Questioning Paul

Chapter 6

part 2


When trying to make a distinction between these things, Yahowsha’ removed all potential confusion by adding "Prophets" and/or "Psalms" to His Towrah references, thereby making it obvious that He was speaking of His testimony which begins with His Towrah followed by His Psalms, or Writings, and Prophets. But unfortunately, Sha’uwl didn’t follow God’s example—in this or any other way. When Yahowsha’ criticized the inappropriateness of Jewish Law, He always did so in the context of its authors, the Rabbis. But Sha’uwl only makes this distinction once, leaving those unwilling to consider his declaration in Galatians 3:10, where he actually translates towrah using nomou, guessing which set of instructions he was talking about: Jewish Law or Yahowah’s Torah.

However, the answer screams out of Paul’s letters. If Galatians 2:16 through 5:15 is viewed as a cohesive argument, then every reference to nomos / nomo / nomou must be translated: "Torah." There isn’t a single verse referencing Rabbinical Law, and there are many which explicitly reference the Torah. Moreover, as Paul builds to the climax of his argument in the fourth chapter of Galatians, any doubt that he was assailing the Torah vanishes. He references the site the Torah was revealed to demean its Covenant.

In this light, I’d like you to consider the opening statement of Galatians 2:16 once again now that you are aware that its message is hopelessly twisted. "Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou,...."

Therefore, "faith in "Iesou Christou – Jesus Christ" is Paul’s solution to his preposterous notion that Yahowah’s Towrah, His Covenant, and His Seven Invitations are incapable of performing as promised. But if that is true, why did the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ observe them and fulfill them?

So it is now Yahowah’s Torah versus Paul’s Gospel. It is trust in Yahowah versus belief in Paul. So tell me, since this is such an obvious choice, why have as few as one in a million chosen God over this man?

And who is "Yahowsha’" if He is not Yahowah? If the Torah isn’t trustworthy, how can the corporeal manifestation of it be reliable? If the Torah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God on Passover and Unleavened Bread were incapable of producing vindication, then why did Yahowah continuously claim that they were responsible for saving the Children of Yisra’el from religious and political persecution in Egypt? If the Torah wasn’t the solution, why did the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ refer to it to answer most every question?

As we shall discover, Paul is committed to negating the Torah’s purpose, to severing the connection between the Torah and Yahowsha’, and to pitting the Ma’aseyah against the testimony of Yahowah. But when any of these things are done, Yahowsha’s life becomes immaterial, His words lose their meaning, and His sacrifice is nullified. There is no salvation, and life under these circumstances is for naught.

Considering this background, we should not be surprised that Paul repeats himself, creating a darkened mirror image of this diabolical message in the second half of Galatians 2:16. Here it is as he intended (that is to say, translated consistently with the rest of this epistle)...

"...and (kai) we (ego) to (eis – into and on) Christon Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – divine placeholders for the Ma’aseyah (Work of Yahowah) Yahowsha’, (Yahowah Saves), however, since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and the Ma’aseyah from the Towrah, it’s misleading to connect that which the author has severed), ourselves believed (pisteuo – we have had faith (scribed in the aorist tense to portray a snapshot in time without any consideration of the process which may have brought it about, in the active voice revealing that whoever "we" represents was providing the faith, and in the indicative mood indicating that belief is being presented as valid even though the writer may not, himself, concur)) in order for (hina) us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and vindicated (dikaioo – for us to put right or to be set free, to be justified or acquitted, to be shown to be in compliance, to be judged innocent and declared righteous, and to be right in the relationship (scribed in the aorist, passive, subjunctive collectively conveying a current condition without prescient or promise of being acted upon which is probable)) out of (ek) faith in (pisteuo – belief in) Christou (ΧY – a placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (without the definite article), and (kai) not (ou) out of (ek – by means of) acting upon or engaging in (ergon – works someone undertakes, works which are done, including actions, tasks, accomplishments, or activities associated with) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and which is used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), because (hoti) out of (ek) works of (ergon – things someone undertakes, engaging in and acting upon) the Towrah (nomou – the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used by heirs to be proper and approved) not will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous (ou dikaioo – not will be justified nor set free, not be declared innocent nor be in compliance, not will be in a proper relationship) any (pas – all) flesh (sarx – corporeal mass of humans and animals)." (Galatians 2:16)

It’s a significantly more sinister version of the same errant and lifeless message, this time in reverse order. The reason that the inverse is worse is that this time Sha’uwl eliminates any possibility of absolving him of the crime of denouncing Yahowah’s Towrah. He goes beyond erroneously and unequivocally stating that salvation is entirely the result of "Christon Iesoun believing," but also that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to be saved by responding to Yahowah’s Towrah.

