Questioning Paul
Chapter 6
part 3
But the depths of Sha’uwl’s depravity knows no bounds. He is fully aware that the Hebrew word, beryth, meaning "Covenant Relationship," is based upon beyth, the Hebrew word for "family and home." And that is where oikodomeo comes in. It is usually translated "built or rebuilt," but that obfuscates Sha’uwl’s intent and the verb’s actual meaning. You see, oikodomeo is a compound of oikos, "house, home, household, and familial dwelling place," and doma, "building a home." Therefore, the "house, home, and familial dwelling place" Sha’uwl claims to himself have "torn down, destroyed, discarded" is the "beryth – Familial Covenant Relationship." He will affirm this horrid suggestion later in this same letter, saying that the covenant presented in the Torah was replaced because it was of the flesh and enslaved.
The one thing Paul got right, however, is his conclusion: "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) transgression and disobedience (parabates – negligence, violation of the Towrah and an abandonment of trust, passing over and leaving the previously established path untouched)."
And even with this confession, Sha’uwl was mocking God and playing his audience for fools. The operative term of the "beryth – Familial Covenant Relationship" is halak, in which Yahowah encouraged us to "walk" to, beside, and with Him. Parabates is from parabaino, which means "to turn away from, to depart from, to overstep, and neglect the path, to go a different way without passing through or touching the previously established route." It is a compound of para, "with and beside," and baino, "walking." Therefore, Sha’uwl wants believers to follow him on a new path which not only bypasses the established route of the Torah, but also walks away from God.
The message Paul should have conveyed is that there are two reasons that it isn’t appropriate for us to habitually sin after we have been saved. First, when we accept our Heavenly Father’s Torah advice on how to live, our lives are more joyous and productive. And our relationship with God is enhanced. Second, while our sin doesn’t lead to our expulsion from Yahowah’s family and home, it can influence the choices others make with regard to associating with God. If it is obvious that we don’t respect what Yahowah has told us when we disregard His Torah, then why would anyone trust what we have to say regarding Yahowah’s Word?
While you have to smile at the use of "prevaricator," it would be unfair to criticize these translations based upon what they had to work with. LV: "For if I rebuild the things that I have destroyed, I establish myself as a prevaricator." KJV: "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." Since neither Bacon nor Jerome valued the Towrah and its Covenant, they were comfortable sharing Paul’s claim of having dissolved it.
Here we can blame the New Living Translation’s anti-Torah and Covenant rhetoric on Paul. This is very close to what he intended to convey. "Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down." This was written in Paul’s voice, so it reveals that Paul believes that he would be a sinner, not based upon rejecting Yahowah’s Torah, but instead by affirming it. If this does not make you angry, they you don’t know God.
I acknowledge that dissolving Yahowah’s Torah and replacing it with Paul’s "Gospel of Grace" is in Christendom’s DNA. And I realize that most Christians have no conception of how the Torah and Rabbinical traditions differ. While both concepts are wrong, for them, the Torah is both "the Law" and Judaism. So, if the church, a pastor, or a professor made this claim, I’d attribute it to ignorance and confusion. But this repudiation of the Torah is from Paul, in a letter Christians believe is inspired Scripture. And that is why it is so devastating—so damning.
