelled into being circumcised.

Moving on to the next word, at first blush it appears as if oudeis was misused in this text. It is actually an adjective (meaning that it should be modifying the noun "Christos"), not an adverb coloring the nature of "opheleo – he will provide help." Oudeis is defined as "the negation of a noun," as "no one, nothing, and nobody," all of which are rather demeaning when associated with the Messiyah. But, as hard as this may be to believe, the Messiyah is completely "negated," "a nobody" and "is nothing" when He is separated from Yahweh and His Torah. His sacrifice has no meaning or benefit if not equated with Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Similarly, oudeis conveys the idea that a noun, in this case "the Messiyah" is "in no respect valid, totally worthless, of no account whatsoever, and completely meaningless," all of which is true when "Christos" is disassociated from God’s Word as Sha’uwl has done.

Oddly, noting that umas, designating the pronoun "you," was rendered in the personal (referring to a person) second person plural (and thus "all of you" or "you all") accusative (marking it as the direct object of the verb), "opheleo – to provide assistance" was written in the third person singular, denoting "he will [not] provide help." As such, we need to move "umas – you" from between "Christos" and "ouden – nobody useful" (as it appears in the Greek text), to the end of the sentence.

And while I don’t want to sound like a boring fourth grade grammar teacher, rendered in the future active indicative as ophelesei, the verb conveys the idea that "his negated benefit will not actually be accomplished in the future" by the subject, who is the "Messiyah." And the future negated benefit is defined as: "being of help, assistance, or value, being useful or profitable, being of any assistance, advantageous, or helping someone accomplish something beneficial."

I apologize in advance for asking you to read this again, but it is necessary if we want to understand Satan’s agenda. "Behold, I, Paulos, say to you all that if you are circumcised, Christos is for naught, nobody useful, and nothing of value, annulling the possibility that He will be helpful to you." (5:2)

It should be noted here that as a Jew, and as the son of a Pharisee, Sha’uwl would have been circumcised eight days after he was born. So by writing this sentence, Paul is either saying that his rules don’t apply to him (as was the case with Muhammad and is the case with most politicians and religious leaders), or he is publicly announcing that the Messiyah is of no value to him. And I’ll let you ponder whether one or both of these realities is actually true.

Now here is a consortium of English translations for your consideration. NA: "Look I Paul say to you that if you might be circumcised Christ you nothing will benefit." LV: "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." KJV: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." NASB: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."

In this case, the NLT has actually moderated what Paul has said: "Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you." While Paul wrote that you have no hope of salvation if you are circumcised, the evangelical text softened that considerably to suggest that circumcision isn’t beneficial when it comes to salvation.

Since I am bereft of words, let’s reconsider Yahweh’s position on circumcision as it was articulated in Genesis. "God said to ‘Abraham (from ‘ab, father, and raham, compassionate, merciful and forgiving): ‘You shall closely and carefully observe (samar – personally examine, intently look at, care about, revere, study, heed, keep, and be preserved by) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth), and your descendants after you throughout their generations (dowr – dwelling places and time). (17:9) This is My Covenant (beriyth – family-oriented agreement) which relationally you shall closely, personally, and carefully observe (samar – intently study, examine, and keep) between Me and you, and between your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. (17:10) And you shall be circumcised in the flesh (basar – physical body and genitalia) of your foreskin (‘aralah – fold of skin that covers the conical tip of the penis); and it shall be accordingly the sign (‘owt – the mark and non-verbal symbol, the example and standard) of the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beriyth – marriage vow and binding agreement between parties; from beiyth, family, home, and households) between Me and you. (17:11) Absolutely circumcise (muwl muwl) those born in your home (bayith) and those you adopt.... This shall exist as My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth) in your flesh, as an everlasting and eternal (‘owlam – completely unlimited in time, location, or situation) Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth)." (Genesis 17:12-13)

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

Rather than Sha’uwl’s "if you are circumcised, your salvation is nullified," God said: "if you are not circumcised, your soul will be cut off and separated from My family because you have broken and nullified My Familial Covenant Relationship." So, you can believe Paul, which means rejecting Yahweh, or you can trust Yahweh, which means rejecting Paul. Their positions are the antithesis of one another.

In that seven long chapters have come and gone since we last considered Yahweh’s position on circumcision, and since Christian apologists errantly protest that Genesis only pertains to Yisra’el (which incidentally means "individuals who strive with God"), let’s ponder Yahweh’s express position on Gentile circumcision.

"And Yahuweh said to me, ‘Son of man, place on your heart, see with your eyes, and listen with your ears to all which I am saying to you concerning all of the statutes (clearly communicated prescriptions) of the House of Yahuweh, and concerning His entire Towrah (towrah – law, direction, teaching, and prescriptions for living). Place it on your heart (closely examine the Towrah, carefully accounting for everything it reveals, and be preserved by the Towrah), on the path and entrance to (the way to and doorway of) the Household and Home and with regard to you setting forth from the Temple (miqdash – the Sanctuary and purifying place which is set apart).’" (Ezekiel 44:5)

"And you shall say to the rebellious ones (mery – to those who are resist My authority, and who are disobedient and opposed), to the House of Yisra’el (beiyth yisra’el – home of those who strive, live, and endure with God), this is what My Foundation, the Upright Pillar, Yahuweh, says: ‘Your greatest, most detestable abomination (repulsive, loathsome, immoral, and abhorrent practice) of all in the House of Yisra’el (beiyth yisra’el – home of those who strive, live, and endure with God) is including and pursuing sons of foreigners who are uncircumcised of heart and who are uncircumcised of flesh to exist in My Temple (My Sanctuary and purifying place which is set apart) to defile and profane it and Him (halal huw’ – to desecrate and pollute it, treating Him with contempt [with huw’, meaning it or Him serving to unify Yahshua and the Temple]) alongside My Home, in your coming near and approaching My bread, My finest and choicest oil and wine, and My blood. You broke (parar – severed, violated, and nullified, revoked, frustrated, and thwarted) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth) by all your detestable abominations (tow’ebah – repulsive and loathsome acts), and by not closely and personally observing (samar – carefully examining, being aware of, paying close attention to) the required function (responsibility and mandatory mission) of My Set-Apart and Purifying Ones [the Messiyah Yahshua and the Set-Apart Spirit].’" (Ezekiel 44:6-8)

"And you were appointed to personally and carefully observe (samar – to care about) this required function (mismeret – responsibility and mission) concerning My Temple (Sanctuary and purifying place which is set apart) on your behalf.’ Thus says My Foundation, the Upright Pillar, Yahuweh: ‘Every foreign son who is uncircumcised in heart and in the flesh shall not be included inside My Temple (Sanctuary, Tabernacle, and purifying place which is set apart [i.e., Heaven]).’" (Ezekiel 44:8-9)

And for those who believe that this prophetic admonition will be limited to Yahweh’s Millennial Temple, Revelation reveals: "All who are victorious will become pillars in the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of My God..." (Revelation 3:12) Further, during the Millennial Sabbath there won’t be any uncircumcised individuals because the One Thousand Year Right is a celebration of the Covenant. During this time, Yahweh Himself will rule the world from His Millennial Temple, making the "greatest abomination" in history impossible. And that leaves no doubt that Yahweh’s anger is directed toward a Jew who personally invited uncircumcised Gentiles into His home. And no one in human history is more famous for doing this very thing than Sha’uwl.

Therefore, considering Yahweh’s unequivocal position on this particular topic, it would be inappropriate to spin Paul’s thesis to infer that circumcision, like baptism, was only a symbolic act demonstrating one’s desire to be included in the Covenant, so that it, in and of itself would be valueless, at least apart from the lack of respect it would show toward our Heavenly Father’s instructions. But that isn’t what Sha’uwl is proposing. Satan’s Apostle is not only assailing God’s instruction regarding circumcision, by disassociating Yahshua from the Torah, he has said that the Messiah cannot help those who are circumcised. In essence, Paul’s position is that if you rely on God’s Word you cannot be saved.

Continuing to assail Yahweh’s Covenant, whose sign remains circumcision, and God’s Torah, whose living embodiment was the Messiyah, the man who considered his testimony more vital than God’s, ineloquently opined: "But now (de) again (palin – on the other hand) I testify (martyromai – I declare as a witness, I affirm and I insist) that (hoti) every (pas) man (anthropos) who is circumcised (peritemno), he actually exists (eimi) obligated (opheiletes – one who is in debt) to do and perform (poieomai – to carry out the assigned tasks of) the entire (holos – all of, the whole, total and complete) Law (nomon – Torah)." (Galatians 5:3)

Since circumcision is the sign of the Covenant, and since Paul has identified the "Law" with the Covenant inscribed on Mount Sinai, it’s obvious that he is still addressing the Torah. And in this case, the myth that Sha’uwl is promoting is that if someone does anything Yahweh asks, they have to do everything He asks, or they are dead men walking. But that is not the case. In the heart of the Torah Yahweh presents His remedy for our inadequacies. The express purpose of His seven Called-Out Assemblies is to save us from ourselves.

But that is not to say that this myth, one born out of ignorance, isn’t persuasive. Christians the world over and throughout time have been deceived by Sha’uwl’s arrogance into believing that "the problem with the Torah is that its restrictive and antiquated rules require perfection." But let’s say for the sake of argument that Paul was right: how can disobeying everything God recommends endear a person to God? And that is precisely what Paul is insisting upon. The self-proclaimed Apostle of God wants Christians to disobey all of God’s instructions. Now, I ask you: who do you suppose inspired him to say such a thing?

Paul is wrong and he knows it. He was aware that the Levitical priesthood had been replaced by Rabbis who had not been authorized by God to fulfill their roles. He knew that the Ark of the Covenant was unavailable, and that according to Yahshua the Temple itself would soon be destroyed. He also recognized that the people were under the yoke of Roman law. So, Paul knew that there were many things which were prescribed in the Torah which could not be done. Therefore, salvation could not have been a matter of doing everything the Torah prescribed, but instead understanding its prescriptions sufficiently to trust Yahweh’s remedy.

