Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXIV)

Joseph S. Exell goes on to say that the law will not acquit them; it will pronounce them guilty; it will condemn them. No argument they may use will show that they were right and that God was wrong. No works that they perform will be any compensation for what they already did. No denial of the existence of the facts will alter the case; they must stand condemned by the law of God. In the legal sense, they cannot be justified, and receive justification if it exists at all, it must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode over which the law exercises no control. The law makes no provision for pardoning those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the law contemplates.[1]

Benjamin W. Bacon (1860-1932), makes a good point when he notes that the departure by Peter and his Jewish friends from the type of teaching attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is more a matter of form than of substance. It is true that Paul’s theological language might fall somewhat strangely on the ears of Peter, and he and other personal followers of Jesus might well be tempted to resent an attempt by Paul to prove them inconsistent with their Master’s teaching. Nevertheless, the real consistency was on Paul’s side and not on theirs. The essence of Jesus’ teaching taught they could exchange this burden of daily rites, rituals, and ceremonies for His “light and comfortable yoke”[2] that He offered them for the “grievous burdens” of the scribes. To trust the “Friend of publicans and sinners”[3] was to seek access to the heavenly Father by the road of the “Prodigal Son” and not that of his “elder brother.”[4] Meantime, it should be remembered that while Paul’s theological phraseology comes from his schooling, his underlying conflict against legalism is the same as that waged by Jesus.[5]

James Denney wrote about the absoluteness of what Paul says here in verse sixteen that we all must come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of their legalistic observance of the Torah’s commandments but through the Messiah Yeshua’s trustworthy faithfulness. Therefore, we too put our trust in Messiah Yeshua and become faithful to Him, in order that we might be declared righteous on the ground of the Messiah’s trustworthy faithfulness and not on the ground of our legalistic observance of the Torah commandments. For on the ground of legalistic observance of the Torah commandments, no one will ever be declared righteous.

Denny reports that he observed many attempts by skeptical scholars to find something quite different in Galatians, which will dispense with the necessity of considering faith as the only option. This they do by connecting verses like a string of pearls to make their point. They argued that the Apostle Paul in this whole epistle is dealing with Jews, or with people who wanted to become Jews, and with their relationship to the Jewish Ceremonial Law – a situation they claim is no longer a reality for us. But this is hardly the case. Nowhere does Paul draw any distinction between Ceremonial and Moral Law. For him, there is only one Law and that is the Law of God.

We note that when Jesus came, He was confronted by how much Ceremonial Law had taken precedence over Moral Law. But we shall find the same line of argument repeated in Romans, where it is the Moral Law which is at stake; and when the Apostle tells us that through the Law we died to the Law because of our union with the Anointed One, or that we are not under Law but under Grace.[6] But Paul is not blind to the effect of God’s law on the Jewish moral law than it has on the ceremonial law. What Paul is trying to say is that nothing in the Christian life explained in any church doctrine or creed explains how the Anointed One turned all our responsibilities to the Law to Him and Him alone. The Apostle Paul declared that the Anointed One redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. So, it is not a matter of discussion or debate. It must be accepted by faith.[7]

Cyril W. Emmet (1875-1923), would be comfortable if the phrase “not sinners like the Gentile,” were to be expressed simply as “Gentile sinners.” For in the Jew’s mind, the word “Gentile” was a synonym for “sinner.”[8] So when it came to being justified before God as worthy of salvation, the fact that a person was a sinner was already a verdict passed by God. It came without any hope or opportunity for cross-examination, rebuttal or appeal. Paul said that all mankind already is judged as being guilty of sin and the punishment already announced. Was there any hope that a compassionate God might overlook some of those sins and allow them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven by a backdoor? No! So how could anyone like Peter or Paul claim to be justified? Paul says that it all happened when they abandoned their hope of salvation through the Law and accepted Jesus the Anointed One as their Savior. He already paid the price for their acquittal and release from the Law. And since this applied to them as Jews who inherited their religion, it would also apply to the Gentiles who found their religion in the Gospel of the Anointed One.[9]

Lutheran Paul Kretzmann (1883-1965), is quick to point out that what Paul says here about justification is not a matter of feeling, but of knowledge, based upon the testimony of the Gospel. This is the foundation for why we put our faith in the Anointed One Jesus, not in works, not in merit, not in any good conduct of our own, for a sinful person cannot and does not perform any such deeds that will make them pure and righteous in the sight of God. Justification is only obtained in the way it is offered in God’s revelation, by placing one’s faith in the Anointed One Jesus alone. And even then, it is not the act of knowing which merits salvation, but it is the act of believing that it will manifest a new life wrought by God, by which a person receives the righteousness of the Anointed One.

Kretzmann goes on to say that everything that pertains to good works, or even the semblance of good works, must be absolutely ruled out. There is no justification for anyone through moral works of the Law, highly as they may be esteemed otherwise in the Christian’s sanctification.[10] By faith, the sins of the sinner are imputed to the Anointed One, and the righteousness of the Anointed One is imputed to the sinner. Also, by faith, the works that agree with the will of God in the Law are set aside as works that fulfill the Law. However, that same faith, having accepted the justification offered by the grace of God through the merits of the Anointed One, is found in those same moral virtues and ethics that are done to honor the Anointed One for His sacrifice and give praise to our heavenly Father for His love and forgiveness.[11] But never are they to be thought of as adding to or enhancing our salvation. No one improves on what the Anointed One did for us on the cross.

Greek word expert Marvin Vincent explains that when examining the Greek text of verse sixteen it reads, “Having perceived that not is being justified out of acts of law if ever no, through belief of Jesus anointed.” Let’s read this in a modern version, “…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in the Anointed One Jesus.”[12] Here Vincent notes that Roman Catholic translators rendered it, “Knowing that a man is not justified by observing the law but through faith in Jesus the Anointed One.”[13] Taken this way, the Catholic interpreters of the Bible chose to understand the word “but” as meaning “except” or “unless.” That way it would read that no man is justified by observing the law unless by doing so through faith in Jesus the Anointed One. In other words, it takes faith and works to bring about justification. To put it another way, good works done in honor of one’s faith in the Anointed One will justify them before God as believers.[14]

One Jewish commentator gives us an interesting take on how we may better understand the Jewish view of righteousness. He says that there are two kinds of righteousness: (1) Behavioral righteousness – doing what is morally and legally right. (2) Forensic righteousness – being regarded as righteous in two ways: One, that God cleared the individual of guilt for past sins. And two, that God gave them a new human nature inclined to obey God rather than rebel against Him as before. It was Yeshua the Messiah that made this forensic righteousness available to everyone who believes by paying on their behalf the penalty for sin which God’s justice demanded. That penalty was removal from God’s presence into timeless spiritual death.[15]

Another Jewish writer, Adriaan Liebenberg, is disappointed that some non-Jewish believers took Paul’s words here in verses 15-16 to interpret Paul as saying to Peter, since you are a Jew and rightly abandoned the Law (living like a Gentile), why do you compel the Gentiles to keep the law like a Jew by only eating with other Jews? They take this then to teach that Paul was saying that the Law should be abolished. But that is not the case. Jesus Himself said He did not come to destroy the law.[16] To the contrary, He came to give credence to the law by fulfilling it. What Paul was really saying to Peter is this: How are you ever going to bring Gentiles into a living relationship with the Anointed One when you are acting like a sinner yourself? So Paul’s rebuke was not against the Gentiles for not keeping the law, but against Peter for not keeping the law.[17] Paul’s choice to fear retribution from the Jewish group that came down from Jerusalem over fearing Yahweh’s declaration that all mankind were invited to His table, he was going along with false doctrine and ended up playing the hypocrite.[18]

[1] Ryle, J.C.; Exell, Joseph; MacLaren, Alexander; Moody, D.L.; Spurgeon, Charles. The Biblical Illustrator – Vol. 48 – Pastoral Commentary on Galatians, Kindle Locations 4561-4571.

[2] Matthew 11:29

[3] Ibid. 11:19

[4] Luke 15:25-30

[5] Bacon, B. W.: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 67.

[6] Romans 6:14; 7:4

[7] James Denney: Ch. 3, p. 108

[8] See John 7:49

[9] Cyril W. Emmet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit. pp. 22-23

[10] See Psalm_143:2; Romans 3:28.

[11] Paul Kretzmann: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit.

[12] New American Standard Bible

[13] St. Jerome, Interlinear Latin Vulgate

[14] Marvin Vincent, Word Studies, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 104

[15] Stern, David H.: On Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit., Kindle Location 15250-15257

[16] Matthew 5:17

[17] See 1 John 3:4

[18] W. Adriaan Liebenberg: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXIII)

Matthew Poole (1624-1679), points out that even though Gentiles were ordinarily called by the Jews “sinners;” and even though it appears that many of them became worshipers of the One True God, yet when they came up to Jerusalem to worship, they were not allowed into the Temple where the Jews worshiped. Instead, there was a particular court allotted outside the Temple itself called: “The Court of the Gentiles.” That was because even though they committed themselves to be under the obligation of obeying Jewish ceremonial laws, they were still referred to as “sinners” by the Jews.[1] We clearly see that not only were these believing Gentiles treated like second-class converts but were discriminated against because of their race and ethnicity. It certainly shows us why the Jews could not evangelize the world with the Gospel. No wonder the Anointed One called Paul to do that work.

John Bengel feels that the Galatians were not clearly understanding and interpreting the difference between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law since they include both under the word “law.” That’s why the Judaizers were able to convince them that they were to seek justification in observance of the whole law which included both. So, for Bengel, Paul was rejecting works done as part of the Ceremonial Law, not those expected under Moral Law. For him, this is the sum of it all: Moses and Jesus the Anointed One; the Law and the Promise; doing and believing; works and faith; wages and gift; the curse of death and the blessing of timeless life. These do not work together but are diametrically opposed to one another. You must choose one or the other. You cannot serve two masters.[2]

John Wesley not only subscribes to the doctrine that justification is not appropriated by the Ceremonial Law, but neither is it granted by obeying the Moral Law. Those things are not done before justification but after. Justification instills such respect and reverence for the One who justified us that we willingly live according to the moral code of the Gospel. So why then should the Jewish believers try to force their Gentile brethren to comply with the whole Law? Not only does Paul remove any obligation by Christian believers to observe the Jewish ceremonial law but also the moral law. Even King David agreed with Paul.[3] The moral law lacked the power to justify and save. But it is accepted as a way to please God with one’s conduct and behavior.