In the 19th verse, two derivations of the Greek word nomos are repeated side by side, even in the oldest extant copies of Paul’s letter. So, the pieces which comprise Sha’uwl’s next puzzle, in the order of their appearance in the Greek text, reveal that according to Sha’uwl, the Torah is deadly and estranging: "I for through law in law died that to God I might live. In Christ I have been crucified together." (Nestle-Aland Interlinear)
Closer examination further reveals: "I (ego) then (gar – by reason of and because) by (dia – through and on account of) the Towrah’s (nomou – the Apportionment’s (the genitive case restricts the noun to a specific characterization, marking it as the source of)) allotment and inheritance (nomo – share which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used, precept which was established and is received as a means to be proper and approved, prescription to become an heir; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (the dative denotes an indirect object and refers to the person or thing to which something is given or done)) I actually died and was separated (apothnesko – I endured physical and spiritual death (aorist (without regard for process, plan, or precedent), active (which says that the subject, which is Paul, killed himself) indicative (inferring that the reader is to believe that this actually happened in the past, that his death was real, not symbolic, even though Paul, himself, doesn’t believe it) first person singular)) in order that to (hina – so as a result for the purpose of) God (ΘΩ) I might currently live (zao – I am probably alive as a result of my personal actions (in the aorist tense this reference to life is a snapshot of the condition without any connection to any plan or process, in the active voice, Paul is responsible for restoring his own life, and in the subjunctive mood, this condition is a possibility, not a probability nor a certainty)). In Christo (ΧΡΩ – in 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 Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah" (while the preposition "in" was not written, the dative form is used for indirect objects, especially people or things to which something is given)) I have actually been crucified together with (Ω suneotrai – I was affixed to an upright pole accompanying and beside; from sun – with, beside, and accompanying, together and in union with, and stauroo – to be staked, from stauros – upon an upright pole; (perfect tense describes a complete action in the past which carries forward into the writer’s presence, the passive voice and indicative mood signifies that this was actually done to Sha’uwl, first person singular))." (Galatians 2:19)
Before we consider this iteration of Sha’uwl’s theology, and try to make sense of this man’s claim to have been killed by Yahowah’s Torah only to have been crucified alongside Yahowsha’, let’s re-examine examine the key words under an etymological microscope. As we discovered a moment ago, nomou and nomo are derived from nemo, the Greek word meaning: "to provide, to assign, and to distribute an inheritance to nourish heirs." Based upon nemo, nomos, nomo, and nomou reflect "an allotment which is bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding God’s hungry sheep." Metaphorically, then, nemo, nomos, and nomou describe "a prescription for living which is given to us by God so that we might thrive with Him as His children, so that we might be fed and grow, inheriting all of the property and possessions that are His to give." In this regard, and properly defined, nomos, nomo, and nomou actually provide a fitting depiction of Yahowah’s "Towrah – teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction" on the benefits of choosing to engage in His Covenant Family.
In that the world is part of our inheritance from God, and because it nourishes us, nomos was used to depict "the natural systems which undergird the universe" and to convey the "order assigned to nourish and support life." These concepts are also consistent with the Towrah and its Covenant
Digging ever deeper, but not going in the right direction, Greek Sophists, known as philosophers (men of rhetoric), often wrote of the nomos being "a collection of false opinions formed by the majority." By this definition, the Oral Law of the Rabbis and Church Canon Law are examples. The Greek Stoics (who held that men should be free from passion, unmoved by grief or joy, and submissive to natural systems) saw the nomos as "universal truth," something they, themselves, knew very little about.
Also germane to this discussion, while Rabbis were skilled in Hebrew and Aramaic, to the extent that they communicated in Greek, they associated nomos with their Talmud, or Jewish Law. Sha’uwl, as a Rabbinical student, appears to have seized upon this misappropriation of the term in his attack on Yahowah’s Towrah. Likewise, religious Christian scribes, immersed in and corrupted by Pauline Doctrine, advanced the myth, leaving us with a nearly universal rendering of nomos as "law" in virtually every English bible translation. And the intended implication is then to apply this derogatory mischaracterization to the Towrah, even though there is no actual association between law and Torah.
So, while there was once at a time long past a dichotomy of opinion regarding the meaning of nomos, that is no longer the case today. The word which originally spoke of how the nurturing nature of Yahowah’s Word enabled us to become heirs to the Covenant has become a disparaging and dishonest portrayal of the most important document ever written.
As a result, lexicons, which are universally the products of religious publishers, say that nomos describes societal laws in general and the Torah specifically. And yet jettisoned of this religious baggage, most Greek dictionaries simply say that in addition to representing "an inheritance or allocation of something which is nourishing," nomos addresses "the rules related to civil rights and human conduct within a system of justice."
As we discussed previously, Strong’s initially and accurately conveys that nomos is derived from nemo, which it says spoke of "parceling something out, and especially providing food to grazing animals" – which would have been sheep in the day, but they get many things wrong from that point on. And in concert with the primary revelation, The Complete Word Study Dictionary reveals that "nomos and nomou are from nemo, meaning: to divide among, to parcel out, to allot, to use and possess." As we have learned, they then point to aponemo, the variation of the word used in 1 Shim’own / Peter 3:7 to convey "heir," for a more complete understanding. The apo prefix of aponemo means "from," and addresses the ideas "of going forth, proceeding from one object to another, and of separation in the sense of being set apart from an entity that it was originally part."
