Questioning Paul

Chapter 7

part 6


While Yahowsha’ spoke to His audience in Hebrew, the translation of His Sermon on the Mount begins using "me nomizomai" in the aorist active subjunctive, which is "an express prohibition against accepting what will become a commonly held belief." In this tense and mood, this "is something so wrong we should not allow ourselves to even begin to think this way, no matter how popular or prevalent this sentiment is within our society." Therefore, Yahowsha’ was telling us that so many people would embrace the myth that Sha’uwl has been promoting that his justification and supposition would ultimately become commonly held, customary, presumed settled, and regarded established throughout the world. And yet it was absolutely and irrefutably wrong to assume that Yahowsha’ came to invalidate any aspect of the Towrah, as Paul was claiming.

Kataluo is an unequivocal term in this context – and it is repeated twice. It means that a person is in irreconcilable conflict with the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ if they are of the opinion that His life in any way invalidates, subverts, sidesteps, abrogates, weakens, abolishes, or dismisses any aspect of the Towrah. And that means that the terms and conditions of the Covenant remain in effect and must be acted upon to participate in a relationship with God. That means that Yahowah is still inviting us to attend the same Meetings, expecting us to respond to Him if we desire immortality, vindication, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. That means that the Towrah and its Covenant have not been replaced. That means that everything Paul has said is wrong. Believe this insignificant man, and you will die.

The most common Christian dismissal of God’s unequivocal statement is to suggest that "pleroo – to completely fulfill" somehow means "to do away with" as opposed to "doing what one has promised." But twice in this very same statement, Yahowsha’ told us by using kataluo that this interpretation was in irreconcilable conflict with His explanation of His life. Moreover, last time I checked, the universe and the earth still exists. So we can count on the fact that every promise, every prediction, every direction and inspiration in the Towrah is going to remain true. This is what makes God so reliable.

Eliminating any potential for misunderstanding, Yahowsha’ was extraordinarily specific, telling us that not so much as the smallest Hebrew letter, a Yowd, which not-so-coincidently is the first letter in His name, nor even the smallest stroke of the lines which comprise the Hebrew letters, which comprise the Hebrew words, of the Hebrew Towrah, would be disregarded, then, now, or in the future. Therefore, no matter how limited one perceives Paul’s global attack on the Yahowah’s Towrah to be, it is now impossible to reconcile it with Yahowsha’s statement. As a result of Yahowsha’s specificity, we are compelled to conclude that Paul lied when he claimed to be authorized by God, no matter how tortured the justification.

Incidentally, the reason that the validity of the smallest strokes and letters which currently comprise the Towrah wasn’t presented in Yahowah’s customary fashion in reference to His Towrah Teaching and Guidance, which is to call these things eternal and everlasting, is because the words which comprise the current Towrah do, in fact, have a limited life. By the end of the Millennial Shabat in year 7000 Yah (3033 CE), there will be no need for the Towrah’s Teachings regarding how to come to know Yahowah, nor His Directions on how to engage in the Covenant relationship, even His Guidance on how to walk to Him by answering His Invitations, because by this time every soul will have taken advantage of Yahowah’s Instructions. We will all know Him, be members of His Covenant, and be recipients of every promised benefit. At that time, as we watch our Heavenly Father create a new universe, we will still require His "towrah – guidance," but then on how to live the most productive and enjoyable lives in the spiritual realm where our power will be unlimited.

Yahowsha’s second to last statement is confusing for some. There is a tendency to translate "kaleo, he will be called" "insignificant" as opposed to "he will be named" "Little and Lowly," i.e., Paulos, in the kingdom of heaven. The former seems to imply that this insufficient individual is in heaven, but holds a lowly status, while the latter reveals the individual’s personal and proper name, as well as describing heaven’s utter disdain for Paulos. Not only is there no hierarchy, therefore, status, in heaven, since we are family, lowly and little is Paulos chosen name, the name of the individual best known for having done specifically what Yahowsha’ condemned.