Joseph Benson points to Matthew 26:45 and the clause, “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners,” as meaning, He was delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, as is evident from Matthew 20:18-19. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law – not even of the moral law, much less of the ceremonial law, but by faith in Jesus the Anointed One. This is the faith which Jesus the Anointed One prescribed and requires as the means of our justification, namely, faith in the Gospel, in its important truths and precious promises. Not only that, but faith in Jesus the Anointed One, as the true Messiah, the Son of God, in whom alone there is salvation for guilty, depraved, weak, and wretched sinners. It is this faith by which we make an application to Him, and rely on Him for salvation, present and timeless. We learn more from Him as our Teacher, depend on Him as our Mediator, become subject to Him as our Governor, and prepare to meet Him as our Judge.[4] So Paul is telling his fellow Jews that if they must observe these truths, how much more must the Gentiles, who are less pretentious than the Jews, must not depend on their own works to get salvation?[5]

James Haldane (1768-1851), agrees that Paul was right in pointing out that he and Peter and the others were certainly privileged to belong to God’s peculiar people, who by the Sinai Covenant were chosen by God out of all other nations. This, in fact, meant that although they were sinners in God’s eyes, they were not sinners on the same level as the Gentiles. Jews sinned against the Law while Gentiles sinned against God by way of their idolatry and other vices. Jews trusted in God for salvation but Gentiles were without hope in a lost world. Nevertheless, even with such an advantage, the Jews were still required to put their faith in the Anointed One for justification by God not their good works under the Law. Just as the Gentiles must denounce faith in their idols and ceremonies, so the Jews must denounce their faith in the Law and ceremonies in order to stand justified before God.

German Lutheran theologian Heinrich A. W. Meyer (1800-1873), makes an interesting statement when it comes to the opening of verse sixteen where Paul says tells Peter: “We now know that a person is not justified by the works of the law.” Meyer says that such a statement that they attained their salvation by faith would fit with what we know about history. “The conversion of these two Apostles did not at all take place by means of any logical process in figuring it out on their own,” says Meyer. They were both miraculously and suddenly chosen by the Anointed One. Only then by becoming believers was the light of knowing they were chosen finally dawned on them.[6] However, German Calvinist theologian Peter Lange says that such an objection by Meyer to Paul and Peter coming into a right relationship with the Anointed One by faith is a best “imaginative.” The fact is the foundation of their faith in the Anointed One was the knowledge that Jesus was the true Messiah, the Son of the Living God and it is upon this faith in Him that brought them full salvation. So, we see that there was no trust or faith in the Law by either Paul or Peter that led to their justification.[7]

William O’Conor (1820-1887), tells us that according to the Jews, the word “sinner” applied to those who became careless about observing their duties to the Law, Ceremonies, and Temple worship. By doing so, they allowed life to evaporate out of their religion until it became a dead form of obligation. Furthermore, anyone who did not worship God as they did was certainly a sinner. So, they applied this to people within their religion and outside their religion who did this without any consideration to faith in God for their salvation. Only works demanded by the Law and their Ceremonies. However, both Peter and Paul learned that their rigid habits of legal observance were worthless when it came to being justified before God to receive full salvation. It was this knowledge that helped them escape the torment of being under the penalty of death even though they did the best they could to comply with the Law and Ceremonies. It was only by faith in the Anointed One that they were saved. So why make the Gentiles responsible for going through the same maze of legal complexity? Once they believe in the Anointed One, they as justified and sanctified as the Jews.[8]

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) gives us a little grammar lesson when explaining verse fifteen. He shows us that the first clause is concessive:[9] “Although we were Jews by birth, we are not heathen-born sinners;” the second is causal,[10] “yet because we knew that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only through faith;” the third is declarative, “even we believed on the Anointed One Jesus!” the fourth is final, to the end “that we might be justified by the faith in the Anointed One, and not by the works of the law;” and the fifth confirmatory, “because by the works of the law shall no flesh (or, sinful man) be justified.” O’Conor admits that there seems at first sight to be some needless repetition in this verse, but strictly speaking, there is none. The fullness of statement in every clause is emphatic.[11]

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), in one of his sermons, where he speaks about the relationship of good works to grace, says that certainly there are some who would object by questioning, “are good works of no use?” As he understands the Apostle, Spurgeon states that God’s Works are of use when a person is saved because they provide evidence of their being saved. But Good Works do not save a person, good works do not influence the mind of God to redeem anyone Were that the case, then salvation would be a matter of credit and not of grace. Just as Paul told the Ephesians, “Not by works, so that no one can boast.”[12] So he repeats it here in verse sixteen.

Spurgeon goes on to point out that the Apostle is very adamant about this point; indeed, he thunders it out again, and again, and again.[13] He denies that salvation could ever depend on our good works. If one could achieve salvation by the good works then grace is no longer a factor. Any works involved are God’s Works once a person is born again. They are not done to benefit the person but to bring glory and honor to God as a way of saying “Thank you, Lord, for saving me.”

When put another way, Spurgeon compares grace and works to fire and water: Just as water extinguishes a fire, so works extinguishes grace. The grace and mercy of God need no help from a person’s good works.  When we sing the song “Jesus Saves,”[14] it means the He does it all or not at all. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith,[15] and good works must not rob Him of His due praise. So, says Spurgeon, sinner, you must either receive salvation freely from the hand of Divine Giving or else you must earn it by your own unassisted merits, which, unfortunately, is utterly impossible.[16]

In another place, Spurgeon makes it clear that those who feel their religion is either represented by Ishmael (Islam) or by Isaac (Judeo-Christian), will never worship together in an ecumenical setting. The principles upon which these religions rest never mingle. They cannot even call Allah and Yahweh as referring to the same deity. No one is saved in part by self, and in part by God. While one attempts to earn their salvation by works, the other depends on the love and mercy of God. The resurrection and glories of heaven are not given as a prize, they are a gift from God as part of His promise that if they believe in His Son as the Lord and Savior they will be saved. That’s why Spurgeon feels that for the Christian, what Paul says here in verse twenty should be taken as their confession of faith.[17]

The Biblical Illustrator, complied by Joseph S. Exell (1849-1910), contains a very direct and clear statement on how impossible it is for anyone to vindicate themselves from the charge that they are unjustified before God, no matter how many religious and moral laws they obey or how many ceremonies they participate in. No one proved that the things they are charged with doing do not count, or that their right to perform them exists. They cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges He made against them in His Word, and they cannot prove that it was right for them to do as they did. The charges against them are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be justified.

[1] Matthew Poole: On Galatians, op. cit., Kindle Location 376-388), Kindle Edition

[2] John Bengel: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 14-15

[3] Psalm 143:2

[4] See Romans 3:28, 4:1-25

[5] Joseph Benson: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[6] Heinrich Meyer: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 84

[7] Peter Lange: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[8] William Anderson O’Conor: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[9] A concessive clause is a clause which begins by saying “although” but then introducing the opposite at the end. For instance, “Although he is quiet, he is not shy.”

[10] A causal clause states the reason or basis for the action of the main verb. For instance, “Lend me three loaves, because my friend has arrived from a journey” (Luke 11:16)

[11] Hovey, Alvah: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 32–33.

[12] Ephesians 2:8-9 – NIV

[13] See Romans 3:20; 9:16; 11:6; Galatians 2:21; 3:21; 5:4, 6

[14] Jesus Saves, written by Priscilla J. Owens, published in 1882

[15] Hebrews 12:2

[16] Charles Spurgeon: The Spurgeon Sermon Collection, Salvation Altogether by Grace, Sermon No. 421, on Sunday, July 29, 1866, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington, England, Vol. 2, p. 453

[17] Charles Spurgeon: According to Promise, The Parting, pp. 24-25

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXII)

All of this talk about submitting oneself to another, especially believers to unbelievers, led to Aquinas answering the question: “Whether it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature of the stock of Abraham?”[1] Aquinas points to Paul’s words here in verse fifteen which in one translation reads that “Jewish sinners were different than Gentile sinners.” And since Adam was a Gentile, if the Anointed One wished to assume His human nature from Gentile sinners, He should assume it came from the Gentiles rather than the stock of Abraham, a righteous man.[2] It is obvious that Aquinas equated Abraham as being a “Jew.” But Abraham was a Gentile from Mesopotamia. Jews are descendants from Judah, the son of Jacob.

If we go back to Jacob, all of the descendants of his twelve sons were called “Israelites.” And before that, the descendants of Abraham were called “Hebrews.”[3] According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the terms “Hebrews” and “Israelites” describe the same people, stating that they were called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and Israelites afterward. The word “Hebrew” means, “cross over,” or “pass-through.” In the Bible, it referred to those who wandered in order to find shade and water. In other words, they were “wanderers.”

Martin Luther also sees Paul’s argument here as a defense of Jews who believed in the One True God as opposed to the Gentiles’ many false gods. Furthermore, Jews compared to Gentiles looked more civilized, because the Gentiles were lawless with no good works. Their being righteous before God dated from their birth and circumcision. Because of the Jewish religion, they were believers naturally. However, none of this truly made them right in the eyes of God.

Apparently, Peter forgot that just because they exercised such advantages, they were not to think of themselves as righteous before God. None of these prerogatives spelled faith in the Anointed One, which alone justifies a person. That doesn’t imply that the Law is bad. We do not condemn the Law, circumcision, etc., for their failure to justify us. Paul spoke disparagingly of these ordinances because the false apostles asserted that mankind is saved by them without faith. Paul could not let this assertion stand, for without faith all things are deadly.

