Questioning Paul

Chapter 9

part 4


We will continue to plod our way through Paul’s letter, recognizing that he was a fallible individual writing on his own behalf. There will be no pretense of Galatians being Scripture. We will credit God when Paul affirms something which is true, and which enhances our understanding of Yahowah and His plan of salvation. And we will expose and condemn Paul when he errs, recognizing that the cost of his corruptions can be counted in the millions, even billions, of human souls.

Sha’uwl’s next statement reads: "So now (de – but) Hagar (Agar) exists as (to estin – is) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina) in (en) Arabia (te Arabia – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Arab), therefore (de), corresponding to (sustoicheo – stands in parallel with, is aligned with, and resembles) the present (te nun) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yaruwshalaim, meaning source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flows). She is enslaved (douleuo – she is subjected to slavery) because of (gar) being associated with (meta – among) the children (ton teknon – the sons and daughters) of her (autes – third person singular feminine and thus referring to Hagar)." (Galatians 4:25)

I am growing weary of trying to make sense of that which is senseless, so other than to make a few obvious points, I’m going to let Paul’s devotees have this poison all for themselves.

"Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of Towrah: can’t you hear the Towrah? (4:21) For indeed because it has been written that Abram two sons had, one from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (4:22) Certainly from the slave girl according to flesh has been born, from the free by way of a promise. (4:23) Whatever is being spoken of allegorically these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar." (4:24)

These things are certain. Paul has perverted the concept of "observing the Towrah," which is to closely examine and carefully consider its Teaching and Guidance," to become "being under the control of the Torah," which is "to obey it through compulsion." Paul is setting up two straw men, the first by contriving an artificial distinction between the birth of Ishmael "being of the flesh" and "being enslaved" and Yitschaq "being free based upon a promise." Paul is then errantly associating the Towrah’s Covenant, which was revealed on Mount Sinai and lived out in Yaruwshalaim, with Hagar and with slavery even though Hagar was freed and banished, and Ishmael was expressly disassociated with that Covenant. And although God says that there is only one Covenant, Paul wants the faithful to believe that there are two – the second being his own. This then leads Paul to say that everything associated with Yahowah – His Towrah, His Covenant, His Mountain, and His City – enslaves, even though according to God the opposite is true. And it is upon these lies that Sha’uwl conceived the religion of Christianity.

Contradicting God once again, Paul has left no doubt this time. According to this false prophet, the message Yahowah conveyed from Mount Sinai in His Towrah was as counterproductive as was the place where God’s Word was fulfilled: Yaruwshalaim. In Pauline Doctrine, God’s work in these places enslaved humankind. Only Satan would inspire a man to say such a thing.

‘Arab has several negative connotations in Hebrew, such as "dark and desolate," but it also conveys the positive idea of "offering a pledge of pleasing fellowship." And that is indeed what happened on Mount Sinai (also known as Mount Horeb) in Arabia. And Paul has used it here to take his believers back to the dark and desolate wilderness of lifelessness and ignorance.

Sustoicheo is from sun, meaning "with and together" and stoicheo, "proceeding to march as soldiers in a row, to walk, and to direct one’s life." It literally conveys "to be in a series with, to be in the same row or rank, and to stand in the same line." Figuratively, sustoicheo is "used in logical discussions of things which have distinctive features which fit in the same category," and thus it means "to correspond." Therefore, in the context of an allegory, the "corresponds" rendering seems the most appropriate. And that means that Paul is associating Hagar, the Covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai, and Jerusalem, with slavery when there is no connection between Hagar and the Covenant or the Towrah with being enslaved. But Paul never let the truth get in his way. In fact, the reason that Sha’uwl was opposed "to the present Yaruwshalaim" is obvious: he was rebuked there for his opposition to circumcision.

I would be remiss if I didn’t remind you that sustoicheo is related to stoicheion, which Sha’uwl used in Galatians 4:3 to demean the Torah, saying: "And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, we were subservient slaves."

