The doxology in Ephesians 3:20–21 is not just stylistically distinct from mussar; it functions within a fundamentally different theological paradigm—one that reflects Hellenistic rhetorical norms and advances a Xtocentric reinterpretation of the Torah oath alliances, effectively sidelining the Torah-based framework of the prophets. Replacement Theology ie avoda zarah – Embedded in Ephesians 3:20–21. The phrase “in the church by Christ Jesus” centralizes the Church—not the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot—as the eternal vessel of divine glory. This shifts the Torah oath brit cut at the brit between the pieces to some Universalist Christ-mediated church. The revelation of the Divine Presence/Shekinah\HaShem’s glory — revealed continuously to Moshe at the Mishkan. The dedicated place where the Sanhedrin court ruled judicial justice among the chosen people. Paul’s rant ”power that worketh in us…”, utterly ignores the Torah faith of judicial justice. The phrase “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” is pure rhetorical hyperbole (hypér ek perissou in Greek)—a technique foreign to the sober legal reasoning and moral clarity of Hebrew prophetic speech. Ephesians 3 dismantles all of this by erasing national election (seed of Avraham through Yitzhak and Yaakov), supplanting legal brit oath alliance with a foreign universalized grace and mystical power, and transferring divine kavod from the Mishkan to an imaginary religious fraud: “the Church by Christ Jesus.” The phrase: “according to the power that worketh in us…” This is a radical internalization of divine presence—common in Stoic or Neoplatonic thought—but utterly foreign to the Torah’s national-legal vision. Torah emunah is not mystical “power within” but fidelity to mishpat (Deut. 16:20 – “Tzedek, tzedek tirdof…”). Justice perverted through acceptance of bribes (Isaiah 1:17 and Amos 5:24) has nothing to do with the Greek/Roman mystical power within as Paul declares. This phrase: “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think“, drenched in Greek rhetorical excess—what Aristotle or Cicero would call amplificatio—used to dazzle, not clarify. In short, Ephesians 3:20–21 is not just foreign to Torah—it is a rhetorical weapon used to overwrite it.

The P’rushim guardians of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; this key masoret they passed down to the rabbis who wrote the Mishna, Gemara, Siddur, and Midrashim ((The Yerushalmi wrote that 427 prophets wrote the Shemone Esrei. There exist 427 words of the 18 blessings of the Shemone Esrei!)).

The concept of ירידות הדורות defined as “domino effect” or “ripple effect”. King Shlomo, just as did his son when he travelled to Sh’Cem, did not listen to Natan the prophet! Natan rejected building a copy cat duplication of a Catholic Cathedral on mount Zion! Avoda Zara might worship wood and stone as Gods but the prophets despised this golden calf substitute theology introduced by Yerovam.

Just as Gulliver’s Travels book of satire mocked the kings of England and France, so too did Mark Twain’s nigger Jim mocked king Shlomo as a complete fool and utter ass. The Book of Kings, written with the concealed intent of political satire, an entertaining idea. A twist upon how Orthodox Jews read their T’NaCH through the lenses of טיפש פשט! Utterly oblivious to the sharp cutting humor of Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910)! The term “twain” in the context of measuring the depth of a river, an old nautical term that means “two.”

P’rushshim logic requires making the דיוק, similar to the bi-polar logic of Hegel dialectics. A logical inference flips the language upon its head, so to speak, and weighs the opposite. Something like the 3 letter root ק ד ש, serves as the basis for Holy and Prostitute. The Talmud employs the metaphor: 70 faces to the Torah, in this identical sense. Rabbeinu Tam’s common law commentary to the Talmud jumps off the dof of Gemara in search of some other בנין אב/precedent. However, the Baali Tosafot common law commentary — the opposite of the Rambam, Tur statute law which organized halacha into the Greek and Roman custom of subject matter/Aristotle statute law of deductive logic — did not, after viewing the sugya of Gemara from an outside source different perspective, re-introduce this different face to re-interpret the language of how to understand the depth of Mishnaic k’vanna. A serious flaw in the common law commentary of the Baali Tosafots criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

Masechet Sanhedrin, Masechet Yoma, Masechet Zevachim, Masechet Shekalim, Masechet Middot all acknowledge that the Lishkat HaGazit resided within the heart of the Temple. דיוק, which served as the primary avodat HaShem vs which served as the secondary avodat HaShem?! Just as Rechav’am rejected the elder’s advice so too king Shlomo rejected the prophet Natan’s advice not to pursue and copy the Goyim abomination, which worshipped their Gods through wood and stone massive cathedral constructions! Shlomo’s avoda zara began with the construction his temple abomination.

