Questioning Paul
Chapter 7
part 5
Once again, citing the book Christians are wont to claim Galatians was nullifying, Sha’uwl’s next sentence is based upon Bare’syth / Genesis 15:13. In context, here is some of what Yahowah’s Towrah reveals about the ongoing nature of the Covenant, which He said would remain in force:
"And He said to him (‘amar ‘el), ‘I am (‘any) Yahowah (efei) who relationally (‘asher) brought you out (yasa’) from (min) Ur (‘Uwr) of the Chaldeans (a synonym for Babylon (Casdym)) to give (la natan) accordingly (‘eth) this (zo’th) land (‘erets) to possess as an inheritance (la yaras). (15:7)
So he said (wa ‘amar), ‘Yahowah (efei), in what way (ba mah) shall I know (yada’) that indeed (ky), I shall possess it as an inheritance (la yaras)?" (15:8)
"He said (‘amar): ‘Abram (‘Abram), you should know with absolute certainty (yada’ yada’) that indeed (ky) as one making a sojourn (ger), your seed (zera’) will exist (hayah) in (ba) a land (‘erets) which is not for them (lo’ lahim). And they shall serve them (‘abad). And they will respond and seek resolution (‘anah), accordingly, in (‘eth) four (‘arba’) hundred (me’owah) years (sanah). (15:13) But also (wa gam), therefore (‘eth), that Gentile nation (gowy) which (‘asher) reduces them to servitude (‘abad), I will judge (dyn). And afterward (‘ahar), accordingly (ken), they shall come out (yasa’) with (ba) an intensely important and tremendously valuable (gadowl) possession (rakuws). (15:14)
As for you (wa ‘atah), you shall go to (bow’ ‘el) your Father (‘ab) in (ba) peace, satisfied, reconciled, and saved (salowm). You shall be buried (qabar) with (ba) grey hair (sebah), good, moral, and pleasing (towb). (15:15) And they shall return (suwb) here (henah) in the fourth (raby’y) generation of time (dowr), because indeed (ky), the corruption, distortions, and perversity (‘aown) of the ‘Emory (‘emory) is not yet (lo’ ‘ad) fully finished or totally complete (salem). (15:16)
On (ba – in) this (huw’) day (yowm), Yahowah (efei) cut (karat) the Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth) with (‘eth) ‘Abram (‘Abram) to promise and affirm (la ‘amar): ‘To your offspring (zera’), I give (natan) therewith (‘eth) this (ze’th) land (‘erets).’" (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:18) (Please note that while Yahowah is still using Abram, as a result of the Covenant, God would soon change his name to Abraham, telling us that this would be his name forever more.)
The duration of time between the Covenant being announced through and being established with Abraham, and it being affirmed in writing, was 430 years. While Yisra’elites lived in bondage for 400 years, Abraham didn’t leave the Promised Land immediately after the agreement was reached, and the Yisra’elites were initially welcomed guests in Egypt. Therefore, the Torah is right with 400 years of bondage and Sha’uwl was correct mathematically with regard to the overall duration of time, because the Torah itself uses both numbers.
And while that explains the arithmetic, very few Christians have ever attempted to explain what Sha’uwl does next. This is the first of countless times that Sha’uwl will deploy a phrase that sets him apart from those who scribed the Torah and Prophets. They spoke for God, but Paul speaks for himself. His "but I say" is used so frequently, it should have alerted everyone to the fact he was speaking for Paul when he wrote...
"But (de) this (houtos) I say (lego – I speak), ‘A promised covenant agreement (diatheke – a testament, will, or agreement of some kind to dispose of and distribute a deceased individual’s property) having been ratified beforehand (prokyroo – having been sanctioned and validated in advance; from kuroo, to promise and confirm publicly that something is valid, and thus truthful and reliable, and pro, ahead of time) by (hupo – because of, under the auspices of, by the means of, and for the reasons that) the God (tou ΘΥ), this (o) after (meta – with) four-hundred and thirty (tetrakosioi kai triakonta) years (etos), having become (ginomai – having appeared on the scene and arrived upon the stage of history as) Towrah (nomos – the means to be nourished by that which is bestowed, becoming heirs, precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to proper and to be approved, prescriptions for an inheritance) does not (ou – objectively denying the reality of an alleged fact) revokes it (akyroo – invalidates, nullifies, contradicts, or voids it, depriving it of authority) so as to (eis) invalidate or abolish (katargeo –idle or inactivate, diminish or remove the force of) the (o) announced promise (epaggelia – the heralding of the consent approval and agreement (singular)).’" (Galatians 3:17)
You may have noticed that the singular promise which became promises, plural, is now singular again. This is a symptom of one of the many problems associated with lying: remembering what was said.