He deployed stoicheion again six verses later, this time in context with "douleuein – to be controlled as a slave," to further demean the Torah when he wrote: "Certainly on the other hand, not having known or acknowledged god, you were enslaved to nature, not existing as gods. (4:8) But now having known god, but what’s more, having been known under god, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, the worthless, belittling, and terrifying elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology representing the inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed first step which back again and again from above you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by observing and carefully attending days, and months, and seasons, and years?" (4:10)

It was during our review of these earlier Galatians statements that we discovered that stoicheo conveyed a host of derogatory connotations, from "demonic supernatural powers or spirits" to "that which is basic, improperly formed, underdeveloped, and simplistic." Something which is stoicheo is "initial, rudimentary and natural and thus associated with the elements which comprised the universe." Stocheion suggests that "something’s usefulness has come to an end." It conveys the idea of "a first step" as well as something which is "primitive, underdeveloped, childish, and worldly." Because stocheion is indicative of the "command and control aspects of a military regime," and of "soldiers following orders, and marching in conformity," it is the antithesis of freewill.

In reality, everything Paul has written here is wrong. There is one Covenant not two. The Covenant was formed with Abraham and Yitschaq after him, not with Hagar or her son Ishmael, who were specifically excluded from the Covenant and expelled from the Promised Land. And the only reason this Covenant is known to us because it was announced and memorialized in the Torah which was handed down and recited on Mount Sinai/Horeb. This Covenant commemorated the emancipation of the Yisra’elites from religious, political, and economic oppression, and it provides the means to our salvation. Many of the Covenant’s promises were then fulfilled and enabled by Yahowsha’ in Yaruwshalaym, which is why its name means "the source of reconciliation." And curiously, Hagar and her son were freed from slavery, making Paul wrong on all accounts.

The things which actually correspond between the Covenant forged with Abraham and memorialized on Mount Sinai with Moseh, and that which was fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim by Yahowsha’, is that all those who rely on Yahowah’s Word are liberated from man’s religious schemes and adopted by God. But Paul is saying the opposite, that the Mount Sinai Covenant codified in the Torah is associated with Hagar, and that it leads to slavery. He is also saying that Yaruwshalaym is no different than Sinai in this regard. Rather than standing for the "Source of Salvation," in Paul’s twisted mind, Yaruwshalaym is now a coconspirator in the enslavement of humankind. After having pierced Yahowah in the heart, Paul has now poked his finger in God’s eye.

Before we move on, I’d like you to consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear and other renditions of Paul’s ongoing thesis. "The but Hagar Sinai hill is in the Arabia it lines up together but in the now Jerusalem she is enslaved for with the children of her." LV: "For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children." KJV: "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Then the NLT augmented Paul’s words to more accurately convey his blasphemy: "And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law."

Based upon this letter, the Christian Church would have nothing to do with the Covenant, with the Torah, with Jerusalem, or with the Invitations to Meet with God. There would now be total separation, known in Scripture as damnation.

Paul’s next statement is nearly incomprehensible, which I suppose is better than being totally inaccurate. So now that he has annulled the work of Yahowah (which is Yahowsha’) in Yaruwshalaim, effectively negating all of the Covenant’s benefits by failing to acknowledge the reasons behind fulfilling Pesach – Passover, Matsah – Un-Yeasted Bread, Bikuwrym – First-Born Children, and Shabuw’ah – the Promise of the Sabbath, Paul creates a pretend and opposing Jerusalem to go along with his imaginary and contrarian covenant...

"But (de) the (e) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem) above instead (ano – upwards and opposite; from anti – in opposition), free and independent (eleutheros – released, unbound, and exempt) is (eimi – exists) who (hostis) is (eimi) our (emon) mother (meter)." (Galatians 4:26)

Without the Miqra’ey which were fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim by Yahowsha’, there is no way to engage the Set-Apart Spirit in our lives, so a new "mother" was also required. So if we are reading this correctly, Paul’s faithful, after he has suffered birth pangs on their behalf, are born a third time from the "free and independent" "Yaruwshalaim above which is in opposition."

