Questioning Paul

Chapter 7

part 4


Moving on to the next statement, Paul remains consistent. This is also untrue. Abraham’s words do not comprise the "healing and beneficial message," Yahowah’s do. Further, there is no connection between Abraham’s statements and the Ma’aseyah, but instead the Covenant. And the connection that matters most is between Yahowah’s Word and the Ma’aseyah.

"As a result (hina – in order that), to (eis – in, among, or in reference to) the people from different races (ta ethnos – the cultures and ethnicities) the beneficial word (e eulogia – the praise, flattery, or polished language, the laudation, benefit, or favorable terms; from eu – to be well off, to fare well, and to prosper and logos – speech or word) of (toe) Abram (Abraam – a truncated pre-Covenant transliteration of ‘Abraham – the Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate Father) might become (ginomai – may happen (the aorist tense denotes a snapshot event without respect to any process, the middle voice signifies that Abraham was being affected by his own actions, and the subjunctive mood presents this as being probable)) in (en) Christo ‘Iesou (ΧΩ ΙΗΥ – divine placeholders for Ma’aseyah (Work of Yah) and Yahowsha’ (Yah Saves), but since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and His work regarding salvation, it’s misleading to connect that which he has severed) that (hina – in order to) the promise (ten epaggelia – the announcement of claim to do something (singular)) of the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΣ) we might take hold (lambano – we may grab and grasp, obtain possession, being carried away) through (dia – by) faith (pistos)." (Galatians 3:14) Papyrus 46, scribed within as few as fifteen years of the original letter, includes a second eulogia, "beneficial word or polished language" before the placeholder for Spirit, but since it is so awkward, I’ve elected not to include it in this translation.

The story of Abraham, and his relationship with Yahowah, is detailed for us in the opening book of the Towrah. God’s presentation of His Covenant prioritized and detailed, chronological and historical, and set into a very specific geographical and geopolitical context so that we might come to know its terms and benefits in a very tangible way. The formation of this Covenant relationship is God’s first priority, the very reason He created the universe. and Yahowah wants us to know what He wants and what He is offering so that we are empowered to respond appropriately. We are in fact given the same opportunity to engage in the same Covenant in the same way, enjoying the same benefits that Abraham was afforded. And that is why knowing its conditions and accepting its terms is so important.

There are five specific requirements. First, we must walk away from our country, and specifically from Babylon, which denotes the corruption of politics and religion. Second, instead of being dependent upon one’s country, we are asked to trust and rely exclusively on Yahowah. This in turn necessitates coming to know Him and coming to understand what He is offering and asking – things known only to those who study the Towrah. Third, we are asked to walk to Yah and become perfect. This is achieved by answering Yahowah’s seven annual Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him. Fourth, so that none of this is a blind leap of faith, we are encouraged to observe the Covenant – which is to closely examine and carefully consider its terms and rewards. And fifth, as a sign of our acceptance, and as a commitment to raise our children so that they also choose to embrace the Covenant, God has asked parents to circumcise their sons.

Those who accept these conditions are rewarded. The five promised benefits of the Covenant include: eternal life, being perfected and thus exonerated, being adopted into God’s family, being enriched with the Towrah’s teaching, and being empowered by the Spirit. If there is a "e eulogia – beneficial word," this is it. And this then makes the Towrah – the only place where Abraham and the Covenant are known – essential, thus negating everything Sha’uwl has written.

And make no mistake, it is absolutely and unequivocally not "the beneficial word of Abram that became in Christo Iesou," but instead the Word of Yahowah that is Yahowsha’. Further, Abraham was the beneficiary of the Covenant and not its source. He benefited from Yahowah’s words not his own. Paul’s testimony is therefore a lie from beginning to end.

It is worth restating: it is irrational to predicate a thesis on a book that one is negating and invalidating. Apart from the Towrah, Abraham and the Covenant are unknown and unknowable. So to suggest that a person can believe in a promise expressed by an individual known exclusively through the Towrah, while discrediting the Towrah, is absurd. And since this conclusion is obvious, even irrefutable, how is it that this letter launched a religion?

