1.1a Shaliakh; x+ylwa.*
1.1b Pronounced: [Yay-shoo-ah].*
1.1c or "Mashiakh" = x+ywIma
1.2a or "congregations."*
1.3a pronounced, "Elohim" [eh lo heem].*
1.3b "Yahweh" is the divine name.  The accent is on the second syllable, and the "e" is pronounced "eh" or "ay," as most people say it.  The "waw" is vocalized as a vowel, hence [Yahooway, EE AH OO AY].  In the dead sea scrolls it is written in paleo-Hebrew: hwhy = hV9hy2.*
1.5a "Age" is the proper meaning of the Greek word "aion."*
1.13a*  1.14a*    1.15a. He is speaking of his circumcision.*
1.16a see BAG, pg. 258.  Paul was Yahweh's chosen instrument to the nations.
1.19a "Lord" is rendered generically, viz. Adonai here.
1.23a properly "the faithfulness.".  A circumlocution would be "the religion of faithfulness."
2.3a Notice the transition between verse three and four.  Paul is not saying that Titus was not urged to be circumcised.  He probably was encouraged to take that step.  Paul is only concerned to show that such encouragement was not through the teaching of the false brothers.*
2.5a The Greek text reads thus, implying that Titus took the step of obedience, but Paul's wording shows that he did not agree with the theology of those who made circumcision more than a sign of the faith.*
2.6a  Paul is arguing that the foundation of the faith does not lie in human authority, but divine.  If he, the other sheliakhim, or anyone else preaches another good news, then he pleads with us to ignore them!  Paul was grateful for confirmation from the sheliakhim, but he did not depend on it.
2.11a*
2.12a It is not certain if those who went out from James (Ya'akov) went with his blessing.  In the light of Ya'akov's attitude in Acts 15, it is probable that he did not agree with the traditions of separation.
2.13a According to the oral law Jews were not supposed to set foot in a Gentile dwelling because of the fear of ritual defilement, and hence a Jew who observed the oral law could not eat with a Gentile in the Gentile house even if the Gentile served him Kosher food.*
2.14a  Keefa was the cheif emissary supporting the oral traditions on ritual separation for the sake of the purity laws.  And so Paul addresses him directly.  The purity laws were kept by most of the Jewish populace in Judea, but eslewhere in the dispersion the oral traditions were widely disregarded.*
2.16a literally, "out of."
2.16b*
3.2a ek = ]mI, "b. as marking the period immediately succeeding the limit, after (BDB, pg. 581).*
3.6a The act of faithfulness was a good deed counted as righteous in God's accounts.  The Divine name stands in the Hebrew text in this quotation from Gen. 15:6.*

3.11a.  Hab. 2:4.  The LXX reads, "by my faithfulness," while the Hebrew text allows for both God's and man's faithfulness.  Paul explains God's faithfulness in vs. 13.
3.16a, "unless," n.b. all = XlX = ei mh = Xl)=,XI.  The promises were spoken to the plurality of Avraham's offspring as well as to the Messiah.
3.18a  "out of the Law" is equivalent to, "cast out of the Torah," meaning that the promise has not been thrown out of God's instruction.
3.19a cf. Rom. 3:25.  God's "passed over" the previous transgressions, hence "grace" was added before atonement was made.
3.19b Moshe.
3.19c.  Clearly, Yahweh alone saves.  The messenger of Yahweh, who is Yahweh our Redeemer is the only mediator.  Moshe's mediation was heard because of God's plan in Yeshua.
4.5a  The curse: Deut. 27:26.
4.10a.  Note "aside ye observe," which in Greek is para threisqe. I have divided the text differently to emphasize the fact that these days were from an ecclectic calendar.*
4.14a.  Paul had just been stoned.

4.21a, or "custom," perhaps refering to the particular doctrine of circumcision the heretics taught, that one had to keep the whole law perfectly first, and then one could have confidence of salvation.  The doctrine of Roman baptism should be compared with this for a complete understanding of the subject.  Paul distinguishes between "custom," and "The Law" here by ommiting the article "the" in the former case, and by including it in the latter.
4.26a  Paul states true facts, about both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.  If the Law is misused as a works for payment of sin legalism, then it indeed is slavery to those who use it thus.  Thankfully, man can be forgiven and the Covenant Renewed through the work of Messiah.
5.2 "ye" is the key, because Paul circumcised others after right instruction, viz. Timothy & Titus.  Here, he cannot counsel them to be circumcised until they repent of their heretical doctrines of salvation.  In fact, he must discourage it.  If we were to listen to a Roman pre-baptismal novitiate explain how he would receive grace through baptism, we likewise, would have to strongly discourage the act of baptism.  For it would be worse than meaningless under such circumstances.
5.3a Paul is assuming the teaching of the heretics here, in which confidence of salvation comes only through doing the whole law perfectly.  Of course, the Law holds forth atonement as the means of being made right with God, not a works for payment method of salvation, nor a perfection for acceptance method of salvation.
5.12a  or today Paul would say, "I wish they would drown themselves."
6.12a  It is not wrong to urge someone to be circumcised after proper instruction as to its status as a sign and commandment.  Paul is merely saying that the heretics are telling people to be circumcised out of bad motives, as well as heretical theology on the matter.  Likewise, we could say that Roman priests urge baptism, lest they be thrown out for saying that Messiah did it all, and that grace through baptism is unneccesary!
6.15a  "strengthens," i.e. gives grace.
 
 
 
 

History

Starting with the gentile heretic Marcion in the second century (ca. 144 c.e.) the book of Galatians was systematically mistranslated and misinterpreted with an anti Jewish and anti Judaism bias to suit the purposes of the Church of Rome and her affiliates.
The Christian versions of the book of Galatians have now by the twentieth century become the pillar and cornerstone of their antilaw and anti Torah theology, and have now for many centuries been the flagships of their attack on the religion of Moses and the Prophets.

Proof

Greek Text: General
Comments

The left hand column began with the Greek Textus Receptus, and it has been corrected in the direction of the Neslte-Aland Text in a few cases.  In one case a minor reading was adopted where the majority reading had an anti-Judaism implication.
The nomina sacra of the early Papyri have been restored to the text as much as possible,  where the papyri have a line over the top of the sacred names.  The phenomenon of the nomina sacra is universal in the earliest pre 4th century texts (Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, Philip W. Comfort, pg. 10).  It's purpose was to foster the substitution of the Hebrew pronunciation of the sacred names when reading. Christian scholars are in the dark as to their purpose (The Text of The New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, pg. 76), which is easily explained as a side effect of Christian antiJudaism.
The seven sacred names are: Yahweh, Yeshua, Anointed One, Son, Elohim, Spirit, Father (hvhy ivwy xywm ]b ,yhlX xvr XbX).  Yahweh and Yeshua are proper names and so are preserved as to pronunciation.  Elohim is a plural, and so the translation "God" would be improper, and "Gods" grates the theological ear, which no doubt explains the need for this nomina sacra.  Son is a technical title meaning Elohim's special one and only begotten Son, who partakes of his essence and nature.  Spirit refers to the Spirit of Elohim, or the Spirit of Yahweh.  The number of nomina sacra is seven, the number of perfection.
The nomina sacra !k@s does double duty.  It stands for Adonai and Yahweh, depending upon the context.  Adonai is a generic word meaning Lord, owner, or master, while Yahweh is the proper name of God himself.
The translation of !k@s follows a simple rule: if modified by a possesive pronoun (my, his, our, their, your, her, its) then it is generic, otherwise it is proper.
In the case of God's proper name, I have followed ancient tradition, witnessed in the second oldest known scrap of the Septuagint (Papyrus Fouad 266, pg. 178, The Text of The Old Testament, Ernst Wurthwein), and have copied the letters of the tetragrammaton directly into the English text, i.e. hvhy.  Some readers may still prefer to say Adonai when reading God's name.

The English Text
General Comments

The English text started with Young's Literal Translation, and then corrections were made from there.
Proper names are rendered as close to the way their bearers would have pronounced them as practically possible.  For Hebrew names, Hebrew pronunciation, and for Greek, Greek.  By the way "Paul" is a Greek name, not Hebrew.
Place names are mostly Hebrew, but there are some Greek ones.  In some cases ethnic and religious designations are retained in modern format, i.e. "Judaism" where a hybrid like "Yehudaism" would not do.

