The New Notes on Galatians 

by Daniel Gregg

Gal. 4:10; Gal. 3:19a; Gal. 3:19b; Gal. 3:19c-20; Gal 5:18; End Notes.

Gal. 2:16; Gal. 2:16a ; Gal. 2.16c ; 4QMMT; Psalm 143:2;

       Download Fonts (Needed: BWHEBB.TTF & BWGRKN.TTF & PALEO-HEBREW & TIMES NEW ROMAN (optional):  Note: to read the Hebrew correctly, it must not word wrap.  Resize your screen if you see words or phrases word wrapping at the end of a line).

Galatians 4:10,  Days aside you ||worship|| and months, and seasons, and years.  Index.

`~ynIv'w> ~ydi[]AmW ~yvid'x\w" ~yriM.v;m. ~T,a; ~ymiy"

`Wbzo[]y: ~D's.x; aw>v'-yleb.h; ~yriM.v'm. (Jonah 2:9).

Those worshipping vain idols forsake their true loyalty! (cf. Gal. 4:8-9). (The piel form is the correct rendition of the Greek intensive: parathreisqe).  The Hebrew (~yriM.f;m.) also means 'revere' (Koehler, Lexicon In Veteris Testamenti Libros cf. also Langenscheidt, Pocket Hebrew Dictionary ).

     This text is the most important in the book of Galatians because it is the most abused over  two millennia.  It has been commonly used to condemn the observance of Jewish Sabbaths.    Actually what Paul is condemning is the calendar of his Adversaries.   It was, heretofore previously not a widely known fact since the destruction of the Temple in 70 c.e. that there was another calendar widely current in Judaism during the time of  [;WvyE (Jesus).    But now the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed our view of the situation in the second Temple period, showing that the situation in Judaism was very complex and involved quite a number of sects.

     One of the points that has clearly come out of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the scrolls sect, the Yahad dx;y: often equated with the 'Essenes'¹ also vehemently opposed the Pharisees;   They differed from all other Jews by keeping a different calendar.  This calendar was central to their beliefs, and it had no small circulation.  It was found in numerous copies in the caves, and by the hand of many different scribes.  It was also found at Masada, and is known from the book of Enoch, and in the book of Jubilees.   This calendar was guided by the movement of the sun, and for this reason, it is called a solar calendar.  It has 364 days as opposed to the Pharisee's calendar of 354 days.    It divided the year up into four quarters or seasons of three months each.  Each season had 91 days in it (4 x 91 = 364).   The calendar was so arranged so that the first day of each season landed on the fourth day of the week when the heavenly bodies were created.   Feast days landed on Wednesday also.  They observed the feast of weeks on a Sunday like the establishment Sadducees.  

     In every respect, the Yahad answers perfectly to a mirror reading description of Paul's Adversaries in Galatia.   We cannot prove beyond controversy whether it was in fact Yahad, a similar group, or some other group.  However, the circumstantial evidence is very strong, when we consider other commonalities of doctrine between Yahad and what we would expect of Paul's opponents by reading Galatians.   It is one of the aims of these notes to illustrate using the Yahad just what Paul was talking about.  If it does not drive the nail completely home, at least it hits it on the head.   Certainly the oft repeated claim that Paul is condemning Jewish Sabbaths and festivals just because he condemns a calendar of 'days, months, seasons, and years' has to be called into question.

    Now Paul does not simply say 'you keep days ...' but  'you carefully observe' ( vs. the simple threisqe.  Possibly the prefix  para is to be split off into a separate word, 'aside,' or 'beside' so as to intimate that their observance is aside from the way of truth.   In that case the translation would be, 'Days aside you observe, and months, and seasons, and years.'   Either way, the text fits Yahad well.   The PARA prefix translates as an intensive into Hebrew piel (cf. above note on Hebrew), which brings out the meaning in the context much clearer than the Greek.