John Calvin shares some of the various views on what Paul says here in verse fifteen that were prevalent in his day. Some say that Paul is stating this in the form of an objection, anticipating what might be urged on the other side, that the Jews possessed higher privileges; not that they boasted of being an exemption from the law. How absurd that they to whom the Law was given should make this their boast. However, Calvin sees it as an attempt on the part of the Jewish believers of retaining some points of distinction between them and the Gentiles. Calvin says that he does not outright reject this view, and yet, as will be seen later on, he does not adopt this view in its entirety. Others, consider that it is Paul himself who uses this argument, “If you were to lay upon the Jews the burden of the law, it would be more reasonable, because it is theirs by inheritance.” But neither does he approve of this view.

Calvin then proceeds to the second part of Paul’s speech which begins with a sense of anticipation. The Gentiles differed from Jews in this respect: Gentiles were “unholy and profane,”[4] while the Jews, being holy, so far as God chose them for His people, might contend that this made them superior. Paul skillfully anticipated an objection, so he turns to the opposite conclusion. Since the Jews themselves, with all their advantages, were forced to submit themselves to faith in the Anointed One, how much more necessary was it that the Gentiles should look for salvation through faith?

Then Calvin shares what he thinks Paul is trying to say here to Peter and the others Jews present in Antioch: We, who appear to stand out above all others – we, who, by means of the First Covenant enjoy the privilege of being close to God,[5] found no method of obtaining salvation but by believing in the Anointed One. Why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles? For, if the law proved necessary for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it certainly benefited the Jews to whom it was given on Mt. Sinai. But when we relinquish it and surrendered ourselves to the Anointed One for salvation, why must the Gentiles be forced to observe and practice the Law in order to find salvation?[6]

But Calvin offers his view on this subject. To him, Peter’s actions were not only hypocritical and demeaning but also an attack of Justification by Faith. How could he do something that might cause others, including the Gentiles, to return to the Law once again looking for promises of justification through good works? Because of the promises made by God through the Anointed One, the promises offered in the Law are all invalid and ineffectual. Did not God in His goodness sent the Gospel to our aid, since the condition on which the Laws promises depended, and under which only they were to be performed the Law could not provide. Still, however, the aid which the Lord gives does not need good works to justify our right standing with God.

Even with the many who were dedicated to them, God still showed enough patience to let everyone learn that the Anointed One alone is the fulfillment of righteous works. For the Apostle Paul, after making it clear that he, and the other Jews, were aware that “a person is not justified by the works of the law,” but must “believe in Jesus the Anointed One,” to receive what they desired. However, once justified by the Anointed One they were not to stop doing the good works that the Anointed One commanded. But they must remember, they were not doing them to get to the Anointed One but because the Anointed One got to them. For Calvin, this is the message of verse sixteen here in Galatians.[7]

Catholic theologian Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637 AD), reveals the division between Catholics and Protestants on justification and helps us better understand why Martin Luther and John Calvin broke with the Catholic tradition. Lapide says that the Protestants wrongly neglect the force of between faith and works. That they translate what Paul says here to mean that a person is justified only by faith in the Anointed One alone. And even if the Apostle Paul did say that [8] yet he would not support the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. For Lapide, the works that are excluded are those of the Law, not the works of hope, fear, charity, and penance which spring from faith as daughters from a mother.[9]

Dutch Reformer Jakob Arminius focuses on Paul’s lecture of Peter’s actions being equal to demanding that Gentile believers be made to practice the same obligations under Jewish moral law for their justification in being called children of God. That included circumcision, rites, rituals, ceremonies, feasts, etc. So, it seems to him that sinners required a simple process in order to become saints because all that’s required to gain entrance into this Christian way is to admit their sins, their disgraceful state, ask for forgiveness and then by faith expect redemption.

But for those who as believers also sin, we must be careful to not lump them in with unbelievers just because they made a mistake, or repent again for some of the sins for which they were forgiven. The Anointed One died only once on the cross and need not die again. So, the Grace of God makes it possible to receive forgiveness from Him without requesting that we be reborn again, which is as impossible for a child of God as it is for a human child.[10]

But Arminius sees another side to Paul’s argument here, and that is his determination to eliminate any chance for believers to be persuaded that justification is obtained through obedience to the Law of Moses for whatever reason.[11] That’s because justification is attributed to faith, not because it is that very right standing with God can make the rigid and severe judgment of God unnecessary, although good works are pleasing to God; but because, through the judgment of mercy triumphing over justice, it obtains pardon from sins, and is graciously imputed for righteousness.

Arminius continues by saying that justification may be defined this way: “It is the means by which a believer’s sin is brought before the throne of grace through the door which Jesus opened by being our atonement sacrifice.”[12] That’s where our just and merciful heavenly Judge deems it justified through grace to retain the repentant believer’s position of being right with Him, not because of anything they did but in the Anointed One alone. It is this grace according to the Gospel that justifies salvation to all who believe to the glory of God, to anything they brought to persuade Him to do so. [13] [14]

Believers are now a matter of most concern for Paul; those called into the fellowship of Jesus the Anointed One, and into being an heir to the inheritance which the Anointed One purchased for His followers with His own blood of which He alone is constituted as the Dispenser of Grace to those who obey Him.[15] Yet, no matter how perfect and efficient our actions and ministry may be as a result of the gifts that the Spirit gave, yet there needs to be some action on the believer’s part so that all who claim Jesus the Anointed One as their Lord and Savior are counted as members of the one true congregation.[16]

This then gives the congregation the right to exclude doubters, apostates, hypocrites, and those heretics who do not hold the Anointed One as the head of His spiritual body.[17] Arminius says as Protestants, however, are allowed to make a distinction between those not baptized by immersion, those who were excommunicated by the church, and those who bring division, and according to the virtues of each case, be affirmed as either belonging to the church or not.[18]

[1] Ibid. Part (3)-Question (4)-Article (6), p. 79

[2] Ibid. Part (3)-Question (4)-Article (6)-Objection (3), p. 79

[3] Genesis 14:13

[4] 1 Timothy 1:9

[5] Deuteronomy 4:7

[6] John Calvin: Cabinet, On Galatians, op. cit., p. 24

[7] John Calvin: Institutes, Vol. 3, Ch. 17, p. 834

[8] Ephesians 2:8-9

[9] Cornelius à Lapide: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 248

[10] Galatians 2:15, 16, 21; Matthew 9:13; 11:28; Romans 8:28-30

[11] Romans 3:20, 28; John 5:24; Psalm 143:2; Romans 3, 4

[12] Hebrews 4:16

[13] Romans 3:24-26; 3, 4, 5, 10, 11.

[14] Jakob Arminius: op. cit., Vol. 1, Disputation 10, para. 12, p. 539

[15] Hebrews 5:9

[16] Acts of the Apostles 2:41

[17] Ephesians 1:22

[18] Jakob Arminius: op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 539

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXXI)

The wise man Job wasn’t the only one, even King David realized that it was futile for anyone to think that they could somehow persuade God to forgive their sins based on their prayers and pleads alone. That’s why he cried out to the Lord, “O Lord, hear my voice! Let Your ears hear the voice of my prayers. If You, Lord, should write down our sins, O Lord, who could stand? But You are the One Who forgives, so You are honored with reverence. That’s why I wait for the Lord. My soul waits and I hope in His Word. My soul waits for the Lord more than one who watches for the morning; yes, more than one who watches for the morning. O Israel, hope in the Lord! For there is loving-kindness with the Lord. With Him, we are saved for sure. And He will save Israel from all their sins.”[1]

Did Peter forget when he watched as a Jewish expert in the Law tried to trap Jesus with a trick question when he asked the Lord what he must do to earn timeless life, and Jesus told him to do exactly what the Law told him to do? Then Jesus asked if the man knew what the Law said, and the man inquired as to exactly what does the Law say and Jesus told him, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart. You must love Him with all your soul. You must love Him with all your strength. You must love Him with all your mind. You must love your neighbor as you love yourself.”[2] Jesus complimented him and told him that if he continued doing those things, he would certainly gain everlasting life.

But then the Jewish Law expert asked Jesus if He wouldn’t mind explaining who his neighbor was. Jesus then told the story of the good Samaritan. In the end, Jesus asked which of the three men, the Rabbi, the Levite, and the Samaritan, who responded to the wounded man’s condition really proved to love his neighbor as himself. The man answered, “The Samaritan, of course.” Jesus then told him to go and do the same thing. We do not know what this man did but we know it says he became a dedicated follower of the Anointed One. Another incident of the same kind is recorded by Luke,[3] and Matthew,[4] and Mark,[5] and those cases the individual walked away disappointed because they couldn’t bring themselves to give up everything to follow the Anointed One. So, did Peter think that by siding with his Jewish friends in favor of the Law instead of loving the Gentiles as he loved himself would earn him any extra points with God? Certainly, he knew better and Paul was there to remind him.

Alright, the confrontation is over, Paul said what was on his mind and apparently, Peter didn’t get upset enough to argue back. Besides, Paul wrote this letter almost five years after his showdown with Peter in Antioch and they both learned a lot since then. Now it’s time for Paul to take the readers of his letter into the inner chamber of his revelation from the Anointed One Jesus. Whether or not the next few paragraphs were part of his face-to-face with Peter doesn’t make them less powerful and important. Paul simply wanted Peter to know he was being a hypocrite, and this monologue was mere icing on the cake.

To help us get a better look at an essential ingredient in Paul’s disgust with the Judaizers’ teaching, let’s examine the difference between misbelief, disbelief, and unbelief. Misbelief is when a person accepts certain core beliefs which with careful examination are proven either false or unreliable. Therefore, their faith is in error. Most of the cults that exist in our world are guilty of this. Disbelief is when someone finds it hard to accept something that does not fit into their understanding of how things should operate.  Therefore, their faith is weak. I’m willing to believe that the disciples experienced this when they first saw Jesus walk on water and calm the storm. Unbelief is when someone makes no effort to change their mind and dismisses anything that differs from their accepted way of thinking. Therefore, they are devoid of faith. It appears that the Judaizers needed to be convinced that faith in Jesus was the only way, the only truth, and the only way to live for God, but their disbelief kept them from accepting the truth.

