1:1 Paul¹, an emissary²—not from men nor through man, but through Yẽshua the Mẽssiah and the Almĩghty Fãther, who raised him from the dead

(MISB, Gal. 1:1). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#1:1a

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. Paul is not a mistranslation or equivalent of Shaul. Paul is a separate name. Paul had two names. One he used in a Hebrew context, and the other in a Greek.

 2. The Greek word rendered “apostle” is a transliteration of the Greek, i.e. rendering of the Greek letter sounds into equivalent English letter sounds. As such, the English “apostle” is not a translation, and is meaningless unless one knows Greek, has been told what it means, or gathers what it means from Church usages, in which case one might have the wrong idea. The word “apostle” in fact means an “emissary” or “ambassador”. He is some that is “sent”. In fact “sent” is the basic meaning of the Greek and the Hebrew equivalent root: שָׁלִיחַ.

2 and all the brothers with me. To the assemblies¹ of Galatia:

(MISB, Gal. 1:2). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#1:2

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. Most Pastors know that “church” really isn’t what the Greek means. If so, then why do English translations still contain this word? Can you say “tradition”? The word means “assembly” or “congregation”, and refers specifically to an assemblage of people and not a physical meeting place. The Hebrew term is קָהָל (singular) or קְהִלּוֹת (pl).

3 Loving kindness¹ to you and peace from our Almĩghty Fãther, and Adõnai Yẽshua the Mẽssiah,

(MISB, Gal. 1:3). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#1:3

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. The Hebrew equivalent here is חֶסֶד. It means “loving kindness, favor, goodness, mercy” and is used in Exodus 20:6, 34:6, and 253 other places in the Tenach.

6 I am amazed¹ that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the loving kindness of  Mẽssiah, for a different “good news”²,

(MISB, Gal. 1:6). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#1:6

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. The Hebrew for amazed is תָמַהַּ. It is used in Gen. 43:33; Job 26:11; Ps 48:5; Jer. 4:9. It means “benumbed, transfixed, stunned, astonished, surprised, shocked, aghast” (Holladay). The Greek Θαυμάζω means exactly the same.

 2. The false “good news” was that there was no salvation before circumcision. It is like some who say there is no salvation before baptism or saying the sacred name properly or any other odd ritual that is exaggerated over faithfulness.

13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism¹, how I used to persecute the assembly of the Almĩghty beyond measure, and tried to destroy it.

(MISB, Gal. 1:13). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#1:13

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. Hebrew: יְהֲדוּת or דָּת־הַיְּהוּדִית = “Judaism”. First Century Judaism mostly followed the teaching of the Pharisees, which most correctly represented the Torah. Originally the Pharisee movement contained the Netsarim. The latter, recognizing Messiah, were forced out of Judaism. Judaism continued to evolve traditionally in a way that discounted the Messianic understanding of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and rejected Yeshua. Ever since Judaism has more and more been abandoning its previous messianic understandings. Paul was likely at the forefront of the Pharisee party rejecting Yeshua and developing the political and traditional tools to deal with Netsarim recognition of Yeshua.

3 But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek¹, was compelled to be “circumcised”²— 4 that is, through the false brothers who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Mẽssiah Yẽshua, in order to bring us into bondage³.

(MISB, Gal. 2:3-4). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:3

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. The Hebrew term for “Greek” (“Ἕλλην”) is יְוָבִי. The Peshitta calls Titus ארמָיָא which essentially means “pagan” or “non-Jew”, and has nothing to do with a supposed Syrian origin, as the word was confused with “Aramaya” meaning “Syrian” or “Aramean”. Titus was almost certainly from the west. Paul’s term “Hellene” is quite a bit less insulting than “pagan”.

 2. Paul is not saying no one suggested that Titus should get circumcised. The words following in vs. 4 are key to the sense. No one said he had to get circumcised to comply with the false doctrine of the heretical “brothers”. Titus was regarded as a newly faithful in Messiah on the basis of his confession and walk in Messiah up to that point in time. He was not resisting circumcision, but he was not circumcised yet. Paul would point to Abraham’s period of uncircumcision to justify Titus status based on faithfulness. The false brothers did not win the argument over when a person is saved. When may assume that after the technical argument was settled in favor of faithfulness that Titus added circumcision continuing his faithfulness from before.

