- Christogenea Saturdays
TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 28
Here once again we continue our discussion of particular passages in Paul’s epistles where certain terms are mistranslated or misunderstood, and adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the New Testament. Due to the nature and purpose of Paul’s writings there are more of these than there are in all of the other New Testament Scriptures. And once again, while there are many more mistranslations in Paul than what we shall present here, we will only focus on those which concern nation, race and the scope and purpose of the Gospel.
45 continued) Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in the epistles of Paul
So we covered much of Galatians chapter 3 in our last presentation, and in verses 15 through 18 we found that it was not Jews and Jesus which Paul was contrasting. That view is contrary to all the other statements of Paul as well as the promises of the prophets and the Gospel of Christ. Rather, Paul was comparing the seed of Jacob as the heirs of the promise in contradistinction to the seed of Esau, Ishmael and Abraham’s other sons. This agrees with all of Paul’s other statements concerning the seed and the promises, especially in Romans chapters 4 and 9.
But the main point proving our assertion beyond all reasonable doubt is three-fold, in Paul’s own words at Galatians 3:17 and Romans 4:18 and 9:7. In the first passage, Paul said “the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” Then in the second passage he said that Abraham would “become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.” Finally, in Romans chapter 9 Paul defined the seed of the promise yet again and writing in reference to the promises to Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah in relation to Jacob and Esau he said “the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
So Paul explained over and again that the seed of the promise are the collective children of Israel, that the promises were assured to them in accordance with the promises which were spoken to Abraham, and that the nations to whom he brought the Gospel were the nations which came of those same promises. Therefore no other passages of Paul’s writings could possibly be translated in a manner which forces Paul’s statements to contradict one another, as that is patently dishonest so long as there is a way to understand them that accords with the literal meaning of his words, and where he does not contradict himself.
But now we must discuss the closing passages of Galatians chapter 3, and certain passages in chapter 4, because they are also perverted along with Galatians 3:1, whereby it may be imagined that Paul is departing from Christ and the prophets by somehow bringing the Gospel to people other than the “lost sheep” of the House of Israel.
So now we should read from Galatians 3:21-23 where Paul wrote: “21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.”
Now the context of this was stated earlier: the fact that the law did not nullify the much earlier promises to Abraham. So in my August, 2015 commentary on this passage of Galatians, I wrote the following, which I will edit slightly here:
Only the children of Israel were ever “guarded [kept] under the law”, and therefore only the children of Israel were “enclosed to the faith destined to be revealed”. No one from any other race or nation was ever “guarded [kept] under the law”, including those of Abraham's other sons, whom are also excluded from “the faith destined to be revealed”, which was the “promise by faith of Jesus Christ”, and not merely some vague belief in a poorly-defined Jesus. This Jesus Himself said “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They heard His voice, and they followed Him. For anyone else to believe in Jesus is vanity, because they shall not penetrate the enclosure created by the Word of God which Paul describes here as being “ kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.”
In other words, all of the children of Israel, whether they were of the captivity or of the remnant in Judaea, were shut up under the law until the coming of Christ. So in the very next verse, verse 24 Paul sates: “24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” Once again, we see that only those who were under the law are justified by faith in Christ, and only the children of Israel were ever under the law. Therefore, Paul is only referring to the people who were under the law where he states “26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
In that same commentary I wrote the following for verses 25 and 26:
But the faith in Christ Yahshua is that He would reconcile the children of Israel to Yahweh, as we have read from both Daniel and Isaiah [passages from Daniel chapter 9 and Isaiah chapters 46 and 53 which had been cited earlier]. There is no faith in Christ outside of this faith in Christ: that in Christ the children of Israel are reconciled to God. That is because there are no Old Testament promises for anyone of any other race. The faith having come, the children of Israel would no longer be condemned by the law, as Paul explains in Romans chapter 7: “1, Are you ignorant, brethren (I speak to those who know the law,) that the law lords over the man for as long a time as he should live? 2 For a woman married to a living husband is bound by law; but if the husband should die, she is discharged from the law of the husband: 3 so then as the husband is living, she would be labeled an adulteress if she were found with another man; but if the husband should die, she is free from the law, she is not an adulteress being found with another man. 4 Consequently, my brethren, you also are put to death in the law through the body of Christ; for you to be found with another, who from the dead was raised in order that we should bear fruit for Yahweh. 5 Indeed when we were in the flesh, the occurrences of fault, which were through the law, operated in our members for the bearing of fruit for death; 6 but now we are discharged from the law, being put to death in that which we were held, so that we are bound in newness of Spirit, and not oldness of letter.” The Romans were of the children of the lost tribes of Israel as well as the Galatians.