This known, the definition then of aponemo is: "to give, to attribute, to allot, to apportion, to assign, and to bestow, distributing an inheritance to an heir." It is related to "kleronomos – to hold, and to have it in one’s power to distribute an inheritance to an heir," with klero denoting "an allotment which is divided." This form of nemo is found in Mattanyah and Ya’aqob to suggest that Yahowsha’ is the heir of all things. Nemo is also akin to dianemo, which is used in Acts to "denote divulging the means to disperse something over a wide area, spreading it throughout the world and throughout time." And in this case, the prefix dia simply means "through."
While Strong’s, unwilling to consider its own etymological research, or even Paul’s own translation of towrah using nomos in Galatians 3:10, defines nomos as "anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command; representing any law whatsoever," it was not until their tenth definitional clause that they associated nomos with "the Mosaic law." The "Torah" was not mentioned by Strong’s. It is one of many reasons that a single lexicon is wholly insufficient. To cut through the clutter of religion, a diligent individual on a quest for the truth has to thoughtfully consider many resources, consistently going over the same material in recognition that repetition and understanding serve as the catalysts which enable retention.
In this light, and as I’ve stated previously, in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament we find "Etymologically, nomos is derived from nemo, "assign." They reveal that "in the 5th century BCE nomos became the written law of the population in the developing Greek democracy as an expression of the will of the deity." Further, this Exegetical Dictionary writes: "of the approximately 220 OT occurrences of tora, the Septuagint translates approximately 200 with nomos, and altogether nomos is found 430 times in the LXX." ("LXX," representing the Roman number 70, is the scholarly notation for the Septuagint, the early Greek (circa 200 BCE) translation of the Hebrew Torah, because as its name implies there was a myth that seventy translators were deployed on the project.) So this is the basis for and validation of Sha’uwl’s use of nomos to say "Torah." Considering the influence of the Septuagint on early Christendom, especially on scribes, based upon this realization, the conclusion that Paul deployed nomos to convey "Torah as Law" is essentially irrefutable.
Interestingly, and I am augmenting some of this to underscore an essential insight, the Exegetical Dictionary also acknowledges: Congo Archbishop "Monsengwo Pasinya [who was awarded a doctorate in Biblical Studies from the Biblical Institute in Jerusalem] strongly contests the view that nomos conveys the idea that the Torah is a set of laws. He wrote ‘nomos does not signify "Law" in the legal and juridical sense of classical Greek, but rather ‘Instruction and Teaching’ in accordance with the original sense of the corresponding Hebrew term Torah.’ He stretches the interpretation of nomos in Dabarym 17:10 with the help of the Psalms to mean ‘instruct and teach.’ According to Dr. Pasinya, nomos in the LXX should be translated as ‘instruction / teaching.’"
But then, recognizing how incongruous this conclusion is from modern religious indoctrination, the Exegetical Dictionary dismisses this scholar’s accurate rendering of nomos as "teaching and instruction" with: "If such were the case, however, the LXX translator would have been detaching himself completely from the contemporary meaning of nomos. Nomos in the LXX should for the most part, therefore, be translated as ‘law.’" So even when a scholar stumbles upon the truth, theologians dismiss it. After all, if nomos actually means "teaching and instruction" then everything Paul wrote falls apart, including his own translations of the Torah. Christians can’t have that, now can they?
This reality was reinforced by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, where if you recall, they reported: "The concept that nomos means law is religious in origin and plays a central role in these cultures." And in this same vein, referring to Yahowah’s "Towrah – Teaching" as if it was "Mosaic Law" is also the product of religious deception.
Throughout his letters, based upon his citations, translations, and commentary, there can be no doubt that Sha’uwl used nomo, nomos, and nomou to present Yahowah’s "Torah as Law." He never quotes from any Talmudic source, negating the possibility of nomo, nomos, or nomou representing the Oral Law of the Rabbis. Moreover, it would be another 450 years before most of these Rabbinical arguments were codified in the Babylonian Talmud. So Paul is deliberately mischaracterizing Yahowah’s "towrah – source of teaching, instructions, directions, and guidance." While God wants us to observe His Towrah in the sense of closely examining and carefully considering His Teaching, Sha’uwl has corrupted and mischaracterized God’s Guidance as a "set of Laws" which could not possibly be obeyed, and which therefore condemn. And it is this perspective, this position, this pivot point, where the religion Sha’uwl conceived separated itself from God’s Instructions.