While the difference may appear subtle, it is an enormous and deadly step from "having come to realize without evidence that by no means whatsoever is vindicated or made righteous man by means of acting upon the Towrah if not by belief in Iesou Christou," to "we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous and to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted nor made righteous." If you are not careful, the initial statement may seem plausible, especially if Yahowsha’ and the Towrah are combined to render salvation, but that cannot be done with the inverse iteration because belief in Iesoun and acting upon the Towrah are distinct, with one prevailing and the other failing.

While it is not the biggest problem in this pile of rubbish, it bears mentioning, our "sarx – flesh" is irrelevant. Yahowsha’ constantly encourages us to value our "nepesh – soul" sufficiently to observe His Towrah. There will be no physical bodies in heaven. Paul’s animosity toward and fixation upon the flesh is a derivative of his Gnostic leanings.

As a master communicator, Yahowah presents His story from every imaginable perspective, using a wide array of characters, word pictures, and symbols. Throughout it all, regardless of the perspective or occasion, God is always consistent and consistently correct. But more often than not, man simply repeats his mistakes. That is what Sha’uwl has done in Galatians 2:16. as a prime example:

Since close and careful observation requires effort, since relationships require both parties to engage, since an invitation must be answered, since a path necessitates walking along it to get to wherever it leads, it is a mistake to refrain from "acting upon the Torah." By doing so, an individual forestalls all of Yahowah’s guidance. And in this regard, in the fourth chapter of Galatians, Paul would have us believe that "no man is saved by observing the Torah." That of course, would be news to God.

Knowing that there is no such thing as the "faith of Jesus Christ," why do you suppose the authors of the King James Version said that there was? "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." The notion that God would have "faith" is absurd in the extreme.

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

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

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

This is the essence of the Christian religion as it was conceived and promoted by Paul. The Torah, although positioned as the Word of God, was rejected, considered inept and passé. The fact that Yahowsha’ observed it, affirmed it, and lived it, was ignored. Inexplicably then, faith in Him was established as the means to salvation, even though Yahowsha’s testimony and example undermined the premise. The proposition was as insane as the mind of the man who devised it. Altogether, it reflects poorly on the will of men and women to think.

In God’s attack on the Scribes and Rabbis in Mattanyah 23, Yahowsha’ clearly identifies His foes. He explains what they have done to earn this condemnation. And then, He reveals why it would be inappropriate for any of us to be similarly religious. Therefore, while this is a translation two times over, from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, to the degree that the tenses, voices, and moods capture Yahowsha’s attitude toward political and religious leaders, there is much we can learn from His testimony...

"Then, at that time (tote), Yahowsha’ spoke to (laleo) large crowds of common people (tois ochlos – many, excluding political or religious leaders) and also (kai) to His Disciples (tois mathetes autos – followers, those in a close personal relationship, and students who were learning), (23:1) saying (lego): ‘The Scribes (oi Grammateus – the political leaders, experts, scholars, government officials, public servants, clerks, teachers, and the media) and the Pharisees (oi Pharisaios – the rabbis devoted to the Oral Law and Talmud, fundamentalist clerics engaged in the public acceptance and expression of perfunctory religious rites, those who claimed God’s authority for themselves) have appointed themselves, trying to seat themselves with the influence and authority to interpret (kathizo kathedra – have attempted to put themselves in an exalted seat as judges and teachers along with (aorist active indicative)) Moseh. (23:2)

Therefore consequently (oun – accordingly, these things being so), individually (pas – or collectively) if (ean – when if ever, and in the unlikely case, presented as a condition which has a low probability of occurring) and to the degree that (hosos – so long as, as much as, and as far as) they might of their own initiative convey, perhaps possibly sometime communicating (lego – they acting on their own perhaps say, maintain, or intentionally imply at some point in time (aorist active subjunctive)) to you (sy), you may choose to engage (poieomai – you have the option to act, or even carry out or perform the assigned task (aorist (irrespective of time) active imperative (possibly acting of your own volition))) or (kai – also on the other hand) you can choose to be observant (tereo – you may presently elect to be on your guard, eyes open and focused, beholding and contemplating to learn by looking; from theoreo – attentively viewing, closely surveying, and carefully considering everything that can be perceived and discerned with your eyes, scrutinizing everything within your view (the present tense indicates action which is current and ongoing, the active voice denotes the fact that the observant are themselves acting and engaging in this way, and the imperative mood suggests that this was a polite request which as an expression of freewill, may or may not be accepted)) accordingly (kata).