Seeing religion among the rubbish, the NLT again interpreted Paul correctly, which of course put them in opposition to God. "I’ll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses." Nowhere does God state that men "find favor" with Him as a result of being circumcised. Circumcision is prescribed as "the sign of the Covenant," not the symbol of salvation or reconciliation. Moreover, for the vast preponderance of people, circumcision isn’t a choice, but instead something done to them when they are eight or fewer days old. Not a single newborn in human history has said or thought: "I want to have someone cut off the end of my dingaling so that I can earn favor with God?" And as a result, Paul’s animosity against circumcision is misplaced.

For consistency sake, here are the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of Paul’s poison. The LV reads: "And I testify again to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole law." And the KJV says: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."

The operative term in this next passage is apo. It "describes the separation of a person from an object with which he was formally united but is now disjoined." In this case Sha’uwl is speaking of the purported separation of "Christou from the Torah." Speaking of those who have chosen to follow Yahweh’s Torah instructions regarding circumcision, the Devil’s advocate testifies: "You have invalidated and rendered inoperative (katargeo – you have put an end to, made inactive and useless, and abolished the purpose and function of) the separation of (apo – the movement away of) Christou (ΧΥ – the Messiyah (but without the definite article, the errant name Christou is a better grammatical fit than the correct title "the Implement of Yah") whosoever (hostis) is in unison with (en) the Law (nomo – the Torah). You having been rendered righteous with (dikaioo – having been acquitted, put right, and set free because of) Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (Charis – a transliteration of the name of the Greek goddesses known as the Gratia or Graces in Roman mythology), have fallen away and have been forsaken (ekpipto – have become inadequate and have descended from a higher place to a lower one, you have bowed down and prostrated yourselves)." (Galatians 5:4) Sha’uwl was a man on a mission. Too bad it involved promoting pagan deities and demeaning the only actual Deity on behalf of the Adversary.

The Nestle-Aland renders the Greek text as follows: "You have been abolished from Christ who in law are made right the favor you fell out." This is actually less comprehensible than my more literal and exacting presentation of the same words.

But as you probably anticipated, this poorly expressed thought has been interpreted by Christendom to say: "For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace." To the contrary, it is only by observing the Torah that we can come to know the Messiah, understand what He did, and rely upon His merciful favor. Those who disassociate the Torah from Yahshua, separate themselves from Yahweh. Therefore, the NLT has become the antithesis of Yahweh’s Word.

But they were not the first to commit this heinous crime. There was a long line of false teachers before them, starting with Paul. The LV reads: "You are made void of Christo, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from Gratia." The KJV parroted this thought by publishing: "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." It is interesting, however, that not one of these variations has properly translated "katargeo – you have invalidated and rendered inoperative" in the initial sentence, and most either ignored or misstated the meaning of "apo – the separation of." But it’s Paul’s grammar that is to blame for the variant renderings of the second sentence.  

I suppose that this statement could be salvaged with the help of a good editor. "Because (gar – for then) we (emeis) [in] Spirit (ΠΝΙ) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally conveyed "trust and reliance" but migrated over time as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles to mean "belief") we eagerly look forward (apekdechomai – assiduously and patiently await, expecting) anticipating (elpis – hoping for and expecting) righteousness (dikaiosyne – being right and thus acceptable, innocence by observing the law)." (Galatians 5:5)

The NA suggests that Paul said: "We for in spirit from trust hope of rightness we await." LV: "For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice." And the KJV edits the "Apostle’s" words this way: "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."

While faith is irrelevant, indeed counterproductive, the Spirit indwells those who come to know, trust, and rely upon Yahweh. But the instant the Set-Apart Spirit takes up residence in us; we are purified, and thus instantly become right with God. This isn’t something that we "hope for," or "eagerly anticipate," but instead enjoy.

Even more confused than Paul, and completely missing the purpose of the Spirit, the NLT conveys: "But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us."

Since this is literally life and death, it is worth repeating. We not only obtain the cleansing benefits of the Spirit immediately upon being born anew from above, but nothing comes to us by way of "faith." Yahweh’s "promises" are knowable because they are all memorialized in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And we know that we can trust them because they are all enveloped in prophetic predictions which have proven to be accurate. As such, those who know the Torah are in a position to trust Yahweh and rely upon His provision. Those who don’t understand God’s Word are relegated to faith, while those who understand God’s Word recognize that faith is irrelevant.

Using the Nestle-Aland as a handrail in the upside down, backwards, and twisted realm of Paul’s mind, we find: "In for Christ Jesus neither circumcision some is strong nor uncircumcision but trust through love operating."

Or, more precisely: "[For (gar – because then) omitted from P46] In (en) Christo ‘Iesou (ΧΡΩ ΙΗY – divine placeholders for the Messiyah (the Implement of Yah), Yahushua (Yah Saves); but since this epistle has disassociated Yahshua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Towrah, it’s misleading to connect that which he has severed) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) is someone capable, strong, healthy, or empowered (tis ischuo – is someone competent and prevail) nor (oute – neither) being uncircumcised (akrobystia), on the contrary (alla) through (dia) faith (pistis – originally conveyed "trust and reliance" but migrated over time as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles to mean "belief") love (agape) operates (energeo – functions and works)." (Galatians 5:6) Papyrus 46 renders "energeo – working" in the genitive participle rather than the nominative, and therefore, it modifies the noun "agape – love," not "pistis – trust."

If Paul had provided, as Yahshua had done, Scriptural evidence that his audience could use to comprehend who and what Yahshua represents (Yahweh and the Torah, respectively) and what Yahshua had done to demonstrate His love for us (by fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits), then, so long as Sha’uwl removed the references to circumcision, this would have been beneficial. But it is impossible for someone to trust and rely upon someone and something they only know by name (and an errant, meaningless name at that). In this regard, Paul’s presentation of "Christo ‘Iesou" is inferior to MTV’s presentation of a rock star, because with their videos, the fan gets to listen to the performer’s lyrics. But both breed an ignorant and irrational fascination with a celebrity the audience knows only by name and genre. They don’t know the star, they don’t have a relationship with him, and he has none with them.

Further, understanding circumcision is relevant to our salvation, as is considering the symbolism of baptism. And since circumcision is something Yahweh expects of those who seek admission into His home by way of His Familial Covenant relationship, circumcision is the furthest thing from irrelevant as Paul is suggesting.

Should Paul have been saying that "our faith expressing itself in love" was the means to our salvation, as the NLT claims, then he would have been wrong on all accounts. Our redemption is predicated upon relying upon Yahweh’s demonstration of His love for us. "For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love." KJV: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

Christian apologists will no doubt protest that it’s time to give Paul a break. After all he was preaching about "faith expressing itself in love." What could possibly be wrong with that? The problem is that rejecting our Heavenly Father’s advice, which is what Paul is asking, is the opposite of loving God. And placing one’s faith in Pauline Doctrine, which is what Paul is demanding, is the opposite of knowing God.

Here then is a summary of the Devil’s Advocate’s most recent assault on the truth: "With this, our freedom in Christos, He was set free intending you all to stand and persevere. And therefore do not go back again to a yoke of subservience, slavery, and bondage, to you all being hostilely opposed, unfairly burdened, and controlled by someone holding a grudge, surrendering and submitting to someone who bears ill-will, and who has violently harassed and forcibly controlled you. (5:1) Behold, I, Paulos, say to you all that if you are circumcised, Christos is for naught, nobody useful, and nothing of value, annulling the possibility that He will be helpful to you. (5:2) But now again I testify that every man who is circumcised, he actually exists obligated to do and perform the entire Law. (5:3) You have invalidated and rendered useless the separation of Christou whosoever is in unison with the Law. You having been rendered righteous with Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace, have fallen away and have been forsaken. (5:4) Because we in Spirit out of faith we eagerly look forward anticipating righteousness. (5:5) In Christo ‘Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, strong, healthy, or empowered nor being uncircumcised, on the contrary through faith love operates." (5:6)

I suppose one would have to be a Christian to believe or even understand this: "You were running well who you hindered in the truth not to be persuaded." (Courtesy of the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition)

A verbatim rendering would look more like this: "You were running (trecho –you strove and progressed) well (kalos – accurately and morally, beautifully and rightly). Who or what (tis) cut off and impeded (egkopto – prevented, delayed, detained, thwarted, and severed) the objective truth (aletheia – that which is in accord with what actually occurred and corresponds with reality) [so that you are] not (me) persuaded believers (peithos – convinced and faithful)?" (Galatians 5:7)

We know that this has nothing to do with "objective truth," because the Galatians epistle has been neither "objective," nor "truthful." So the issue here is that Sha’uwl was so convinced that he was smarter and more persuasive than everyone else, including God; the fact that the Galatians had rejected him and his message was unbelievable—and certainly unacceptable. As an extraordinarily insecure individual, Sha’uwl imagined his personal foes sneaking in behind him to undermine his influence and credibility. And for this crime, he would stop at nothing to squelch them.

Let’s turn to the charter members of the Pauline fan club, to see how they deciphered the "Apostle’s" message. The Catholic Vulgate promoted: "You did run well. What hath hindered you, that you should not obey the truth?" The inclusion of "obey" is telling, especially considering the oppressive rule of cleric and king under the dominion of Roman Catholicism. And even though there is no basis whatsoever for "obey" in the Greek text, the Protestant potentate King James no doubt relished that notion more than objective truth. The KJV reads: "Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" But "obey" is not a term that the pro-democracy, evangelical Christians promoting the New Living Translation would have advocated. So they insist Paul actually said: "You were running the race so well. Who has held you back from following the truth?"

I have suggested before that Paul’s epistles might have had some value had he actually presented some evidence which could be evaluated to persuade rational people to trust Yahweh’s Word and Yahshua’s deeds (as opposed to disassociating and demeaning them). But there is no evidence delineated in this letter. So how does one come to know "the objective truth" if it isn’t shared?