Furthermore, no other race or nation could have been “concluded … under sin” as Paul described here, since as Paul said in Romans chapter 5, sin is not imputed where there is no law, and only the children of Israel ever had the law, as we read in the 147th Psalm: “19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.” So Paul refers to the same Israelites, to those who were once under the law, where he next states: “27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
But now there is another purposely misunderstood passage, in verse 28 where he said: “28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” This is usually corrupted by the denominational churches to mean that anyone can be a Christian, and not just Jews. But the truth is that most Jews could not be Christians, as they were Edomites and not Israelites, the reason for Paul’s discourse comparing Jacob and Esau in Romans chapters 9 through 11 and his statements here in Galatians 3:15-16.
The word Jew in this verse should have been Judaean. But Paul was addressing the Galatians, Galatae who were Hellenized but who were not necessarily Greeks by race, as Greek was not even a race. The word Ἕλλην was only a cultural designation, and it commonly described people of several different tribes or races, such as Danaans or Ionians or Dorians. But by Paul’s time there were other Hellenized tribes, so that even they could be considered Greeks. We see an example in the woman whom Christ encountered as she is described in Matthew chapter 15 and Mark chapter 7. While Matthew called her by a Hebrew term, Canaanite, a term which Greek and Roman writers did not use, Mark called her a Syro-Phoenician and a Greek. There it is evident that Matthew described her by race, while Mark used geographical and cultural terms.
What Paul really means to describe in Galatians 3:28 is that the scattered Israelites of the captivity, those who were once under the law, were found among the Greeks just as there were Israelites in Judaea, and whether bond or free, male or female, since they were all Israelites they were all equal in the eyes of God. But what Paul did not mean is to admit other races, who were never under the law and who had no part in the promises.
Galatians chapter 3 ends with another verse, Galatians 3:29, that is often twisted to mean the precise opposite of what it actually means, where it reads in the King James Version: “29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” But to be a heir according to the promise, one must be an heir according to the promise made to Abraham, “so shall thy seed be”, and Abraham was never told that people of other nations or races would ever become his seed. If that were so, then the promises would only be lies.
Here there is also a conjunction, and, which is none of the oldest manuscripts. It is not even included in the apparatus or appendix of alternate Greek readings of the manuscripts which are included with the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, in either the 28th or 29th editions. Therefore, for other reasons which we shall also explain, we must translate verse 29 to read:
29 But if you are Christ’s, then of the offspring of Abraham you are heirs according to promise.
Without adding any words or punctuation and without changing any of the original word order, this verse may be difficult to comprehend in English, but it is literally translated: “But if you of Christ then of Abraham offspring you are heirs according to promise.” Both times the word for you is plural, so Paul was addressing a particular group and not any random future individuals who may read his epistle.
However more importantly, the Greek grammar reveals that this is what is known as a conditional sentence. The word for “then” is the Greek word ἄρα (Strong's # 686). According to Liddell & Scott ἄρα was generally used to describe a thing which is next in order after another, or something which explains what has preceded. Both of these uses are manifest where ἄρα also appears in different types of conditional sentences.
The Greek word ἄρα often serves to introduce the apodosis in a conditional sentence, which is the then... part, a clause which answers to the protasis, which is the if... part, where the word ἄρα can have an inferential force. For example, “If it is raining, then I cannot go fishing.” But there are several types of conditional sentences. They can either express factual implications, or they can express hypothetical situations and their consequences. (Refer to the Wikipedia article on Conditional Sentences for examples.) In order to determine the type of conditional sentence to which such a statement belongs, the grammar of each of the clauses in the sentence must be examined.
We see conditional sentences using the same Greek words for if and then in Matthew 12:28 and in Paul’s writing in Hebrews 12:8. In both instances, if the protasis, which is the clause following the if is true, then the apodosis, which is the clause following the then must also be true. These are conditional sentences which express factual implications.