 3. If Titus’ first faithfulness were to be discounted in respect to Salvation then the point of salvation would be transferred to just one commandment, “circumcision”, and those who taught it would be in control of the exact manner of the ritual. And indeed this is the case. A circumcision is not a circumcision in the eyes of the Rabbis, because they require those already circumcised to be re-circumcised. To yield to the false doctrine is to yield control to those who teach it. Likewise with baptism and Rome. To yield to their doctrine makes one a “Catholic”.

14 But when I saw that they are not being straightforward toward the truth¹ of the good news, I said to Cephas before all: If you, being Jewish, live Gentilishly and not Jewishly, how is it that you are compelling² the nations to become Jews³?

(MISB, Gal. 2:14). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:14

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. By separating they were yielding to the false teaching that the nations would be unsaved until they were circumcised. They were discounting the first faithfulness of the nations, and also incidentally Abraham’s first faithfulness. It is a technicality, to be sure, but an important one, and where one to let the opposition establish one point as an absolute for all cases then they will make it even harder the next time you meet them. They do not seem to have realized that G-d put up with uncircumcision for 38 years and only insisted when they crossed the Jordan. They were not allowing for Yah to be patient.

 2. As opposed to just teaching them to follow the Scriptural commandments. To give in to the circumcision party was not a simple matter of complying with the commandment. It was tantamount to saying the nations had to become fully traditionally Jewish—which Paul points out is in fact hypocrisy because even most of the “traditional Jews” do not follow the traditions, but live gentilishly or goyishly in the eyes of the strictest parties.

 3. The difference between living in a Judean or Jewish fashion and becoming Jewish is merely one of definitions and theological infighting. In Paul’s usage it had nothing to do with being Torah observant, that is, keeping Yahweh’s laws as described in the Scripture, and everything to do with obtaining an accepted “Jewish” identity in the eyes of tradition. If one’s mission is only to call Jews to repentance and Messiah, then being Jewish is an advantage, but if one’s mission is to the nations, then living as a traditional Jew is a serious handicap, especially if one preaching the good news implies that the faithful must become Jewish to be accepted by Yahweh. The Church defines the term as Judaize meaning to teach the Law of Moses to anyone. But this is not what the term meant. The term only means to live like a traditional or ethnic Jew, or Judean Jew, as in those days the Judeans were into the extreme of the the traditional purity laws.

16 But we know that man is not justiced¹ from ²works of Law³ but, through the faithfulnessⁿ of  Mẽssiah Yẽshua. Even we toª Mẽssiah Yẽshua give our support, so that we may be justiced¹ from the faithfulnessⁿ of  Mẽssiah, and not from ²works of Law³, because from ²works of Law³ shall no flesh be justiced¹.

(MISB, Gal. 2:16). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:16

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

1. The scales of justice are not leveled out by means of good works. Good works from the Law do not satisfy a penalty for sin.

2.  Also customary works. [In the genitive construction, nomos is a construct adjective: works of custom = customary works.] A work can also be a doctrinal edifice constructed by someone: Orderly works can specify particular systems of thought, or legal works, including heretical systematic theology. Thus, in the most general case, Paul includes, any particular legal deed of the law, any particular ritual or custom whether in the law or not, and any particular belief system, philosophy, or ordered matter that is supposed to justify man on the basis of legalistic equity, or is given an exaggerated place in salvation. See BDAG, “ergon” def. 4, “something having to do with something under discussion, thing, matter” (cf. LSJ, II). The DSS phrase in MMT, “some ends (matters) of the law” qualifies as a subset of Paul’s broader more generalized phrase.

3. Legal works, or matters of law falsely claimed to justify or provide a false access to grace or salvation: 1. Baptism (Cathoic, Lutheran), 2. Eucharist (Catholic, Lutheran), 3. Saying the Sacred Name, 4. The doctrine that human faith in Messiah is counted as justifying righteousness on the scales of justice (Reformed, Gnostic). 5. The doctrine that Messiah’s keeping of the Law is an equal payment for sin (Reformed, Gnostic), 6. Any “moment of faith” legalisms that assure salvation., 7. Any cleansing legalisms supposed to have already made one perfect. 8. Any particular belief or practice that is given a divisively and sectarianly exaggerated position in the matter of salvation is legalism to be identified by the lies upon which they are based and their one-size-fits all subversion of individual repentance in varying circumstances. 9. Circumcision said to make one Jewish and thus saved by election. 10. Salvation by birthright, Jewish birth, or any other form of individual predestination.