It’s no wonder the Galatians wandered away from Paul. While I’m certain that his preaching was more compelling than his writing, the emotional charge of impassioned oratory only lasts a short while. Adolf Hitler comes to mind as a modern analog in this regard. I have studied Hitler’s Mein Kampf for the purpose of comparing it to Muhammad’s Qur’an and Hadith in order to demonstrate how similar Nazism and Islam actually are. And I have closely examined der Fuehrer’s speeches for the purpose of understanding how delusional egomaniacs (like Paul) manage to spellbind their audiences with an emotional mix of racist drivel and an unfounded sense of hope in their fanaticized future. Having looked into the faces of thousands of Germans while Hitler was not-so-eloquently, albeit passionately, lying to them, I came to realize just how susceptible people are to deceptions which tickle their ears—which tell them what they want to hear.

But to this particular point, Hitler’s written and spoken messages were remarkably similar with regard to their conclusions, but not with regard to the volume of rhetoric underpinning them. And I suspect that the same thing is true with Paul, that his preaching was even thinner on support than were his letters. So long as the inspired orator was in their midst, tickling their ears, the Galatians were emotionally charged (running well in Paul’s parlance). But the moment he left, and informed rational individuals pointed out the flaws in his reasoning and the inconsistencies in his mantra, the air came out of their religious balloons, and they floated back to earth, dismayed that they had been so easily deceived. And perhaps this is the actual reason behind why the Galatians tracked Sha’uwl down and tried to stone him.

Since the choice Paul has given us is to believe him and reject God, or reject him and trust God, a rational and informed individual would have every incentive to dismiss Paul based upon this letter. And in all likelihood, this letter is much better supported than was his preaching.

Next we find: "That (e) enticing persuasion (peismone – solicitation and inducement) is not from (ouk ek) the one (tou) calling (kaleo – summonsing and inviting) you (umas)." (Galatians 5:8)

The Nestle-Aland agrees, not that it helps: "The persuasion not from the one calling you." Since that isn’t any clearer, let’s turn to the father of translations, the Latin Vulgate: "This persuasion is not from him that calleth you." Other than introduce the flourish of Elizabethan English, the KJV copied the Catholic text: "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." So, clearing all this up for us, the NLT authored: "It certainly isn’t God, for he is the one who called you to freedom."

Paul wants everyone to have the freedom to be liberated from God’s Torah. And while they are on opposite sides on the merits of Scripture, mankind having the freedom to reject the Torah is the one thing Sha’uwl and Yahweh share in common. While God’s Word stands forever, one of the things that it stands for is freewill, and thus the freedom to choose to reject God and His Word as Sha’uwl has done.

Neither the "enticing persuader" nor "the one calling" were identified. Moreover, we don’t know what either of them said. So other than acknowledging that Paul was miffed that someone was exposing him, interpreting this is a fool’s folly.

But at least, his next line is comprehensible. "Little (micros) yeast (zyme) the (to) whole (holos) batch (phyrama) leavens (zymoo)." (Galatians 5:9)

But while this reads sensibly, in this context the message is devastating. The only thing which we could possibly attribute to a "little yeast" in this section of Galatians is Paul’s disdain for circumcision in verses two, three, and four. So he is saying that those who observe even a small part of the Torah are completely corrupted by it.

Here we find that the Nestle-Aland’s rendition of this verse is very similar to my own: "Little yeast whole the mixture yeasts." The Latin Vulgate went into interpretive mode with "corrupteth": "A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump." Other than altering the word order, KJV toed a more literal line: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." And consistent with their custom, the NLT authored their own bible with: "This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!" And in this case, their errant translation created an accurate statement.

And yet while Paul’s statement is comprehensible (albeit condemning in context), it doesn’t add to our comprehension, even when it is disassociated from this text. Therefore, in order that you might appreciate the distinction between unsupported, errant, and poorly worded, human opinions and Godly instruction, let’s consider what Yahshua had to say about yeast. At the very least, we will learn something in the process.

"The Pharisees (conservative Jewish religious leaders) and Sadducees (liberal Jewish political leaders) came to test Yahushua, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered, ‘When it is evening, you say, ‘Fair weather, for the sky is red. And in the morning it will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot for the signs of the times. A worthless and wicked, morally corrupt, adulteress and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but I will not produce it, except for the sign of Jonah. Then He left them and went away." (Matthew 16:1-4)

"The disciples crossed to the other side, forgetting and neglecting to take a loaf of bread. Now Yahushua said to them, ‘Pay attention and understand: Be alerted to and turn away from (beware of, guard against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zyme – leavening fungus) of the Pharisees (Pharisaoios – a transliteration of the Hebrew parash, meaning to separate, to pierce, and to scatter; a conservative, overtly religious order which observed the Rabbinical Law) and Sadducees (Saddoukaios – a transliteration of the Hebrew sadah, meaning to lie in wait and to lay waste; a worldly-minded, liberal political party who promoted an enlightened aristocracy, rejected religious laws, and promoted their own manifest destiny)." (Matthew 16:5-6) By saying this, Yahshua illuminated one of the most profound truths to be found anywhere in His Word. The corruption He removed from our souls on the Called-Out Assembly of Unleavened Bread was derived from religious and political teaching.

"Reasoning and conversing among themselves, they said that they had neither acquired nor received any bread. Knowing and acknowledging this, Yahushua said, ‘What kind of thinking is this? You lack confidence and conviction (oligopistos – you are not trusting; from oligos, meaning you have little and diminished, pistis, conviction in the truth, trust, and reliance) because you don’t possess any bread? Can’t you (or are you still unable or unwilling to) think (to direct your mind and be perceptive and judgmental, to reflect rationally and consider evidence logically so as to comprehend and understand, to ponder and then reach a valid determination)? Don’t you remember the five loaves of bread and the five thousand, and then how many baskets you received? Or the seven loaves of bread and the four thousand, and how many baskets you collected? (Matthew 16:7-10) In other words, pay attention, observe the evidence, think, and learn to trust me.

"How is it that you did not think so as to understand that I was not speaking about a loaf of bread when I said ‘Be alerted to and turn away from (beware of, guard against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zyme – leavening fungus) of the Pharisees (the overtly religious leaders) and Sadducees (the worldly-minded, liberal political leaders)? Then they put the pieces together and were intelligent and realized (they drew connections in their minds and come to understand) that He had not told them to be alerted to and turn away from the leavening yeast of bread, but instead to separate themselves from the doctrines and teachings (the instructions, explanations, and discourses) of the Pharisees (the conservative religious leaders) and Sadducees (the worldly-minded, liberal political leaders)." (Matthew 16:11-12)

There are few symbols more important than yeast, few days more essential than Unleavened Bread, and few lessons more meaningful than knowing that religious and political doctrines corrupt our souls. Fortunately, once they were chided, the disciples came to recognize what politicized Christians fail to understand—even unto this day. There is an indivisible connection between the Covenant and its Renewal, between the Torah and Yahshua’s life, between the delineation of the path to God and its enablement.

Just as yeast is a metaphor, the seven Miqra’ey are signs, all designed to help us "see" God and recognize the path He has provided home. As we look at these signs then, let us not fall into the same trap Yahshua’s disciples did, of being focused upon the mundane rather than the spiritual, and of not trusting Yah to do everything He has promised and more. Let us dig beneath the surface to as we continue to explore what Yahweh is really teaching us through His Word. Let’s come to appreciate the promise of Unleavened Bread, knowing that the Messiyah Yahshua saved us from the consequence of yeast (as a metaphor for religious and political doctrines) on this day.

Leaving the realm of Godly instruction and returning to the Pauline mantra, we find this incomprehensible diatribe: "But (de) I (ego) have been persuaded (peitho – I am convinced) in reference to (eis – to and on behalf of) you (umas) in (en – with) [the] Lord (ΚΩ – placeholder for Yahuweh’s name and the title Upright One, both of which are out of sync with Sha’uwl’s message on behalf of his Lord (a.k.a. Satan)) that (hoti – because) nothing (oudeis – no one) different (allos – other than this) you all may have felt (phroneo – may have perceived, demonstrated the attitude regarding, or may have held the opinion or, regarded, thought, acknowledged, or understood [aorist subjective in P46 versus future active indicative in the NA27]), but (de) the one (o) stirring you up and causing you great distress (tarasso umas – the one troubling and agitating you) will undergo and experience (bastazo – will endure and bear) the (to) conviction and condemnation of judgment (krima – sentencing and punishment) if (ean) this individual (ostis) persists (e)." (Galatians 5:10)

Thus far all of the verbs pertaining to Paul’s foe continue to be exclusively singular, and thus they cannot be "Judaizers" as Christians protest. And since Paul has already told us who contradicted his preaching in this region, and has told us who he believes stands "convicted and condemned," we don’t have to speculate as to the identity of Paul’s foe. It is Shim’own Kephas, better known as Peter. You may recall: "But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed and against his presence, taking a firm stand in hostile opposition, because he was convicted and condemned (kataginosko – judged to be guilty, to lack accurate information and to be devoid of understanding; from kata, opposed to and against, and ginosko, knowing, and thus ignorant)." (Galatians 2:11)

In the case of the final verb in Galatians 2:10, e is the third person singular present active subjunctive of eimi, "to exist." And since "ostis – this individual" was masculine singular, the third person singular of e must be "he." The present tense infers that the individual, whom we now know as Peter, is presently agitating the Galatians, and there is no assessment of when or if he will stop troubling them—at least from Sha’uwl’s jaundiced perspective. The subjunctive mood of the verb indicates uncertainty, thus conveys the idea that "if he persists" "stirring you up," "he will experience the punishment associated with judgment, conviction and condemnation." If it was an accurate assessment, and it’s not, it would make Galatians 2:11 a case of premature evisceration.