     They were quick to condemn the rest of Israel for not following their calendar, and they paid strict attention to it.  "They are neither to advance their holy times nor to postpone any of their prescribed festivals" (The Community Rule: 1QS, Col. 1, line 14-15).  "Anyone who refuses to enter [the socity of G]od, preferring to continue in his willful heart, shall not [be initiated into the Ya]ad of His truth, inasmuch as his soul has rejected the disciplines foundational to knowledge: the laws of righteousness.  He lacks the strength to repent. He is not to be reckoned among the upright." (ibid., 1QS, Col. 2. line 25-26, Col. 3, line 1).  The Yahad was so dedicated to its calendar that the official explanation for its losing 1 1/4 days per year, so that the actual seasons came later and later seems to be that, "In the days of the sinners the years shall be shortened, and their seed shall be tardy on their lands and fields, and all things on the earth shall alter, and not appear in their time ... the moon shall alter her order, and not appear at her time." (1 Enoch 80:2-4, copies found with the scrolls),  and "Many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order" (80:6), and Wise adds, "Seasonal drift was not, in his view, the result of an imperfect calendrical system; no, it stemmed from angelic sin" (The Dead Sea Scrolls, pg. 298, Wise, Abegg, and Cook).

     The Yahad has different festival days.   They had different months.   Their seasons were different, and finally they had a different system of sabbatical and Jubilee years (Calendar of the Heavenly Signs, 4Q319).  The gravity and magnitude of the situation in Judaism, perhaps, can only be understood at present by analogy with the well known disputes between the Orthodox and Catholic Christians over the date of Easter, or the more recent dispute between the Rabbinic Jews and the Karaite Jews.

     One might wonder why Paul was sensitive to his converts following Yahad's calendar.   He is so attuned because if they are following it, it can only mean one thing: that they have believe Yahad's other doctrines also, particularly the doctrine about being justified by some particular works of the law with a view to making atonement posible (1QS, col. 3, line 4-6; 4QMMT, pg. 364, ibib., Wise).

§2.  Galatians 3:19a:  Why then the law of the transgressions?  Index

~y[iv'P.h; jP;v.Mih;-hm; !Ke-~ai

     This text is commonly used to teach that the law was terminated when the Messiah came.²  This conclusion is not inevitalbe when we look at the original Greek and punctuate the text correctly.   The correct translation of the first clause of the verse is, 'Why then the law of transgressions?'  ti oun o nomoj twn parabasewn?³  There are two possible interpretations of this text, which we can combine into one interpretation using a play on words.  The Yahad's interpretation of the law was quite different than the Pharisees, whom they called 'liars.' (pg. 31, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Wise, Abegg, and Cook).  Since the word  parabasewn might be translated 'errors' (cf. Liddell & Scott), we might translate, 'Why then the law of errors?'   In this case it is a semi-rhetorical question; why the need for the law of errors?  It would be a backhanded reference to the Yahad's version of the law, which indeed, was full of errors in every respect beginning with their calendar.   Or it could be translated, 'Why then the law [concerning] transgressions?'   In this case it would refer to the section of the law pronouncing curses on the transgressors (e.g. Deut. 27:26), which is emphasized heavily by the Yahad in the Community Rule (1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11).   The Law did indeed curse the transgressors (cf. Gal. 3:10), but Paul has an answer as to why the faithful, despite their transgressions, are not finally cursed.   The 'law of errors' then is a reference to the law according to Paul's opponents, or simply a neutral reference to the section of the law cursing the transgressors.  "The law of transgressions" is to be understood in the same sense as, "the law of the husband" (Rom. 3:2).   It is a particular law, and in the case of the law of transgressions, it is what the law says about lawbreaking.  

     The Yahad, however, made the 'law of transgressions," (Deut. 27:26) 'a law of errors' because they categorically condemned anyone who was not perfect according to the standards of the Yahad, without leaving any room for mercy, grace, or atonement for imperfect Israelites.  In fact, an initiate had to live one year by the rules of the Yahad, without being granted membership which entailed eternal life.   After a year had passed, his conduct was evaluated by the Yahad, and if he was found perfect, he was enrolled in the membership.   At the end of the second year he could be counted a full member.   Until one was a member, and found perfect by the Yahad, it was understood, according to their teaching, that ceremonies of atonement had no value.

     The Yahad would have certainly told Paul's converts that they were 'cursed' until they 'matured' in Torah and advanced to the stage of keeping all the laws.  Yahad did not count intiates as true Israelites until they were perfect according to the 'Community Rule' (cf. Gal. 6:16).   The Pharisees, on the other hand, of whom Paul was one, generally allowed a year for converts (Ger Toshav) to become versed in Torah without denying them membership in Israel, and without condemning them (Messiah, Vol. 2, Avi Ben Mordechai, pg. 181).

