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 XXVI)

David’s son Solomon must have listened closely because he too passed on similar principles: “For the Lord gives wisdom. His words contain much learning and understanding. He makes wise thoughts available for those who are right with Him. He is there when needed for those who live right. He watches over the highway of holiness and keeps those who walk on it safe from mishaps. They will understand what is right and good, and right from wrong, and always know what they should do.”[1] Solomon goes on to say that this will make people’s heart, soul, and thinking safer. It will not be easy for anyone to mislead such a person. As long as you stay on the right path you’ll walk with confidence. But if you try to take a shortcut, everyone will end up knowing about it.[2]

But Paul is careful to make sure that the Galatians understand that only the Gospel sets the standard of what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is bad; what is permissible and what is not permissible. He told the Romans that the Anointed One helped him understand that everything in itself is innocent. But if a person thinks something is not innocent, then to them it is not permissible.[3] This is also why Paul warned Timothy to be aware of those who say “Don’t get married,” or “Don’t eat this or don’t eat that.” Everything is permissible to believers as long as it does not violate the Word of God. So be thankful and make use of whatever God makes available to us. However, if we do not find it in the Word of God and we wouldn’t feel comfortable praying and giving thanks to God over if before we use it or get involved, then it’s best to leave it alone.[4]

These principles are what motivated Paul to confront Peter when he decided to go back to his old way of thinking and separated himself from the Gentile believers in Antioch so he could eat with the Jewish members and the delegation from Jerusalem. Paul may have taken his rebuke of Peter right out of the Torah where it says that while you should not be impolite to someone from your own country, don’t say anything impolite to those in whose country you live just because they are not Jews.[5] In other words, Peter entertained no reason to be inhospitable to his fellow Jews visiting from Jerusalem, but don’t use them as an excuse to be discourteous to the Gentiles there in Antioch.

Not only that, but Paul hoped that Peter would take the words of King David and apply them to himself. When some of David’s subjects pointed out what he did wrong, he said, “Let those who are doing what God says is right admonish me and speak strong words to me in kindness. It is like oil on my head. I don’t want to pull my head away. I have too always been against those things that are done wrong and against those who do them.”[6] To put it another way, Paul was hoping that Peter would also see that what he did was wrong and accept Paul’s rebuke like oil on his head.

Solomon also offered advice on how a person ought to respond when reprimanded for doing what they know is wrong. For Solomon, receiving a stern rebuke from a friend while others are watching is far better than when they decide not to do it because they love you too much. That’s because any embarrassment caused by a friend’s reprimand is a sign that they will stick by you, while compliments from someone who really doesn’t like you is like garbage.[7] Besides, what Paul was doing to Peter is exactly the same thing he instructed Timothy to do.[8]

I’m sure Paul wondered if Peter remembered what he said to Roman Captain Cornelius when he was sent there by God to share the Gospel, “You know it is against our Law for a Jew to visit a person of another nation. But God showed me I should not say that any person is off-limits. That’s the reason I came as soon as you sent for me.”[9] Later on, when Peter returned to Jerusalem after his visit to Cornelius’ household, he told the story to the congregation in Jerusalem. Especially the fact that after he preached the Gospel to them, they were all filled with the Holy Spirit just like the Apostles in the Upper Room on the day of Pentecost. That’s when Peter said he thanked God for giving new life to the people who are not Jews. This new life is being sorry for one’s sins and turning away from them toward God.[10]

So that’s what upset Paul when he saw how Peter seemed to forget all about this and turned his back on the Gentiles the way he did. Furthermore, in their meeting in Jerusalem earlier, Peter himself stood up and rebuked those in the assembly who insisted that converted Gentiles should follow Jewish laws and customs: Why do you test God by putting too heavy a load on the back of the Gentile believers when it proves to be too heavy for our fathers or for us to carry, Peter scolded them.[11] This is what led to the letter being written excusing them from such requirements. And now Peter seems to have complete memory loss of these things.

After reading verse fourteen, it seems that early church scholar Tertullian just can’t get Paul off his mind. So, he again refers to the heretic Marcion who accepted the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians wherein he rebukes other Apostles for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,” as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the Gospel of the Anointed One in Galatia. So Marcion seems to think that Paul employs this same technique he practiced in destroying the character of all other Apostles and their gospels in order to establish his own Gospel, thereby taking credit away from them. But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars in the congregation, it is for an obvious reason.

It hurt Paul to see them compromising in their attitudes toward other believers. And yet as Paul himself “became all things to all men,” that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have adopted the same plan as Paul’s of practicing somewhat different from what he taught.[12] In Tertullian’s mind, he sees one hypocrite – Paul, accusing Peter of being a hypocrite just like himself. In that case, they should be friends as hypocrites!

Speaking of Tertullian’s dislike for the way Paul handled this situation, it might be to our advantage if we visit some of what church history says about Tertullian. He received something of a mixed reaction in many Christian circles. They recognized him as a significant thinker and a major contributor to the Doctrine of the Trinity. But in his later years, he became associated with a movement known as Montanism[13] and seems to have separated himself from the church. In a theological work by the Christian Roman philosopher Lactantius written between 303-311 AD, we read where he said that Septimius Tertullianus proved to be skilled in the literature of every kind; but not competent in to express himself eloquently, not being a polished speaker and mostly unknown. As a result, he did not make himself very well-known.[14]

Augustine of Hippo gives his reasoning by explaining that it proved necessary for Paul to say this to Peter in front of everyone so that by rebuking Peter’s everyone might see the error that Peter made. It would not be as useful to correct Peter in private for an error he made out in public. There was the danger of Peter telling others something he said, that he knew he didn’t say. Augustine then adds that out of wanting to be faithful and show love, Peter was entirely willing to accept this rebuke from a junior shepherd for the good of the Antioch congregation. Moreover, it was by being rebuked by Paul that Peter offered a more admirable and difficult example to imitate.

Augustine admits that it is easy to see what we want to correct in others, but it must not be done by censure and criticism. However, it is not so easy to see what ought to be corrected in ourselves and then be willing to be corrected even by ourselves, let alone by another. Here Augustine sees in Peter’s action a great example of humility, which is the most valuable Christian character because by humility love is preserved. For nothing violates love more quickly than unbiased prejudice.[15]

Chrysostom tries to decipher Paul’s question to Peter: “If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, why are you compelling the Gentiles to live like a Jew?”  As Chrysostom sees it, the Jews were the ones guilty of hypocrisy, not the Gentiles. It was the Jews who were carried away together with Peter, not the Gentiles. So why did Paul include the Gentiles here instead of concentrating his remarks on what Peter and the isolationist Jews were doing? And why does he accuse Peter alone, when the rest of the Jews were just as guilty as he was?

Chrysostom gives his own answer to this cryptic statement. As he sees it, Paul’s object was to remove any suspicion of bias from his rebuke. To blame Peter for observing the Law meant being censured by the Jews for his boldness towards their Apostolic Teacher. But by taking the side of the Gentiles Paul makes it easier to accept what he is saying so that the Gentiles are the ones who felt offended, not the Jews.[16]  In other words, by Paul speaking on behalf of the Gentiles and directing the fault toward Peter alone, it became a personal matter between the two instead of a group matter, pitting the visiting Jews against the Gentile members of the Antioch congregation.

Ambrosiaster, a fellow early church writer of that same period in church history adds another factor. He believes that Paul lashed out only at Peter because the others would get the message from the one who was their chief.[17]  This leaves no doubt concerning the error Peter made by segregating the non-Jewish members of the Antioch congregation from the Messianic Jews who came from Jerusalem.  Ambrosiaster goes on to note that Peter cut himself off from Gentiles with whom he lived like a Gentile, but he went even further and using his example as a way of persuading the Gentiles to Judaize themselves because he was so afraid of what the Jews back in Jerusalem would say. As a result, the Gentiles really didn’t know what the truth was. For this early church commentator, it was incredulous that by his actions Peter was strongly suggesting that these non-Jews adopt Jewish ways.