Let there be no doubt, speaking for Himself, Yahowah, in Bare’syth / Genesis 26:5, told us unequivocally that He not only shared His Towrah with Abraham, but that the reason He was now honoring its previsions with Yitschaq was because Abraham listened intently and carefully observed everything He had to say. Therefore, the very Towrah which presents the Covenant was concurrent with it. These are parallel events, not sequential.
For comparison sake, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear attests that Paul wrote: "But this I say, agreement having been validated before by the God, the after four hundred and thirty years, having become law not invalidates for the to abolish the promise."
As has become his custom, Paul has positioned a principle that is only plausible if the audience is unaware of what Yahowah has written. He is suggesting that the Towrah is irrelevant because the Covenant preceded it, and therefore cannot nullify it. When in reality, the Towrah not only confirms every nuance of the Covenant, without the Towrah the Covenant is unknown and unknowable. Therefore, this argument is irrational, preying on people’s ignorance.
Simply stated: without the Towrah, there is no Covenant. With the Towrah, there is only one Covenant. The Covenant is inseparable from the Towrah. One does not exist without the other.
As mentioned a moment ago, it is inappropriate, although not out of character, for Paul to begin this statement with "But this I say." It is as if he thinks his personal suppositions, even when they are in conflict with God, are superior. And yet here, what he is saying is only believable if you are unaware of what Yahowah has said.
Rather than affirm that the Covenant established with Abraham was validated and memorialized in the Towrah, Sha’uwl is proposing the notion that the Torah "did not revoke or invalidate" it. In that way, rather than the Torah being essential to the Covenant, it becomes irrelevant to it. This strategy was ingenious, albeit insidious.
To understand why Sha’uwl used such twisted logic, blending half-truths with outright lies, we have to consider this statement within the context of the point he has been trying to advance. Paul is linking "the promise / promises made to Abraham" with "the Ma’aseyah" and then to "believing the message he has been preaching," while at the same time bypassing the entirety of Torah, which must be negated for his formula to prevail. Therefore, he is telling the Galatians that since the Torah cannot revoke or invalidate the promise / promises, the Torah is extraneous to that promise or promises.
The reason this clever, although ridiculous, line of reasoning prevailed is that the natural tendency of people ensnared in a religious system is to give those who claim to speak for God the benefit of the doubt. I am embarrassed to say that I was once counted among those he beguiled. And that is why I shared my preconceived thoughts regarding Galatians at the outset of this evaluation. I was predisposed to justify the discrepancies between the Christian interpretation of this epistle and Yahowah’s testimony. I had hoped to solve the many conundrums by suggesting that it was Rabbinic Law, not Yahowah’s Towrah, that was being assailed. But I’d have to sacrifice my integrity and my soul to do either. Since the facts condemn Paul, it would be immoral and irrational to absolve him by concealing or twisting his testimony.
It is ironic in a way. I have been vilified for having turned over and exposed the rocks Paul has hurled at the Torah. And yet, in actually, and for far too long, I was guilty of letting my desire to validate Paul’s message taint my judgment.