Endnotes

1.1a  Most readers of the Bible have preconceived ideas of what words mean, that have little or nothing to do with what the orignial language meant.  For example, the word "apostle," is a Greek word transliterated into English.  I did not say it was translated into English.  It was transliterated.  Transliteration means that the sounds and letters of the Greek word were aprox-imated in English.  The actual meaning of the word was thereby ignored.  The Greek word apo-stolo$ means "one sent," "emissary."
Judaism had an office called the "shaliakh," (meaning "sent" in Hebrew) in the second temple times that approximated the idea of "missionary," or "emissary."  The sha-liakhim derive their functions and offices from this Jewish missionary tradition.  We consider it improper to call them "apostles," because this word was been corrupted by the Church, which failed to either translate it or explain it meaning in the Jewish context.  (see BAG [3]).
"A man's representative (shaliach) is to be considered as the man himself" (see Ladd [59]).  "This idea of an authoritative representative derives from the Jewish institution of sheluchim or authorized messengers representing a person or a group of persons." (see Ladd [59]).
Shaliakh = x+ylIwa = sent away one, from apo (away) stolo$ (send).  This is a technical word for a Jewish emissary representing Judaism. See  BAG [1]: "Judaism had an office known as apostle (x+ylIwa)".  Plural: shaliakhim = sent ones.
Paul was a shaliakh (sent one) of Messianic Judaism, not of Christianity as the Church later used the Greek word in transliteration with its own redefinition.
1.1b It means Yahweh Saves.  The Greek text contains the nomina sacra device in all the early Papyri Manuscripts.  The device consisted of the first and last letters of the nearest Greek equivalent of Yeshua's name with a short line drawn just above the letters.   The purpse of the nomina sacra device was to encourage the reader to say the divine names and titles properly in Hebrew.
This also shows that the Shaliakhim did not intend for our Lord's name to be rendered in a multitude of languages, undergoing change, and perhaps unwaranted association with idol-atry in the process.  The English speaking Christian world calls Yeshua, "Jesus", while at the same time calling the Prime Minister of Israel by his proper Hebrew name: Binyamin Netanyahu.  In all the places I go, people make an effort to say my name the way I do.  For this reason, and biblical reasons, and because of the nomina sacra we should say Yeshua, and not Jesus.
The nomina sacra device is also used for Yahweh, Anointed, Father, Spirit, Son, and Elohim.  With Yeshua, this makes seven divine names or titles marked as sacred names.  The early manuscripts did not suddenly evolve the sacred names by accident.  The congregation at Jerusalem must have directed the scribes to use them when copying the texts.
"Colin H. Roberts has argued in Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt ... that all of the early MSS complied by Christian scribes reveal an affinity in the use of nomina sacra ....  Roberts believes that as early as A.D. 70 Christians invented a special way of writing out nomina sacra ... This practice could have been developed first in Jerusalem" (pg. 10, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, Philip W. Comfort, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House).
Even before usage in the writings of the Sheliakhim, the sacred name was written in Jewish translations of the Greek Bible, in Hebrew.  Aquila's version contained the sacred name, and so does the [second] earliest fragment of the LXX that we posses.
The Christian world succeeded in supressing the sacred names by the fourth century as they fell into Ba'alism.  Therefore, the devices are not found in any manuscript later than the fourth century, though scholars such as Jerome testify that they were found before the fourth Century.  The Christian scholarly world will admit that the sacred name abreviations were used, and that the divine name was copied into some LXX versions, but they either will say they don't know why it was done, or they will try to put their own spin on the evidence.  These facts alone, are enough to show that the MSS were altered by the fourth century.
See the the exhibit on this page to see how the early MSS would have looked.
The seven divine names or titles are the letters with the bar over the top.  All the letters were run together in captitals.  There was no punctuation or word division.  By the fourth century, scribes, out of ignorance, or anti-Jewish motives, had dropped all of the sacred name devices.
Elohim = ,yhIl)XE = !q@w,!q@s,!q@u,!q@n, nomina sacra.  It must be emphasized that the words qeo$, qeou, Qeon, qew do not occur in the early papyri, but only the coded abbreviation for it, which no non Messianic Greek would understand without explanation.
Yeshua = i+Vwy" i+Vwv%hy0 = !i@s, !i@n, !i@u nomina sacra.  It must be emphasized that the words Ihsou$, Ihsou, Ihsoun do not occur in the early papyri, but only the coded abbreviation for it, which no non Messianic Greek would understand without explanation.
The Church dropped the Messianic abbreviations for the obvious reasons.  The Messiah's name then became: Ihsou$ Ee'ee'soos in pronunciation, or Ee, ay, soos in the pronunciation of modern scholars.  In Latin it became Iesus, and in German Jesu, pronunced Yesu, which in English hardened into Gee'sus.
It is still more amazing that modern Jews such as Yitzkhaq Shamir are accorded the respect of a proper pronunciation, while biblical Jews such as Isaac get their real names mangled when the English language is perfectly capable of prouncing it correctly.
Anointed = x+ywImaa = !k@w, !k@u, !k@n, !k@s, nomina sacra.  It must be emphasized that the words cristo$, cristou, criston, cristw do not occur in the early papyri, but only the coded abbreviation for it, which no non Messianic Greek would understand without explanation.
1.2a  The word "assemblies" is the proper translation of the Greek.  We could have equally put "congregation."  The Christian translation "Church" is without any foundation at all.  Those just becoming acquainted with the truth should regard the Christian world's refusal to fix such a trivial error as hard evidence that they are in the wrong, and also as good evidence that it is only the tip of the iceberg of their error.  If they would fix but one error, then they might discover the next, but because they do not fix the obvious, God does not convict them of the obscure.
Young's Literal Translation correctly renders many words such as assemblies here.  It could also be congregations.  Paul avoided the word "synagogue" (which means 'gathering place') because his converts did not all meet in buildings or at the same place all the time.  The word 'Church,' contained in the translations, is acknowledged as incorrect by honest scholars everywhere, but few are willing to actually make the correction, which just shows that even when they know something is incorrect, they are unwilling to fix it.  In that case, how much more unlikely are to they admit those things of which they are ignorant and which they can only learn from the study of Messianic Judaism?
1.3a Elohim is the nomina sacra title often rendered G-d by Jews.  The G-d spelling (with the hyphen) indicates that the Hebrew "Elohim" is meant.  It is also a way of not recognizing "God" in English as a proper title for the Almighty.  Elohim is a plural/collective word in Hebrew, and can mean "gods," "Godhead," or "God."  The One Elohim, therfore, can have different aspects, and can manifest differing personalities, but in essential nature, Elohim is one spiritual essence.
The majority Jewish view of Elohim does not allow Elohim to have different persons, or parts that make up the One Elohim.  This restriction is based upon philosopy and tradition.  It is not based upon Torah, and in fact, it is contradicted by Torah.  This criticism does not mean that the Christian doctrine of "Trinity" is valid.  The scripture tells us who Elohim is, but it does not tell us that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all that is to be known about Elohim.  In fact, the idea of eternally three persons in the Trinity is forced into question by the Zecharaih and Revelation texts which tell us that there are "seven Spirits of Elohim," and  "seven eyes."
1.3b  It is well to quote from Baumgartner on the pronunciation of the divine name and common names formed with the divine name.  Where Baumgartner has a short vowel v I have V which makes the pronunciation of the "waw" clear.  Baumgartner agrees with this and shows it by citing the examples: iaouai = iabe,  and (Dauid = Dabid).  The divine name when used as a suffix also shows that the "waw" is vocalized as a vowel.  Finally, Josephus calls all four letters of the divine name "vowels."
hvhy: name of Israels God: Yahweh (better: Yahwaeh) ... *hv9h:y2 to be the correct a. original pronunciation is demonstrated by a) the correspondence of hy9h:Xe Ex 3,14, b) the transcription iaouai Clemens Al., Stromata V, 6,34; c) iabe (cf. Dabid alternating in MSS with Dauid) Theodoret in Field, Origenis, Hexaplorum ad Ex 6,3 (Driver ZAW 46,7-25; especially Thierry OTS 5,30-42, Alfrink ibid. 43-62); mo. hvhy Mesha 18. *hv9h:y2 at the end of a word is shortened into *v0h:y2 ... a. this, v being a semivocalic consonant, is stressed as Vhy8= ... At the beginning of a word Vhy8= , looses its stress becoming Vhy0=, which, by dissimilation of the vowel, > Ohy8= (Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden: E.J. Brill).
On pg. 221 we learn that h is often dropped between two vowels, and this fact when combined with dissimulation of the vowels is sufficient to explain Yayshua and Yehoshua as the names of our Lord.  Some have suggested that the Massoretic scribes intentionally pointed the vowels of i+VwOhy0 (Yehoshua) wrongly to suppress the divine name component.  I have yet been unable to locate any tradition which says that they did so, or any refutation of Koehler/Baum-gartner's citations.  Furthermore, the same scribes saw fit to leave hy8 and Vhy8= forms unchanged in many names, such as VhY8lIX".  See GK §27w on this.
It is a commandment to remember the divine name.  It cannot, therefore be suppressed where is would normally occur.  The Sheliakhim used to the nomina sacra device to alert the reader to pro-nouce the sacred name.  Usually the divine name is pronounced, but if a possesive pronoun is used before the nomina sacra then "Adonai" (viz. Lord) is permitted.  Sometimes you will see only the consonants YHWH or YHVH.  The rendering "V" in YHVH is a mistake.  The modern "vav" is pronounced "v," but the ancient "waw" was pronounced "w."  This mistake is due to the fact that many do not recognize that "v" and "u" are the same in Latin, and that "b" and "v" are the same letter in Hebrew.  Hence: Latin YHVH
YHWH encourages too many readers to substitute "Adonai," so we vocalized it "Yahweh," to encourage compliance with the commandment.
Christians usually render the divine name "Jehovah," while in the fine print acknowledging that it is correctly "Yahweh."  Even those who know it is "Yahweh," still write "Jehovah" in their books.  This willful disrespect has not gone unnoticed.
The Tetragram-maton is explained in the general comments.  It must be pointed out that some MSS here have "our " before the nomina sacra which would point to Adonai, i.e. "Lord" rather than Yahweh, however in chapter 6, verse 17, there is no ambiguity; Yahweh is clearly the name of Yeshua.
1.5a  It could also be translated "eon."  The word does not contain the philosophical notion of "eternity," or "forever."  It's adjective form is "aeonian," or "age-abiding."  Paul's statement does imply forever, as the subject is the Lord.  It is important, however, to render literally, since doctrines like eternal torment are supported by corrupting the translation of "aion," and its forms.
ages of the ages is correctly rendered by Young.  Amain is a transliteration of the Hebrew, which means "Affirm," "So be it," or "Truly."
1.6 good news; better than "gospel" which comes from "good spell" which used to mean 'good discourse' but also can mean 'good incantation' (The American College Dictionary).
1.9-10.  §1. The 'other good news' here that Paul refers to is the doctrine of penance, i.e. the idea that the penalty of sin can be paid for by good works or unauthorized atonements done after the wicked deed is repented of.  This doctrine is also called salvation by works.  The ultimate form of penance is perfectionism, i.e. after living a life of sin, the repentant one hopes to gain eternal life by living the rest of his life perfectly.  In the case before us here, this perfection took the form of perfect ritual purity at all times.
  The problem with these doctrines is not the good works.  For we are created by Yeshua HaMashiakh for good works.  The problem is with the motivations, i.e. for payment of sin, to appease the wrath of God.  Many Jews hold to the doctrine of penance, thinking that by good works they will appease the wrath of God.  Some Jews think that prayers take the place of animal sacrifices, and some even think that circumcision is an atonement.  They call it the 'blood of the covenant,' and require already circumcised converts to be pricked so that they will shed the necessary blood, although not all who require this of the converts hold to the doctrine that goes with it.  In the Judaism of the first century, those most likely to hold to Paul's 'other good news' were the Essenes (see §2), and many, but not all, of the P'rushim (Pharisees), and most of the anti-collaborationist Sadducees (There were at least two sects of Sadducees).
The Roman Catholic Church holds firmly to the doctrine of penance, and the doctrine of unauthorized atonements, viz. the seven sacraments by which they hope to obtain grace that will appease the wrath of God.  Baptism, for instance, is said to be the instrument which removes the guilt of 'original sin.'  (This may be compared with the blood doctrine of circumcision held to by some Jews.)  Throughout the ages, Rome has condemned the Jews for keeping the Law, while they themselves keep another law in the spirit of 'another good news' condmened by Paul.