And make no mistake, Paul is fixated on Yahowah’s "nomos – Towrah." Of the 195 times nomos is used in the so-called "Christian New Testament," 122 are found in Paul’s letters, 27 are scribed in Lukan writings, who initially was one of Paul’s defenders, and two thirds of those are in Acts which presents a historical portrait of Paul’s life. We find 14 iterations of nomos in Hebrews, a book written by one of Paul’s associates. Collectively this means that 84% of the time nomos was used to designate the Torah, Paul inspired the criticism.
Even though it should be obvious, Yahowsha’ did not speak English – a language derived from Anglo Saxon in the 15th century CE. He did not speak Greek either. He would have delivered His Sermon on the Mount in either Hebrew or Aramaic – a cognate of Hebrew. So Yahowsha’ would have articulated the title "Towrah," a concept as familiar to His audience as were Yisra’el and Yahuwdah. Further, the original autograph of Mattanyah’s eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s initial and most substantial public address was written in Hebrew, actually citing the words the Ma’aseyah spoke. But unfortunately, rabbis burned every copy, so all we are left with is a Greek translation of His speech. And in it, we find nomos used to depict the Towrah.
For evidence of this assertion, that Hebrew copies of Mattanyah’s eyewitness accounting of Yahowsha’s words and deeds, replete with Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s actual name, were burned by rabbis, consider the Babylonian Talmud: Tosef., Shabbath xiii. 5; Tractate Shabbath, Folio 116a, Yer. Shabbath 15c, 52; and Sifre Number 16. In it you will find: "The Gilyonim [a Hebrew corruption of euangelion as scribed by Mattanyah and Yahowchanan] and the books of the Minim [Yisra’elite followers of Yahowsha’] were not saved from fire, but one lets them burn together with the names of God written upon them." "On the week-days the names of God are cut out and hidden while the rest is burned." "I swear by the life of my children that if they fall into my hands I shall burn them together with the names of God upon them." "The Book of the Minim [Yisra’elite followers of Yahowsha’] may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them." "The blank spaces above and below on account of those writings [which is a reference to the Divine Placeholders used in Greek texts of the eyewitness accounts] and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. One must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hiding them, and then burn the rest."
Further research affirms that Rabbi Meir, in 135 CE, corrupted the Greek euangelion to gilyonim and then used minim in Hebrew, to convey "worthlessness of a scroll." The eyewitness accounts scribed by Mattanyah and Yahowchanan were called "sin-scrolls" in Shabbath 116a. And should you be wondering, it was considered a sin in rabbinic Judaism to burn a scroll with Yahowah or Yahowsha’ written upon it, so these names were to be cut out before being consumed in the flames. The original eyewitness account of Mattanyah was written in Hebrew, so in it, Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name was accurately scribed.
Although it is a translation, finding nomos associated with something Yahowsha’ said appeared problematic prior to coming to appreciate the etymology of nomos, because Christian publishers are wont to render it "Law" – a definition the Author of the Towrah would never have ascribed to His Teaching. But, now that we know the whole truth, nomos isn’t inappropriate – at least so long as it is translated in a way which is consistent with its root. The Towrah is Yahowah’s means to nourish us and to provide us with an allocation of His power and possessions, which is an inheritance in the familial sense of the Covenant. And also, when used to say "towrah," nomos by association means "teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance."
Aware of these facts, Yahowsha’ can be accurately translated using nomos for Towrah. Such is the case in Mattanyah / Matthew 7:12, where the nomos / Towrah is equated to "our Heavenly Father’s good, healing, and beneficial gift," and "to the narrow doorway to life."
For the purpose of full disclosure, there are times where nomos was used in correlation with the Pharisees, and thus as a reference to their Oral Law. One such example is found in Luke 5:17. Also in Yahowchanan / John 8:17, Yahowsha’ spoke of "your nomos" in a discussion with the Pharisees, men whose very existence revolved around the allocation of traditions they inherited from their forefathers. Therefore, at least apart from Paul, when we are considering Greek references to "nomos," we have to let the context dictate whether the Torah or Judaism’s Oral Law is represented by the Greek term.
In Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians, the first occurrence of nomos was written in the genitive singular as nomou. The genitive is a restrictive usage of a noun which denotes a very specific characterization – making nomou "the Towrah" because there were many versions and variations of the rabbinic traditions. The genitive also serves to "mark a noun as the possessor of something," much like adding an apostrophe "’s" after a noun, making it possessive. So nomou is "the Towrah’s...." The second application of nomos was in the dative form (nomo) denoting that it was a less specific indirect object. And that means that nomou nomo is "the Torah’s allotment and inheritance," literally, or "the Torah’s laws" in Pauline parlance. Proving this beyond any doubt, as we have already discovered, Paul, himself, translated towrah from the Hebrew text of the Torah in his Galatians 3:10 rendering of Dabarym / Deuteronomy 27:26 using nomou.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, there are a plethora of words which provide different shadings on the related concepts of terms, conditions, requirements, ordinances, authoritative directions, teachings, instructions, guidance, and prescriptions for living. For example, Towrah is a proper noun, as well as a word which conveys many of these things, albeit a relatively small portion of the Torah is dedicated to establishing regulations, and even then, they all serve as symbols to educate us.
In that few insights are more vital to our understanding, please consider the etymological definition of Towrah based upon the words which comprise this title. The numbers presented within the parenthetical are from Strong’s, and were included to facilitate your own investigation.
"Towrah (8451) – from tow (8420) – signed, written, and enduring, towrah (8452) – way of treating people, tuwr (8446) – giving us the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah (3384) – the source from which instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb (8421) – provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return, even our response and reply to that which is towb (2895) – good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr (2892) and tohorah (2893) – purifying and cleansing us, towr (8447) – so as to provide an opportunity to change our thinking, attitude, and direction."
By turning to Ancient Hebrew, the original language of revelation, where each alphabetic character was designed to graphically display its meaning, we can learn even more about this Towrah – ת ו ר ה. Remembering that Hebrew reads right to left, what we discover is that the first letter, a Taw (ת), was conveyed by a pictographic representation of an upright pole replete with a horizontal support beam: t which became t. It signified the upright pillar used to support and enlarge a tent, which was a home in its day, and also the Tabernacle, where God met with His children. Inclusive of the support beam, the original Taw depicted a doorway, and thus continues to be symbolic of Passover, the Doorway to Life. The name of the character itself, Taw, is a rabbinic corruption of the letter’s original designation, tow, which means "signature, sign, and mark of authority." Even today, a t is considered to be a "mark" and "signature." So, by taking all of these insights into consideration, in the first letter of Towrah, we find Yahowsha’. He is the Upright Pillar. He is the Doorway to Life and the Passover Lamb. And as the visual sign of the Towrah, as the Word of God in the flesh, Yahowsha’ is Yahowah’s signature.
The second letter in Towrah is Wah (ו). It was drawn in the form of a tent peg, f, and is thus symbolic of enlarging and securing a tent home and shelter. The Wah speaks of making connections and adding to something, as is characterized by the conjunction "wa – and" in Hebrew today. The Wah therefore addresses the Spirit’s role in enlarging and securing Yahowah’s Covenant family and home. Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54 provides a wonderful affirmation of this, tying this tent peg reference to enlarging and securing Yahowah’s family.
The third letter, Rosh (ר), was depicted by drawing an individual’s head r. Stripped of the preposition "ba – in," a Rosh has the honor of serving as the first letter of the first word of the Towrah. Re’shyth describes "new beginnings in time, the first and foremost priority, the best choice, the highest point or designation, the head of a community and family, its first born, being reborn, and renewal." Even today, the Hebrew word, re’sh, which just so happens to be the letter’s original name, conveys all of these same ideas. Therefore, Towrah’s third letter speaks of the new beginnings which are now possible for humankind as a result of the Towrah, at least for those who prioritize God’s teaching, make the right choice, and thereby reach the highest possible place and status, as the firstborn children of the head of the eternal household. And the Rosh, as a depiction of a human head r, suggests that we should use our eyes to observe Yah’s teaching, our ears to listen to God’s guidance, our brains to contemplate His instructions, and our mouths to respond to Him once we understand what He is offering.
The fourth and final character in Towrah is Hey (ה). This letter was originally depicted by drawing a person looking up, reaching up, and pointing to the heavens: e. As such, it means to observe. And as a living legacy of this connotation, we find that the Hebrew word hey still means "behold, look and see, take notice, and consider what is revealed." For those seeking God, for those reaching up to Him for help, all they need do is reach for His Towrah and observe what it reveals.
