Part 1

Download Notes

The key to properly interpreting Galatians is identifying seven things without which you’re just using supposition and conjecture – six Q & A! 

1. Q. What is the “different gospel” of 1:6? A. The answer will become obvious as we move through 2-6.
2. Q. What has changed with regards to the role of circumcision and how it is used, that Shaul in his defense of the true gospel mentions in 2:3? A. Covenant entry sign (which they broke) and later land entrance token (Josh. 5).
3. Q. What is the law that brings a curse to believers in Yahusha that is being spoken of? Written law? Oral law? Roman law? A. Gal 3:10 ‘the law’ is identified as “the Book of the Law
4. Q. What is the meaning of phrase ‘works of the law?’ Can we identify this phrase using only biblical text and the supporting data of the DSS? A. The phrase is initially found within the context of the Book of the Law in Gal. 3. Our second witness comes from the DSS Mss 4QMMT showing the communities view of inclusion as interpreted through the Book of the Law, supported with the discovery of 25 copies, just of the Book of the Law-Deuteronomy being found amongst fragments of text containing the phrase ‘works of law’!
5. Q. Once identified why was that law added? A. ‘that law’ (3:10) now identified, is expounded upon further as, “being added because of transgressions until the seed would come,” Gal 3:19.
6. Q. What are the two covenants singled out in Gal. 4:21 that connect back to Abraham?  A. The Book of the Covenant – from the Jerusalem above which is the freedom and liberty that Shaul addresses (not freedom to lawlessness) – and the Book of the Law that gives birth to bondage, which is fleshly and corresponds to the Judaic bondage of the present Jerusalem of Shaul’s day – that ‘different gospel’ propagated by those who’d infiltrated Galatyah.
7. Q. What is the time frame in relation to Acts 15? A. The issues Shaul addresses have not yet been examined by the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council. The clarity of that council did not come until after Galatians was written.

Shaul a Shalioch, not of men, neither by man, but of Yahusha Ha Moshiach, and Abba YHWH, who raised Him up from the dead.

Shaul was commissioned by YHWH as a Sholiach, which would have been contrary to the claims of the influencers, some who claimed to be ‘sent’ from Yaakov (2:12).

2 And all the Israelite brethren, who are with to the Israelite congregations of Galutyah. 

(Church of Galatia) church was birthed in Gen.28:4 – Jacob will be a Church given the blessing and inheritance of the covenants of promise of Abraham – ‘Qahal’,  ‘Kehila’ –‘Ecclesia’-‘Church’ –  the bride beautifully dressed in the commandments of YHWH.

People don’t realize that Moses was in the Church! Acts 7:38 This one (Moses) who was in the Church in the wilderness.  Moses couldn’t wait to get out of the church too! Ecclesia – congregation.

not in the temple but in an upper room – It’s Shavuot – you’d be in the temple!

3 Grace and peace to you and shalom from Abba YHWH and from our Master Yahusha Ha Moshiach.

“Kurios Yahusha”: Kurios is used in the LXX to render Y-H-W-H – the divine name. Shaul has no problem identifying Yahusha publically as the Supreme YHWH.

 4 Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from the evil olam hazeh, according the will of YHWH our Abba. 5 To whom be tifereth le olam vaed, Amien.

To say that Shaul is setting YHWH’s grace and YHWH’s Torah against one another is a false idea that has no historic, cultural or TaNaKh textual background.

Did YHWH deliver us from slavery in Mitzrayim just to take us to the mountain and put us under slavery again? That’s accusing YHWH of being a tyrant and of us just exchanging one slave master for another – once examined it becomes a ludicrous argument – something else must be going on here in the text! (Read Ps.119).

Accepting the Book of the Covenant is intricately fused with you being set free from slavery sin.

6 I am shocked that you are so soon turned from Him (YHWH) that called you to the unmerited favor of Moshiach to another version of the Besorah. 

‘Another gospel.’ The institutionalized church not understanding the historical and cultural background of the text, jumps to the false conclusion that keeping the commandments/obedience to the Torah is ‘another gospel’ contrary to the ‘gospel of Christ.’

The real issue is that ‘those of the circumcision’ were forcing believers from the nations – non-Jew’s to undergo the rites of a proselyte and keep the Book of the Law before they would be recognized as full covenant members of the community – that’s the ‘other gospel’.

Defining Gospel:  In Avi ben Mordechai’s Galatians he blows my mind because in so many ways he grasps the threads of the Melchizedik, quoting texts that support it, yet he fails to thread the needle time and time again!

He uses the Book of the Covenant ceremony texts (Ex 19:3-6, 24, 3-8) to define the ‘true gospel’ dedicating a whole page to it (132) even quoting ‘Book of the Covenant’ but drops the needle by concluding that the covenant was once again revived and ratified under Joshua.

But he is right in asserting that the Book of the Covenant is ‘the true gospel’ 

Avi even wraps up his section ‘defining the gospel’ by quoting Heb. 6:13 “For when Elohim made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater He swore by Himself, saying, “I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you.” (P.137)

7 Which is not another, but there are some that trouble you, and do pervert the Besorah of Moshiach. 

The Judaizers/influencers had come into the Galut and slandered Shaul.