Further, there are a couple of reasons we should consider Shim’own Kephas as the least appropriate person on earth with whom to feud. First, Yahshua said that upon Rock’s understanding He would build His Called-Out Assembly. And second, the conclusion of Yahuchanan’s eyewitness account is devoted entirely to the proposition of Yahshua asking Shim’own Kephas to tend His sheep, feeding them and protecting them from predators—wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The Nestle-Aland scholars believe Paul said: "I have been persuaded to you in master that nothing other you will think the one but troubling you will bear the judgment who if he might be." Since that is even more difficult to understand, let’s consider Jerome’s Vulgate: "I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not be of another mind: but he that troubleth you shall bear the judgment, whosoever he be." The KJV reports: "I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." While that isn’t what Paul wrote, and we can’t say for certain if it is what Paul meant, at least it makes sense. And along these lines, the paraphrase known as the NLT authored: "I am trusting the Lord to keep you from believing false teachings. God will judge that person, whoever he is, who has been confusing you."

Bringing this cluster of concerning and confusing passages together we read:

"You were running well. Who or what cut off and impeded the objective truth so that you are not persuaded believers? (5:7) That enticing persuasion is not from the one calling you. (5:8) Little yeast the whole batch leavens. (5:9) But I have been persuaded in reference to you in the Lord (ΚΩ) that nothing different you all may have felt, but the one stirring you up and causing you great distress will undergo and experience the conviction and condemnation of judgment and punishment if this individual persists." (5:10)

As we press on to the next verse, by altering the word order a bit (actually a lot), I think that the Greek text may convey: "But now (de) brothers (adelphos), if (ei) I (ego) still (eti) preach (kerysso – I announce and proclaim in an official capacity) circumcision (peritome) what (ti) am I even now pursuing (eti diokomai – am I still striving toward)? Then (ara – as a possible result (often untranslated)) it would have invalidated (katargeomai – put an end to, stopped and abolished, rendered inoperative) the (to) trap and offense (skandalon – the scandal, stumbling block, snare, temptation, sin, and obstacle of) of the (tou) Upright Pillar (στρωΥ – Divine Placeholder from stauros-staurou indicating that the Upright One, the Upright Pillar upon which Yahshua was affixed, the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle, and the blood-smeared Doorway of Passover are all Divine symbols)." (Galatians 5:11)

It is possible that ti eti diokomai clause at the end of the first sentence could be translated "why am I still being pursued." And while that is a perfect fit for the first person singular, present passive and indicative nature of the verb, Paul wasn’t being pursued, but instead was pursuing his alleged foes. Further, he wasn’t "still preaching circumcision" and never had done so, eliminating any reason for him to be pursued for not stopping what he had never started.

But that’s the easy part of this passage to decipher. There is nothing "offensive or scandalous" associated with Mount Mowriyah’s "στρωΥ – Upright Pillar." What happened there and on it serves as the first step in Yahweh’s path home—the Doorway to Heaven. It is the foundation and support for God’s Tabernacle—our Heavenly Father’s Home. The fulfillment of Passover was not a "trap," a "stumbling block," or an "obstacle." The Messiyah’s Miqra’ of Pesach sacrifice was neither a "sin" nor a "temptation." The "στρωΥ – Upright Pillar" is the embodiment of the Torah’s promise, because it enables the Covenant—just as it did forty Yowbel earlier with Abraham and Yitschaq. No "στρωΥ – Upright Pillar," no eternal life as death retains its sting.

Nothing Sha’uwl or anyone could say or do could ever "katageomai – invalidate, abolish, or render inoperative" the value of what Yahshua achieved by enduring the punishment of the Upright Pillar on Passover—at least for those who know, understand, and rely upon what He did for us. Although to be perfectly honest, by disassociating Yahshua from Yahweh, the Messiyah from the Torah, and Passover from God’s plan of salvation, Sha’uwl has effectively rendered God’s Word moot—at least for all of those who believe him. What Sha’uwl has written has been scandalous and offensive, creating a stumbling block which has caused billions of souls to fall needlessly short of Heaven’s Door.

Passover apart from the Torah is nothing more than a gruesome and deadly scene—one unrelated to life. Unleavened Bread is meaningless to those who do not understand its purpose, which is to unleaven our souls of sin, saving us. Sha’uwl has concealed, corrupted, contradicted, and condemned these truths which comprise the lone, narrow path to life everlasting, in our Heavenly Father’s home.

So do you suppose that this verse was a confusing confession? "But now brothers, if I still preach circumcision what am I even now pursuing (or why am I still being pursued)? Then it would have invalidated the trap and offense, the scandal and snare, the stumbling block and obstacle, the temptation and sin of the Upright Pillar (στρωΥ)." (5:11)

If we were to use the Nestle-Aland as our handrail, we would understand Sha’uwl to have said: "I but brothers if circumcision still I announce why still am I pursued. Then has been abolished the offense of the cross." Consulting with those who felt at liberty to copyedit and interpret Paul, we find the Roman Catholic Vulgate proclaiming: "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the upright pole [later changed to crucis/cross] made void." The KJV’s rendition states: "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offence of the cross ceased." Methinks we need more interpretation and copyediting, so let’s turn to the novelists at the NLT: "Dear brothers and sisters, if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised—as some say I do—why am I still being persecuted? If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of Christ, no one would be offended." In actuality, most everyone is offended by the truth.

After having endured the horrendous writing quality, dearth of reasoning, and pitiful attitude demonstrated by Paul throughout this chapter, we are now subjected to verbal diarrhea as revolting as the worst found in the Qur’an. "And also (kai) how I wish (ophelon – would that if only) that (oi) those who make mischief and the troublemakers among (anastatoo – rendered anastatountes (present active masculine plural) meaning those who cause a disturbance, who upset and trouble, and those who cause revolt and rebellion among) you (umas), that they should be castrated and emasculated, and that they might suffer amputation (apokoptontai – rendered aorist subjunctive in Papyrus 46, rather than future indicative in the NA27, meaning they should and may have body parts cut off such as arms, legs, and their testicles)." (Galatians 5:12) By moving from a singular foe to multiple antagonists, perhaps Sha’uwl was being inclusive and counting Ya’aqob, Yahuchanan, and Yahshua’s other Disciples among his rivals.

So if I understand this correctly, according to Paul circumcision was too brutal to endure, but castration would be fine. Yet I suppose that it is ironic in a way. Yahweh told us in the Torah that He "karat – cut" a "beriyth – covenant relationship" with Abraham, separating him from religion and to Himself, which is why circumcision became the sign of this Familial Covenant Relationship. So now Sha’uwl would like to cut those who advocate participation in the Covenant to pieces.

Sanitized and scholarly, the Nestle-Aland portends: "Would that also will cut off themselves the ones upsetting you." Even Jerome was hesitant to convey the full force of what his patron saint had scribed. "I would they were even cut off, who trouble you." And as is their custom, the KJV simply left bad enough alone: "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." Then while the NLT translated the operative verb accurately, they grossly misrepresented Paul’s intent: "I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves." But you have to give them credit for creative thinking. A politician who has just tripped on his own tongue would love these guys.

Unfortunately, this passage is even worse in Papyrus 46, where "ara – I pray" is written in place of "ophelon – How I wish." In addition to being a "prayer," ara describes "an earnest request to impose an evil, malicious curse." Also, the verb is presented in the aorist subjunctive, not the future indicative, making apokoptontai: "they should and may be castrated and emasculated, suffering amputation."

Therefore Galatians 5:12 actually reads: "And also how I wish and pray that those who make mischief and the troublemakers among you, that they should be castrated and emasculated, and that they might suffer amputation." (5:12)

As such, I invite you to compare Paul’s recital on behalf of his Lord to Muhammad’s on behalf of Allah. Qur’an 5:33 reads:

Noble Qur’an: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."

Pickthal: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom."

Yusuf Ali: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

Prior to reading Paul’s words in the original Greek, I had thought that Qur’an 5.33 was the most repulsive verse ever written in the name of God. And while Muhammad’s words are a bit more graphic, the spirit behind Paul’s message is worse, so it appears that I owe Muslims an apology.

Leaving the Qur’an and returning to the Christian "New Testament," we find (after scrambling the word order): "For then (gar – because) you (umeis) brothers (aldelphos) upon (epi) freedom (eleutheria – freedom) were called (kaleo – you were summoned and invited). Only (monon – just) not (me) the (ten) liberty (eleutheria – freedom) towards (eis – to the point of or in reference to) the violent and impulsive starting point (aphorme – the original impetuous opportunity, vehement circumstance, and savage initial base of operation where the walk and journey began) of the (te) flesh (sarx). To the contrary (alla – nevertheless) through (dia) love (agape) you be a slave (douleuo – serve and be controlled by) each other (allelon – one another)." (Galatians 5:13) I’m really beginning to despise this man.

According to Sha’uwl, mankind "does not have the freedom to return to the starting point" where this walk with God known as the Covenant began. Even worse, the original opportunity God provided was "violent, impulsive, impetuous, vehement, and savage," according to the man who just prayed that his rivals be castrated and mutilated. And the sadistic fellow who just one sentence ago wished savage acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the bodies of his brothers, and a man who built his reputation by brutalizing the first followers of The Way, tells those who are not his brothers to "slavishly love each other" as opposed to being a slave to Yahweh’s Torah. And while God is Spirit, according to "His Apostle," Yahweh’s plan is "of the flesh." As such we are witnessing hypocrisy and psychosis on a grand scale.

But to his credit, the Devil’s Advocate has just come full circle and reprised his "stoicheion – initial teachings and doctrines which were basic, improperly formed, underdeveloped, and simplistic, representing the first step, the beginning fundamental principles, the first rudimentary natural elements which comprise the universe, and demonic supernatural powers" mantra. Yes, according to Sha’uwl, the Torah is the one place man cannot go, because its vision was inadequately and improperly developed when compared to the liberties he has taken.

But in a way, it’s a shame that Christians are unaware of the clever scheme Paul and Satan conceived to lure them away from God. While schizophrenic and sadistic, it is breathtakingly bold.

The Nestle-Aland reflects Paul’s actual word sequencing: "You for on freedom were called brothers alone not the freedom into opportunity to the flesh but through the love slave to one another."

Unfortunately, the only way to make any sense of this verse is to scramble the order of the words, which is what Jerome has done: "For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty. Only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh: but by charity of the spirit serve one another." By inadequately translating "aphorme – the violent and impulsive starting point (a.k.a. the opportunity), they missed out on Paul’s cleverness.