Yahowah’s "Towrah – Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction," therefore, written as erft or hrwt, conveys all of these linguistic and graphic ideas. They are all there to enlighten those who are observant.
So that there is no confusion, in Hebrew, dath is actually the word for "law," in the sense of a "decree, edict, regulation, or rule." A choq is an "inscribed prescription for living which cuts us into the covenant relationship." Similarly, a chaqaq is a "clearly communicated written instruction." A tsawah is an "authorized direction or teaching." The mitswah speak of "the terms and conditions pursuant to the covenant." A mishpat is the "means to exercise good judgment regarding the process of judiciously resolving disputes."
And as we discussed previously, in total, we find nomos used 195 times in the Greek manuscripts. The vast preponderance of these are found in Paul’s letters, especially in Galatians with 32 inclusions. I find it interesting, however, that nomos is not found in either of Shim’own’s letters, even though the context suggests that he was criticized for observing the Towrah by Sha’uwl. And Ya’aqob, who was also demeaned by Sha’uwl in the same letter, mentions the Towrah ten times in his relatively short epistle. But that is because Ya’aqob’s letter was written to condemn Pauline opposition to the Towrah.
With Paul’s latest statement regarding the Torah, there is no longer a dispute that the nomos Paul was claiming to have "actually tore down, dissolved, dismantled, invalidated, abolished, subverted, abrogated, discarded, and destroyed" is Yahowah’s Towrah. That realization alone is sufficient to see Paul as a false prophet and false apostle.
In spite of the anguish they have caused God, here again for your consideration are the words Sha’uwl scribed in his letter to the Galatians...
"I (ego) then (gar) by (dia) the Towrah’s (nomou) allotment / law (nomo) I actually died and was separated (apothnesko) in order that to (hina) God (ΘΩ) I might currently live (zao). In Christo (ΧΡΩ) I have actually been crucified together with (Ω suneotrai)." (Galatians 2:19)
Moving on to the next interesting term in this, the 19th verse of the 2nd chapter of Galatians, we find that apothnesko, which is a compound of apo and thnesko. Thnesko denotes "mortality," and thus "the separation of the soul from the body. It also speaks of pandemic diseases or plagues" Apo, which is the principle Greek word for "separation," when used with thnesko conveys the idea that there is yet another separation, and that could only be separation of the soul from the Spirit of God. As such, it denotes spiritual death. Further apothnesko was written as apeoanon, in the first person singular aorist active indicative. That means that Paul is saying, "I actually died and was really separated." From whom is the question.
By using the aorist, Sha’uwl is taking yet another swipe at the purpose, process, and precedent of the Towrah, as it is independent of any plan or process. In the active voice, he is taking credit for his own death. And by using the indicative, Paul wants readers to believe that this incredulous event actually occurred.
Then by saying that he was actually crucified alongside the Ma’aseyah, Sha’uwl is inferring that Yahowsha’, like Sha’uwl, himself, was killed by the Torah. Sha’uwl even concludes with another lie, saying that he was "actually crucified together with" Him, as if Sha’uwl wants everyone to believe that he is the co-savior. But for that to have any value, Sha’uwl would have had to have been perfect, resolutely Torah observant, and divine. I don’t suppose that he was actually that delusional, but these are the questions which arise from his claims.