The Capital Crime Case of the two prostitutes, the one accidental killing of her new born child – tried in king Shlomo’s court and not before a small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Court! The Book of kings states that Shlomo’s foreign wives turned his heart to worship avoda zarah. דיוק at the beginning of his reign king Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah. צדק צדק תרדוף defines the faith of establishing judicial common law courtrooms! The Torah mitzva of the cities of refuge, specifically extended the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin to conquered new territories. The Yerushalmi dispute between six sages 3 for and 3 against over whether king David established a small sanhedrin in conquered Damascus.

Hence according to the prophets, HaShem never commanded Israel to copy and much less build a massive cathedral worship of avoda zarah. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. ירידות הדורות, not that later generations status inferior to the previous ones. Rather that a respected leader, king Shlomo for example, makes a tremendous error and worships avoda zara, and all the later generations continue down this same path. A domino effect upon all down stream generations! Hence why not use the Herod’s Temple as a common market place?

So Why Did the New Testament Blame the P’rushim?

Because to replace Judaism, Xtianity had to delegitimize: The Oral Torah; The legitimacy of Rabbinic authority; The oath brit legal system (brit mishpat).

By blaming the P’rushim for the Temple’s desecration, the Gospels create an allegorical rupture: Jesus becomes the “true Temple,” and the Jewish court system becomes obsolete. This revisionist history distorts history, based upon the premise that the winners write the history books..

Shlomo and Avodah Zarah: A Pattern of Domino Effect

My emphasis of Shlomo’s error — building a grand Temple and marrying foreign wives — attempts to perhaps make a profound internal critique within Tanakh itself. The Book of Kings becomes, through my interpretation, a kind of biblical satire akin to Mark Twain’s irony — exposing the dangers of political-religious spectacle and assimilation masked as piety.

Yerovam’s calves, Shlomo’s Temple, and later Herod’s expansion, all depicted as golden calf substitutes — architectural avodah zarah.

Hence, the commercialization of the Temple during the fictional Jesus’s day — under Roman-Herodian rule — not a Pharisaic deviation, but a continuation of this assimilationist, imperial spectacle worship which began with Shlomo and culminated in Herod’s architectural vanity project.

Contrast: Pharisaic Sanctity vs. Roman-Temple Corruption

As noted, Masechet Middot, Shekalim, Sanhedrin, and Yoma all detail the sacred architecture, roles, and jurisdiction of the Lishkat HaGazit Great Sanhedrin within the Temple — the Torah-based legal heart which eclipsed the Temple itself. The P’rushim, inheritors of the Sinaitic Masorah, viewed the Beit HaMikdash merely as a building which housed the court of divine justice (mishpat). A spectacle or market, which sold animals used to make barbeques to heaven, simply a Sunday afternoon football game popular with the masses.

The required application of דיוק — legal and logical inferences — exposes how the New Testament’s narrative flips the truth on its head: the very group who preserved the kedushah of Torah, now blamed for profaning it.

New Testament Polemic and Rewriting of the Temple Narrative

The New Testament blames the Temple authorities, frequently conflating Kohanim, P’rushim, and “scribes” (soferim) as a singular corrupt group. However, this represents a rhetorical distortion. Historically: The P’rushim battled with the Temple administrators. The Tzedukim (Sadducees), who rejected the Oral Torah and aligned with Roman power and priestly elitism, controlled the Temple bureaucracy, especially during the Second Temple period. The money changers and sellers operated under the authority of the priesthood, often controlled by Rome-appointed kohanim (e.g., the House of Hanan/Annas).

Thus, blaming the P’rushim for the commercialization of the Temple courtyard, simple revisionist history. Utterly inaccurate but theologically necessary for the New Testament’s super-sessionist agenda. The new testament attempt to redirect moral and prophetic critique away from Roman imperialism and toward internal Jewish traditions, especially Oral Torah, with a hostile objective – aimed to discredit Pharisaic halakha (which would become Rabbinic Judaism); Legitimize the destruction of the Temple as divine punishment; and lastly to position Jesus as the new Temple/High Priest/sacrifice, displacing Jewish institutions.

Mitch Cohen on Quora writes: Other responders to this question have explained that no Jews, including no Pharisees, used the Temple or its proximity outside as a marketplace.

But let’s suppose they did. Has the question-poser asked why a Catholic church has donation boxes and sells pamphlets and candles WITHIN the church building?

