Questioning Paul
Chapter 1
Part 3
Paulos is reaffirming his hypothesis. According to the founder of the Christian religion, Yahowah’s "Torah is an abhorrent and detestable curse which promotes evil." From Sha’uwl’s perspective, God’s Word is "malicious and repugnant." Moreover, instead of the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ observing the Towrah, affirming and fulfilling it as He, Himself, attests in the 5th and 7th chapters of Mattanyah / Matthew, according to the only self-proclaimed apostle, God opted to engaged in a business transaction whereby He has ransomed us, not from sin, but instead from His Torah.
It is difficult to imagine the darkness which would have to come over a person to prompt them to promote such a demonic deception. But perhaps one thing is becoming clear, Sha’uwl may well have told the truth when he admitted to being goaded and possessed by one of Satan’s demons. But even then, why would so many Christians swallow this poison?
I suppose it is because, like all spellbinding deceivers before and after him, Paul continues to weave a few credible threads through his evil tapestry. By citing God, Sha’uwl’s lies appear plausible.
In reality, the redemption of the Covenant’s children is predicated upon Yahowsha’ honoring and enabling the Torah’s promises. So His sacrifices apart from the Torah are meaningless. There would have been no reason for them, nor any benefit to be derived from His otherwise inadvertent misfortune. Unless the Ma’aseyah’s sacrifices served a purpose, such as fulfilling the promises of eternal life and redemption associated with Passover and Unleavened Bread in harmony with the Torah’s instructions, His life was irrelevant. In fact, if the Torah didn’t depict Yahowah’s enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha’ would have been an egregious liar who should not have been trusted, because He said and performed otherwise.
And that’s what is so odd about all of this. Sha’uwl is attempting to demean and dismiss the Towrah while pretending to speak on behalf of its Author and its living embodiment. There is no rational way to position God in opposition to His own teaching, especially since He not only talked the talk, He walked the walk.
The statement Sha’uwl misquoted also comes from the Towrah, this time from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The passage reads: "Indeed when (wa ky) it comes to pass over time (hayah) that by association (ba) an Individual (‘ysh – a Man) is considered to be guilty of sins (chata’ mishpat – it is judged, decided, determined, and thought that He is liable for sin in order to resolve disputes) worthy of death (maweth), and He chooses to be dispatched to the realm of the dead (wa muwth – He passively allows Himself to be slain so as to be absent from life, completely fulfilling the penalty (hophal stem perfect conjugation consecutive mood)), and then (wa) you decide to completely and literally suspend Him (talah ‘eth – you want to hang Him by fastening Him (qal perfect consecutive)) on (‘al) a wooden timber (‘ets – or tree), His corpse shall not remain overnight (lo’ lyn nabelah – His body must not endure the night, staying there after sunset) on the timber (‘al ha ‘ets – near the wooden pillar).
Rather instead (ky – truthfully and certainly), you should surely prepare and entomb His body (qabar qabar – it is essential that you place His body in a sepulcher) on this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’). Indeed because (ky), the One being suspended (talah – the one being hanged) is the cursed and abated of (qalalah – the maligned who fades away as a result of an owth and is diminished, slighted, and decreased (in the construct form, the abated and diminished is being associated with and is connected with and bound to)) God Almighty (‘elohym). So you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’ – you should not cause to be unclean), accordingly (‘eth), your soil (‘adamah – your land, realm, and world; from ‘adam – mankind and human nature) which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), gave (natan – produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la – for you to approach) as an inheritance (nahalah – to become an heir)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
This is a prophetic picture of the Ma’aseyah’s fulfillment of the Torah’s presentation of Passover. Yahowah’s testimony reveals to us that Yahowsha’ would be considered to be guilty of sin worthy of death, that He would be suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set, that His carcass would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that, as a result of having our sins associated with Him, the Ma’aseyah’s soul would become the slighted and diminished of God – in other words it would be separated and abated in She’owl on Matsah. It also tells us that His body, in keeping with Yahowah’s instructions regarding Passover, would cease to exist that night.
