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 XX)

One of Augustine’s and Chrysostom’s contemporary scholars, Gaius Marius Victorinus (300-379), noticed the same tactic. But he addresses a story going around in his day proposing that Peter and Paul put all this on as an act without prior consultation for the benefit of both Jewish and Gentile Christians at Antioch. He notes that the essential component of this theory is that no real conflict existed between Peter and Paul in the sense of discord on doctrines of the Gospel. So, it does appear that both apostles employed hypocrisies in their evangelism when the situations demanded it.[1]

We are given a fuller account of this idea when Augustine wrote a letter to Jerome. The two men earlier enjoyed friendly relations, and Alypius, Bishop of Thagaste (which is now Algeria), Augustine’s friend, stayed with Jerome at Bethlehem. But Augustine, then assistant to the Bishop of Hippo, in a letter to Jerome, found fault with some of his statements in his Commentary on Galatians about what happened between Peter and Paul in Antioch. It is believed that Bishop Alypius was the one who pointed to Jerome and agreed with his account of the scene in Antioch,[2] in which Paul rebukes Peter for inconsistent compliance with Judaism. That it was a pretend dispute, arranged between the two Apostles in order to make the truth clear to the members of the congregation. Augustine objects that this is practically imputing falsehood to the Apostles.[3] Even Chrysostom in a sermon made the statement that many, on a superficial reading of this part of Galatians supposed that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But says Chrysostom, “… this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers.”[4]

As we see, to think that all the early church leaders were best friends with each other is not a reality. In fact, it was discussed by many early church scholars such as Ambrosiaster (circa 366 AD), who wrote at this same time he wanted to express his thinking on this subject. He asks, who else in Antioch would  dared to oppose Peter, the chief of the Apostles, to whom the Lord gave the keys of the kingdom, except someone on Peter’s level who could rely on his calling by the Anointed One to affirm that he was not inferior and would continually rebuke Peter if he once again did something without thinking properly about it? So, this was no prearranged skit by Peter and Paul. The Gentile and Jewish believers in Antioch would spot such a prank right away. They knew it was real, and Paul’s break with Barnabas later was a genuine casualty of Peter’s hypocrisy.

This same scholar goes on to point out that we must remember that what was happening now in Galatia with these false apostles, is subsequent to Paul’s meeting with the congregation’s council in Jerusalem.  So that means these legalistic teachers were aware of that meeting and knew full well the decision made with regard to Paul’s ministry to the Jews and non-Jews. Ambrosiaster was convinced that all of these converted Jews who consented to the policy of Peter and Barnabas were men of good faith. It was the way in which those who came from James were outraged by Peter’s earlier actions related to Gentiles. In fact, they were so zealous for the law and venerated both the Anointed One and the Law on an equal footing – which goes against the teaching of the faith – that they did not eat with Gentiles when they were present because they were afraid of the reaction which would come from those who were zealous for the law.

So Ambrosiaster concludes that if that’s all there was to it, why look at it as being so unacceptable? But Paul shows in what follows what the real error was. He himself gave in to the hostility and pressure of the Jewish believers because he feared that otherwise, it might provoke a scandal too difficult to put to rest. Examples of this can be seen when he was forced to purify himself according to the law and when he unwillingly circumcised Timothy.[5]

However, Pope Gregory I (540-604) – also known as Gregory the Great, wrote to Giovanni II, Bishop of Ravenna (578-595), about leadership and used Paul as an example. At one point in his letter, Gregory points out that a leader should not set their heart on pleasing the public, and yet, should listen to what they have to say. He gives the following warning, “He is the Redeemer’s enemy who through the good works which he does covets being loved by the congregation instead of by Him; since a servant whom the bridegroom sent with gifts for the bride is guilty of treacherous thought if he desires to please the eyes of the bride instead of the groom who sent the gifts.”