     Concerning the Pharisees, the Yahad called them 'Flattery-Seekers' (pg. 216, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Wise, Abegg, and Cook).  They sided with the Priestly factions and the Sadducees in war against Demetrius III of Syria (4Q169, A Commentary on Nahum).

Gal. 3:19b:  Grace was added until the Seed should come by whom it had been promised,  Index

hx'j'b.h;h; Al-rv,a] [r;Z,h; aAby"-yKi d[; @s;An ds,x,

yt'Ac.mi yrem.vol.W yb;h]aol. ~ypil'a]l; ds,x, hf,[ow> (Exodus 20:6).

     Here is Paul's answer to the 'curses' (carin proseteqh acrij an elqh to sperma w ephggeltai).  "Grace was added' he says, (carin proseteqh).   Paul alludes to the same thing in Romans 3.25, "because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished" (NIV).  The Greek word for 'grace' or 'favor' is  carij, charis, from which the accusative form of that word is derived.   The popular translation thus is really based on dividing the Greek text as 'Why then the law? Of the transgressions favor it was added until the seed should come by whom it had been promised"  Commentaries have pointed out, using this translation, that it means the law was added to favor transgressions!   At the very least, it would mean 'on behalf of transgressions,' not merely the neutral 'on account of' that is put in the translations to tone down the the distasteful results of the original mistake in dividing the sentence after 'law.'

Gal. 3:19c-20:  being ordained through messengers in the hand of a mediator.   And the mediator of Yahad it is not.  But God alone it is. Index     

`~yIn:yBe vyai dy;b.W ~ykia'l.M;h; ydey>-l[; ds,x,h; ~f;WTw:

 `hy"h' dx'a, ~yhOila/h'w> hy'h'-aOl dx;y: !yBemi vyaih;w>

~k,ynEybeW hwhy-!yBe dme[o ykinOa'  (Deut. 5:5).

      Where we would expect Paul to be talking about Torah, he has the subject of 'grace.'  The Law was given through Moses -- grace and truth came through Y'shua the Messiah, who is the living 'Word of God' (John 1:1; 1:17), if you will, the 'living Torah,' who is the messenger of the covenant who put the law into Moshe's hand.  The Rabbinic Jews, who are the descendents of the Pharisees taught that Moses was a mediator, but  also that God was the only Mediator (in a salvation sense) -- see Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 41, "Galatians," pg. 142-143.  But Yahad (oneness, unity, unitedness), first claimed to be in the sucession of Moses by the prophecy of Deut. 18, and to receive direct revelation from God (see Temple Scroll, 11Q19-20, where the name of Moses is notably ommited; cf. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Wise, Abegg, and Cook).  Furthermore, the leaders of Yahad, acted as Priestly Mediators (in a salvation sense) for the initiates, who they either judged worthy of membership or rejected because their character was not good enough (cf. 1QS, Col. 6, lines 13-23, 4Q270 Frag. 9 Col. 2, pg. 65, ibid.).   They were thus acting as a Mediator. 

     First Paul denies that the true Mediator is Yahad's representative -- And the mediator of Yahad it is not.   The Greek says 'and the mediator of One not is.'  When we render 'of one' ( enoj ) into Hebrew, we get dx;y:, Yahad, which means 'oneness,' 'unity,' 'united' (cf. BAG, pg. 230-231, eij, 1b., 2a).   The Greek word can have the same meanings also.  After denying Yahad the power to dispense grace or judgment, he asserts that it is God's right alone to dispense grace and condemnation.  The difference between yahad and echad is simply that the former is the verb form of the latter.

Gal. 5:18:  And if you are led by the Spirit you are not in the place of judgment.  Index

 `jP'v.Mih; tx;T; ~k,n>yae za' x;Wrh' ydey>-l[; Wgh]nUT.-~aiw>

      This last two Greek words of this verse are typically rendered 'under law' which is perfectly good Greek, but Christians have trained themselves to read 'under law' as meaning subject to its precepts.  That this could not have been the case is immediately evident from the context, in which Paul lists numerous sins proscribed by the law.   Furthermore, Paul also said 'through the law is the knowledge of sin,'  (Rom. 3:20a), and then he tells his audience to 'sin not.'   He must, therefore, have meant something else.