[1] Proverbs 2:6-9

[2] Ibid. 10:9

[3] Romans 14:14

[4] 1 Timothy 4:3-5

[5] Leviticus 19:17

[6] Psalm 141:5

[7] Proverbs 27:5-6

[8] 1 Timothy 5:20

[9] Acts of the Apostles 10:28

[10] Ibid. 11:18

[11] Ibid. 15:10

[12] Tertullian: Ante-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Bk 4, Ch 3, p. 628

[13] Montanism was an ascetic Christian sect that put great emphasis on prophecy, founded in Phrygia by the priest Montanus in the middle of the 2nd century.

[14] Divine Institutes: Ch. 1

[15] Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

[16] Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians, loc. cit.

[17] Ambrosiaster: Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

One of the most powerful tools of persuasion is when the speaker convinces the audience that they know what they are talking about. This is especially true of preachers who are assigned by the Spirit to expound on the Word of God.  We learn that when the chief of philosophers, Aristotle, was about to research some profound subject to establish his theory by proof, he always began his treatise with an acknowledgment of his resources, and requested the reader not to attribute the author’s conclusions based on presumption, vanity, pride, or arrogance. He did not want them to think that he was looking into things of which he had no prior knowledge, but rather, based on his zeal and his desire to discover and establish true doctrine as far as human intellect would permit.

That’s why the great Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, recommended that Rabbis in the same position as Aristotle, first begin with research in order to thoroughly refine their commitment to honesty and put aside their sense of superiority which is the offspring of their imagination. This should lead them to increase their knowledge of the true fundamentals of their message and adhere to the factors of interpretation and proof, and the ability to guard against misconceptions. They must, however, not decide any question with the first idea that comes to their mind, or pressure them in saying something they are not sure about. Real understanding comes when they wait with modesty and patience to take things one step at a time.

Now, if these principles were accepted back in 300 BC, and in 1200 AD, they certainly can be applied to us today, especially for those who attempt expository preaching of the Bible. That was what the Apostle Paul advised his young protégé, Timothy when he told him to remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.[1]

Likewise, the Apostle Peter instructed his disciples that there may be some who want to harm them if they are eager to do good. But even if they suffer for doing what is right, God will reward them for it. So, don’t worry or be afraid of their threats. Instead, they must worship Christ as Lord of their life. And if someone asks about their hope as a believer, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way, keeping their conscience clear.[2] Now, all this may take six hours of reading, study, research, and writing to produce a 40-minute sermon, but it will be like refined gold, and worth every second of time spent mining it from God’s Word.

[1] 2 Timothy 3:14-17

[2] 1 Peter3:13-15

LET’S NEVER FORGET

When I read this touching story, it immediately reminded me of how often we lose touch with others who may have done much more for us than they think. They may not have thought it was all that important to remind us of what it meant to them to be a part of our lives. I guess, they just didn’t want to look like they were begging us to praise them for being some kind of hero to us. I hope this story impacts you the way it did me.

Jack answered his ringing phone, it was his mother on the other end. “I just wanted to call and tell you Mr. Belser died last night, she said. The funeral is on Wednesday.” Memories flashed through Jack’s mind like an old newsreel as he sat quietly remembering his childhood days. “Jack, did you hear me?” his mother asked. “Oh! I’m sorry, Mom. Yes, I heard you. It’s been so long since I thought of him. I’m sorry, but I honestly thought he died years ago,” Jack said.

“Well, he didn’t forget you, Jack. Every time I saw him, he’d ask how you were doing. He’d think back to the many days you spent over on “his side of the fence,” as he put it, Mom told Jack. “I loved that old house he lived in,” Jack said. “You know, Jack, after your father died, Mr. Belser stepped in to make sure you had a man’s influence in your life,” his Mom reminded him. “Yes,” said Jack, “He’s the one who taught me carpentry, and I wouldn’t be in this business if it weren’t for him. He spent a lot of time teaching me things he thought were important. Thanks, Mom, I’ll be there for the funeral, Jack said. As busy as he was, he kept his word. Jack caught the next flight to his hometown. Mr. Belser’s funeral was small and uneventful. He had no children of his own, and most of his relatives had already passed away.

After the funeral, the night before he returned home, Jack and his Mom stopped by to see the old house next door one more time. Standing in the doorway, Jack paused for a moment. It was like crossing over into another dimension, a leap back through space and time. The house was exactly as he remembered. Every step held memories. Every picture, every piece of furniture…. Jack stopped suddenly… “What’s wrong, Jack?” his Mom asked. “The box is gone! Jack exclaimed. “What box?” Mom asked. “There was a small gold box that he kept locked on top of his desk. I must have asked him a thousand times what was inside. All he’d ever tell me was “the thing I value most,” Jack said. Now it was gone. Everything about the house was exactly how Jack remembered it, except for the box. He figured someone from the Belser family had taken it. “Now I’ll never know what was so valuable to him,” Jack said. “I’d better get some sleep. I have an early flight home, Mom.”

It had been about two weeks since Mr. Belser died. Returning home from work one day Jack discovered a note in his mailbox. “Signature required on a package. No one at home. Please stop by the main post office within the next three days,” the note read. Early the next day Jack retrieved the package. The small package was old-looking, as though it had been mailed a hundred years ago. The handwriting was difficult to read, but the return address caught his attention. “Mr. Harold Belser” it read. Jack took the package out to his car and ripped it open. There inside was the gold box and an envelope. Jack’s hands shook as he picked up the note and read what was inside.

Jack’s voice began to tremble as he read the note: “Upon my death, please forward this box and its contents to Jack Bennett. It’s the thing I valued most in my life.” A small key was taped to the letter. His heart racing, as tears filling his eyes, Jack carefully unlocked the box. There inside he found a beautiful gold pocket watch. Running his fingers slowly over the finely etched casing, he unlatched the cover. Inside he found these words engraved: “Jack, Thanks for your time! – Harold Belser.”

Now Jack finally understood, the thing Mr. Belser valued most was the time he spent with Jack. Jack held the watch for a few minutes, then called his office and cleared his appointments for the next two days. “Why?” Janet, his assistant asked. “I need some time to spend with my son,” he said. “Oh, by the way, Janet, thanks for your time!”

Just like Jack, some people forget that over two-thousand years ago, their greatest friend and hero died. They don’t visit the place where he was buried in because it’s too far away. They don’t read all the letters He sent them by way of his close friends Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But in those letters, He made it clear, that being able to spend time with them was the whole reason He came, and died, and rose again to go and prepare a place where they could be with Him for eternity.

But before He departed, He left this message: “I was born for a purpose. I came to bring truth to the world. All who love the truth are my followers.”[1]  Not only that, but He also said: “The greatest love a person can show is to die for a friend. You are my friend if you do what I tell you to do. I no longer call you servant, because a servant doesn’t know what their master is doing. But now I call you my friend.”[2] And by the way, He also left you a memento. He said He was giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my children.[3]

P.S. Don’t be sad that you didn’t make it to His funeral. Three days after He died, His Father brought Him back to everlasting life, and it is that everlasting life He wants so desperately to share with you. Why? Because He loves it when you spend your time with Him. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] John 18:37

[2] Ibid. 15:13-15a

[3] Ibid. 13:34-35

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXV)

Philip Schaff (1819-1893), the great church history expert gives us a look at this situation we are discussing from a historical perspective. He tells us that the scene here in verses eleven to thirteen are of great importance for the history of Apostolic Christianity, but often misunderstood and distorted both in the interest of orthodoxy and liberalism. It took place between the Apostolic conference in Jerusalem (50 AD) and the second great missionary journey of Paul (51 AD). So, it makes sense to assign the personal dispute between Paul and Barnabas on account of Mark,[1] to this same period.  Barnabas followed the bad example of Peter (see verse thirteen), and Mark would naturally sympathize with Barnabas, his cousin,[2] and with Peter, his spiritual father.[3]

George B. Stevens (1854-1906) notes that there were some extenuating circumstances this existed before this incident here in Antioch that put Peter in jeopardy of being accused of living two lives. He notes that after Peter’s vision at the tanner’s house,[4] he declared the principle that God is no respecter of persons,[5] but that in every nation those who reverence God are justified in the Anointed One to receive a right standing with God. To prove that, Peter visited and associated freely with the converted Gentiles in Cornelius’ household. The only criticism Peter took of the actions occurred when he got back to Jerusalem and told his story.[6] This was no doubt known by Paul and other Apostles as well.

