Questioning Paul

Chapter 10

part 1

Pharmakeia – Poisoned

Have You Ingested Paul’s Poison…

We’ve come to a place I could never have imagined. Once upon a time I had expected that errant translations and misinterpretations of Galatians had been responsible for Christendom promoting the myth that the Torah had been annulled. But in actuality, Paul, himself, has been responsible for this deadly delusion. He has gone well beyond simply relegating the Torah to a bygone era. He has assailed the Covenant codified therein, calling it a source of slavery, rather than liberation.

Paul has hung himself with his own words. And if that were it, so be it. But unfortunately, Paul’s noose was woven into a net which has ensnared billions of Christian souls. And for that reason, we will press on, unraveling his trap.

As we turn the page and open the fifth chapter of Galatians, Sha’uwl remains fixated on the distinction between the liberty he promises and the servitude he has associated with observing the Torah. And in the context of having made Yahowah’s Covenant man’s mortal enemy, the concluding clause is exceptionally demeaning, even for Sha’uwl.

"This (te) freedom (eleuthera – liberty) of ours (ego) being Christos (ΧΡΣ – Divine Placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (without the definite article, the errant name Christos is a better grammatical fit than the title "the Implement Doing the Work of Yah") it freed (eleutheroo – liberated, exempt, and unrestrained) you all are directed to stand firm (steko – you must persist steadfast). Therefore (oun – then), also (kai), not again (me palin) in yoke (zygos) of subservience and slavery (douleia – bondage and subjugation) you are held based upon a grudge against you all (enechomai – are submitting based upon hostility toward you all, burdening, opposing, and controlling you all, forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome)." (Galatians 5:1)

There is a rather complex grammatical situation occurring in the initial clause which can only be appreciated through close scrutiny of the cases, moods, and pronouns. "Christos," for example, was written in the nominative case which conveys "to be" or "to become," thereby renaming the subject, in this instance the reader, so that they become Christos. Eleutheroo was written eleutherosen, in the third person singular, conveying "it," and then scribed in the past tense using the aorist indicative. This requires a rendering of "it freed," but what was "it?"

The associated verb, steko, was written stekete, in the second person plural, making it "you all" or "all of you," and then in the present tense imperative mood which expresses a command. This communicates: "you all are directed to stand firm." And yet that command is rather "a-Paul-ling." You see, the self-proclaimed apostle wrote that "Christos it freed." Then he commands believers "to stand firm" in this false realization. And while separating Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and the Towrah is Sha’uwl’s modus operandi, it is the exact opposite of what actually occurred, as the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ observed the Towrah as an example for the rest of us to follow.

Since the rest of Sha’uwl’s statement is equally deplorable, let’s consider the Nestle Aland McReynolds Interlinear interpretation of it before we dig any deeper: "In the freedom us Christ freed stand then and not again in yoke of slavery be held in." You’ll notice, these scholars ignored much of the prevailing Greek grammar and then translated the verb enechomai inadequately, perhaps even inaccurately. According to the ten most respected lexicons, its primary meaning is "to bear a grudge against someone and to violently control, harass, and burden them against their will in a hostile fashion." It speaks of "the hatred and resentment which flows from being ensnared and entangled in a trap, and thus having to surrender and submit to a hostile foe."

And keep in mind, Sha’uwl has relentlessly sought to identify this "yoke of slavery" which "ensnares, burdens, and controls" its victims as being Yahowah’s Towrah. So now this is personal. Paul has gone so far as to slander God and demean His character.

To remove any doubt that enechomai was properly translated, and that Sha’uwl inappropriately associated its perverse connotations with Yahowah, and His influence over humankind from this preposterous Pauline perspective, the most vaulted lexicons render it: "to bear a grudge against someone, to be resentful and hostile, to burden and harass someone violently, to control and subjugate others, and to ensnare and entangle them in a trap." Also recognize that this verb was written as enechesoe, in the second person plural, present passive imperative. The passive voice signifies that "you all" (from the second person plural) are being acted upon by a verb which is in this case quite maniacal. And since the imperative mood is used to express a command, Sha’uwl is saying that our forced submission is the intended result of God’s announced declaration.

