Shomer Mitzvot - Exegeting Galatians - The Harvest

To neglect circumcision (b’rit milah) is to neglect the chosen sign of the covenant, and consequently, it is rejection of the covenant itself. Avraham did not hesitate to both circumcise himself and the males of his household. Looking forward at its effect in the biblical narratives, we learn that it was to become a unique marker, outwardly identifying those males of the offspring of Avraham, as inheritors of the magnificent promises that HaShem was making with this man. It did not, nor does it now serve to secure those promises through personal effort. What is more, the sign of circumcision was to be an indicator that all subsequent male covenant participants were adopting the same faith that Avraham possessed! Obviously it was incumbent upon the faithful father to pass this sign onto his son; 8-day old baby boys do not circumcise themselves. The promises were of faith (read Romans chapter 4 carefully). To be 100% sure, the Torah says that the promises were given to him before he was circumcised (Ibid. 10, 11)! This is why, after HaShem promised that his seed would be as numerous as the stars (15:5, 6), Avraham was credited with being righteous—because he believed the unbelievable! The implied meaning of the term “b’rit milah” is “covenant [of] circumcision”. Why does Judaism refer to circumcision as a covenant? I believe that this act betrays the Torah’s intensions to speak to the circumcised male about his responsibilities in helping to bring about the truth that HaShem and HaShem alone can bring the previously mentioned promises of Avraham to come to pass. Let us examine the details.

To neglect circumcision (b’rit milah) is to neglect the chosen sign of the covenant, and consequently, it is rejection of the covenant itself. Avraham did not hesitate to both circumcise himself and the males of his household. Looking forward at its effect in the biblical narratives, we learn that it was to become a unique marker, outwardly identifying those males of the offspring of Avraham, as inheritors of the magnificent promises that HaShem was making with this man. It did not, nor does it now serve to secure those promises through personal effort. What is more, the sign of circumcision was to be an indicator that all subsequent male covenant participants were adopting the same faith that Avraham possessed! Obviously it was incumbent upon the faithful father to pass this sign onto his son; 8-day old baby boys do not circumcise themselves. The promises were of faith (read Romans chapter 4 carefully). To be 100% sure, the Torah says that the promises were given to him before he was circumcised (Ibid. 10, 11)! This is why, after HaShem promised that his seed would be as numerous as the stars (15:5, 6), Avraham was credited with being righteous—because he believed the unbelievable! The implied meaning of the term “b’rit milah” is “covenant [of] circumcision”. Why does Judaism refer to circumcision as a covenant? I believe that this act betrays the Torah’s intensions to speak to the circumcised male about his responsibilities in helping to bring about the truth that HaShem and HaShem alone can bring the previously mentioned promises of Avraham to come to pass. Let us examine the details.

Covenants usually involved at least two parties. Likewise, there was usually a sign of the covenant being established. This sign, according to ancient Middle Eastern writings, was usually something that either party could carry on their person, such as a stone or other object. This sign, when viewed by either individual, served as a reminder that the person was under obligation to fulfill his part of the covenant. It also assured him that the other party was under the same obligations. Removal of the foreskin of the male sex organ, was not exclusively Hebrew. The ancient Egyptians had been doing it for some time as well. But when HaShem asked Avraham to participate in this rather “lopsided” covenant (remember Avraham did not earn his position before God, it was graciously granted unto him; read Romans 11:6), our father Avraham did not hesitate to become obedient to the command. Why did God have Avraham circumcised (remove the foreskin of his penis) in the first place? Have you ever stopped to ponder this enigmatic question? After all, God is not capricious. He could have easily had our father remove skin from his ear, or his finger, or other part of his body. Why the male sex organ? The promise of offspring has been established, but the method or manner by which the offspring would be realized is now made clear. In the same way that the complications surrounding the promise of land and blessing were resolved by direct, Divine intervention, so too the promised offspring would come by Divine fiat. Human enterprise and strength would not be the means by which God would fulfill His promise to Abraham regarding the seed. Circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, revealed this explicitly. Coming on the heels of God’s renewed promise to Abraham regarding his progeny and his installation as a father of a multitude of nations, the sign of circumcision upon the organ of procreation must be interpreted within the narrative flow as relating to the method by which the complication (absence of children and age of both Abraham and Sarah) would be resolved. The promise would come, not by the strength of the flesh (which the “Hagar plan” represented) but rather by above-human means.