And the duplicity here isn’t a function of the translation, but instead in the Greek text. Consider the NAMI: "But the up Jerusalem free is who is mother of us." After a steady diet of lies, it would be unreasonable to attempt an interpretation which would make sense of this.

Sha’uwl, and the dark spirit he was serving, came to despise what occurred on Mount Sinai with the revelation of the Towrah, and what occurred in Yaruwshalaim with the fulfillment of some of its most important promises, so, just as they had created their own covenant in opposition to God, they conceived a mythical city, one floating in the sky, that was also opposed to Him. And then to add insult to injury, they demeaned the role of our Spiritual Mother by associating Sarah (a.k.a. the "freeborn") with their replacement realm, calling her/it our mother. She was now "the Queen of Heaven," reprising the role of the Madonna and Child in the Babylonian religion.

And if you think I’m pushing the envelope here, consider the NLT: "But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother." They are wrong of course, as was Paul. Posturing the false notion that Sarah serves as our mother was simply part of Paul’s ploy to bypass the Torah. Sarah was the mother of one: Yitschaq. Moreover, the NLT just contradicted their patron saint. In the previous verse, Paul associated "Jerusalem" with the "enslavement of children."

Here is the Catholic and Protestant translation. LV: "But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother." KJV: "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

Moreover, the "heavenly Jerusalem" is not yet established. It will be constructed by Yahowah as part of His new heaven and earth at the end of the Millennial Sabbath.

And just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, Paul’s Greek deteriorates to the point where we once again need to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a compass to navigate Paul’s twisted realm. "It has been written for be merry sterile the not giving birth rip and cry aloud the one not having birth pains because many the children of the desert more or of the having the man." This brings to mind one of my favorite sayings: I know that you think you heard what you believe I said, but I’m not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. So now for the living embodiment of that conundrum, please consider:

"For indeed (gar – for because then), it has been written (grapho), ‘Be glad (euphrainomai – celebrate and rejoice) infertile (steira – barren and sterile incapable of childbirth) the (e – feminine singular article (referring to Yaruwshalaim) nominative (conveying to be or to become)), not (ou) giving birth (tikto – bearing a child, being productive, growing, or producing), violently lacerating (rhegnymi – throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping things to pieces, distorting and convulsing while breaking apart) and (kai) cry aloud (boao – crying and shouting), becoming the (e) not (ou) suffering birth pains (odino – in great anguish, labor, and physical effort, engaging in long and hard work) because (hoti – that and namely) many (polys) the children (ta teknon) of the desolate (tes eremos – of the forsaken and deserted, of the solitary and lonely, and of the abandoned and lifeless), more (mallon – instead and by contrast as an alternative) than (e – or) of the (tes) possessing (echo – holding on to, having, and experiencing) the man (ton andra – the human).’" (Galatians 4:27)

While that’s not decipherable, or even discernible, without a large dose of secret mythos and religious jargon or, failing that, a decoder ring, the citation is allegedly from Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1.

Cognizant of the wannabe apostle’s reprehensible tactics, it’s rather obvious that Sha’uwl is trying to fool his audience into believing that Yahowah’s prophecy regarding the Set-Apart Spirit was actually about a new replacement covenant. So in our quest for verification we’ll have to go back in time seven-hundred and fifty years and consider what God revealed through a prophet named "Salvation is from Yahowah" to see if we can affirm that Yasha’yah 54 was actually about our Spiritual Mother’s enactment of Seven Sabbaths in Yaruwshalaim, following Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and First-Born Children, to demonstrate how this stanza in Paul’s ill-conceived thesis twists God’s intent.