Therefore, the opening stanza of the fifth chapter of Galatians actually conveys: "This freedom and liberty of ours being Christos it freed, so you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, not again in yoke of subservience and slavery you are held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome." (5:1) That was hard to write, much less read.

So, based upon Paul’s attitude, and the nature of his insane and inverted thesis, it wasn’t much of a stretch for the New Living Translation to suggest: "So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law." Paul’s intent is obvious. Therefore, as a thought for thought paraphrase, the NLT nailed it.

By comparison, the KJV was a bit slow on the uptake: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." At least the King James accurately reflected one aspect of enechomai with "entangled." And it was even a slight departure from the Latin Vulgate which is rare. Jerome wrote: "Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage."

Galatians continues to be as painful as it is pernicious. This is blatantly "I Paul" am more credible and important than God. What you are about to read is a lie...

"You pay attention (ide – you (no second person singular) look right now, listen and see, noticing this), I (ego), Paulos (Paulos – transliterated Paul, whom Strong’s called "the most famous of the Apostles;" the name is of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little), myself, say (lego – I individually assert, declaring) to you all (umin) that (hoti – because) if (ean – on the condition) you may be circumcised (peritemno), Christos (ΧΡΣ – being the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article, Christos is a better grammatical fit than the correct title "the Implement Doing the Work of Yah") for you (umas) nothing (oudeis – totally worthless and completely meaningless, annulling the possibility and negating the idea that) will be helpful (opheleo – will provide assistance or benefit, will be useful or valuable)." (Galatians 5:2)

According to this statement, to believe Paul’s word you must reject God’s Word. Yahowah said the opposite: "You pay attention, I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you."

Since this is blasphemous in the extreme, with Paulos saying, "if you follow Yahowah’s guidance in the Towrah you cannot be saved by Yahowsha’," let’s examine the three verbs carefully. The first one, "lego – I say," pits Paul against Yahowsha’: "the ‘logos – word’ made flesh." It was written in the first person singular, present active indicative. So, even though the pronoun "I" or "myself" is designated in the verb, Sha’uwl added "ego – I" separately, in addition to his personally chosen name, "Paulos," to emphasize that he alone was the source of this "declaration, narration, command, assertion, and report."

The present tense indicates that "Paulos," as the writer, was portraying his statement as being currently valid and remaining so into the future. In the active voice, the verb confirms that Sha’uwl was the sole source, and solely responsible for this assertion and for its consequence. The indicative mood attests to the fact that Paul wanted his audience to believe that what he was portraying was completely accurate. As such, he has negated the notion that he was speaking for the Yahowsha’. Paulos in speaking for himself, is annulling the purpose of Yahowsha’s life, making it impossible for anyone who believes him to be saved.

"Peritemno – you may be circumcised" was written as peritemnesoe in the second person plural, present passive subjunctive. The passive voice combined with the subjunctive mood signifies that there is somewhere between a possibility and a probability that the subject is being acted upon, suggesting in this case that Sha’uwl wanted us to believe that those who are Towrah observant may have been either hoodwinked or compelled into being circumcised.

Moving on to the next word, at first blush it appears as if oudeis, rendered "nothing," was misused in this text. It is actually an adjective (meaning that it should be modifying the noun "Christos"), not an adverb coloring the nature of "opheleo – will be helpful." Oudeis is defined as "the negation of a noun," as "no one, nothing, and nobody," all of which are rather demeaning when associated with Yahowsha’. But, as hard as this may be to believe, everything Yahowsha’ said and did is completely "negated," making Him a "nobody" and His sacrifice for "nothing" when Yahowah’s Towrah instructions regarding His Covenant generally, and circumcision specifically, are ignored, or worse, rejected.

Similarly, oudeis conveys the idea that a noun, in this case a misnomer for "the Ma’aseyah," is "in no respect valid, totally worthless, of no account whatsoever, and completely meaningless," all of which is true when "Christos" is disassociated from God’s Word as Sha’uwl has done.