Following the Catholic’s lead, the King James Authorized Version presents: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Francis Bacon, the occultist at the helm of the KJV translation, was more than clever enough himself to have appreciated the irony of Paul’s ploy.

Operating in their own universe, the NLT contrived: "For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love." In that these folks claim that Paul was inspired by their god and was writing Scripture, their interpretation surely takes precedence over my own.

So then the perverted and savage sadist who just advocated the mutilation of his brothers, offered this fantasy to conceal his actual persona from those he knew would be prone to pick and choose passages out context. "Because then (gar) all (pas) the Law (nomos – the Torah) in (en) one (heis) word (logos) came to an end (pleroo – was completed) in (en) the (to) coming to love (agapeseis – you coming to be fond of and taking pleasure in) the (ton) [you (sou) omitted from P46] nearby neighbor (plesion – friend and a fellow countryman who is close by) as (os) yourself (seauton)." (Galatians 5:14) Once again, it’s obvious that Paul can’t count. Even in the Greek text he used seven words.

In Papyrus 46 we find that "agapesai – loving" is rendered in the aorist, indicating, if it is correct, that "a previous act of loving continues to provide the desired effect." As such, it would indicate that the "Torah was fulfilled because of a prior commitment to love, one which still prevails." But set in this context where the Law is finished, we’d be giving Paul too much credit by suggesting that this was his intended message.

In fact, the man who never knew the love of God, a wife, or children, now wants us believe that he is an expert on such things. And even though a critic might complain and say that Paul was an expert at loving himself, the verbose self-adulation which emanates from insecure individuals like Paul is nothing but a mask to hide their personal self-loathing.

But one thing is for sure, Sha’uwl wasn’t an expert on anything pertaining to Yahweh or His Word. Beyond the fact that the Torah will not come to an end until its every promise and prophecy is completely fulfilled, and until the universe no longer exists, "loving one’s neighbor isn’t even remotely a summation of it, much less its fulfillment.

In actuality, Yahweh’s most earnest request is that we: "Hear, O Yisra’el, Yahuweh is our God, Yahuweh is one. And you shall love Yahuweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words, which I am instructing you today, shall be part of your inner nature. And you shall teach them diligently to your sons and talk of them in your homes." (Deuteronomy 6:4-7) Yahshua also favored this version. When asked "‘Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the Law/Torah,’" He quoted this verse from the Torah.

This was the first time, but not the last time Sha’uwl would err on this subject. In his letter to the Romans he wrote: "Owe nothing to no one, except love one another, for indeed loving another completes and brings an end to (pleroo) the Torah (nomon). Because the not committing adultery, not murdering, not stealing, not lusting and coveting, and also whatever other commandments are in the Word, this is summed up in the coming to love the nearby neighbor as yourself." (Romans 13:8-9) It’s okay, you can scream and yell and vent your frustration at Paul for writing "and also whatever other commandments are in the Word." I did. His attitude is appalling.

I’m sure that you noticed that Sha’uwl left some of the Commandments off of his list. Do you suppose that this was because he didn’t know them or because he didn’t want his audience to know that he was guilty of violating them?

The answer to that question is found in Commandments Paul omitted. So let’s turn to Exodus 20 and see what "God’s Apostle" omitted.

1. "I am Yahuweh your God who brought you out of the realm of the crucible of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me." Sha’uwl served the Adversary who wanted to be God. And Sha’uwl has painted Yahweh as an enslaver, not as a liberator.
2. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water. You shall not bow down or worship them or serve them, for I, Yahuweh your God am a God who will not tolerate a rival or infidelity, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me. But showing mercy, loving kindness, and faithfulness to thousands, to those who love Me and who closely observe My instructions and prescriptions." Sha’uwl wanted his rival spirit idolized and worshiped, and more than anything, he hated Yahweh. He wanted his followers to adore him, not God. He promoted the pagan Graces over Yahweh’s mercy. And Sha’uwl’s primary message was to ignore, even reject Yahweh’s instructions and prescriptions.
3. "You shall not promote or tolerate in the name of Yahuweh your God that which is deceitful and lifeless, for Yahuweh will not forgive and leave unpunished those who promote or tolerate desolation and deception in His name." Sha’uwl made his reputation hunting down and punishing those who pronounced Yahweh’s name. And as the troubadour of lifelessness, his every word has been deceitful.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it set-apart and special. Six days you shall labor and do all of your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath unto Yahuweh, your God. In it you shall not do any of the service of the spiritual messenger.... For in six days Yahuweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, Yahuweh knelt down in love and blessed the Sabbath day and made it special and set-apart." Sha’uwl has expressly denounced Yahweh’s Sabbath, telling his audience that observing it does not earn favor with God.
5. "Highly value your Father and your Mother so that your days may be prolonged in the Land which Yahuweh your God gives you." Dissolving and dismantling Yahweh’s Torah in the process of corrupting God’s adoption process so as to diminish the size of God’s covenant family is the antithesis of highly esteeming our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother.
6. "You shall not testify against your neighbor as a deceptive and dishonest witness." Sha’uwl was the most dishonest and deceptive witness in human history. It’s little wonder he skipped over the ninth of ten commandments.

That was telling. Paul’s preaching was overtly hostile to six of Yahweh’s ten most essential instructions. But that’s not even the end of the bad news. He committed adultery by entering into a covenant with Satan. His preaching and letters are responsible for the death of over a billion souls. By disassociating Yahshua from the Torah he stole the most valuable thing in the universe: the hope of salvation. And that leaves "coveting," which is what made Sha’uwl susceptible to Satan in the first place. But even if we were to replace God’s list with Paul’s, the Devil’s Advocate not only didn’t love his neighbors, he attacked them savagely and wanted the best of them mutilated.

Returning to Galatians 5:14, here is what the English translations had to say. The scholarly Nestle-Aland scribed: "The for all law in one word has been filled in the you will love the neighbor of  you as yourself." The Catholic Vulgate published: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." In the Protestant King James we find: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." And the New Living Translation proposed: "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’" They were all wrong, because Paul was wrong.

But alas, this next verse is incomprehensible. The words actually read: "But (de) if (ei) you bite (dakno – sting, harm, lacerate, and wound, vex, thwart, and irritate) and (kai) you eat up (katesthio – exploit and devour, consume, waste, squander, and rob) each other (allelon), see (blepo) not (me) under (hypo – by) one another (allelon – each other) you might be consumed (analoo – you may be destroyed)." (Galatians 5:15)

But don’t take my word on the fact that his diatribe isn’t Scripture. The Nestle-Aland Interlinear reports: "If but one another you bite and you eat up see not by one another you might be consumed." Nearly 1700 years ago, Jerome blended a host of Old Latin texts together to render: "But if you bite and devour one another: take heed you be not consumed one of another." The Protestant Christians composing the KJV could do no better, so they promoted: "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." This pearl of wisdom was then buffed and polished by the NLT to say: "But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another."

Since commenting on this drivel is a waste of time, let’s simply summarize this interlude in Sha’uwl’s ongoing assault on God’s Word:

"But now brothers, if I still preach circumcision what am I even now pursuing (or why am I still being pursued)? Then it would have invalidated the trap and offense, the scandal and snare, the stumbling block and obstacle, the temptation and sin of the Upright Pillar (στρωΥ). (5:11) And also how I wish and pray that those who make mischief and the troublemakers among you, that they should be castrated and emasculated, and that they might suffer amputation. (5:12) For then you brothers upon freedom were called. Only not the liberty towards the violent and impulsive starting point of the flesh. To the contrary through love you be a slave each other. (5:13) Because then all the Law in one word came to an end in the coming to love the nearby neighbor as yourself. (5:14) But if you bite and you eat up each other, see not under one another you might be consumed. (5:15)

As we move into the second half of the fifth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we find our wannabe apostle differentiating between the "flesh" and the "spirit." Thankfully, the wording gradually improves. Regrettably, the message does not.

It begins with Sha’uwl admitting that this message is from him, not God. "But (de) I say (lego) [the] spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – the Divine Placeholder is a symbol for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) has walked around and continues to tread about (peripateisoe – [imperfect instead of present tense in P46]) and (kai) deep longing (epithymia – strong impulse, desire, coveting, craving, and lust) the flesh (sarx) does not (ou) otherwise (me) you may complete (teleo – you might end or finish)." (Galatians 5:16)

While it’s nitpicking, the Ruwach Qodesh is akin to wind and the breath of life, and therefore, She is not associated with walking, feet, or the dust of the earth. Satan’s spirit, however, is. And it’s not nitpicking to say that our Spiritual Mother completes us in the flesh, filling our void and perfecting us so that we can enter Yahweh’s home, which may well be the opposite of what Sha’uwl wrote.

Further, since the oldest extant copy of Galatians was written by a professional scribe in Alexandria, Egypt, we know that he would have been schooled in the application of Divine Placeholders from having read and made copies of Yahuchanan’s and Mattityahu’s eyewitness testimony (by far the most popular Renewed Covenant texts). It is therefore likely that the scribe of Papyrus 46, written thirty-five to eighty years or more after Galatians was originally penned by Sha’uwl, replaced his Greek words with these Divine Placeholders so that his letters would harmonize with the revered eyewitness accounts. Harmonization, which is the process of creating consistency in the presence of diversity in style and substance, was the most common way scribes intervened in the text. And while Divine Placeholders were ubiquitous, since Ruwach Qodesh is the Torah’s terminology, it would have been an abomination to Sha’uwl. Moreover, because Sha’uwl’s spirit is the antithesis of Yahweh’s Spirit, it would be inappropriate to dignify Sha’uwl’s spirit with an uppercase "S."

Beyond these comments I don’t know what else to say, because I don’t know what Paul meant to say.

The change of verb tense reflected in Papyrus 46 is significant in that it transforms the sentence into a statement regarding the Ruwach/Spirit as opposed to a Pauline command people are being asked to follow. But yet you’ll notice that the oldest witness was ignored in every translation. NA: "I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete."