In that context is always an essential component of understanding, the cited passage follows the most vivid portrayal of Yahowsha’s redeeming sacrifice found anywhere in the Torah or Prophets. The last statement of the 53rd chapter speaks of what He did for us on Pesach and Matsah: "Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and He interceded for the transgressors." This leads to a celebration of the healing and beneficial message and to its consequence.

"‘Sing for joy (ranan – choose to convey the lyrics of a delightful and happy song in a melodic and rhythmic manner, actually focusing on the joy being expressed (the qal imperative conveys that which is both genuine and is an expression of freewill)) woman who has not yet given birth (‘aqar – female who has not yet experienced motherhood and thus without descendants).

She who has not yet borne a child (lo’ yalad – she who has not become pregnant and delivered a baby (the qal perfect conveys the actual situation associated with a completed, and thus not ongoing, condition)), choose to be genuinely serene (patsach – be at peace, without worries or distress, actually electing to be sparkling and happy, gleaming, bright, and cheerful (qal imperative)), singing and rejoicing (rinah – shouting for joy, expressing elation in having overcome).

And (wa) elect to shine (tsahal – literally choosing to reflect light, shouting that the time is neigh (qal imperative)), not lingering (lo’ yachal – not waiting (qal perfect)).

For indeed (ky), many are the children (rab beny – abundant and numerous, even abounding in influence, is the offspring) of the dazed, desolate, and destitute (shamem – the devastated and deserted, the destroyed and damned, the stupefied and appalling) among children (min beny – from and part of the offspring, by means of and because of the sons) controlled by Ba’al, the Lord (Ba’al – who have become betrothed to the Adversary, who are possessed and ruled by Satan, who are lorded over and owned by the Lord, and who are slaves to their master (in the qal passive participle this is literally done to them)),’ says (‘amar – answers and promises) Yahowah (efei)." (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1)

While we will compare Yahowah’s statement to Sha’uwl’s misappropriation of it in a moment, let’s linger long enough to consider what Yahowah predicted would occur as a result of Bikuwrym – First-Born Children following His fulfillment of Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread:

"Enlarge (rahab – choose to joyfully take advantage of the opportunity to expand and make roomy (in the hiphil imperative, the subject, who is the Set-Apart Spirit, enables the object, who are those who campout with God, to participate in the action)) your shining and sheltered place, your protected home for the upright (‘ohel / ‘ahal maqowm – camping site at the standing place and covered tabernacle of light), and (wa) the curtain and shelter (yarya’ah) of the tabernacle (mishkan – the large home and dwelling place) continuously spread for them under the auspices of freewill (natsah – outstretch and extend on an ongoing basis so that they can choose (the hiphil stem, imperfect conjugation and jussive mood shows the Set-Apart Spirit constantly facilitating this result on behalf of those who elect to participate)), no withholding or sparing (lo’ chasak – not holding back (qal imperfect jussive)) elongating (‘arak – lengthening) the cords (mythar – the ropes which hold up, enlarge, and secure a tent) and (wa) the tent pegs (yathed – stakes used to hold up a tent, holding the cords securely to the ground) fasten firmly and powerfully (chazaq – strengthen and allow to grow strong), because indeed, to the right and on the left (yamyn wa sim’el – right and left hand; speaking of Yisra’elites and Gowym) you will spread out (parats – you will increase, bearing more children), and your descendants (zera’ – your seed, offspring, and children), people from different races and places (gowym) will become heirs (yarash). And (wa) the desolate and deserted (shamem – the devastated and destroyed) towns (‘iyr) they will inhabit (yashab – settle and dwell within, living and staying)." (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:2-3)

Our Heavenly Father’s family would be enlarged and would be made even more secure as promised as a result of what He would do and now has done in His beloved city. There was no reason to worry. His promises all come true. And while God goes on to speak of His mercy and faithfulness when it comes to the redemption of His children, and of bringing them back home, He has put us on notice that most people will opt to be influenced by Satan, foregoing His light.