But (de) the (ta) assigned tasks (ergon – works, acts, pursuits, and undertakings, business, actions, deeds, and things acted upon or engaged in) associated with them, you should refrain from, choosing not to do them ever again (autos me poieomai – these things you should question and be adverse to doing them, regarding them you should want to be hesitant, aware of the negative purpose and consequences of these assigned tasks, choosing of your own volition to no longer or ever again, act this way, in denial of the ideas behind these behaviors, negating their assumptions (third person personal plural masculine pronoun, negative particle, present active imperative verb)).

For indeed (gar – because), they choose to speak (lego – they try to attribute and imply), but (kai) they never actually act (ou poieomai – they do not desire to genuinely engage nor elect to really perform the assigned tasks on an ongoing basis (present active indicative))." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 23:3)

To begin, Yahowsha’ was warning common people to be wary of, even to suspect and to be critical of the nation’s leadership – questioning those in positions of political, academic, and religious authority – to the point of disassociating from them. In essence, He called those with the most influence "hypocrites." Unlike Yahowah and therefore Yahowsha’, who personally follows His own advice, doing what He says, political and religious leaders say one thing while doing another. In opposition to them, God revealed the means to their madness, saying that they had appointed themselves, personally claiming the authority to influence the nation by usurping the Towrah’s authority. But contrary to their claims, as was the case with Sha’uwl, neither their authority, their interpretations, or their instructions came from God – something we’d be wise to consider today.

But what is especially relevant here, is that Yahowsha’ is as equivocal as words allow relative to the chance possibility that a nation’s leaders might actually say something useful relative to the Towrah. He is translated using "oun – these things being so," "pas – individually or collectively," "ean – in the unlikely event with a low probability of occurring," and "hosos – as far as or to the degree," that "lego (in the aorist subjunctive) – they might possibly at some time convey something" "sy – to us," we then can take it under advisement. He said "poieomai (in the aorist imperative) – we could chose the proper response, which might be to engage and act, or not," in recognition of the fact that the most influential deceivers make their lies appear credible through counterfeit, where some of the strokes are genuine." Consistent with Yahowah’s guidance in the Towrah, Yahowsha’ is "tereo (in the present active imperative) – encouraging us to be observant, to keep our eyes open and be on our guard, so that we can survey and assess the situation, gathering information, and then contemplate what we have learned so that we can make an informed and rational decision."

In complete discord with most English bibles, Yahowsha’ did not ask us to observe, in the religious sense of "keeping or obeying," what they say. He was instead asking us to be wary of clerics, so as to scrutinize their words, and thereby determine whether they are in concert with the Towrah or out of tune with it.

The best part of all, however, is God’s conclusion. He is no longer even remotely unequivocal. Yahowsha’ did a great deal more than simply encourage us not to participate in the pursuits of political and religious leaders. The phrase "autos me poieomai," when scribed in the present imperative, tells us that we should not only refrain from religious and political behavior, but that we should attempt to thwart the political and religious agenda, bringing it to an end – stopping it here, now, and always. God said: "Don’t do it," recognizing that while this was His desire for us, refraining from engaging in religion or politics is our decision. This particular variation of negation, expressly encourages us not to get into the habit of participating in national customs, societal traditions, political parties, or religious rites. In other words, don’t follow the example or the behavior, and do not act upon the stipulations, of government employees, the media, scholars, one’s political leadership, or clerics, especially fundamentalist religious leaders who attempt to assert their authority and who claim to speak for God. Yahowsha’ wants us to question them, to be adverse to them, to be hesitant to follow them. He wants us to consider the negative consequences of their agenda. Recognizing the fact that His Guidance is the antidote for the plague of religion, Yahowah repeatedly encourages His children to listen to Him while closely and carefully observing His Towrah.