Oddly, noting that umas, designating the pronoun "you," was rendered in the personal (referring to a person) second person plural (and thus "all of you" or "you all") accusative (marking it as the direct object of the verb), "opheleo – will be helpful" was written in the third person singular, denoting "it will not provide assistance or benefit." Therefore, to properly convey Sha’uwl’s convoluted citation into English, we need to move "umas – you" from between "Christos" and "ouden" (as it appears in the Greek text), to the end of the sentence, as I did for you in the statement’s summation.

While I don’t want to sound like a boring fourth grade grammar teacher, you should know that rendered in the future active indicative as ophelesei, the concluding verb conveys the notion that "its negated benefit will not actually be accomplished in the future" by the subject, who is "Christos." And the future negated benefit is defined as: "being of help, assistance, or value, being useful or profitable, and being advantageous."

It should be noted here that as a Yisra’elite / Jew, and as the son of a Pharisee, Sha’uwl would have been circumcised eight days after he was born. So by writing this sentence, Paul is either saying that his rules don’t apply to him (as was the case with Muhammad and is the case with most politicians and religious leaders), or he is publicly announcing that Yahowsha’s life and Yahowah’s Towrah are of no value to his Faith. I’ll let you ponder whether one or both of these realities is actually true.

Before we consider Yahowah’s position on circumcision, here is a consortium of English translations for your consideration. NAMI: "Look I Paul say to you that if you might be circumcised Christ you nothing will benefit." LV: "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." KJV: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." NASB: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."

In this case, the NLT has actually moderated what Paul has said: "Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you." While Paul wrote that you have no hope of salvation if you are circumcised, the evangelical text softened that considerably to suggest that circumcision isn’t beneficial when it comes to salvation.

Since I am bereft of words when it comes to Pauline commentary, let’s ponder Yahowah’s position on circumcision as it was articulated in the Towrah. God’s message is so unambiguous and unwavering, there is no reason to interrupt Him with my commentary. He said...

"And (wa) I will stand up and establish, restoring and fulfilling, accomplishing and confirming (quwm – I will ratify and affirm (written in the hiphil stem, whereby the subject (God) is causing the object (Abraham and his offspring) to become established and stand upright)) with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – My family and household agreement (feminine singular, suffixed in the first person singular gender inclusive "My Covenant")) as a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn – as the way to understand this association with Me) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond (byn – for you to examine, consider, understand, and reply appropriately to this relationship), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’ – and with your seed, your extended family, encouraging them to explore and comprehend by making connections) after you (‘achar – following you), regarding and on behalf of (la – concerning) their dwelling places and generations (dowr – their protected households and extended families, elevating and elongating their lives), for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam – always enduring and eternally existing) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – familial association (feminine singular)), to literally be and to actually remain (la hayah – to genuinely exist yesterday, today, and tomorrow (scribed in the qal relational stem denoting reality and in the infinitive construct giving the verb the qualities of a noun)) approachable as your (la) God (‘elohym) and (wa) for your offspring to approach (la zera’ – your seed and descendants to come near) after you (‘aharown – until the very last of you)." (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:7)

"And (wa) God Almighty (‘elohym) said (‘amar – promised) to (‘el – as God to) Abraham (‘Abraham – Loving, Merciful, and Enriching Father), ‘So (wa) as for you (‘eth ‘atah – regarding you), you should actually and continuously observe (shamar – you should carefully consider, diligently and consistently paying especially close attention to the details so that you understand, genuinely care about, revere, and literally keep your eyes focused upon (scribed in the qal stem which addresses that which is literal and relational, and in the imperfect conjugation which conveys the idea that this close examination is to be ongoing, continuing throughout time so as to always explore)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding familial agreement, My household promise, My relational accord, My marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, eternally binding, connecting, and associating the beryth – covenant with shamar – you should carefully observe; written with the first person singular suffix: "My" – telling us that the Covenant is God’s)), you (‘atah) and (wa – in addition to) your seed (zera’ – your offspring (singular construct)) after you (‘achar – following you) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr – their families, related births, and lives (plural construct)). (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:9)