Summary Let us summarize what we have learned concerning the book of Galatians and the situation facing the Apostle there: Dovetailing what he composed in Galatians, in his letter to Rome, Sha'ul wrote in 3:28 that God considers a person righteous on the grounds of trusting, which has nothing to do with the Torah (or as in KJV “works of Law”). On the surface this seems problematic for my own teachings that consider Torah observance to be of great significance. Yet, the problem here is really more a matter of translation than of theology. What Sha’ul is really talking about when he employs the Greek phrase “ergon nomos”, translated here as “works of Law” is in actuality a technical phrase that the Judaisms of Sha’ul’s day employed to speak of the halakhah, that is, the proper way in which a Jew is to walk out Torah. Indeed, the prevailing view of the sages of the 1st Century held to the common belief that Isra'el and Isra'el alone shared a place in the world to come. Thus, if a non-Jew wished to enter into HaShem’s blessings and promises, such a person had to convert to Judaism first. To be sure, this is one of the primary arguments delineated in the letter to the Galatians. But for Sha’ul no such ‘man-made” conversion policy existed in Scripture! By contrast, Sha'ul taught most assuredly that Gentiles were grafted into Isra'el the same way that Avraham was counted as righteous by God in B’resheet (Genesis) chapter 15: faith in the promised Word of the LORD. Thus, the phrase “works of Law” has a Hebrew counterpart: ma’asei haTorah. What meaneth ma’asei haTorah? The Dead Sea Scrolls used this phrase as well, and since the discovery of those manuscripts we have now come to know that it refers to “some of the precepts of the Torah”, as adjudicated by the halakhah and by the particular community wielding the most influence. To be sure, the halakhah that teaches Gentile inclusion only by way of conversion (read most often as “circumcision” in Galatians) was naturally at odds with the True Gospel of Gentile inclusion by faith in Yeshua plus nothing! If we understand that quite often Sha'ul’s use of the term circumcision in Galatians is actually shorthand for “the man-made ritual that seeks to turn Gentiles into Jews” then the letter begins to make more sense Hebraically and contextually. In essence, “works of the law” refer to those “group requirements” as outlined and delegated by each individual group functioning under the prevailing Judaisms of Paul’s day. Rav Sha’ul (Apostle Paul), missionary to the Gentiles, had to defend the correct Torah viewpoint in his letters addressed to the Churches at Galatia (specifically chapter 5), as well as to the one in Ephesus. Circumcision, a shorthand way for Paul to say "conversion to Judaism/becoming a Jew", was historically misused, but there is no reason for us to continue in such a misunderstanding. Nor is there any reason for the emerging Torah communities to shrink back from that which God has clearly given, provided we maintain our primary identity as that of one firmly grounded in Mashiach. To be “under the law” is a pejorative position originally hinted at all the way back in Deuteronomy 29:19-21. The verse clearly teaches us that to have “every curse written in this book upon you” is to be in a state of “not forgiven by ADONAI,” viz, “under condemnation,” viz, “under the law.” Only the Spirit of the Holy One, writing the Torah on the heart and mind, can bring the participant to the intended goal of surrendering to the Mashiach and out from under the curse pronounced in the law. With our natural mind, we read, "do this…" and "don’t do that…” and we have a tendency to misunderstand the grace behind the words. Yeshua came to explain the gracious intent of every command, by explaining the primary thrust of the Torah in the first place: leading its reader to a genuine trusting faith in the Messiah found therein—namely himself!

3. Proselyte Conversion: “Works of Law” - Part One (Understanding the Background) Today (as well as 2000 years ago), Christianity has developed an unnecessary amount of paranoia surrounding circumcision. In some ways I cannot blame them for taking this stance. The rabbinic literature is replete with the significance of this ostensibly simple act. ...the influencers may be understood to be similarly appealing to a long-standing norm, however independent of each other’s communities they may be acting, when faced with the same disruptive claim on the part of the new Christbelieving subgroups within their communities. The conflict arises because of the claim that their gentile members are to be regarded as full- members of these Jewish groups apart from proselyte conversion. 4. Covenantal Nomism "Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression." (E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 75) This is important because it has huge implications for one's understanding of first-century Judaism and thus for one's interpretation of how Paul interacted with it. If covenantal nomism is true, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themeslves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant" - it was not out of legalism.

5. “Works of Law” - Part Two In order to interpret Sha'ul correctly one needs to understand that the phrase [works of law] does not mean deeds done in virtue of following the Torah the way HaShem intended, but deeds done in consequence of perverting the Torah into a set of rules which, it is presumed, can be obeyed mechanically, automatically, legalistically, without having faith, without having trust in HaShem, without having love for HaShem or man, and without being empowered by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). To be sure, in the case of the Galatian congregation, the specific perversion that was taking place sought to transform Gentiles into Jews via a man-made ceremony of conversion, performed under the guise of “covenant inclusion.” 6. Lesson From Acts 10 The Torah of Moshe never prohibits Jews from “keeping company” or “coming unto one of another nation.” This statement of Kefa’s reflects the “ethnocentric Jewish exclusivism” baggage that the Torah communities of his day had engineered, baggage not uncommon among people groups who are marginalized. In other words, Kefa was just regurgitating the standard mantra of his day. This did not excuse his error, which is why HaShem went through all the trouble to send him the vision in the first place. In the end, the message of the Acts 10 vision is crystal clear: Gentiles in Yeshua are not intrinsically unclean (akathartos), as the 1st century Judaisms were professing. 7. “Under the Law” Traditional Christianity would have us believe that the phrase “under the law” refers to mere obligation to keep the Commandments, a sort of shorthand for “under obligation to keep the whole law.” Therefore, when Paul states in Romans 6:14 and 15, for example, that we are “not under the law but under grace,” the average Bible reader hears Paul saying that, in Messiah, we are not under obligation to keep the Law of Moses since we are now “under the Grace of Christ.” In this way, the Church interprets Paul’s words as setting up a dichotomy of Law vs. Grace, with Grace being the obvious and preferred victor. After all, it is correctly assumed that Paul’s use of the term “Law” in this verse is pejorative—that is—something that is negative and to be avoided by a true follower of Yeshua. What is more, even without knowing fully what the term means at first, we must still agree with Paul’s negative use of the term “Law” here, for indeed, he is describing something we should indeed avoid at all costs. But is he referring to mere Commandment keeping? Is Torah-keeping something a believer in Yeshua should avoid? Surely legalistically following after Torah is something we should never engage in (more on this view below), but is Paul even talking about a legalistic view of Torah observance in his use of “under the law” in Galatians? In conclusion to this section, whenever we encounter the phrase “under the Law,” we must be careful to examine the context of the passage in question if we are to properly interpret and apply its usage. Thus far, we have examined two of Paul’s more well-known examples of this phrase “under the Law.” The Romans usage teaches us that “under the Law” is equated with “under condemnation.” To be sure, every genuine follower of Yeshua has been redeemed from the ultimate curse pronounced in the Torah! Such a curse is reserved for those who are “under the law.” If you are in Messiah then you are not under condemnation (read Romans 8:1). You are in fact the righteousness of God in Messiah! What is more, the real change that takes place in a person’s life is effected by the Ruach HaKodesh when, because of Yeshua’s bloody, sacrificial death, the sinner takes on the status of righteous! Legalistically following after Torah does not change your status before God. Man cannot add to that which God perfects.