Gregory goes on to say that a church leader with such a selfish and egotistical attitude tends to go easy on the members of the flock who are sinning. He does not want to confront them for fear of losing their loyalty and affection for him. He quotes from the prophet Ezekiel, “The Lord God says: Woe to these women who are damning the souls of my people, of both young and old alike, by tying magic charms on their wrists, furnishing them with magic veils, and selling them indulgences. They refuse to even offer help unless they get a profit from it.”[6] (A thousand years later that would become the very curse that caused Martin Luther to launch a Reformation against the Church in Rome.)

Gregory concludes by saying that such church leaders always shy away from what they should do to sin among the congregation, they only look for what needs to be done to keep them in the fold. They do not seem to care about Judgment Day for it is easy to find forgiveness through their repeated prayers. They hate to be contradicted in what they say. Even when they do something wrong, they do not want to receive any criticism or censure from their subordinates. The Apostle Paul was just the opposite. He desired the truth to be loved more fully than himself and did not want to be spared by no one against the truth. For hence Peter willingly accepted Paul’s rebuke. And just as David accepted the rebuke of the prophet Nathan,[7] so leaders of the congregation should be reminded of Paul’s rebuke here in verse eleven. [8]

A little later, 9th century Bible scholar Bruno the Carthusian (1030-1101), made the point that when Cephas came to Antioch, Paul opposed him, not in secret but to his face, that is, in plain view of the congregation. He opposed him because what he needed to be condemned, if not in his thinking then at least through his example. Paul opposed Peter to his face because Peter was not merely sinning himself, for which he deserved to be corrected privately, but his act of hypocrisy ended up corrupting the congregation. A person who sinned in public ought to be publicly rebuked. Indeed, it was essential that those who witnessed the offense should be the same ones to see exposed and corrected.[9]

[1] Marius Victorinus, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[2] Galatians 2:11-16

[3] Prolegomena to the Principal Works of Jerome (394-404), Augustine to Jerome, on a passage in his Commentary on Galatians, 394-404, p. 40

[4] Chrysostom, John. The Complete Works of St. John Chrysostom (36 Books) (Kindle Locations 63893-63894). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.

[5] Ambrosiaster: Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit., p. 12

[6] Ezekiel 13:18 – Living Bible. (The Latin Vulgate from which Pope Gregory I quoted does not give sufficient clarity to the Hebrew in this verse.)

[7] 2 Samuel 12:7

[8] Gregory the Great: The Book of Pastoral Rule, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed. Vol. 12, Part 2, Ch. 8, pp. 518-519

[9] Bruno the Carthusian, Commentary 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 XIX)

Paul wants the Galatians to know that this whole fiasco was caused by Peter. His conduct was to blame. It may have been that Paul did this because Peter admitted that he made a mistake. But it also might be that at first, Peter blamed his actions on being under pressure by the Jewish contingent visiting Antioch. After all, as the Apostle to the Jews, it might not be good for him if word got around that he sided with Paul and the Gentiles against the Jewish Christians. Furthermore, after Peter went back to Jerusalem and told about his visit with the Roman Centurion, Cornelius, he was immediately accosted by the Jewish contingent about his not only visiting Gentiles but eating with them.[1] This is not the first time that a leader of God’s people tried to blame someone else for their hypocrisy. When Moses confronted Aaron about his allowing the Israelites to create a golden calf to worship while he was up on the mountain getting the Ten Commandments, Aaron blamed it on being under pressure from the people. He blamed his sinful behavior on the people’s sinful behavior.[2]

Moses suffered the same shame when he allowed the children of Israel to persuade him to strike the rock instead of speaking to the rock as God instructed him. As a result, God told both Moses and Aaron that they would not be allowed to lead the children of Israel into the Promised Land.[3] And the prophet Jeremiah was also warned about caving in to public opinion instead of following God’s word.[4] Then we read the story of the prophet Jonah and his time in the belly of a giant sea creature because he let the pressure of speaking against the people of Nineveh get to him.[5]

Therefore, Paul is reminding the Galatians that before this incident with Peter took place, a delegation from Jerusalem, sent by the Apostle James just to see how things were going, arrived. At mealtime, Peter sided with the delegation and the Antioch Jewish members when it came time to eat because they knew if word got back to James that they joined with the Gentiles he would not be pleased. No wonder Paul warned the Ephesians to always keep in mind that the Gospel was sent for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Said Paul, “They are able to have a life that lasts forever. They are to be a part of His congregation and family, together with the Jews. And together they are to receive all that God promised through the Anointed One.”[6] And if Paul needed to point to someone who set this standard, all he needs to do was mention Jesus.[7]