Paul takes his preposterous "co-savior" notion to the extreme of religious mythology in Colossians 1:24-25, by writing: "Now (nyn – at the same time), I rejoice (chairo – I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) in (en – by and in association with) the sufferings and misfortunate afflictions (tois pathema – the evil calamities and adverse emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy – for the benefit of you, beyond you and over you), and (kai – also) I actually complete (antanapleroo – I fill up and fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he is signifying that subject, which would be either Sha’uwl or the afflictions is performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema – that which is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior performances) of the (ton) pressures and afflictions (thlipsis – pressing troubles, anguishing distresses, burdensome tribulations, oppressive pressures, straits, and persecutions) of the (tou) Christou (XPU) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx – corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper – for the sake of, on behalf of, beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma – the human and animal nature of) Him (autou) who (os) is (eimi – He presently, and by His own accord, exist as (present active indicative)) the (e) called-out (ekklesia – called out assembly, congregation, meeting), of which (hos – that means), I (ego), myself, exist as (ginomai – myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to, appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos – one who serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata – in accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration of the household (oikonomia – the management, task, arrangement, oversight, dispensation, or plan regarding the heirs in a household) of this (tou – the) god (ΘΩ), the (ten) appointment having been produced and granted (didomi – one caused, assigned, entrusted, committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist participle this one time appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this god was influenced and acted upon, and in the accusative singular this appointment was solely granted) to me (moi – to and for myself (in the dative, Sha’uwl is saying that this belongs to him)) to (eis – for and into) you all (umas) to complete and fulfill (pleroo – to fully provide, completely enable, and finish, bringing an end to) the (ton) word (logon – statement, speech, and account) of the (tou) god (ΘΩ)." (Colossians 1:24-25)
Trimmed considerably for readability, Sha’uwl just reported: "Now, I rejoice, embrace and hail, in the sufferings and misfortunate afflictions, the evil calamities and adverse emotional passions, for your sake, and I actually complete, making up for that which would otherwise be deficient and that which is lacking and left to be done due to prior failures and inferior performances of the afflictions of the Christou in my flesh for the benefit of the body of Him who is the called-out, of which, I, myself, conceive and bring into existence as a servant extended down from the administration and arrangement of the household of this god, the appointment having been produced and granted to me to you all to complete and fulfill the word of the god."
And should you not trust my rendition of Sha’uwl’s words, consider the NA: "Now I rejoice in the sufferings on behalf of you and I fill up the lacks of the afflictions of the Christ in the flesh of me on behalf of the body of him who is the assembly of which became I servant by the management of the God, the one having been given to me in you to fill the word of the God." LV: "For now I rejoice in my passion on your behalf, and I complete in my flesh the things that are lacking in the Passion of Christ, for the sake of his body, which is the Church." KJV: "Who now rejoice in my suffering for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church." NASB: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church." NLT: "I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that continue for his body, the church."
Therefore, just as the juxtaposition of the 18th and 19th verses of Galatians 2 resolved any question regarding which nomos Paul claimed to be annulling and destroying, by comparing the Galatians 2:19 with Colossians 1:24 it becomes obvious that Paul wanted Christians to see him as a "co-messiah" and "co-savior." He wants to be perceived as completing the deficiencies that he claims were inherent in Yahowsha’s sacrifice as well as in Yahowah’s testimony. But that is like saying: without some bird droppings spattered on the roof and some dirt blown onto the steps, Yahowah’s Temple isn’t complete.
We should also note that in Galatians 2:19, zao, rendered "I might currently live," was written zeso, in the first person singular, aorist, active, subjunctive. This means that Sha’uwl "believed that it was probable, but not certain," that the subject (in this case God) at "some undisclosed time" caused him "to live, breathe, and behave in a particular manner."
Finally, sustauroo, translated "was crucified with," but literally meaning "to be affixed to the pillar upright with," wasn’t actually written in the oldest Greek witness of this letter. A placeholder, using the capitalized letter Omega with a horizontal line over it designating an association with Divinity, was deployed instead, but this time with the addition of suneotrai. And that means that there is something about the word which isn’t properly conveyed in Greek, and which is better understood in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures.
If the placeholder and word had been written out, it would have read sunestauromai. Sun means "with" in Greek. And estauromai is the first person singular perfect passive indicative form of stauroo, which is the verb form of stauros, meaning "to affix to an upright pole." As we have learned, the indicative tense tells us that Paul wants us to believe that this really happened—that, in his words: "I was literally crucified with Christo." The passive tense tells us that Paul is claiming that his wannabe god did this to him—that he was acted upon as opposed to choosing this for himself. The perfect tense reveals that Paul would have us believe that his crucifixion was endured right along with Christo’s—that it was perfectly completed in the past rendering the present state of affairs.
The Greek verb is derived from stauroo (to affix to a stake which is placed upright), and stauros (upright pole or pillar), which are both derived from the root, histemi, meaning "to stand upright so as to enable others to stand." Stauros’ Hebrew equivalent is ‘edon, meaning "Upright Pillar," a Divine title which is applied to Yahowah and Yahowsha’ throughout the Torah—which is the reason for the Ω placeholder. The Hebrew equivalent of histemi is quwm, meaning "to stand up and to establish."