Yahowah uses prophecies like this one, and a thousand more like it, to prove that He inspired His Scriptures. He did this so that we would be able to trust everything else He has to say. Only God can get every prophecy right, every time without fail.
In Roger Miller’s song, King of the Road, where the refrain repeats, "I’m a man of means by no means," Paul’s methodology is easily exposed. By simply separating clauses, he is creating a false impression. So turning to our example, while the country artist sang, "I am a man of means," when that statement is disassociated from "by no means," without the negation, the initial phrase isn’t just misleading, it’s wrong. Similarly, "by no means" independent of "I’m a man of means" could be deployed by an unscrupulous individual to negate anything in the song. But the technique is disingenuous. And since Paul isn’t misrepresenting the sentiments of country song, but instead misappropriating the Word of God, by falsely conveying the impression that God is affirming the disillusion of His own lyrics, Sha’uwl is disrespecting both God and his audience. The former was not amused and has put us on notice that such tactics are deceitful, deadly, and damning, condemning Sha’uwl by name for using them. But what about his audience, what about the billions upon billions of Christians? Now that you know, what are you going to do?
Thus far we have learned that Paul cannot be trusted. We now know that the King James Version is unreliable and inaccurate, and that the New Living Translation isn’t a translation of the Greek text, it’s not even a faithful paraphrase, but is instead a novelized account, whereby its authors became storytellers. To its credit, the NLT reads smoothly, and it tickles the ears of the evangelical Christian audience, which is why I suppose it has become so popular. But as a study tool, other than to affirm Christian interpretations of Pauline Doctrine, it is of no practical use and is potentially harmful.
We have learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted Scripture with the intent to mislead, which is troubling. All four citations were hastily and cleverly abridged, deliberately taken out of context, and then purposefully altered to make it appear as if Paul’s message and God’s were in sync. One time would have been inexcusable, but removing clauses from conversations will become a bad habit, an epidemic which many Christians have come to emulate to justify their religious views. It is also curious, indeed telling, that when considered as a whole, each of the four statements Sha’uwl cited resolutely affirmed the Torah’s enduring promise to save us. Every one of God’s declarations undermined Pauline Doctrine and thus the Christian religion.
And that means Paulos had no respect whatsoever for his audience. He played Christians for fools because he believed they would be easy to fool.
I do not say this to insult you if you are a Christian, but to get you to realize that what I’m suggesting is true. Sha’uwl was so confident that his audience, today’s Christians, wouldn’t question him that he flaunted his association with Satan in everyone’s face, admitting that he was not only demon possessed, but that he had been goaded into hyperbole, into overstated exaggeration, by the Adversary’s emissary. Are you surprised? Did this catch you unaware?
It shouldn’t have. After all, there have been thousands upon thousands of sermons questioning the nature of Paul’s "thorn in the flesh." And yet nary a one of Paul’s advocates conveys the specific and unabashed answer Paulos, himself, scribed in his Second of two letters to Corinth, when he infamously wrote:
"Because (gar – for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo – I may decide, desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai – to boast and to glorify myself) truthfully (aletheia – honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or imprudent (aphron – acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or unjustified).
For then (gar – because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining (pheidomai – I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un) approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai – may have reason to logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper – over and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo – he will be able to view and discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo – he listens to, receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te – so with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton – preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-inspiring aspects of the overstated) revelations (apokalypsis – disclosures with the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
Therefore (dio – it should be self evident), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai – I not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration), there was given to me (didomi ego – there was deposited upon me, allowing me to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp goad and troubling thorn (skolops – a sharp pointed prod used to control dumb animals, featuring poisonous scorpion’s stinger) in the body (te sarx – incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of my physical, animal, and human nature), a messenger (angelos – a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan (Satan – a transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina – so as to) strike and restrain me (kolaphizo – adversely harm, beat, and torment me, violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me; from kolazo – to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result (hina) at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be able to be insolent or audacious, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai – I may not be overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted up, overdoing it (scribed in the present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive voice, affirming that this is being done to him, with the subjective mood indicating that this outcome is a mere possibility, and in the first person singular, thereby identifying Paulos as the one being possessed and controlled)." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
As bad as this is, and this is as bad as bad ever gets, especially if you are a Christian and have entrusted your soul to the credibility of this man’s testimony, it may be even worse when considered from the perspective of Sha’uwl’s "conversion experience" when, on the road to Damascus, he first claims to have heard the "flashing light" speak to him. In a desperate attempt to prove his qualification, and thus justify his exaggerated revelations, under oath, Paulos testified...