Of all the shortcomings that Paul observed in his fellow believers and his most vocal critics, was hypocrisy. It made his blood boil.  I’m willing to guess that even for dedicated Christians today; Peter’s shortcoming in this instance makes them grit their teeth as well. However, contrary to some psychologist’s diagnosis, Paul was not directing his sharp rebuke at Peter as an original disciple or respected Apostle, but to a fellow believer’s willingness to depart from the very Gospel he preached. In other words, He saw Peter’s actions as saying; don’t do as I do, just do as I say.

But this story did not go down well with all early church scholars. Church historian Eusebius tells us the Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-216 AD) tried his best to defend Peter by claiming that this person named Cephas was not Peter of Galilee, but one of the seventy disciples of Jesus. However, Jerome does not buy that and maintains that it was Peter. For Jerome, it isn’t that Peter and Cephas signify two personalities, but what is called in Latin and in Greek petra (“stone”) both the Hebrew and Syriac versions, because of the affinity of their languages, call Peter, “Cephas,” here in Galatians.[8]

Early church leader Origen (184-253), sees a different aspect to what Paul is saying, especially in verse twelve. Origen agrees that Peter needed persuading that Gentiles were worthy of hearing the Gospel. That’s why he stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate with Cornelius (who was not an Israelite by birth), and to those who were with him the Good News of Yeshua the Messiah.[9] Yet, it seems that Paul felt that Peter was still in fear of those orthodox Jews who became Christians, that they might oppose his Apostleship and ministry if he became too close to the Gentiles. As a result, when Peter visited the congregation in Antioch, he decided to join the group James sent from Jerusalem who was uneasy about eating with the Gentiles. Even Barnabas showed that he agreed with Peter rather than Paul.[10]

He poses a rhetorical question as to why he might mention that those Jews who came over from Jerusalem and who preached to Jews in Judea and Samaria, separated themselves from the Gentiles. Wasn’t this the same thing as what Paul did when he said that to the Jews he acted like a Jew so that he might gain some Jewish supporters?[11] And on another occasion, Paul even brought an offering to the Temple altar that he might convince the Jews that he was no traitor to the Law of Moses.[12] So why was he being so hard and callous toward Peter who was just trying to maintain peace between the Jewish believers in Jerusalem and the Gentile believers in Antioch?[13]

Next, we turn to church historian Eusebius (c. 260–340) to see how some following Peter’s example also turned away from the truth for a moment. This story is told by Jerome (c. 347–420), whom Eusebius called “especially distinguished in Rome.”[14] Jerome focuses on early Christian writer Tertullian’s (155-240) influence on Bishop Cyprian (c. 200–258) and Tertullian’s “lapse” into Montanism:[15] In fact, Jerome spoke about an incident when he visited the town of Concordia in Italy, he met an old man named Paul, who, as a very young man served as secretary to Cyprian (200-258), the Bishop of Carthage, who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself saw how Bishop Cyprian was accustomed to never letting a day pass without reading Tertullian’s writings and that he frequently said to young Paul, “Give me the master,” meaning give me what Tertullian wrote. Tertullian was presbyter of the congregation in Carthage (present-day Tunisia) until middle life. Afterward, he was driven away by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman congregation and adhered to the doctrine of Montanus and mentions this new prophecy in many of his books.[16]

The emphasis of the New Prophecy seemed to be on resisting persecution, fasting, and avoiding remarriage, together with hostility to any compromise with sin. Few of these points were controversial when judged against the asceticism of the next century. Many early church scholars, including Tertullian, never claimed that this new prophecy was inspired by the Holy Spirit since it only gave directions about matters of congregational discipline, which were coming to be the prerogative of Bishop Cyprian. It would seem that the Montanists were orthodox in all matters of Personal Theology. They differed only in matters of Practical Theology.[17]