Abraham was a beneficiary of Yahowah’s Covenant. He was not its author. Abraham didn’t conceive it, offer it, modify it, deliver it, or codify its terms or benefits. Abraham cannot influence our lives in any way. He does not have the power or authority to grant life, to perfect us, to adopt us, to enrich us, or to empower anyone. The Covenant is based upon Yahowah’s testimony, Yahowah’s plan, Yahowah’s promises, and Yahowah’s ability to deliver, not Abraham’s. And yet Sha’uwl would have you believe that all of this occurred because of Abram, because that way he could sidestep Yahowah while bypassing His Torah, thereby separating Yahowsha’ and Christians from both. And the result is Christianity. And that is why it is so destructive, deadly, and damning.

But imagine hating God so much that you would ascribe His Covenant to its initial beneficiary. That is like saying the passenger in seat 1A designed, built, paid for, and is flying the airplane.

While the promises made by Yahowah to Abraham were showcased to reveal the conditions and rewards of the Covenant relationship, this portion of the story isn’t the Towrah’s most adroit connection between the Ma’aseyah and the Covenant’s promises. Had Paul wanted to make a case from which his audience could build a solid foundation of understanding, he would have referenced what happened on Mount Mowryah, where the Ma’aseyah’s purpose and sacrifice were foreshadowed by the experience of Abraham, Yitschaq, and Yahowah. But he didn’t.

The reason that we are indirectly blessed by way of Abraham is because he trusted and relied upon Yahowah at one of the most pivotal moments in all of human history—thereby becoming the first beneficiary of the Covenant’s blessings. He tangibly demonstrated this trust by acting upon Yahowah’s instructions, taking his son to Mount Mowryah as God had asked. But Yahowah provided the lamb to predict His own fulfillment of Pesach on this same mountain, just as He would forty Yowbel (exactly 2000 years) later at the summit of Mowryah. Yahowsha’ fulfilled what Yahowah had predicted, facilitating the promises God made to Abraham and to the rest of us through him. Yahowah’s message does not change from beginning to end. It is one story. Everything points to the same opportunity.

NA: "That in the nations the good word of the Abraham might become in Christ Jesus that the promise of the spirit we might receive through the trust." KJV: "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." LV: "This was so that the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentibus through Christo Iesu, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritus/Spirit through faith."

Most every word presented in the NLT is wrong, either errantly transliterated, mistranslated, or simply not represented in the Greek text: "Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith." In total, 26 of the 30 words found in the New Living Translation were not translated or transliterated, but instead authored. It’s little wonder Christians are deceived.

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

But when Kephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and condemned, even ignorant. (2:11) Because before a certain individual came from Ya’aqob (James), he was eating together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (2:12) So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Jews. As a result, even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the duplicitous hypocrisy. (2:13) Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not walking through life rightly with the truth of the healing and beneficial messenger, I said to Kephas in front of all: ‘If you Jews actively being ethnic, how will you compel the ethnicities, forcing them into acting Jewish?’ (2:14)

We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races, (2:15) having come to realize without evidence, that by no means whatsoever is man vindicated or made righteous by means of activities associated with the Towrah, if not by faith in Iesou Christou. And we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves, believed in order for us to have become righteous out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon the Towrah, because by means of engaging in the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous. (2:16)

But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then, because of and by the Towrah’s ‘law,’ myself, actually died and was separated in order that to god I might currently live. Together with Christo, I have actually been crucified. (2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh, in faith I live of the god and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered, entrusting authority to control, influence, instruct, and to betray exclusively and especially of himself for the sake of and because of me. (2:20) I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the god if because then by the Torah, righteousness as a result Christos undeservedly, for no reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain, died. (2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. To whom were you bewitched, deceived, slandered, and seduced? (3:1) This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2) In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (3:3) So much and for so long these things you suffered. You were affected and you were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result, if indeed, really without result. (3:4)

