Questioning Paul
Chapter 8
part 2
Also please note that Yahowsha’ asked His Disciples to publicly announce that His life was best understood from the perspective of fulfilling the Torah and that by following this way one would be forgiven, to "pas ethnos – to every ethnicity, to every race and nation," thereby undermining Paul’s principle claim.
"You are witnesses to (martys – those with firsthand experience and knowledge who can testify to ascertainable facts regarding) these things (houtos)." (Luke 24:48) Thereby affirming that the Disciples were privy to information and experiences which led to understanding missed by the wannabe "Apostle" Sha’uwl.
And speaking of being mistaken, since neither Abraham nor faith have been mentioned, but God the Father and His Towrah have, Yahowsha’ is now revealing to His Disciples that Yahowah’s promise can be found in the place Paul would later demean and discard. Based upon this testimony alone, the basis of Pauline Doctrine must be rejected...
"And behold (kai idou – now pay attention), I, Myself, have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message (ego apostello – I, Myself equipped you to deliver the word, being sent forth) of My Father’s (mou ΠΡΣ) promise (epaggelia – to vow and an agreement to do something beneficial which leads to the assurance of approval and reconciliation) upon you (epi su).
But now (de), you remain (su kathizo) in the city (en te polis) until the time when (heos os) you are clothed (enduo – dressed [speaking of the Spirit’s Garment of Light) in power and ability (dynamis) from (ek) above (hypsos – heaven on high).’" (Luke 24:49)
This occurred right on schedule, on the Miqra’ of Shabuwa’, when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon the Covenant’s children in Yaruwshalaym – enriching and empowering them – just as Yahowah promised in "Qara’ – Called Out," the central book of His "Towrah – Teaching. And with this fulfillment, the last of the Covenant’s promises were honored by God. Those who answer His Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with Him on "Pesach – Passover" become immortal. The beneficiaries of "Matsah – Un-Yeasted Bread" are perfected, becoming vindicated and righteous in our Heavenly Father’s eyes. This leads to "Bikuwrym – First-Born Children" where God’s now immortal and innocent sons and daughters are adopted into His Covenant Family. Then because He wants us to grow, and because He wants us to share what we have come to know, we are enriched and empowered by the Set-Apart Spirit on "Shabuwa’ – Promise of the Sabbath." This is Yahowah’s message to us. It is the very essence of Yahowsha’s life. It is the reason we exist and the reason the Towrah was written.
And yet with these words, everything Paul has written has been torn asunder. There should never have been a debate between believing Paul’s "Gospel of Grace" and trusting Yahowah’s Torah. Rather than speak for the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ as Sha’uwl has claimed, He has consistently contradicted Him. If Paul had personally experienced the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, if his mind had been open to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the way the Disciples’ had been, he would never have written Galatians.
Since the Christian position is ludicrous in light of Yahowsha’s testimony, we have but two options relative to Paul and his letter. If what we are reading is what Paul actually wrote, if the text of his letter has been faithfully preserved, then Paul is to be condemned for leading billions of people away from God. His words and God’s Word are diametrically opposed. But if what we are reading has been corrupted in transmission, if every early copy of Paul’s letter differs substantially from what he actually said, then Paul may be redeemable, but his epistles are not. For the Christian religion, that is a lose-lose proposition.
Before we move on to the next claim, here is a quick review of what Paul has written thus far in the fourth chapter about the alleged "Faith of Abram."
"So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father." (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the universal system and world order, we were subservient slaves." (4:3)
efei
Had this next incomplete sentence been rendered carelessly, independent of Paul’s dissertation, and also estranged from his subsequent conclusion, for the first time ever his message might have been somewhat accurate, even generally consistent with God’s own testimony. In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, it reads: "When but came the fullness of the time delegated out the God the son of him having become from woman having become under law..."
Amplified by our lexicons, and reordered to accommodate the transition into English, the same words reveal...
"But (de) when (hote) came (erchomai – arrived) the fullness (to pleroma – the complete contents) of the (tou) unspecified time (chromos – indefinite occasion), the God (o ΘΣ) sent out (exapostello – out of being set apart and dispatched the messenger with a message on a mission) the (ton) Son (ΥIΝ) of Him (autos), having come to exist (ginomai – having become and having originated) from (ek – out of) a woman (gune – an adult female), having come to exist (ginomai – having originated and being) under (hypo – through, as an agent of, under the auspices of, by the means of, subject to, or because of) [the] Towrah (nomon – nourishment which facilitates an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to translated the Hebrew noun towrah, meaning teaching and guidance (written in the singular accusative case, making "Towrah" the direct object of the verb)…" (Galatians 4:4)
The "pleroma – fullness or complete contents" of time has not yet occurred. Yahowah’s Covenant story takes place over seven-thousand years – not over four thousand. And God does not like to be shortchanged. Further, His timing is precise, not "chromos – unspecified, occurring on some indefinite occasion."
