junk
Questioning Paul
Chapter 9
part 6
In my quest to understand the Christian justification for Paul’s fictitious improvisation regarding a second covenant, with his view that the one formalized on Mount Sinai was associated with Hagar, as opposed to Ya’aqob/Yisra’el, and of it leading to slavery, as opposed to liberation, I found uniformity. It was as if someone wrote a plan for how to deal with Paul’s willingness to demean the Torah and contradict God, and thereafter everyone thoughtlessly parroted the same script. Each of the scores of Christian religious sites I scoured said that Paul was condemning the "Judaizers," as if there actually were such people. But since it sounds nasty, and because hating Jews has become a religious obsession, "Judaizers" became the ubiquitous explanation for Paul’s mythical second covenant.
Before we delve into Christian apologetics, so that Paul’s thesis is fresh in our minds, here is a recap of his position: "Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of Towrah: can’t you hear the Towrah? (4:21) For indeed because it has been written that Abram two sons had, one from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (4:22) Certainly from the slave girl according to flesh has been born, from the free by way of a promise. (4:23) Whatever is being spoken of allegorically these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (4:24) So now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore, corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children. (4:25)
But the Yaruwshalaim above in opposition, free and independent is who is our mother. (4:26) For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile, the not giving birth, violently lacerating throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping things to pieces while distorting and convulsing, cry aloud, becoming the not suffering birth pains because many the children of the desolate, forsaken and deserted, more than of the possessing the man.’ (4:27)
But you brothers according to Yitschaq of promise children you are. (4:28) Otherwise just as at that time this accordingly, flesh having given birth pursued, persecuted, and expelled this according to spirit and so it continues even now. (4:29) Nevertheless, what says the Writing, ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.’ (4:30) Therefore, brothers, we are not children of slave girl, to the contrary, the free." (4:31)
According to Protestant Christianity: "the allegory of Hagar and Sarah was written to persuade us (along with the Galatians) not to follow the ‘Judaizers’ into slavery with Hagar and Ishmael." This comes courtesy of the Baptist Church. And yet, Scripture says that at Yahowah’s insistence, Hagar was freed, and Ishmael was never a slave. Therefore, if this is what Paul meant to say, he chose the wrong examples.
From a site operating under the acronym CCEL.org (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), and under the heading, "Sermons from Galatians," we find: "It is important to note that Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law." Yet in fact, Paul’s hypothesis contradicts every aspect of the Torah’s presentation of Hagar, Ishmael, the Covenant, and Mount Sinai, and thus represents a complete "denial of the actual historical narrative."
They write: "Our threat today might not be from Judaizing teachers, but from those who would have us turn away from Christ, such as voices in the world and false religions." For example, they might follow Christian preachers and come to believe the false religion of Christianity.
The Sacra Eloquia provided this twist: "The Apostle Paul, like Morpheus in the film The Matrix, had been a slave to his former religion of Judaism. And the Judaizers wanted the Galatians to be slaves as well." In actuality, it appears that Paul never escaped religion, and stepped from one into another.
The Lectionary Studies of the New Testament provided this perfectly prepared presentation of Pauline Doctrine: "By the use of the Hagar-Sarah illustration Paul makes his strongest argument: forward in the Christian life, or backward to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. The message is that the Torah enslaves and condemns us. Yet the Judaizers argue that only those who submit to the Sinai covenant share in the promised Abrahamic blessings and thus Gentile believers must submit themselves to the Mosaic Law if they are to share in Isaac’s blessings, as opposed to being cast out with Ishmael." As is the case with Paul, this is wrong from beginning to end. And yet, in these words we find the religious script unveiled which has been deployed to pit Christianity against the Torah, against Yahowah, against the Covenant, against the Called-Out Assemblies, against the Commandments, and lest we forget, against Yisra’el and Yahuwdym. And it is a plot whose mythological origins are rooted in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
Spreading the Light Ministries Network under the heading "Sermons," protests: "Paul illustrates the difference between believers who rest in Christ only and Judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael." But Paul’s story isn’t "from" the account of Yitschaq and Yshma’el, but is instead a corruption of it. Moreover, there is no comparison or association whatsoever between the banishment of Hagar and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah. Further, Yahowsha’ Himself consistently told those interested in knowing Him and understanding what He came to accomplish, that they must ground their perspective in the Torah.
The Christian organization says: "He tells the Galatians that they are making a big mistake by falling away from the truth." And yet, according to Yahowah, and thus, Yahowsha’, the Torah is the truth.
"These things Paul said are an allegory, besides being literal and historical." It’s hard to believe that the proponents of this plot are so stupid that they don’t recognize that Paul wasn’t calling his version "allegorical," but instead Yahowah’s, and that Paul’s thesis was neither literal nor historical.
"Hagar represents the Mosaic Law, slavery." This is only true in Paul’s twisted mind and in the hearts of those sufficiently ignorant and irrational to believe him. Yahowah says just the opposite.