The one, therefore, then supplying you the spirit and causing it to function, operating powerfully in you, out of acting upon the Torah or out of hearing faith? (3:5) Just as Abram believed and had faith in the God so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know, as a result, the ones out of faith, these are Abram’s sons. (3:7)

Having seen beforehand then by contrast the writing, that because out of faith makes the people from different races and places right, God, He, before the beneficial messenger acted for Abram, that they would in time be spoken of favorably in you to all the ethnicities and nations. (3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (3:9)

For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (3:11) But the Towrah exists not out of faith, but to the contrary, ‘The one having done and preformed them will live in them.’ (3:12)

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the Towrah, having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse on all those having hung on wood.’ (3:13) As a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take hold, being possessed through faith." (Galatians 3:14)

This is so twisted and perverse, so completely invalid, and so utterly ignorant and irrational, it speaks poorly of the human race, because so many people have placed their faith in this charlatan. What is wrong with us? It’s as if there is no longer any desire to think, any merit to evidence or reason, not even when the evidence comes from God, Himself, and is unassailable.

A rational case cannot be made in Paul’s defense. His message comes full circle in the manner of all great spellbinders. From his perspective, the "good word" came from Abram, not Yahowah, making a man responsible for the Ma’aseyah and the Covenant, even our salvation, not God. Knowing the truth no longer matters, because righteousness comes through faith.

As a result of these words, humanity is faced with a choice. We can decide to listen to Paul or listen to God. Both is no longer an option. They are adversaries, not alleys. Therefore, it is long past time that we acknowledge that his words demonstrate that he was a liar, and thus a false apostle and false prophet.


As we press on, making our way through this insidious web, some foresight might be helpful. In addition to Paul’s present course, that of denouncing and attempting to nullify Yahowah’s Towrah, replacing it with his faith-based "Gospel of Grace," Sha’uwl will soon attack the centerpiece of the Towrah, its Covenant. By miscasting and misrepresenting the parties who were engaged in the Covenant which was established between Yahowah and Abraham, Paul will seek to invalidate it, calling the Towrah’s Covenant "enslaving." This sleight of hand will then set the stage for a new, entirely different covenant, the one conceived by Paul, the one which became Christianity’s "New Testament."

I have shared this glimpse into the next chapter of Galatians because it helps highlight the hypocrisy of Sha’uwl’s next ploy, which is to say: once an agreement is established, it cannot be invalidated or augmented. Beyond the fact that this conclusion is untrue, Paul will use this strategy to further invalidate the Towrah, suggesting that since the Towrah came after Abraham, it has no bearing on the Covenant established prior to its existence. While this assumption is also untrue, for reasons we considered in the previous chapter, and which we will confront once again, truth has become irrelevant in Paul’s fictitious realm of faith. The self-proclaimed apostle is counting on his audience remaining as he sees them, ignorant and irrational, so that they will believe him when he says that Abram was considered righteous simply because he believed.

And yet, every nuance of this is opposed to the Towrah’s presentation of this relationship. In the Towrah, God reveals that it was Abraham’s actions, his response to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, that facilitated his receipt of its benefits, one of which was vindication. This is why Paul requires his audience to completely overlook, even reject and discard, the Towrah.

But how is it even remotely plausible that the only historical account, the lone eyewitness testimony, regarding the interactions and conversations between Abraham and Yahowah, isn’t germane to their relationship? If God’s witness regarding what He requested of and offered to Abraham isn’t reliable, how can Paul’s suppositions regarding a Covenant that he was not party to, one that was formed two-thousand years before he was born, have merit?

Sha’uwl’s argument is akin to discounting the Towrah’s creation account, its revelations regarding Eden, its presentation of the flood, and the story of the Exodus, since these things all occurred before God’s explanation of them was recorded in writing. But worse, he is then offering a contrarian view of the Towrah’s Covenant while using the Towrah, itself, as his only reference.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl writes that men realize how to honor covenants, and that they neither invalidate nor disregard them. So he is either oblivious to what he, himself, is now doing, or he no longer thinks he is human.