Now here in Antioch, Peter is confronted with the same criticism by the entourage sent by the Apostle James, asking him the same question: Why are you freely associating and eating with the heathen Gentiles? But this time says Stevens, Peter wavered and then gave in to their objection. In fact, he went contrary to his vision at the leather worker’s house. But Jesus faced the same criticism and He was successful in beating it back by teaching that it is not the outer character but the inner character, thoughts, motives, and actions by which a person can be defiled.[7] The lesson Peter learned through his vision that the distinction of clean and unclean foods was abolished, as well as the same distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. So, Peter’s inconsistent action in line with his former conduct which he previously defended, is what Paul called into question.[8] Perhaps it was this double standard that Paul saw and decided to draw a line and defend the neutrality of God and His Grace between races, colors, genders, and ethnicities.[9]

There was, therefore, a double reason for the temporary alienation of Paul and Barnabas, says Schaff. It appears that soon after the council at Jerusalem finished, a misunderstanding arose as to the precise meaning of the decree of the council.[10] That decree was both emancipative and restrictive; it emancipated the Gentile converts from circumcision as a test of congregation membership – something the Pharisaical Judaizers vainly insisted upon, but it laid on them the restriction of  observing the precepts traditionally traced to  Noah,[11] requiring all Gentile proselytes to abstain from “meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication” (probably a warning to unlawful marriages outside the family of Israel.[12] So the Judaizers seemed to have turned a solid agreement into a weak compromise.[13] It would not seem hard then to surmise that James sent this entourage down from Jerusalem to Antioch to test whether or not the compromise was being kept.

Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925) feels that the thing that really rubbed on Paul’s nerves was the fact that Peter and Barnabas were playing a game under a mask of pretending to be what they really were not. Both of them knew better. They were playing the visiting Jewish contingent sent by James for fools as much as hoping the Gentiles would know what they were really up to by withdrawing and eating kosher foods with the Jewish group. As Paul saw it, it was the worst kind of hypocrisy, because neither Peter nor Barnabas really changed their minds about their freedom to eat with the Gentiles. If Peter and Barnabas really did not experience a change of heart, Paul’s handling of the situation would be done differently. But as soon as the Jewish contingent left they would be back eating with the Gentiles. And if the Gentiles asked them why they did what they did, Peter could tell them, “Oh, we were just fooling around.” But worst of all, if Paul did not confront them in the middle of the playacting, then the Jewish converts in Antioch might take the Apostle Peter’s conduct as something to follow from now on.[14]

Current Jewish professor Magnus Zetterholm at Lund University in Sweden, who wrote extensively on the relationship between early Christianity and Judaism, says that making such a presupposition is far from being self-evident. We cannot say with certainty that Paul’s intention was that all Jews in the Jesus movement should stop observing the Torah. Furthermore, if the non-Jewish adherents of the Jesus movement were recruited from the group of non-Jews that already took part in the activities of the synagogue, it is likely that they previously adapted the Jewish lifestyle, especially with regard to food.[15] Anyone reading this incident shows clearly that only those who were of Jewish descent dissembled with Peter and other Jews in his entourage, there is no evidence that there were any God-fearing converts among them.[16]

Zetterholm goes on to point out that the problem in Antioch involved the depth of Christian fellowship rather than with the food they ate. It involved an already established custom of Christians having community meals. Such matters as the setting at the table and how wine and food were handled may be seen by some of the visiting Jews as something they did not share in Paul’ s ideology regarding the equal standing of the non-Jews before God that the Jewish identity of the community was threatened. Except for the Epistle of James, the only letter he wrote to the non-Jewish believers in Antioch, and in this James makes it very clear that they were accepted in the congregation as equals, simply asking that they forsake their heathen practices of eating food sacrificed to idols; eating meat from strangled animals with blood still in it; and sexual immorality, all of which were practices in heathen temples.[17]

As we read congregation history, we see that the Messianic Jews among the congregations outside of Israel seemed to slowly evaporate in number, and within Israel, there is no historical record of Christian Jews maintaining congregations of any great number or influence, especially in Jerusalem. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that any person who comes to the cross for forgiveness and accepts Jesus the Anointed One as their Lord and Savior, whether they be from Jewish or non-Jewish ethnicities, the minute they are redeemed and born again they become Christians, and all of the guidance, teachings, and theology they need in order to be faithful to the One who rescued them is found in the Gospel of the Anointed One.

As we can see, church scholars and historians spent a considerable amount of time discussing and dissecting this feud between Peter and Paul. Some did so to force their fellow scholars to take sides: either Peter was right and Paul was wrong, or Paul was right and Peter was wrong. But the core of the matter goes deeper than that. It involves maintaining the pure Gospel of Jesus the Anointed One or allowing individuals to add what they liked and subtract what they didn’t like; to add addition rites and rituals which they felt increased the value of a believer’s salvation, even though there were no Scriptures to back them up; to interpret the Gospel as they see it, or remain loyal the interpretation given by the Apostle in the beginning. And that same contention has infected the congregation of believers from then to this day. Who are we going to believe? Who are we going to follow? Who are we going to be loyal to? Jesus and His Word, or man and his word?

2:14  When I saw what they were doing was not in harmony with what the Gospel teaches, without hesitation I asked Peter in front of all the others, “How can you as a Jew, who has been living like those who are not Jews and not like a Jew, now suddenly turn around and urge those who are not Jews to start living like Jews?”

Paul is now introducing the story of what happened in Antioch between him and senior Apostle Peter. Paul admits that what happened to the Galatians after the Judaizers descended on them proves that they were victims of outside forces. However, Paul is poking them with his words to make them aware that they not completely helpless in controlling the situation. He believes it is only fair to put the main blame on these interferes, but it still did not excuse them for being so compliant with people they didn’t know at the expense of losing the truth they received from a person they did know. They made a very inappropriate choice in making the switch from the pure Gospel to this modified gospel with no opportunity to thoroughly examine and study it. Their failure to stand fast with their sights on the promises of God that was theirs in the Anointed One: “Look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus the Anointed One, will be revealed.”[18] [19]

Being a dedicated Pharisee, Paul knew what it took to live by the high standards of purity and obedience to the laws as taught by Jewish Rabbis. King David may be quoting the requirements when he asked,” O Lord, who may come inside your Tabernacle? Who may live on Your holy hill?” And it wasn’t easy: “The person who lives without making mistakes and does what is right and good and speaks the truth in their heart. Who does not hurt others with gossip, or do wrong to their neighbor, or embarrass their friends? Who looks pities a sinful person, but honors those who reverence the Lord? Who keeps their promises even if it may hurt them? Who lends money without charging interest? And who does not take a bribe to punish those who are not guilty? Whoever who does these things will never be easily swayed.”[20]

[1] Acts of the Apostles 15:30-40

[2] Colossians 4:10

[3] 1 Peter 5:13

[4] Acts of the Apostles 10:10ff

[5] Ibid. 10:34-35

[6] Ibid. 11:2-3

[7] Luke 15:2

[8] See Acts of the Apostles; 11:4ff

[9] George B. Stevens: Short Exposition on Galatians, op. cit., pp.73-74

[10] Ibid. 15:20, 29

[11] Cf. Genesis 9:4-5

[12] Leviticus 17:18.

[13] Philip Schaff: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 308

[14] Ernest DeWitt Burton: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 108-109

[15] Magnus Zetterholm, Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship, Published by Fortress Press, 2009, p. 25

[16] Acts of the Apostles 10:12-15

[17] Cf. Ibid. 15:22-35

[18] Titus 2:13 – New Living Translation

[19] Mark A. Nanos: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 55

[20] Psalm 15:1-5

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIV)

Current Bible commentator Robert Gundry takes this occasion to point out that by Paul facing down Peter, the leading Apostle among the original twelve, it gives us ample evidence that Peter’s status as a celebrity in the congregation did not make one bit of difference to him. As Gundry sees it, the truth of the Gospel mattered more to Paul than celebrity status did. In the first-century culture, eating with someone was another way of accepting each other, even a form of bonding. So, Peter’s eating with uncircumcised Gentile Christians signified his acceptance of them as fellow Christians, even if they did not practice Jewish ceremonial laws.