Remember, Paul, which is a transliteration of the Latin "Paulos," meaning "little and lowly," was born with the Hebrew name "Sha’uwl," a name which is synonymous with She’owl and means "to question." But since this man despised being questioned, he abandoned his given name and chose to speak and write as Paulos. Further, Paulos isn’t a transliteration or translation of Sha’uwl, but is instead a Roman moniker. And since it means "little and lowly," it would be foolish to ignore this "coincidence," especially since Paulos founded the world’s most popular religion by doing the very thing Yahowsha’ admonished us not to do.

From the opposing perspective, those who do the opposite of what Paulos said and did, who act upon the Towrah, and who to the best of their ability teach the Towrah, expounding upon it, their contribution to Yahowah’s Covenant family is called great, even important. It isn’t that those who do so hold some sort of elevated status, but instead it is their willingness to engage with God and share His instructions which is seen as uncommon, both astonishingly valuable and sensible.

It is also interesting to note that many, if not most, of the prophecies presented in the Torah are yet unfulfilled. Yahowsha’ has not returned. Yisra’el and Yahuwdym have not been reconciled. The Millennial Sabbath has not commenced. The "Antichrist" has not yet been manifest. The Tribulation has not occurred. Neither the Magog nor Armageddon wars have been waged. The promises associated with the final three Miqra’eyTaruw’ah, Kippurym, and Sukah – have not been enabled. Therefore, the Torah could not have ended its useful life, even if such a thing was possible, 2,000 years ago. Paul is wrong on all accounts.


Returning to the anti-Towrah diatribe being promoted by the little and lowly one, I must admit, his next statement is somewhat confusing. We are required to speculate on what he is attempting to convey. And based upon the most popular and respected translations, I’m not the first to go down this winding road.

"But now (de) the mediator and middleman (o mesites – one who intervenes and either reconciles an existing relationship or creates a new covenant (singular/masculine)), he is (estin – exists) not (ouk) of one (heis – of a single thing or lone individual), but (de) the God (o ΘΣ) he is (estin – he exists as) one (heis)." (Galatians 3:20)

The interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition reads: "The but mediator one not is the but God one is." In the King James Version we find: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one." Jerome wrote the following in the Latin Vulgate: "Now a mediator is not of one, yet God is one." The NLT suggests: "Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham." The self-proclaimed literal New American Standard Bible published: "Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one." To their credit, they used italics to indicate that "party only" and "only" were not written in the Greek text. The New International Version, an extremely popular paraphrase conveys: "A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one."

As an eternal optimist, I’m wont to derive something sensible, even if Paul’s sentiments are all wrong. So, here is my best shot. I suppose Sha’uwl may be trying to say that his "mediator and middleman" is going to create new covenants for many, unlike the old god who is limited to one. As such, Paul’s reconciler "may not exist as a diminished manifestation of God who is one." Perhaps even, since a mediator exists to reconcile differences between parties, Paul’s middleman came expressly to conceive more accommodating covenants. But admittedly, I am guessing, something a person would not be expected to do if they were reading words which were actually inspired by God.

While this extrapolation of Paul’s last point is not clear, it is clearly inaccurate. It is a given that Paulos has not specified the nature of the undisclosed "promise" he alleges an unnamed god privately made to Abram, or how he became privy to it. But now he is saying that Yahowah’s Towrah, which describes every known aspect of this relationship and this man, is not only contrary to, but is actually opposed to a supposed promise made by the same God to this same individual. It is one thing for Paul to errantly claim that Yahowah’s Towrah, which is the lone reservoir of information pertaining to the conversations which were pursuant to the Covenant is irrelevant, but to call the Constitution of the Covenant "opposed to" the promises of that Covenant, is a giant stride closer to She’owl, and to eternal separation from God.

"Indeed (oun – therefore and consequently), the (o) Torah (nomos – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) accordingly is against (kata – is contrary to) the (tou) promises (epaggelia – the announcements (this time plural)) of the God (tou ΘU). Not may it become (me ginomai – it could but shouldn’t exist (the optative mood is used by a writer to portray an action as possible or to express a wish or desire)).