N. The proper translation here is faithfulness of Messiah, and is defended in Daniel B. Wallace’s Exegetical Syntax, pg. 114-115, and also in the footnotes of the NET Bible: www.bible.org. From the Hebrew and Messianic perspective, this is absolutely correct, and the mistranslation “faith in Messiah” incorrect. What Paul means is Messiah’s faithfulness on the cross, his commitment and support to pay the penalty for our sins. It makes all the difference in the world that we are justiced by His faithfulness, and not by our own.

 A.ref. mark, not a note.

17 But if seeking to be justiced¹ in Mẽssiah, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Mẽssiah then a minister of sin? May it never be!

(MISB, Gal. 2:17). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:17

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. We plead to have the scales of justice leveled out or balanced by Messiah. We look for mercy, to be administered a penalty through Messiah’s sacrifice. As a condition of our plea we repent and ask to be made righteous and straightened out by the righteous resurrection life of Messiah. Our correction will be finished when he returns.

18 “For if I rebuild the case which I have destroyed¹, I prove myself to be a transgressor². 19 For through the norm¹ I die to² the norm¹, so that I might live to³ the Almĩghty.”

(MISB, Gal. 2:18-19). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:18

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 18.1 The first defendant thought he was acquitted of all charges. The judge brought out his scales of justice, and laid the sinners debt on it. I do not acquit anyone he says. Baliff, take him away to be justiced. The second defendant offered his own works to go on his side of the balance. My balance of justice is not justiced (leveled out, justified) he says. Your works are not good enough. Baliff, take him away to be justiced. The third defendent offers Christ’s works to go on the scales, but they do not balance. The judge explains, “How do you expect My works to compensate for your sin. Justice is not only punitive; justice requires restitution and an undoing of the damages. Your sin caused permenant damages to others. It cannot be compensated for. Take him away to be justiced. The final defendant said, I have no way to undo my sin. I beg forgiveness and mercy, and need you O Judge to change and reform me.” The judge says, “I pardon you”, and “I will give my righteousness to you and you must walk in it.” The sinner says, what about the scales of justice. The judge sweeps the penalty of eternal death off the balance, and the requirement of compensation for irreversable effects of sin. I forgive all that, he says. Then, he replaces it with a new kind of penalty for the repentant: a substituionary sacrifice. Who will pay the substitute penalty says the sinner. I’m doing that for you says the Judge revealing the nail prints in his hands. The judge put His payment on the balance. The balances were justiced (justified, leveled). See says the judge, justice has been done with mercy, and my scale balances without works (plural), but only one work, which is my death on the cross.

 18.2 Post trial analysis: the first defendant was a Catholic. He believed that his sin was expiated, which is to say nullified in eternity (by virture of his baptism) as if it had never happened. So he sought acquittal on the grounds of innocence in Yahweh’s sight. The second defendant represents many religions, including the Catholic idea of penance and purgatory. The third defendant is a Protestant follower of Martin Luther or John Calvin. He believes that Christ’s righteousness was imputed onto the balances against the full debt of sin on the other side. This view requires no forgiveness at all, and is based on the idea of 100% total equity—that sin can be totally compensated for. The judge proves them all unrepentant transgressors. Our final defendant realizes that only mercy will do any good, without the legalistic tricks with works on the balance. The judge agrees and explains that His justice/righteousenss IS to show mercy in the final case. His Justice (Justicia), Messiah, is put on the balance. And he promises to give his Raised Righteousness to the sinner until He completes it at the End of Days. Wherefore: he is/will be called Yahweh our Justice/Righteousness.

 19.1 The norm Paul speaks of here is the actual status quo of the sin nature. It is the actual reality of sin and death that teaches us about sinfulness and the fleshy nature. It is this status quo that will lead us to realize and reject all legalistic norms of dealing with it.