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, like the more recent Nestle-Aland, correctly renders pneumati in lowercase: "I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." Adlibbing a bit, the KJV wrote: "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." Authoring their own epistle, the Greek "scholars" working on behest of the New Living Translation imagined that Paul meant to say: "So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves."

That leads to this, whatever this may be: "But (de) the (e) flesh (sarx) deeply desires (epithumeo – longs and lusts for, desires, covets, craves, and lusts after) against (kata – according to) the spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) but (de) the spirit (ΠΝA / pneuma – the Divine Placeholder is a symbol for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) according to (kata) the flesh (sarx) this (houtos) because (gar) it is hostile toward (antikeimai – be an opponent and adversary, oppose and be adverse to) each other (allelon) in order to (hina – as a result) not (me) what (hos) if (ean – when) you decide and intend (thelo – desire and enjoy) this (houtos) to do (poieomai – perform)." (Galatians 5:17)

If you are searching for clarity, the Nestle-Aland interlinear isn’t any more lucid: "The for flesh desires against the spirit the but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you might want these you might do."

But we can always rely on the King James to dignify Paul: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Not a word of this is true. God did not make our bodies to be opposed to the Set-Apart Spirit, but instead designed us so that we could accept the Ruwach Qodesh. As such, body, soul, and Spirit are complementary, celebrating life in harmony with Yahweh’s design. And God never negates His purpose by interfering with freewill. Christians treating Paul’s letters as if they were Scripture is proof of this. Therefore, the Authorized King James Version is errant.

For consistency sake, here is the Latin Vulgate’s take on this passage: "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would." It’s strikingly similar to the KJV, which is telling considering the incomprehensible nature of Paul’s Greek.

Turning a convoluted sentence into a mini drama, the NLT authored the following theory: "The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions." I suppose you’d have to ask them what they meant by us "not being free to carry out our good intentions." After all, I had thought that Paul had meant to say that our intentions were of the flesh, and thus both bad, and in opposition to the Spirit.

Since it is apparent that Sha’uwl is pitting "the spirit" against "the flesh," I’d like to point out a hole in his reasoning. According to Yahuchanan, the Messiyah Yahshua is "the Word (logos) made flesh (sarx)." And may I remind you, there is a "spirit" opposed to God’s Word (the Torah), and to the Messiyah: Satan. With this in mind, and from this perspective, let’s consider the Devil’s Advocate’s case in favor of his "spirit," and against "the flesh."

"But (de) if (ei) you are not guided (ou ago – not led and carried) [by] the spirit (ΠΝI / pneumati – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) you are (eimi) under (hypo) the Law (nomon – Torah)." (Galatians 5:18) There is a word for rhetoric of this ilk: "stupid."

If Sha’uwl intended pneumati to convey "Spirit," his statement is not just inaccurate, his message is inverted. Less than one percent of those who are bereft of the Set-Apart Spirit observe the Torah. And more than ninety-nine percent of those who understand and revere the Torah are guided by the Ruwach Qodesh. The opposite of what Sha’uwl is preaching is actually true.

The facts in this case are clear. Our Spiritual Mother is introduced to us in Genesis one, and She plays a starring role throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Her role in our salvation, and her purpose in our lives cannot be understood apart from God’s Word.

Therefore, in keeping with his hatred of God’s Word, Paul wants Christians to believe that the only way to walk in the spirit is to walk away from the Law. And in this context, Paul also wants Christians to associate "the flesh" with "the Torah" and "the spirit" with "his faith."

Therefore, all of the comparisons between "the flesh" and "the spirit" which follow are specifically designed to read like a campaign speech. Sha’uwl’s wants Christians to view his rival’s Torah in the bleakest and most derogatory perspective possible and yet consider his advocacy for "change we can believe in" through rose-colored glasses. And as is the case with politicians, Sha’uwl will not only lie with most every stroke of his poisonous pen and movement of his putrid lips, but as a hypocrite, he is actually the opposite of what he extols.

In this case, the Greek text was easy for Jerome to translate: "But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law." The KJV says: "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." The NA reads: "If but in spirit you are led not you are under law." And from that the NLT extrapolated: "But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses." It is no wonder Christians are lost souls.

If the following list could be removed from its context, and be seen strictly as the most impoverished qualities attributable to the human experience, as opposed to being a list of things Paul wants Christians to associate with the Torah, then he would be on shaky, but not untenable ground when he wrote: "But (de) clearly seen and widely known (phaneros – evident, manifest, and apparent) are (eimi) the activities (ergon – works and tasks, business and undertakings) [of] the flesh (sarx). Whatever (hostis – ­and whoever) exists as (eimi) fornication (porneia – a pornographer, prostitute, or adulterer), immorality (akatharsia – that which is filthy and unclean, worthless and wasteful), sensuousness (aselgeia – licentiousness and lewdness, unrestrained morally demonstrating debauchery),..." (Galatians 5:19)

What I find particularly odd, is that Paul has already wallowed in his personal issue in the flesh, which was described as being repulsive. Further, he was celibate and knew nothing of the love of a woman, much less sensuality. And sensuality is as much a function of one’s mindset and attitude as it is of the flesh. Further, anyone who has ever read the Song of Solomon knows that God isn’t opposed to sensuality. After all, He designed the object of our affection.

Pauline Doctrine is overly fixated on the avoidance of sexuality, as opposed to relational fidelity. Yahweh doesn’t want us to commit adultery, because it corrupts the exclusive nature of His Covenant and violates the spirit of the Second Commandment. Paul simply wants Christians to abstain from sex.

Additionally, Sha’uwl has obscured the role of "Qodesh – Set-Apart, Purifying, and Cleansing" Ruwach – Spirit in Yahweh’s redemptive process. She is the Torah’s remedy for our immorality. Moreover, the most immoral thing a person can do is what Paul has done: deceive others in the name of God.

These renderings are somewhat consistent, save the wide variations in definitions. NA: "Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery,..." LV: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury," KJV: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness," NLT: "When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures,"

Considering Paul’s devotion to the Greek and Roman goddesses Charity and Grace, his condemnation of Peter, his enmity toward Yahuchanan and Ya’aqob, his hostility toward the Covenant, his animosity toward the Torah, his desire to mutilate his rivals, his opposition to marriage, and his willingness to contradict Yahweh and Yahshua, this oozes hypocrisy: "...idolatry (eidololatria – worship of idols and false gods), the use and administering of drugs (pharmakeia – use of medicines, poisoning, sorcery, witchcraft, and black magic), enmity (echthra – hostility and antagonism), strife and dissension (eris – conflicts, contention, discord, arguing, wrangling, and quarrels), earnest concern and ardent affection (zelos – deeply devoted zeal and passion, warm support and emotional feelings, intense excitement, but also potentially meaning jealousy, envy, and resentment), wrath (thymos – anger and rage, but also passion), selfish ambitions (eritheia – rivalries and hostilities, specifically electioneering while running for office), discord (dichostasia – division and dissension), and choice (hairesis – forming a divergent opinion, false or separatist teaching, choosing a religion and forming religious tenants),..." (Galatians 5:20)

There are some real problems with Paul’s list. First among them is "eidololatria – idolatry." While Yahweh is unabashedly opposed to all forms of idolatry, including the memorialization of the names of false gods, Paul has based his salvation message on "Grace," a transliteration of the Roman Graces and product of the Greek Charities.

Second is pharmakeia, from which we get the English word "pharmacy." Its primary meaning is "to administer drugs," and "to provide medicines." Since there is no reason to believe that the Spirit is opposed to medicine, we must assume that Paul meant "the use of illicit, mind-altering drugs, or that he was against the use of potions in the practice of magic.

Third, Yahshua was extraordinarily "echthra – hostile" to the government and religious leaders of His day, so being "antagonistic" towards false teachings and teachers cannot be inappropriate. Along these lines, "thymos – wrath" is also problematic. Yahweh, who is Spirit, routinely describes his anger toward people and things deserving of it. We should despise false teaching because of its consequence.

Fourth, Paul’s Galatian epistle, second only to the Qur’an, is among the most "eris – quarrelsome and divisive" texts ever written. So if "arguing" is wrong, so is Paul. Similarly, dichostasia, translated "discord," but meaning "division and dissension," describes Paul’s letter—a document which disagrees with everyone including the Galatians, the Disciple Peter, and God. Besides, Paul’s purpose in writing Galatians was to separate Yahshua from Yahweh, and the Messiyah from the Torah, and thus mankind from God.

Fifth, zelos is most often used in a positive sense. It defines the "fervor of spirit and attitude" Yahshua desired, but found lacking in the Laodicean Assembly—the very people who lacked the Spirit. Zelos speaks of "pursuing a mission with great passion and fervor and to warmly embracing a loved one." So, since Yahshua considers zelos to be a good thing, methinks Paul was adlibbing here.

Along these lines, like zelos, thymos also supports a dichotomy of meanings. But unlike zelos, where the positive aspects take precedence over the negative ones, "passion" is a secondary meaning of thymos. And there are few things Yahweh loves more than passion.

Sixth, the primary meaning of eritheia, translated "selfish ambitions," is "electioneering—the process of running for an elective political office." So by using it, Paul is demonstrating his hostility to representative government and democracy. Further, eritheia defines Paul, a man fixated on rehabilitating his public image.

And seventh, hairesis literally means "choice." It defines the act of "choosing" and is thus foundational to "freewill." Based upon haireomai, it means "to select for oneself, to prefer, to choose, to vote, and to elect." From Yahweh’s perspective, freewill is unassailable.

If you dig a bit deeper, most lexicons eventually define hairesis as "Galatians": forming a divergent opinion, selecting a religious faith, becoming part of a sect, false or separatist teaching, and religious tenets." The remaining definitions describe what Christianity has done with Galatians: "choosing a form of religious worship, making decisions which result in a diversity of religious factions, and taking people as captives."