In Matthew 12:28 we read: “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” So if the kingdom of God in the person of Christ and His disciples was not manifest, then Christ was not casting out devils by the Spirit of God. In other words, if one clause is true, then the other clause must also be true. Christ did not say to the Pharisees in Matthew that the kingdom of God may come unto you or will come to you, He said it is come to you. So by the grammar of each clause, we see that both clauses in His statement must be true. This is a conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication, or as Liddell & Scott have it in their definition, “something which explains what has preceded”.
In Hebrews 12:8 we read: “But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” If one is a bastard, then one is not a partaker in the chastisement of the children of God, as the Word of God says to the children of Israel that “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Again, if one clause is true, then the other clause must be true.
So this is also a conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication. The then part of Paul's statement is “something which explains what has preceded”, which is the if part of Paul's statement. Paul did not say in Hebrews that one may be a bastard, or could be a bastard, so by the grammar of each clause we once again see that both clauses must be true. This is because the verb in the apodosis is Indicative, which is a mood that is used to express a definite statement. The verb is not Subjunctive, which is a mood that expresses contingency or uncertain fulfillment, which is something that would be or could be. Nor is it optative, a mood which expresses a wish or desire, which is a contingent possibility.
Here in Galatians 3:29 where Paul wrote “if you are Christ’s, then of the offspring of Abraham you are heirs according to promise”, once again the verb in the clause in the “then...” side of the statement is Indicative, expressing a definite statement. So this is also a type of conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication. If you are Christ's, you are also Abraham's seed. Paul did not write that if you believe in Jesus you may be, or you could be, or you shall be Abraham's seed, in the manner in which the denominational churches claim. Both sides of the statement must be true. If you are Abraham's seed, according to what Paul had explained in Galatians 3:16, then you are of Christ.
The commentators of the denominational sects isolate this one verse, and then they claim that it is a conditional sentence which expresses a hypothetical situation and its consequences, but that is a lie. Rather, this is a conditional sentence which expresses a factual implication, just as we have seen in Matthew 12:28 and Hebrews 12:8, or else all of Paul's previous statements in this chapter are no longer true, and Paul is a liar. But Paul is not saying that someone can simply claim to be Christ's and imagine himself to be of Abraham's offspring. Rather, all through this chapter Paul's words prove that someone cannot claim to be Christ's and imagine himself to be of Abraham's offspring.
Paul had previously explained that those of Christ are those of the faith of Abraham, which are those in whom Abraham had believed: that the seed which would come from his loins would become many nations, as Paul also said, that the seed is according to the promise. Paul had also explained that those of Christ's are those who were guarded and tutored under the law, which can only refer to those same nations of Abraham's seed which came from his loins: which later became many nations in the dispersions of the children of Israel. But if you are not of the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise then you are not of Christ. Paul will reinforce all of this again in Galatians chapter 4 where he says that Christ came “to redeem them that were under the law”.
Paul confirms this once again in Hebrews chapter 6, an epistle which he had written several years after this one, and he said that “For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” The confirmation was of course in Christ. Paul confirms this again at Hebrews 11:9 where he spoke of Abraham, writing that: “By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise.” James, writing to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad”, also confirms that the heirs of the promise of God are a plural entity in the second chapter of his epistle: “5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?” Peter confirms this as well, in 1 Peter chapter 3: “7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” All of these verses serve to prove that the apostles saw the collective of the children of Israel as the heirs of the promises to Abraham, and not just Christ alone.
Paul confirms this further at Romans 8:17, that the heirs of the promises to Abraham are not one individual Jesus Christ, but a collective plural Anointed people which are the children of Israel. There Paul wrote: “17 And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”, where in that he explains that one must be a child of God first, and then one is an heir with Christ, who has a two-fold nature as God and man. Our assertions are upheld throughout the entire Scripture, and not with only one verse.
This brings us to Galatians chapter 4 which also further reinforces our assertions. Paul likens the children of Israel to a worldly servant and says “1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.” This has nothing to do with Christ, and everything to do with the fact that the children of Israel were kept under the law throughout their early history in this manner.