 19.2 The norm must be died to. What is it? The status quo of seeking an acquittal, pleading innocent, being proved right, being declared righteous, justification via Rome or Luther. These methods all view the Almighty One as unmerciful and unforgiving—therefore they seek to equalize justice with some form of works, and even if it is Christ’s works (plural) justice cannot be equalized. Therefore, they argue the outcome of the trial is the defendant being “declared right” or “made right” instead of just the case itself. This view of being “justified” says the Almighty is blind to the real condition of the transgressor in deciding the case. Justification is what the judge does in dispensing his mercy via the parable of the balances. The parable gives a picture of what the judge is doing. It demonstrates how the judge Himself is righteous in deciding the case, and has nothing to do with the judge viewing the sinner as righteous. The judge already views the sinner correctly—as a sinner. To say that a sinner is justiced means only two things in Paul’s courtroom setting. 1. Baliff: take him away to be justiced (pay the penalty), or 2. That the judge has justified the sinner’s [case] for mercy.

 19.3 The judge has justified letting the sinner live on several facts. 1. the sinner is repentant, 2. the sinner asked for mercy, and 2. the judge plans to make the sinner righteous in conjunction with his or her ongoing repentance. To justify or justice the sinner, then is for the judge to decide what His righteousness requires for him to do or not do in the case, to show mercy, or not to show mercy. In Paul’s Hellenistic Greek, then justified would mean the judge administered justice to you, either because justice required mercy, or that justice did not require mercy, and the sinner is justiced (pays the penalty). In the one case the repentant sinner is pardoned and lives, and in the other the sinner dies. It has nothing to do with the judge seeing either sinner as righteous. That would be legal trickery. But it is the mystery of iniquity to think the Almighty judge is like this and would engage in such legal fictions. I would suspect that the New Perspective Theologian N.T. Wright is not far from this position—but there is a lot of excess church philosophy in what he writes.

20 I am hanged with Mẽssiah, that is, me no longer lives. But Mẽssiah is living in me; namely, what I am now living in the flesh I am living in faithfulness to the Sõn the Almĩghty¹, who loved me, and delivered himself up for me.

(MISB, Gal. 2:20). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:20

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. בֶן־הָאֱלֹהִים or הַבֵּן הָאֱלֹהִים. This key phrase means either “The Son of the Almighty” or “The Almighty Son”. In Hebrew, “sons of the prophets” may mean “the prophetic sons” (1Ki 20:35). The only way to preserve the ambiguity is to remove the word “of” from the phrase which overly limits the genitive sense, i.e. it prevents a Genitive of Quality (Hebrew Genitive) from being understood; “sons of the troop” = “the trooping sons” 2Chron. 25:13, בְנֵי הַגְּדוּד See BDB 7, pg. 121. Also “sons of the exile” = “exilic sons” = “exiles” (Ezra 4:1). Also “son of foreigner” = “foreign son”. See BDB def. 8, pg. 121, בֶּן־חַיִל = “valiant son”. There are too many examples to list them all. What is critical here is that Yeshua is not just the “son of G-d”. He is the “Almighty Son”, i.e. the nature of G-d is being attributed to him. For those really knowing Hebrew, confessing Yeshua to be “Ben Elohim” is the same as confessing his Deity.

21 I am not setting aside the loving kindness of the Almĩghty; for if justice¹ comes through the norm³, then Mẽssiah died needlessly².

(MISB, Gal. 2:21). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#2:21

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. BDAG, def. 1: δικαιοσύνη = “justice, equitableness, fairness”. Paul here means satisfaction for the penalty of sin. This is the same as צְדָקָה = צֶדֶק. “Justice” pertains to that which is judicially right, or legally proper. English translations, which here have “righteousness” are incorrect in implying that righteousness does not come by the law (cf. note on norm). Such a notion is squarely contradicted by Deut. 6:25 and indeed by the whole teaching of Scripture. The mistranslation, “righteousness” cannot be excused by reinterpreting the text with greater harmony to Torah. It is fundamentally wrong based on the Greek.