We know from Paul’s visit to Athens that he was aware of all the altars to the gods that dotted the city’s streets. So, there’s a good possibility that while visiting in Corinth, he saw the altar of Poseidon of the hero Greek god Bellerophron in a grove. This young son of a king found himself in the same situation that Joseph encountered when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce him but Joseph resisted. In Bellerophron’s case, it was the wife of King Proteus where Bellerophron fled for safety.  He too resisted Queen Antea’s attempt at seduction. After passing many tests to prove his courage and loyalty, Bellerophron was given the hand of a princess and promoted to a high government position. However, he became so intoxicated with pride and vanity over his accomplishments, that in order to gratify his curiosity he tried to mount into heaven on his winged horse Pegasus. As a result, Zeus sent a pesky gadfly to sting the regal Pegasus, who then began to buck and kick until he threw Bellerophron back down to earth. The battered warrior was so full of remorse that he had displeased Zeus, that he wandered in melancholy the rest of his life in earth’s most lonely and desolate places.

Paul did not want these Jewish Christians to suffer the same fate of being so enamored by their godliness and righteousness that they would try reaching heaven based on all their good deeds and test of religiosity.  He did not want God to send any plague on them like the serpents in the wilderness, as He did to the children of Israel who disobeyed Him.  Paul no doubt saw the danger of this attitude when he internalized his own experience of trying to make it to heaven based on his accomplishments and zeal as a Pharisee.  However, after God knocked him to the ground, He was gracious to him and picked him up off the ground and sent him out as an Apostle of the Gospel.

At this point, we get to see what really made Paul a champion of salvation by grace. Since he was speaking to the Jews in the congregations, as well as the Judaizers, he made no apology for his opposition to their wanting to improve on the Anointed One’s work on the cross. If we were to look for a similar situation today, it might go something like this: There are those who’ve been in the congregation most of their lives; they cut their teeth on the bench in front of them, so to speak. Then there are those who recently came into the congregation through evangelism outreach. They know nothing of the history or traditions of a denomination that’s been around for a long time. So instead of accepting these new converts on the basis of their salvation by faith, they are made to conform to the practical teachings, rituals, and traditions that those who grew up in the congregation believe are part of being a genuine Christian.

Paul is saying to these Judaizers, “Look, you and I and Peter and Barnabas were all born and raised as Jews, we did not come into it by way of conversion. So, even though we were Jews, it didn’t mean we were saved, nor did observing the rituals and traditions of our Jewish faith mean we stayed saved. We too were born again, just like the Gentiles. That means that just as the Gentiles, who did not keep any Jewish Law or traditions, needed to accept the Anointed One as their Savior in order to be saved, so we Jews, who did keep the Jewish Law and traditions, needed to accept the Anointed One as our Savior in order to be saved. We are not better Christians just because we were born as Jews.” We could add the same provision to believers today. There are some who were born into Christian homes and acquainted with the church all their lives, but they needed to accept the Anointed One as their personal Savior in order to be saved. Therefore, they are no better a Christian than the person who grew up in a home where the word “church” was never mentioned, but who came to accept Jesus the Anointed One as their Savior as well.

One early medieval scholar, Peter Lombard, believes that what Paul says here can be paraphrased to read: “We are Jews by birth and not sinners from among the Gentiles, but we still know that Jews, however much they may be within the Law, are not justified through those legalistic works which comprise sacrifices and the other figurative practices.” In short, there is no way that one is justified except through the faith of the Anointed One Jesus. It is for this reason, therefore, that Jews, like the Gentiles, believe in the Anointed One Jesus, so that they might be justified by the faith of the Anointed One. The Apostle does not say that if one professes faith then good works are meaningless, for God blesses each person according to what they did for Him by being a blessing to others. Rather, it is because good deeds proceed from grace – not grace from good deeds. Faith working through love does nothing unless the love of God is poured into us through the Holy Spirit. Nor does faith itself abide within us unless God bestows it.  Paul says that we are to be justified by faith because faith comes first. It is from this that the rest of these things are accomplished.[6]

Catholic scholar Thomas Aquinas sees Paul inference here of how he and the other Apostles were all born Jews as a compliment.[7] That is in light of what Jesus said to the woman at the well in Samaria, “You people do not know what you worship. We Jews know what we worship. It is through the Jews that men are saved from the punishment of their sins.”[8] In other words, Jews may be sinners, but they are not sinners like the Gentiles. Jews are sinners based on the law; Gentiles are sinners based on their heathen worship of idols. But even though this may be a compliment of sorts, it was not an excuse for their not needing the same salvation through Jesus the Anointed One that the Gentiles received.[9] [10]

In another place, Aquinas is asked whether someone should subject themselves to everyone out of humility? He then responds by saying that we should consider two things in mankind, namely that which is God’s – divine in nature, and that which is man’s – human in nature. Whatever is found to be defective is the result of human nature. But whatever is that determining a person’s well-being and perfection is due to divine nature.[11] True humility involves the reverence whereby mankind is subject to God. This means that every person need only to subject themselves to others with respect to that which they possess in their spiritual nature that comes from God.

Aquinas then qualifies what he is saying by pointing out that no believer should feel that they must subject the operation of any gift they received from God through the Holy Spirit to another believer who possesses the same gift. Those who share in receiving God’s gifts know that they received them according to what Paul said to the Corinthians.[12] One thing to keep in mind, however, that those who are given the gift of speaking in other tongues are not subordinate to those who receive the gift of interpretation. Both are subordinate to the Holy Spirit who operates such gifts through them. Furthermore, no believer is required to subject that which they received from God to any human talent or gift possessed by a neighbor. However, any person, believer or unbeliever, may esteem their fellowman with natural gifts and talents they to do not possess. This was all said in light of what Paul was explaining to Peter at Antioch.[13] Humility, in this context, is that which would cause a believer to show respect for an unbeliever for any talent or gift which they might wish for themselves.[14]

[1] Psalm 130:2-8

[2] Luke 10:27

[3] Ibid. 18:18-23

[4] Matthew 19:16-22

[5] Mark 10:17-22

[6] Peter Lombard: The Letter to the Galatians (Medieval Bible Commentary series), loc. cit.

[7] See 2 Corinthians 11:22

[8] John 4:22

[9] See 1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23

[10] Thomas Aquinas: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[11] Cf. Hosea 13:9

[12] 1 Corinthians 2:12

[13] See Galatians 2:15

[14] Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, Vol. 4, Part (2b)-Question (161)-Article (3), pp. 359-360

In the Introduction to his book, A Guide for the Perplexed, Jewish Rabbi Moses Maimonides wrote a cover letter to his pupil Rabbi Joseph Ibn Aknin. This is an excerpt from that letter concerning the difficulty in explaining creation found in Genesis. The Almighty began the Holy Scriptures with the description of the Creation, that is, with Physical Science. The purpose being, on the one hand, being deeply and profound because of its importance. On the other hand, knowing that our means of fully comprehending those great truths were limited. He described those profound truths, which His Divine Wisdom found it necessary to communicate to us, in allegories, figures of speech, and metaphorical language.

 Even our wisest advisors have said, it is impossible to give a full account of Creation that a human can understand. Therefore, Scripture simply tells us: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That’s why they confess that this subject is indeed a deep mystery, and in the words of Solomon, “Far off and exceedingly deep, who can really figure it out?” (Eccles. 7:24). It has been explained using metaphors in order that the uneducated may comprehend it according to the measure of their understanding and their tendency to become confused. In other words, without God’s wisdom to help and faith in His Word to help us leap where human logic fears to tread, it is impossible to understand how the universe and the earth began. Everything that has yet been suggested is all theory, not a proven fact.

So, the next time someone asks you to explain creation, just quote them this paragraph and watch their eyes light up and then fog over. They may never ask you about it again – Dr. Robert R Seyda

SHARING OUR BLESSINGS

The gentleman who shared this story did not give his name, but since these things have happened many times, in different places, with different results, there’s no reason to doubt its authenticity.

He was driving home and almost didn’t see the elderly lady, stranded on the side of the road, but even in the dim light of day, he could see she needed help. So, he pulled up in front of her Mercedes and got out. He left his old Pontiac running since it was so cold, even if it was sputtering. The friendly smile on his face still left her worried as he approached her. He was the first to stop to help for the last hour or so …. was he going to hurt her? He didn’t look safe; he looked somewhat poor and hungry.

The man could see that she was cold and frightened. He knew how she felt. Her shivering included a chill that only fear can put in you. “I’m here to help you, ma’am, he said, why don’t you wait in your car where it’s warm? By the way, my name is Bryan Anderson.”

Well, all she had was a flat tire, but for an elderly lady, that was bad enough. Bryan crawled under the car looking for a place to put the jack, skinning his knuckles a time or two. Soon he was able to change the tire. But he got very dirty and his hands hurt. As he was tightening up the lug nuts, she rolled down the window and began to talk to him. She told him that she was from St. Louis and was only just passing through. She couldn’t thank him enough for coming to her aid. Bryan just smiled as he snapped on the hubcap, put the jack in the trunk and closed it. The lady asked how much she owed him. Any amount would have been all right with her. She already imagined all the awful things that could have happened had he not stopped. Bryan never thought twice about being paid.

This was not a job for him. This was helping someone in need, and God knows there were plenty who gave him a hand in the past. He lived his whole life helping others, and it never occurred to him to act any other way. He told her that if she really wanted to pay him back, the next time she saw someone who needed help, she could give that person the assistance they needed. He waited until she started her car and drove off. It had been a cold and depressing day, but he felt good as he headed for home.

A few miles down the road the lady saw a small cafe. She went in to grab a bite to eat, and take the chill off before she made the last leg of her trip home. It was certainly not a fancy looking restaurant. Outside were two old gas pumps. The whole scene was unfamiliar to her. The waitress came over and brought a clean towel to wipe her wet hair. She had a sweet smile, one that being on her feet for the whole day could not erase.