After all, he hadn’t insisted on the circumcision of Titus when Paul took him up to Jerusalem. This behavior showed that Peter truly did believe in the Gospel of Grace without the inclusion of Mosaic Law. So subsequently withdrawing himself from the table fellowship with Gentile Christians and separating himself away from them constituted hypocrisy, which means, playing a part that doesn’t represent one’s true self.[1] Gundry sums it up by pointing out that this same Peter compromised his relationship with the Anointed One after our Lord’s arrest, by denying three times that he knew Him.

In this dispute, it is the Apostle Peter who carries the major burden of guilt. Even the vision of the sheet let down from heaven on the rooftop was good for only one visit to the house of the Gentile believer Cornelius. Paul saw the hypocrisy involved and rightly confronted the great Apostle Peter.  It would appear that Peter took the criticism with the right spirit. But I wonder if the bias of Peter is still alive today among the brethren, but exhibited in different forms. Are you sure that the person you sit next to in the pew; the person that you serve alongside as an usher or choir member, will treat you with the same open camaraderie when you meet them in their office or their place of business, and will they acknowledge you with the same joy at some social event of their peers? There is no place for such bias in the body of the Anointed One. We were all washed with the same blood; our names were all written down in the same book, and we are all bound for the same heaven.

On another occasion, Paul confessed, “You made me act like a fool—boasting about myself like this. You ought to be the ones writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing at all. When I was with you I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle; I never quit doing my best so that many signs and wonders and miracles would be performed among you.”[2] Some psychologists claim that Paul is being very ironic in pointing out how unimpressed he was with Peter, James, and John who allowed themselves to be thought of as “super-apostles.” They suggest this is Paul’s attempt to show that he is equal to them in every way, if not better.

I stood in the lobby of a hotel in downtown Fort Worth, Texas while attending an international convention. I observed high-level delegates sitting and chatting while I visited with a friend.  All of a sudden, I heard shouting. I looked over toward a couch about twenty feet away from where I saw a high-ranking leader yelling at a black valet cleaning up empty glasses and trash from the coffee tables and side-tables. This neatly dressed African-American looked puzzled hearing the minister bark out, “You touched my wife’s leg and I want you to say you’re sorry! You hear me! I said; say you’re sorry for hitting my wife’s leg and don’t ever do it again!”

I instantly felt the urge to do one of three things: either turn away in disgust; go up to the black gentleman and tell him I was sorry for such an outburst; or go over to the high-ranking minister and tell him what a fake Christian he was. Before I could do anything, the kind valet stopped what he was doing and with a calm voice apologized to the minister’s wife, telling her he didn’t mean any harm. He then continued cleaning up, making sure he did not come close to this minister or his wife. By that time, I recovered from my shock, I went directly to the valet and expressed my own apology for the treatment he received and let him know that not everyone in the lobby felt the same way this high-level official did.

I know what you are thinking, why didn’t I challenge this official like Paul confronted Peter. For one thing, there were higher-level officials there who could have spoken out, and maybe later they did so in private. Another thing was, I did not want to appear as some “nobody” taking an opportunity to make myself look important so that I would be patted on the back. The Apostle Paul’s personality is different from mine; he’s certainly an Alpha male, a sort of in-your-face type of guy. He did what came naturally to him. But most of all he did it at the urging of the Holy Spirit. I say that the urge I felt was anger that such a nice gentleman was being treated discourteously by supposed Christian’s full of God’s love.

But to Paul’s credit, it never boiled down to personal issues but only in defense of the Gospel. Here we see Peter traveling from Jerusalem to the city of Antioch to see how Paul and Barnabas and the first Christian congregation outside Judea were doing. At first, Peter made himself at home by sitting down with Paul and the new Gentile converts to eating the agape banquet with them.  Paul, the educated Pharisee that he was, knew that no self-respecting Jew would ever do such a thing unless he was persuaded by a higher power.  So, he was proud of his buddy, the Rock. I imagine that he told the Gentile believers what a great man of God Peter proved himself to be for such humility and genuine the Anointed One-like attitude.

But then an ill wind blew into the gathering. Some additional delegates sent by James from Jerusalem arrived (Maybe it was some of those mentioned in Acts).[3] That’s when Paul saw something that made his hypertension skyrocket. When it came time for dinner these Jewish delegates went off into another room away from the Gentiles to eat. To Paul’s amazement, Peter excused himself from where the Gentiles were eating and went over and joined the delegates who separated themselves. On top of that, then Paul’s friend Barnabas, along with the Jewish members of the Antioch congregation, broke off and went over and joined the Jewish group as well, leaving Paul and the Gentiles to eat alone. I’m sure that almost ruined Paul’s day.

Paul uses a very insightful verb here in Greek for “broke off,” synypokrinomai.  It means to “dissemble, to take apart,” like disassembling a chair or bicycle, especially with group participation. It is a perfect word to describe the actions of Peter’s hypocritical attitude. The congregation at Antioch assembled in unison, now Peter’s action disassembled them into factions. Furthermore, it helps understand how the word Hupokrites (hypocrisy) was used here by Paul.  It refers to an overly nitpicking, hair-splitting, critical, and religiously legalistic type of person.

While hypocrisy was considered a despised moral failure in Jewish literature and teachings, there is the possibility that Paul was aware of how it was viewed in the Greek writings of his day. During Plato’s era, being looked up to stood as one of the chief incentives for displaying moral virtues, and to most men, when your fellowman holds a high opinion of you that is the main motivation for such virtues to be seen. Unfortunately, this often led to the exposure of a certain element of character in which men developed the desire to appear better than they really were in order to win the esteem and admiration of others. Therefore, the Greeks warned that any man could use his ability to easily pretend he was good just by using religious language putting on religious virtues.

They also taught that there was such a thing as unconscious, as well as, conscious hypocrisy.  According to Socrates, conscious hypocrisy is the worst of the two.  In other words, one knows it’s wrong, but does it anyhow. Paul knew Peter was not making an unconscious error. His breaking away from the Gentiles to eat with the Jewish delegates in order to appear pious to them was a deliberate act of discrimination, not one that happened accidentally. No wonder Paul was furious.

When Paul inquired as to what was going on, instead of hearing that Peter and Barnabas were actually trying to teach these Jewish delegates that they could no longer discriminate against Gentile believers; that we are all part of God’s congregation and brothers in the Anointed One, he discovered instead that Peter was actually afraid that these delegates might go back to Jerusalem and tell James that they saw him eating with Gentiles and that would really cause trouble for him when he returned. You talk about an abrupt paradigm shift! Today we refer to this as being two-faced. Even though Paul wasn’t there when Peter denied our Lord three times, perhaps he now understood how it could happen. In the Spirit, Peter was a man of granite, but in the flesh, he was baked mud!

The great reformer Martin Luther was under great stress for his stance against the legalism of the Catholic congregation. He spoke of his circumstances this way: “For defending the truth in our day, we are called proud and obstinate hypocrites. We are not ashamed of these titles. The cause we are called to defend is not Peter’s cause, or the cause of our parents, or that of the government, or that of the world, but the cause of God. In defense of that cause, we must be firm and unyielding.”[4]

Certainly, it is easy to criticize Peter here but think about the times we’ve been weak in the knees. We all know what it feels like to do something we know is not in keeping with what we profess to believe. Everyone relates to the conviction they feel when they end up doing something even unbelievers are asked not to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wadded up a wrapper or piece of paper while walking or driving and shoved it into my pocket because I knew it was not right to litter. However, I do confess to throwing an apple core out the car window into the countryside because I knew it was biodegradable. Like Peter, we all know what it feels like when social pressure or lack of discipline pushes us to compromise in some way.

In spite of all the commentary and exposition written on this encounter between Paul and Peter, and the apparent disconnect between what Peter did at Cornelius’s house and what he did in Antioch, there is still a sticking point that many Messianic Jews cannot reconcile. As one non-Jewish convert explains it, the traditional Christian interpretation of this passage presupposes that Paul and the Jewish believers with him gave up Judaism and the practice of Torah. So when Paul saw Peter being indecisive on this matter by going back to Jewish dietary laws, he rebuked him for Judaizing – that is to say that Paul rebuked Peter for backsliding from salvation by grace back to salvation by good works.[5] I do not know what traditional Christian interpretation he had in mind, but from my reading and studies, most Evangelical Bible scholars’ interpretation is that Peter was being a hypocrite. In my mind, the only way Jewish kosher laws and feast celebrations become any problem for believers in Jesus as the Anointed One is when they are touted as being necessary to obtain or maximize the salvation one received through Jesus the Anointed One.