Evangelical Christians, and many other Protestants, who do not fall into the error of penance, and unauthorized atonements, nevertheless, continue to condemn Messianic Jews and Sabbath keeping Christians because they (1) either misunderstand Messianic Jews because they are still attached to their Roman Catholic heritage, or (2) are truly lawless at heart and are not truly converted through repentance; they do not realize that Paul also wrote, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life:" (Rom. 2:6-7), and "For not the hearers of the law are right before Elohim, but the doers of the law shall be made right" (Rom. 2:13).  Notice that Paul did not teach that "patient continuance in well doing" is a penance or atonement, but he does teach it is necessary.  Not living a life of repentance, they seek to assuage their guilt by condemning those who do what they ought to be doing.
The doctrine of the 'other good news' rests upon two fundamental errors, (1) Man can ultimately pay for his own sin, (2) Atonements other than that which God authorized are efficacious.
§2.  I have used the term "Essenes" in a loose sense, because that is how the Dead Sea Scroll editors and archeaologists originally identified the authors of the scrolls.  If the writers of the scrolls were Essene they certainly were not the Essenes described in Josephus.  The important thing, regardless of the exact name of the sect, about the scrolls is to identify the teachings therein, and realize that the teachings held a major place in first century Judaism.  The scrolls reflect an extreme concern for traditional "ritual purity," which is supposed to make the observant right with God and overcome the curses in the Law, and the widespread use of a solar calendar.
1.13a  Here, Paul may indeed be using the term "Judaism" in a disparaging sense.  It is the only time it is used in the Writings of the Sheliakhim.  However, he is not disparaging Judaism.  For a Protestant can use the word "catholic" or "church" in a disparaging sense when refering to Rome, and in a positive sense when using it of himself.
"Judaism" is the religion of the Jews.  Since, the Jews are a nation, and Yahweh preserves a remnant of those who are faithful, it is impossible to reject the term "Judaism."  Naturally, the Adversary likes to claim the outward form of the truth, including the semantic labels used by the truth for himself.  In Paul's time, the faithful identified with Judaism, so we should note that he is not here rejecting the religion (properly understood) or the term.  He is only criticising his own behaviour as one of those Jews who let the Adversary corrupt his thinking.
There, indeed, is only one true Judaism, however, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essene, Alexandrian, Qumran, and Nazarene Jews all considered themselves practictioners of Judaism in the second Temple period.  Judaism is a useful term insofar as it indicates that one is a practioner of Torah.  It is, and practically always has been useless for defining the more philosophical beliefs of Jews, which differ widely.
One will begin to understand the situation when examining the tug of war between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jews over the matter.  Messianic Jews have every right (and are right) to assert they they are the true heirs of Moses.  Orthodox Jews often criticize Messianic Jews for saying they are Messinic, as if the Orthodox were not Messianic.  Do the Orthodox believe in THE MESSIAH?  No they don't!  Therefore, they are not Messianic.  And I should point out that they claim to be "Orthodox," which they are not, since they deny the Messiah!  One should not be surprised when we Messianic Jews say that we are the Orthodox Jews, and definers of Judaism.
1.14a It should not be thought here that Paul is defining Judaism as excessively traditional, though that is what many Jews do to their version of it.  Paul statement seeks to describe his behaviour, not what he thought Judaism was, lest his readers react to it.  No doubt readers will react to this commentary when they see that Judaism is a legitimate label for the true religion.  In Paul's day, a Greek seeking the truth did not stumble over nineteen centuries of mistranslation and Christian hatred toward Judaism.
Not only do other non Messianic sects of Judaism define it incompletely or incorrectly on the issue of the Messiah, but the Christian world views it incorrectly.  They would have to abandon their theological bias and replacement theology.  It makes one wonder what the Ba'al worshipers in Israel thought the faithful remnant was.  The Scripture presents the issue from the perspective of the truth, but you can bet your last gold piece that the Ba'al worshippers usurped the vocabulary of the truth and used cultic labels to disenfranchise the faithful remnant.
1.15a    This text is misunderstood as a teaching on Paul's apostolic predestination by the Christian World.  In a Jewish context, a statement like this would imply circumcision, not a special predestination.  Paul's rank as a shaliakh (emissary) is less than that of the twelve, because he did not speak face to face with Yeshua, but only saw a vision.  His rank is also less than Moses, because Moses spoke face to face with Yahweh.
In Philippians Paul explicitly points to his circumcision, but here he only implicitly notes it, and explicitly focuses on its spiritual value: separation for the work of Elohim and the righteousness of the faith.  Paul, is thus claiming to his readership that he is now fulfilling the true purpose of his upbringing in Judaism.  The reason for this round about way, is because Paul's opponents (who were confusing the Galatians) had perverted the meaning of circumcision.
As shocking as it may sound to the Christian ear, it is even possble that Paul was walking in the truth in his early years as a saved Jew, until he was deceived by the traditionalist school in his later years.  Such might be implied in Romans 7.  In fact, those Jews who were walking in the truth prior to Yeshua's advent do not "convert" to another religion.  They simply recognize what the prophets predicted.  It is the backsliders (such as Paul) who had to repent.
If Paul had wanted to say that he was predestined to be an apostle he would have used less ambiguous words.  For his  enemies were predestinarians!  Paul would say that every Jewish male is set apart for the work of Yahweh on the eighth day.  It is a matter of free will whether the child fulfills the calling or not.  To the Christian this is a "child dedication" or "baptism."  When interpreting the scripture, the proper principle is that a matter is not predestined unless the scripture specifically says it was.
On the other hand, for the Qumran sect everything was predestined, including sin.  Therefore, they make the Almighty responsible for sin!
2.3a  For the different Jewish sects taught different meanings for circumcision.  Paul was not opposed to circumcision, because he required circumcision of his coworkers (see Acts 16:1-4).  Paul calls circumcision "a sign of the righting of faithfulness" (Romans 4:11).  Paul's adversaries wanted circumcision to be the instrument of righting, not just a sign of righting.
This situation can be understood by examining the Christian divisions over the meaning of baptism and the last supper.  For Evangelicals these are only signs of grace.  For Catholics, these are instruments (the cause of) of grace.  The theological issue is the same, though the outward application is different.
The false brothers are the same as those who taught 'another good news' mentioned in chapter 1, for which the notes on verses 9-10 need to be read.  They were specifically those Jews who taught a penance or atonement doctrine of circumcision, and since 'circumcision' was so central to their doctrine of salvation, they would force converts to be circumcised quickly under their teaching (See Acts 15:1).  This should be compared to those Catholics who quickly baptize their converts for the same reasons.
The word hnag-kasqh, "to compel," "to force" shows that the false brothers considered immediate circumcision of converts necessary to salvation.  In verse 4, dia de tou$ parei-sak-tou$ yeuda-del-fou$, "through, that is, the secret false-brothers," Paul shows that it is forced circumcision under the teaching of the heretical party that he is concerned about.
2.5a  Later, heretical scribes, added the word "not" to the text, so that they could argue that Titus was not circumcised.  So Paul submits to the commandment, but not to the heretical theology.  It is just as a baptist submits to the acts of immersion, but not to Rome's theology of baptism.  Spiros Zodiates notes the Greek here indicates that Titus was circumcised in his Keyword Study Bible.
 The evidence is that Titus was, in fact, circumcised at this time, since some texts read, oi$ pro$ wran eizamen th upotagh, "to whom toward an hour we-gave-place in subjection," [D* b; Irlat Tert, Greek and Latin Mss according to Victorinus-Rome, Pelagius, Latin mss according to Jerome, Primasius, Latin mss according to Cassiodorus and Claudius, Ambst Hierms].  Since many men testify that the text did not have the word "not" in it, and the omission of the "not" is the harder reading, since scribes had every reason to delete it, it stands that the "not" should not be there.  To this we should refer the fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised immediately after the Jerusalem council, "through the Yehudim that were living in those places," (Acts 16:1-4) i.e. not "on account of the Jews," as the false translations have it, but "through the Yehudim," which would mean that Paul had Timothy's circumcision witnessed by the Jewish men of those places so there would be no doubt that Paul did not oppose the commandment itself, but only the heretical teaching of the false circumcisers.
 2.11a.  Notice the switch from Keefa to Peter, and back to Keefa again.  Peter was also called "Keefa," but some ancient traditions say that there was another Keefa, who was one of the seventy that Yeshua sent out.  It is not certain whether "Keefa" here is Peter or not.  The  switching of names would be strange if the names refer to the same person.  On the other hand, if they do not refer to the same person, the lack of clarification is strange, becasue many knew that Peter was called Keefa. There is an ancient tradition which says that Keefa was one of the seventy sent out by Yeshua to preach the good news.  It is true that Peter was also called Keefa, so the matter cannot be definitely resolved.
If Peter is the guilty party, then Rome's entire claim to Papal succession crumbles.  If Peter is not the guilty party, and the evidence seems to indicate his innocence, then it would appear that he learned his lesson about associations with Gentiles the first time as recorded in Acts 9-10.
§1. The eating here had nothing to do with kosher food.    According to strict Jewish tradition it is not permitted to eat with an uncircumcised gentile God fearer even if he serves kosher food, because it is feared that the house is unclean, and that the gentiles in it are unclean, and that the uncleanness of the house, or persons therein, will be transfered to the Jew.  This prohibition, of course, was pure tradition all cases (Acts 10:28) excpet those in which the Jew had to remain ritually clean in order to go into the temple or in order to present himself to God.
Ritual uncleanness due to contact was permitted by the law if one did not purpose to enter the temple, or take part in any ceremonial act requiring ritual purity, until he purified himself again.  Peter's violation of the traditional rules could, therefore be overlooked in Acts 10.  However, certain persons in Judea wanted to enforce the ritual purity rules upon all Jews all the time, or as much of the time as possible, without regard for the mission to the Gentiles.  This view influenced the stricter party of the Pharisees, (that is the followers of Shemmiah, which was the extreme nationalist party.  It is said of Shemmiah that when a Gentile asked him to teach him the Law that he beat him away with a stick.  The party of Hillel, however, willingly taught the law to Gentiles.  Up until the first revolt the party of Shemmiah had the most power.  Afterward the party of Hillel gained in influence), the anti-collaborationist Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Ebionites.
The tradition of total ritual purity (even when one did not need to be ritually pure) was contrary to the truth of the good news, which good news was supposed to be taught to as many Gentiles as were willing to learn.  Not eating with the Gentiles only made this task very difficult or impossible.  Not only that, but those more zealous for total purity were the very ones who taught the "other good news" mentioned by Paul at the beginning of his letter.
§2. away from, "One must not, however, read too much into apo, as in Gal. 2:12, where tina$ apo Iakwbou does not mean 'with the authority of James,' though doubtless they claimed it" (pg. 579, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament *In The Light Of* Historical Research, A.T. Robertson).
2.13a. The requirement for Kosher food is in the Torah, but the traditions for avoiding all ritual defilement are not.  According to the written Torah defilement by contact is permitted in daily life, and strict purity is required only in and about the Temple.  But the nationalistic party wanted to enforce ritual purity everywhere all the time.  The oral Torah, on this point, comes into conflict with the greater need of Gentiles to fellowship and gain acquaintance with Jews.