This one and only (ze’th – this particular, singular, unique, and specific (feminine singular)) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship of Mine (beryth-y – mutually binding familial agreement of Mine, My household promise, this relational accord of mine, My marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular and written with the first person singular suffix, thereby reminding us that this one and only Covenant is God’s)), which relationally and beneficially (‘asher – by way of making a connection, developing an association, benefiting and blessing) you should actually and continuously observe (shamar – you should carefully and literally consider, you should diligently and consistently pay especially close attention to the details so that you genuinely understand, care about, and revere what you witness throughout the whole fabric of time and that by focusing upon this you are kept safe and secure (qal stem and imperfect conjugation)) between Me (byn – for the purpose of coming to know and understand Me as a result of being perceptive, prudently considering the insights which are discernible regarding Me) and between you (wa byn – to cause you to be aware and to understand, making connections), and between (wa byn – for the purpose of coming to know and relating to) your offspring (zera’ – your seed (singular construct)) following you (‘achar – after you), for you to actually circumcise (muwl – so that you literally cut off and remove the foreskin of the penis (scribed using the niphal stem which is used to convey the voice of genuine relationships where the subject, which is "you," receives the benefit of the verb, which is circumcision, and the infinitive absolute, which intensifies the action)) accordingly your every (l-cm-kol) male for them to remember (zakar – masculine human individual who recalls and remembers (singular and absolute)). (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:10)

And (wa) you all shall cut off and separate (muwl – you shall circumcise (scribed in the niphal stem which is used to convey the voice of genuine relationships where the subject, which is "you" expressly as a parent, receives the benefit of the verb, which is circumcision, in the perfect conjugation designating that this instruction and resulting action should be considered whole and complete, and in the consecutive thereby associating it with our basar – flesh)) your foreskin’s (‘aralah – the fold of skin covering the conical tip of the masculine genitalia) association with (‘eth) the flesh (basar – the physical body and animal nature). And (wa) this will exist (hayah – this was, is, and forever will be (scribed in the qal perfect, signifying the relationship is genuine and unchanging) as (la) the sign to remember (‘owth – the example to visually illustrate and explain, the symbol and standard, the pledge and attestation of the miraculous nature (singular, as in one and only sign, construct form, linking the sign to the...)) the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – mutually binding familial agreement, household promise, relational accord, marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, eternally associating the beryth – covenant with ‘owth – the sign of muwl – circumcision)) between Me for the purpose of making a connection (byn – for the purpose of coming to know and understand Me as a result of being perceptive, prudently considering the insights which are discernible regarding Me) and between you, promoting understanding (wa byn – to cause you to be aware and to comprehend the association). (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:11)

And (wa) a son (ben – a male child) of eight (shamonah – from shamen, meaning olive oil, which is symbolic of the Spirit, of light, of being anointed, and of being rooted in the land and living a long time) days (yowmym) you shall circumcise (muwl – you shall cut off and separate his foreskin (scribed using the niphal stem denoting a relationship which is genuine and indicating that parents benefit from doing as God has requested, and in the imperfect conjugation which tells us that this must continue to occur over time and that it is designed to produce ongoing results)) with regard to your (la) every (kol) male (zakar – masculine individual; from zakar: to commit to memory, to remind, and to remember) to approach throughout (la) your dwelling places and generations (dowr – your protected households and extended families, elevating and extending your lives), those naturally born (yalyd – those naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth – into the household and family (singular absolute)), and also (wa) those really wanting to be (kasap – those deeply desiring, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) acquired and included (miqnah – purchased and obtained (speaking of adoption)) of (min) every (kol) son (ben – male child) of foreign lands (nekar – of places where they are not properly valued and appreciated) who relationally (‘asher – by way of making a connection) are not (lo’) from (min) your seed (zera’). (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:12)