[1] Robert H. Gundry: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Kindle Location 397-421

[2] 2 Corinthians 12:11-12

[3] See Acts of the Apostles 15:5

[4] Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 36

[5] D. Thomas Lancaster: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit. p.80

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIII)

Writing on the subject of this dissembling of the Jews from the Gentiles in Antioch, Alvah Hovey sees no evidence that Peter invited anyone to join him, not even Barnabas or Paul. It is even possible that Peter got some immediate negative feedback when deciding on that action. But he brushed it off as not really being important at the moment. No doubt he didn’t realize his actions could be used with tremendous effect by zealots for the law, and for a brief period it seemed as if a great wave of Jewish ritualism were about to sweep away the landmarks of the new Christian congregation, as if the “form of godliness” were to take the place of its power, and pretense get the upper hand over sincerity. But by the good providence of God, there was on the ground a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” whose grasp of principles, and foresight of consequences, and courage in asserting the truth, were equal to the emergency. It was for him to wrest the victory from those who must think themselves to be already in full possession of this fledging New Way.[1]

I like the way J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) paraphrases this section: “At Jerusalem, I owed nothing to the Apostles who promoted circumcision. I maintained my independence and equality. At Antioch, I was more than an equal. The leading Apostle of the circumcision crowd betrayed the cause of the Gentiles by his inconsistency. He timidly yielded to pressure from the ritualists. The rest were carried away by his example. Even Barnabas, my colleague, the friend, and Apostle of the Gentiles went astray. Alone I stood up in defense of the liberty of the Gospel. This was not done in a corner. The whole congregation of Antioch is my witness.”[2]

In Charles Spurgeon’s (1828-1892) opinion, it must have been very painful to Paul’s feelings to come into open conflict with Peter, whom he greatly esteemed. Yet, for the truth’s sake, Paul bowed to no person, and he withstood even a beloved brother when he saw that he was likely to pervert the simplicity of the Gospel and rob the Gentiles of their Christian liberty. For this, we ought to be very grateful to our gracious God who raised up this brave champion, this beloved Apostle of the Gentiles.[3] Spurgeon was no doubt aware of how difficult it was for any minister to openly confront another minister on what they see as a violation of ethics, virtues, or Scriptural teachings.

August H. Strong (1836-1921), best known for His Systematic Theology, was discussing the problem of those who believe that some portions of the Scriptures were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He points out that one of the most inexcusable examples was Peter’s separating himself from the Gentiles at Antioch, which was a practical disavowal of his convictions by separating or withdrawing himself from the Gentile Christians. Here was no public teaching, but the influence of private example. But in this case, God did allow the error to be a final one. Through the agency of Paul, the Holy Spirit set the matter right.[4]

Then Strong goes on to say that the reason Paul resisted Peter at Antioch was “because he stood condemned” But Peter differed from Paul, not in public utterances, nor in written words, but in following his own teachings. Personal defects do not invalidate an ambassador, though they may hinder the reception of their message. So, with the apostles’ not knowing of the time of Christ’s second coming. It was only gradually that they came to understand Christian doctrines in full; they did not teach the truth all at once; their final utterances supplemented and completed the earlier, and all together furnished only that measure of knowledge which God saw needful for the moral and religious teaching of mankind. Many things are yet unrevealed, and many things which inspired men uttered, even though they did not completely understand when they uttered them.[5]

Samuel Pearson (1849)[6] in The Biblical Illustrator carries an interesting comment on the traditional physical attributes of Peter and Paul. He calls it one of the most remarkable events in sacred history. Tradition tells us Paul was a man of small stature, bearing the marked features of the Jew, yet not without some of the finer lines in Greek thinking. His head bald, his beard long and thin; a bright gray eye, overhung by somewhat contracted eyebrows; whilst a cheerful and winning expression of countenance invited the approach and inspired the confidence of strangers. Peter is represented as a man of larger form and stronger build, with dark eyes, a heavily suntanned leathery complexion after spending so much time on the water, and short hair curled black and thick around his temples. At the meeting here mentioned Judaism and Christianity were brought face to face. In verses 14-16 we the case of Gospel versus Law.[7]

Joseph Beet contends that Paul’s use of Cephas to identify Peter was not a slip of the tongue or done in any derogatory manner. Peter was the Greek name by which the Apostle was known among the Gentiles. Cephas was the Hebrew name by which he was known among the Jews. So, in a subliminal way, Paul is talking of the Apostle to the Jews who knew him by his Hebrew name of Cephas. Beet feels that this name, Cephas, was in the local sense and reveals Peter’s influence in the congregation at Jerusalem, to which these other individuals sent by James belonged. This also then reflects the control that James exercised over the congregations in Jerusalem and Judea. But it also served as a way of saying that Paul represented the Gospel of Grace being preached and accepted by the Gentiles, while Peter represented the Legal Gospel as being preached and accepted by the Jews.[8]

Cyril Emmet points out that the phrase in verse twelve concerning Peter that “he did eat with the Gentiles,” (KJV); “he used to eat with the Gentiles,” (NIV), contains a Greek imperfect verb synesthiō which shows that it was a regular practice of his to eat with Gentiles when he visited them. Peter’s vision taught him that he needed to put away his old habits and no longer treat the Gentiles as being unclean and the fool they ate as unclean.[9] This helps us see then that when the delegation sent there by James arrived, Peter decided to eat with them instead of the Gentiles.[10] So it is no wonder Paul called Peter by his Hebrew name, Cephas. The Aramaic Version makes it plain that Peter was already in Antioch eating with the Gentiles before the group sent by James arrived. It reads: “Before men from James came, he ate among the Gentiles. But when they came, he separated himself, for he feared those who were from the circumcised group.”[11]

Philip Ryken. in his folksy way. tells us that James sent the “James gang” to Antioch not just to check on how well they were doing in response to the letter that the Council sent earlier, but to check up on Peter. Their motivation was no doubt that these Jewish Christians in Antioch became extremists and were all in with their Gentile brothers. As former Pharisees, the “James Gang” were strict Jewish conservatives when it came to the traditions of their roots. They merely Christianized their Jewish rites, rituals, and ceremonies. Once they arrived, they noticed how lax Peter was when it came to old traditions. He was almost behaving like a pagan! There he was, sitting down with unwashed, uncircumcised Gentiles. They were surprised that roasted pork was not on his plate. But by the time they got through dressing Peter down for his conduct, he did an about-face. So, at the next meal, he went with the Jewish contingent to the other side of the fellowship hall. It was pure peer pressure that caused him to do it.[12]

Ronald Fung also paints a picture to help us understand the reason for this meal and how it inadvertently played a role in the dispute. During his visit to Antioch, Peter sat at the table and ate with the Gentile Christians, as Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch were doing. The expression “taking his meals” no doubt includes a reference to participation in the Lord’s Supper – the Eucharist and the community love-feast were closely linked together,[13] – would however restrict all meals exclusively or even primarily to the Eucharist, and this might unduly narrow the meaning of the original verb, which is quite general, and is not in accord with the equally general expression “live… like a Jew,” in verse 14b.

Fung continues to point out that these verses show that at the time of Peter’s visit it was already an established custom in the Antioch congregation for Jewish and Gentile believers to enjoy free table-fellowship with one another, apparently on an equal footing which knew no conditions or restrictions. The impression is given by our text thus goes against the assumption which is sometimes made that the fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians was facilitated by mutual consideration, with the Gentile believers continuing to keep a group of minimal rules such as the “precepts of Noah”[14] which they already followed. Peter at first sat at the table and ate with the Gentile Christians, as Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch were doing.