Spreading the Light Ministries Network protested: "Mount Sinai represents Jerusalem under slavery to Rome and the Jews…who are under the curse of the Law." The only association between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem is that one predicts, explains, and leads to the other. They are linked, not in "curses" or "slavery," but in being steps along the path to our salvation. The Torah’s Covenant promise was honored on Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Children, and the Promise of the Sabbath in Yaruwshalaim—the Source of Reconciliation.
The Bible Study Guide to Galatians suggests: "Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sarah as a picture of the relationship between God and man. Paul tells the Galatians that Hagar represents the covenant given on Mt. Sinai, which is the law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping. In so doing, Paul warns us about complying with the Judaizers." The opposite of this is actually true. Abraham, and through him, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el) represent the Covenant between Yahowah and His family, not Sarah. And Hagar was specifically disassociated from the Covenant centuries before it was codified in the Torah on Mount Sinai. Further, the "law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping" isn’t the Towrah, which means "Teaching," but instead, Jewish Oral Law, know as Rabbinical Law, which has now been codified in their Talmud.
Bereft of the notion that "proof" requires "evidence," McGarvey and Pendleton’s Commentary published: "Paul proves that Christians are not required to keep the Jewish Sabbath or festivals of Judaism even though the Judaizers insisted upon them." The only thing Paul has proven is that his Greek is impoverished and that he feels no qualms about contradicting God. Equally uninformed, McGarvey and Pendleton as anti-Semites want Christians to believe that the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, Seven Sabbaths, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters are the customs of "Judaizers," rather than being Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.
M&P wrote: "Paul imagines that the Galatians are seeking the instruction of the Judaizers, as they had once sought him." While Paul has a vivid imagination, there is no evidence for "Judaizers," much less that the Galatians actually sought Paul’s instructions. To the contrary, the text of the epistle indicates that the Galatians rejected Paul and his message. (If only the rest of the world had as well.)
Reading Galatians through glasses fitted at a Christian bookstore, McGarvey and Pendleton wrote: "And Paul, knowing the passion of the Judaizers for allegory, meets them with their own weapon, and presents his case argumentatively and logically." Nothing Paul has said has been logical, albeit, his rhetoric has been plenty argumentative. There is no indication that Rabbis used allegory. It is Yahowah who has a passion for parables, metaphors, and word pictures. And they are not "weapons," but instead teaching aids. But by saying this, these Christians have demonstrated their disdain for God.
Further, they have demonstrated that Christianity renders its victims unable to think. Anyone who has read this passage in Greek understands that Paul specifically differentiated the allegorical meaning of the story, whatever it may have been, from his personal interpretation of it. Paul didn’t say that the two covenants were allegorical, but instead said "these then exist as two covenants." And while Paul is undeniably "argumentative," he is the antithesis of "logical."
From an organization called "From Pentecost to Patmos" we find confusion between religious rhetoric and sound argument: "Paul’s thesis, presented in Galatians chapter 4, verses 8-31, provides a series of arguments for his conviction that justification comes by faith alone, and he contrasts this with the improperly motivated zeal of the Judaizers." This begins well. Galatians is "Paul’s thesis." And therein lies the problem. Paul’s thesis and Yahowah’s message differ on every essential issue.
Pentecost to Patmos’ insistence that "justification comes by faith alone" is invalid according to God. But it is true that faith operates alone, without evidence or support. Whereas trust, which is based upon knowledge and understanding, requires a foundation of supporting evidence.
The longest, most errant, and yet most unapologetically Christian, comparison between Genesis 17:15-21 and Galatians 4:21-31 is found on a Presbyterian site. A pastor on behalf of the "Orthodox Presbyterian Church," wrote the following anti-Semitic rant: "The Judaizers [in actuality, Jews have a history of seldom, if ever, attempting to convert anyone to their way of thinking] entered the Galatian churches [there is no reference to a "church" in these Greek manuscripts, but instead an ekklesia, referring to the Called Out], which were primarily Gentile [while this excuse is ubiquitous, the content of Galatians demonstrates that the audience was aware and fond of the Torah, meaning that they were mostly Yahuwdym, not Gowym], and argued that true believers ["true believer" is an oxymoron, moreover, God wants us to know and understand so that we can trust and rely upon the truth He revealed in His Torah] had to be engrafted into the lineage through circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses." This misses the symbolism of circumcision. And it misconstrues "observance" with "obedience." Observance leads to knowing and understanding. Obedience leads to submission. Further, the "Law of Moses" is akin to calling the prophecies Yahowah revealed to Yasha’yahuw the "Edicts of Isaiah." Moseh was simply the scribe who wrote Yahowah’s teaching unto a scroll. It is a wonder these theologians don’t attributed the Declaration of Independence to the calligrapher.