The lady noticed the waitress was nearly eight months pregnant, but she never let the strain and aches change her attitude. The old lady wondered how someone who had so little could be so kind and caring to a stranger. Then she remembered Bryan. After the lady finished her meal, she paid with a hundred-dollar bill. The waitress quickly went to get change for her hundred-dollar bill, but the old lady slipped right out the door. She was gone by the time the waitress came back. The waitress wondered where the lady could be.

Then she noticed something written on the napkin. Tears filled her eyes as she read what the lady wrote: “You don’t owe me anything. I was in your situation earlier today. Somebody helped me out, the way I’m helping you. If you really want to pay me back, here is what you do: Do not let this chain of love end with you.”

Under the napkin were four more $100 bills. Well, there were tables to clear, sugar bowls to fill, and people to serve, but the waitress made it through another day. That night when she got home from work and climbed into bed, she was thinking about the money and what the lady had written. How could the lady have known how much she and her husband needed it? With the baby due next month, it was going to be hard. She knew how worried her husband was, and as he lay sleeping next to her, she gave him a soft kiss and whispered soft and low, “Everything’s gonna be all right. I love you, Bryan Anderson.”

There is an old idiom that goes, “What goes around comes around.” But there’s an even older proverb that reads: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”[1] However, there’s one even older than that: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”[2] It boils down to agape love. Because the Apostle Paul says that Love is proactive, is observant, is compassionate, is responsive, is free, works when inconvenient, brings healing, may require sacrifice, is selfless, and is promising.[3] It is this kind of love that the Holy Spirit brings to us as a blessing to help others, not hoard our blessings.[4] – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31

[2] Leviticus 19:18

[3] 1 Corinthians 13:1-13

[4] Romans 5:5

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXX)

In one of Plato’s dialogues, Protagoras and Socrates were debating the attributes of man and how man uses them to keep from getting worn out making decisions. Socrates asks Protagoras to be honest and tell him whether virtue is a trait made up of honesty, discipline, and transparency; or whether they were only synonyms for virtue. After discussing it for a long time, they agreed that much like our eyes, nose, ears, mouth all make up what we call our “face,” so honesty, discipline, and transparency are what composes what we call “virtue.”

This was typical thinking in Paul’s day, and he saw a similarity in the way Peter lost control over his sense of virtue by being inconsistent and hypocritical with Jewish and Gentile believers. So, Paul confronts him and asks how he expected to be accepted as a spiritual leader and model of Christian ethics in a congregation, which consists of both Jews and Gentiles if he discriminates against the Gentiles by making them conform to Jewish traditions in order to be accepted?  Paul is telling Peter, either you follow the Gospel you preach, or you are a hypocrite; how dare you say you worship the Anointed One when you do not copy His virtues and grow in His likeness?

I imagine when Paul walked over from where he and the Gentile Christians were eating and confronted Peter face-to-face, he didn’t do it in lecture style with everyone looking on, but looked straight into Peter’s eyes and spoke in measured tones, knowing that only those close-by would be able to hear what he was saying. According to Biblical scholars, Peter was about nine years older than Paul. It is also known that Peter was not as educated or intellectually sharp as Paul. At the time of this encounter, Peter might have been around fifty-two years of age. During his era that already made him an elder. So, what did it look like when a younger man, considered a rebel by many outside Jerusalem, got into the face of an older man who was a personal friend of Jesus, and scolded him? Whatever it may look like to others, it didn’t slow Paul down.

What wrongful act was it that Paul wanted Peter to give an explanation for why he did what he did? The translation we read may be somewhat unclear, but basically, Paul wanted to know why Peter, who seemed to be completely free from any bias or racial discrimination against Gentiles, now acts as though they are unsuitable to eat with because they never underwent the religious rite of circumcision. In the eyes of a pious Jew, this made them unqualified to sit with at the same table.

Jewish Christian writer Avi ben Mordechai gives an interesting interpretation of what Paul is saying here that concerns Jews and Gentiles. In fact, his translation reads as follow: “If you who are Judeans, you Arameans, live as Arameans and not as Judeans, why do you urge the Gentiles who joined themselves to Judah to live as Judeans?” He basis this on the fact the word “Jews” is a derivative of “Judeans.” Then his use of “Arameans” was meant to remind Peter and his cohorts that Jacob’s offspring are of Aramean origin because Jacob married Leah and Rachael, daughters of the Aramean Laban. He did this to point out that Judeans should then not be contemptuous of other Arameans since they both claimed the same forefathers.[1] In fact, Moses referred to Jacob as a “wandering Aramean.”[2] This was violating the truth of the Gospel as reported to them by Isaiah.[3] [4] So it seems somewhat ironic that the proud Jews who referred to Elohim as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom were not Judeans but Chaldeans and Arameans! Today, this would be like the children of immigrants refusing to work or eat with someone because they were an immigrant.

It is not in the text here, but a study of Jewish Law shows that only certain foods could be consumed and that certain acts of hand washing and using certain utensils were required. But even more important, they were not to touch anything considered unclean as this would make the person themselves unclean and then they would need to undergo certain cleansing rituals to be considered clean again.  And guess what, Gentiles were considered unclean!

So, Paul concludes, after seeing Peter’s actions, if the Gentiles want to eat with him, they must first be circumcised, go through the washing rituals, and eat only kosher foods. But what about the fact that they were just as saved and redeemed as Peter? Were they not fellow citizens of God’s kingdom and fellow members of God’s congregation? Peter may feel comfortable in following those rituals and laws when in the company of fellow Jews, but not when fellowshipping with the body of the Anointed One.

I hear Paul saying, “So Peter, does this mean that you and your cohorts are the ‘real’ Christians here, and I and my Gentile brethren are not? You mean to tell me that even though you were born and raised a Jew but threw off Jewish customs as meaningless under the Anointed One, you now turn around and forcefully impose those very same Jewish customs on these Gentile believers?” I imagine Peter’s hair standing up on the back of his neck as his red face now turns pale making his black beard look even darker.

When I served in the military back in the late 1950s, one of my best friends was an African-American from New York. We were sent for training from our base in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to a base in Fort Bliss, Texas. Along the way, the bus stopped for lunch in Oklahoma City. The small diner in the bus station wasn’t equipped to let all passengers eat at the same time, and since we were last off the bus and given only thirty minutes to eat, I suggested we walk up the street to get something to eat. We entered a nice-looking cafe, sat down in a booth and picked up the menu. The waitress kept walking by, and since we were in a hurry, I finally called her over. She looked scared to death when we began to order. Finally, she said in a quivering voice to me, “I’m sorry, but I cannot serve him out here,” pointing to my black friend; “he has to eat in the back.” I was livid! I told her we were both soldiers in the same army and if sent to war would fight together for her freedom. As she backed away with teary eyes, she apologized and said it wasn’t her idea, but the manager.

My friend told me that he understood and he’d go to the back. But I told him either we both ate together out front or both ate together in the back. So, we both got up and walked back to the kitchen area. Never in my life did I feel so embarrassed to be a member of the white race. After we finished and went up to pay, I let the cashier know how disgusted I felt when white people act this way. I totally disapprove of someone being best friends with a black man on a military base but not out in public. Today, we are still best friends.

2:15-16 Both you and I know we were born into believing Jewish families, not unbelieving Gentile families; we also know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus the Anointed One, not by obeying the religious rituals and regulations given by Moses. That’s why we both put our faith in Jesus the Messiah to make us right with God, not by obeying these religious rituals and regulations given by Moses. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying such religious requirements.

Paul’s argument in favor of the Gentile converts being accepted as co-equals in the Body of the Anointed One by the Jewish converts is the heart of his defense for them. Who dares diminish the status of anyone “known to God” in light of their faith in the Anointed One[5] Why make them feel out of place just because they didn’t embrace all the Jewish rites, rituals, and ceremonies practiced by the converted Jews? Those were done to enhance the Jews identity as being right before God. But why should the Gentiles believers be forced to do the same when they already believed they were right before God by faith?[6] From the beginning of this letter, Paul calls on the Galatians to stop implementing these unnecessary rituals just to legitimize themselves before the Jews that they were genuine Christians.[7] In doing so, they would be putting up barriers on the course set by the Gospel of the Anointed One that they already successfully began to run.[8] [9]

So now Paul uses Peter to give a little history lesson. Although Paul does not say it here, he did treat the same subject in his letter to the Romans. That’s where he reminded them that the Jews glorified God while they lived among the Gentiles,[10] and then quoted David who said, “So I give thanks to you, Adonai, among the nations [Gentiles]; I sing praises to your name.”[11] That’s why even the Gentiles respected their faith and rejoiced with the Jews,[12] and then Paul quoted from the Song of Moses where Moses called on the Gentiles to rejoice with the Jews because God will punish those who fight against him.[13] Furthermore, Paul called on all the Gentiles to join the Jews in giving honor and thanks to the Lord,[14] just as they were invited to do in the Psalm of Praise.[15] And finally, Paul pointed out that one day the Anointed One will reign over both Jews and Gentiles,[16] and then quoted Isaiah who stated: “In that day the nations will turn to the One from the family of Jesse. He will be honored by the people as someone special to see. And His place of rest will be full of His shining-greatness.”[17]

So that led Paul to draw an obvious conclusion. Since he, Peter, and all the others came to realize that no one is justified before God as being right with Him based on their good works in obedience to the Law but only by faith in Jesus the Anointed One, and just as the Gentiles who possessed no Law to follow and did not involve themselves in any good works in order to find favor with God, were also justified as being right with God by their faith in Jesus the Anointed One as their Savior, how could Peter now be so foolish as to think that by following the Law when it came to Kosher foods was going to please God and cause the Gentiles to doubt their faith in the Anointed One because they ate whatever was placed before them?

After all, even Job, a believer before there was any Law asked how could any person be right and good before God on their own. If they were asked questions by God in order to justify their position as being right with Him, Job said they would not be able to answer even one out of a thousand arguing their case before Him. In fact, Job was convinced that nothing he suffered so far would be good enough to earn him forgiveness.[18] In other words, nothing mankind does will ever be accepted by God as a substitute for faith in His Son Jesus as the one and only true sacrifice for sin.