Fung then states that the text further implies that Peter came into a situation which he found neither unusual nor uncongenial. By eating freely with the Gentiles Peter on his part was in effect declaring the Christian Jew as well as the Christian Gentile to be free from the law. That Paul found Peter’s behavior thoroughly agreeable (as verse 12a implies) indicates that the two Apostles were one in their general attitude towards the incorporation of Gentile Christians into the congregation. This happy state of togetherness was disrupted, however, when “certain persons” came from James.[15]

Here we also see how a small group can have such an impact on others that they feel impelled to join them. This not only comes from such simple things as what day of the week should be given to fasting but also to the interpretation of Scripture. That is how branch groups are formed and even the beginnings of cultism. All of this sometimes so cleverly cloaked by their acceptance of all the orthodox beliefs of Christianity, but put their twist on the interpretation of several doctrines. Almost all religious cult leaders were at one time part of orthodox Christianity. But they broke away because of what they call their “revelation of a deeper understanding” of the subject. Nonetheless, if it does not harmonize with the teachings of the Anointed One and the Apostles, it is to be called anathema.

[1] Hovey, Alvah: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 31.

[2] J. B. Lightfoot: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 238

[3] Charles Spurgeon: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[4] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, op. cit., Vol. 1, p.441

[5] Ibid. p. 395

[6] Author of, A Book for Advancing Christians, The Book Seller, A Newspaper of British and Foreign Literature, January 6, 1895, Religion and Theology, by Messrs. Kegan Paul, Tribune and Company, p. 884

[7] Ryle, J.C.; Exell, Joseph; MacLaren, Alexander; Moody, D.L.; Spurgeon, Charles. The Biblical Illustrator – Vol. 48, (Kindle Locations 4196-4201)

[8] Joseph Beet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p 46

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

[10] Cyril Emmet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 19

[11] Andrew G. Roth: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[12] Ryken, Philip Graham: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., (Kindle Location 1022-1031)

[13] See I Corinthians 11:20-22, 33ff

[14] Genesis 9:1-17

[15] Ronald Y. K. Fung: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 106-107

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXII)

Baxter goes on to say that when dealing with such a situation, it must be done with humility even when there are sharp disagreements. That way, whatever is decided will not appear to be done out of anger or ill will, just to show who was really in charge. The individual ministers being counseled should not come away believing they were the victim of revenge that caused them great personal and professional harm. But that everything to be done must be done in order to save them from further embarrassment and ridicule. Sometimes, the accused may think that no serious harm was done to their congregation or the ministry, but the question is not how they look at it or how the council looks at it but how God looks at it. That’s why they must apply the wisdom of the writer of Hebrews to those in ministry should help each other. If someone is being confronted with unacceptable behavior, they should nevertheless speak day after day to those over them in the Lord while there is still time to change. This will prevent their heart from becoming become hard by being fooled by sin.[1]

So, these things must never be done out of hatred or to belittle a fellow believer. It is not appropriate to offer wise counsel with anger or hatred in our hearts. This may only cause them to turn further away from what they were taught and believe. Don’t make their fault an issue between their fellow believer or even the congregation. It is between them and God and His Word. That’s why Baxter feels that when Paul confronted Peter, he did not want to be an issue between the two of them, but between Peter and the Gospel of the Anointed One. If Peter was willing to repent, he didn’t repent to Paul but to God.[2]

After reading these verses, John Bunyan reflected on the Beauty of Christianity which is a holy life. Now, a holy life does not infer that a person never makes mistakes or fails to live up to their measure of faith. But it does mean those things occur at times while they are trying their best to live for God in showing their love for the One who saved them. Bunyan believes that the advice the Apostle Paul gave young Timothy to let everyone who calls the Anointed One Lord to turn in the opposite direction from where opportunities for sin reside. But Bunyan found out that sometimes those who call themselves leaders of the faith are the ones who find it difficult to do this.

When that happens, not only are they shamed but the face of Christianity is marred. Even though they claim to be serving the Anointed One, they appear to be more involved in sinning than saving.  Bunyan gives many reasons why this happens but they are too extensive to include here. But he does address what happens when faithful believers do not speak out against such practices and refuse to sit under their preaching or teaching.  Also, just because the person at the top does those things, that does not give them permission to imitate them. It’s amazing how quickly good believers are persuaded to join in with bad believer’s actions! That’s why Paul was so upset that even Barnabas, his close friend, and ally, joined Peter in Antioch as they shunned the Gentile believers in order to sit with the Jews and eat the meal being served to the congregation. Paul was afraid that other Jews in the congregation would interpret that as a message that this was the way it was to be done. So be careful if you are considered to be a Christian leader to be a model of what is right so that others who respect you and take your word as the truth will become more Jesus-like than Satan-like.[3]

Bunyan also encourages us to learn from other people’s mistakes, especially those in church leadership positions. It demonstrates the advantages of keeping our hearts tender. Don’t try to ignore sin, be fearful of sin. A tender heart is more likely to quickly yield to prayer than become defensive. A tender heart looks for repentance instead of excuses. A tender heart speaks directly to God instead of seeking a go-between. A tender heart is a watchful heart so that sinful tendencies do not catch it unawares. A tender heart will deny itself in favor of some less fortunate individual. A tender heart saves itself many acts of severe discipline because it does not tempt God. Many needless rebukes and wounds are incurred because of unwise choices and foolish behavior. So, Bunyan asks, what is a Christian to do once they realize that God broke their heart to keep it tender?

Bunyan goes on to say, that a tender heart will most of all will learn lessons from examples of bad behavior among the godly. Copy no one who does that which the Word of God forbids. Sometimes Satan makes use of a good person’s bad ways, to spoil and harden the heart of those who succeed them. Just like Peter’s hypocrisy in Antioch almost soiled Barnabas’ stellar reputation. So, says Bunyan, observe the ways of good believers and measure both theirs and your own by no other rule than the Holy Spirit and God’s Holy Word. That’s what Paul tried to do when he confronted Peter with what he saw as a leader behaving badly.[4]

Sometime later during the Wesleyan Revival period, his main theologian, Adam Clarke, gave his understanding of what occurred here in the relationship between Peter and Paul. He sees this dispute as being Peter‘s fault. He was convinced that God pulled down the middle wall that for so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the Gentiles and eating with them. But when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the Law still to be in force, to prevent placing a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all fellowship with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the Law to still be in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should continue.

Clarke also makes special note that some Jewish converts in the congregation were also drawn away with Peter and the entourage from Jerusalem. Although those Jews converted to Christianity who also believed that the obligation of the Jewish ritual ceased, when they saw Peter act this way, and also have great respect for the Jerusalem delegation who separated themselves from the converted Gentiles, it convinced the Jews of Antioch that following the Law was still their moral obligation. So powerful was the tide of such these examples, that even the gentle, loving-hearted Barnabas was carried away by their misrepresentation through hypocrisy. They were pretending to be something they really were not.[5]  This, without doubt, is what made Paul’s face turn red and angered him the most.

Then 19th century Roman Catholic theologian George Haydock shares his point of view. He joins those who see Peter’s fault as only a lesser or venial sin in his conduct and conversation. Did not Paul on several occasions do exactly the same thing Peter is being accused of? That is, practice the Jewish ceremonies: did not he circumcise Timothy after this, did he not shave his head in Cenchræ, did he not by the advice of James purifies himself with the Jews in the Temple, not to offend them?” This is a case of excusing one person’s fault by pointing out others who make the same mistake. Let’s imagine that a sinner comes to God for forgiveness, and God says, “Forget it, you’re not the only one who made that mistake.” But it should not surprise us that Haydock defends Peter so as not to see him as inferior to Apostle Paul.

But the Haydock goes on to mention the fact that Jerome, and also Chrysostom, give another exposition of this passage. They looked upon all this as having been done by set-up and a collusion between these two Apostles, who agreed beforehand that Peter should let himself be criticized by Paul, and not that Peter was really hypocritical so that the Jews seeing Peter publicly blamed, and not justifying himself might for the future eat with the Gentiles. But Augustine vigorously opposes this exposition as being inconsistent with Christian and apostolic sincerity. The text in this chapter makes it clear that this caused a split in the congregation and that Cephas, or Peter, was not following the truth of the Gospel.  After a long dispute between these Jerome and Augustine, Jerome seems to retract his original opinion, and the opinion of Augustine is now commonly followed, that Peter was guilty of an unintended venial fault.