 2. BDAG, def. 1 νόμος = “a custom, rule, principle, norm”, and really “norm” or “status quo” is the fundamental sense of this word. Paul means here trying to satisfy the penalty of sin by any other way than Messiah. The other ways he identifies as the norm or status quo. Having Messiah pay the penalty for you is against the norm. His death is the exception to the norm. Trying to pay one’s own penalty for sin is the “norm” of the world. Now, to translate nomos as law is to ignore the critical nuance and connotation of the Greek word; this cannot be reproduced in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Hence the Greek word was borrowed into Hebrew as נוֹמוֹס. Justice is according to the Law (Torah), but in Greek the nuance is that “justice” is simply not according to the “norm” of the Law. The norm is when the sinner dies for his own sin. The exception (provided by the Torah) is when the sacrifice pays the penalty and the sinner is forgiven.

 3. This text typically says righteousness does not come from the law. A look at Deut. 6:25 will disprove those translations. What is really going on here is that divine justice can be executed in two ways. The sinner can die for their own sin. This is what Paul would mean by the norm or status quo. Or, one can repent, and then Messiah will pay the penalty for you. This is a kind of justice entirely apart from the norm! It is the exception to the norm for those who turn to Him. But if someone still want’s to be under the normal justice, then what is the point of Messiah’s dying for sin? It would be needless.

3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Yẽshua the Mẽssiah was publicly portrayed as hanged?¹

(MISB, Gal. 3:1). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#3:1a

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. This word means “to hang someone on an execution instrument” and nothing more. It really does not say what the exact manner of execution was other than hanging. Yeshua was hanged on the same instrument with two criminals (John 19:31) and “in a green tree” (Luke 23:31). An easy way to accomplish this would be to use a 6x6 beam 8 or 9 feet tall. The condemned would have their wrists nailed to three sides of the beam, and then their feet below, each on one side of the beam. Then the beam would be erected vertically being securely roped against a tree near the top of the beam. The tree is merely used to support the beam relieving the executioners of the need for further wood or of digging a hole.

2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spĩrit¹ by the works² of custom³^,ª, or by hearing of faithfulness.ⁿ

(MISB, Gal. 3:2). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#3:2

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. The Spirit or Ruakh is given to sanctify us, to circumcise our hearts—to write Yahweh’s Torah on our hearts, and to confirm the truth through signs and wonders. Yahweh does not accept our works as payment of the penalty, and does not give the Spirit on such a basis. But when a repenting person asks for mercy and accepts Messiah as full payment for the penalty of sin, then the pardon is given with the Spirit.

 2. Also customary works. [In the genitive construction, nomos is a construct adjective: works of custom = customary works.] A work can also be a doctrinal edifice constructed by someone: Orderly works can specify particular systems of thought, or legal works, including heretical systematic theology. Thus, in the most general case, Paul includes, any particular legal deed of the law, any particular ritual or custom whether in the law or not, and any particular belief system, philosophy, or ordered matter that is supposed to justify man on the basis of legalistic equity, or is given an exaggerated place in salvation. See BDAG, “ergon” def. 4, “something having to do with something under discussion, thing, matter” (cf. LSJ, II). The DSS phrase in MMT, “some ends (matters) of the law” qualifies as a subset of Paul’s broader more generalized phrase.

 3. Legal works, or matters of law falsely claimed to justify or provide a false access to grace or salvation: 1. Baptism (Cathoic, Lutheran), 2. Eucharist (Catholic, Lutheran), 3. Saying the Sacred Name, 4. The doctrine that human faith in Messiah is counted as justifying righteousness on the scales of justice (Reformed, Gnostic). 5. The doctrine that Messiah’s keeping of the Law is an equal payment for sin (Reformed, Gnostic), 6. Any “moment of faith” legalisms that assure salvation., 7. Any cleansing legalisms supposed to have already made one perfect. 8. Any particular belief or practice that is given a divisively and sectarianly exaggerated position in the matter of salvation is legalism to be identified by the lies upon which they are based and their one-size-fits all subversion of individual repentance in varying circumstances. 9. Circumcision said to make one Jewish and thus saved by election. 10. Salvation by birthright, Jewish birth, or any other form of individual predestination.

 a. The Greek word nomos has a connotation that the English word “law” does not. The Greek word connotes the norm, or what is customary. Paul intends us to understand that the world is trying to be saved by its own norm, its own status quo, by trying to satisfy the problem of divine justice with some deed or ritual of their own doing or making. The custom, or the norm contains the motivation for the deeds or works—to satisfy justice. Therefore, Paul does not mean just the bare works of the Law (Torah), or those works done with the right motivation, which are works not done to satisfy justice, but to show love and loyalty to the Almighty. He means the “customary works” those done in accord with human tradition to try to placate divine justice.