"And everyone (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto – having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge), I heard (akouo – I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice (phone – a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego – speaking according to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl (Saoul, Saoul – a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Sha’uwl, meaning "Question Him," a designation synonymous with She’owl – the pit of the dead), Why (tis) are you actually pursuing me (dioko me – are you following me, really striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously running toward me)? It’s hard (skleros – it’s demanding and difficult, even rough, harsh, violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi) to resist (laktizo – to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance vain or perilous)." (Acts 26:14)
While it may be hard to believe, even this gets worse in context, because the line "It is hard to resist the goad" was plagiarized from the words of the Greek god, Dionysus – the pagan deity whose doctrine became part and parcel of Christianity. Also, at this time, and by his own admission, Sha’uwl was actually following Satan. He was hastily and violently killing anyone who admitted that Yahowsha’ was the Ma’aseyah.
So there is no way to discount this testimony, to reject Paul’s admission of guilt. His confession to the Corinthians is duly recorded in Papyrus 46, a late first, early second-century codex. If that witness isn’t reliable, the entire "Christian New Testament" becomes unreliable, because there are no older or more credible codices that P46. So if you are a Christian, you must either deal with this by rejecting all of Paul’s letters as being demonically inspired, or the whole of the "New Testament" as being wholly unreliable. Or, of course, you could put your head in the sand, and be religious which is now akin to being irrational. At this point, you can no longer claim ignorance – nor should you.
If you are still a Christian, now that it has become obvious that Paul has played you for a fool, that he has deliberately lied to you, are you going to remain a victim? You have the option to reject Paul, but that will mean rejecting Christianity. So what are you going to do? Are you at least open to knowing the truth? Can you handle the truth? Do you want the truth?
Before we move on, let’s pause a moment and consider the options at our disposal regarding Paul’s Scriptural misquotes. You can ignore them if you believe that I have misrepresented Paul’s or Yahowah’s statements. But this approach is easily resolved. Flip forward to the "Towrah – Teaching and Guidance" chapter where every Hebrew and Greek word delineated in these statements is presented so that you can do your own due diligence and verify the text and the translations for yourself. Or simpler yet, just compare standard English translations of the Scripture passage and Sha’uwl’s quotation and note the differences.
Since the first option to dismiss this problem is a nonstarter, you can accept the fact that the citations are different, but attribute their divergence to an inadvertent mistake on Paul’s part. But if you do, you must also abandon the notion that Paul’s letters are Scripture—the inerrant Word of God. And with that realization, the foundation of Christianity crumbles.
You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of Paul’s Scriptural citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted to support his agenda, which means that he intended to misrepresent them. But if you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And at that point, Christianity becomes false – yet another popular and broad path that leads to destruction.
Since the last two options are devastating, and the initial one is invalid, you could blame the mistakes on scribal error, suggesting that Paul’s Scriptural quotations were correct initially, but that over time copyists inadvertently misrepresented his words, creating a false impression. But this is a slippery slope. The oldest meaningful codex of the Christian "New Testament" is Papyrus 46, which is dated between 85 and 125 CE, thirty-five to seventy-five years after this epistle was scribed, and it contains a complete copy of most all of Paul’s letters. If it isn’t reliable, then nothing in the so-called "Christian New Testament" is reliable—as there is only one superior witness, Papyrus 75, which covers Luke and John, and it was scribed one-hundred years later. Therefore, if scribes significantly altered Paul’s letters during this relatively short period of time, the list of appropriately supported and reliable "New Testament" books would shrink to two: portions of Luke and John. The rest, based as they are on far less reliable and far more recent manuscripts, would be too suspect to believe. And of course, that would mean that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms would still stand unchallenged.