That said, "exapostello – separated and sent out" is an accurate depiction of the origin and purpose of Yahowsha’. Comprised of ek, "out of and away from," and apostello, "one who is prepared, equipped, set apart, and sent off as a spiritual messenger," we discover that Yahowsha’ is "out of God, set apart from Him, and sent off, prepared and equipped" to serve us.
The "Son" of God did not, however, "ginomai ek – come to exist out of, originating from" a woman. As part of Yahowah, Yahowsha’ has always existed, which is to say He could not have been born. And that is why Yahowah was so precise in His prediction through Yasha’yah (Isaiah) in the 9th chapter, saying "To approach us, a child is born. For us to approach, a Son is given."
Hypo, translated "under," could have been rendered "by means of," thereby making this portion of Paul’s statement accurate. Yahowsha’, as the corporeal manifestation of Yahowah and His Towrah, came into our world "hypo – as a result of and because of" the Towrah. But He was not "hypo – under" the Towrah in the sense of being subservient or subjugated – no one is. And yet, based upon what has come before and what follows, this is clearly Paul’s implication. Moreover, this verse plays off of Galatians 4:2, because "when came the fullness of the unspecified time…" and "until the previously appointed time set by the Father" are parallel concepts. And sandwiched in between them, Galatians 4:3 now clearly conveys Paul’s conclusion that the Torah is an inadequate first step which enslaves us.
While that is an insurmountable problem for Pauline Doctrine and thus Christian credibility, there is another. It is important to know that the woman who bore the child was a descendant of King David, that she felt that she wasn’t qualified, that she was willing to be used by God in this way, and that she was a virgin, but that’s it. So may I suggest that the unnamed Miryam (Mary) is being inaccurately presented as the source of Yahowsha’s existence the same way Abram was inappropriately presented as the source of our salvation. But worse, as we shall soon discover, Paul will try and contrast her with Hagar, the slave of Abraham’s wife. And while there is no rational comparison that can be made between these women, Paul, ever the clever one, will hang his theory on the idea that Sarah, who is also an unnamed woman in his thesis, can become the mother of freeborn children by way of the promise made to her husband, whereas Hagar represents slavery to the Torah. So, by going from "woman" to "woman," Paul bypasses the Torah and the role of our Spiritual Mother.
In their quest to garner religious favor for their king, the theologians who crafted the King James Bible wrote: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Then, the New Living Translation, reflecting the perspective of modern Christianity, turned what could have been construed as an affirmation of the Torah into a disparagement of it based upon the way they translated hypo: "But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law."
In the spirit of disclosure, I had thought that theological animosity for Yahowah’s Torah was why they rendered hypo as "subject to" as opposed to "because of, for the reason of, through, as an agent of, under the auspices of, or by the means of" the Torah. But upon further thought, the NLT may well have accurately reflected Paul’s intended disdain for the Torah based upon the surrounding context.
So in this case, the NLT is probably right with regard to intent, even if wrong with regard to the word’s etymology. This realization in turn invalidates what would otherwise have been Paul’s first partially accurate statement. After all, being "subject to the law" makes it sound as if He was controlled and enslaved by the Pauline "taskmaster."
Apart from Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians, and consistently errant phraseology, there were elements of this clause which would otherwise affirm that Yahowah has a plan, one which was described in the Torah, and one which is being unfurled on a specific timeline. According to Bare’syth / Genesis, the Greater Light would enter our world during the fourth millennia of human history as a sign associated with the Mow’ed Meetings. He would be set apart from God and arrive as the seed of woman to bruise Satan’s schemes. And as the Lamb of God, upon Mount Mowryah, He would serve as Yahowah’s substitute to free mankind from the sting of death, while facilitating and enabling the promise of Passover.
And while that is completely true, nothing is more beguiling than hiding the truth by placing a lie on top of it. It is how counterfeits are made. It is the reason frauds prevail. When you see threads of truth woven into an improperly conceived tapestry, you are witnessing Satan’s finest work. This will become obvious with the completion of the sentence.