[1] Exodus 22:21

[2] Deuteronomy 26:5 – NIV

[3] Isaiah 11:12-13

[4] Avi ben Mordechai: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 21

[5] Galatians 4:8-9

[6] Ibid. 3:1-4:9, 21; 5:1-12; 6:12-13

[7] Ibid. 1:6-9; 3:1-5; 5:7-12

[8] Ibid. 5:7

[9] Mark A. Nanos: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 80

[10] Romans 15:9

[11] Psalm 18:49

[12] Romans 15:10

[13] Deuteronomy 32:43

[14] Romans 15:11

[15] Psalm 117:1

[16] Romans 15:12

[17] Isaiah 11:10

[18] Job 9:1-3, 29

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIX)

Anglican theologian and Bishop of Durham, England, J. B. Lightfoot takes Paul’s admonition that Peter was not walking upright as a reference to a “line of direction,” not the intended goal. Lightfoot also questions whether or not what Paul says here about his confrontation are verbatim or did he just summarize it for the sake of keeping it short? Lightfoot also notes that the Greek adjective hamartōlos (KJV “sinners”) that Paul uses next in verse fifteen and later in verse seventeen as part of this narrative, marks the language of one Jew speaking to another. Lightfoot also noticed that by the end of this chapter Paul’s thoughts and language drifted away from Peter and the confrontation in Antioch to the Judaizers in Galatia. No doubt, that’s because it was on Paul’s mind as he responded to what he saw Peter doing.[1]

Paul’s stand here for the truth is reminiscent of Luther’s stand not to recant at the risk of losing his life. This is also seen in the life of John Hooper (1495-1555), Anglican Bishop of Gloucester, a Protestant reformer who was sentenced to be burned at the stake by Queen Mary the First, because of his stand against the Roman Catholic Church. So, a gentleman from his parish was sent to try and talk him into recanting and save his life. He told Hooper, “Life is sweet, and death is bitter.” But Hooper replied, “The death to come is more bitter, and the life to come is sweeter. I am come to the end of this life and am willing to die because I will not deny the truth, I previously taught you.” When he was brought to the stake to be burned, a box with a pardon from Queen Mary in it was set before him. But the determined martyr cried out, “If you love my soul, throw the pardon away! Do you hear me, if you love my soul throw the pardon away![2]

Joseph Beet, one of England’s top theologians writing in the Methodist and Wesleyan tradition points out that it wasn’t only the Gentile Christians who were under pressure, but Gentiles in general. Since many Jews were wealthy merchants and owned many slaves, even they felt compelled to comply with being circumcised in order to obtain and even keep their positions. In fact, in one story about Roman statesman, Lawyer, and Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero who responded to the call for help from the Sicilians because of the plundering and extortion perpetrated by Gaius Verres, a Roman magistrate who was notorious for his misgovernment of Sicily, including extortion of local farmers and plundering of idol temples. So, Cicero decided to arrest him and put him on trial. In the process of calling witnesses, there was a freed slave named Cæcilius who the Sicilians wanted to call as a witness. Cicero was told that Cæcilius submitted to Jewish practices. Cicero asked somewhat bewilderingly, “What do Jews to do with swine?” This meant that Cæcilius was a Gentile to whom Jews paid little attention. But it also raised the question of why this Gentile practiced Jewish rites, rituals, and ceremonies?[3] While the question never got asked, it does suppose that Cæcilius did so in order to find favor with the Jews.

Beet’s point is that such persuasion by the Jewish majority was not a new thing. And once it took hold it was hard to get rid of. Another thing that Beet points out is that Peter’s previous conduct among the Gentiles was certainly in harmony with his convictions and, therefore, considered part of his normal lifestyle. So why all of a sudden was he acting abnormally? That was the whole point of Paul’s argument. In other words, “Peter, this is not like you! You don’t usually act this way? Why are you going back to what you used to be?” That’s all it took. Peter knew that Paul’s words were hurtful but true and it hit him very hard. And reading it now in the letter, the Galatians were also feeling its full force, in spite of their contrary action. As far as Paul was concerned, it was official. The Mosaic restrictions on food and drink for Christian believers were no longer binding.[4]

British Bible scholar Benjamin W. Bacon made the comment that there was no question of the Apostle Paul being charitable here, but there is a question of what principle was it based on. For a Christian Jew to eat with a Christian Gentile was either right or wrong. Which was it? In light of the Gospel, it was right, but if it’s based on who is or who is not present at the time, it’s wrong. It was downright embarrassing that a Gentile convert to Christianity was treated like a brother earlier, but now that some Jews arrived from Jerusalem, they are being treated as outcasts.[5] As Bacon put it, The whole point of Paul’s charge lies in the fact that it is a failure on Peter’s part not to stick with the fundamental spirit of the Jerusalem agreement of mutual non-interference. It would be hard to argue against this atrocious act on Peter’s part as nothing less than his clinging to his Jewish mode of life among Gentile believers in order to persuade them to adopt it as their own.[6]

Arno Gaebelein stated that when Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles he went back to the law and was thereby attempting to be justified by works; he was building the law again. But, previous to that, he abandoned the law as a means of justification before God and he believed in Jesus the Anointed One to be justified by faith before God, not by the works of the law. Peter knew that “by the works of the law no person is justified.” By building the system of the law again, which he gave up as unable to justify him, he made himself a transgressor, because he abandoned it in order to feel more comfortable with the delegation from Jerusalem. If Peter were to say that the Anointed One led him to do this – was the Anointed One then a minister of sin? In no way! In fact, it was the doctrine of the Anointed One that convicted him in giving up the Law; for in building it again and going back to it he acknowledged that he was wrong when he rejected it earlier as a means of justification. This is the argument of these verses.[7]

Cyril Emmet notes that Paul’s condemnation of Peter is based on the essential character of Christianity, not on any agreement made previously in Jerusalem by the Council. Peter’s prerogative included stating that it never crossed his mind to try and force the Gentiles to copy him by eating only kosher foods. It was a case of showing hospitality to the visiting Jewish delegation from the Apostle James. But this would prove to be a superficial argument. Paul envisioned the possible consequences on how the Gentiles viewed their place in the Antioch congregation while Peter looked at the possible repercussions from the Jewish contingent in the Jerusalem congregation. It contained all the possibilities of telling the Gentile believers in Antioch that they existed on a lower tier as member of the Body of the Anointed One. Paul went to great lengths to persuade Gentiles that they were equal in every way to any member of the Anointed One’s body, be they Jew or Gentile, and he wasn’t about to let Peter ruin that.[8]

Lutheran scholar Paul Kretzmann says quite a bit about this incident. But the crux of what he said was that Peter’s conduct was a public offence and scandal and may be particularly noticeable at the common meals associated with the celebration of the Holy Communion. Paul, therefore, with the Eighth Commandment in mind, did his duty without flinching: he spoke to Peter face-to-face, in the presence of those against whom he was sinning. Paul was concerned about the truth of the Gospel; for the conduct of Peter and the rest was casting reflections upon those whom God pronounced clean in the Anointed One. They would not be standing up for what they truly believed while going around in circles pretending that they are walking a straight line. It would be an attempt to evade an honest answer with an insincere plea of only doing what was the nice thing to do, all these are things which do not harmonize with the Christian love which the Gospel presupposes in a life of sanctification.

Paul’s rebuke, therefore, was short and to the point. Peter was a Jew, and thus it is natural for him to live as a Jew, to observe the customs and forms laid upon the Jews of old. But now he deliberately left this accustomed practice and lived after the manner of the Gentiles associated with the terms of absolute equality, which was perfectly right and proper for him to do, since he knew that no contamination would result. Now, however, that he withdrew in such a pretentious manner from this association, he was really exerting severe pressure on Gentile converts to adopt the Jewish mode of life, for they could not but conclude that, after all, the Jewish manner of living must be holier and better. Paul’s point was well taken, as Peter’s silence also admitted. It didn’t bother Paul that Peter lived after the customs and manners of the Gentiles and at times following Jewish customs. But he condemns Peter for withdrawing and separating himself, when the Jews came, from the foods brought by the Gentiles. By this withdrawal, he induced both Gentiles and Jews to believe that the heathen manner was not permitted while the Jewish was necessary, although he knew that both were free and permitted. This type of attitude and action could rightly identify Peter as no better than a cowardly hypocrite.[9]

Philip Ryken shares a similar story to what happened here in Antioch. He said this tragic example comes from the history of the Southern Presbyterian congregation prior to the Civil War. In those days it was customary for Presbyterian elders to give their parishioners tokens signifying that they were eligible to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Sadly, in some congregations, African slaves were not given the customary silver token, but one made of base metal. Nor did they allowed them to receive the sacrament until all the white congregation members were served. This was a divisive and prejudicial way of handling a sacrament that God intends to signify our union together in the Anointed One. Whether the elders believed the Gospel or not, their actions clearly denied it. What message is in this for us. What will people interpret from our actions and interactions with others? How well do our friendships, our dinner invitations, and our ministry partnerships demonstrate our commitment to the unity and community we enjoy in the Anointed One? Are our actions in step or out of step with the Gospel? Are we following in the footsteps of the Anointed One or starting our own path of righteousness?[10]

Modern Bible scholar Robert Gundry adds that it also makes Paul’s denunciation of Peter a criticism of those in Antioch who were led astray by his example and indirect criticism of the distorters of the Gospel who are leading astray the Galatians. Apparently, it was well-known that although Peter was circumcised as all Jewish male babies were, yet he wasn’t living in accordance with the rest of the Mosaic ceremonial law. So, Paul’s question, “How is it that you’re trying to force the Gentiles to Judaize?” points out his hypocrisy of and portrays his withdrawing himself from Gentile Christians, uncircumcised as they were, as an attempt to force Judaism on them, starting with circumcision, even though Peter himself wasn’t practicing Judaism. Examples like this carry great force, especially when they’re set by prominent leaders of the Church.[11]

[1] J. B. Lightfoot: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 241

[2] H. J. Foster: The Biblical Illustrator, op. cit., loc. cit., Vol. 48 (Kindle Locations 4503-4507).