Or you can take the quietly popular, albeit seldom articulated, Christian position regarding these misquotes—one derived from Marcion in the early second century. He concluded that the God who inspired the Torah was mean-spirited, and no longer relevant—a position which many Christians hold, even if they are too timid to voice it. As such, Marcion attempted to nullify the Torah by encapsulating it within a collection which he labeled the "Old Testament," and thus suggested that it was the will of a now deceased, or at least irrelevant, deity. Marcion promoted the myth that Paul was the only true Apostle, and that he alone spoke for the new and improved god of his "New Testament." Paul’s letters were canonized as a result – a collection that included his epistles and edited portions of Luke and Acts. Thereby, Sha’uwl of Tarsus, now Paulos of Rome, was positioned and purported to correct the errors that the old God had made. As a result, Paul’s new faith forever separated believers: from Yahowah, from the first four statements God etched in stone, from six of His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, from the Chosen People, from the Promised Land, and from Yahowah’s Word—His Torah.
Beyond the fact that this view makes a man’s opinions more important than God’s Word, the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’s testimony is in complete harmony with Yahowah and it is in total conflict with Sha’uwl’s epistles. Simply stated, the Christian position is unsupportable; it is ignorant and irrational. So perhaps the more revealing question might be: what about you?
If I had not also been played for a fool, it would be difficult, at least now that I know the truth, to be sympathetic. The truth is as obvious as the lie is apparent. Our salvation is predicated upon Yahowah’s testimony, not Paul’s.
On the fourth page of what is erroneously referred to as the "Christian New Testament," the very first time Yahowsha’s testimony is recorded, He settles the issue, removing any doubt that Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul lied when he wrote in Galatians that there was no life in the Torah. Listen...
"But then (de – providing a contrast), the One (o) having become the answer (apokrinomai – revealed the means to separate fact from fiction, to distinguish between truth and deceit; from apo – to separate and krino – to separate again), said (lego – clarified, providing meaning using words), ‘It has been written (grapho – it has been inscribed on a document, engraved in writing, and recorded using letters and words), "Not upon (ouk ep) bread (artos – a baked loaf of bread with yeast which aerates, food in general, that which raises up from the ground, is elevated, or lifted up; from airo – to rise up from the ground, to take upon oneself, carry away, and carry off, removing that which had once been associated) alone, by itself, without help (monos – only by himself, forsaken, merely, and destitute of help) will this man assuredly live (zao o anthropos – will this one man reliably conduct his life in a particular manner to actually restore life (future middle indicative), but (alla – certainly, making an emphatic contrast) upon (epi) every (pas – the whole and complete) spoken statement (rhema – verbal declaration) departing out (ekporeuomai – going forth and proceeding, leading and guiding the path of life) through (dia) the mouth (stoma – the spoken communication) of Yahowah (ΘU – a Divine Placeholder for Yahowah)." (Mattanyah / Yahowah’s Gift / Matthew 4:4)
Yahowsha’ was debating Satan, Sha’uwl’s inspiration. The Devil, as he had with Adam and Chawah in the Garden of Eden, was tempting Yahowsha’. Using the same ploy he had originally tested, the same strategy now on display throughout Galatians, not so coincidently, the Adversary inverted the intent of God’s testimony by removing it from its context and twisting it to convey the wrong impression. Playing off of a similar circumstance, when the Children of Yisra’el were hungry in the wilderness, Satan recognized that Yahowah miraculously fed them with mana, considered to be the bread of heaven. Now after forty days in the wilderness, he realized that Yahowsha’ was hungry, so why not turn a stone into bread and take a bite?
But this was ordinary bread, artos, bread puffed up by the deadly carbon dioxide residue of fermenting yeast – the fungus equated with religious and political corruption. "Come on," you can almost hear Satan pleading as he had exactly 4000 years before, "take a bite. What’s it going to hurt to ingest a little corruption?" Well what it would have hurt was our salvation by corrupting Yahowsha’, causing Him to be less than the perfect Passover Lamb. There was a lot at stake.