This installment represents the Sh’eil’ot u’T’shuv’ot (Questions and Answers) class and does not follow with the larger context of the notes. If you have questions, comments, corrections, or concerns about the book of Galatians (or the Apostle Paul) feel free to email me at yeshua613@hotmail.com. -- “Reisheet chokhmah yirat ADONAI!” (The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD!) Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy Torah Teacher http://www.graftedin.com/

9. Excursus: Additional “Tough Phrasing” *This extended excursus to the “Tough Phrasing” section is a work in progress, with verses added as time permits. Please excuse my construction. In this extended excursus to Exegeting Galatians and its tough phrasing I wish to draw the student’s attention to various p’sukim (verses) that have traditionally led Christianity towards a passive or negative view of Judaism, Torah, or both. Such verses, when removed from the larger context of either Paul or the situation facing the new believers in Galatia, will usually make Paul out to be the inventor of a new religion called Christianity, a religion viewed as superior to Judaism and the Torah that upholds it. Chapter One Verses 6, 7 Comments: By his “astonishment,” taken to be rhetorical, we learn that Sha'ul has invested previous time and effort in these Gentile believers, perhaps having visited them twice before finally penning this letter around A.D. 55 or 56. The villains of the piece, identified variously as “Judaizers,” “Legalizers,” or “Influencers” have succeeded in persuading the new Gentiles that covenant- standing (read in Christian parlance as “saved”) was not granted via faith in Yeshua alone, but rather, conversion to Judaism was needed to finalize the membership. Sha'ul saw this persuasion and its apparent successful campaign as a “deserting of the one who called you,” namely, the Mashiach. Because this new, errant theology (that Gentiles must become Jews before they can achieve full and lasting covenant status by God, viz, be saved) ran counter to the genuine Good News (that in Messiah both Jew and Greek are on equal covenant footing) Sha'ul refers to this as “another Gospel” (Greek eujaggevlion, yoo-angelion=news of good), which is really not good news when compared to the Truth. Pertinent for our study is the historical fact that the 1st century Judaisms were not teaching salvation by following Torah (as the later emerging Church might assume). The “other gospel” that gave Sha'ul such consternation was the prevailing proto-rabbinic view that only Isra'el alone shared a place in the World to Come, that is, only Jews were granted covenant membership. In this view Gentles must convert before they were considered full-fledged members. In this view Torah was not the means of salvation; “works of the Torah” (defined elsewhere in this commentary) were the prerequisite to “salvation.” In this view Torah simply helped to maintain membership granted to native born and proselyte alike. I, Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy, personally disagree with the central tenets of this view. Verse 13 Comments: It is critical to a proper understanding of Sha'ul that we recognize the syntax of the Greek of this verse. The word order shows that “previous” modifies the phrase “way of life” and not “previous Jewish life” as some might presume. The careful observation is made to show a shift within the paradigms of Judaism and not outside of them. Paul did not leave Judaism for a new religion called Christianity. What he did do was switch party lines, from a non-believing Jewish Pharisee, to a believing (in Yeshua) Pharisee, all within the confines of 1st century Judaism. Tim Hegg states it well, We should note carefully that that word “former” (potev, pote, which, when functioning as a particle means “once, formerly) functions to modify the word “manner of life” (ajnastrofhv, anastrophe, “lifestyle”). It does not imply that Paul formerly lived within Judaism but that as of the time he wrote the Galatians, he was no longer living within Judaism. What he is contrasting is his personal “halachah” before and after his faith in Yeshua as Messiah, not his former life in Judaism as opposed to his present life apart from Judaism.

Chapter Two Verse 3 Comments: The key to understanding this verse is the “force” of the Greek word translated as “compelled.” (Pun intended) Greek “compel” (ajnagkavzw, anagkadzo, to necessitate, compel, drive to, by force, threats, etc.)27, suggests that Titus, a Gentile believer did not even wish to be circumcised at that time, even though it is a clear command of Torah. And why would he not wish to exercise his right to Torah as a full-fledged member of the community? Perhaps he was a “green” believer. Perhaps he was a seasoned believer with proper motives. Remember, being with Sha'ul, he surely was aware of the prevailing rabbinic halakhah that Gentiles were not considered covenant members until after conversion. Thus, his motives for accepting or refusing circumcision at that time were a reflection of his taking a stand with Paul to send the right signal to the newly formed Gentile faction within Apostolic Judaism. See additional thoughts involving Peter on 2:14 below. I think it is safe to assume that once the heat was off, circumcision would not present any problem for him personally. That Sha'ul had Timothy, also considered a Greek by 1st century Jewish standards, circumcised in Acts chapter 16 is proof that Sha'ul himself did not consider this mitzvah unimportant for followers of Yeshua. What is more, that Sha'ul did not view circumcision as equal to conversion can be deduced by his comments in Galatians chapter 5 coming up later. Verse 14 Comments: “Acting in line with the truth of the gospel.” The phrase suggests that Sha’ul is contending for defined and exclusive truths (note the definite article in the Greek: ho alethia=the truth, and ho euagellion=the gospel), of which the subjects of verses 11-13 (to include Peter) are not upholding, a gospel truth central to his effective evangelization among the Gentiles. Compromise has been taking place on a public level so Sha'ul makes his rebuke public as well. “You are a Jew (a Jew by birth and not a convert), yet you live like a Gentle and not like a Jew.” In what way is Sha'ul accusing Peter of living like a Gentile? From the inner circle perspective of those who apply Torah to their lives on a daily basis, to “live like a Gentile” would mean to invite non-Jews into close quarters where table fellowship is likely to take place. To be sure, verse 11 and 12 show that Peter was in fact eating with Gentile believers prior to the arrival of the “men from James.” From a sectarian point of view, like the one obviously held to by those in opposition to Gentile inclusion, to eat with Gentiles was simply taboo—not acceptable if one wished to tow the Jewish party line accurately. To “live like a Gentile” most certainly does not mean that Peter ate food that was clearly proscribed by the Torah (recall Peter’s confession to God in Acts 10:14). For a Jew to be labeled by another Jew as “living like a Gentile” was simply to accuse him of having close relations with Gentiles. Because Sha'ul stressed the equality of Jewish and Gentile covenant membership via Messiah Yeshua, for Peter to waffle in his relations with Gentile believers simply because they were Gentiles was to “live as a good Jew should” only from the perspective of the prevailing Jewish thinking of his day. In other words, in the mind of Sha'ul, to live within the boundaries of the halakhah of a normative Judaism who defined herself as exclusively Jewish was unacceptable for a Messianic Jew the likes of Peter. The “Jewish customs” in question by Sha'ul were the specific group requirements that excluded Gentiles from full covenant membership and thus full Torah participation.