The tactic which Sha’uwl is deploying is to distinguish between the conversational promises God made to Abraham and the terms of the Covenant as they were inscribed in the Torah. The fact that a case cannot be made that their actual discussion differs from the lone record of it was apparently irrelevant to his argument. Paul simply wants Christians to believe that they can bypass the Torah and still have a relationship with God. But that is not possible according to God.

Sha’uwl perpetrates this scheme in part by suggesting that "adding to" the Covenant’s conditions or benefits, which is something Yahowah does as the relationship develops, somehow invalidates the preexisting oral agreement. Therefore, his argument is: to capitalize upon the promises made to Abram, Christians ought not consider Yahowah’s stipulations, but instead ignore them. That is because, as a man, Moseh was not in a position to delineate conditions for participation.

The fact that Sha’uwl does this very thing is something he wants Christians to overlook. Just because Paul is deceitful, doesn’t mean that he isn’t clever. After all, Yahowah warned us way back in Eden that the Serpent, Sha’uwl’s guiding spirit, would be cunning.

To position the second plank in his thesis, Sha’uwl had to ignore these words, which were spoken to Yitschaq, Abraham’s son: "I will grow and thrive with your offspring in connection with the highest and most illuminated heaven. So I will give to your offspring everything associated with this realm of God. And also, all people from every race and place on the earth will be blessed with favorable circumstances through your offspring. This is because, beneficially focused on the relationship, Abraham listened to the sound of My voice and he continuously observed and closely examined My considerations, the terms and conditions which comprise the Covenant, My inscribed prescriptions for living which cut you into the relationship, and My Towrah (Towrah – My teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction)." (Bare’syth / Genesis 26:4-5)

Disregarding the Divine affirmation that Yahowah shared His "Towrah – Teaching and Guidance" with Abraham concurrent with His presentation of the Covenant, Sha’uwl would like his devotees to believe:

"Brothers (adelphos), according to (kata – among, down from, against, and in opposition to) man (anthropos – human beings), I say (lego – I speak and provide meaning) nevertheless as a concession (homos – similarly, likewise, and all the same, even so and yet) a man (anthropos – a human being) having been validated with (kyroo – having shown something to be real, having been ratified and reassured, even authenticated by (in the perfect tense the ratification occurred in the past and is producing validation presently, the passive voice reveals that said man is being acted upon as opposed to choosing to engage himself in the process, where the participle form serves as a verbal adjective and the accusative case marks the direct object of the verb)) an agreement (diatheke – a covenant or promise, a testament or will designed to dispose of assets after death), no one (oudeis – nobody ever) rejects (atheteo – sets aside, does away with, disregards, invalidates, thwarts, voids, nullifies, abrogates, or refuses to recognize) or (e) actually accepts added provisions (epidiatassomai – actually or currently accepts something additional (present tense (currently), middle/passive voice (accepts), indicative mood (actually)))." (Galatians 3:15)

As is the case with so many of Paul’s statements, this paradigm appears reasonable until you actually think about it. Then it becomes laughably absurd. Man has elevated the violation of agreements to an art form. Legions of attorneys attest to this sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that Paul is, himself, in the process of rejecting and invalidating the Torah and its Covenant. Moreover, in business and in life, as relationships grow, provisions are added to accommodate the parties engaged in the agreement, delineating what is being sought by each and offered in return.

For example, when our sons were infants, we fed and coddled them, and expected nothing in return. When our sons were children, we provided a loving home and sent them to school, providing an education. But at this point in their lives, there were expectations, rules if you will regarding the kind of behavior that was considered permissible within our family. When our sons became adults, we helped them buy their first cars and homes, hoping that they’d show some appreciation in return. And now they are self-sufficient, building their own families. Our relationship, therefore, with our sons has evolved as they have grown. The same is true with most every business relationship in which I’ve participated. It is the nature of things.