      The meaning of the phrase is like at law in the sentence, "The defendant was sued at law"  Or the sentences, 'The lawyers defended their clients at law.   He was an Attorney at law."    As 'at law' means to be in court litigating a matter, so 'under law' meant the same thing.     Hebrew helps us in two ways here.  First the Greek upo comes from the Hebrew  tx;T; which means 'in the place of,'  and second the Greek nomoj can represent more than one Hebrew word. Usually it is translated torah, but it can also come from the Hebrew word mishpat (jP'v.mi), which means 'judgment, sentence; place of judgment; cause, suit; crime, guilt; right, law, rule; the due' (Langenscheidt, Pocket Hebrew Dictionary). A specific case of the usage of nomoj for this Hebrew word is in Jer. 49:12, where it means 'judgment.'  So 'under law,' means 'in the place of judgment,' or 'in the place of litigation.' 

     David Stern (The Jewish New Testament, pg. 255-256) translates the phrase in question with a paraphrase, 'you are not in subjection to the system that results from perverting the Torah into legalism.'  While this is a true statement (if by it we are to understand 'keeping the law as a means of being offered entry into G-d's household'), it does not do justice to Paul's usage of 'under law' (upo nomou), because Paul says, 'before the faithfulness came, we were guarded under law' (Gal. 3:23), which in in synthetic parallelism to vs. 22, 'all [are shut up] under sin.'  Paul is thereore alluding to a valid function of the law before the atonement of Messiah is applied.  (Stern's 'legalism' was never a valid function of Torah to begin with.)   However, the law does bring people into G-d's court (Deut. 27:26) of judgement.  Prior to Messiah, all were in court charged with 'sinning,' and kept figuratively in 'jail' pending judgement.  Messiah entered the court, i.e. 'came under law,' 'under litigation,' and took the punishment that was handed down for us;  The case is then closed, and we are no longer 'under the law.'

      Now the Spirit convicts the world of 'sin, righteousness, and judgment' (John), and He writes the law on the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 37-39).  This is the ministry of the Spirit  (II Cor. 3).   If we follow the Spirit, then we will not be brought before God's court to be judged.  

      With the Yahad everyone's case was litigated until they became perfect.  An initiate had to take an oath to keep the law, and then he was not admited to full membership until at least one year passed.  His case was 'litigatged,' and he was only pronounced innocent when he had perfected himself (cf. Gal. 3.3-4).   Paul's concept of being 'led by the Spirit,' is not the equivalent of obeying all the commands.  In that case, he would be no different from Yahad.  Rather he means that one will live by whatever the Spirit convicts his heart his right to do.  That is why he lists many obvious sins, which he knows his listeners know not to do, and which he assumes is a minimum of what the Spirit will convict them of.

     Paul, therefore only condemns willful rebellion.  The Yahad, on the other hand, condemend everyone who did not measure up based on outward conformity to the law.   This is one more reason that the Yahad hated the Pharisees.

Gal. 2:16:  We, by nature [are] Jews, and not sinners from the nations,  ||knowing||¹ that a man not |is| righted out of  works of law if not through [the] faithfulness of Yayshua [Ha]Mashiakh;  Even we in Mashiakh Yayshua faithfully trust, that we may be righted by [the] faithfulness of Mashiakh; that is, not out of  works of law, because out of  works of law, not will be righted all  flesh.  Index

1. ||...|| denote emphasis.  This device was developed by Rotherham.