Verse 15, 16 - "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. Comments: "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners'...” The key to understanding this cryptic phrase is in knowing that it is not coming from the mouth of Sha'ul! Rather, he is simply restating the popular views of the Influencers he is arguing against. To call a Gentile a “sinner” was, from a Jewish point of view, derogatory, something Sha'ul would not have endorsed. However, the established Judaic view of Gentiles allowed for them to be labeled by “authentic covenant members” as such. For Paul to insert this quote into his argument (the syntax of the Greek phrasing is crucial here) only makes sense if we understand the rhetoric by which Paul is desperately trying to shake Peter loose from his current, deficient halakhic actions. Peter has indeed confessed faith in Yeshua, so that to hold to the view that Gentiles are “unclean” would be frustrating to the genuine Gospel that Sha'ul has been commissioned to take to the Gentiles. Continuing with his sharp rebuke, Sha'ul categorically embraces the notion that true, biblical Judaism holds to the correct view that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” Contrary to the popular belief that one must either be born Jewish or convert to becoming a Jew, Paul’s gospel extended lasting covenant membership to all who would freely embrace the message of the Cross Event. The word translated here as “justified” clearly invokes a positional-righteousness as determined by HaShem. Given the current contextual argument, the phrase “by observing the law” must mean “by conformity to a man-made ritual” for the Gentile, or “by being born Jewish” for the native born. We could translate the whole phrase thusly: “…a man is not justified by his ethnic-driven identity, whether natural or achieved, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” What follows (So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified) may amount to so much tautological repetition.

Verse 19 - For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. Comments: At first blush this verse seems to spell the end of any Torah relevance for the apostle. But a careful reading will reveal its true meaning. The verse starts out with the word “for” (Greek=gavrv, gar) a conjunction indicating that it is linked to a previous argument. In this case, Paul’s “for” represents an answer to the “if” clause introduced in verse 17 ("If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners..."). The key to understanding verse 19 is in answering exactly how we as individuals in verse 17 come to be made aware that “we ourselves are sinners”). Prior to his salvation experience Sha'ul was blinded to his true condition: dead in trespasses and sin. However, now that the Spirit has taken up residence within him, via the sacrificial death of Yeshua, he can look back to how the Torah played a part in bringing him to this newfound revelation about himself. The Torah, working in concert with the Spirit of God, revealed sin for what it was: violation of God’s righteous standard. Thus, through the Torah—that is, through its proper function of revealing and condemning sin, the individual is brought to the goal of the Torah, namely the revelation of the Messiah himself. Once faced with the choice to remain in sin or be set free by the power of the Blood, Paul confesses that he “died” to his old self and was consequently made alive in the newness that is accredited to those who choose life! But Paul says that he died to Torah. What does he mean by such a statement? Are we to assume that in Yeshua Paul is now somehow dead to obedience to the Torah? May it never be! Simply put, he now realizes that his new life in the Spirit is a life to be lived without the fear of being condemned as a sinner by the very Torah he previously thought he was upholding! The Torah has a properly installed built-in function of sentencing sinners to become the object of HaShem’s punishment and ultimate rejection, a rejection that will result in death if the person never choose the Messiah of life. Paul is teaching the Galatians that his choice of Yeshua is to be understood as a death of self and the former life that Torah condemned in favor of a new life of serving God through the Spirit, a choice brought on by the revelation of Messiah found within the very pages of the Torah itself! Such freedom in Messiah does not liberate one from Torah, rather, such freedom liberates one to be able to walk into Torah as properly assisted and seen from God’s perspective! Verse 21 - I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" Comments: Bringing his arguments of the previous verses, and indeed the chapter as we have it, to a close, Paul again reinforces the truth that the “righteousness of God” is attained for an individual at Christ’s expense and not through the rubrics of a man-made conversion ceremony (read here as “through the law”). The “law” in question is the Oral Tradition that only Isra'el can inherit blessings in the World to Come, a belief formerly held to by the apostle himself. To be sure, if being declared righteous (understood to be primarily forensic, but including behavioral as well) could be achieved via the flesh (that is, being born Jewish or converting to Judaism) then truly what need would there be for a Messiah to come and provide it later for anyone? Paul would have the reader to understand that such righteousness is altogether outside of human achievement and therefore must be procured by surrendering to the power of the Anointed One of God.