Five distinct theological opinions as to what was the error of the Judaizers:

1. Institutionalized Church view: Faith in Yahusha + observing the Law of Moses.
2. The New Perspective of Paul view: Local non-believing Jews were welcoming Galatian believers into their synagogues for protection (their new faith would not have had the protection under Roman law that the traditional Jews had which excused them from the universal Roman requirement of acknowledging Caesar as god). But to join they had to undergo proselyte conversion.
3. Messianic/Hebrew Roots view: Misguided human legalism in their approach to Torah.
4. Karaite view: (Nehemia Gordon, Michael Rood, Avi ben Mordechai): according to this view the Judaizairs were putting the yoke of the Oral Law onto believers, instead of leading them into the Written Law of Moses. But this sect of Judaism didn’t appear until the 9^thCentury C.E. and the only Jewish group in Yahusha’s day that may have accepted anything akin to Karatism (rejection of the Oral law) were the T’zaddukim (Sadducees) and we know Yahusha and Paul weren’t Sadducees’, so this view falls flat on that alone, without going into the fact that the juxtaposition of oral law vs. written law doesn’t even appear in any text. So it’s theory relies solely on yearning and speculation. Avi ben Mordachai’s Galatians doesn’t rely on any existing translation but turns to Andrew Gabriel Roth to ‘back translate’ the epistle into his mysterious Aramaic which is actually identical to a 19^th century production available on open source.
5. Melchizedek view: Jews were not comprehending the Malkizedik transference and blood ratification return to Covenant Torah (BoC) and were holding to ritualistic proselytic conversion as an entrance sign into to the Book of the Law before full believers were included among YHWH’s covenant people – Yahusha + proselytic conversion into the Book of the Law. They were mixing a sign (circumcision) attached to a broken covenant (Book of the Covenant) with a imposed, not agreed to law (Book of the Law) where circumcision was a land entrance sign! We face the same problem today a lack of understanding between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law and a circumcision sign to a broken covenant and circumcision as a land entrance sign…all mixed up and lumped into Torah, Torah, Torah….

A Judaizer was one who asserted that one must undergo the rites of a proselyte conversion (ritual circumcision) and keep the Book of the Law before they would be recognized as full covenant members of the community of faith, thereby partakers of the covenants of promise (Eph. 2).

Making membership among YHWH’s people a work of the flesh verses a work of faith made one a ‘Judas’ as far as Shaul was concerned

V.6 “Metatithemi” “deserting” used in Hosea 5:10 in the LXX as Jew’s who remove the landmarks. They changed the boarders of the covenant community – that’s what’s going on today – both sides have changed the boarders of the covenant community.

Isaiah 40-66 defines the gospel as the good news of Zion’s liberation and restoration

 Is.40:9 Get yourself up on a high mountain, O Zion bearer of good-news, lift up your voice mightily, O Yahrushalayim, bearer of good news, lift it up, do not fear. Say to the cities of Judah, Here is your Elohim!’ 

Another gospel must include then, the ‘not so good’ news of ‘Zionism!’ 

8 But though we, or a malach from the shamayim, proclaim any other Besorah to you than the one you have received, let him be accursed. 

10 For do I now persuade men or YHWH? Or, do I seek to please men? For if I still sought to please men, I should not be the eved of Moshiach. 

11 But I certify to you, my Israelite brothers, that the Besorah which was proclaimed by me, is not recieved from men. 12 For I neither received it from man, neither was I taught it from men, but through the revelation of Yahusha Ha Moshiach. For you have heard of my former halacha in the past of the Yahudim’s religion, how I intensely persecuted the Israelite congregation of YHWH, and tried to destroy it. 14. And I progressed in the Yahudim’s religion above many of my equals in my own nation above all I was especially zealous of the teachings of my ahvot. 

The word ‘ioudaismos’ is used only here in the whole Brit Chadasha. Once in v.13, and once in v.14. It’s found in the LXX only five times and there, only Maccabees: in 2 Mac 2:21, 8:1, 14:28 (x2), 4Mac 4:26. ‘Iouddaismos’ – ‘a fenced off area in which Jewish lives are lived.’ 

This term ‘ioudaismos’ identifies that the followers of Yahusha had a very definition to covenant membership; they had broken through the boundary fence of the Judaism, which had been defined by a Book of the Law Pharisaic schoolmaster view of covenant membership complete with ritual circumcision.

15 But when it pleased YHWH, who chose me from my birth (Nazarite language), and called me by His unmerited favor, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might proclaim Him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and dahm. 17 Neither did I go to Yahrushalayim to them who were schlichim before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 

18 Then after three years (there’s your triennial Torah cycle) I went upto Yahrushalayim to see Keepha, and stayed with him fifteen days. 

This is of course the Acts 9:26 visit around 35 C.E.

19 But the other shclichim I did not see, other than Yaakov the Masters brother. 

Shaul’s purpose was to meet with the two primary figures in the Jerusalem assembly, figures who knew Yahusha personally and we know from our studies that Yaakov was devout in his observance of the Torah and that he understood the Book of the Covenant as the Royal kingly Torah for all believer’s to follow.

20. Now the things that I write to you, behold before YHWH I do not lie. 

(Num. 30:2 vow) we know from Yahusha’s teachings that oath taking had become a frivolous occurrence in the First Century and here Shaul properly reflects his Torah background and upbringing.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Aram and Cilikia. 22 And was not known personally by sight by any of the Israelite congregations in the province of Yahudah who where in Moshiach. 

This of course fits in with Luke’s testimony in Acts 9:30.

23 But they heard only, that he who had persecuted us in times past now proclaims the emunah that he once destroyed. 24 And they esteemed YHWH because of me.