The party that promoted the ritual purity traditions beyond their legal application was called the "circumcision" because they emphasized their brand of circumcision above all else.    The Christian immediately jumps to the conclusion that circumcision is therefore bad.  For he says "See, he calls them 'the circumcision.'"  But it has already been proven that Paul had his associates formally convert when they wanted to minister with him (see Acts 16:1-4; Romans 3:1).  So it is not the act of circumcision which is evil.  The Christian tripped up by this text is merely failing to distinguish between the technical meaning of the word and its common meaning.   Technical usages involve names of denominations:  Charasmatics, Pentecostas, Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Protestants, Dunkers, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.  Is charisma wrong?  Is Pentecost evil.  Is the term Universal wicked?  Are immersion, elders, protesting, and dunking converts wrong concepts?  Is the seventh day or the second advent bad?  Whatever bad things these groups may do, or whatever erroneous theology they may preach, we all recognize that what we call them does not make the terms used for them guilty by association.  So there was a party called "the circumcision" because they made circumcision the emphasis of their theology.  But that fact does not make the commandment to circumcise invalid.
Paul indicates that the circumcision party influenced the "rest of the Jews," who lived in Antioch to separate according to the traditions of the oral law, at least temporarily.  Please understand that Paul is not calling all of these Jews hypocrites.  The charge of hypocrisy is aimed at those who lead the others astray, because they should have known better from the teachings of Yeshua and the teaching of the Law on treatment of the Gentiles.  Their actions involved them in the hypocrisy, but the majority were not the hypocrites.
We may ask, why did all the Jews follow their lead?  The answer is in the authority of Ya'akov (James).  Even the unbelieving Jews respected his rulings.  It was also true that the oral traditions of purity were based upon valid teachings of the Law when exercised at the right time and place.  In fact, the oral traditions are good to follow even in daily life, provided it does not hinder the Gentiles from coming to God.  So if Ya'akov ruled that separation was necessary, then everyone followed that ruling, at least intially.  And in fact, the ruling may have been pitched in a number of different ways by those coming from him.  In all probability, though, Ya'akov had made no such ruling.  Those who came from him were simply misusing his authority, and the game was up when Paul responded to it in Antioch.
This situation is not unparalleled in the annals of Christendom.  The Church of Rome has, and had much power in circles other than its own.  For its agents are everywhere, and seek to influence doctrine and practice to Rome's advantage.  Roman doctrines creep in and are embraced by the majority unwittingly until the educated speak up and expose it.  Likewise, the constant temptation to compromise with the purveryors of the oral traditions influenced the Nazarenes until the sheliakhim spoke up.
2.14a  In essence Keefa was enforcing Judean custom on dispersion Jews.  Following the traditions in Judea was not difficult, but this was onerous in the dispersion when one had to deal with the Gentiles daily.  Paul intimates that Keefa did not always follow the oral tradition as he was advocating others to do, and so that makes him hypocritical.
To "live like a Jew," or more accurately here, a "Judean" was to follow the oral traditions.  The issue was not compliance with the written Law, or the practice of circumcision.
The issue is ritual purity.  That is why the Jews would not eat with the Gentiles.  The Judeans were very zealous for ritual purity.  The Jews in the dispersion could not afford such extravagant tradition as those in Judea.  The Jews in other places had to get along better with their Gentile neighbors, and could not afford to offend them any more than absolutely necessary.  With regard to ritual purity, the Judeans regarded the dispersion Jews as living like the nations, i.e. normally in an unclean state, and not fit to participate in any of the ceremonies of the temple.  Keefa, therefore, had taken up the habits of a dispersion Jew (whether this Keefa is Peter or not makes little difference here), and when the faith was beginning to become established in Antioch among the Gentiles, the influence of Judean practice became a question.  Rather than continue to nurture the Gentiles in the faith, Keefa chose to return to the Judean practice of total ritual purity, which, of course, made him a hypocrite because he did not believe in the necessity of total ritual purity under the Torah.
It also made it hard for the Gentiles "turning toward God" (Acts 15:19), who would have to be circumcised and maintain ritual purity just to have meaningful contact with the believing Jews, and that, in all probability, before they understood or were ready for circumcision.  And those who were circumcised so quickly were vulnerable to misunderstanding it like the false brothers had.
So, the argument is not over kosher (clean and unclean), but it is over traditional ritual purity.  And it is not over circumcision itself, but the forcing of circumcision.  Clearly, Paul is combating bad theology and abuse by excessive practice of tradition, but he is not opposing the observance of the Law.
This verse simply points out that religious Jews are not sinners in the same way that the pagans are.  When Paul says "by nature Yehudi" he is speaking of those brought up in the righteousness of the Law, i.e. those who knew and practiced God's will from childhood.  I do not think he means to include secularized Jews when he says this.
2.16b  By "righting" our relationship with himself the way he did, Yahweh, through the Messiah forgave us in a completely legal mannar, so that our righting (forgiveness) was not outside the law.  It was within the Law's provisions for mercy and atonement.  The Christian world can not tolerate this idea, so it changed the meaning of the text by translating ex ergwn nomou as "by the works of the Law."
§1 knowing also: what Paul says following this applies to the Jews, who know God's will more than the pagans, as well as to the pagans.  Paul takes it for granted that not only Gentiles are sinners, but Jews also are sinners.  Sin is transgression of the law, and the Jews also break the law.  Transgression of the law is to go aside from the law (parabainw), but here Paul is equating sin or transgression with being out of the works of law (ex ergwn nomou), which I have rendered outside in a Hebrew sense of ]mI=ek, i.e. on the side of, (BDB: The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon).
The phrase out of the works of the law is ambiguous when it is taken out of context.  In fact, even the words out of context could be twisted into meaning according to context if we were unfamiliar with the idiom!  But we know that out of context means outside of context.
What is the context?  It is a man is not right out of works of law.  Now since sin is the opposite of what is right, it follows that sin is outside the law, and right is according to the law.  So when is man not right?  It is when he is outside works of law!
Yet, Christians would insist on a absurd nonsense translation like a man is not right by the works of the law!  This only makes Paul contradict himself.  Also by is not the primary literal translation of ek.  Out of is the literal translation, yet even with out of ambiguity exists which the Christian scholars have trained themselves to interpret as out of in the sense of source out of the law rather than separation from  the law.  Yet does the English language require it?  No, because they can interpret out of context correctly.
Greek and Hebrew are the same: "5. of Position, outside of, beyond, chiefly in early writers, ek belewn out of shot, ek patrido$ banished from one's country ...ex ofqalmwn out of sight ... ex odou  out of the road,"  (Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott).
"IS hkei ek th$ Ioudaia$ ei$ thn Galilaian" (John 4:47), "Yeshua went out-of Yehudah unto Ga'leel."  This means the same as "Yeshua went outside Yehudah to Galil."  I would not want to deny, however, that ek in the sense of outside usually implies that one had been within the object one is now outside of (cf. Robertson, pg. 577), in which case the thought of Paul is a man is not right going outside of works of law.  See also When the Trumpet Sounds.
§2. The translations put justified, but this sense is too narrow for the context; the rendition right encompasses Paul's range of meaning here which includes both the ideas of righteousness and right relationship.  The word is dikaioutai in Greek, which is derived from dikaiow, meaning in a simple way "right," or "righted".  The Hebrew would be qdeje , "the right, normal thing, rightness" (Koehler-Baum-gartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros).  This word, as defined in the lexicons, illustrates the classic case of theology overloading the simple lexical meaning.  For when lexiographers tell us that it means to declare righteous, to make right, to put right, to pronounce one to be just, etc. they exceed the semantic meaning of the word.   The word justify may have once been a good translation, but now it is so overloaded in the lexicons and in the mind of the reader, that it is useless.  Readers may think of being counted as righteous by God when they see this word.  Well right, and righteousness are not always the same thing.  A man is right with God through Christ, but he is not perfectly righteous!  Righteousness requires a life of repentence.
§3.  A man is not right outside of the works of the law.  Paul means a man is neither righteous nor in right relationship with God when he has departed outside the works of the law.  Those who want to preach another good news wish to rectify man's relationship with God through some tradition outside of the law, such as penance or some illegal atonement,  atoning prayer, excessive ritual purity, or blood covenant idea of circumcision.  The Dead Sea Scrolls provide an excellent example of what Paul was talking about in the document called MMT, or "Some works of the Torah," (as claimed by its authors) which mandates excessive ritual purity beyond the scope of the Torah, and hence outside the Torah for which the claim is made, "Thus it will be counted for you as righteousness in your doing the upright and the good before Him for yourself and for Yisra'ayl."
§4. unless: Greek ei mh (if not).  Paul introduces an exception to what he just said, though it will turn out to be not to be an exception at all in the legal thinking of Paul.  In fact, the conjunction ei mh is ambiguous being freely interchanged for alla under the influence of Hebrew Xlo ,XI or Aramaic XLaXI (A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Blass, Debrunner & Funk, §448).
  A man outside the works of the law, i.e. a sinner can be righted with God through the faithfulness of Yeshua the Anointed.  Then by faithfulness Paul would mean Yeshua's work of atonement, however, if we take the conjunction ei mh to mean but, then it will be a man is not right outside the law's works, but [he is right] through the faith of Yeshua the Anointed, and we must understand faith pistew$ as refering to the religion of the Law and Prophets, i.e. Judaism.  For that was the faith of Yeshua.
It appears to me that the conjunction ei mh in this context should be except, or unless, or even if not because Paul winds up explaining Yeshua's work of atonement in verse 13.
§5. This exception is on the personal side of observing the law, i.e. we can be forgiven our sin, but it is not an exception on the legal side of the matter.  For Paul adds, and so not outside works of law, which is possible because the atoning work of Yeshua is within the Law.  The faithfulness of Yeshua is within the Law, that is,  his substitutionary atonement is within the legal scope of the Law.
§6. wherefore right outside the works of law shall be no flesh.  Paul concludes with a repeat of his opening statement at the beginning of the verse.
§7. faithfulness = pistew$ = hn8VmXE. (ibid. BDB 2.16 §1, ibid. BAG 1.1 §1).  The translations like to truncate faithfulness to faith and from there to belief so as to drain it of any notion of actual obedience or repentence.  They also like to take what in Greek is obviously the faithfulness of Yeshua and change it to faith in Yeshua so that it is no longer his faith but our faith.
§8. works of law.  I have rendered this this way because the context indicates that we are talking about Torah, i.e. hrav%th+ ,ysIi_m+ ]mII, but the Greek ex ergwn nomou more literally is out of works of custom or  out of works of norm, i.e. a genitive of quality meaning outside the customary works, or outside the normal works.  What is normal in this context, of course is the standard of the Torah; so a more literal Hebrew would be ,ysIi_m+ frede ]mI, out of the way of works.
2.17  Paul's adversaries were accusing him of preaching a libertine doctrine which allowed the Gentiles to continue in sin because Paul did not require the Gentiles to be perfect law keepers before he would say they were saved.  Paul's theology allows the Gentiles to be right in the Anointed, but if while our sin is atoned for and made right by the Anointed we are discovered to still be  sinners, then is the Anointed One propagating sin?  Hardly!  Paul's theology also required repentence (cf. Gal. 5:18-22)!  Perhaps, if like some, Paul argued that repentence only means belief in the Anointed One, and that it does not matter what you do, and that you can still be saved while sinning willfully, then the accusers arguments would have merit, but Paul does not excuse the Gentiles from repentence, he only excuses them for their ignorance of the law, and leaves room for them to grow in the faith!
2.18 The problem with the preachers of the "other good news" is that they believe in imparted righteousness or complete sanctification via some ritual act which renders one perfect.  The gnostics believed this and sinned greatly.  The Essenes required this and thought they were perfect lawkeepers.  The Catholics believe it and try to be both gnostics and perfectionists.  Paul pops their bubble, at least in the case of Keefa and those separating with him, by pointing out their hypocrisy.  For after deciding to eat with Gentiles, which Judean Jews will not do, they return to not eating with Gentiles.  Now one case judges the other case, but by practicing both they know they have done wrong and commited transgression.