He (huw’ – third person masculine singular pronoun, addressing fathers) must absolutely circumcise him, definitely cutting off the foreskin (muwl muwl – he must cease what he is currently doing, he must turn him around to face the opposite direction, to ward off threats to his wellbeing by changing his priorities while making a binding promise (scribed with the niphal stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefit accrued to the parent, in the infinitive absolute which intensifies the importance of the act, and in the imperfect conjugation, telling us that this instruction on circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time)) of the naturally born (yalyd – naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in your home (beyth – into your household and your family (singular construct)) and also (wa) those really wanting to be (kasap – those deeply desiring, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) included (miqnah – acquired, purchased, and obtained) / as well as those who are acquired (miqnah – purchased through adoption and included) with your money (kesep – your precious metals; born out of a deep longing and love for adoption).

This shall be (hayah – this was, is, and always will be, this exists as (scribed with the qal stem, denoting a genuine relationship between the subject and the action of the verb which is existence, in the perfect conjugation telling us that this act is complete, lacking nothing, in the singular conveying that there are no other options or contingencies, and in the consecutive form, associating our existence with the beryth – family-oriented covenant relationship and its sign muwl – circumcision)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding familial agreement and relational accord), in (ba) the flesh (basar – physical realm with humanity), serving as a means to approach toward (la – to the goal of) an everlasting and eternal (‘owlam – forever existing and never ending) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – mutually binding agreement and household promise, relational accord and marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular)). (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:13)

And (wa) the uncircumcised (‘arel – the stubborn and unresponsive, the untrusting and un-reliant, those who neither listen nor observe, and therefore, the forbidden who are not set apart) male (zakar – man who fails to remember to do this) who relationally and beneficially (‘asher – who by association and by way of a blessing) is not (lo’) circumcised (muwl – willing to change his direction and priorities and make this binding promise) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh (basar – physical, human, and animal nature) of their foreskin (‘aralah), those souls (nepesh – speaking of what makes us unique individuals, alive, aware, and conscious) shall be cut off, be excluded, and banished (karat – shall be severed and cut out, shall be uprooted from the land, shall die, perishing, shall be destroyed, ceasing to exist) from (min) Her (huw’ – speaking of our Spiritual Mother’s Covenant) family (‘am – people who are related biologically and through language).

By way of association (‘eth) they violated and broke, disassociating themselves from (parar – they nullified the agreement, revoking its promises, tearing asunder and thwarting its benefits, splitting away and injuring themselves in the process by severing) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding familial agreement, My household promise, My relational accord, My marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, connecting and associating the beryth – covenant with God’s ‘am – family; written with the first person singular suffix: My – reminding us that this specific and unique Covenant is God’s to give or not give as He so chooses))." (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:14)

There can be no doubt; according to Yahowah circumcision and the Covenant are related and inseparable. A "New Covenant" of any kind, much less one where circumcision is considered counterproductive, is therefore a nonstarter. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise, and that includes Paul. Also, if someone condemns "the flesh," calling it evil, as Paul is wont to do, please note that Yahowah’s Covenant was cut with us in the flesh – and there is nothing God prizes more highly.

Therefore, our Heavenly Father is serious about circumcision. So we should be as well. His statements are as enlightening as they are unequivocal. And especially relevant is ‘arel, a word which when fully amplified explains the nature of those who are uncircumcised. Those who do not embrace this, the fifth and final Covenant requirement, are considered: "stubborn and unresponsive," they are "untrusting and therefore un-reliant" because they "do not listen and refuse to be observant," so as a result, they are "forbidden" because they are "not set apart" unto God.

Rather than Sha’uwl’s "if you might be circumcised, the benefit of Yahowsha’ is nullified," God said: "if you are not circumcised, your soul will be cut off and separated from My family because you have broken and nullified My Familial Covenant Relationship." Therefore, those who believe Paul must reject Yahowah, who just happens to be God. Or we can trust Yahowah, which means rejecting Paul. The truth is undeniable: this man’s positions are the antithesis of God’s relative to the Covenant.