Had Sha’uwl simply said that the "Covenant was validated by God after 430 years, becoming memorialize for our benefit in the Torah," he would have been correct. But he had an entirely different agenda. And not recognizing it initially, I understand how easy it is to fall prey to his rhetoric. Yes, it is true, the Torah didn’t invalidate Yahowah’s promises. But that is like saying the novel Moby Dick didn’t invalidate Ahab’s vow to get the whale. Every last detail associated with these promises would be completely unknown without the Torah. In this light, please ponder:
"Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, ‘And to the offspring of him.’ It does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many. But to the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (3:16)
But this I say, ‘A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand by the God, this after four-hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah does not revokes it so as to invalidate the promise.’" (Galatians 3:17)
In context, the transition from "promises" to "promise" in the beginning of 3:16 and at the conclusion of 3:17 is glaring. Those skilled in rhetoric recognize that inconsistencies of this type serve as proof that an individual is lying and cannot be trusted.
The twist here is "invalidate" as opposed to "validate." In reality, the Covenant’s promises which were discussed between Yahowah and Abraham were affirmed, that is to say, they were "validated," while and after they were being established, concurrent with the salvation of the Children of Yisra’el from bondage in the crucible of Egypt—a story central to the message of the Towrah and its Covenant.
Rather than the Torah being bypassed, or worse, being negated and annulled, by Abraham, the Covenant formed between he and God became the basis of the promises made between God and all men.
Turning to the interpretive translations of Galatians, we find the KJV inferring that since the Law cannot invalidate the promise, the Law must be wrong, which is worse than, albeit a natural extension of, what Sha’uwl was trying to say. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
The Latin Vulgate isn’t wrong; it’s just inadequate: "But I say this: the testament confirmed by God (testamentum confirmatum a Deo), which, after four hundred and thirty years became the Law (Lex), does not nullify, so as to make the promise empty."
The New Living Translation published: "This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise." After all, Paul was composing the lyrics for their hymnals.
At this point, the writing quality which has been abysmal, suddenly deteriorates. This next verse requires a reordering of the words, the addition of a verb, a preposition, and some articles. So let’s begin with the most credible source, the acclaimed Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: "If for from law the inheritance no longer from promise to the but Abraham through promise has favored the God."
"Because (gar – for) if (ei – as a condition) from (ek – out of) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and 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)) the (e) inheritance (kleronomai – possession of gifts from a deceased parent), no longer (ouketi) from (ek – out of) a promise (epaggelia – an agreement or consent (singular)), but (de) to (to) Abram (Abraam – a transliteration of ‘Abram, Abraham’s original name) by (dia – through) promise (epaggelia – agreement or consent (singular)) he has favored (charizomai – he has done a favor to gratify and pleasure, showing hospitality and merriment, serving as a derivative of Charis – the name of the Greek goddesses of Charity) the God (o ΘΣ)." (Galatians 3:18)
While this is preposterous from beginning to end, if we were to put some lipstick on this pig, we’d have to begin by reordering the last three words: "the God (o ΘΣ), He has given and favored." Albeit this requires us to highlight the fact that charizomai is the verbal form of Charis – the name of the naked goddesses of sexual pleasure and merriment in Greek mythology.
While I suspect that we’ve all had our fill of Paul by now, in a way, his continued and desperate attempt to portray Abraham and the Covenant as being outside and apart from the Towrah adds considerable credence to the assertion that this ploy is the fulcrum upon which Pauline Doctrine, and thus Christianity, pivots. He is saying that, Abram, circa 2000 BCE, became "righteous and vindicated" and thus "saved," as a result of "believing an undisclosed promise." He then wants us to differentiate this wholly unverifiable and conflicting "promise of salvation through faith," from the Towrah’s account which methodically presents Abraham engaging in a relationship with Yahowah based upon responding to what God had requested. But even if Paul’s contradictory claims were true, and they are not, even if Paul could validate his proposition, and he can’t, why would God deliberately present an inaccurate depiction of the most pivotal relationship He ever formed? And if God cannot be trusted to tell us what happened, why should we believe someone who claims to speak for Him regarding this relationship and its consequences?
While this determination may strike some as premature and too far reaching, please consider the following. First, in the Towrah, the process is relationship and then salvation. With Paul, a relationship is immaterial. He goes directly from believing to vindication. It is this improper perspective that beguiles so many Christians.