With the Covenant, Yahowah initially asked Abram to walk away from his country, which was Babylon, and his family, which was pagan. After they had come to know one another, Yah asked Abram to trust Him. Then Yahowah encouraged this man to walk to Him and become perfect, but not before He provided the path and explained it to him, guiding Abram through the process by sharing His "towrah – teaching." All along the way, God presented the conditions and benefits of His Covenant to His associate and friend. He even asked Abraham to pay especially close attention to what He had offered as well as what He expected in return. Then, many years into this relationship, Yahowah asked Abraham to demonstrate his acceptance through circumcision. Therefore, the benefits of the Covenant were offered and explained over time as were the requirements. This relationship grew, it matured; it was not invalidated.

It should be noted that during the Instruction on the Mount, Yahowsha’ said that "the Heavenly Father’s gift is the Torah and Prophets," and that "the Torah represents the narrow gate to life." This occurs in the same discussion where Yahowsha’ obliterated the Christian theological position that the "Law was annulled by Grace" when He affirmed that He "came to fulfill the Towrah, not annul it," saying that every "jot and tittle" of every Hebrew letter comprising every word "in the Torah would remain in effect as long as the universe existed, and until its every promise was fulfilled."

So, the only way Christians can be right is for Yahowsha’ to be wrong. And if Yahowsha’ was wrong, Christians can’t be right. And therein lies the rational conundrum the religious are unwilling to confront. Properly understood, this passage is Christianity’s death nail. After all, their "New Testament" isn’t just a monumental addition to the Towrah and its Covenant, it alters everything, invalidating the entirety of Yahowah’s testimony regarding life, relationships, and salvation.

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

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

The inspiration for Sha’uwl’s "zera’ – seed" ploy also appears in Bare’syth / Genesis 17:8. But so as not to err in the way of Sha’uwl, let’s consider the statement in context. Here, Yahowah, who was speaking to Abraham, promised:

"And (wa) I will stand up, establish, and restore (quwm), accordingly, with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth), as a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’) after you (‘achar) regarding, and on behalf of (la), their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth), to literally be and to genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (‘elohym) and (wa) and to approach (la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘aharown). (17:7)

So (wa) I will give (natan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar), this (‘eth) land (‘erets) where (‘eth) you are living as an alien (magowr), the entire (kol) land (‘erets) of Can’aow (can’aow) to (la) eternally (‘owlam) possess and settle within (‘achuzah). And (wa) I will exist (hayah) unto them as their (lahm la) God (‘elohym). (17:8)

And (wa) God Almighty (‘elohym) said (‘amar) to (‘el) Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘And (wa) as for you (‘eth ‘atah), you should actually and continuously observe, closely examine and carefully consider (shamar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y), you (‘atah) and (wa) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr).’" (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)

Observation which yields understanding is overtly opposed to Paul’s pretext of a faith-based relationship. And so is the realization that Yahowah’s words govern His Covenant, not Abraham’s. But playing off a minor nuance in the Torah’s Bare’syth / Genesis 17:8 and 26:4 presentation, Sha’uwl nurtured a seed into a full born theory.

"But (de – then) to (to – the) Abram (Abraam – the abridged pre-Covenant name of Abraham, which is based upon the Hebrew ‘ab and raham, meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father), these (ai) promises (epaggelia – announced agreements (this time plural rather than singular)), from epaggello, meaning to announce and promise to do something voluntarily while professing the ability and authority to do as sworn, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger) were said (erreoesan – were spoken and verbally communicated (aorist, passive, indicative, third person, plural)): ‘And (kai) to the (to) offspring (sperma – seed (singular)) of him (autos).’ Not (ou) it says (lego): ‘And (kai) to the (tois) seeds (spermasin – offsprings (plural)),’ like (hos – as) upon (epi) many (polys – a great number), but to the contrary (alla – by contrast) as (hos – like) upon (epi) one (heis), and (kai) ‘to the (to) seed (sperma – offspring (singular)) of you (sou) which (hos – who) is (eimi) Christos (ΧΡΣ – while the placeholder represents Ma’aseyah, the Work of Yah, Sha’uwl discredits Yahowah’s involvement, thereby negating the title))." (Galatians 3:16)