For (gar) if (ei – per chance) had been given (didomi – had been produced, granted, allowed, and appointed) the Torah (nomos – the source of nourishment and inheritance) to be the one with the power and ability (o dynamai – the capacity and resources) to impart life (zoopoieo – to make alive), certainly (ontos – surely and truly) in (en) the Torah (nomos – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) would (an) be (en) the (o) righteous and vindicated (dikaiosyne – upright who are right and acceptable, approved in the correct relationship)." (Galatians 3:21) (While the more popular and recently compiled Greek manuscripts have ek, meaning "out of," rather than en, meaning "in," before the last reference to the Torah, as is found in P46, it really doesn’t make much difference.)

Once again, Paulos has stumbled over his own tongue. The same fellow who was fixated on the irrelevant notion that "zera’ – seed," was singular, now can’t remember if there was one promise or many promises. And while "promises" is the correct answer, Paulos has shown a decided proclivity for "promise" singular, which is invalid. But either way, such inconsistencies on something that drives to the heart of his message is incriminating.

For those who may suggest that Paul is annulling his own conclusion that the Towrah is in opposition to its promises, by saying "Not may it become," please note that the optative mood was deployed to convey one of two ideas, neither of which serve as a refutation of the preceding comment. Paul was either saying that "this opposition was distinctly possible," or that "he wishes that this opposition wasn’t so." And both positions are in conflict with the testimony of Yahowah and Yahowsha’.

And yet what follows is far worse. Paulos is stating emphatically that there is no one who is righteous or vindicated in or by the Towrah because the Towrah does not have the ability or power to impart life.

Au contraire, it only by observing and acting upon the Towrah’s guidance regarding Pesach and Matsah that we become righteous and live. The God of the Towrah is the Author of life, its Designer and Creator. And the God of the Towrah is our Savior, the only one who can absolve our sins.

Paul is once again saying that Yahowah’s Towrah is inept. In direct contradiction to God’s personal involvement and testimony, according to this man, God’s Guidance and example cannot fulfill His Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread promises, delivering life or vindication. But if this is true, nothing was accomplished by the Lamb of God, rendering the crucifixion nothing more than a gruesome spectacle. And who knows why God even bothered with Matsah. I suppose He took the day off work, slumbering in the tomb.

If there is no power to prolong life or to facilitate righteousness in the Towrah, why did Yahowah promise these things to Abraham? Why did He save Lot from Sodom? Why did He rescue His children from bondage in Egypt? Why is Yahowsha’s Kingdom equated to the Kingdom of Dowd / David, and why was Dowd declared righteous? Do you suppose that Yahowah is going to model His eternal reign after someone both flawed and dead? Where is Enoch? Where is Elijah? Where is Moseh? Why did Yahowsha’ equate all that was good, valuable, and reliable with Moseh?

Or better question yet, suppose it was actually possible for man to kill God, how does God dying save man? What made Yahowsha’ perfect? How could Yahowsha’ be perfect if He lied about the Towrah? Was it just a cosmic coincidence that Yahowsha’s sacrifice happened to coincide perfectly with Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Child, and Seven Sabbaths in the Yowbel Year of 4000 Yah? What enabled the reunification of Yahowsha’s soul with Yahowah’s Spirit on the morning of the third day if not the Towrah’s promises regarding Bikuwrym?

Said another way, if believing a promise to vindicate was all one had to do to be saved, why was Yahowsha’ required to become the Passover Lamb and then spend the Shabat fulfilling Unleavened Bread?

Or perhaps you prefer this question: if the God who authored the Towrah cannot be trusted, if He is incompetent and impotent, then why would you believe this man who claims to speak for Him?

Paul’s most recent diatribe is part of a long argument, one that started in earnest a half-dozen statements ago. His is a clever ploy, a disingenuous maneuver designed to bypass the Torah, moving directly from an undisclosed promise to our salvation—with nothing in between, including an explanation, a relationship, or a depiction of God’s plan. Paul’s purpose has been to put a wall around the Torah, telling his audience that they can and must discard it.

But if you toss away the Torah, you discard any chance to know God, to engage in a relationship with Him, or to be saved. It is such a costly decision, it’s a shame that so many do it without a thought. And perhaps, just perhaps, that is what Paul and his spiritual advisor wanted.