The Meaning of Nomos

§1 norm.  This is the literal meaning of nomo$. The word normally translated "law" in our English versions is nomos in Greek.  But in the common Greek of the Roman period it does not really mean "law" in the primary sense.  Rather nomos is the "norm" for something.  For example, Liddell and Scott define nomos this way:
nomo$, o (nemw) that which is in habitual practice, use or possession, I. usage, custom.
The thing that is in habitual practice is the norm.  Paul's usage goes back to this unifying idea of the word.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it this way:

1. The Meaning of nomo$.

     a. nomo$ belongs etym. to nemw,"to allot," and thus has the sense of "what is proper," "what is assinged to someone."  In ancient times it has a comprehensive range of meaning which embraces any kind of existing or accepted norm, order, custom, usage or tradition (itallics mine).

Here TDNT lists norm first, and rightfully so.  The norm explains the other definitions, that is a "custom" is a habitual norm of cultural behaviour.  An "order" is a norm[al] process or procedure by which something is done.  A "usage" is the norm[al] way in which something is used.  The norm focuses on that which is in actual use or practice.  It is the average reality, the status quo.
Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as, "that which is assinged, hence, usage, custom, then law".   Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as, "anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, usage, law".
Nomos is the norm.  That is, it is what is in customary use or practice.  It is directly related to the verb derived from it, i.e. nomizw which means, "have in common use," "be the custom," "to practise, hold by custom," and "to be customary," "practice."  The norm is "a standard," "the general level or average."  Two cars per family is the norm in most suburban communities.
In English, "custom" means, "1. a habitual practice; the usual way of acting in given circumstances" (The American College Dictionary).  And this is precisely the definition given by Liddell and Scott.
In Romans 7:21 the context requires norm.
 I find then the norm when I wish myself to do good that evil is present with me (Rom 7:21).
"Some have understood nomo$ here in v. 21 in the sense 'norm' or 'principle' (Cranfield, pg. 362).  Cranfield rightly puts "norm" first since it is the most literal translation of nomos.
Josephus can use "nomo$ for the norm of something" (TDNT, Vol. IV, pg. 1050), and Philo also can use "nomo$ for the norm" (TDNT, ibid., 1052).  The LXX uses nomo$ for the norm once in Jer. 49:12, where the norm refers to God's judgment.
The Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament has, "1. rule, principle, norm", but later Bauer's Lexicon shows its bias by putting the common meaning of nomos at the end of the second definition, "2. a rule governing one's actions, principle, norm" (BAG ).
Martin Ostwald's, Nomos and the beginnings of the Athenian democracy is replete with examples of nomos meaning norm in every kind of way, i.e. "nomo$ is a norm both in a descriptive and in a prescriptive sense" (pg. 20), that is, "of behaviour itself" (pg. 21), of "customary practice" (pg. 22, note 2, and pg. 36), of a "normal way" (pg. 23), as "normal" (pg. 24), and even, "conventional beliefs" (pg. 38).
Ostwald comments:
     The difficulty of analysing a concept such as nomo$ into its constituent elements becomes most manifest as we now turn to its uses in religious contexts.  For while it is true to say that the term may denote a ritual ordinance, that is, an injunction that something ought to be done, or a ritual practice, that is, a statement that something is actually done as a custom, or a belief, that is, a conviction that something exists or that it is right that something be done, it is always difficult and often impossible to determine in any given context which of these three notions its author had in mind.  The reason for this is not far to seek.  As we have seen time and again, the crucial point in nomo$ is that it is something which a given society regards as a valid norm for itself, usually unselfconsciously and without question, something which, even when attacked and disparaged, is attacked and disparaged just because it is a generally accepted norm.  It is, therefore, immaterial to the Greek way of thinking whether in any given context nomo$ is a rule, a customary practice, or a belief; its characteristic is that it is something generally regarded and accepted as correct for a given group (pg. 40, emphasis mine).
If we return to Paul's usage we find a clear solution to the supposed abolition of the Law in Ephesians 2:15:
For he is our peace making the two one and the middle wall of partition loosing, the enmity, by his flesh, the usage of the commandments as judgments, nullifying (Eph. 2:15, LS, nomo$, #1; dogma, #2).
Paul speaks of the, "usage of the commandments in judgments," that is, in condemning sinners.   Literally, this norm is nullified by the death of Yeshua.
Here are some more examples:
 And the power of sin is the norm (I Cor. 15:56).  For the customary practice works wrath (Rom. 4:15a).  For where no customary habit is, neither is transgression (Rom. 4:15b).  But apart from the norm a putting right of God is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (Rom. 3:21).  For the Anointed One is the end of the norm for putting right to everyone believing (Rom 10:4; norm = the usual way).  But Israel, pursuing the usual way of putting right, unto the Law did not arrive? (Rom. 9:31).   But now we are loosed from the customary practices, by which we were held, so we should serve in newness of spirit, and not the oldness of a debt note (Rom. 7:6).  So a norm had entered, that the transgression would increase, but where sin increased, grace increased much more (Rom. 5:21).  For sin shall not master you: for you are not under the norm, but under grace  (Rom. 6:14; the norm = judgment).
And I became to the Judeans as a Judean, that Judeans I might win; to those under a custom as under a custom, not being myself under tradition, that those under tradition I might win; to those without customs as without custom, not being without the Law of God, but according to the Law of the Anointed One, so that I might win those without customs (I Cor. 9:20-21).
In every case the definition is in the Lexicons, and in every case "nomos" describes some kind of norm, convention, custom, habit, tradition, rule, customary practice, usual procedure, or order.  All these definitions come back to the broad scope of Liddell and Scott's defintion, "that which is in habitual practice, use or possession.", that is the norm.
In the English text nomos is translated norm, Law.  This variation is due to the contextual needs of the English reader.  That is, the contextual  norms (syntagmatic sense relations) of the available English equivalents are too narrow to cover the syntagmatic range of nomos (see Silva, pg. 141-143).  Although nomos is most literally "norm," English does not let "norm" extend its syntagmatic relations with the variety of Greek.  We can understand, "The congress enacted a new norm for the State of California," but this is like saying, "He drives a strong car,"  "The tea is too powerful," or "He drinks soup."
 