But, unlike Chawah now just twenty years shy of six millennia ago, Yahowsha’ knew the Word of God, and He cited it accurately to forestall the temptation. It is the example we should follow. The Towrah is the antidote for Satan’s poison. But of course to wield it, we first have to know it.
Yahowsha’ cited a passage from Dabarym, which is part of the Towrah. It was perfectly applicable to this situation, just as it is ideally suited to resolve the question of whether or not Paulos spoke for Yahowah when he claimed that he denounced and destroyed the Towrah because God’s testimony was a lifeless and enslaving curse with the power to condemn but not save. Yahowsha’ disagreed, and siding with Yahowah against Sha’uwl, He said: "Not upon bread alone, by itself, without help will this man assuredly live, but upon every spoken statement departing out, leading and guiding the path of life, through the mouth of Yahowah."
Life, therefore, is a byproduct of Yahowah’s statements. What’s more, Yahowah speaks in first person in His Towrah and throughout His prophets. So not only did Yahowah’s Torah, His Prophets and Psalms represent the entire reservoir of Godly proclamations at the time Yahowsha’ provided this answer, and not only was this specific citation from the Towrah, Paul’s first letter wouldn’t be written for another twenty years, excluding it from consideration. Moreover, one of the many differences between God’s Word and Paul’s epistles is that Yahowah consistently speaks in first person in His Torah and Prophets, but it is Paul, not God, who is found continually speaking in first person throughout the epistles. And this is relevant because Yahowsha’ specifically correlated life with that which had flowed from Yahowah’s mouth. So not only was this realization the antithesis of the Pauline style, there would be no possibility of an informed and rational person interpreting Yahowsha’s statement to include anything Paul would subsequently say or write to undermine this reality.
Yahowsha’ "became the answer." He "apokrinomai – revealed the means to separate fact from fiction, to distinguish between truth and deceit." Apokrinomai is from apo – to separate and krino – to separate again. More specifically, krino means "to separate in the sense of distinguishing between fact and fiction, discriminating between right and wrong, choosing between good and evil." To krino is "to examine and consider evidence to determine what is reliable and proper." To krino is "to exercise good judgment by separating that which can be trusted from that which cannot. It is about "discretion." It is about using our brain to filter out the foolishness of Paul. Yahowsha’ was the living embodiment of the Towrah, the Word of God in the flesh. By observing the Towrah, by acting upon the Towrah’s Guidance and by engaging in accordance with Yahowah’s Instructions, Yahowsha’ affirmed that the Towrah is the means to know Yahowah, to participate in a relationship with Yahowah, to life and to salvation. So Christians, since this was Yahowsha’s first recorded statement, He is leaving you without excuse.
Now that we know that the Towrah is the antidote for Pauline Doctrine, let’s consider the passage Yahowsha’ cited. Here, Moseh is talking with the Children of Yisra’el after they had spent forty years in the wilderness.
"And you benefited from His response (wa ‘anah – He answered you in a way which you could choose to benefit you on an ongoing basis (in the piel stem we are the beneficiaries of God’s answer, in the imperfect conjugation the response provides ongoing benefits, and in the consecutive mood to which we can choose to respond)) which is why (wa) He wanted you to be hungry (ra’eb – He decided you would benefit if He developed your appetite (in the hiphil stem God brought about their longing for nutrition, in the imperfect He caused it to be ongoing, and in the consecutive mood it was God’s will)). And so He could feed you (wa ‘akal – so He might fulfill His desire to provide your ongoing substance, continuously nourishing you (hiphil imperfect consecutive)) with (‘eth) the (ha) mana (man – a nourishing and sweet-tasting nectar from God considered to be the bread of life; from mah – an interrogative asking what is this and what does it mean) which (‘asher) you did not know (lo’ yada’ – you were actually and completely unaware of (qal stem denotes reality and the perfect conjugation indicates that which is complete)) and also (wa) your fathers (‘ab – your forefathers or ancestors) could not have known (lo’ yada’) in order (ma’an – for the express purpose and intent) to make known to you (yada’ – to enable you to know and to become known (the hiphil stem reveals that God facilitated our ability to learn, know, and understand, and the infinitive construct has the characteristics of a verb and noun, thereby making those who seek known to God)) that, indeed (ky – truly and surely), not upon (lo’ al) bread (ha lechem – a baked loaf of bread with yeast and food in general; from lechem – that which can be adversarial) alone (la bad – by itself, separated or isolated) shall man continually live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha ‘adam – shall the or this man, humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely preserved, being continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of that which is actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the continuance of life)), but (ky – indeed rather) upon (‘al) everything (kol) which flows out of (mowtsa’ – which travels forth, leading and guiding every incremental stage of a journey demonstrating the proper path through life; from yatsa’ – to go forth, leading us out by way of) the mouth (peh – the communication and spoken word) of Yahowah (efei) shall man continually live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha ‘adam – shall the or this man, humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely preserved, being continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of that which is actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the continuance of life))." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:3)
Unlike Paul, Yahowsha’ not only cited the complete statement from the Towrah, He pulled it from a discussion which was perfectly suited to affirm God’s guidance to answer the specific question being posed. He made the correlation between life and God’s testimony – the very path through life He, Himself, lived.