In direct contradiction of Yahowsha’s Instruction on the Mount, Sha’uwl is overtly annulling the Torah’s power to restore and to prolong life. In direct contradiction to God’s Word, he is bluntly proclaiming that no one was considered righteous and thus saved from the time Adam was expelled from the Garden to the time the middleman died. If he’s right, Yahowah is wrong, because He called Dowd / David righteous and promised to do the same for every child of the Covenant. For Paul to be right, Moseh is estranged from God. If Paul is correct, the Exodus was a hoax—nothing but a cruel charade. Even Yahowah’s prophets were played.

So are we to accept Paul’s assessment and thereby believe that the same God who came to earth in the form of a man to save men was so sadistic prior to that time that He conceived a plan in which everyone was destined to fail? Were Yahowah’s instructions regarding His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him a complete waste of time? Were the Miqra’ey for naught? And if so, why did Yahowsha’ fulfill them?

Perhaps it was Paul who created the monster that became Marcion, rather than Marcion conceiving the legend that became Paul. Marcion just wanted to write Yahowah, Yahuwdym, and Yisra’el out of His canon. Paul wants to demean and demote them.

Despite the claims made in the King James Version, the Latin Vulgate, and the New Living Translation, God’s title does not appear in this Greek text once, much less twice. Moreover, there is no basis for a question, much less an answer. But so that you come to appreciate just how divergent these supposed "translations" are from the Greek text, let’s begin our review by considering the Nestle-Aland Interlinear: "The then law against the promises of the God. Not may it become. If for had been given law the one being able to make live really from law (not applicable) was the rightness."

Now, compare that to the KJV: "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Or the Latin Vulgate upon which it was based: "So then, was the law contrary to the promises of God? (Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei?) Let it not be so! For if a lex/law had been given, which was able to give life, truly justice would be of the lege/law." And now, the New Living Translation which contradicts itself: "Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it." The fact that these three translations agree with one another and disagree with the Greek text, demonstrates that they are revisions of one another. Publishers are businessmen and they know familiarity sells.

Struggling to make sense of what Paul was trying to portray to his audience has become exasperating, especially since his message has been so un-Godly. Therefore, the time has come to consistently introduce each subsequent statement by providing a scholarly frame of reference. We are going to use the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear—today’s most trusted textual resource—as a handrail in Paul’s inverted world. So please consider their rendition of Galatians 3:22: "But closed together the writing the all under sin that the promise from trust of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones trusting."

I don’t claim that this is any clearer, but it is more precise and complete. "To the contrary (alla – certainly and emphatically by way of a contrast), the (o) writing (graphe – usually used to designate the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) imposed restrictions, encircling, trapping, and enclosing (sugkleio –has trapped fish caught in a net, restricting and confining, binding and locking up prisoners, hemming them in on all sides, completely shutting up) of everything (ta pas) under (hupo – because of and under the control of) error and evil (hamartia – sin, disinheritance, wandering away from the path, missing the mark, and wrong-doing) in order that (hina) the (e) promise (epangelia (singular)) from (ek) the Faith (pistis – the Belief or Religion) of Iesou Christou (ΙΗΥ ΧΥ – placeholders for Yahowsha’ and Ma’aseyah whose association with Yahowah Sha’uwl has severed) might at some time be passively given to (didomi – the possibility exists that it may be granted without the recipient engaging or without a plan, being bestowed without reference to time to (aorist passive subjunctive)) the believers (tois pisteuo – the faithful, i.e., the ones who believe Sha’uwl)." (Galatians 3:22)

Beyond his vacillation over whether there were promises, or just one promise (after saying that there were "promises" in 3:21, there is just one "promise" in 3:22), there are six significant problems with this statement. First, sugkleio speaks of "netting fish," and "trapping and imprisoning people, binding and tying them up." It is from sun, "with," and kleio, "to shut a door and withhold something, making access inaccessible." To be sugkleio is "to be devoid of pity," and "to obstruct the entrance to heaven." And here, Sha’uwl is saying: "The writing (a.k.a., the written Towrah) closes the door, blocks the entrance, and makes heaven inaccessible, trapping everyone in a net as if they were fish." He is calling God’s Word "a trap and a prison." And as bad as that is, he will connect sugkleio with "phroureo – held in custody as a prisoner" in the next verse, exacerbating this overt denunciation of Yahowah’s Towrah.