There are so many questions which are answered by this discussion, let’s linger here and consider them one at a time. First, karat, like so many Hebrew terms, has a dark and light side. The word’s divergent implications influence us differently depending upon the choices we make. On the bright side, karat is routinely used by Yahowah to tell us that He has "karat – cut" His "beryth – agreeable familial covenant relationship" with us—one which separates those who accept it from those who do not.

But as for those who ignore Yahowah’s Covenant, who reject it, or try to change it, they will endure the cutting and divisive side of karat. They shall be "cut off" and thus separated from Yahowah’s Family. They will be "excluded" from His Covenant. And they will be "banished" from His Home. Those who choose not to sign their acceptance of Yahowah’s Covenant by way of circumcision, those who are unwilling to "muwl – change their direction and priorities," will be "karat – uprooted" from the Promised Land – a metaphor for Heaven. They will "karat – die" and their souls will "perish, ceasing to exist."

Second, while "muwl – circumcision" is a physical act in the flesh, our "nepesh – souls" are everything but physical. The nepesh represents our "consciousness." So while it is an essential part of our animal nature, as all animals have a "nepesh – soul, a unique personality and an awareness of our environment," this consciousness has no physical properties. It has no mass and it is not matter. And yet, by failing to be circumcised in the flesh, our soul dies, because it is expressly excluded from Yahowah’s Covenant Family. Therefore, the choices we make in our mortal, material bodies influence whether or not we are elevated to a spiritual status.

Third, circumcision is not the means to reconciliation. But it can be a barrier to salvation. While not all of those who are circumcised will be adopted into God’s family, men and boys who have not been circumcised will be excluded.

Fourth, we either agree to God’s terms or we nullify the opportunity He has given us to survive our mortality and to live with Him. There is no hint of leniency here, no sense of compromise, no opportunity for a future revision to alter this requirement. We either accept it or not. No circumcision, no Covenant. No Covenant, no relationship with God. No relationship with God, no salvation. And therein is why such souls die.

God isn’t about to negotiate. He not only isn’t going to change the terms of His agreement, He cannot change them without becoming unreliable. There is a singular path to life, and we either walk to God along it without wavering, or it is goodbye and good riddance. There is no accommodation for individual approaches, or for the collective appeal of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

The implication here is something no Christian or Muslim, both who claim that the Towrah was inspired, seems willing or able to acknowledge. Most believe that that it does not matter not if their faith is in compliance with God’s instructions, because they have been led to believe that He knows the content of their heart. Contradictions, therefore, become irrelevant. To them, God is God no matter what you call Him. To them, Friday prayers and Sunday worship are perfectly acceptable. Jihad and Grace are both embraced by the faithful, and many paths are thought to lead to God. Sure Christmas and Easter are pagan, but since that is not what they mean to the celebrant, they believe that their god will be understanding. For them mercy invokes a level of capriciousness which they do not see as inappropriate. Their god wouldn’t reject them for getting some of the details, well actually almost everything, wrong.

And yet, all of these musings are inconsistent with the God who inspired these words. With Yahowah, you accept the Covenant on His terms or not at all. Not only are we in no position to negotiate with God over something integral into His very nature, we have everything to gain if we agree to His terms, and He loses nothing if we don’t.

Fifth, the "nepesh – souls" of those who do not rely upon God’s instructions "karat – die, they perish and cease to exist." Throughout Scripture, this is the prevailing outcome for the vast preponderance of human souls. At the end of most people’s mortal lives, when they die, they will cease to exist, because their souls will simply perish. But this is not a penalty or a Divine punishment. In fact, Yahowah has little to do with this eventuality. It is by "karat – disassociating from" God that this fate occurs because eternal life with God is predicated upon us associating with Him in the specific manner He has delineated. If we don’t accept His terms, if we don’t avail ourselves of the path He has provided, then our souls, disconnected from the source of life, perish, which means that our individual consciousnesses will simply cease to exist.