Since this is important, literally the means to life, and since the contrast between Yahowsha’ and Sha’uwl is so considerable, let’s examine Dabarym / Words 8:3 in context. Moseh, the man Yahowah invited to scribe His Towrah, the book Sha’uwl has sought to demean and discount, was reminiscing about what they had heard, observed, learned, and experienced together over the past forty years:
"All of (kol) the terms and conditions (mitswah – codicils of the covenant) which beneficially (‘asher – for the sake of the relationship) I (‘anky) have instructed (tsawah – have provided by way of directions and guidance) this day (ha yowm) for you to genuinely choose to continuously observe (shamar – for you to want to closely examine and always carefully consider, electing to consistently and literally focusing upon (the qal stem encourages us to literally and actually focus, the imperfect conjugation reveals that our observations should be ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes our examination volitional an thus subject to freewill)) for the purpose of approaching (la) by actually responding and engaging (‘asah – through acting upon, profiting from, and celebrating what you learn) so that (ma’an – for the intent and purpose of) you elect to genuinely and continuously live (chayah – you capitalize upon freewill and are actually restored, your life always preserved (the qal stem reveals that our response to what we observe literally restores our life, the imperfect conjugation reveals that our nourishment, growth, and preservation will be ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes eternal life volitional an thus subject to freewill)) and in addition (wa) you choose to be totally and completely great, actually increasing in every possible way (rabah – you can elect to have every aspect of your nature multiplied (the qal stem affirms that this promise to make us greater than we are is reliable, the perfect conjugation tells us that the transformation will be complete, and the consecutive mood reveals that we are empowered as a result of our choice to observe and respond) so that (wa) you will be pleased to arrive (bow’ – you will come to and be thrilled to be completely included in (qal perfect consecutive)) and also so that (wa) you will become an heir (yarash – you will be given a complete inheritance as a child choosing to receive all that is his or her father’s to provide (qal perfect consecutive)) accompanied in (‘eth – within and in accord with) the realm (ha ‘erets) which beneficially (‘asher – as a result of the relationship) Yahowah (efei) promised in a sworn oath (shaba’ – affirmed truthfully and reliably in association with the promise inherent in seven) to (la) your fathers (‘ab – your ancestors and forefathers)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:1)
"And so (wa) you should choose to literally and completely remember (zakar – you should actually want to recall every aspect of (qal stem perfect conjunction consecutive mood) everything associated with (kol – the entirety of and every aspect of) the way (ha derek – the specific path) which beneficially (‘asher – as a result of the relationship) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), walked with you (halak – traveled, leading you so that you could follow Him (in the hiphil perfect God is enabling our walk which He considers complete and perfect)) these (zeh) forty (‘arba’iym – a multiple of ‘arba’ – four, from raba’ – to be square, and thus to correct, right, out of dept, and in compliance) years (shanah – time of renewal and of a complete cycle of life) in the wilderness (ba ha midbar – in the desert) in order for (ma’an – because the intent was for) you to respond (‘anah – you to answer), to approach (la) by exerting yourself through the process of learning and understanding (nasah – by testing and evaluating what you had observed and experienced) to know and to become known (la’ yada’ – to recognize and realize, to acknowledge and understand) what (‘eth) beneficially and relationally (‘asher) is in (ba) your heart (leb – your attitude, motivations, and deep-seeded emotional response) regarding whether (ha – as an interrogative) you will consistently and genuinely observe, closely examining and carefully considering (ha shamar – you would actually and continually focus upon, scrutinize, evaluate, and prioritize) the terms and conditions of His agreement (mitswah – the authorized directions regarding His Covenant, the written stipulations and provisions of the mutually binding contract) or not (‘im lo’)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:2)
The statement Yahowsha’ cited regarding bread in His defense against Satan followed what we have just read, making it an ideal choice. The Towrah, as it consistently does, reinforced the path to life. If you want to capitalize upon what God is offering, listen to what God has to say. And the only way to do that is to "shamar – closely examine and carefully consider, i.e., observe," His Towrah. This would not be the only time Yahowsha’ would affirm this obvious reality.