Second, the Towrah does not "encircle or enclose" "evil," but instead protects us from evil, removing it from our souls, literally erasing the stain, while at the same time insulating us from its consequence. The implication here is that the Towrah is a pit or trap into which all evil flows.

Third, since Paul has said that there is no correlation between the unspecified promise / promises and the Towrah, it is irrational to say that the same Towrah exists in order to provide the alleged promise or promises. He is contradicting himself, something Yahowsha’ condemned other Rabbis for doing during His attack on them in Mattanyah 23.

Fourth, there is no "faith of Iesou Christou." Yahowsha’ did not have or promote a religion. He claimed to be the living embodiment of the Towrah. He was resolutely Towrah observant. He consistently affirmed what Yahowah had previously written. He did not add anything new.

Fifth, with complete knowledge and understanding, "faith" is nonsensical. Yahowsha’ cannot be God and believe. If He requires faith, He is no longer God.

Sixth, the problem with faith is that it is always uncertain, which is why "didomi – the possibility exists that it might be passively given to those who do nothing at some time without reference to a plan" was scribed in the aorist passive subjunctive. Who and what are the faithful to believe? If the promise was singular, and represented the Ma’aseyah, what were the promises? Why weren’t the promises recorded in the Towrah? Why trust the verbal, unspecified promises of the God of the Towrah when His written testimony is unreliable? How do the promises save? To whom and to what are the faithful being saved?

How can anyone in his or her right mind place their faith in a man who is quasi-literate, who is constantly contradicting himself, who misrepresents the facts, who is often irrational, and who is demeaning the God for whom he claims to speak?

Since the dearth of evidence in Paul’s epistles makes "trust and reliance" impossible, he obviously meant to convey "faith" and "believing" and, thereby, establish his Faith on believing: "To the contrary, emphatically and certainly, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers."

Christian translations agree. KJV: "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." LV: "But Scriptura/Scripture has enclosed everything under sin, so that the promise, by the faith of Iesu Christi, might be given to those who believe (ut promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus)."

Writing their own epistle, the NLT proposed: "But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ." While it is obvious that these renderings diverge somewhat from Paul’s script, the task of deciphering the wannabe Apostle is even more difficult than translating him.

So even if we were to limit sugkleio to "enclose and restrict," the Torah is not a vessel filled with "error or evil." The Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ had no faith and no religion. And belief is completely irrelevant to our salvation.

Moving on, please consider the difficulty the Nestle-Aland Interlinear had with the following text before reading my attempt to decipher Paul’s subsequent message. "Before the but to come the trust under law we were being guarded being closed together for the being about trust to be uncovered." While I’m sympathetic to the etymological reasons why the most respected Greek textual resource consistently renders the term upon which the Galatians debate pivots, pistis, as "trust," as opposed to "faith," every word Paul writes dictates that this was not what he intended.

Sha’uwl’s next derogatory statement actually speaks of the coming of faith, which is tantamount to the formation of his religion:

"But (de) before (pro) this (tou), to come (erchomai – to go, to move, to become, or to happen) the (ten) Faith (pistis – Belief), under (hupo – by, because of, and under the control of) the Towrah (nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance (accusative case making it a direct object of the verb)) we were actually being held in custody as prisoners (phroureo – we were being kept as prisoners, confined, strictly controlled, with guards in opposition to us (imperfect passive indicative)), restricted and trapped (sugkleio – bound and imprisoned, netted and confined, locked up and out) to (eis) the (ten) being about (mello – typically the intended or impending future expectation or hope, but this was scribed in the present tense) of the Faith (pistis – Belief, a.k.a., Religion) was revealed (apokalypto – uncovered, disclosed, and unveiled)." (Galatians 3:23)

To say that Sha’uwl and Yahowah didn’t see things the same way would be the understatement of the millennia. Phroureo is accurately translated "we were actually being held in custody as prisoners." However, based upon the compound of "pro – before" and "horao – seeing," Paul is inferring that the Towrah’s prisoners were kept in the dark and blind, but now, and as a result of his testimony, the faithful are able to see what those incarcerated by God missed.