Failing to appreciate the difference between "stating" and "demonstrating," the Presbyterian pastor exclaimed: "But Paul demonstrates that the Mosaic Law itself has come to an end with the coming of the true seed, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the end of the Law." Paul does make this claim, but by doing so he directly contradicts Yahowsha’s position on the Torah. Therefore, since Yahowsha’ said that He did not bring an end to the Towrah, Paul proved that he was wrong and should not be trusted.
"But sadly the Galatians had begun to buy into the Judaizers’ argument. [Galatians only hints at the nature of Paul’s foe and the arguments they proposed.] They had already capitulated and were being told to observe the fasts and festivals of the Jewish calendar. [Wrong again. There are no fasts, and the festivals are Yahowah’s and dated on His calendar, not a Jewish one.] But we are no longer slaves to the Law of Moses, and are no longer regulated by it commandments." If the Torah isn’t guidance for liberation, then Yahowah is a liar and Yahowsha’ fulfilled Passover and Unleavened Bread in vain. Under this condition, there would be no freedom from human oppression, nor vindication from sin.
I was appalled not long ago to see the Presbyterian Church release a stunningly immoral and inaccurate press release following their General Assembly against Jews and Israel and in favor of the Muslims who were terrorizing them. And now, I understand the source of their anti-Semitism. "So Paul turns the Judaizers use of the Old Testament against them." Calling the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the "Old Testament" demonstrates that Christians have remained mired in Paul’s and Marcion’s polluted rhetoric. Scripture, according to Yahowsha’, begins with the "Torah," and it concludes with the "Prophets." Further, Paul misquoted and misapplied Scripture. And that means that Paul used the "Old Testament" against himself.
According to Orthodox Presbyterian Church: "Paul tells them that the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai where the Law was mediated through Moses in the presence of the angels was a covenant of slavery and bondage." There are no "angels" in Scripture, and the Torah was not "mediated through Moses." To mediate is "to intervene." Yahowah spoke for Himself. More importantly, Yahowah as Yahowsha’ acted on His own behalf. Further, the explicit purpose of the Torah is to detail the role Yahowah played in the liberation of the children of Yisra’el from the crucible of human religious and political oppression and bondage in Egypt, leading them to a life of freedom in the Promised Land. Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet delineate this same path for the rest of us.
"Paul’s gospel is not related to Hagar, the Judaizers are." Paul can be blamed for many things, but "gospel" isn’t among them. He used euangelion, meaning "healing messenger and beneficial message." "Gospel" is a Christian myth based upon pagan nomenclature.
This same Presbyterian entity demonstrated it ignorance when they postured: "The message of the Torah is one of slavery." According to Paul this is true, but not according to Yahowah. Therefore God’s Torah instructions and man’s religious teachings on this foundational issue are diametrically opposed. How is it then that Christians remain oblivious to this conflict? Search as I might, I was unable to find a single theologian who even attempted to reconcile this catastrophic problem.
The Christian apologist, having skipped the lecture on the Instruction on the Mount at seminary school, wrote: "Since the city of Jerusalem had become a symbol for the Mosaic Covenant, when that Covenant/Law came to an end, so did all the hopes that were rooted in that city, including the land and temple." Yaruwshalaim is the symbol of salvation, not the symbol of the Covenant. And according to Yahowah, His Word is eternal, never ending. As such, the hope of reconciliation, and the return of Yahowsha’, will occur on the Mount of Olives just east of the Temple Mount in the one and only Yaruwshalaim.
Presbyterian Christians have separated themselves from Yahowah, from His Torah, from God’s Path home, from Yaruwshalaym the source of reconciliation, and thus from the Promised Land, symbolic of heaven. "No longer for the Christian is Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the law of Moses the center of our hope. The Christian’s hope is not to be found in whether or not a nation today called Israel locates itself in the Middle East, of if they are able to slaughter enough Arabs to take over the city of Jerusalem, or if they are able to take control of the temple Mount and rebuild the Temple. These things are all vain hopes. They are Jewish empty dreams. They are simply the confused dog chasing his shadow in the yard." While it’s hard not to envision Yahowah’s anguished expression at the trial of the Christian pastor who scribed these words, it would do these fellows a world of good to read the Prophets sometime.
"Rather the Christian has become heirs of the realities, not the shadows. Let the Jews continue to place their hopes in the shadows which have come to an end. Amen" And yet, Christianity remains mired in the myths of Mystery Babylon, confused by Satan’s shadows, his counterfeits. "Amen," indeed.
For Paul’s thesis to be true, for the Torah to be an agent of enslavement, and for it to be annulled, Yahowah, the God who created the universe and conceived life, the author of the Towrah and architect of the plan of salvation delineated therein, would have to have come to the conclusion that He was wrong and that He was incapable of resolving man’s condition. As a result, He would have had to recognize that Paul was superior in intellect and ability to Himself, and to His human manifestation Yahowsha’. Then, God would have had to have asked Paul to correct Him, and to solve these problems a different way. If you believe that is what occurred, that Paul had the authority and ability to correct God, congratulations, you are a Christian.