[3] Plutarch’s Lives: Cicero, translated by Bernadette Perrin, Published by William Heinemann Ltd, London, 1919, Cicero, para. 7:3, p. 97

[4] Joseph Agar Beet: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 47-48

[5] F. H. Farrar in The Biblical Illustrator, op. cit., loc. cit., Vol. 48 (Kindle Locations 4485-4486)

[6] Bacon, Benjamin W: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 66.

[7] Arno Gaebelein: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[8] Cyril W. Emmet: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 19-21

[9] Paul E. Kretzmann: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[10] Ryken, Philip Graham. On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Locations 1076-1080

[11] Robert H. Gundry: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Locations 429-454

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXVIII)

Catholic scholar Cornelius à Lapide points out that Paul uses the Greek verb orthopodeō, here in verse fourteen, which means to “walk in a straight line.” In other words, don’t turn to the right or to the left, stay on course. So, Paul is telling Peter that the road he is on is the straight and narrow way, so why is he violating his commitment by deviating from the path set out for him? The Gentiles are comfortable in partaking of different foods which shows that for him the Jewish kosher laws are dead. In fact, Lapide says, now that the Gospel is being preached those laws are not only dead but deadly. Didn’t Peter know that he was telling the Gentiles that they now must comply with Jewish laws and customs? Wasn’t this also a sly way of telling the Gentile believers that they were still heathens?[1]

English Bible scholar Matthew Henry feels that Paul’s actions and attitudes in Antioch involving Peter and the Jewish contingent sent by James from Jerusalem were repeated here by Paul as a message to the Galatians. When reading between the lines of Paul’s account of what passed between him and the other Apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians could easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies in Jerusalem tried to imply against him and the Galatians’ own folly and weakness in departing from that Gospel he preached to them. But to give the greater importance to what he already said, and more fully to fortify them against the implications of the Judaizing teachers, he adds this incident that occurred between him and the Apostle Peter at Antioch, and what they should learn from it all.[2]

Lutheran Bible scholar Johann Bengel also notes Paul’s use of this Greek verb orthopodeō and says that it not only means to walk a straight line but also to walk with the body erect, which suggests certainty and purpose. This is opposed to walking crookedly as if lame, and Bengel says it could also discern that the person walking this way is straddling the line. In other words, you don’t know really what side they are on. In this case, did it mean that Peter sided with the Jews or with the Gentiles on the matter of what to eat and drink as a believer in the Anointed One? By straddling the line, it suggested that he was trying to be on both sides at the same time. So, Paul steps in and tells him that doesn’t work here. Either you are for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth or you cannot be trusted.[3]

Methodist Bible scholar Joseph Benson speculates that what we see recorded here probably took place at the conclusion of some of their public worship meetings. On such occasions it was usual, after the reading of the Law and the prophets, to give the assembly words of instruction. Were this offence of Peter a private nature, undoubtedly, as duty required, Paul would confer with him privately and not bring it out into the open, at least in the first instance before a large group of worshipers. Since it all happened out in the open, causing many people to become deeply concerned, the method Paul used to address the issue was certainly most proper. And by openly admonishing Peter, he not only acted honestly but generously, for it would involve finding fault with him behind his back, without giving him an opportunity to vindicate himself. Perhaps, says Macknight, Peter in this, and in a former instance, may be allowed to show remorse providing an effective means to discourage any arrogant claims by any potential successors to the apostleship of harboring feelings of supremacy and infallibility.

British Methodist Bible scholar Adam Clarke also feels strongly about Paul’s right to condemn Peter’s hypocrisy.  For him, according to the true doctrine which states that the Anointed One is the fulfillment of the Law for justification to everyone that believes; and that they are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the Law. This was a cutting statement, especially since it came from a former Pharisee who painstakingly did everything relative to the Law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the Kingdom of God because they believed in the Anointed One only by faith. In addition to that, they became full members of the same congregation and fellow heirs of the same hope of timeless living. The consequence of Peter’s hypocrisy was that while he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; namely. associated with them as he would with Jews, but now fearing what the visiting Jews would say, he withdrew from his fellowship with the Gentiles. So why was Peter compelling the non-Jews to take on Jewish ways? So, Paul says to Peter: “You once considered that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou act as if you did not consider the law in full force; but you are convinced that the contrary is the case, yet acted differently! This is hypocrisy.”[4]

Clarke also points to another factor that allows comparison to an ancient inscription found on a large Greek marble slate concerning an Olympian who was not born a citizen of Greece, yet he was considered an Olympian by virtue of his qualifications for entering the races. He relates this to many of the Jewish believers in Antioch who called themselves Jews even though they were not born in Judea, yet because they were born to Jewish parents, they were by nature Jewish. So why then, could not the non-Jews in the congregation be considered an equal part of the Christian family because of their new birth through Jesus the Anointed One, the son of Abraham, the son of David?

Scottish independent Bible scholar James Haldane raises the question that if our Lord commanded that when a fellow believer makes a mistake, we should inform him privately so it is just between us and them.[5] So why did Paul not stick to this precept? Why did he openly confront Peter so that now everyone knew about his hypocritical error? According to Haldane, it was because what Peter did was no secret, everybody saw what he did. Furthermore, the trespass was not against Paul, but against all the Gentiles believers present at the meal. Not only was Peter’s conduct improper and against what he practiced up until now, but it also put a stumbling-block in the path of the Gentile members of the congregation in Antioch. Why did he communicate to the Gentiles that even as a former Jew he accepted their freedom when it came to food and drink, and showed it by dining with them? But when the Jewish contingent from Jerusalem showed up, he took that freedom away. That’s what upset Paul more than anything.[6]

German Lutheran Bible scholar Heinrich Meyer comments on Paul’s charge that Peter was not walking uprightly. He also notes that this phrase is not used elsewhere in Scripture and accepts it as a figure of speech that applies to one’s walk according to ethical ideas. It applies to one’s moral – as a noun for a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs, not as moral – as adjective concerning the principles of right and wrong. Peter already understood the difference between right and wrong, but he seemed to be confused over what was right or wrong about his behavior toward the Gentiles.[7]

German Presbyterian Bible scholar Johann Lange sees Paul correction of Peter as an attempt to show the contradiction involved in his actions. How could Peter, who is a Jew was living as though he were Gentile, turn around and tell the Gentiles that they should start living like Jews? How ironic that the lifestyle which Peter forsook he now encourages the Gentiles to embrace! It is true, that Peter did not verbally command the Gentiles to take such action, but his actions was a much of a nonverbal command as if he openly said to do so. There is also no evidence that the delegation from James voiced such an opinion. This then might have caused Paul to redirect his admonition toward James, not Peter. Furthermore, Peter received no instructions from James to make such a change in his behavior. In other words, it was all Peter’s idea and, therefore, Peter’s fault. That’s why Paul confronted Peter and no one else.[8]

Scottish theologian John Eadie points out that the language Paul uses here to describe Peter’s sudden change of direction is that it didn’t start just yesterday, Peter walked this path for some time. The irony of all this is that being set free from the oppressive Jewish canon of numerous laws and multiple rites, rituals, and ceremonies are something God promised the Jews and something they longed for over the centuries. So why should Peter now carry not only that the unbearable yoke on himself but call the Gentiles to be yoked with him in following their rut to nowhere? Jesus called everyone who believed in Him to throw off the heavy yoke of rites, rituals, and ceremonies, and put on His lighter yoke of faith which was easy and light.[9] In Paul’s mind, Peter was no better than the Judaizers who swarmed into Galatia to try and convert the Gentiles there to take the yoke of Judaism on their shoulders as a way of giving them a greater guarantee of the salvation they received as a gift without it.[10]

Irish Bible scholar W. A. O’Conor notes that Paul observed this group of Jews who participated in the act of segregation as showing no interest or forethought in consciously promoting and maintaining the truth of the Gospel. The pure Gospel stands free from legal observances and distinctions. But it was Peter that Paul focused in on because being the senior member in this group, he certainly knew this, and showed it by living accordingly with the Gentiles. But when Jews came, he pretended to think otherwise, and thus endangered the truth of the Gospel with the Gentiles. He was acting like a hypocrite for his own popularity with the Jews, which harbored the potential of keeping the truth of the Gospel from the Gentiles. For this betrayal of the truth, Paul rebuked him openly. If this all happened in a private situation, Paul’s rebuke would be private.[11]

American Baptist theology professor Alvah Hovey contends that Paul held back on saying any more about this occasion seeing that six, or possibly seven, years passed since it occurred. That’s why he now presents it in condensed form. He was telling this to the Galatians, not as a way of bragging or showing himself to be a tough guy, but out of thankfulness to God for the grace which enabled him to speak them. Moreover, we are given every right to believe that the Holy Spirit provided the inspiration Paul needed in recalling this event. Paul’s direct appeal to Peter for him to take note of the inconsistency of his conduct could only be met in one of two ways. Let him confess that he did wrong by living as a Gentile, or confess that what he just did was wrong by not remaining consistent. Was he to take the second option it would simply be a case of good intentions gone bad. But if he confessed that he really didn’t believe in the liberty given to the Gentiles through God’s Word, that would be his approval and sanction of the Judaizing party’s efforts to compel the Gentile believers to live as Jews, for the sake of unity and peace. When Paul saw this, he knew if he didn’t do or said something immediately, the future of the Antioch congregation and the sanctity of the Gospel stood in grave jeopardy.[12]

[1] Cornelius à Lapide: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 248

[2] Matthew Henry: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[3] Johann Bengel: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 579-580

[4] Adam Clarke: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[5] Matthew 18:15

[6] James Haldane: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 82-83

[7] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Epistle to the Galatians, Translated by G. H. Venables, Published by Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1884, p. 80

[8] Lange, John Peter: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Vol. 8, (Kindle Location 3280-3348).