And yet the overriding problem with all of this, beyond of course demeaning Yahowah and annulling His Towrah testimony, is that Paul never explains the basis of the unspecified promises. There are no conditions. Therefore, faith is wholly ambiguous. As a result, what a person believes becomes irrelevant. There are no rules, no guidelines, no consequences, no right or wrong, no definitions of what is good or bad, and no absolutes or certainties. An individual’s conception of god, their god’s purpose and will, even their god’s means to honor his promises, as well as what these promises might portend for those who believe such a nebulous being, are all undisclosed and thus must be immaterial. The believer is able to imagine their own deity, their own belief system, their own definition of righteousness, and even project their own caveats upon what is expected and what life with their deity might be like. With Paul’s faith, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of god, of faith, of life, and of salvation. And no one’s interpretation can be any better or worse that another’s. But then, what basis is there to believe anything this little and lowly man contrived? How is it that under such a scenario, he can be right and those who oppose him be wrong?

The answer to this question is actually obvious. Paul’s god has been conceived in Paul’s image. To know Paul is to know "the mediator." Paul is "the seed." He is the source of "the promise." Everything comes to a full stop with Paul. That is why he prefers "promise" to "promises." Yahowah has been emasculated and Yahowsha’ has been castrated. We have been left with little more than: "but I say..."

But alas, if only that was the sum total of Paul’s letters. If he had crafted his religion out of a new and whole cloth rather than removing, re-coloring, and re-weaving threads which had formed the fabric of the Towrah, he would have fooled far fewer people and done far less damage.

Also, since "but before the arrival of the ‘trust’" is awkward, and "the arrival of the ‘faith’" is a natural fit, this is yet another affirmation that Sha’uwl intended pistis to convey its present religious connotation—something further advanced by his final clause. Paul’s faith was built upon the ruins of the Torah, the only document which can be universally trusted.

And how, pray tell, has "being about faith" been "revealed?" Since we have been told that the testimony which actually revealed and accurately predicted every aspect of Yahowsha’ life was wholly opposed to this new faith, where is the substance of Paul’s beliefs?

Keep in mind, the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, who was revealed to us as promised by Yahowah, bears nothing in common with Sha’uwl’s arbitrary and imaginary conception. Sha’uwl does not provide a biography by which to know Yahowsha’. He does not quote Yahowsha’. And Sha’uwl has been at war with those who actually knew Him, condemning the Prophets and the Disciples. So I ask you, how has the seed, the mediator, the promise, been revealed?

Most people would recognize that there would be no benefit of believing that Dionysus died for our sins, acting as a mediator to save believers. So since Pauline Christianity is modeled upon Dionysus, having far more in common with his cult than with Yahowsha’, and since Paul attributes Dionysus’s most famous quote to his Ieosus, why would there be any reason for Yahowah, who authored the Towrah, and who is Yahowsha’, would save those who not only don’t know Him, but have mistaken Him for a pagan god? Might Yahowah have answered this question when He said that the deceitful and broad way associated with Sha’uwl was a plague of death?

Here are the Christian interpretations of Galatians 3:23. KJV: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." LV: "But before the faith arrived, we were preserved by being enclosed under the lege/law, unto that faith which was to be revealed." NLT: "Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed." In this case, the English translations aren’t nearly as harsh as the words Sha’uwl selected. But, based upon what has and will be said, this accommodation isn’t deserved. We are about to meet Paul’s "guardians and taskmasters."

Even though the next verse is part of this same paragraph, it began so long ago, a quick review is in order.