According to Yahowah, trust is the second of five steps we must take to participate in His Covenant. These steps, or requirements, include: 1) walking away from our country, especially that which is represented by Babylon, and therefore, from religion, politics, and patriotism, 2) trusting and relying on Yahowah, which necessitates knowing Him and coming to understand what He is offering, something that can only be achieved by studying the Towrah, 3) then based upon this knowledge, walking to Yahowah to become perfect, a path guided by the Towrah, 4) which is why we are asked to closely examine and carefully consider every aspect of the Covenant relationship, which again can only be achieved by studying the Towrah, and 5) as parents, we are asked to circumcise our sons as our commitment to raise our children to become God’s children. After we do these five things, Yahowah responds by making our souls immortal, perfecting us, and adopting us into His Covenant family, so that He can enrich us with His teaching and empower us with His Spirit.
It would be foolish for Yahowah to save someone who does not know Him, who is not part of His family, who hasn’t so much as bothered to consider what He wants or to know what He is offering. If He were to do so, heaven would be no different than earth.
In the Towrah, salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant relationship because our Heavenly Father cares for His children. And this is why faith in the unknown is not part of this equation.
But with Paul, salvation is instantly awarded to those who believe him. A person does not need to know Yahowah’s name, consider Yahowah’s instructions, engage in Yahowah’s Covenant, or answer Yahowah’s Invitations. Nothing is required. No knowledge. No thinking. No relationship. No action. No commitment. And yet, should Paul be right, heaven would be hell for Christians because those who have an affinity for the thoughtless and inactive myth will, like Paul, hate the voyage of discovery we will take with Yahowah through His word and world.
The second reason to discard Paul’s ploy is that the scenario he is presenting is rationally impossible. Since the Towrah is the only place where God introduces Himself to us, the only place where the terms and benefits of the Covenant are presented, and the only place where the path to God and thus to salvation is explained, by negating and bypassing it, there are no promises.
Third, to suggest that a person cannot rely on the written testimony of God in His Towrah, but can believe an unrecorded and unsubstantiated promise from this same God, is insane.
Fourth, most every aspect of Paul’s "salvation by believing a promise made to Abram" theory, is in conflict with the lone eyewitness account of what actually occurred. To discard the written testimony of an eyewitness, especially when that eyewitness is God, only to believe an arrogant, insane, and demon-possessed man, is far too foolish even for faith. Doing so requires the faithful to believe that God authorized a man to trash His reputation, to annul His testimony, to deny His purpose, and to refute His solution, so that everything He promised and proposed could be discard.
And fifth, since Yahowah proved beyond any doubt that He is God and that He authored the Torah and Prophets, and did so through countless prophecies, all of which have, or are in the process of coming true right before our eyes, to reject such affirmed testimony, and instead believe in Paul’s letters, a man who got his lone prediction wrong, isn’t real smart.
Returning to the text of Galatians 3:18, kleronomai, translated "inheritance," highlights one of many problems with Christianity. As a result of Paul’s letters, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms have been relegated to an "Old Testament," with the inference that it is "kleronomai – the will and testimony of a deceased parent," or at least that of a retired and incapacitated father who is no longer relevant because he "allotted everything he possessed to his son." The same concern is also evident in diatheke, which Paul has used relative to the "agreement," which also speaks of "a testament or will which was written to dispose of and distribute a deceased or incapacitated individual’s property."
Also interesting, kleronomai is a compound of kleros which is "a means of selecting someone by random chance" and specifically, "to cast or draw lots," and the all too familiar nomos, "allotment which is parceled out as an inheritance." It is therefore a "random chance" means of determining one’s inheritance which is being errantly associated with the Torah.
Beyond this, the notion that because something is written, it ceases to be a promise, is also absurd. A "promissory note" is a written pledge to pay someone what is owed to them. A legal contract stipulates responsibilities and delineates the things each party promises to perform. The contract does not change the nature of the promises, it simply holds the parties accountable to the promises they have made. Likewise, while it is actually a three-party agreement with the government, most consider their marriage license to be a written affirmation of a husband’s and wife’s oral vows regarding their union. Similarly, an affidavit serves to memorialize oral testimony, making one’s oath legally binding rather than nullifying it. Written agreements mitigate misunderstandings and create an enduring legacy.