2.19 §1.  dia nomou nomw apeqanon = [I] through Law by Law died.  The usual Christian translation has, "I through Law to Law died."  Actually, there is no word expressing "to" or "by" in the Greek.  The translations are merely alternative expressions of the dative case.  To "die to" something is to cease having any relation to it, and that is exactly what the Christian translators want us to think.  However, they have only fallen into the ambiguous trap set by Paul for those with an antinomian proclivity.  Paul is saying that he died "by Law," vicariously through Yeshua's death.  For the Law exacted the proper penalty for us upon Yeshua.  "Through Law" may be taken in closer connection with verse eighteen as meaning through the curse in the law pronounced upon transgressors (cf. Deut. 26:15-27).  Therefore, it is: I through the curses in the Law who receieved the sentence of death by the Law, and I who through the Law had that penalty carried out in the substitutionary manner prescribed by the Law.
2.20 §1. Paul begins to explain the proper way of escaping the curses in the Law in the case of unatoneable inadvertant sin, or in the case of willful sin, for which no atonement was prescribed at the time of Moshe.  We are not allowed to add to the Law, but HaElohim is, and through the prophet Isaiah he told us how he would make the many right (Isa. 53).  A hanged man is accursed of God, so when Yeshua, who was innocent, was hanged for us, it is as if we were hanged with him.  That is, he took the penalty implied by the curses vicariously.  He took our place in judgment, and so legally Paul has died with the Anointed: and live no more do I.
§2. and the Anointed doth live in me.  Paul immediately switches to living a holy life.  The Anointed lives in us through the agency of the Spirit.  and that which I now live in the flesh.  Paul, with his low view of his own righteousness in comparison with that of the Torah, will only allude to it with the words that which I now live, but he does tell us how he lives his life: by faithfulness, i.e. by a life of trust in the promises of God, and continuing repentence.
2.21:  §1. dia nomou = after Law, through an interval of Law.  For this usage of dia compare Gal. 2.1, Then after fourteen years, and Rom. 2:27, after the letter and circumcision transgressing the Law.  If the Hebrew hraOt, instruction, teaching, lies behind nomo$ then the text could be read through instruction.  In any case the idea Paul is thinking about is clear:  Does forgiveness and grace take place only after one learns to obey the whole Law, or even substantially more of it than one knows about.
In contrast, repentence is not a going through Law, but a turning from known sin, which is really only a beginning of Law.  For the message is "repent and trust the good news."  So a right relationship, based upon forgiveness through atonement, is established at the very beginning, not after one has acheived perfection, or reached a given grade or level determined by the religious leaders.
§2. With this latter idea, of reaching a given grade or level, predetermined by the religious community before salvation is granted, the text could by rendered for if a right relationship is through a norm, then then Anointed died in vain.   The norm denotes the standard set by the community before one is considered "saved."  We could also introduce, the idea of some heretical norm, such as penance or an illegal atonement.  It does seem that Paul chose his words carefully to cover all possibilities.
§3.  Of course, righteousness comes through observing the Torah.  It always did.  Yeshua was righteous because he kept God's law.  The Law is righteousness because it is an expression of God's character.   The translators of the Church's Bible, however, will have us take through Law as agent, i.e. by means of, or with the help of Law.  But the Spirit, with the help of Law, does convict us of what to repent of, and repentence is the necessary condition of believing the good news.
§4. The Greek word dikaiousunh does not mean righteousness in this text.  For if it did, then we would be compelled to take nomo$ as norm as refering only to traditions outside the Law, but a reading like if righteousness is through custom, then the anointed died for nothing, does not agree with the context as well since it does not make Paul's point as strongly.  The traditional Christian reading if righteousness came through the law, then Christ died for nothing, of course, is pure nonesense.  For Paul says the the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Rom. 7:12). And Deut. 6:25: And righteousness it will be for us when we watch to do all the commandments these before Yahweh our Elohim as he commanded us.
§5. "34.46 dikaiow, dikai-wsi$, ew$, dikai-ousunh, h$: to cause someone to be in a proper or right relation with someone else - 'to put right with, to cause to be in a right relationship with.'" (Greek-English Lexicon, Luow & Nida, United Bible Societies).  The Lexicon has already overloaded the actual meaning of the words here, which is to right, righting.  In context it means to right anything, whether morality or relationship, or the ritual purity of the temple.
3.2a. out from = after.  Paul's opponents taught that the Spirit was received only after doing the deeds of the Law, i.e. after reaching what the community considered perfection.
3.6a.  The !qu in the text may be a gloss for !ku.  If this is the case, then we must assume that the original MSS were most vulnerable to supression of the divine name in quotations, as Jewish scribes familiar with the quoted portion would tend to supress out of habit.  There is yet no textual evidence that Yahweh was changed to Elohim here, other than the fact that Yahweh stands in the Hebrew text of Gen. 15:6 and not Elohim.
The only other possibility is that !qu may indeed stand for the Divine name in the quoted texts, and that it was permitted as a shorthand for the divine name only when it was clear what stood in the Hebrew text.  In texts which are not quotations, then, !qu must stand for "Elohim."
Avraham did faithfully trust Elohim, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6), except the Hebrew has faithfully trust in Yahweh instead of Elohim.  Abraham's faithful trust was counted as a righteous act in the sight of God because he was God's child, and because the deed of faithful trust encompasses all other good works.  Trust in the promises of God begins in the heart and manifests in faithfulness to God in the way life is lived.
This verse proves Paul's point in an implicit way, by showing that Avraham deeds were being counted as righteous from the very beginning, starting with his very act of faithful trust in Yahweh's promise.  It also illustrates the fact that salvation begins with faithful trust in God's promise, not after learning to keep the whole law.  This was clearly before Avraham was circumcised.  Of course, Paul's opponents could argue that the good deeds of unsaved were counted as righteousness as well, and that Avraham was unsaved at this point because he had not learned to keep the whole law.  But how would such an argument sound to their fellow Jews, who held Avraham in the highest esteem?  It would be rejected.
The Christian world interprets this verse to mean that Avraham's belief in God's promise was counted as total righteousness, or total perfection.  One act of belief, in their estimation, is counted as complete moral perfection in all areas of life.  This interpretation falls apart when we observe that "belief" is a work, and that the natural interpretation of "it," in "it was counted for righteousness" is his act of "belief."
3.8-9 faithfulness.  Paul means to include the Anointed's faithfulness as well as any human response.  See 2.16.
3.10 §1. It is clear that Paul thought his opponents had gone outside the works of the law in their quest for super sanctification much the same way in which the Church of Rome goes out of the way with baptism to render the infant immaculate, and to remove the guilt of original sin.  The curse which his opponents would have cursed him with for not following their traditions is thus turned around by Paul in an amazing twist of irony.  Such cursing of Paul's opponents are exemplified in the end of the Damascus Document (4Q266), and in the Chariots of Glory (4Q286-287).  The Church of Rome, of course, curses in a big way in the council of Trent by anathematizing all who reject her traditions.
§2. The Christian translations have for as many as are of the law are under a curse, which contradicts Paul's quotation from Deut. 27:26.  Of course, Paul takes it for granted that everyone is a sinner, and therefore falls under the curse without the legal atonement, but he gets to that point in the next verse (cf. 3.11, 22).
3.11 §1. normally; Greek ennomw, in norm, but this could also by translated by law, or according to the law, meaning according to the law's declaration in Deut. 27:26.
§2.  The righteous by faithfulness shall live, (Hab. 2:4), but the LXX has The righteous shall live by my faithfulness, which points to God's faithfulness (see on 2.16), but Paul does not mean to exclude human faithfulness here either, for he teaches that the way of being right with Elohim is from faithfulness to faithfulness (Rom. 1:17).  God's faithfulness is the answer to the curse.
3.12 This verse has too many ambiguous words to interpret in just one way. Perhaps that was Paul's intent.  norm (see 2.19 §1), unless (see 2.16 §4), faithfulness (see 2.16 §7, and 3.2 §3), out of (see 2.16 §1 & 3.2 §1).
3.13 The solution to the curse.
3.16 unless (see 2.16 §4).    Paul is not doing away with the promises to the nation.
3.17 norm. Deut. 27:26, the curses are the norm here.
3.18 by the norm.  The norm is the state in which the curses apply with no atonement.  It is the usual state for the human race.  The inheritance cannot be granted while a person is in this state.
3.19 §1. the law of the transgressions = Deut. 27:15-26.  See 2.19 §2.  Paul is asking a question for the reader. What about the curses?  What are they for?  What was the state of those who lived before the Anointed One's atonement?  Grace was added!  And that I might say for all sins which the Law of Moshe could not atone for (Acts 13:38-39), either when the repentant could not bring a sacrifice, or when the nature of the sin prohibited sacrifice.  The Grace was added for all the sins which the Law could not atone for on the basis of the anticipated atonement of the Anointed One.  See Rom. 3:25.
§2.  There is a certain Christian theology which states that sins were only covered over before Christ by the animal sacrifices, but that these covered over sins were expiated (blotted out) only by the atonement of Christ.  The Law, however, states clearly that these sins were forgiven, which means the penalty was remitted, so this Christian theology is in contradiction to the law.  If the penalty is forgiven, then it does not matter whether they are covered over or blotted out, the result is the same.
§3. the seed = the Messiah.
§4. by whom it had been promised.  "it" = Grace.
§5. Ultimate grace was promised by the seed to come, but the promise was ordained beforehand through angels and written down by Moses who served as the mediator between God and the nation. Moses was a type of anointed who averted God's judgment against His people.
Moses could only temporarily delay judgment because "there is only one mediator between God and men ... who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (I Timothy 2:5-6). The grace of God was displayed when God listened to Moses so that He did not utterly  destroy His people.  We should not let this truth obscure the truth of the greater mediator.
3.20 The meaning of verse 20 is that Moses is not the only mediator.  God, that is, the Anointed, is  also  one.  The Greek is o de mesith$ eno$ ouk estin o de QU ei$ estin, i.e. literally,  "the yet mediator only not is-he; the yet Elohim one is."  "Then, why the law of transgressions [the curse, Deut. 27:26]?  Grace [favor, mercy, forgiveness] was applied [to transgressors] until the seed [Yeshua, the Anointed] should come [3 B.C. - 34 A.D.] by whom [Yeshua] it [the grace, mercy] was promised, being ordained [established, enacted] through messengers [angels] into the hand of a mediator [Moses].  This one [Moses] is not the only mediator, but God [Yeshua] is one also."
3.21 §1. the law, then, but this could just as well be the norm, or even the curses, because Paul has just shown how the curses are not against the promise.
§2. make alive.  Keeping the Law is righteousness, but once the norm is violated can that same norm being kept anew restore the relationship and remove the guilt?  The evidence is no, because the norm of righteousness among God's people is substandard, and if the law could restore life then the norm would be much higher!  Life is restored, not by the norms in the law, but by atonement and circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of God.
§3 more than. The Hebrew ]mI is used in a comparitive sense, more than, beyond, above, and this meaning is also known in the Greek of the Septuagint.  For example, the LXX has "His father loved him more than [out of] all his sons" (Gen. 37:4). ,heybIX_ lKamI = ek pantwn twn uiwn autou.  In this case the comparative ]mI =ek.  See BLASS §245a.3.  The ]mI [min] is the usual way of expressing comparison in the Hebrew language, i.e. See GK §133 a-f.  BLASS does say that, "There seems to be nothing comparable to apo or ek= ]mI  in the NT" (§245a.3).  BLASS can only say "seems" because the LXX shows that it is possible when Jewish scholars express Hebrew concepts in Greek.   The reason BLASS cannot find this usage in the writings of the Sheliakim is that where it is used it ruins their neat Christian theology.
3.22 see 2.16.  Here Paul alludes to the curses again (Deut. 27:15-26 2.19 §2).
3.23-24 norm = the curses.
§1. In "before the faith came" or "the faith about to be revealed" it could be supposed that Paul is thinking of the time before the Christian faith.  But it is better to suppose that he means, "before the faith came to us" and "the faith about to be revealed to us."  If Paul had meant "before Christianity" by "before the faith came" then this would imply that pagans are no longer subject to the norms of judgement, which in turn would leave theology without a last judgment.
§2.  The norm becomes our "conductor."  Literally, "conductor" is child-leader in the Greek.  The child-leader was a slave whose job it was to conduct young boys to and from school.   The curse leads us to the Anointed as the only solution for atonement.
In part we are put right by Yeshua's faithfulness to death, that is, we are forgiven, and in part we are put right by our faithfulness, that is, our obedience.  Our part does not save us from final judgment.  Only Yeshua's putting right does this.
Man is therefore justified [put right] in two ways.  1) "By works he is justified [put right]" (Ja. 2:21, 24, 25), that is by his own faithfulness.  2) "We may be justified [,that is, put right,] by [the] faithfulness of Yeshua" (Gal. 2:16).
The result of being put right by one's own works is not remission of sin, forgiveness, or removal of guilt.  It is merely righteous life in direct proportion to the works.  The works beget enduring life, that is, life which has the quality of lasting a long time.
3.27 §1. The Greek word baptizw means "immerse" or "dip."  Generally the Christian churches transgress the command to immerse new converts (Matthew 28:19).  Most Christians  teach that apersion (sprinkling) or  effusion (pouring) are valid forms  of baptism.  They are not.  The Jews always dipped their converts fully.  Yeshua and his disciples give us no reason to suppose they departed from this practice.
The obvious reason for rejecting immersion was that it was too Jewish.   Thus, this most fundamental doctrine was gradually discarded by the Roman Church beginning in the second century.
§2. Being clothed in Messiah is like having blood on the lintels of the doorpost at the Passover.  The guilt of our sins is covered.  This is the robe of vindication, or putting right.  It is a robe clean from the guilt of sin.  It should not be taken to mean that we are perfectly righteous.  That would be to take a metaphor to the extreme.  Nor does God view us as sinless.  He views us as guiltless.  God does remove the sin as well as the guilt, but the removal of sin must be seen as a process which is only completed in the resurrection body.  God does not perceive believers as perfect.
3.29 Whether circumcised or not all believers are the seed of Abraham.  Salvation does not depend on race, gender, or social status.  First God forgives our sins when we trust the promise, and repentence continues onward from that point.  The good news is not  "First finish repenting till you reach perfection, and then you will be saved." True obedience only comes over time with true understanding.
4.1 The heir is Israel, God's people, personified by Messiah, which does not look different from a slave, though, in fact, Israel (Messiah)  is not a slave, but the heir.