Christian apologists, steeped in the poisonous brew of Pauline Doctrine, will tell you that the self-pronounced Apostle cited this verse to suggest that Sarah, who was once barren, would become fertile, and that as such, she became the mother of the faithful. In their mind, this in turn explains why there are so many Christians, and why they became so powerful, in that Paul’s troubadours saw themselves as the "children who would be greater in number and status." But Sarah’s infertility was resolved 1,300 years before Yasha’yah penned these words (which would have made him a prophet predicting the past), and 2,000 years before the fulfillments of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Children, and the Promise of the Sabbath in Yaruwshalaim enabled this celebration of the Covenant’s growth. Since Sarah had long since experienced labor, not only was she specifically excluded from this prophecy, the birth of Yitschaq was now history. Moreover, Sarah had but one child, and he was the patriarch of the Yisra’elites, not to mention, the designated heir to the Covenant Paul has condemned.

If we distance ourselves from Paul’s polluted mantra, it becomes obvious that the Mother being described in Yasha’yah 54 is someone very special. This prophecy is telling us that following the fulfillment of the first two Invitations to Meet with God by the Suffering Servant (prophetically described in Yasha’yah 53), our Spiritual Mother would give birth to the Covenant’s children on First-Born Children, enriching and empowering them Seven Sabbaths later on the Miqra’ of Shabuwa. God was telling us that the Set-Apart Spirit would adorn us in light, facilitating our spiritual birth into His family.

Specifically, our Spiritual Mother adorns us in a "Garment of Light," which is suggested in "tsahal – let your light shine." She is responsible for enlightening us as well, illuminating the path to God. She also empowers the Covenant’s children to "rinah – sing out the lyrics" of Yahowah’s message to people the world over. And She is the power behind Yowm Taruw’ah, where we are called to "joyously proclaim the Way" to God, while also "shouting out a warning" to those headed in the wrong direction. Reinforcing this, on Taruw’ah, we are expressly asked to approach the Maternal aspect of God’s Light so that we become heirs.

As an interesting aside, once we understand the promise and purpose of Yahowah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God, we recognize that each resolves an aspect of our current nature, preparing us for adoption into Yahowah’s family and for camping out with our Heavenly Father. Therefore, those who answer God’s engraved Invitations, and those who observe the seven Miqra’ey in accordance with Yahowah’s Towrah instructions, receive the promised benefits.

‘Ohel, meaning "covered shelter," describes "pitching a tent to campout." It is indistinguishable in the text from ‘ahal, "to shine a pure and clear light." So we have within this word a depiction of how our Spiritual Mother protects Her children. It becomes even more obvious when we recognize that ‘ohel is a "dwelling place, a household, and tabernacle." Addressing this, the next word, maqowm, and its root quwm, describe the "standing place" where Yahowah "stood up for us so that we could stand with Him." The Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ is the living embodiment of quwm. And of course, "maqowm – the standing place," would be Yaruwshalaim—Paul’s coconspirator along with Sinai in our enslavement.

Also, too affirm the Christian affinity for Paul’s "Lord," all you have to do is open your favorite "Bible." No matter the translation, you will find Yahowah’s name replaced by Satan’s (a.k.a. Ba’al’s) title, "the Lord," 7,000 times.

And fortunately there is a bright side to all of this. One of the benefits of having Paul routinely misquote the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is that it gives us the chance to spend some quality time reading something which is enlightening and uplifting, not to mention, comprehensible, in the midst of the Pauline rhetorical rubbish. At least it keeps our brains from turning to mush and our souls from withering.

In this light, I am particularly fond of the 5th verse of the 54th chapter: "For you are married to your Maker. Yahowah of the assembled implements is His name. He is your Redeemer, the Set-Apart one of Yisra’el, called God of all the earth."