However, Chrysostom (349-407) sees what happened here from a different angle. He says that many on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it. Paul does not use this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, “for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me.” Here we see a clear defense for Peter, who by this time in the Jerusalem congregation was accepted as the Vicar of the Anointed One, and head of the congregation. So, Peter’s reputation was important not only to the congregation but to those who would follow him in this capacity.[18]

Furthermore, we are told that there were several bishops who were not yet assigned to Syria. The people turned to Chrysostom and his friend Basil of Cæsarea (329-379 AD) as suitable candidates for the episcopal office, although they came up short of the required canonical age of thirty. Chrysostom shrunk from the responsibilities and avoided an election by apparently making an agreement with Basil that both should either accept or resist the burden of the episcopate. However, Chrysostom secretly nominated his friend Basil whom he deserved the honor more than himself. As news of the election came in, Basil was under the impression that Chrysostom’s consecration already took place. That’s why he reluctantly submitted to the election results.

When Basil found out his being fooled into thinking Chrysostom was chosen by trickery, he accused his friend of going back on their original agreement. But Chrysostom just laughed because he thought it was funny that his friendly plot worked so well. However, it caused no offense among the Christians of that age and was regarded as good management. On Chrysostom’s part, when asked how he could do such a thing, some of those on Chrysostom’s side such as Jerome and Origen explained that this was similar to the collision between the Apostles Paul and Peter at Antioch turning into a theatrical and hypocritical farce shrewdly arranged by the two Apostles for the purpose of convincing the Jewish Christians that circumcision was not necessary. However, Augustine protested at such thinking and Jerome changed his view on this particular passage here in Galatians. Here is a point where the modern standard of ethics is far superior to that of the early church Fathers, and more fully accords with the spirit of the New Testament, which instills strict truthfulness as a fundamental virtue for all Christians.[19] It’s hard to believe that these men of the early church sometimes acted like boys.

Consequently, when these guests from Jerusalem showed up at Antioch it put Peter in a delicate situation. And since Peter was going back to Jerusalem, he decided to agree to their wishes. Chrysostom is sure that Peter’s act of separating himself from the Gentiles would raise no suspicion if he first offered a reason for doing what he did. But Paul knew what was going on. That’s why he rebukes Peter, and Peter acknowledges the error. By pointing out who was to blame, those who went along with Peter realized their own fault in blindly following along. It was necessary for Paul to stand up against what Peter did. If he didn’t, anything he might say later would have little effect. However, Paul’s severe reproof of Peter impressed those who joined in his hypocrisy with a more realistic fear. Chrysostom believes that Peter accepted the rebuke so that Paul’s status as a teacher and missionary in Antioch would not be challenged.

[1] Acts of the Apostles 11:1-3

[2] Exodus 32:21-24

[3] Numbers 20:8-12

[4] Jeremiah 1:17

[5] Jonah 1:3; 4:3, 4, 9

[6] Ephesians 3:6

[7] See Luke 15:1-2

[8] Jerome: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.),. pp. 25–26

[9] Acts of the Apostles 10:1- 48

[10] Tertullian: Nicene Fathers, op. cit., p. 830

[11] 1 Corinthians 9:20-22

[12] Acts of the Apostles 21:26

[13] Origen: Ante-Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Bk. 2, Ch 1, p. 830

[14] Church History, 2.2; cf. 2.25, 3.20, 3.33, 5.5

[15] Montanism held similar views about the basic tenets of Christian doctrine to those of the wider Christian Church, but it was labeled a heresy for its belief in new prophetic revelations. The prophetic movement called for a reliance on the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic.

[16] De Viris Illustribus: (The Lives of Illustrious Men), 53

[17] Pierre de Labriolle: Les sources pour l’histoire de Montanisme, 1913

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

[19] Chrysostom: Nicene Fathers, op. cit., Prolegomena, Ch. 4, p. 17

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XVIII)

2:10 The only suggestion they made was that we continue helping the poor, which, I informed them, is something I always did with enthusiasm.