In this light, those who believe that Paul could not have been a false prophet because some of what he wrote was true, one rough-cut and unfinished rock in a pigsty is hardly the standard borne by those who serve Yah. And also, such thinking fails to appreciate how deceivers operate and how religions achieve their goals. As I have shared before, no one would be fooled by a counterfeit bill if it didn’t appear very much like the real thing. And yet, while the bogus bill shares many, if not most, of the same strokes as the legitimate one, it is completely worthless – even illegal.
Along these lines, some Christian apologists posture the notion that it is unfair to label Paul "anti-Torah" because there are places where he speaks favorably of the Torah in other letters. But if so, all that would prove is that the man who felt no compunction regarding contradicting God was willing, when the circumstances required, to contradict himself. So how is it that Paul’s willingness to negate his own thesis suddenly makes him credible?
Striving to make his delusions believable by associating his conclusions with God’s Word, Sha’uwl continues to lead unwary souls to She’owl. In the words of the McReynolds Interlinear: "that the ones under law he might buy out that the adoption as son we might receive back." This, of course, infers that we were all "subject to the law," which is invalid no matter how Paul’s words are interpreted. The Towrah exists because of us, to serve us, not the other way around. It frees us from submission and subjugation.
This also infers that we were redeemed from the Towrah instead of by the Towrah, thereby misrepresenting the entire purpose of the Towrah. And if that weren’t bad enough, the Towrah’s Covenant is the sole means to our adoption into Yahowah’s family. This then becomes impossible to capitalize upon when the Towrah is discarded.
Lastly, by saying that we "might be received back," Paul is inferring that we were once God’s children but somehow became estranged. And that means that God cannot be trusted to protect His family. It means that His Covenant isn’t everlasting and that His promises aren’t reliable.
But should you want a more reliable translation, this is my best effort...
"…in order that (ina – for the purpose and result of) the ones (tous) under (hypo – by means of or subject to) Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which provides an inheritance; used universally throughout the Greek Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah – teaching and guidance)), he might redeem (exagorazomai – he may make use of the opportunity to ransom, possibly working to buy back) in order to (ina) the son set (ten uiothesian – a Pauline term based upon an assumed compound of huios – son and a derivative of tithemi – to set or place) we might receive back or obtain from (apolambano – we may receive what is sought and due; from apo, to be set apart, and lambano, to be taken by the hand, therefore sometimes translated take aside, lead away, or welcome back)." (Galatians 4:5)
Uiothesian, rendered "son set" is a word Paul made up and only he uses. Typically "translated" as "adoption" in Christian bibles, this represents the first of three deployments. The second and third installments of uiothesian are found in Romans, where Paul contradicts himself and God by asking: "Who are the Israelites to whom the son set (uiothesian) and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Torah and the service and the promises." (Romans 9:4) According to God there is only one Covenant and the Yisra’elite role in it is something He makes well known. But by associating them with it, Paul has contradicted himself. And in the third instance, uiothesian was used in Romans 8:23 to associate "son set" with "the redemption of our body," as if our flesh was being adopted and not our soul.
Since this all flows out of the same misguided rant, to properly appreciate his ploy, Sha’uwl has now proposed: "So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the universal system and world order, we were subservient slaves. (4:3) But when came the fullness of the unspecified time, the God sent out the Son of Him, having come to exist, originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back in order to the son set we might receive back and obtain from." (4:5)
So now let’s be clear: we were not "bought back, obtained, or received from" the Towrah, but instead from our own perversions and the corruptive nature of religion. Further, the recipients of this merciful gift are adopted into the Towrah’s Covenant, where Yahowah makes His children immortal, perfect, enriched, and empowered so that we can grow and thrive.
Yahowsha’, the Son, loved His Towrah, observed His Towrah, taught His Disciples His Towrah, answered His Towrah’s Invitations, and embraced the conditions of His Towrah’s Covenant. His Towrah was the mechanism He used to ransom us and adopt us during the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah. Therefore, Yahowsha’s response to His Towrah and Sha’uwl’s statements regarding it are polar opposites.
As usual, the New Living Translation isn’t a translation, nor is it even a paraphrase. It is so divergent from the Greek text that it is more akin to a novel. "God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children." The authors of this publication appear as if they have never read the Exodus account whereby the Children of Yisra’el were freed from slavery. The Towrah did not enslave them. It was His gift to them on Shabuw’ah – celebrating the promise of seven and the Shabat.
The KJV is no closer to the text: "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." In actuality, and thankfully, we are still subject to the Towrah. According to God, it has not been repealed. And that’s fortunate for us, because it provides the narrow path to life.