In this case, the lexicons are more instructional than English bibles. But, for consistency sake, here is the list of notable translations. NA: "...idol service, magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects... " LV: "Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects," KJV: "Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies," And last but least, the NLT: "idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division,"

While he has gotten more wrong than right, the list of things Paul believes are associated with the "flesh," and therefore Yahweh’s "Torah," continue with: "...envy (phthonos – jealousy), drunkenness (methe – intoxication), public partying (komos – a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking), and (kai) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke to (prolego) you (umin) inasmuch (kathos – when) I said before (proepo) the likes of those (toioutos – such kind as this) doing (prasso – practicing and exercising) this (hoti) will not (ou) inherit (kleronomeo – receive or gain possession of possession from father to child) God’s (ΘΥ) reign and kingdom (basileia)." (Galatians 5:21)

The problem with "phthonos – jealousy and envy," is that it precludes us from rendering "zelos – affection and passion," using its secondary and derogatory definitions (envy and jealousy), because it would be redundant.

Komos, translated "public partying," is a problem for another reason. It actually describes "a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking," and is thus synonymous with the Hebrew word chag, describing the nature of Yahweh’s Called-Out Assemblies: "Festival Feasts." Paul may be a kill joy, but God likes to party.

In Paul’s defense, komos was associated with the festival honoring Bacchus, the counterfeit Messiyah whose annual winter celebration was renamed "Christmas." But, as with most of what Paul has to say, his lack of specificity is his curse.

When we bring this list together with its conclusion we have a serious problem. By saying that those who demonstrate these behaviors "will not inherit God’s kingdom," Paul has increased Yahweh’s list of unforgivable sins from two (don’t promote false and lifeless dogmas in God’s name and don’t belittle our Spiritual Mother) to fourteen. Not only does he lack the authority to limit Yahweh’s mercy, many of the things on Paul’s list, God encourages. And it is that dichotomy that is especially relevant in the context of Paul repeatedly associating the Torah with the flesh.

Turning to the translations, we find this in the NA: "...envies, drunkenness, carousing, and the like these that I say before to you just as I said before that the ones the such practicing kingdom of God not will inherit." LV: "Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." KJV: "Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." NLT: "envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God." Just as Sha’uwl has repeatedly associated the Torah with "the flesh," he has also disassociated "inheritance" from the Torah. His parting line was therefore designed to reinforce this aspect of his thesis: the Torah of the flesh (i.e., circumcision, Hagar, and slavery) precludes inheritance.

So that there is no misunderstanding, God has said that those who do not observe His Torah, those who do not attend His Called-Out Assemblies, those who deceptively promote lifeless teachings, those who are not circumcised, and those who do not rely on Him to free them from the religious realm of oppression and slavery, will be excluded from His home. David violated many of the things on Paul’s list, and he is in heaven.

With his mostly errant list of damning behaviors out of his system, Paul sponsors a list of attributes he associates with the spirit of his faith—one which must favor hypocrisy (at least based upon this letter). "But (de) the (o) fruit (karpos – harvest and result) [of] the (toe) spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) is (estin): love (agape – an appreciative attitude resulting from a conscious evaluation and choice, familial affection and devotion, good will, benevolence, and fellowship festival feasts; from agapao welcoming and affectionate, entertaining and pleasing), happiness (chara – gladness and joy), peace (eirene – harmony and tranquility), patience (makrothymia – forbearance and calm, endurance and constancy, steadfastness and perseverance), usefulness (chrestotes – a kind, moral, good, beneficial, and upright implement), being upright and good (agathosyne – being actively engaged in being right and good, being generous and upright, depicting a willingness to share that which is trustworthy and true), faith and belief (pistis – originally conveyed "trust and reliance" but migrated over time as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles to mean "belief and faith"),..." (Galatians 5:22) Was it not Paul who told the Galatians that they should be as he was? And yet his attitude and mannerisms were the antithesis of the characteristics he attributes to God.

If these represent the Spirit of God, then based upon Galatians, we can be certain Paul did not represent God. And while that may sound harsh, even judgmental, there is no denying that Paul’s letter is hateful, not loving. He is unhappy, not glad. His words are divisive, not tranquil. He is impatient, as opposed to being calm or restrained. Most of Paul’s words have not been useful or beneficial, but instead debilitating and destructive. His false testimony regarding the Torah has been the antithesis of being upright, especially in his portrayal of the Covenant. As a result, most of what we have read cannot be trusted or relied upon. Simply stated, Paul was the antithesis of his preaching.

But not everything he wrote was misleading. And this passage is a good example of that so let’s celebrate this refreshing change of scenery. For example, agape’s etymology helps illuminate the path to the "beriyth – familial covenant relationship" Yahweh seeks to establish with us. Agape denotes "an appreciative attitude in the context of familial affection and devotion which results from making a choice following a conscious process of evaluation." It even embodies the "Festival Feasts," and it was therefore used by the first followers of The Way to describe their participation in Yahweh’s Called-Out Assemblies.

But for there to be love, there must be choice. And for choice to be genuine, not compelled or capricious, there must be options and evidence to evaluate. And that is why freewill remains mankind’s most inalienable God-given right, and why the Torah is God’s most valuable gift. It is also the reason that God didn’t stop Paul from writing, or Christians from immortalizing him.

But Paul has this backwards. The attitude and choice of agape is what comes before the Spirit enters our lives. Using the evidence Yahweh has provided in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, we must choose to revere and respect Yahweh sufficiently to want to become part of His family, and ultimately love Him as our Father. That is why the Great Commandment reads: "And you shall love Yahuweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words, which I am instructing you today, shall be part of your inner nature. And you shall teach them diligently to your sons and talk of them in your homes." (Deuteronomy 6:5-7) Yahweh’s instruction, His Word and His Torah, are inseparable from knowing and loving Him.

If we were to summarize Yahweh’s instruction regarding the fruit of the Set-Apart Spirit, Her influence in our lives would include: providing spiritual birth from above into God’s family. This enables us to become our Heavenly Father’s children, live in His home, and inherit all that is His to give. Out Spiritual Mother adorns us in Her Garment of Light which shelters and protects us from the sting of death and the consequence of sin. Her Garment of Light makes us appear perfect in Yahweh’s eyes and enables us to exist in His presence. The Set-Apart Spirit enlightens us by nourishing us in the Word of God, and interpreting it for us, so that we might know our Father better. The Ruwach Qodesh is responsible for empowering us, enabling us to be effective and courageous, convincing witnesses on behalf of Yahweh and His message. And our Spiritual Mother facilitates our communication with our Heavenly Father, turning our humble pleadings into a compelling stream of consciousness before God.

Both manifestations of Yahweh—the Son and Spirit—work together. As a result of what God has done and is doing through His Son and Spirit, those of us who have chosen to know Yah and to love Yah by closely observing His Word, and have chosen to rely on Yahweh’s path, have been saved from ourselves—from human oppression and bondage, from death and separation.

Similarly, "chara – happiness" isn’t a product of the Spirit, but instead the result of coming to know Yahweh and being part of His family. Also, the Set-Apart Spirit does not bring "eirene – peace" between men, as is implied in Paul’s list. She, like the Son, brings division. And while the Son also brings division among men, it is His role, not the Spirit’s, to bring "peace" between individual men and women and Yahweh.

That is not to say that the rest of this is wrong. The Spirit as our Counselor does bring an aspect of "harmony and tranquility" into our lives, albeit, most of this is a derivative of the role She plays as our protective Mother before the Father.

But most importantly, chrestotes, translated "useful," is a gem. A chrestotes is "a kind, moral, good, beneficial, and upright implement, which is fit for use, and which is committed to providing something which is useful and beneficial." As such, it defines the Messiyah—and us if we walk in His footsteps. In this light, other attributes associated with chrestotes are instructive. It describes "a merciful, compassionate, kind, and forgiving attitude which is expressed honestly and morally by someone who is steadfastly upright." Chrestotes speaks of someone who "as a tool or implement is engaged in that which is useful and beneficial because he or she is doing that which is right." It "combines moral perfection and honesty with usefulness and effectiveness, all under the auspices of friendliness and loving kindness." Chrestotes conveys the idea that the "Upright One has generously and fortuitously provided the gifts of redemption and reconciliation." Even in common, profane Greek, it was only used to "characterize persons who were "honest, upright, respectable, worthy, useful, kind, merciful, loving, and pure morally, and whose works were beneficial and productive."

Agathosne is a wonderful word as well. While it is usually translated "goodness," in actuality it describes the "process of actively engaging in that which is both right (in the sense of being truthful), and good (in the sense of being beneficial)." Agathosone, rendered in this passage as "being upright and good," depicts a "willingness to share that which is trustworthy and true." It is akin to the Hebrew word tamiym, meaning: "be upright in accord with the truth," which is why it was used in Yahweh’s presentation of the Covenant to Abraham.

In Genesis we read: "When ‘Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahuweh appeared as God to ‘Abram and said, ‘I Am God Almighty. Walk in My presence. Exist upright in accord with the truth (tamiym – continue into perpetuity showing integrity and truthfulness, be complete, healthy, impeccable and unimpaired by holding fast to Me for support, becoming innocent). And I will give as a gift (natan – grant a reward, bestow a present, and even pay for and provide) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beriyth – alliance and agreement based upon family, vow of marriage, and binding oath of friendship and partnership) between Me and you. And I will cause you to increase and to thrive, multiplying your power and strength (ma’od – energy and force).’" (Genesis 17:1-2)

 Pistis, however, has served as the fulcrum of Paul’s deception. While it originally meant "trust and reliance," it was translated "faith and belief" in Galatians 5:22, because the content of Paul’s epistles, and his legacy, allow no other choice. Before Paul corrupted the word and made it synonymous with his religious beliefs, pistis presupposed "coming to know the evidence so as to become convinced," and then "relying upon that which you understand." As such "pistis – trust and reliance" has to precede the indwelling of the Spirit. It is the one thing which is required of us. But since nothing is required for "pistis – faith and belief," it can operate in the vacuum of reason and evidence that we find in this epistle. But, to be clear, there is no correlation between faith and the Spirit as Paul is suggesting.