Then Haydock mentions that no Catholic would deny that the head of the church may be guilty even of great sins. He then concludes that we still need to admire the humility of Peter on this occasion, as Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, observes, who complimented Peter on taking the admonition of Paul so mildly without his insisting on being respected as greater because of what the Lord said to him. Haydock notes that Cardinal Caesar Baronius held that Peter did not sin at all, which may be true, if we look upon his intention only, which was to give no offense to the Jewish converts. But when we examine the facts, he can scarcely be excused from a venial indiscretion. The fault that is here noted in the conduct of Peter, was only in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles without giving it a second thought, for fear of giving offense to the Jewish converts. But we must keep in mind, that by doing this Peter might insult the Gentiles, or even give them a reason to think that they are obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living. Neither was Paul’s standing up to Peter any reason to argue that Paul was disrespecting Peter’s superiority. It should always be fair for an inferior admonish a superior when they truly did something wrong.[6]

Scottish theologian John Eadie discusses the fact that Barnabas, Paul’s “son of comfort,” was swept away by the influence of Peter and the emissaries from James who came over to Antioch to see how things were going. We must remember that Barnabas was already an integral part of the Jerusalem congregation before Paul’s conversion. They were his old friends with Paul becoming his new friend. And even the adventure of their missionary journey did not cause Barnabas to forget the inner circle he belonged to. So, when those commissioned by James to go to Antioch showed up, it was sort of a reunion. And of course, having Peter there made a big impact on Barnabas. So, when dinner time came, and the Jewish contingent invited Peter and the ones James sent to join them in a kosher meal, it does not mean that Barnabas suddenly forgot Paul’s stance on this issue. It was a matter of joining the crowd. But for Paul, it was like being stabbed in the back. No doubt this is what led to the break up between them in taking John Mark along on their next missionary journey.[7]

It appears that many of these early church leaders were aiming at the core of Paul’s challenge of Peter’s making such an ill-advised move. That is, how best to settle arguments and disagreements within the church over how certain sacraments or ordinances are performed so that they don’t divide the congregation by forcing them to take sides. We’ve seen in Protestantism over the methods of serving Communion, Baptizing, Washing of the Saints Feet, the Sinner’s Prayer, and any indulgence in what is considered worldly behavior – such as dancing, movies, wearing jewelry, etc. But the more important divides are seen in the beliefs of Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Only, Prosperity Preaching, Speaking in Tongues, Divine Healing, that Christians can be possessed by evil spirits, and so on, and orthodox Christian beliefs based on God’s Word, and not man’s interpretation. If Paul were alive today, I believe his message would be the same, get back to the Word of God.

[1] Hebrews 3:13

[2] Richard Baxter: The Reformed Pastor, Books For The Ages, AGES Software, 1997. Ch. 2, p. 64

[3] John Bunyan: The Beauty of Christianity, Vol. 4, Ch. 3, p. 106

[4] Ibid., The Acceptable Sacrifice, Vol. 6, p. 277

[5] Adam Clark: Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

[6] George Haydock: Catholic Bible Commentary, op. cit., loc. cit.

[7] John Eadie: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 154-155

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXI) 08/12/19

In another writing Aquinas noted that according to Jerome, in Antioch Peter separated himself from the Gentiles by pretending that he was siding with the Jewish contingent that was sent down from Jerusalem by the Apostle James in order to avoid going back after his visit and facing ridicule for having sided with the Gentiles after being called by God to be an apostle to the Jews. That’s why there was no sin involved. On the other hand, Paul was doing the same thing by pretending to reprimand Peter and calling him a hypocrite in order to look good among the Gentiles to whom he was called to be an Apostle.

But Aquinas is not accepting this explanation because in the Scripture Paul himself said that we should not treat something true we know to be false. Paul said that Peter was at fault, and Paul told the truth, so how can he be accused of pretending. On the other hand, Peter was not wrong by observing a legal Jewish custom, something that he did before converting to Christianity. But he did do wrong by his excessive exactness in the observance of those legal rites. So, for Aquinas, he was not accepting any excuses for Peter’s hypocritical behavior.[1]

But apparently the questions kept coming, and one of them was whether or not someone who is thought to be perfect can actively participate in a scandal? Again, the confrontation between Peter and Paul in Antioch is the basis for Aquinas’ answer. After Peter received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, he was elevated to a state of perfection. Then some years later, he was involved in a scandal in Antioch when he insulted the Gentile Christians by separating himself to eat with the Jewish Christians. This goes to show, says Aquinas, that even perfect saints make mistakes.[2] This may help us understand why the Pope is tolerated by congregation authorities when he makes an error.[3]

So, the big question at this point might be: Why is this confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch such a controversy, that so many scholars felt the need to offer their comments and views on the incident? The obvious answer is that by Paul’s time there was already festering beneath the surface the question of do we stand up for what’s right, what our Lord taught, or do we cave into opposition and thereby water down the Gospel? Paul saw how Stephen stood up for his Savior and the truth, even though it cost him his life.[4] It is clear that Paul wanted everyone to be like Stephen. Hold the flag of truth high even in the midst of a battle. Commit oneself to be loyal to the Gospel as it was delivered by Yeshua the Messiah. So, we can see why scholars down through the church age have had to take a stand on one side or the other. That’s why they needed to express their points of view so no one could accuse them of the same hypocrisy of Peter.

So, I’ve inserted these various comments on what occurred between Peter and Paul in Antioch, so you see how the theological perspective of early church scholars evolved between 300 to 1100 AD. What some are attempting to do is to suggest that Paul was exploiting an opportunity just to prove his equality with Peter by publicly embarrassing him with an accusation of discriminating against the Gentile Christians. In so doing, Paul demonstrates absolutely no respect for this elder Apostle. They contrast this occasion with Paul’s bragging to the Corinthians when he wrote them: “I don’t consider myself inferior in any way to the ‘super-apostles’… I may be unskilled as a speaker, but I’m not lacking in knowledge.”[5] Again, Adam blaming Eve for his sin, and Eve blaming the serpent seems to still be alive in some minds as an acceptable excuse for one’s mistake.

Early church scholar Chrysostom advises that many of those who read this passage superficially believe that Paul was rebuking Peter for being a hypocrite. But he disagrees. In fact, Chrysostom says it is not so, far from it! If we look closely, Chrysostom feels that we will find that there was a deep though hidden understanding between Paul and Peter for the good of those who listen. Paul does not now say this to condemn Peter, but in the same spirit as when he spoke of those who are “reputed to be special.” After all, the Apostles consented to circumcision in Jerusalem because it was not possible to tear them away from the law all at once. But when they came to Antioch, they did not continue to practice those traditions but lived harmoniously with the Gentile believers there. After Peter arrived, he did the same thing.

But when the delegation from James came from Judea and saw him practicing something he did not preach, Peter decided to return to his Jewish roots in order not to upset them. He developed a twofold purpose, to avoid scandalizing the Jews and to give Paul a plausible reason to confront him. For if Peter himself, having included circumcision in his preaching in Jerusalem, changed in Antioch, those of Jewish origin would surmise that he did this from fear of Paul, and his disciples would condemn his excessive complacency. And so, Paul rebukes Peter on his own. It is like the master who when informed of making an error keeps silent so that his disciples might more easily keep from making the same mistake.[6]

In spite of the fact that Church historian Eusebius tells us that Clement of Alexandria in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes,[7] claims that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the Apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”[8] And although Thomas Aquinas tries to lower Peter’s hypocrisy to that of a mere mistake because once the Apostles received the Holy Spirit they never sinned, and Jerome attributed it to ignorance on Peter’s part, Martin Luther feels it is wrong to elevate Peter above having any faults. Luther believes that a number of the Apostles erred in thinking of the kingdom of the Anointed One as having come down on earth as the Church. What matters down here is more important than what matters up above. Paul needed to confront Peter on this issue, otherwise, it required all the male Gentile believers to receive circumcision as part of their Christian faith.[9] Were that the case then salvation by grace stood a good chance of ending up on the trash heap of church history.

Reformer John Calvin challenges everyone to carefully examine all the circumstances involved in this incident. He believes they will agree with him in concluding that this happened before the Apostles decided that the Gentiles not be forced into accepting Jewish ceremonial observances.[10] With that being the case, Peter need not fear offending James or those sent by him. But that was part of Peter’s deception. When that happened, then Paul was driven to assert “the truth of the Gospel.” Paul already said that the certainty of his Gospel does not in any degree depend on Peter and the Apostles, so as to stand or fall by their judgment. In addition, he said, that it was approved by all without any exception or contradiction, and particularly by those who were looked up to as leaders of the congregation. Paul makes it clear that he blames Peter for giving in to the other side and attributes that to being the cause of the dispute. Furthermore, this proved the strength of Paul’s doctrine. Not only did he obtained the sincere approval of the Council, but firmly maintained it in his debate with Peter, and came off victorious. What reason could there now be for anyone hesitating to receive it as certain and genuine truth?