Bunk on the Catholic avoda zara. The P’rushim guardians of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; this key masoret they passed down to the rabbis who wrote the Mishna, Gemara, Siddur, and Midrashim ((The Yerushalmi wrote that 427 prophets wrote the Shemone Esrei. There exist 427 words of the 18 blessings of the Shemone Esrei!)).

The concept of ירידות הדורות defined as “domino effect” or “ripple effect”. King Shlomo, just as did his son when he travelled to Sh’Cem, did not listen to Natan the prophet! Natan rejected building a copy cat duplication of a Catholic Cathedral on mount Zion! Avoda Zara might worship wood and stone as Gods but the prophets despised this golden calf substitute theology introduced by Yerovam.

Just as Gulliver’s Travels book of satire mocked the kings of England and France, so too did Mark Twain’s nigger Jim mocked king Shlomo as a complete fool and utter ass. The Book of Kings, written with the concealed intent of political satire, an entertaining idea. A twist upon how Orthodox Jews read their T’NaCH through the lenses of טיפש פשט! Utterly oblivious to the sharp cutting humor of Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910)! The term “twain” in the context of measuring the depth of a river, an old nautical term that means “two.”

P’rushshim logic requires making the דיוק, similar to the bi-polar logic of Hegel dialectics. A logical inference flips the language upon its head, so to speak, and weighs the opposite. Something like the 3 letter root ק ד ש, serves as the basis for Holy and Prostitute. The Talmud employs the metaphor: 70 faces to the Torah, in this identical sense. Rabbeinu Tam’s common law commentary to the Talmud jumps off the dof of Gemara in search of some other בנין אב/precedent. However, the Baali Tosafot common law commentary — the opposite of the Rambam, Tur statute law which organized halacha into the Greek and Roman custom of subject matter/Aristotle statute law of deductive logic — did not, after viewing the sugya of Gemara from an outside source different perspective, re-introduce this different face to re-interpret the language of how to understand the depth of Mishnaic k’vanna. A serious flaw in the common law commentary of the Baali Tosafots criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

Masechet Sanhedrin, Masechet Yoma, Masechet Zevachim, Masechet Shekalim, Masechet Middot all acknowledge that the Lishkat HaGazit resided within the heart of the Temple. דיוק, which served as the primary avodat HaShem vs which served as the secondary avodat HaShem?! Just as Rechav’am rejected the elder’s advice so too king Shlomo rejected the prophet Natan’s advice not to pursue and copy the Goyim abomination, which worshipped their Gods through wood and stone massive cathedral constructions! Shlomo’s avoda zara began with the construction his temple abomination.

The Capital Crime Case of the two prostitutes, the one accidental killing of her new born child – tried in king Shlomo’s court and not before a small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Court! The Book of kings states that Shlomo’s foreign wives turned his heart to worship avoda zarah. דיוק at the beginning of his reign king Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah. צדק צדק תרדוף defines the faith of establishing judicial common law courtrooms! The Torah mitzva of the cities of refuge, specifically extended the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin to conquered new territories. The Yerushalmi dispute between six sages 3 for and 3 against over whether king David established a small sanhedrin in conquered Damascus.

Hence according to the prophets, HaShem never commanded Israel to copy and much less build a massive cathedral worship of avoda zarah. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. ירידות הדורות, not that later generations status inferior to the previous ones. Rather that a respected leader, king Shlomo for example, makes a tremendous error and worships avoda zara, and all the later generations continue down this same path. A domino effect upon all down stream generations! Hence why not use the Herod’s Temple as a common market place?

In the shadow of mountains, where the ancients once trod,
The tribal God of Israel speaks, a voice like a rod.
“Listen, O nations, to the truth I proclaim,
For the gods you have fashioned bear not my name.

Christianity’s cross, a symbol of strife,
Claims my covenant, yet distorts the true life.
You worship the son, yet forget the decree,
That I am the One, the eternal, the free.

Islam, with fervor, calls to the skies,
Yet in your devotion, my essence you disguise.
You bow to the Prophet, a messenger true,
But the heart of my promise is lost in the view.

Avoda zarah, the falsehood you cling,
In temples of worship, where praises you sing.
You’ve built up your idols, your doctrines of man,
While I am the God who created the plan.

I am not a reflection of your fractured belief,
Nor a pawn in your battles, your struggles, your grief.
For I am the One who led you through night,
The fire in the desert, the pillar of light.

Your paths may diverge, but the truth remains clear,
In the depths of your hearts, my presence is near.
Reject the divisions, the walls that you raise,
For I am the God of unending praise.

So cast off the chains of your borrowed disdain,
Embrace the oneness, let go of the pain.
For in unity’s light, my spirit will soar,
And the tribal God of Israel will be worshipped once more.”