  As it relates to this verse, these four translations aren’t so much inaccurate as incomplete. NA: "The but fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long temper, kindness, goodness, trust,..." LV: "But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity," KJV: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith," NLT: "But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,"

It’s hard not to shout hypocrite when Paul, of all people, promotes a word most often translated "meekness and humility." But nonetheless, Sha’uwl’s list of spiritual fruit continues with: "...a controlled, considered, and appropriate response (prautes – usually rendered meekness, gentleness and humility, but in actuality, a person who considers the circumstance and responds appropriately), [and] self-control (egkrateia – being strong, powerful, and controlling, being self-sufficient), with regard to (kata – down from, in accord with, and against) such (toioutos) the Law (nomos – the Torah) does not exist (ouk estin – is incompatible, does not correspond, is dissimilar, and is not represented)." (Galatians 5:23) Sha’uwl is saying that the "fruit of the spirit" are incompatible with the Torah. And so long as you recognize the actual nature of Paul’s spirit, he is right.

Prautes describes a "measured and considered response which is appropriate for the circumstance." It isn’t passivity or aggression, but instead the "a correct and fitting rejoinder to someone or something following a thorough evaluation of the specific act or message."

While "meekness and humility," on the other hand, suggest weakness, being impotent, and being impoverished, all of that misses the point of the word which is to properly engage once one is properly prepared. Prautes is the courage and character to do what is right regardless of the consequence.

And in that regard, "prautes – a considered and appropriate response" tells us not to deploy "egkrateia – self-control." Once we recognize that we have fallen short of Yahweh’s Torah, and that we need His help, the considered and appropriate response is to rely upon God’s provision rather than our own.

While the Set-Apart Spirit is "empowering," and while Yahweh and His Word are "sufficient," they are not "controlling," and yet they specifically discourage "self-sufficiency and self-control." Egkrateia is a compound of en, meaning "in and by way of" and kratos "force."

At some point, inadequacy becomes errancy. Consider the NA: "...gentleness, inner strength against the such not there is law." LV: "Mildness, faith, modesty, consistency, chastity. Against such there is no law." KJV: "Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." NLT: "gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!"

The lesson to be learned from Paul’s conflicting lists is that if they are right, then Paul is wrong. His letters ooze the "activities of the flesh," and they seldom reflect the "fruit of the spirit." So regardless of whether his categorization of attributes is more right than wrong, the only rational and unassailable conclusion is that Paul is a fraud on a massive scale—quite similar to Muhammad. Here is the evidence one again for your consideration:

"But I say the spirit has walked around and continues to tread about and deep longing the flesh does not otherwise you may complete. (5:16) But the flesh deeply desires against the spirit but the spirit according to the flesh this because it is hostile toward each other in order to not what if you decide and intend this to do. (5:17) But if you are not guided by the spirit you are under the Law. (5:18) But clearly seen and widely known are the activities of the flesh. Whatever exists as fornication, immorality, sensuousness, (5:19) idolatry, the use and administering of drugs, enmity, strife and dissension, earnest concern and ardent affection, wrath, selfish ambitions, discord, and choice, (5:20) envy, drunkenness, public partying, and similar to this which I previously spoke to you inasmuch I said before the likes of those doing this will not inherit God’s reign and kingdom. (5:21) But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, usefulness, being upright and good, faith and belief, (5:22) a controlled, considered, and appropriate response, and self-control, with regard to such the Law does not exist, is incompatible, and does not correspond." (5:23)

The oldest witness of Sha’uwl’s next statement reads: "But (de) [with] those (oi) of (toe) Christou (ΧΥ Christou – Divine Placeholder for Useful Tool, Upright Servant, and Messiyah (the Implement of Yah); but since this epistle has disassociated the Messiyah from the Towrah, it’s misleading to connect that which he has severed) the (ten) flesh (sarx) has been affixed to the Upright Pillar (ΕΣTAN) with (syn) the (tois) passions and impulses (pathema – sufferings and misfortunes, calamities and afflictions) and (kai) the (tais) deep desires and longings (epithymai – lusts and cravings, coveting and angry responses)." (Galatians 5:24) This is the equivalent of the mistranslated verse in Colossians 2:14 which is cited by Christians to infer that "the Torah (represented by the flesh) was nailed to the cross." If nothing else, Paul is consistent and relentless.

Since this verse suffers from some linguistic inadequacies, let’s see what the Nestle-Aland Interlinear has to say. "The ones but of the Christ Jesus the flesh crucified with the sufferings and the desires." But in actuality, the placeholder XY was written instead of Χριστοῦ/Christou, and Ἰησοῦ/Iesoe isn’t in the text, not even by way of a placeholder. Further ἐσταύρωσαν/estaerosan was rendered ΕΣTAN, signifying an association with Divinity.

In this regard, the King James is actually more accurate than the Nestle-Aland. They got one of these three things right. KJV: "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." But it was only because the Protestants copied the Catholic Vulgate: "And they that are Christi have crucifixerunt/crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences." And should you have wondered how English bibles came upon the word "crucifixion," now you know. As for "concupiscences," don’t ask me what it means.

Having published a handful of books on the oldest Greek manuscripts, Phil Comfort ignored them when he authored the NLT: "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there." There is no reference to "Christ Jesus" or "cross" in Scripture, much less in the Renewed Covenant Writings—and he knows it.

Of course it is true that the "Messiyah’s flesh had been affixed to the Upright Pillar" to honor the promise of Passover, but that wasn’t remotely close to what Sha’uwl was saying. And the fulfillment of Passover only resolved the consequence of sin which is death. Our sins were actually redeemed the following day, during the Called-Out Assembly of Unleavened Bread. Yahshua’s soul went to She’owl to pay the penalty so that we might receive His gift of eternal life—all in accord with the Torah.

Contrary to what Sha’uwl wrote, our "flesh" still exists. Our mortal bodies still suffer pain, and we all endure misfortune. While our "deep desires," "longings," and "angry responses" when appropriate, are good things, even our cravings persist. Therefore, if the New American Standard Bible’s rendition of this verse is accurate, then Paul is wrong once again: "Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

Since "kai – and or also" is omitted from P46, since Paul didn’t write "en – in" once, much less twice, since the placeholders for Ruwach are side by side, and since "στοιχωμεν – stoichomen – advances in a line" is rendered in the plural, present, active tense, the Nestle-Aland isn’t even remotely accurate. "If we live in spirit in spirit also we might walk." 

Less unintelligible, this is at least a little more accurate (albeit, the word order has been altered): "If (ei) we live (zao) [in the] spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) we march in a line (stoichomen – we proceed to march in a row, and we live in conformity) [in the] spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati)." (Galatians 5:25)

The use of stoichomen, a cognate of stoicheo, in this context is a wee bit of a problem. First, it speaks of "soldiers following their leader in a militaristic regimen, never stepping out of line (a.k.a. Onward Christian Soldiers marching off to war)." And while that’s the submit and obey realm devoid of freewill that Satan, formerly as part of Yahweh’s "malak saba’ – envoys, messengers, and representatives following orders in a command and control regimen without freewill" existed in, it’s not the realm Spirit-filled man is currently in nor going to. While we are adorned in Yahweh’s Spirit, our nepesh-souls or consciousness and nesamah-consciences endure forever, as does the gift of freewill we currently enjoy. Further, stoicheo was used in Colossians 2:20 to describe the "spiritual powers of this world" that "the Messiyah has freed us from." Even with the presence of the Spirit, we do not live in conformity, but still enjoy the full benefits of freewill.

And even if we were to jettison all of stoichomen’s inappropriate baggage, and consider it to mean "live in conformity," we have to ask ourselves: conformity to what? Conformity to Yahweh, to the Torah, to Pauline Doctrine, to the Church, to our country, or to our own will and nature? And in actuality, it’s evident Sha’uwl and his spirit are hell bent on saying whatever is required, no matter how outrageous, to prevent people from living in conformity with Yahweh and His Torah.

Perhaps he was trying to say: "If we live in the spirit, imitate (march along with) the spirit." After all, such was Jerome’s conclusion as manifest in the King James: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." The LV reads: "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." And the NLT simply marched the thought a little farther down the field: "Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives."

Thankfully, we have arrived at the last verse of the fifth chapter. "Not (me) [that] we might come to exist (ginomeoa) vainly boastful (kenodoxos – glorifying ourselves while sharing opinions which are false) provoking and irritating (prokaleomai – calling forth to challenge others to combat) one another (allelous), jealous of (phthonoentes – envious of) each other (allelous)." (Galatians 5:26)

Kenodoxos is a tough word to translate. It is comprised of kenos, meaning "empty, vain (meaning failed or egotistical)," and also "devoid of truth," and doxa which conveys "opinions, conclusions, and judgments," but also "brilliant splendor" and "praise." So, does it mean "failed judgment," "devoid of light," "egotistical conclusion," or "empty praise?" Our lexicons suggest that kenodoxos means "proud or glorifying without reason, conceited, boastful, or falsely enlightened." In that it defines "a person who is void of real worth but who wants to be admired by others," it is hard not to see the self-absorbed author of Galatians in kenodoxos. So why is he opposed to it?

After all, it would be hard to find a letter containing more "irritating," more "combative," and more "provocative," rants than Galatians. So if these things no longer exist for those who "live in the spirit," this epistle does not conform either.

Not that I understand it any better, the Nestle-Aland suggests Paul said: "No we might become empty splendor one another provoking one another envying."

If the KJV is right, based upon his letter, Paul would be the poster child for wrong: "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." But it’s not the Protestant’s fault; they just copied the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate: "Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." NLT: "Let us not become conceited, or provoke one another, or be jealous of one another." In other words, let’s not act like Paul.

As is our custom, let’s give Sha’uwl the last word:

"But with those of Christou the flesh has been affixed to the Upright Pillar (ΕΣTAN) with the passions and impulses and the deep desires and longings. (5:24) If we live in the spirit we march in a line in the spirit. (5:25) Not that we might come to exist vainly boastful provoking and irritating one another, jealous of each other." (5:26)