4.2 Israel (Messiah) is subject to guardians and administrators, which is the judging function of the Law (the curses).  This does not say that Israel is judged, only that Israel is subject to being judged if she should sin.  The time set beforehand by the Father is explained in verse 4.
4.3 The elements of the world, in this context, are those forces which seek to cause a person to sin.  We had been enslaved indicates that Israel yeilded to the elemental forces of the world (though not Messiah), and actually did commit sin coming under the curses of Deut. 27.
4.4 The norm means the judging function of the Law (the curses), which Messiah subjected himself to.
4.5 The norm here means the judging function of the law and also the norm of sinning which we were subject to.
4.10  §1. This text allows us to identify Paul's opponents as Essenes (see 1.9-10 §2).  This was a Judeo-pagan sect with adherants in "every city of Palestine" (Deception [2], pg. 165).  The Essenes were the only major sect to paganize the normal scriptural calendar.  They observed a 364 day year.  The year had 4 equal seasons of 91 days each, and the seasons were composed of 3 months of 30 days each plus 1 extra day at the end of each season.  The first day of each season was always a Wednesday.  Their feast days never fell on a Sabbath.  The Essene months began on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday repectively.  The Essene Passover  always began  on a Wednesday as opposed to the scriptural Passover, which began on the evening of the 14th day of the true lunar month nearest to the spring equinox.  All their other feasts began on the same day of the week every year.
Copies of the Essene calendar were found at Qumran and Masada, and also in the book of Jubilees.   According to this calendar  Tabernacles would also fall on Wednesday.  The first day of the first month was their New Year day, and it fell on a Wednesday.  Pentecost was on Sunday contrary to usual Judean practice.  The first of each month was called, "[A] Day of Remembrance."  The Calendar began on Wednesday because the sun, moon, and stars were created on the 4rth day.  E.R. Leach demonstrates how the Jubilees calendar could be intercalated.  E.R. Leach,  Vetus Testamentum, (October 1959): 392.
The Essene calendar was essentially a cross between the Egyptian solar calendar and the holidays God ordained in the Law.  The Eqyptian calendar has 360 days composed of 12 months of 30 days each, and then they add 5 days on to the end of the year to keep approximate pace with the sun, i.e. 30 x 12 + 5 = 360 + 5 = 365.  They never bothered to adjust their calendar by 1/4 day every 4 years, so their months drifted through the seasons in what is known as the sothic cycle.
§2. Paul does not accuse the Galatians of returning to their outright former idolatry.  Not even the Essenes would have tolerated that.  But he does accuse them of wanting to return that way.  The adoption of the Essene Judeo-pagan calandar was good evidence they were sucumbing to the elemental spirits which aimed to overthrow the scriptural calendar.
The "elements" in Gal. 4:9 refer to the elemental forces of the kosoms.  These were not merely limited to our western idea of "elements," i.e. "weather."  The Greek idea of elements included the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, stars, and planets.  It was also used of the signs of the zodiac (BAG [3], stoiceion no. 4, heavenly bodies pg. 769).  Pagan Greeks associated spiritual powers with the heavenly bodies and signs.
The Essenes were "trained in the arts of divination"  according to Josphus (Deception [2], pg. 166).  One of the major forms of divination is astrology, and in the Hel. period it was very popular.  The Essenes believed that "fate governs all" (J. Ant. [20], XIII, V, 9).  This doctrine predisposed them to astrology which governed the fates.  "One document among the Scrolls has been interpreted as astrological in nature" (Zond. [15], Vol. A-C, pg. 394).  Could this be one of the secret doctrines that initiates were not to divulge to outsiders mentioned by Josephus? (See J. War [20], II, VIII, 7). See also J. Carmignac, "Les Horoscopes de Qumran," Revue de Qumran, 18 (April 1965): 199-217.
Whatever the Galatians' former idolatry consisted of, Paul is suggesting that their adoption of the Essenian Judeo-pagan calendar and doctrines reflects a desire on their part to return to idolatry.  The context certainly supports this thought in 4:8-10.  The Essenian doctrine was extremely legalistic.  For example, they expelled those who committed mortal sins from their community; some even died doing penance for their sin.  But if they were readmitted before they died, the penance was considered "sufficient punishment for the sins they had been guilty of" (J. War [20], II, VIII, 8).
§3. The Jubilees calendar was not the only attempt to mix paganism into the worship of Israel.  Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, changed the tabernacles feast from the seventh month to the eighth (I Kings 12:32).  He appointed non-levitical priests (I Kings 12:31).  This change of the calendar was the tool he used to introduce idolatry into Israel.  Jeroboam set up sanctuaries in Bethel and in Dan (I Kings 12:29) to draw them away from the worship of God in Judea.
Like Jeroboam and the Essenes, most Christians use a Judeo-pagan calendar.  For example the birth of the Anointed One occured in September 3 B.C. (The Birth of Christ Recalculated [10], 136-152).  But its celebration has been combined with the feast of the winter solstice.  The selection of the date of December 25th, and the use of the green tree, were motivated by pagan interests in the Church.  The date was orginially the birth of Tammuz, son of the "Queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44:25).  Also it was known as, "dies natalis Solis Invicti," "the day of the birth of the invincible Sun" (Bacchiocchi [21], 257).
The old syncretism in Israel was a cultic form of religion which mixed the worship of Yahweh, ruler of heaven and earth, with paganism, i.e. Baal worship, which in the deeper doctrines was monotheistic sun worship.  Baal was said to be the offspring of the supreme deity El (Hebrew for "God") and his consort, Ashtoreth, the "Queen of heaven" (Zond. [15], Vol. H-L, pg. 207).
§4. Modern Christianity is merely another combination of this old mixture of truth and error.  It is Judeo-paganism.  The modern variation is perhaps more subtle than the ancient, but only because our religious thinking patterns easily justify the modern cult with which we are familiar.  Yeshua has become Tammuz, the "sun of heaven";  Mary has become the Queen of Heaven, Semiramis, comediatrix between God and man.  Passover has become Easter, a new feast on a different day, Sunday (the venerable day of the Sun).  "Easter" according to Bede (De Ratione Temporum, XV) derives from Eastre, a Teutonic spring goddess, to whom sacrifices were offered in April (Zond. [15], Vol. D-G, pg. 180).
So Christians today follow a calendar which is in essence but a mixture of Jewish and pagan elements.  It is the pagan elements which are objectionable.  For the scriptures command God's people not to mix the customs of the nations into the worship of the true God.  "You shall not enquire about their gods, saying 'How did these nations serve their gods? even so I will do likewise.'  You shall not do so unto the Lord your God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hates, have they done unto their gods" (Deut. 12:30b-31a).  This command is not merely to avoid idolatry.  It is also to avoid the forms and rituals which are used in idolatry, or which have their orgin in idolatry.
A good rule of thumb is, if God did not invent a religious ritual, the Enemy probably did.  And the scripture commands us not to add any ritual's in the worship of God beyond what he commanded, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deut. 12:32).  Some celebrations have virtually no pagan influence in them, i.e. Independence day, Thanksgiving day, and memorial day and vetrans' day, Hanakkuh, and Purim, but other days such as Christmas and Easter are loaded with idolatrous influences.
One simple reason for not observing Christmas is that it is not the anniversary of Yeshua's birth.  To observe Christmas is to perpetuate historical error.  One simple reason for not observing Easter is that it takes away from Passover, which is the day God commanded to be observed, and which we do observe.
God simply does not wish to be worshipped with pagan customs.  He was already told us how to worship in the scripture.  And he does not particularly desire to be reminded of the competition through the use of customs invented by the Enemy.  He is a Jealous God (Ex. 20:5).
Christians, however, still complain that they are not idolators.  If that is true, then it only means they are not overt idolators;  still they show in what direction they lean by whose marks and emblems they adopt.  This leads me to question them.  Will they be prepared to reject the ulitimate mark of the Enemy?
§5. "Days aside you are keeping and months and seasons and years" (Gal. 4:10), Paul charges.  It is just as when we find new believers  adopting Christmas, Easter, Lent, Ash Wednesday, All Saints Eve (Halloween), Epiphany and other Catholic holidays.  Then we also suspect them of adopting the Catholic doctrine of baptism for the remission of sin, penance for the payment of subsequent sin, the Eucharist for new grace after sinning, and the absolution of a priest apart from the atoning blood of the Anointed One.  A good catholic who lives up to the norm (law) of the seven sacraments is said to inherit eternal life thereby.
And no sooner does one of God's prophets stamp out one heresy, then another rises up to replace it.  Paul defeats the Enemy with the circumcisional regeneration, and then the Enemy switches his emphasis to baptismal regeneration.  But the spirit of the heresy is the same, and Paul's teaching applies in spirit if not in form.  Even if sectarians wish to pay for sin with horse dung, the error is still the same.  It contradicts God's way: without the shedding of blood there is no remission.  The way of Cain, is the way of the sectarians.
§6. The Essenes, then, have truly been said to be the precursor of modern Christianity.  They were no minor sect.  Although Josephus tells us they numbered 4000, he also tells us that the Pharisees numbered 6000.  We should perceive that he is only telling us about the leaders of each of the sects.  In the case of the Essenes, no doubt, multitudes of the common people followed their teaching just as multitudes followed in the Pharisees teaching.  If one order of the Essenes was celibate, it would not be far fetched to suppose that it was the leaders which renounced marriage.
Recall that I have been using the term Essenes in a loose sense, only because those who held the monopoly on the scrolls propagated this theory (see 1.9-10 §2). When Josephus describes the Essenes, he may be describing only one small sect of them.
They also held to Platonic and Pythagorean doctrines of the immortality of the soul (Deception [2], pg. 166).  Their doctrine of hell was essentially unending torment.  And good souls went to heaven immediately upon death.  They had their own holy places, with their own priests.  The priest had to bless the bread before anyone partook of it.  In a word Essenism was the catholicism of the Hellenistic period.
They were not vegetarians, nor were they pacifists.  The discovery of a forge and weapons of war at Qumran besides the bones of animals have disproved this.  Only some Essenes were celibate.  The discovery of graves with woman and children at the sites confirms that they do marry.  All property was held in common.  Their probation period was 3 years; they despised wealth (Deception [2], pg. 165).  They were not monks, and Qumran was not a monestary despite what Catholic Father de Vaux and  others who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls have said.
They called themselves, "the Keepers of the Covenant," "the Perfect of the Way," "the Way of Perfect-Righteousness," and the "Doers of the Law."  (Deception [2], pg. 172).  They also called themselves, "Congregation of the Poor" (Deception [2], pg. 134) which was  shortened to the term "Ebionites" (poor ones).  They should not, however, be confused with the Nazarenes who followed the scriptural calendar.
The Essenes who disturbed Paul's converts in Galatia were Judean Essenes who had adopted Christianity.  They professed faith in "the Teacher of Righteousness" (Deception [2], pg. 134), who probably is to be identified with Yeshua.  There can be no doubt that Yeshua's teachings had swept through all the Jewish world.  And the Essenes were more predisposed to accept them.  Later on, even the pagan mystery religions got into the act of watering down the faith when they added a Judaic element to their practice.  These were those who claimed, "to be Jews" but of whom Yeshua said they were liars in the book of Revelation (Rev. 2:9, 3:9).  They denied the divinity of Yeshua.
The key Essene doctrine was, "All members must enter into a 'Covenant before God to obey all His commandments'; and he who practices such obedience will be 'cleansed from all his sins'" (Deception [2], pg. 140).  "There will be, the text affirms, 'no pity on all who depart from the way ... no comfort ... until their way becomes perfect'" (Deception [2], pg. 134).  Compare this with Gal. 3:3, "Are you now perfected in flesh?"  The doctrine of atonement by merits is an old pagan one, which is why Paul suggests the Galatians are giving heed to the weak and poor elements.
§7. Paul's adversaries probably evolved into what later were called "Ebionites."  Philip Schaff writes "From the Nazarenes we must carefully distinguish the heretical Jewish Christians, or the Ebionites, who were more numerous" (Schaff [16], vol. II sec. 113).  There were two groups of Ebionites.  One was Pharisaic and the other Essenian.
4.13-14 §1.. We learn is Acts 14:20 that Paul went to Derbe directly after his near death by stoning at the hands of Judeans from Antioch (Acts 14:19).  Paul had previously fled to Derbe (Acts 14:6), and either at that time or at his second retreat (Acts 14:20) he first preached the good news to the Galatians.  In any case the Galatians of Derbe received him in spite of his horrible condition caused by the stoning.  Acts 14:21 records the conversion of many Galatians.
§2. It is reasonable to suppose that Paul's miraculous escape from death by stoning (Acts 14:19,20) left him partially blind and disfigured in a similar manner to Yeshua.  See Secrets of Golgotha [9], pp. 197-198.
4.16-17..  It was an Essene practice to expell anyone who did not conform to the Law as they interpreted it.  Their purpose in disfellowshipping the Galatians who would not conform to their teachings was ultimately to allow them to come back on their own terms.
The Damascus Document has an excommunication text at the end.
4.21. That is, "usual rule"; they wanted to be accepted before God according to the usual curse (see Gal. 3:10-11).  They retained the norm of the curse not realizing that it had been completely nulified by the Anointed.  What Paul's opponents taught amounted to a gradual and performance based escape from the curse.  But they denied the faith by doing so.
"The Law," here, could easily be "The norm," and the referent of the norm would be the curse.  It is difficult to decide, since Paul quotes from the Law, but then his quotation is an allegorical explanation of the effects of the curse contrasted with the promise.  Perhaps some such translation as "usual rule" here would allow us to be concordant in both cases.
4.24  §1.  I have used a less technical translation here, i.e. "arrangement" since the word "covenant" is automatically equated to the Law in the mind of the Christian reader.  The Law and prophets record many "covenants," and the question is, "which one?"  Furthermore, a covenant is not so much a two sided agreement as an unilateral one made by God and imposed on his people from above.  A covenant is any kind of arrangement God makes with man.
Here we have two arrangements.  One is from Mt. Sinai.  It is the law of the curse (Deut. 27:26), which is the norm applied to unregenerate people.  It corresponds to Hagar, who was a slave, and represents judgment.  The fact that the Law also was put into writing at Sinai should not confuse us here, since Paul has already mentioned the curse (see 3:13).  To confound the Law with the curse here would be to create a contradiction.  For observance of the Law resulted in blessing (see Deut. 28:1-14), not slavery.  And for regenerate people, the curse is not applied (see Gal. 3:19 and Rom. 3:25).  And if the curse is still valid, then violation of the Law is what results in slavery, and this is just what Paul's opponents are guilty of, because they suvert the scriptural means of atonement by making circumcision and ritual purity or some other tradition on an instrument to apply that atonement.