Covenantal Nomism What Nanos and other recent scholars (E.P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, et al) are describing, as pertaining to Paul’s 1st century Judaism and how it reportedly defined itself, has been carefully labeled as Covenantal Nomism. Indeed, a “new perspective on Paul” (NPP) is on the rise. What is Covenantal Nomism? Theopedia.com provides a brief description for us to examine: Covenantal Nomism is the belief that first century Palestinian Jews did not believe in works righteousness. Essentially, it is the belief that one is brought into the Abrahamic covenant through birth and one stays in the covenant through works. Suggests that the Jewish view of relationship with God is that keeping the law is based only on a prior understanding of relationship with God. Quoting from Sanders and Wright in the same article they go on to include a brief discussion about the problems with the traditional “Lutheran” view of Paul and suggest that the new perspective on Paul (NPP) actually exonerates 1st century Judaism from the centuries-long charge of being a works-based religion: A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly: "On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543) N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32). However, Stephen Westerholm adds caution to such a quickly drawn conclusion: "While one may enthusiastically endorse the 'new perspective' dictum that first-century Judaism was a religion of grace and acknowledge that it represents an important corrective of earlier caricatures, it is hardly pedantic to point out that more precision is needed before such a statement can illuminate a discussion of the 'Lutheran' Paul. Pelagius and Augustine - to take but the most obvious examples - both believed in human dependence on divine grace, but they construed that dependence very differently" (Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul, pp. 261-262). Thus, as Westerholm points out, although first century Judaism may have believed in grace, it becomes even more important to establish why they believed in grace and how this effected [sic] their view of salvation. Those from the NPP seem quick to jump to the conclusion that first-century Judaism was in agreement with the same understanding of grace found within the NT and Paul's theology. Again, as Westerholm notes above, this "grace" can be understood very differently. I understand that the prevailing Judaisms that existed in the first century initially upset the biblical balance by teaching that circumcision was the vehicle by which a non-Jew could and must enter the covenant made with Isra'el. Shame on them! To be sure, a whole theological council was formulated to deal with the problem in the first century. Both in Acts 15:1-35, as well as 21:17-26, the Yerushalayim Council had to address the issue of “returning to the works of the law” as opposed to “living in the freedom of Messiah”. And what is the meaning of “works of the law”? Surely it does NOT refer “correct and true faith-driven observance of written Torah commands”! No, what this technical phrase is referring to is a set of halakhic rules that an individual must ally himself with in order to be received into a specific and exclusive community. More on “works of law” below.

Chapter Three Verses 2, 3 - I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Comments: No other chapter of the Bible has caused more theological misunderstandings than Chapter Three of Galatians! We would do well to tread cautiously as we seek to unlock its meanings… Again, Sha'ul returns to his irony with a rhetorical question about the origins of the giving of the Ruach HaKodesh among the Galatian believers. Sha'ul surely knows first hand from whence the Spirit flows from God to an individual. However, in this portion of his letter he is attempting to shock the readers back into some semblance of “biblical reality.” Having begun with the truth of Yeshua’s atoning death, how could they possibly be considering going back on such a revelation? To the apostle, such a notion was ludicrously untenable! Again, knowing that the Greek word for law (nomos) can refer to the Oral Tradition of proselyte conversion helps us to understand Paul to be challenging its validity among genuine covenant members. Surely lasting covenant membership is not acquired by human effort, but rather by placing one’s trust in the Ultimate Son of the Covenant, Yeshua himself. Our opening question might be better phrased as so: “I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by becoming proselytes, or by believing what you heard?” Paul immediately provides his answer, a resounding “Are you so foolish?” To suppose that human achievement could in some way trump the grace of God as afforded by his Only Son was an exercise in futility! The second question then is merely a clarification of his previous inquisition stated this time using the explicit language of the Influencers, viz, “human effort,” referring back to the proselyte ceremony. The historic position held to by the later emerging Christian church that the apostle is pitting true faith in Yeshua against any supposed Torah observance finds no basis from the context of Paul’s argument here. Indeed, we must allow the context of the letter to determine what is driving his consternation. Read without the clarity of context, we will forever misconstrue Paul to be teaching Gentile believers that HaShem’s Laws hold no valuable place in the practical application of the very Promise inherited through Yeshua the Savior. Read without the clarity of context, we will misunderstand Paul to be denigrating the Torah in favor of being led by the Spirit. Verse 5 - Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? Comments: This verse is a restating of the previous round of rhetorical questioning. Obviously by now we know that Paul is not in favor of ethnic-driven righteousness, a position maintained by his detractors. The evidence that the Galatians are already in possession of genuine and lasting covenant status is the fact that the Ruach HaKodesh is indeed working among them! Recall Peter’s surprise when the Ruach HaKodesh fell freely on Cornelius and company in Acts 10: 44-48. Why was Peter surprised? Because the long-standing belief among the Judaisms of the 1st century sincerely assumed that God only chose Jews as covenant partners! Paul here is acknowledging the genuine working of the Spirit among his fellow Gentiles as proof positive that they were existing covenant members and not merely “Gentile-to-Jewish converts” in the process of becoming covenant members. The question is meant to raise the issue in the minds of the Galatians as to what exactly attracts the attention of God himself: flesh or faith? The answer is given below using Avraham as the paradigm.

Verse 6 - Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Comments: Throughout his letters, the Apostle Paul (Rav Sha'ul) seems to take great interest in Avraham, referring to him no less than 29 times! Ya’akov (James) also makes use of Father Avraham in chapter 2 and verses 21-23 of his letter, going so far as to bring the binding of Isaac into the equation for us. For Ya’akov, Avraham’s faith was perfected by his corresponding actions. Germane to our study, however, is the phrase “credited to him as righteousness,” penned by Moshe in B’resheet (Genesis) 15:6 and referenced by Sha'ul in Romans 4:3 For what does the Tanakh say? "Avraham put his trust in God, and it was credited to his account as righteousness. Given its location within Paul’s arguments, both from Romans and Galatians, it is clear that the phrase is referring to imputed righteousness, that is, positional (forensic) right standing with HaShem. For Paul, it is axiomatic that Moshe describes this quality chronologically before Avraham receives the covenant of circumcision in B'resheet chapter 17. This bespeaks of the correct order in which to appropriate the covenant responsibilities of God. On the micro, saving faith in God, symbolized by God accrediting his account as righteous (Hebrew h'q'd.c tz’dakah), precedes the patriarch’s obedience to the sign of circumcision. On the macro, the covenant of Avraham precedes the covenant with Moshe. Thus, we can infer that Sha'ul brings Avraham into the argument to show that forensic righteousness is conferred to those who are not circumcised as well as to those who are—read Gentile and Jew respectively. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Isn't he also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, he is indeed the God of the Gentiles (Romans 3:29). And, Now is this blessing for the circumcised only? Or is it also for the uncircumcised? For we say that Avraham's trust was credited to his account as righteousness; but what state was he in when it was so credited - circumcision or uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision! In fact, he received circumcision as a sign, as a seal of the righteousness he had been credited with on the ground of the trust he had while he was still uncircumcised. This happened so that he could be the father of every uncircumcised person who trusts and thus has righteousness credited to him, and at the same time be the father of every circumcised person who not only has had a b'rit-milah, but also follows in the footsteps of the trust which Avraham avinu had when he was still uncircumcised (Romans 4:9-12). But what is it about the narrative in Genesis that leads Moshe to finally declare Avram/Avraham as righteous at this juncture? Is there something within the story that would cause any reader to make the same assumption? What was going on in the mind of the Holy One? Perhaps we can draw some conclusions by looking at the passage from a telescopic overview. Allow me elaborate? The flow of the Genesis narrative has been an interactive look at Avraham and his contending with God ever since God called him away from his native land in chapter 12:1-3. There, in what amounts to a unilateral agreement, we find that HaShem promises to increase his offspring beyond numbering. The corresponding covenant ceremony will later be enacted in p’sukim (verses) 7-20 of chapter 15. But leading up to this point, and trailing afterwards, is a grammatical clue as to what—or whom—Avraham actually placed his trust in!