So, Calvin attributes this incident to the fact that the Council in Jerusalem did rule on what was permissible among the Gentiles. But there is no reason not to believe that what happened here between Paul and Peter did influence the outcome later on. Calvin goes on to use Paul’s authority, in this case, to put the Vatican on notice that they also should refrain from any pretensions that they act according to their own will in defiance to the whole church, and follow Peter’s example in submissively bowing to the chastisement given him by Paul.[11]

In the writings of Catholic scholar Cornelius à Lapide, we find a curious explanation of this confrontation between Peter and Paul in Antioch. He claims that Erasmus and others interpret this to mean in appearance, outwardly, pretending, and by previous arrangement. But Lapide believes that the literal meaning is better. That Paul was saying that he openly resisted Peter, in order that the public scandal caused by him might be removed by a public rebuke. Lapide notes that Augustine, Ambrose, Bede, Anselm, and nearly all other Catholic authorities agree with him. So, it appears that there were those who wanted to keep Peter’s reputation as first Pope at its highest level and others who were willing to accept that even Peter could make a mistake.

Lapide also goes on to tell us that for many years there was a sharp dispute on this point between Jerome and Augustine. He then tells us that Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Baronius hold that the rebuke was only theatrical. They argue that Peter, who lawfully followed the Jewish customs at Jerusalem among Jews, lived as a Gentile among Gentiles at Antioch. When, however, the Jews arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, sent by James, he withdrew from the Gentiles in favor of the Jews, lest he should offend those who early receive the faith, and also that he might at the same time give Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, an opportunity of rebuking him, that by yielding he might teach the Jews that the time for Judaizing was past. On the other side, Augustine maintains that Peter was really blameworthy, and was blamed by Paul, as the record distinctly declares.[12]

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) never received a higher position than that of the parish pastor, still, he was the most prominent English churchman of the 1600s. He was a peacemaker who sought unity among Protestants in the Church of England and non-conformists. That’s because he was a highly independent thinker – and at the center of every major controversy in England during his lifetime. In the work that made him most famous and which is highly regarded today on being a Reformed pastor. He talks about what he went through in proceedings that dealt with errant ministers. He said it took quite an effort to make sure that they did not do more harm than good. He learned that much discretion must be applied when assigning anyone to a position and make sure they are qualified and suited for the ministry put under their care. Sometimes, what seems logical to human thinking, in the end, causes them to be nervous and unsure so much, they need to be replaced.

[1] Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, Vol, 2, Part (2a), Question (103), Article (4) Response/Objection (2), pp. 1229 & 1232

[2] See Ibid, Vol, 3. Part (2b)-Question (43)-Article (6)-Objection (2), p. 510

[3] See Ibid. Part (2b)-Question (93)-Article (1), p. 1060

[4] Acts of the Apostles 22:20

[5] 2 Corinthians 11:5-6

[6] Chrysostom: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.), p. 26

[7] Hypotyposes is an extinct Biblical interpretation by Clement of which only fragments still exist.

[8] Eusebius, History of the congregation, Bk. 1, Ch. 12

[9] Martin Luther: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 36

[10] See Acts 15:28

[11] John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[12] Cornelius à Lapide: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

One of the most powerful tools of persuasion is when the speaker convinces the audience that they know what they are talking about. That’s because any sincere listener can tell rather quickly if the speaker has really done their homework and captured the genuine essence of their subject.  This is especially true of preachers who are assigned by the Spirit to expound on the Word of God.  We learn that when the chief of philosophers, Aristotle, was about to research some profound subject to establish his theory by proof, he always began his treatise with an acknowledgment of his resources, and requested the reader not to attribute the author’s conclusions based on presumption, vanity, pride, or arrogance. He did not want them to think that he was looking into things of which he had no prior knowledge, but rather, based on his zeal and his desire to discover and establish true doctrine as far as human intellect would permit.

That’s why the great Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, recommended that Rabbis the same position as Aristotle, that they first begin with research in order to thoroughly refine their commitment to honesty and put aside their sense of superiority which is the offspring of their imagination. This should lead them to increase their knowledge of the true fundamentals of their message and adhere to the factors of interpretation and proof, and the ability to guard against misconceptions. They must, however, not decide any question with the first idea that comes to their mind, or be pressured into saying something they are not sure about. Real understanding comes when they wait with modesty and patience to take things one step at a time.

Now, if these principles were accepted back in 300 BC, and in 1200 AD, they certainly can be applied to us today, especially for those who attempt expository preaching of the Bible. That was what the Apostle Paul advised to his young protégé Timothy when he told him to remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.[1]

Likewise, the Apostle Peter instructed his disciples that there may be some who to harm them if they are eager to do good? But even if they suffer for doing what is right, God will reward them for it. So, don’t worry or be afraid of their threats. Instead, they must worship Christ as Lord of their life. And if someone asks about their hope as a believer, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way, keeping their conscience clear.[2] Now, all this may take six hours of reading, study, research, and writing to produce a 40-minute sermon, but it will be like refined gold, and worth every second of time spent mining it from God’s Word.

[1] 2 Timothy 3:14-17

[2] 1 Peter3:13-15

HOW TO START A GOOD COPYCAT ACT 

This story was submitted by Beth Greenfield, Senior editor for Yahoo Lifestyle. She tells about an Ohio teenager named Samantha Manus, who was grieving over the death of her 89-year-old great-grandmother, and how she began an incredible quest in her memory: to perform 89 random acts of kindness for total strangers over the next 18 months.

Some of her great-grandmother’s last words were, “I don’t want anybody to be upset.” But Samantha was really upset for a few days. She told her hometown Ohio paper, the Chillicothe Gazette, which reported her story. “Then I thought, maybe I can’t be happy right now, but I can do things to make other people happy.”

She launched her plan while at a McDonald’s drive-thru, where she paid the $15 bill of the customer behind her. It was simple, really, and made a total stranger’s day. The customer, she said, cried tears of joy. “I saw it in my rear-view mirror,” Samantha told Yahoo! “It made me feel pretty good.” She repeated that deed a few days later, which immediately started a chain of several other customers paying for the folks behind them.

Other random acts followed: donating items to the Humane Society, hanging out with orphaned puppies there and “being a happy presence,” and baking a birthday cake for a friend. She inspired others to follow her lead on her Facebook page, 89 Acts of Kindness, by offering packets with good-deed suggestions, plus a photo and bio of her late great-grandmother, Virginia Booth, whom she called “Jinjey.”

Doing good deeds would be a particularly appropriate memorial to Jinjey Booth, she added, as the octogenarian was a kind and giving person. “She was like the Golden Rule put in motion,” Always doing for others what she would like for them to do to her. Samantha said. “And she was a really big influence in my life.”

Samantha went on to become a freshman at the Vet Tech Institute in California with the aim to become an animal cruelty investigator. She lives with a psychiatric service dog, a Great Dane-pit bull mix that “recognizes panic attacks and gives me something tangible to focus on,” she explained. And she works as an apprentice at a tattoo shop, where she’ll soon be memorializing Jinjey Booth in another way: with an old-style portrait of her on her left arm.

For now, though, she’ll be continuing her goal of acting impulsively to make others feel good – something she estimates will take a year and a half to complete. “Next up is whatever comes my way,” she said, adding that she thinks “Jinjey Booth would be proud. “She would’ve wanted me to remember her in a good, kind way, surrounded by love and happiness.”

Here’s another way to look at the Golden Rule – Jesus called it “The Rule of Living.” And the Apostle Paul called it the “Law of Christ,”[1] which is the Law of Love. He tells us: “Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the Law of Christ.”[2] We may not choose to do the same thing that Samantha did to exercise this Christian spiritual right, there are so many other options to select from. The main thing is that we be what God wants us to be, letting our light shine, being the salt of the earth, and being a blessing to everyone we meet. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1]1 Corinthians 9:21

[2] Galatians 6:2