`~yIAGh;-!mi ~yaiJ'x; aOlw> Wnx.n:a] ~ydiWhY.h; [r;Z,mi !he

hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi ~d'a' qD;c.nI-aOl yKi WnTe[.D;miW

 WNm;a/h, Wnx.n:a] ~G; x;yviM'h; [;WvyE tn:Wma/B, aOl-~ai

aOlw> x;yviM'h; tn:Wma/me qD;c.nI ![;m;l. [;WvyE x;yviM'B;

aOl hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi yKi hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi

`rf'B'-lK' qD;c.nI

     Wow! What a statement; First   "We are by nature Jews and not sinners from the nations" (Gal. 3.15).  Something is always lost in a translation.  Though it may not be obvious, the English reader might ask the question, 'Does Paul mean to say Jews are not sinners at all?'   The Hebrew reader would not even ask, because the preposition ( !mi ) [min] means 'on the side of' or 'more than.'  The usage is also found in the Greek of the LXX with the translation by (EK) [ek] (genitive of comparison)  Paul is merely declaring that Jews, who are taught the Law, are not sinners in the same way that the nations are, or to the same degree.

     Gal. 2:16a, "Yet we know that a man is not righted out of works of Law."  Here we have (qD;c.nI) [to be righted, to be restored, to be justified] which got translated as  (DIKAIOUTAI) [dikaioutai, 'is justified'], which we have rendered 'righted' in the English text.  The key to this text is the following words (ECERGWNNOMOU) [ex ergwn nomou], literally, 'out of works of law,' or from the Hebrew (hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi) [outside the works of the torah].  So Rather than a denial that we are righteous by doing Torah, Paul is supporting the concept by denying that 'righting' happens aside from the Torah.  This clear biblical teaching (cf. Deut. 6:25) got turned around by the Church in the ambiguity of the Greek word (EK) [out of].  The word can mean 'from' or 'out of.'  The same is true of the Hebrew (!mi)[min].  The Church removes the sense of the original text by translating 'by  the works of the law,' so that the text would teach, 'a man is not righted by the works of the law,' which is a clear denial of the faith of Yayshua (cf. Mt. 5:17-20). Index

       Paul is not necessarily confining his meaning to 'outside works of the law,' however; his very choice of words, 'works of law,' may point us in the direction of the teaching of Yahad.  In MMT (4Q394-398) we find 'These are some ends of our words [in Torah of Go]d *that is s[ome ends of the] works w[e] raise [reckoned ones even al]l of them concerning [holy things] and purities' (see Legal Issues, Part 2, lines 1-3, pg. 190 The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered for Hebrew Text source, my translation).  The text is fragmentary. Some of the guesses by scholars are aided by the number of unreadable characters and any spaces in the text, the context, and parallel texts.

~yX[m[h] [tcq]m ~hX l[a hrwtb] wnyrbd xcqm hla

trhjw [twnbdq] l[ ~l[wkw ~ybXwx w]n[xn]a aX

The "[]" represent reconstructions by scholars.  There is another text (pg. 199, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, lines 30, 33-35) that is very much less fragmentary:

%m[lw $l bwjl wnbXxX hrwth yX[m tcqm

Some ends-of works-of the-Torah we-reckon for-good for-you and-for-your-people

!k wnyrbd tcqm $acmb t[h tyrxab xmXtX lXb

*Then you will rejoice* in-the-latter-part of-the-end when-you-find some-ends-of our-words-so!

$l bwjl wynpl bwjhW rXyh $twX[b hqdcl $l hbXxnw

And-shall-be-reckoned to-you for-righteousness in-your-doing the-upright and-the-good before-his-face for-you

larXylw

and-for Israel

     This text (4Q394) "is preceded by the final three lines of a calendar ... that may be a continuation of text 64" (The Dead Sea Scrolls, Wise, Abegg, and Cook, pg. 359).  This is, of course, the same old Essene Calendar that we discussed in conjunction with Gal. 4:10.  The subject matter of 4QMMT: 4394-399 'suggests that the Yahad were Sadducees  ... with Essene theological tendencies' (pg. 358), and 'Probably the "false bretheren" (Gal. 2.4) that Paul opposed held a doctrine on justification much like that of the present writing' (4QMMT, pg. 359, ibidem).  To summarize the Torah according to Yahad, we have the Temple Scroll, Their Calendar, and their Legal views of purity, and their violent opposition to the Pharisees.    It is not impossible that this was the very exact make up of Paul's enemies.   Paul's (hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi) [outside works of the Torah], then, is the rhetorical rejoinder to the Yahad's (hr'ATh; yfe[]m; tcoq.mi) [some ends of works of the Torah].  The Yahad, by use of this phrase meant their particular sectarian interpretation of Torah;  Paul's rejoinder put it where it belonged, which was outside the Law altogether.  Some have concluded that this Qumranism was copied exactly by Paul.  This is unlikely, because it would make ex ergwn nomou a false Greek translation; what is more likely, is that the Hebrew concept was accurately represented, but just misunderstood.  If Paul had written (tcoq.mi) this would have required the reader to understand the specifics of the issues.  By using (!mi) [outside] we show that the text can be understood without it.  Index