Chapter Three 3:2, 3 - I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Comments: No other chapter of the Bible has caused more theological misunderstandings than Chapter Three of Galatians! We would do well to tread cautiously as we seek to unlock its meanings… Again, Sha'ul returns to his irony with a rhetorical question about the origins of the giving of the Ruach HaKodesh among the Galatian believers. Sha'ul surely knows first hand from whence the Spirit flows from God to an individual. However, in this portion of his letter he is attempting to shock the readers back into some semblance of “biblical reality.” Having begun with the truth of Yeshua’s atoning death, how could they possibly be considering going back on such a revelation? To the apostle, such a notion was ludicrously untenable! Again, knowing that the Greek word for law (nomos) can refer to the Oral Tradition of proselyte conversion helps us to understand Paul to be challenging its validity among genuine covenant members. Surely lasting covenant membership is not acquired by human effort, but rather by placing one’s trust in the Ultimate Son of the Covenant, Yeshua himself. Our opening question might be better phrased as so: “I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by becoming proselytes, or by believing what you heard?” Paul immediately provides his answer, a resounding “Are you so foolish?” To suppose that human achievement could in some way trump the grace of God as afforded by his Only Son was an exercise in futility! The second question then is merely a clarification of his previous inquisition stated this time using the explicit language of the Influencers, viz, “human effort,” referring back to the proselyte ceremony. The historic position held to by the later emerging Christian church that the apostle is pitting true faith in Yeshua against any supposed Torah observance finds no basis from the context of Paul’s argument here. Indeed, we must allow the context of the letter to determine what is driving his consternation. Read without the clarity of context, we will forever misconstrue Paul to be teaching Gentile believers that HaShem’s Laws hold no valuable place in the practical application of the very Promise inherited through Yeshua the Savior. Read without the clarity of context, we will misunderstand Paul to be denigrating the Torah in favor of being led by the Spirit. 3:5 - Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? Comments: This verse is a restating of the previous round of rhetorical questioning. Obviously by now we know that Paul is not in favor of ethnic-driven righteousness, a position maintained by his detractors. The evidence that the Galatians are already in possession of genuine and lasting covenant status is the fact that the Ruach HaKodesh is indeed working among them! Recall Peter’s surprise when the Ruach HaKodesh fell freely on Cornelius and company in Acts 10: 44-48. Why was Peter surprised? Because the long-standing belief among the Judaisms of the 1st century sincerely assumed that God only chose Jews as covenant partners! Paul here is acknowledging the genuine working of the Spirit among his fellow Gentiles as proof positive that they were existing covenant members and not merely “Gentile-to-Jewish converts” in the process of becoming covenant members. The question is meant to raise the issue in the minds of the Galatians as to what exactly attracts the attention of God himself: flesh or faith? The answer is given below using Avraham as the paradigm.

Verse 10- "All who rely..." Comments: This verse when misunderstood from its larger context will invariably lead the reader to the incorrect conclusion that Paul is advocating complete and mitzvah-by-mitzvah (commandment-by-commandment) Torah submission for everyone wishing to attain right-standing with the Almighty. That the 1st century Judaisms did not advocate a view which required complete Torah obedience before one could be counted as a covenant member is attested to in the later rabbinic compilations that survived the destruction of the Temple. Put simply, no one in Paul’s day thought that a person could practically walk out each and every single commandment. Nor did anyone in Paul’s day believe that God expected such obedience of Isra'el. No, such a notion finds its home among ignorant ideology and theology borne out of ignorance to the Laws of God and the Ways of God. Our verse is a contrast to the previously statement made in verse 6 where Avraham is said to have been considered righteous on the basis of his faith. By comparison, those who do not imitate Avraham, but instead seek to circumvent God’s method of declaring a person righteous actually fall into the trap of legalism. When Sha'ul uses a statement like “all who rely on observing the law” he is referring to two positions: Firstly, he is speaking to those who believed that covenant status was extended by God due to ethnic status, whether native-born or convert. Such individuals, instead of living within the blessing of HaShem, were in reality found to be the object of God’s curse, because instead of submitting to God’s way of making a person righteous, they were said to be setting up their own way of righteousness, a charge leveled against unbelieving Isra'el by Sha'ul himself in Romans 9:31, 32-10:3. Secondly, he is teaching against any superstition notions that God extends covenant status to the individual who simply avails himself of Torah obedience outside of genuine faith in the giver of the Torah. This is proven by the conditional clause, “All who rely on…” To what would the individual be relying upon for righteousness? It must be either his ethnic status or his Torah observance. Paul would have argued against either view. The phrase “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" is lifted from Deuteronomy 27:26, indicated by the familiar “for it is written.” Paul is going to prove his argument—that lasting covenant membership is granted to those exercising faith—directly from the Torah itself. The reference here by Sha'ul however is neither a direct quote from the Masoretic Hebrew text, or a direct quote from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). He may be paraphrasing the general meaning of the verse for his readers. The meaning is nevertheless captured by Sha'ul: the covenant member to be, as well as the existing covenant member, must follow after all that God has spoken to do. Picking and choosing which commandments are relevant and which ones aren’t is not left to the covenant member. Only God is allowed to determine which commandments might if ever fall into disuse and which ones will not. But even more to the point of Sha'ul’s argument here is the historical reality that each and every covenant member bound himself to pursue the “Righteous One” promised by the Torah! The very thing that a covenant member was expected to do was to exercise faith in God and in his Messiah to come, who by Sha'ul’s writing had already arrived! The individual who failed to reach this conclusion ultimately found himself a candidate for being “cut off” (Hebrew=karat) by God himself due to his lack of faith. In stating that the one who denies genuine faith lives under a curse, Paul opts for the Greek word katavra, katara, which conveys the notion of a spoken curse, a clear reference to God’s words as pronounced in our Torah passage of Deuteronomy, i.e., the Book of the Law.