 n. The phrase here hearing of faithfulness is a double entendre in Greek. In the first place it means “hearing ABOUT MESSIAH’s faithfulness”, with particular reference to the cross. We have heard about the penalty he paid on the cross for us. This payment was His faithfulness—His committment. In the second place it means hearing WITH faithfulness. The genitve case is used as an adjective or Hebrew construct state and has the same sense as “faithful hearing”. Paul is saying in the same phrase that Messiah supports us in forgiving sin, yet to receive it we must respond by supporting Him.

3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spĩrit, are you now being perfected¹ by the flesh?

(MISB, Gal. 3:3). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#3:3

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. If one’s motivation for obeying the law is to become perfected in order to balance the scales of divine justice, then indeed one needs to be more than perfect. How will good deeds today compensate for the destructive effects of past sins? Can reaching perfection either pay the penalty or compensate for all the destructive effects of a past sin? Hardly! Such effort is vain, and such who try it don’t understand the divine mercy in Messiah. Those who seek the Eucharist or Baptism to justify them in the legal balance are not being supported by the paid penalty of Messiah.

5 Does he then, who provides you with the Spĩritº and works miracles among you, do it by the works¹ of custom²^,³, or by hearing with faithfulness.ª?

7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faithfulness¹ who are sons of Abraham.

(MISB, Gal. 3:7). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#3:7

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 1. By faithfulness Paul means first Yahweh’s faithfulness and then the faithful person’s faithfulness. According to Hab. 2:4, the just person lives by “his faithfulness”. Again the text is a double entendre and means either “his” or “His”, and actually both. The LXX says, “My faithfulness” recognizing Yahweh’s faithfulness. Paul leaves out “his/His” alogether but you can clearly see that he regards it as both.

10 Otherª days you watch¹, even months² and seasons and anniversaries³. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

(MISB, Gal. 4:10). http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/galatians.html#4:10

(Link to MISB: http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)

 o. Dear friends, Have you ever had to put up with Gal. 4:10 as an argument against the Shabbat and Appointed Times? Wonder no longer. Not only do we have ancient examples of so called “torah observant” calendar heresies, but modern ones are multiplying like rabbits. If the Church wishes to keep saying Paul meant scriptural days, then we only need point at the ancient and modern calendar heresies, and say, “See we told you so. That’s what Paul was talking about...not legitimate Torah observances”.

 1. Guess what? They’re back. I mean the Essenes. They are reviving their ancient heretical calendar. First we have the lunar Sabbatarians, and now we have teachers promoting the book of Enoch and Jubilees. Paul dealt with them then, and now he leaves me to deal with them. Even, if one thinks a brief quote in Jude is genuine, that does not make what they call the book of Enoch kosher. It’s calendar is totally opposed to the Scriptural calendar. I will be watching, because one can be certain as the day dawns that those ignorant of the calendar will also marry it with a false good news and negate the faithfulness of Messiah in the so however clever ways they do. And of course a false calendar does not bear witness to Messiah.

 2. The Essene Calendar is in view here, and is the same calendar as in the book of Jubilees, in the Qumran documents, and also in Pseudepigraphal book of Enoch. Apostasy to this sectarian calendar formed the first layer of apostasy in the Church. In fact, for a time the book of Enoch was treated as canonical. It is a sort of bridge between the Scriptural Calendar and the Roman Calendar. It allows the rebellious of the house of Israel to “do things differently” than the Jews. This ancient heresy is the brother of the modern lunar-sabbath heresy. It is likely that the quotation from Enoch was edited into the book of Jude later, in order to give canonical support to Enoch. However, it is quite clear that its calendar was treated as canonical while that of the Torah was disregarded. This heresy was not just about outward observance. Critical corruptions of Messiah’s atonement were also involved—indeed, this heresy was the beginning of the creation of another “Yeshua”, another “Jesus” and not the one of Scripture.

 3. Paul is condemning the the “Essene Calendar” here. It was a sectarian calendar of the Yahad sect, some variant of which were Paul’s enemies. Today we have the same phenomenon with the lunar sabbath heresy.