In that Yahowsha’ had more to tell us about the hypocrisy and negative influence of societal leaders, both religious and political, let’s listen in a moment longer. It is as if God sees people in positions of authority as parasites, burdening their citizens so that they are compelled to serve them. "So they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they, themselves, are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to be noticed by men, to be watched and to be seen; for they broaden their phylacteries (read: religious quotes, pontifications, and outward appearances) and lengthen the tassels of their garments (read: decorated uniforms, clerical robes, and distinguished suits and trappings). They love the place of honor at banquets, the most valued seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi (meaning "exalted") by men.’" (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 23:4-7)

Yahowsha’ was blunt when He exposed and condemned the Scribes and Pharisees. He was not only rebuking their hypocrisy, He demonstrated how we, ourselves, should respond to all religious and political pontifications. We ought to be wary of Rabbinical Law, of the Talmud, and of religious and political parties. His advice was clear: scrutinize everything they say and don’t do anything they do. And in this context it is worth noting that Sha’uwl has told us that he was trained to be a Rabbi. He was and remains one of them. He acts and sounds remarkably similar to those Yahowsha’ scorned and warned us about.

But there was more to Yahowsha’s instruction. Under the surface, He was contrasting man’s legalistic religious schemes with His perspective on the Covenant relationship. Men place burdens on people, oppressing them. Religions are works based, and thus one’s salvation is predicated upon what they do. By contrast, while God wants us to engage in a relationship with Him, He gives infinitely more than we provide. And when it comes to our salvation, God requires nothing of us, except that we answer His Invitations, walk along the path He has provided, and reach up and grasp His hand. Said another way, God lifted the burden of sin from us, taking it upon Himself.

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

There is no more devilish or diabolical act than misrepresenting Yahowah’s testimony, and yet this is what Sha’uwl has done by denouncing His ability to save His children. It renders everything Yahowsha’ said and did invalid.

And don’t be confused by the notion that Sha’uwl repetitively claims to be authorized by God. Muhammad did the same thing, and in his religion, Allah is Satan. Both did it to satiate their lust for unchallenged power and to neuter their critics.

Sha’uwl neither met, spoke with, nor knows Yahowah. He never once explains the meaning behind Yahowsha’s name or His title, both of which are essential to knowing who He is and what He did. He never once explains the terms and conditions of the Covenant, which is the only way to engage in a relationship with God. He never speaks of Yahowah’s seven annual Meetings, or mentions that they represent the narrow path to God and thus to our salvation. There isn’t a single reference in his letters to Yahowsha’s Sermon on the Mount, where Yahowsha’ conveyed the enduring nature of His Torah to all who would listen. Not once does Sha’uwl present Yahowsha’ as the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, and twice he lies, promoting the preposterous myth that "the completeness of the godhead resided on him bodily."

Most of what Paul has written is untrue. And while we have not yet seen an example, should one arise, the occasional accurate statement will only serve to distract those who are easily confused. He was an extraordinarily evil man. And with his last statement he has removed the veil hiding his hideous nature.


There would be no point to Yahowsha’s willingness to acquit us if we were not sinners. So if that was the intended purpose of Sha’uwl’s next statement, it is superfluous:

"But (de) if (ei) seeking and finding (zeteo – desiring and looking for, asking or demanding, and trying to obtain) to be made righteous (dikaioo – to be vindicated and innocent, to be right) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ – the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christou used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title "the Work of Yahowah"), we were found (heuriskomai – we were discovered and were experiencing), also (kai) ourselves (autos) sinners (hamartolos – social outcasts devoted to sin and estranged by missing the way), should not we be anxious (ara – an interrogative implying impatience, anxiety, and distress over a question with a negative response) Christos becomes (ΧΣ – placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (scribed in the nominative whereby the subject of the noun is renamed, inferring "to be") a guilty, errant, and misled sin (hamartia – an evil, mistaken, and estranged) servant (diakonos)? Not (me) may it exist (ginomai – may it be, become, or happen (scribed in the aorist (a snippet in time without respect to a process or a plan), middle (saying that the subject, which is implied to be Christos, is being affected, and thus is becoming misled and mistaken, by His own action), and optative (whereby the writer is portraying this as being possible and desirable)))?" (Galatians 2:17) We remain mired in the realm of poor writing and errant ideas.

Before discussing this rather odd statement, let’s consider how Christian publications rendered it. The scholastically acclaimed Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, the NA for brevity henceforth, attests: "If but seeking to be made right in Christ, we were found also ourselves sinners, then Christ of sin servant. Not may it become." The KJV proposed: "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." LV: "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christo, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, would then Christus be the minister of sin? Let it not be so!" If this was Scripture, and Divinely inspired, why was it necessary for Paul to answer his question?