3:13 Comments: There are golden moments when the best interpretation of Scripture is Scripture. This verse seems to find a parallel in Chapter 4. The impact of Christ redeeming those who name his name for salvation from the curse of the law in 3:13 bears a striking similarity to 4:4 and the first part of 4:5 “…to redeem those under the law.” That we have previously defined the term “under the law” as a position reserved for those whose hearts have not received messianic regeneration is key to understanding Paul’s phrase “the curse of the law.” I understand them to be tandem phrases. That is, the person who lives “under the curse of the law” surely lives “under the law” as well. Both phrases describe a position of ill favor and eventual punishment by God. Under the law speaks of existing under the condemnation that Torah pronounces against persistent sinners. Thus, in the economy of the Torah community of ancient Isra’el, to live under the curses instead of under the blessings was to be recognized by God as living in sin and disobedience to his mitzvot (commandments). Surely Moshe instructed the people that obedience invited God’s blessings, while continual and unremorseful disobedience invited God’s curses. But Messiah did not merely redeem our physical lives from diminishment of blessing if we failed to perform the Words of Torah; Yeshua actually redeemed both body and soul from the ultimate curse pronounced upon the individual who failed to graduate to genuine lasting faith in the Giver of the Torah, a redemption spoken of in legal terms throughout the Apostolic Scriptures. The plain sense of the verse is not confusing: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Torah. He did not redeem us from the Torah itself. 3:17, 18 Comments: The first part of this passage, the mention of the promise, becomes a key element of later Pauline literature. That God would make an unbreakable Promise to Avraham and his offspring and then bring it to pass vindicates both the Father’s competence as well as his trustworthiness. For Paul, it is imperative that the existing covenant member understands the proper relationship of the Avrahamic Covenant to the Moshaic Covenant. Allow me to quote Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz, For those who trust HaShem for the promises, the proper order for faith and obedience is set by the sequence in which the covenants were given. In other words, faith must precede obedience. But the kind of faith accepted by HaShem is one that naturally flows into obedience. True obedience never comes before faith, nor is it an addition to faith. It is always the result of true biblical faith. To rephrase this in terms of the covenants: the covenant of promise (Avraham) must come before the covenant of obedience (Moshe). If we were to put Moshe first, attempting to secure those promises by obedience, we would be going against HaShem’s order. (This, by the way, is the key to unlocking the difficult midrash used by Sha’ul in Galatians 4:21-31.) All we could hope for would be a measure of physical protection and a knowledge of spiritual things. But we could not receive justification or a personal relationship with the Holy One through obedience to the Torah; it all had to start with faith. Avraham came before Moshe, but Moshe did not cancel out Avraham! The two complemented each other—as long as they came in the proper order. Quite surely, the Influencers had the sequence backwards, placing the proverbial cart before the horse. In such a situation, the covenant member-to-be mistakenly believed that the Promise—referred to as the “inheritance” in verse 18—sprang forth from obedience to a ritual implied by the Torah, the ritual of the proselyte. In this order, faith results from works and human achievement. In this order, faith in God—the Promise—is rendered non-effectual and unnecessary. Paul would not have his talmidim (students) falling for such blatant errant theology.

3:19 Concerning this verse (3:19) Stern seems, in some ways, to take the popular Christian view as noted above just a step further. While not casting the Torah in a negative light, he nonetheless seems to not fully capture the intended meaning of Paul’s point there in verse 19. Because of his widespread acceptance among many messianic believers, his view is worth critiquing. Moreover, his popularity in the Messianic Community has far-reaching influence in the way the Movement forms their view of the Torah. I believe that as important a contribution as Stern has made to the Messianic Movement (I currently endorse his Bible translation), with regards to his commentary on this particular verse, this “neutral” view—as opposed to the blatant “negative” one that Christianity holds—that the Torah was given to Isra'el to make her ever aware of her transgressions misses the point of Paul’s argument at this point in his letter. Tim Hegg seems to uncover Sha'ul’s true, “positive” intentions with his well-written comment to his Galatians study, quoted at length here: The language of our present verse would indicate that we should read it positively, not negatively. "Why the Torah? It was given (added to the revelation already given in the Abrahamic covenant) to reveal the divine method of dealing with transgressions,” i.e., “for the sake of transgressions.” Already prejudiced against the Torah, the typical Christian exegesis misses the fact that a great deal of the Torah centers upon the Tabernacle/Temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. How were the covenant members to deal with the inevitable presence of sin in their personal and corporate lives? The Torah gives the answer: by repentance and acceptance of God’s gracious gift of forgiveness through the payment of a just penalty exemplified in the sacrifice. It was the Torah that revealed in clear detail the method which God had provided for transgression, and it was this method—the sacrificial system and priesthood that pointed to Messiah, the ultimate sacrifice and means of eternal forgiveness. Thus Paul adds: "until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.” In the Greek, this clause follows second, immediately after "it was added because of transgressions.” The ESV has the order correct: "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.” The Torah was given in order to reveal God’s gracious manner of dealing with transgressions, i.e., through the death of an innocent substitute. Paul therefore immediately makes this point by adding, "until the seed would come…." Here, as often, the word “until” (a[cri, achri; Hebrew d;a, ’ad) has the primary meaning of "marker of continuous extent of time up to a point, until.” The point is that the revelation of the Torah regarding how God provides redemption in the face of transgressions has its focal point in Yeshua. Once Yeshua had come and offered Himself as God's eternal sacrifice, the ultimate revelation to which the sacrifices pointed had been given. This is Paul's consistent perspective: the Torah leads to Yeshua (cf. Ro 10:4 and the continuing context of Gal 3).