As we approach this next claim, we find yet another discrepancy between more modern Greek manuscripts like the 16th century Textus Receptus and the 20th century Nestle-Aland, with P46, the oldest witness to Paul’s letters. The clause "of the Son" does not follow the placeholder for Spirit in the late 1st-century codex. In this light, the Spirit, like the Son, is set apart from Yahowah, not from Yahowsha’. The Spirit and Son are parallel manifestations of the Father, not sequential.
Reprising his selection of exapostello, this time Paul unwittingly associates its meaning with our Spiritual Mother’s role in the adoption process...
"But (de) because (hoti – that) you are (este – you exist as, represent, and correspond to) sons (huios – male children) sent out (exapostello – prepared, set apart, and dispatched the representative of) the god (o ΘΣ), the (to) spirit (ΠΝΑ) into (eis) the hearts (tas kardias) of us (emon) shouts (krazo – cries out, screams, or croaks), ‘Abba (abba – a transliteration of the Aramaic word used to address one’s father)’—the (o) Father (ΠΡ – a placeholder for the Hebrew ‘ab)." (Galatians 4:6)
In the order the words appear in the text of the modern manuscripts of the letter, at least according to the McReynolds Interlinear, the same statement reads: "Because but you are sons delegated out the God the spirit of the son of him into the hearts of us shouting abba the father."
In Paul’s native Aramaic, this is the delightful expression spoken by sons and daughters as they gazed up into their father’s eyes. Paul, himself, however, would not know this pleasure, as he was sent off to Rabbinical school as a young boy. And Sha’uwl never married, and thus never experienced the joy of being a parent. All of this I think contributed to his less-than-ideal temperament.
That said, this passage misrepresents the reasons God sent the "Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit." She covers our souls with a Garment of Light and does not invade our hearts. She does not speak for us either; She speaks to us when we are engaged studying Yahowah’s Word. And as our Spiritual Mother, Her relationship with Yahowah cannot be defined as "father." Further, Yahowah’s chosen language is Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Spirit would never actually say "abba," but instead "‘ab." And this error would not have been worth mentioning had Paul not switched languages to that of the Babylonians and Assyrians here to make his point. By doing so, he has belittled the language of the Torah, and thus its voice. And that was his intent.
Considering the vitriol Sha’uwl has unleashed against God’s Word, a relentless assault which began with his opening paragraph and will reach its crescendo in Galatians 4:24, it would be naive to dismiss the associations he has positioned as anything other than his attempt to bypass the Torah. In this light, the unnamed "originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah" in verse 4:4 will soon be compared with the "slave woman" of 4:23 who bears children who are enslaved to the Torah. The "adoption" process in 4:5 is being established to capitalize on the "children of promise" in 4:28, again bypassing the Torah. The awkward and invalid reference to the "Spirit" in 4:5 is an attempt to associate our Spiritual Mother with Sarah, just as Sha’uwl will do again in 4:27-31. And by having the Spirit speak to the Father in Aramaic, Sha’uwl not only dismisses the Hebrew Scriptures, but also associates the Spirit and Mary with one of the most distinguishing aspects of the Babylonian religion; that of the Madonna and Child and the Mother of God.
Unfazed by the fact that Paul did not include the phrase "of the Son" in this sentence, the NLT misrepresents the Galatians message once again. "And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, ‘Abba, Father.’" The verb "krazo – shouts out" was singular in the text, meaning that it’s the Spirit who "cries out," as opposed to "us being prompted to call out." Further, the Spirit speaks to the Father for us, rather than prompting us to speak to Him. The KJV wrote: "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
Yahowah sent His Spirit, the very same Spirit who indwelled Yahowsha’, making Him the Son of God and making us the sons of God. Moreover, those who are cognizant of the Set-Apart Spirit’s role in our lives recognize that She neither "cries, croaks, nor shouts," but instead elevates the caliber of our communications so that we understand God when we recite His Word and listen to Him and so we are articulate when we talk to others about our Heavenly Father.
One of the reasons that Ruwach is consistently rendered by a placeholder in the eyewitness accounts scribed by Yahowsha’s Disciples is that pneuma, the Greek word for "spirit," is a neuter noun. To appreciate the nature and role of the Ruwach Qodesh (Set-Apart Spirit) in our lives, we must first come to recognize that She represents the maternal aspects of God. Our Spiritual Mother is set apart from Yahowah to cover and protect us in Her Garment of Light. She cleanses and purifies us of sin, nurtures us in the Word, and enlightens our path. And it is by way of our Spiritual Mother that we are born anew from above, and thereby adopted into Yahowah’s Covenant family. She does not, however, say "abba – daddy."