     Paul's thesis (Gal. 2.16) has the unique property of reading correctly serveral ways.  The word (!mi) [outside, out of, from] allows several correct readings.     The Hebrew (!mi) [out of] can be taken as either (%ATmi) [from between] or (#Wx.mi) [outside of].  This results in two interpretations of the text, viz. 1. 'a man is not righted outside the works of the law unless through the faithfulness of Yayshua.'  2. 'a man is not righted by the works of the law unless through the faithfulness of Yayshua.'  The second reading is possible because the conjunctive phrase ( aOl-~ai ) [EIMH, ei mh, if not, unless, except] provides the exception.  Both senses are present in the Hebrew text, and both are equally correct theologically.  The first interpretation denies the possibility of being 'restored' or 'justified' outside the law -- unless, (and this is the key) it is done through the faith of the Messiah.  The second interpretation denies the possibility of being 'righteous' by the law -- unless (and again this is the key) it is done through the faith of the Messiah!  Paul is therefore cutting Yahad's arguement into pieces.  First the 'faithfulness of Yayshua' is in content the position of the Pharisees (cf. Mt. 23:1-3; 5:17-20) as opposed to the Sadducees, and secondly, it is Yayshua's own faithfulness in keeping Torah, and in fulfilling his work of atonement.   It is this faithfulness (performed by Him) that causes a man 'to be righted' before G-d aside from the works of the Torah, i.e. outside Torah.   It is this argument that totally opposed Yahad's teaching that atonement could only be acomplished after perfectly keeping the commands of Torah.  Paul's position is that atonement ||is|| acomplished while we are still outside the legal bounds of Torah.

Gal. 2:16c.  .that is, not out of  works of law; because out of  works of law, not will be righted all  flesh.  Index

 `rf'B'-lK' qD'c.nI aOl hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi yKi hr'ATh; yfe[]m; !mi aOlw>    

     This, phrase, is Paul's explanation for the first part of the verse.  First he qualifies that the exception: 'through the faithfulness of Mashiakh,' that it is still within the scope of the Law, because the Law provides for G-d's faithfulness to 'restore' (qD'c.nI) a sinner outside the Law.  The 'righting,' or 'restoring,' therefore, is not outside the works of the law, when G-d does the work of atonement.   Then he gives the proof of the logical need for the Law to provide 'righting' outside man's doing it:  'out of works of the law not will be righted all flesh;'   Here he means that the law cannot perfect man;  we can take the last few words as 'the whole of flesh' or 'the whole person' (cf. Psalm 143:2 (MT), 142:2 (LXX)).  Note: the LXX has (pasa zwn) [all of living] and the Received Hebrew Text has (yx'-lk') [all of life] (n.b. the trans. 'any,' in this case is errant, since it denies the possibility of any righteousness, a concept squarely contradicted by the law). Index

End Notes Index

1. The Yahad or 'Community' stretching the translation to the limit, is what the group calls itself in the 'Community Rule,' (1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11).  The word derives from the same root as 'one' ( dx'a, ) ; it means 'unity,' 'united,' 'oneness,' 'union,' 'communion,'  (Langenscheidt Pocket Hebrew Dictionary).   Jewish groups used many different terms to designate themselves by their 'character,' or what they perceived their own character to be.  For example, Sadducees comes from a Greacized form of the Hebrew  ~yqiWDc; which means 'Righteous Ones'.  For this reason groups must be identifed by their peculiar doctrines, and not by their names.

2. "Why then the law?  It was added because of transgressions until the seed [Messiah] should come."   The common interpretation is that it was added up to the point of Messiah, but then after Messiah it is no longer 'added,' so that it no longer applies.

3.  The grammar of 'the law of transgressions' is nominative + genitive modifier, e.g.  the same as in John 1:49, 'o uioj tou Qeou'  = the son of God.