10. Summary In my historical research into this book by Rav Sha’ul (Apostle Paul), I have discovered that much of the social fabric of the 1st Century Judaisms that we read about suffered from a sickness I like to call Ethnocentric Jewish Exclusivism. I have written about this concept in another paper that dealt with studies on group prejudice. I believe it nicely summarizes our study on Galatians and helps to form the necessary social background required to properly understand the book in its original historical and religious context, and therefore have decided to include a quote from that work here: The New Testament writer Paul of Tarsus (a.k.a. Apostle Paul) had much to say about the Judaisms of his day and the ethnocentric cultural requirements they were imposing on the non-Jews. To be sure, Paul is traditionally misunderstood by the Christianities of today as teaching an abrogation to Torah, circumcision, and Jewish culture as a whole—in a word—ethnic genocide. A proper understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism will uncover many of the true motives driving the ethnic competition between Jews and non-Jews. Group-level stereotyping of Gentiles by Jews as pejorative pagans, with no viable and positive contribution possible for the Jewish community, can clearly be seen in this research. Negative attitudes by the Jewish community turned into prejudice against non-Jews, which lead to discrimination against non-Jews as an ethnicity, and eventually provided the Jewish leaders with a mechanism for installing anti-Gentile group policies that were racially driven. Indeed, the power to enforce group prejudice and discrimination is what gives racism its social advantage over subjugated minorities.[1] 11. Conclusions - Torah: Negative, Neutral, or Positive? Our opinions of Paul and his letters should first and foremost be influenced by the raw data found within the Scriptures themselves, since it only stands to reason that historically when his letters were penned, the TaNaKH was the only inspired corpus of literature available to him. Thus, it is reasonable to presume that Paul would also expect his readers, particularly his Jewish ones, to hold similar views of the TaNaKH. “And just what view would that be?” Should it be: 1) Negative, as in the prevailing Christian view, that Torah was given merely to contain and limit transgressions so that man did not become excessively sinful? 2) Neutral, as in the Messianic Jewish view, that Torah was given to expose sin for what it really was, namely the transgression of God’s perfect standard of holiness? 3) Positive, as in recent Pauline authorship, that Torah was given to provide the means by which an existing covenant member might have his sins covered, with an ultimate view towards the coming eternal Sacrifice, Yeshua the prophesied Messiah?

12. The Promise A “Christian” attempt at disproving the validity of the important covenantal sign of circumcision has caused much strife and division among the body of believing Jews and Gentiles. The matter is made clear when we understand that HaShem never meant for this sign to secure the promises for the believer! This was to be the sign that he was connected via covenant to a larger family. Is it valid for the Jews today? Yes! In this way, we forever identify physically and spiritually with the unending covenant made with our father Avraham. Is it practical for non-Jewish believers? Unfortunately at this juncture in history, it is not. Until the Church gets right its view of the Torah and the trappings of legalism, it is somewhat discouraged by Messianic Jewish rabbis. I am not saying that Gentiles cannot undergo this ritual. I am delighted to encounter those few Gentiles who truly understand it’s meaning enough to “go under the knife.” Is it necessary for the salvation of an individual? No! It never was! What makes Avraham such a great role model of faith is that, not only did he trust in the Word of HaShem, but the LORD saw into his future and predicted that his offspring would also be taught how to trust in the Almighty. Let’s look at Genesis 18:17-19... Firstly, God promises to be faithful to make himself known to us. We like faithful Avraham are then enabled and subsequently covenant-bound to obey the Teachings of our Heavenly Father. Finally, such Teachings are uniquely designed to bring about a righteous behavior in our lives, aligning our lives to be the object of God’s righteous promises! To be sure, the syntax of the above p’sukim (verses) is hinting at that very reality (note the running continuity suggested by the connecting phrases “so that” in the quote above)! Furthermore, we must, like faithful Avraham, trust in the LORD against all unbelievable odds, to perform in our lives, the promise that he has given us through Yeshua our Messiah! What is that promise? (Romans 8:28-30) We usually stop at the first verse, but reading further informs us of our true identity in Messiah: righteous heirs according to trusting faithfulness, causing us to be called, as faithful Avraham was called, “righteous!” In closing, we affirm with perfect faith that genuine and lasting covenant status is granted to the individual who eventually exercises genuine faith in the Promised Word of HaShem—namely, the Messiah Yeshua. Such status is offered freely to both Jew and Gentile. Jewish people with natural lineage tracing back to Ya’akov are in fact born with a “corporate covenant status” given freely by God and based on his promises made to Avraham. However, this does not automatically grant them the status of right standing in a positional sense. There is no such thing as “involuntary corporate righteousness” in the Torah of HaShem. For the native-born Jewish person, the proper sequence for the covenants is demonstrated when such an individual “graduates” from [mere] corporate faith and belonging towards personal faith in God. To be sure, it is only when God does his monergistic work of opening the eyes of the blind and drawing the individual into his covenant of faith that the person attains genuine and lasting covenant status—the kind of covenant status that is worthy of a place in the ‘Olam Haba (Age to Come). What place hath the Torah in the life of such an individual? The Torah comes alongside of the Promise (covenant status) and acts as a guarantor that the individual will also achieve behavioral righteousness, thus placing him or her on a direct collision course with the blessings of HaShem! Far from frustrating the grace of God, Torah compliments the grace of God!