This passage, combined with the previous one, once again precludes us from pretending that Paul was referencing the Oral Law or Traditions of the Rabbis. According to Pauline Doctrine, the Torah must be bypassed for the promise to remain valid and for "believers" to become heirs of his god. Therefore, in his warped mind, the affinity between the Covenant established between Yahowah and Abraham, and the Towrah in which this Covenant has been memorialized, is counterproductive. Therefore, with Paul, this is an "either – or" proposition. According to Sha’uwl, you can fail by following the Towrah’s guidance or you can be saved by believing in an unspecified promise made by the very same God whose testimony is incapable of saving anyone.
Christians believe that Paul was right, because they have been misled by his letters into believing that the Torah represents a works-based, onerous, and thus impossible, means to salvation. And yet that is not remotely accurate. While we must engage in specific ways to participate in the Covenant, our salvation is the byproduct of that relationship. All we are required to do to become perfect and immortal is to answer Yahowah’s Invitations and meet with Him on the days that He has set aside to save us. He does the work, as do all loving fathers on behalf of their children. This is what, "Ma’aseyah – the Work of Yahowah," means. It is what "Yahowsha’ – Yahowah Saves" affirms.
Since from a Pauline perspective, "faith in a promise" requires nothing from the beneficiary, what would be the benefit, if the result is to eternally coexist in the home of a God with whom you share nothing in common and whose agenda and priorities are the opposite of your own? After all, Yahowah is adverse to everything Christians hold dear: Paul and his letters, being religious, discounting His name, being referred to as Lord, the Christian New Testament, an Old Testament, being anti-Semitic, a new covenant, Grace, calling His Word "the Bible," everything associated with the Church, the Trinity, the cross, bowing down, being worshipped, Sunday observances, Christmas, Lent, Easter, Halloween, the pagan myth of a dying and bodily resurrected deity, and prayers apart from responding to His Towrah.
Relative to Galatians 3:18, the problem isn’t with the translations, but instead with the original document. Paul wrote: "Because if, as a condition, from the Towrah the inheritance, no longer from promise, but to the Abram by promise of the God, He has favored and pleasured." The King James Version published: "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." It was a precisely accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate. "For if the inheritance is of the lege/law, then it is no longer of the promise. But God bestowed it to Abraham through the promise."
However, Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, and Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, working under the auspices of Mark Taylor, the "Chief Stylist," Daniel Taylor, the "Senior Stylist," and Philip Comfort the "N.T. Coordinating Editor," collectively known as "Team Tyndale," with regard to Galatians, coordinated this stylish theological twist whereby the promised inheritance was nullified by trying to keep the law. Then for good measure, they tossed in an extra "grace," just to be sure they had paid proper homage to Paul’s goddesses. "For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise."
Since the Torah provides the world’s lone depiction of the one and only Covenant, it makes no sense whatsoever to differentiate between "Old" and "New" Testaments. Moreover, according to Yahowah, His Covenant has not yet been renewed, and when it ultimately is reaffirmed on Yowm Kippurym in Year 6000 Yah, that restoration of the familial relationship will be predicated upon a full integration of the Towrah. Yahowah, Himself, has promised to place His "towrah – teaching" inside His children, writing it on our hearts on this day. So the notion that the Towrah and its Covenant are somehow outdated, necessitating new approaches, is inconsistent with Yahowah’s promises.
Turning to Sha’uwl’s next statement, we are confronted with considerable differences between an older manuscript and the majority texts as presented in the Nestle-Aland. So while I’ve included the additional verbiage found in post-Constantine codices, I’ve placed these words within brackets. But with or without them, this nearly incomprehensible.
After having said that Yahowah’s Towrah was both irrelevant and diabolical, Paul was compelled to explain why God even bothered to write it. So, here is Paul’s most lucid explanation as it is chronicled by the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: "What then the law? Of the transgression on account it was set forward until which might come the seed to who it has been promised having been directed through messengers in hand of mediator."
Rearranging these same words a bit, but not misrepresenting any of them, here is another perspective on the same statement:
"Then (oun – therefore), why (tis – or what) the (o – this) Towrah (nomos – allotment which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, precepts apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions to become an heir)?