Yahowah promised to supply five specific benefits to those who embraced His Covenant. These include: immortality, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. So while it would be accurate to speak of these as "promises" plural, up to this point Sha’uwl has said that there was only a singular "epaggelia – promise." Therefore, this new twist reveals a troubling inconsistency – one which lies at the very heart of his thesis. Was there one promise, that being the arrival of the Ma’aseyah, or were there a number of promises? And since God says that there was more than one, articulating each of them in His Towrah, why hasn’t Paulos noted them or described them?

It is widely known that the promise to bless all humankind through Abraham was fulfilled in part through Yahowsha’. But Yahowsha’ was simply the implement Yahowah deployed to facilitate the Covenant’s promises. So while Paul is acknowledging the obvious using methods which are not altruistic, he is simultaneously promoting a cover up. Somewhere along the line, he turned on his own people and became anti-Semitic. What he is attempting to accomplish here is to sidestep the lineage of the Covenant through Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el. By writing them out of the story, he can jump directly from Abraham to the Ma’aseyah and bypass the preponderance of the Towrah, the Covenant, the Invitations, the Promised Land, and the Chosen People. Christianity, which disassociates itself from all of these things, is the residue of this ploy.

But credit to where credit is due. In the whole of the Greek language, it would be difficult to find a more appropriate term in this context than epaggello – especially in the plural It embodies the essence of the healing and beneficial message Yahowah, through Yahowsha’, brought to the world. It says that Yahowah made a promise to voluntarily, on His own accord, furnish the Ma’aseyah, the Messenger, who was in a position, and who had the ability and authority, to do what He had announced in the Torah.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Sha’uwl’s specificity here with regard to zera’ being "seed" singular, not plural, suggests that I was right when I said that it was unlikely that he accidentally misappropriated and misquoted Yahowah’s testimony to convince his readers that his message was supported by the God he was offending. How is it that this man could have misconstrued the intent of everything Yahowah has said, and yet isolate one aspect of zera’?

In reality, this is pure madness. Even today, both "seed" and "offspring" have plural connotations and implications. If you asked someone to bring you a bag of seed, what would you think of them if they made certain that there was only one seed in the bag? Likewise, we say "offspring" when depicting our children, not "offsprings." Moreover, proving this point, zera’ does not have a differentiated singular and plural form when addressing seed. When a person is depicted sowing an entire field, zera’ is used, as it is when the descendants number in the thousands or even millions. This argument, thereby, preys on ignorance.

Demonstrating that one requires faith to believe that God inspired these words, the Nestle Aland has Paul saying: "To the but Abraham were said the promises and to the seed of him. Not it says and to the seeds as on many but as on one and to the seed of you who is Christ."

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

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

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

The less evident, but more intriguing, message related to the use of "zera’ – seed" is found by connecting this promise to the one made in the Garden of Eden. There, Yahowah predicted that the "zera’ – seed" of woman would bruise Satan on his head, which is precisely what the Ma’aseyah did. God also warned that the Serpent would bruise mankind in the heel, which serves as the basis of Ya’aqob’s name – the child of the Covenant who became Yisra’el.

Apart from appreciating the eternal nature of the relationship between Yahowah and Abraham, and how that led to God blessing Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, and therefore Yisra’el, in addition to providing the line which led over chasms of time to the Ma’aseyah, this is all much ado about nothing. It is a pathetic argument for the reasons already discussed. Abraham’s seed is both the Ma’aseyah, singular, and the Covenant’s children, plural. God obviously meant to convey both aspects of zera’, and spoke vociferously of the Children of Yisra’el and the Ma’aseyah. And indeed, as the children of the Covenant Yah made with Abraham, those who are born into Yahowah’s family become the Merciful Father’s seed. Also, we have and will continue to see Paul speak of himself as the seed of Abraham, discrediting his argument while feeding his ego.