So he continues to describe how they were released from the bondage of the law, in a somewhat different way than he described in Romans chapter 7, but each description compounded makes for a fuller understanding of the same picture. So we read in the next three verses: “3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
As we discussed when we spoke of this word adoption where it appeared in Romans chapters 8 and 9, it is from the Greek word υἱοθεσία, which means the placing or position of a son. In Romans chapter 9, among other things Paul had said that the υἱοθεσία was for Israel, defning Israel as his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans chapter 9. Here Paul wrote that Christ came “to redeem them that were under the law”, so it is apparent that only those who were under the law are being considered for this position of sons, or adoption, and in Romans 9 he also wrote that both the law and the adoption are for Israel, a statement which is fully evident throughout the Old Testament as well.
But there is another problem with the translation in Galatians 4:5. Where the King James Version renders the clause “that we might receive the adoption of sons” the Christogenea New Testament has “that we would recover the position of sons”. The verb ἀπολαμβάνω, is to recover in the Christogenea New Testament but is merely to receive in the King James Version. If it were the intention of the writer to say receive then λαμβάνω without the prefix would have been sufficient.
For ἀπολαμβάνω Liddell & Scott have “to take or receive from another, to receive what is one’s due... II. to take back, get back, regain, recover...” λαμβάνω is simply to receive. The King James Version more properly renders ἀπολαμβάνω “receive...again” at Luke 6:34, which is to take back or recover. In that passage, where the King James Version has “for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again” it may have been translated “for sinners also lend to sinners, to recover as much.”
Paul uses the word in the sense “to receive what is one’s due” at Romans 1:27 and Colossians 3:24. In both cases the word describes the receiving of something in exchange for something else, either sin or a promise. In our translation it is “recovered” in Luke 15:27, where the King James Version also has received but the context is the recovery of a son. Coupled with the mistranslation of υἱοθεσία as adoption, rather than as the position of a son and then translating this word as receive rather than recover, one may accuse Paul of creating a new religion, but that is not what Paul is doing throughout all of his other statements. So how can we force these words so that this verse appears to be contrary to Paul’s other statements?
Knowing that the ancient Israelites were the children of Yahweh, and that Yahweh said to them in Amos chapter 3 that “2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities”, and then Yahweh said to them in Hosea chapter 1 that “in the place where it was said unto them [meaning Israel], Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them [meaning Israel], Ye are the sons of the living God”, we must understand that the Galatians had this opportunity to recover the position of sons by that very means: that they were descended from the ancient Israelites and were being redeemed and welcomed back into fellowship and into their position as the sons of God through Christ. These statements, made to Galatians, would be utter nonsense unless Paul knew that he was speaking to “lost” Israelites, those of the Assyrian deportations and earlier migrations. Paul did know that, and his epistles prove it in many ways.
There is one more passage in Galatians to discuss in this chapter, Galatians 4:9 where Paul was once again admonishing them not to put themselves under the Judaizers by returning to the rituals of the law, and the King James Version reads: “9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?”
Now most of that translation is good, but the King James Version ignored a word in its final clause. So I will read it along with verse 8 from my own translation, and provide context with some notes: “8 But while at that time not knowing Yahweh [or God, in their state of having been put off in divorce], you had been enslaved to those who are not gods by nature [as the children of Israel had become pagans]; 9 and now knowing Yahweh [or God, through Christ], and still more being known by Yahweh [or God, as God knew Israel in the Old Testament], how do you again turn back [because their ancestors were under the law] to the weaknesses and poor elements of knowledge to which from above you again [reiterating, only Israelites can be subject to the rituals of the law again, by turning back] desire to be enslaved?
There in the last clause of Galatians 4:9, the word ἄνωθεν, which is “from above”, was totally ignored by the translators of the King James Version. The Christogenea New Testament has the final clause of this verse: “...to which from above you again desire to be enslaved?” It may have been rendered more fully: “...to which you who are from above again desire to be enslaved?”, the verb εἰμί often only being implied in Greek. As Christ had said to Nicodemus in John chapter 3 that “Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God”, Paul informs the Galatians here that they too, being children of God and reconciled into the position of sons, are from above, and therefore they should not subject themselves to worldly rituals. One lesson of the Old Testament was that Israel could not save themselves through the works of their own hands, and that therefore only God could save them. That was also what Paul had tried to explain here in Galatians.