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

First and foremost, according to Yahowah’s "Towrah – Teaching," our first priority shouldn’t be our salvation. We should instead seek to know Yahowah first. Second, through careful observation of the Towrah we should come understand the terms and benefits of His Covenant so that we can participate in this relationship by embracing all five of Yah’s conditions, thereby becoming children in our Heavenly Father’s family. And then fourth, during this process, we are invited to walk to God along the path He has provided to make us perfect and thus righteous, in addition to immortal, enriched, and empowered. Therefore, seek Yahowah first, inclusion in His Covenant, next, because only then can we be vindicated.

It would be irrational and counterproductive for God to save those who neither know Him nor enjoy His company. Heaven, filled with the same kind of souls who populate the Earth, would cause it to be no less horrific than the mess we have made for ourselves here – only then the problems would be everlasting, turning heaven into hell. God is smart enough to populate His home with those who find His guidance worthy and His teaching edifying, even enjoyable. This then, as a result of Paul’s letters, excludes all Christians.

Therefore Paul, as is the case with the overwhelming preponderance of Christians, have this all wrong. It is as if they are desirous of being saved by a God they do not know and whose plans they do not respect. They are unwilling to consider the fact that a sane God would have no interest in spending eternity with such misled and self-centered individuals.

Second, it is the Miqra’ of Matsah which makes us perfect, not Christo. Yahowah promised to remove the fungus of sin from the souls of those who answered His Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on Unleavened Bread. Through separation, Yahowsha’s soul paid the price to ransom those who avail themselves of this promise. Moreover, Yahowsha’s name means "Yahowah Saves," revealing to us that Yahowah is our Savior, not Christo.

Especially telling, "heuriskomai – we were found" was written in the aorist indicative which denotes "past tense." It was also scribed in the passive, suggesting that the condition of being sinners was placed upon us. Reason dictates that this was done was to infer that the Torah makes people sinners, when in actuality, it is the Torah which resolves the issue of our sin. Also, based upon the tenses, this cannot inferring that by continuing to sin after being saved that we are somehow disrespecting the Ma’aseyah’s sacrifice. From Paul’s warped perspective, it is the Torah which causes everyone to be evil and misled.

Mind you, I’m not extrapolating here. As we discovered previously, Paul says that the Torah is the source of sin and death in his letter to the Romans: "For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins through the Torah were working in our members to bear fruit unto death. But now that we have been released from the Torah, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of letter. What shall we say? Is the Torah sin? Not may it be. However, I did not know sin except through the Torah.... For apart from the Torah, sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the Torah once, but when the command came, the sin revived, and I died. And the command which was to result in life, this I found to result in death. For sin, having taken the occasion through the command, deceived me, and through it, killed me." (Romans 7:5-11)

Third, there is no "ara – anxiousness" when as a result of knowing and understanding who Yahowah is and what He is offering, we come to trust and rely upon Him. Distressful inquiry is an irresolvable product of faith.

Fourth, the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, as the diminished manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from God to do the work of Yahowah, which is to save His Covenant’s children, was innocent, correct, and properly led because He was Torah observant. Since He lived and affirmed Yahowah’s Towrah without reservation or exception, there is no condition whatsoever whereby He could have been considered evil or mistaken. But since Sha’uwl wants to infer that the Torah condemns rather than saves, his perverted incarnation of Christos would also have been misled by this very same Torah.

Fifth, since Sha’uwl presents the Torah as an implement of sin, a Torah-observant Ma’aseyah would, from this perspective, have to be a servant of sin. That is why Paul was required to remake his Christos in his image – disassociating Him from the Torah while ascribing his warped Roman’s 7 interpretation to Him. This is not only wrong; it is repugnant.

And this leads us to Sha’uwl’s parting comment. "Me ginomai – not may it exist," was scribed in the aorist, which represents a snippet in time without respect to a process or a plan. And of course, the process and plan that this is being disassociated with is the Torah’s Covenant and it Invitations. In the middle voice, Paul is saying that the subject, which is implied to be Christos, is being affected, and thus is becoming misled and mistaken, by His own actions. Paul’s god, therefore, needs Paul’s help, Paul’s correction, Paul’s preaching and letters to resolve that problem. This arrogant position was underscored by the interjection of the optative mood, where we discover that Paul is actually portraying this perverted perspective as being possible and even desirable. It is shades of Colossians 1:24-26 all over again. Paul is affirming that he is "co-savior" and "co-author" of his plan of salvation.