[Of the (ton) transgressions (parabasis – violations and promulgations, disobediences and disregarding, lawbreaking and overstepping) because of the favor (charin – for the purpose and reason of, for the charity and pleasure of) it was continued (prostithemai – it was provided and added to)]
Until (achri) the (to) seed (sperma – offspring and descendants) which (hos – who) might come (erchomai – may happen (in the subjunctive mood the verb’s action is a mere possibility)) to whom (hos – to which) it has been promised (epangellomai – asserted, professed, or announced) having been commanded (diatasso – having been instructed, arranged, and planned) [by (dia – through)] messengers (angelos / aggelos – a class of spiritual beings serving as envoys commonly known as angels) in the hand (en cheir – in control of) of a mediator (mesites – of a reconciler; from mesos – middleman)." (Galatians 3:19)
Paul has painted himself into a corner. At this time, especially within walking distance of Yisra’el, the Towrah was the best known and most often quoted text. That is still true. It is the most accurate historically, the most prophetically precise, the most thoroughly moral, the most consistently enlightening, and the most innovative and important document the world has ever known. So now that Paul has trashed it, his audience is obviously questioning why God bothered with it in the first place. What was God’s purpose? What, if anything, did He accomplish by writing it? Where did God go so wrong that His teaching is no longer valid?
So Sha’uwl is floating another trial balloon, hoping that no one actually reads or considers the book he is relegating to a bygone era. In Paul’s view, Yahowah’s Towrah was a document "ton parabasis – associated with transgressions." Yahowah’s Teaching and Guidance "ton parabasis – overstepped its bounds with promulgations, which is the spread, proliferation, and dissemination of things which should be disobeyed and disregarded." At best, at least according to this self-proclaimed apostle of God, the Towrah "prostithemai – was provided, augmented, and continued" only "achri – until" the "charin sperma – the fortuitous and charitable seed" "erchomai – might come" to rescue mankind from the mean-spirited and incompetent god of that old testament. The replacement "sperma – offspring" would be more "charin – pleasurable, charitable, and agreeable, treating everyone favorably," liars like Paul apparently included.
So attractive would be the replacement god, he would come in the name of the Greek Charis – Charities and the Roman Gratia – Graces, emulating the beautiful party girls of pagan mythology. That, according to Paul, was the full extent of the Torah. And now that the seed had come, you were encouraged to cast the Torah aside. Goodbye and good riddance, God’s alleged spokesman said of said God.
I would also be remiss if I did not share two additional facts. First, Yahowah specifically asks us not to "prostithemai – add to" His Towrah. And second, Yahowah routinely affirms that His Towrah is "‘owlam – eternal and everlasting."
If that were not enough to strongly suggest that Sha’uwl ought not be trusted, the second half of hiss pontification is especially ripe with rotten fruit. From whence is anyone to understand how to capitalize on the favor being provided by the new seed? If the mercy He is providing doesn’t come by observing the Towrah, why was He promised in the Towrah? And why did He observe the Towrah and encourage us to do the same – especially when trying to understand Him – if we are to ignore it? Since He was the Word of God, how can He be good if those words were bad?
Why pretend that the seed’s credibility is enhanced because it was promised that He "erchomai – might come?" Scribed in the subjunctive mood, the promise was at best probable. Do you suppose that Paul is trying to disparage Yahowah’s prophetic record in the Towrah and Prophets, where everything He has promised has materialized? After all, any rational open-minded individual who studies God’s predictions and their fulfillments comes to realize that Yahowah not only proves that He is God, but also that His Towrah testimony can be trusted. So is Sha’uwl implying that God just got lucky this time, and that we’d be wasting our time to observe His prophecies more closely? Or is he trying to discourage his audience from considering the fact that the most complete and accurate presentation of Yahowsha’s name, title, nature, purpose, timing, place, words, and deeds is found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, in eyewitness accounts committed to parchment five to fifteen centuries before His arrival?
Facts aside, it would be in Sha’uwl’s interest for his audience to relegate Yahowah’s Word to the scrapheap of time, because those who consider God’s testimony will reject Paul’s letters.