"Because if out of the Towrah, the inheritance is no longer from promise, but to the Abram by promise of God, He has forgiven and pleasured. (3:18) Then, therefore, why the Towrah? [Of the transgressions of violations and overstepping, because of the favor and pleasure, it was continued and added to] Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by spiritual messengers in the hand and control of a mediator or middleman. (3:19) But now, the mediator, he is not of one, but the god, he is one. (3:20)

Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the god. Not may it become (although it might be, even though I don’t want it to be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability, the capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (3:21)

But to the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers. (3:22) But before the arrival of the Faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing about of the Faith was revealed." (Galatians 3:23)


Before we press on, now that the text of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear is being provided as a handrail with considerable regularity, and now typically in advance of the more complete and accurate amplified translations, I’d like to explain the process deployed in rendering one of Paul’s statements. First, I’ll evaluate it as it appears in a reputable and scholastic presentation like the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. If there is a pre-Constantine codex, I compare the older version to the more modern text. Then I examine every word under an etymological microscope, even those with which I am totally familiar (so I don’t become complacent), consulting a variety of lexicons and dictionaries, in order that all possible shadings are considered, including tenses, voices, and moods, in addition to word order and the deployment of pronouns, conjunctions, articles, and prepositions. Then I share a more fully amplified rendition of what Sha’uwl wrote, always sharing his choice of words so that curious readers can verify their etymological ancestry for themselves.

Next, I reorder some of the words as is required to transfer the thoughts they convey into the structure of English grammar. At this point, I check verb tenses and other grammatical references a second time, and then complete the translation with an eye on the surrounding text. And as a rule, I try to render each additional statement so that it is as consistent as is possible with the overall message being delineated.

Then, if the etymology of a word exceeds what can comfortably be placed within the sentence itself, or even inside a parenthetical devoted to the word’s meanings, without the text being overly verbose and thus confusing, I’ll write a separate descriptive paragraph on the most interesting words. And then I strive to share whatever the Spirit reveals to me regarding the statement’s veracity and implications, adding those insights into my commentary. Lastly, when a statement is complete, I’ll go back and attempt to introduce it in such a way that the transitions are clear and intent is readily evident.

So while I’ve devoted more than a year of my life to do this as accurately and fairly as possible, this current Pauline argument has been so antagonistic toward Yahowah’s Towrah, on my first pass through this material, I simply translated each statement and moved on, hoping that the next line would help modify the previous one. But nothing seemed to help. So in my struggle to deal with writings this hostile to Yahowah and Yahowsha’, whom I love and respect, I decided that you were entitled to an independent witness. Therefore, I’ve consistently provided interlinear translations so that you would not be dependent upon my translations alone. I have long ceased to be impartial. And this is why I have been sharing three additional English bible renditions, recognizing that the case against Paul is made by those who he has beguiled.

Initially, my hope was to extricate Sha’uwl from the pit it has now become evident that he has dug for himself. But since Paul’s letter has made that impossible, I have taken sides – and so has God.

The bottom line is: I am very uncomfortable with what Sha’uwl is saying. Therefore, I’m lessening the burden this places on me by exposing you to the translations of others who are not bothered by him. For example, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear presentation of the next line in Galatians reads: "So that the law tutor of us has become to Christ that from trust we might be made right."

In comparison to that, this almost seems sane: "As a result (hoste – so then therefore), the (o) Towrah (nomos – the allotment which is parceled out to bestow and inheritance) has come to exist as (ginomai – has become) our (ego) disciplinarian (paidagogos – pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as slave-trainer of adolescent boys, an enslaving guardian, a custodian who keeps trainees in custody, a harsh and arcane taskmaster, or controlling supervisor of little children, often of those who were enslaved, striking, smiting, and stinging them) extending until (eis – to the point of) Christon (ΧΡΝ – placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article it’s obvious that Sha’uwl meant Christon to represent a name, not a title)) in order that (hina – so that as a result) by means of (ek – out of) the Faith (pistos – the Belief or Religion (in the singular genitive, this is a specific characterization of belief system, a.k.a., religion)) we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified (dikaioo – we have the possibility of someday being vindicated, declared innocent, and becoming righteous as a result of being influenced (aorist, passive, subjunctive)." (Galatians 3:24)

The unflattering metaphor which lies at the heart of this sentence provides us with a window into Sha’uwl’s mind. From his perspective, the Torah is a "paidagogos – tough disciplinarian lording over us as if we were slaves." The concept, not surprisingly, was a loanword from rabbinic usage. The term carries a decidedly negative connotation, and is distinguished from a teacher in that the paidagogos is only responsible for mundane behaviors, such as the rules regulating conduct, some as trivial as table manners.