Since our goal is to learn as much from God as is possible, before we thumb a couple of pages ahead in this story, and ponder Yahowsha’s most declarative statement regarding the Towrah, let’s pause here in the Towrah a moment longer. Next we find Moseh saying...
"Your clothing did not wear out on you and your feet they did not swell these forty years so that you would know, recognizing and acknowledging (yada’ – you would be aware and understand) with your heart (‘im leb – in your core), that, indeed (ky), in the manner (ka) which beneficially (‘asher – for the sake of the relationship) a man (‘iysh – an individual) instructs and corrects (yacar – teaches and admonishes, providing guidance regarding that which is potentially harmful, revealing the consequences of bad choices and behaviors influencing) his children (beny – his sons), Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), teaches and admonishes you, providing guidance regarding that which is potentially harmful while revealing the consequences (yacar – instructs and corrects you so that you don’t go astray and make those mistakes)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:4-5)
And that is a summation of the Towrah’s purpose. It is our Heavenly Father’s advice to His children. It is comprised of the same kind of instruction we as parents ought to give to our sons and daughters. It, therefore, not only provides us with reliable guidance, it exposes us to that which is potentially harmful, revealing the consequences of ignoring the advice.
And so since Yahowsha’, Himself, the very first time He speaks to us, directs us to this place in Yahowah’s Towrah, let’s take one more step in His direction. "And so (wa) you should genuinely choose of your own volition to thoroughly and completely observe (shamar – you ought to want to actually examine, literally consider, and totally focus upon (qal perfect consecutive)) Yahowah (efei), your God’s (‘elohym), stipulations and provisions (mitswah – terms and conditions regarding the covenant contract) to approach (la) by walking (halak – journeying through life) in (ba) His ways (derek – His paths and steps through life), and (wa) for the purpose of coming to (la) revere and respect (yare’ – highly valuing) being with Him (‘eth)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:6)
These would be Yahowah’s provisions, not Paul’s, stipulations rather than leaps of faith, which enable us to approach God and to enjoy His company. And these terms and conditions regarding the Covenant are being presented in Yahowah’s Towrah – a document we are being encouraged to examine and consider so that we can benefit from God’s guidance.
At the end of this chapter we will return to this encounter between Yahowsha’ and Satan. Our purpose will be to demonstrate the strategy the Adversary typically deploys so that we are attune to this preferred tactic as we make our way through the corpus of Paul’s letters, and especially Galatians, the Magna Carta of Christianity. And secondarily, by considering Yahowsha’s response, we will learn how we should react to similar deceptions.
But now let’s rejoin the chronology presented by the Disciple Mattanyah. The very next time we hear Yahowsha’ speak is in the fifth chapter. This time He isn’t negating Satan’s influence by debating a singular fallen spirit, but is instead setting the stage by providing the proper perspective from which to evaluate everything He would say and do over the course of three years. This speech to the "multitudes" is known as the "Sermon on the Mount." It is an ode to His Father who is in Heaven.