So in this case, based upon the grammatical choices Sha’uwl made, as the writer, he was expressing his own personal desires regarding the portrayal of a new prospect he wants to achieve and promote. He was, therefore, communicating his own personal longings with this statement, and not God’s will or plan. And as a snapshot in time, Paul was expressing disassociating Yahowsha’s life from its foundation in the Torah. Further, Paul wanted his audience to view his "Christ" as a new paradigm, as a "New Testament," and as a new and different way. Such is the essence of Pauline Doctrine.

With this in mind, if the fifteenth through twenty-first verses are evaluated as one cohesive thought, then the seventeenth verse transitions from nearly incomprehensible to utterly unconscionable. According to Paul, the source of sin, the very definition of sin, is the Torah. Just as sin is wrong, Paul believes that doing what the Torah says is wrong. So what he is actually communicating: "But if seeking and finding to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners (by observing the Torah), shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, misled, sinner who is a servant (of the Torah)? Not may it exist (I don’t want to consider him being guided by any plan associated with the Torah)." (Galatians 2:17)

Sha’uwl is attempting to besmirch the Word of God by saying that it has been replaced by faith in his Gospel. Sha’uwl’s goal is to sever the connection between Yahowah and Yahowsha’, and between the Torah and the Ma’aseyah. He doesn’t want anyone to believe that the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ served as an implement of Yahowah to fulfill and enable the Torah’s promises relative to the Covenant Relationship and Invitations to Meet with Him.

But in actuality, the moment that Yahowsha’s Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices and FirstFruits and Seven Sabbaths fulfillments are disassociated from their Torah’s promises, His ordeal and life no longer has any purpose or benefit. Apart from the Torah, Yahowsha’s life was a lie and He endured it all for nothing.

What follows is so awkwardly worded, it wasn’t until I came to understand Sha’uwl, that I was prepared to decipher his arrogant and obnoxious claim. According to the Nestle-Aland, He wrote and the NA published: "If for what I unloosed these again I build transgressor myself I commend." This rendering is based upon the following Greek words, this time more completely and correctly translated...

"Because (gar – for) if (ei – upon the condition real or imagined) that which (os) I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled (kataluo – I have put down, invalidated, abolished, disunited, overthrew, negated, rendered vain, deprived of benefit, brought to naught, subverted, abrogated, discarded, put an end to, and completely destroyed), this (houtos) on the other hand (palin – making a contrast) I restore or reconstruct (oikodomeo – I repair or rebuild this household (i.e., the Towrah’s Covenant), strengthening and promoting this edifice) transgression and disobedience (parabates – negligence, violation of the Towrah and an abandonment of trust, passing over and leaving the previously established path untouched), I myself (emautou – of myself, by myself, and on my own accord) stand with, bring into existence, and recommend (synistao – commend, demonstrate, arrange, establish, set into place, and approve)." (Galatians 2:18)

Kataluo was written katelusa, which is first person, singular, aorist, active, indicative. First person singular active means that Sha’uwl is personally taking credit for this, while the aorist indicative reveals us that Sha’uwl has already accomplished this feat – as in past tense. The. Cognizant of these grammatical nuances, katelusa says: "I have already torn down" "this home and household." It means "I have really put [the Towah] down in the sense of demeaning it," as well as "I have actually dismantled, dissolved, and destroyed" Yahowah’s Towrah. And the fact that Paul’s next statement says that he actually died as a result of the Towrah, it is certain that the book this demonic individual claims to have "invalidated, subverted, and discarded" was Yahowah’s Towrah.

Kataluo is a compound of kata, meaning "down with, according to, or against," and "luo – to undo that which connects." It is used to speak of "breaking up a marriage," to "deprive an authority of influence," and to "render something unlawful." The covenant is often presented as a marriage and the Torah was written under the authority of God.

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

Now that Sha’uwl has taken credit for having "kataluo – belittled and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolished and overthrown, negated, discarded, and abrogated" the Torah, the last thing he wants is to restore or resurrect it anew. So, in an ironic twist, he says that to observe the Torah is to be "parabates – Torahless." How’s that for circular reasoning?

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