Similarly, when "Son" is used in reference to Yahowsha’ being the "Son of God," a placeholder is consistently used in all of the late first through mid fourth-century manuscripts written by Yahowsha’s Disciples. And yet in Paul’s next statement, and as represented by Papyrus 46, Upsilon Iota Sigma (ΥIΣ) was used twice, with both referring to an individual becoming the "son or child" of God. But that’s not right since we are not divine. Therefore, the most reasonable explanation for this mistake is that a scribe, knowing that his peers routinely used the Divine Placeholders for "Son," replaced huios with ΥIΣ. And if the scribe of Papyrus 46 felt at liberty to replace huios with ΥIΣ in Galatians, nothing would have stopped him from changing Iesou, Christos, and Kurios to their respective placeholders in order to make Sha’uwl’s letter appear similar to Mattanyah’s and Yahowchanan’s testimony. Therefore, since the Divine Placeholders associate Yahowah with the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, a relationship Sha’uwl has sought to sever, this scribal legacy suggests that Paul did not use them.
This next thought, in this context, also affirms that Paul had indeed positioned his previous statements to infer that Yahowah’s Torah was something from which we had to be freed in order to be saved. In the Nestle-Aland’s preferred Interlinear, it reads: "So that no longer you are slave but son if but son also inheritor through God."
"So as a result (hoste) you no longer exist as (ouketi eimi) a slave (doulos), but to the contrary (alla) a Son (ΥIΣ). But now (de) if (ei) a Son (ΥIΣ) and (kai) an heir by chance (kleronomos – receiver of an inheritance through casting lots) through (dia) a god (ΘΥ)." (Galatians 4:7)
Beyond the fact that this was a wholly inappropriate use of Divine Placeholders, and the implications of this reality for the credibility of Paul’s letters, kleronomos has ghastly connotations. It is based upon kleros and nomos, with "kleros – the casting or drawing of lots in a game of chance" modifying "nomos – the Towrah’s nurturing allotment which provides an inheritance." Nothing with God is per chance. That is what makes Him trustworthy. Chance, however, is akin to faith.
Beyond this, we were not slaves to the Torah, making Sha’uwl’s premise preposterous. God’s Word is the means to our liberation.
According to God, we were freed from the oppression of human religious, political, economic, and military schemes, and thus from the consequence of our rebellion and corruption by the Torah. The Familial Covenant Relationship memorialized in the Torah is the agreement which codifies our adoption process. And the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God provide the means to obtain that goal. The Torah consistently tells us that as Yahowah’s children we will inherit all that is His. This, along with the enjoyment of His company, encapsulates the benefits of the Covenant.
The King James rendering of the seventh verse reads: "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." And yet, we are called to be servants, because it is an honor to serve with Yahowah. After all, Yahowsha’ considered Himself to be a servant and was predicted in Yasha’yah / Isaiah to be the "Suffering Servant."
Continuing to advance Paul’s slavery mantra, the New Living Translation published: "Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir."
Unfortunately, the slave reference harkens back to the dark days of Galatians 3:10-12, 3:24-25, and 4:1-5, and thus ties all of these verses together. By doing so, any possibility of disassociating the Torah from the source of enslavement no longer exists.
The best way to understand Paul’s thesis, which claims that we must be "freed from the Torah’s curse of slavery" to become "adopted heirs," is to consider his rhetorical progression. He begins by calling the Torah a curse. "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (3:11) But the Towrah exists not out of faith, but to the contrary, ‘The one having done and preformed them will live in them.’ (3:12) Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the Towrah, having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse on all those having hung on wood.’" (3:13)
Then he claims that the Torah is an instrument of death, saying that there is no life in it or inheritance from it. "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)
He then associates the Torah with enslavement, and the Ma’aseyah with freedom, as if the Torah and Ma’aseyah were not only unrelated, but actually opposites. "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. (3:23) As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian using dogmatic old-fashioned methods extending until Christon in order that by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come the Faith, no longer do we exist under an old-fashioned and strict disciplinarian." (3:25)
According to Paul, adoption and inheritance required being freed from the enslavement of the Torah. "So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the universal system and world order, we were subservient slaves." (4:3)
Reinforcing the foundation he had laid, Paul restates that abandoning the Torah is a precondition for adoption. "But when came the fullness of the unspecified time, the God sent out the Son of Him, having come to exist, originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back in order to the son set we might receive back and obtain from. (4:5) But because you are sons sent out the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’—the Father. (4:6) So as a result you no longer exist as a slave, but to the contrary a Son. But now if a Son and an heir by the chance casting of lots through a god." (4:7)