But that is not the end of the rotten fruit. Yahowsha’s arrival in the fourth millennia of human history to fulfill the Towrah’s promises in the Yowbel year of 4000 Yah, entering Yaruwshalaim four days before Passover, at the exact moment predicted in the opening chapter of the Towrah and ninth chapter of Dany’el, to enable the benefits associated with answering Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet on Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah, wasn’t per chance, but by design. And while predicted and explained, it was not a command, and more importantly, His arrival was not "dia angelos" by way of "angels." Yes, Gabriel announced His arrival to Dany’el and to Miryam, but that was the full extent of any "mal’ak – spiritual messenger’s" contribution. So once again, Sha’uwl is willing to mislead his audience, hoping that they disassociate Yahowah from Yahowsha’. And yet in reality, Yahowsha’ is nothing more or less than a diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us.
Further, Yahowsha’ is neither "mesites – mediator or middleman." There is one God, one Savior – Yahowah. That is what Yahowsha’ means. No one comes between Yahowah and His Covenant children.
Since Yahowah affirms that His Word would abide forever, Paul’s letters remain diametrically opposed to God’s Word. There is nothing in the Towrah which suggests that it was a "temporary" solution, and if there were, you could bet your oldest shekel, Sha’uwl would have cited it. Virtually every important instruction in the Torah comes with the provision that "this is to be ‘olam – eternal and everlasting."
Especially relevant, the Ma’aseyah’s message is also the antithesis of Paul’s. It isn’t just Yahowah’s testimony Sha’uwl is opposing. Yahowsha’ expressly refuted the notion that He came to annul the Torah, and said that even the smallest strokes of the letters which comprise the words which proclaim its message would endure as long as the universe exists and until every last promise is fulfilled. So since Paul’s message is in direct conflict with the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, who is Paul’s "sperma – seed?"
For the few, like me many years ago, who were hoping to salvage this epistle by substituting Rabbinical Law for the Torah, this is one of many statements where that argument becomes impossible. Rabbinical Law was still in its infancy during the Ma’aseyah’s arrival. Unlike Christians who were beguiled by Paul into believing that Yahowsha’ put an end to the Towrah, Rabbis never postured such a claim.
The Torah does not say that it was given because of "transgressions." But that didn’t stop the KJV from proposing: "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." The inspiration for those words came from the Latin Vulgate: "Why, then, was there a lex/law? It was established because of transgressions, until the offspring would arrive, to whom he made the promise, ordained by Angelos through the hand of a mediator."
A disclaimer is in order: what you are about to read is not true. Using the New Living Translation may be harmful to your health. "Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people."
That is not what Paul wrote, and thus the NLT is not a translation. It isn’t even true. It is not what Yahowah said about the Torah’s purpose, so this message is counter to Scripture. And this position is the opposite of Yahowsha’s statements regarding the Torah. Moreover, not only is "law" an invalid depiction of the Towrah, it was not given by way of angles. That means that Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and their stylists Mark and Daniel Taylor, and Philip Comfort, have joined with Sha’uwl to deceive – all gaining fame and making money in the process.
How do you suppose these "scholars" reconcile their "but the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised," with the Child of the promise saying:
"You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you not consider, expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, force, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).
I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to dismiss, to invalidate, to discard, or to put an end to it (kataluo – to tear it down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish it, dismissing any implication or influence), but instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty) to completely fulfill it (pleroo – to proclaim and complete it, providing the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (5:17)
Because (gar – for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), till (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing) not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the totality of it) comes to exist (ginomai – it all take place and happens, becoming a reality). (5:18)
Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may (hos ean – if at any time anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby the individual) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos – humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will actually be called by the name and will be judicially and legally summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – a.k.a., Paulos, which means small, inadequate, and insignificant, scarce and insufficient, irrelevant and unimportant, of no consequence, immaterial, and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means "elachistos – lowly and little)) in the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).
And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (poieomai – may engage through it, making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), teaching it (didasko – trying to provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this individual (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately called and designated) great and important (megas – astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens)." (Mattanyah / Yahowah’s Gift / Matthew 5:19)