Therefore, Paul not only misquoted Yasha’yah, he improperly associated Sarah with a prophecy depicting our Spiritual Mother’s fulfillment of the Invitations to Meet with God. In this light, please consider how different Paul’s Greek is from Yasha’yah’s Hebrew:

Sha’uwl: "For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile, the not giving birth, violently lacerating throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping things to pieces while distorting and convulsing, cry aloud, becoming the not suffering birth pains because many the children of the desolate, forsaken and deserted, more than of the possessing the man.’" (Galatians 4:27)

Yahowah: "‘Sing for woman who has not yet given birth. She who has not yet borne a child, choose to be genuinely serene, singing and rejoicing. And elect to shine, not lingering. For indeed, many are the children of the dazed, deserted, and destroyed among children controlled by Ba’al, the Lord,’ says Yahowah (efei)." (Yasha’yah 54:1)

While our intent was to discern what Paul tried to say, and then determine why he said it, the one thing I know for sure is that Yahowah is articulate, and is indeed a profound communicator, and Paul is neither.

Recognizing that Sha’uwl once again misquoted, twisted, and misapplied Yahowah’s Word to infer that he had Divine authority for his blasphemous position, let’s consider how the religious community handled his mistakes. The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: "For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband." The Protestant King James therefore says: "For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband."

The Evangelical New Living Translation accurately assessed Paul’s intent, but misrepresented his Greek text by attempting a paraphrase of the Hebrew passage instead: "As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’" In a moment, I’ll share the Christian interpretation of Paul’s message so that you will be able to more fully appreciate how this lie was woven into the fabric of his faith.

Continuing with the Galatians epistle, please note that the following statement contains a pronoun, a conjunction, a preposition, four nouns, and one lone verb hanging out at the end of the "sentence." Of these elements of speech, the NAMI composed: "You but brothers by Isaac promise children you are." It’s hard to explain Paul’s point when his words don’t make any sense.

Examining the same words, I concur, that is what the self-proclaimed mother of the Christian faith wrote. Too bad it required Paul to contradict himself. Just a moment ago, he equated the Towrah memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, Ishmael’s mother. But now, he would like you to forget all of that so that and consider...

"But (de) you (umeis) brothers (adelphos) according to (kata – literally down from or opposite of) Yitschaq (Isaak – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yitschaq, meaning laughter) of promise (epaggelia – of announced declaration or agreement) children (teknon) you are (eimi)." (Galatians 4:28)

Even if Paul hadn’t mangled and denounced the Towrah’s Covenant, this wouldn’t be true. The only promises that matter are the ones Yahowah made to Abraham, all of which He recorded for our benefit in His Towrah. Yitschaq was himself a beneficiary of those engraved vows, just as are we.

And last time I checked, Yitschaq had two children—twins as it turns out, not hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of children. One of his two sons, his first born, Esau, Yahowah despised—so that’s not an appealing option. Although in this regard, Sha’uwl and Esau share the distinction of being the only two individuals Yahowah calls out by name to demean.

Yitschaq’s second son, Ya’aqob, became Yisra’el, and thus he represents the nation and the race Sha’uwl has been denouncing. Ya’aqob was the father of the twelve tribes known collectively as "Yisra’el." And yet Galatians has established, and Thessalonians will affirm, that Jews and Israel were Paul’s mortal enemy, so Ya’aqob isn’t a viable option either. Therefore, even the details which comprise Paul’s attempted recasting of Yahowah’s message are inaccurate, inappropriate, and contradictory. As such, his argument was designed to fool those prone to be religious, the ignorant and the irrational.

Even metaphorically, the Gowym who are adopted into Yahowah’s family, aren’t Yitschaq’s children, but instead we are the product of our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And this adoption process is only possible when we accept the terms and conditions of Yahowah’s Covenant, the one memorialized in the Torah, something Paul rejected, as have Christians after him. And thus, Sha’uwl’s statement is wholly fraudulent.