[9] Matthew 11:29

[10] John Eadie: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 155-161

[11] O’Conor, W. A: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 31

[12] Hovey, A: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 32

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXVII)

What confused the Gentile members the most was the fact that Peter associated with them as though he were a non-Jew himself, then, they felt betrayed that he suddenly turned back to his old Jewish ways.  In the face of those who came from James, Peter now appears to be a coward by not standing up for the same truth he preached to Cornelius and the thing for which God chided him in his vision on the rooftop of the Tanner’s house.[1] At that time Peter confessed to Cornelius and his household: “You understand that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit anyone who is not a Jew. But God showed me that I should not consider anyone unfit or say they are not pure.”[2] Lancaster sees a problem with what Peter said. He asks: “Was it unlawful?” He goes on to say that according to the Jewish law of the first century, Jews were not supposed to eat food, even kosher food prepared by a Gentile. The main reason was that Gentiles used food offered to idols, so they did not want to be accused of idolatry.

But when Peter visited Antioch, he saw how much things changed since his visit to Cornelius. Here Jewish and non-Jewish believers fellowshipped together without any restrictions. However, when the group from Jerusalem arrived, apparently they expressed their disapproval of such integration when it came to such things as eating together, because of the fear that the food the non-Jews brought, while it may not be part of any idol sacrifice, it may be of the kind that Jews were forbidden to eat, such as pork.  So, the entourage from James saw the opportunity to introduce the non-Jewish believers to kosher foods and the eating customs of Jews. If the non-Jews did not feel comfortable doing so, then the gracious Jewish believers would allow them to eat their food their way. In other words, Paul really needed no other reason to rebuke Peter than that he wanted to ensure that at the agape meal both the Jews and non-Jews could eat together in peace and not fear they were being discriminated against. And, since this delegation came from James, Peter decided to be a good host and eat with them.[3] I doubt if that was really the case, otherwise, a born and bred Jew like Paul would see it was as well.

Ambrosiaster concludes, no wonder Paul was so upset for what was being communicated to these non-Jewish believers who gave up all their heathen practices to become Christians and joined the spiritual family of Abraham, only to have their freedom taken away and in its place they were given something burdensome and ineffective as far as salvation was concerned.  He goes on to say that Paul shows by clear reasoning that the Galatians were being deceived into keeping laws by which no one is justified before God, even after those who were born as Jews abandoned the law and took refuge in the Anointed One as the true way to be justified. Paul says that no one is justified by the works of the law.  Whoever is justified will be justified by faith, just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other saints.[4]

Marius Victorinus, another early church writer, offers his insight by putting these words in Paul’s mouth: These Gentiles stayed true to the Gospel, accepting everything it says about how to live for God by faith, not by obedience to the Law as the Jews were doing. It was Peter and his fellow Jews who strayed from the Gospel, getting badly off-track on their way to reinterpreting Gospel. When Paul saw this, he immediately spoke to Peter in the presence of everyone, asking him why he as a Jew who lived side by side with Gentiles, now attempted to compel the Gentiles to Judaize? In Victorinus’ mind, Paul clearly understood that it was on account of Peter’s fearfulness that the Gentiles he befriended and preach to would be convinced that he was only pretending to be one of them. And Paul does not make such a charge so that Peter would be forced to say: “I was just pretending.”  What, then, does Paul charge him with? You’ve been living with Gentiles and are still living with Gentiles. But for you, it was merely a convenience so that you would be accepted by them as a friend and brother in the Anointed One. However, because of your pretense, many are deceived, therefore, you are guilty of hypocrisy. In fact, by your actions, you are compelling the Gentiles into being Judaized. Nevertheless, in saying this, Paul shows that he also understood Peter’s going along with the visiting Jews only by way of pretense, but he was none the less a hypocrite.[5]

When commenting on this incident, 9th Century Catholic theologian Haimo of Auxerre gives us a clue on the role of baptism during his days in church history. For him, when Paul says, if you, although though a Jew, he is referring to the fact that Peter was a Jew by birth and yet living like a Gentile. This does not mean Peter was worshiping idols, only that he did not believe one could be saved through circumcision but rather through baptism. Likewise, Gentiles were not being saved by circumcision but through baptism.[6] Perhaps, this idea of substituting water baptism to replace circumcision may have been developed earlier in the congregation in order to placate the Jews into believing that they were fulfilling the Law through baptism instead of circumcision in God’s eyes. But it does seem strange that none of Jesus’ disciples were baptized, only Jesus by John the Baptizer.[7]

But later on, during the Medieval period, Bruno the Carthusian offers another view on what Paul was really trying to accomplish by confronting Peter: For him, up to this point, it was enough for Paul to prove that he was not inferior to Peter and the others. Indeed, it was essential that he be their corrector. He emphasizes that no Christian believer should be compelled to adhere to the Law under any circumstances as a means of enhancing their salvation. That’s why he says that the Gentiles should by no means be forced to keep Jewish customs. Not only that, but those who are Jews by birth still follow Jewish manners and customs as part of their Christian faith, do so for no purpose. Therefore, Paul admits that he and other Jewish Christians were Jews by birth, born within the fold of Judaism, always attempting to keep the Law. That even though they were Jews they were still sinners by breaking Mosaic laws, whereas the Gentiles were sinners by breaking God’s laws. Bruno notes that Gentiles broke God’s laws by worshiping idols and practicing witchcraft. But didn’t the Jews do the same in the shadow of Mount Horeb in Sinai? So, in effect, when standing before, Jews and Gentiles were all alike as sinners.[8]

This same commentator goes on to point out that the Gentiles in their worship involved the flesh through offerings, sometimes human sacrifices and earned money through temple prostitution.  Meanwhile, the Jews also employed sacrifices, but only animal offerings, and earned money through rites and rituals involving purity.  So, bringing both sides together to accept Jesus as the One who fulfilled the need for all sacrifices, and that all these other things were no longer needed or effective, was a task to no doubt often brought sharp disagreements. This gave a reason for Medieval commentator Robert of Melun to opine that Paul made it clear that we are justified by faith and not by works of the Law. For those things that we firmly trust in by faith we also love with the same certainty, that is, people are surely justified by love. The works of the Law are brought about by fear and for the sake of temporal rewards. The precepts of the Law are capable of restraining only the hand, however, not the will; this means that exterior actions do not justify inward doubt. The Apostle, therefore, holds that these things are opposed to one another: namely, justification by the Law against justification by faith.[9]

Early church theologian Thomas Aquinas offers an interesting description of being a sinner. He says: “It is one thing to sin and another to be a sinner. For the first names an act, but the second a readiness or habit of sinning.” This is why the Scriptures are in the habit of calling the godless and those loaded down with the heavy burden of sin, sinners. No doubt, that is the reason why the Jews, therefore, being egotistical on account of having the Law, and as it were, restrained from sin by it, called the Gentiles worse sinners, living as they were without the Laws’ restraint and being prone to sin. When, therefore, the Apostle says that the Jews were not Gentiles sinners, he means they were the type of sinners found among Gentiles.[10] In other words, once a person is delivered from the bondage of sin, they are no longer referred to as sinners, but children of God. Do God’s children sometimes sin by being disobedient to His Word and His Will? Certainly, but John says: “If we say that we do not sin, we are fooling ourselves, and we are being untruthful. But if we confess that we sinned, God will forgive us. We can trust God to do this. He always does what is right. He will make us clean from all the wrong things we did.”[11]

Martin Luther makes an interesting comment here when he says that Paul was comparing the Law on earth with the Gospel in heaven. That way we call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly. So, while Peter was obeying the earthly Law concerning food and drink, he was violating the heavenly Gospel of all things being pure unless they conflict with one’s conscience. So that raises the question, did Peter side with the James’ delegation because of his conscience, or was it a case of him showing bias for the Jewish contingent and contempt for the Gentile membership? Paul knew what it looked like to him and he confronted Peter about it. Luther goes on the suggest that Peter wasn’t really responding to any compunction of conscience, rather he decided to pretend to be Jewish on the matter of food and drink which was very hypocritical.[12]

Reformer Calvin sums up the Protestant view by pointing out that the truth of the Gospel is used here by Paul, in the same way, he used it before and is contrasted with those disguises by which Peter and others concealed its beauty. In such a case, the struggle which Paul maintained must unquestionably be a serious issue. They were perfectly in harmony with the Gospel. But since, putting all doctrine aside, Peter yielded too submissively to the Jews, he was, therefore, accused of being out of line. There are some who apologize for Peter on other grounds because by being the Apostle to the Jews he bound to be especially concerned about their salvation. However, they do admit that Paul did right in pleading the cause of the Gentiles. Still, it is foolish to defend what the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Paul already condemned. This is not something for ordinary people to figure out, it involves keeping the Gospel pure and holy.[13]  So Paul was not so much interested in putting down Peter, as he was in lifting up the Gospel.

But Calvin makes this point: When looking at Paul’s discipline of Peter at Antioch for siding with the Jews to the determent of the Gentiles, we must see the difference between disciplining a person in the pulpit and the people in the pew. We are told by Jesus as well as Paul himself that we must first try to discuss the matter in private.[14] But when it comes to those who do not take the first correction to heart and continue to show disobedience, then Paul says that they should be rebuked in the presence of all.[15] So this may be a clue as to why Paul chose to confront Peter in front of everyone. But at the same time, what Jesus said was not dealing with private sins, but open and public sins. That’s why we must understand what Paul mentions here in verse as a rebuke due to open sins for which Peter got scolded once before.[16] [17]

[1] Acts of the Apostles 10:9-16

[2] Ibid. 10:28

[3] D. Thomas Lancaster: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 84-87

[4] Ambrosiaster, ibid.

[5] Marius Victorinus, op. cit., loc. cit.

[6] Haimo of Auxerre: The Letter to the Galatians (Medieval Bible Commentary series), op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] See John 4:1-2

[8] Bruno the Carthusian:  The Letter to the Galatians (Medieval Bible Commentary series), op. cit., loc. cit.

[9] Robert of Melun:  The Letter to the Galatians (Medieval Bible Commentary series), op. cit., loc. cit.

[10] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

[11] 1 John 1:8-9

[12] Martin Luther: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 38

[13] John Calvin: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[14] Matthew 18:11-15

[15] 1 Timothy 5:20

[16] Acts of the Apostles 10:11

[17] John Calvin: Institutes, op. cit., Vol. 4, Ch. 12, p. 1258