§2. The second arrangement is from Mt. Zion (Jerusalem).  This is God's "arrangement of peace" with Zion (Isaiah 54:10; cf. Isaiah 53).  At the Passover season, in Zion, Yeshua took the cup and used it to symbolize the new arrangement by his blood.  And then in the sight of Zion, he was put to death for our sins.  Such is the fulfilment of the promise, "All the nations will be blessed by you" (Gen. 12:3).  Even the new arrangment is related to the Law (Jer. 31:33), but it is not confounded with it.  Neither should the curse (Deut. 27:26) related to the Law be confounded with it.
§3.  If Mount Sinai is in Arabia, then it cannot be in the area now called the Sinai Penninsula.  It has to be across from the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba in Nabatea somewhere around Petra (see Longenecker [54], pg. 212).  In that case the children of Israel would wandered in the Arabian desert for 38 years, and not in the Wilderness of Zin.  Hagar means "rock" or "cliff" in Arabic (ibid., pg. 211).  A man once told me that a subsurface land bridge exists across the mouth to the gulf of Aqaba, and that he found an acheaological site in the SW corner of Saudia Arabia which reminded him of Sinai.  If so the Israelites did not cross the Bitter Lakes, but were pursued 11 days to the beaches of Aqaba and crossed there into Arabia and the land of Midian.
4.26  Also trans. "earlier" (TDNT [8]), "on high," "of old," "ancient," (LS [12]), "above" (BAG [3]).  The Greek is anw, which "denotes land (as opposed to sea), mountains, the atmosphere, heaven and its gods, and even the earth as opposed to the underworld" (TDNT [8]).  According to Liddell and Scott (LS [12]) the term can be used "geographically" to mean "on the upper side, i.e. on the north."  In our context, it denotes the higher Jerusalem, that is, the Jerusalem of the future (as opposed to the present) now under construction in heaven (see John 14:2-4).  This new city is called "higher," not only due to its contruction above, but because in the age to come it will be more elevated and exalted than the present city (see Micah 4:1-8; Psalm 48:1-3).  When it is finished, in the age to come, God will bring it down to earth (see Rev. 21:2) to be placed on the site of Zion.  Paul, here, is in complete agreement with the Rabbinic teaching of the, "Jerusalem which [is] above" (see Lange [36], vol. 11, pg. 116; see Longenecker [54], pg. 214).
It is difficult to tell whether Paul might not allude to "earlier Jerusalem" to contrast with the "present" city (cf. Lange [36], Vol. 11, pg. 116 [who denies it], and Alford [35], vol. III, pg. 50 [who also denies it]).  It is evident, though, that no linguistic objection can be made to the translation, "ancient Jerusalem."  If Paul is viewing the new Jerusalem of the future as a renewal of the earlier faithful city of the time of David and Solomon, then perhaps the text might at least suggest the idea.
A more sure allusion is to Zion.  The Psalmist writes, "Great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, the mountain of his holiness, beautiful of height, a joy of all the earth is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the great king" (Pslam 48:2-3, cf. Keil [55]).  The upper north-east side of Zion (Jerusalem) was where the temple was located.  It does not matter whether Zion is the SE hill, SW hill, or the city itself.  The Temple is north of it in all cases.
So in the time to come, Jerusalem will be completely free.  In it there will be no more curse (see Deut. 27:26; Rev. 22:3).  "For the Law will go forth from Zion" (see Michah 4:2) and "all your sons shall be taught of Yahweh (Isaiah 54:13).  Everyone will be perfect, and the curse will not apply.  The city is also "our mother."  For it is the bride of the Anointed One (see Rev. 21:2).  This teaching is clearly revealed in Isaiah 54.  See next verse.
4.27 Paul seeks to teach the Galatains here that the Law and Prophets clearly predict apostacy, and that perfection is still a future promise for God's people.  Paul's opponents on the other hand taught that perfection would bring about the establishment of the new Jerusalem when all Israel kept the Law perfectly.  But this popular folk Judaism idea is not what scripture teaches.  First God will have his day of judgment, and then the kingdom will be established when God works salvation with his own right arm, and through his own mercy (see Isaiah 54:7-10).
Many Christians delight in speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem above, but always they are careful to add such comments and assumptions such that it has nothing to do with the restored theocracy of the Messianic kingdom so clearly described in the Prophets.  That such a bifurcation is necessary is refuted by the fact that the Rabbis taught about the "Jerusalem that is above" long before they did.
§2.  The prophecy quoted here is yet to be fulfilled.
§3. Isaiah 54:1.  Here Paul quotes but the first verse of this magnificent passage about the new Jerusalem.  Keil writes, "The words are addressed to Jerusalem, which was [sic, should be "is"] a counterpart of Sarah in her barrenness at first, and her fruitfulness afterwards" (Keil [56], vol. 7, pg. 342).  The passage goes one to predict, 1) a larger Jerusalem which will "take possession of nations" (vs. 2-3); 2) no shame (vs. 4); 3) a new relationship of mercy with God (vs. 5-10); 4) new foundations of "saphires" (vs. 11-12), (cf. Rev. 21:19); 5) teaching of the Lord (vs. 13), (cf. Michah 4:1-6); 6) no adversaries will prevail (vs. 14-15).
4.30.  Genesis 21:10.  Paul's conclusion is again what his opponents denied.  Uncircumcised believers are children of Abraham.  One does not have to memorize one's "circumcision catechism" and be circumcised before receiveing the full and complete benefits of Yeshua's atonement.  We also might as well go ahead and say that a believer does not have to be immersed either before receiving the full benefits of Yeshua's atonement, i.e. the Ethiopian Official was saved before he was immersed, even though we would expect him to be immersed in obedience to the commandment.  The same applies to circumcision.
5.1.  §1. Paul is not against circumcising men who understand the good news.  He circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-4).  And later he said, "What is the profit of circumcision?  Much in every way!" (Rom. 3:1b).  And circumcision is, "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" (Rom. 4:11).  Those who understand the good news, and who are convicted of the command (Gen. 17:10) are ready to be circumcised.  Titus was also circumcised (see. 2.3-4).
These Galatians are studying the catechism (so to speak) of Paul's opponents in preparation for circumcision.  But when they have leanrt the doctrine and the time arrives for induction by circumcision, Paul declares, "the Anointed will not profit you" (Gal. 5:2).  Why so?  Because they trust the error that circumcision is "the blood of the covenant" which makes Yeshua's blood ineffective for forgiveness.  See notes on Gal. 6:12.
"Behold, I Paul tell you [the heretical Galatians] that whenever [when, at the time that] you [the heretical Galatians] should be [may be, can be] circumcised [hoping to receive the benefits of Yeshua's atonement by means of it], the Anointed will not profit [help, be of value to, atone for, forgive] you [the heretical Galatians]."  On "whenever" see AS [1], ean = otan, pg. 125.  The Greek ean indicates, "what is expected to occur" (BAG [3], pg. 211).
§2. We can compare this to baptism.  There are those who are instructed in the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptism.  Baptism is of such effect that "without the laver of regeneration ... he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God," (Trent [22], vol. II, pg. 87, paraphrase) and "baptism remits the whole of the guilt of original sin" (Trent [22], ibid.).  Once this doctrine is accepted Christ's atonement is of no profit, and when they are baptised, Christ's atonement is of no profit then either.
But neither false baptism or false circumcision anulls the command of baptism (Matthew 28:18-20) or circumcision (Gen. 17:10).
5.3.  §1.  "I testify to every man [heretical Galatian] who is being  'circumcised' [by the sectarians] that he is a debtor [owes payment] to do all [the whole, entire] the Law [Torah, God's Norm]."  That Paul's statement was limited to the present circumstance, in which a heterodox sect was performing the sacrament, is clear from his  circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3-4).  The circumcision ceremony was the admission rite to this unorthodox sect;  therefore Paul opposes it as we would oppose baptism if the Romans Catholics were behind it.  "To be saved you must be perfect"  (cf. Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 3:3) was what the heterodox Jews preached.  This turned the Law into a debt for them, which they thought they could pay off, but really couldn't (Acts 15:10).
§2. Circumcision probably came to be viewed as the vehicle by which the benefits of Yeshua's atonement were communicated to the converts.  Wherefore, you cannot be saved, that is, receive the benefits of Yeshua's atonement without circumcision.  Therefore, all who prepared for circumcision under the guidance of the heretics were fallen from grace, because they had not the benefits of Yeshua's atonement, and they remained fallen from grace when circumcised, because circumcision is only a sign and not the intrumental cause of atonement.
Regarding the Law as a debt, Trent [22] declares, "If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ: let him be anathema" (s.v. De Baptismo, Canon vii).  This "debt" the Catholics show how to pay through "penance."
3.  "You are discharged from the Anointed, you who are put right [forgiven, acquitted, vindicated] by the norm [the usual way, the average standard, the normal practice]."  The norm was to be put right by hoping God would overlook sin due to one's great piety in keeping the Law; the Law was viewed as a type of penance.
"Put right" also has another sense, i.e. "the doers of the Law shall be put right" (Rom. 2:13).  And, "You see that by works a man is put right, and not by 'belief' alone" (Ja. 2:20).  In these two places it does not mean [forgiven, acquitted]; rather it means [made righteous, righteous].  Only context can clue us in as to what is being "put right," i.e. whether it is being put on God's right side [forgiveness], or whether it is putting our life right [being made righteous].
5.4. A fall from grace is a fall from salvation.  This text is a severe blow to the doctrine of "once saved always saved" taught by some baptists (see also Colossians 1:23 and Romans 11:18-24 in this connection).  One cannot fall from a position of grace unless he has already been in a state of grace.
5.5. §1. Perfect righteousness is something still future which we eagerly wait for.
§2.  Circumcision which is not in accord with faith does not help anyone. Note the "unless" in the sentence (see 2.16 §4)..  Circumcision is lawful if done in faithfulness out of love for God.  Paul echo's a similar thought in I Corinthians 7:19, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing unless keeping commandments of God."  It might seem obvious to us that circumcision is a commandment, but there was a host of controversy in the first century, both political and religious, on the matter, to confuse the new convert.  Paul's strategy was to let them figure it out for themselves when they were ready.  In the meantime he opposed the perversions of the rite.
5.9. Leaven represents sin in the biblical culture.  A little bit goes a long way.  A little bit of heretical teaching does a lot of damage.
5.11. The word "cross" is better translated "pale" (or tree as here) without the implied "X" or "T" shape.   A  pale (stauro$ ) was a pole or beam used for the execution of criminals.  Yeshua was hanged (lit. paled) on a horizontal pale in a tree.  Ernest L. Martin explains the manner of Messiah's death thoroughly and convincingly in his book, Secrets of Golgotha [9].   The word "cross" only seems normal to the ear because we grew up with it.  If it had been translated correctly from the beginning as "pale," then "pale" would be equally normal to us.
5.14. Leviticus 19:18.
5.18.  i.e. We are not under the norm of sin.  God forgives us; he does not hold us to the norm of perfection.  Nor are we under the norm of judgment.
5.20 §1. witchcraft.  In Greek, farmakeia, "pharmakeia," from which we get our modern word "pharmacy" means "a. the use or the administering of drugs, b. poisoning, c. sorcery, magical arts" (Thayer [13]). A drug is any substance which is ingested in such concentration as to be harmful to the mind or body.
§2. Dissension occurs when people become quarrelsome or make personal attacks in a discussion.
§3.  Paul mentions these sins because the Galatians knew them. They were taught all these things as God fearing gentiles by the dispersion Jews when they attented the synagouge.  They are an extract of the seven Noachide commandments.
6.12.  "A good show in the flesh" refers to their desire to appear as already perfected (Gal. 3:3; cf. Trent [22], s.v. "Decree Concerning Original Sin," section 5).  Those who adopted circumcision as the instrument to apply the merit of the atonement of Yeshua were not persecuted, but those who allowed for forgiveness without circumcision were persecuted.  For example, in Catholicism, the merits of Christ's death are not effective except through baptism (Trent [22], s.v. "Decretum de Justificatione," ch. vii), and the Church of Rome persecutes everyone who does not teach her doctrine of baptism, "If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation: let him be anathema" (Trent [22], s.v. "De Baptismo," Canon V; cf. Acts 15:1).  Those who teach the true good news of Yeshua's death on the tree are persecuted by Rome.
Yet, just as the commandment for baptism is not abolished by false doctrine, neither is circumcision.
6.14. §1.  "But may I not boast unless in [because of] the pale [an execution instrument from which the condemned is hanged, see below] of our Lord Yeshua the Anointed, through which the world [world system, worldly ways, sin nature] in me is paled [hanged from a pale, put to death, executed, eliminated] and I to the world [sin nature]."  A pale is a horizontal bar placed in a tree or affixed to a stake.  In Latin this is known as the patibulum, and in Greek as a stauros.  The word paled means to be hanged from a pale.
Unfortunately most are familiar with the word "cross" and "crucified."  These words were introduced to English based upon incorrect historical assumptions.  We must take ourselves back to the position of the first translators and choose the right words.
§2. Yeshua was hanged on a green tree (Luke 23:21).  For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?  The pale was what he carried up the mount;  he was hanged in the tree from the pale.
6.15. §1. In Greek, ti (ti) may mean "any," and the referent must be determined by the context.  Circumcision is not any boast before God for salvation. Clearly Paul thought circumcision was something when he circumcised Timothy.  Timothy lived in the province of Galatia  Paul had him  circumcised in the presence of the Jews in those places  after he won his victory at the council.  This showed that he stood against only the circumcision of the heretics.  This act would have put to rest any misunderstandings among the Galatians concerning this book, which was written before the council.
§2.  Circumcision is only a sign.  It does not become an atonement or anything else.  As long as circumcision is understood as a sign of the covenant it is biblical.   Circumcision is not a cause for boasting before God.
6.17.  The likely primary cause of Yeshua's death was shock induced by stoning while he hung on the tree (cf. Sanhedrin  [45], 43a).  Paul survived his stoning (Acts 14:19, 20) but it probably left him partly blind and disfigured.  By "the marks of Yeshua" he means his scars from stoning were in the likeness of Yeshua's marks (See Secrets of Golgotha  [9], pp. 184-202).  Compare Zechariah 12:10.

        1.  Ti oun o nomoV twn parabasewn. Carin proseteqh ...  The Greek word for grace here is Carin.  It is the object of the verb "it was added."  The translation of this word "on account of," or "because of" is not warrented here, or anywhere else.  The lexical norm "favor," or "grace" works, and makes sense in all contexts.  There is nothing unusual about the rearranged syntax here.  Law is modified by the genitive phrase, to be "law of the transgressions," and in Paul's theology, this means the laws in the Torah indicating the consequences of transgression. cf. Rom. 3:25.
        Many students of Greek are in the habit of trying to prove something possible by example, and if they can't prove it by example, then they discount it.  Discounting a translation for lack of another example is misguided, simply because of the infinite variety that is possible in linguistic expression, and the number of exceptions to "rules." (cf. John 1.1 note).  If it makes sense, then it is possible.