While the Council in Jerusalem did not mandate that Gentile believers undergo circumcision or be responsible for following the Jewish Laws, rites, rituals, ceremonies, etc., it appears that the Council did see some of their long-held Jewish customs on having charity toward the poor as also something that should be incumbent upon the Gentile believers. From the time of Moses, Jews were told to leave the fallen grain in their fields for the poor to come and freely gather for themselves.[1] Furthermore, they were also told that at the end of every third year they should bring the tenth part of that year’s grain into their towns. And if a Levite claims no share of what is given to them, then strangers, orphans, and widows who are in your towns may come and eat and be filled.[2]

But the congregation at Antioch already showed its charitable spirit when the Holy Spirit spoke through Agabus and told that a famine was coming and that those living in Judea would be most affected. So, the congregation agreed that each one should give what money they could to help the Christians living in Judea. They did this and sent it to the congregation leaders with Barnabas and Saul.[3] Later on, Paul would tell Felix the Governor of Judea how on his return from Asia he brought love offerings to help the people living in Judea. The Complete Jewish Bible renders it as “a charitable gift to my nation.”[4]

Likewise, the author of Hebrews instructed the recipients of his letter to remember to be charitable and help each other out. Gifts like that please God.[5] Also, the Apostle James, who wrote part of this reminder concerning the poor to Antioch, shares that claiming to have faith but not putting it into action is a terrible sign. He wrote that if a Christian does not possess sufficient clothing or food and one of them says to that person, “Goodbye, keep yourself warm and eat well,” but do not give them what they need, how can they claim that they helped them? A faith that does not do things is a dead faith.[6] And the Apostle John is not silent on this subject, either. For him, if a person makes enough money to live on and sees their fellow believer in need of food and clothing if they do not help them, how can they claim that the love of God is in them?[7]

However, Paul wasn’t finished telling his story yet. He needed to make a confession. There was one vital rule that the council asked him to follow; one very important addition to his ministry that they insisted he carries out: “Continue to help the poor.” He must have looked shocked and bewildered. Were they suggesting that a brilliant, talented, former Pharisee like him must now be told to remember the poor? What were they thinking, if they were thinking? But Paul admits, he didn’t let it bother him; he accepted the advice with grace.

This was nothing new to Paul, he was aware of the instructions given by God to Moses: “When you go out to harvest your crops, don’t cut down the grain along the edges of your fields, and don’t pick up what the harvesters drop.  It is the same with your vineyard—don’t strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and don’t pick up the grapes that fall to the ground. Leave them there for the poor and the foreigners living among you to gather up.  Listen to the LORD your God.”[8]  According to one Jewish Rabbi, all the things that are contained here were meant to expose character faults that every Jew must strive to correct.[9] So even before he was converted, Paul was taught the value of giving to the needy and what it meant to God.

In Paul’s day, the poor were not just those down on their luck or without a job, because when a Jew converted to Christianity or a Gentile gave up their gods, they were often shunned and became outcasts from their segment in society. Not only that but in many places, Christians were persecuted and their countrymen plundered their goods and burned down their houses.  As such, they needed the love of their brothers and sisters to help them make it through until God gave them their own source of income. So, the Council’s suggestion that Paul and his co-workers continue to remember these hurting people was more than just offering them financial assistance, but keeping them in their prayers and passing on the news to other congregations to stir up compassion so they might also contribute to their needs.

One Jewish scholar points out that giving money to the poor and raising money for the underprivileged are paramount virtues in rabbinic piety.[10] We find this clearly outlined in the Mishnah, with special instructions to farmers.[11] Also, in other writings concessions are given to the poor in relation to their obligations to the Temple. Also, one Rabbi offered this maxim: “When the poor stand at your door, remember that their Maker stands at their right hand,[12] and consider it a high privilege for you to help them.”[13]

Today, when people refer to their “church” it means a building, a denomination, a congregation, or their faith. However, in reality, it is the invisible body of the Anointed One. Years ago, I wrote an article for the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) EVANGEL Magazine entitled “Where’s the Church on Monday Morning?” So often when people walk out the sanctuary door, they leave the Church behind. To them, the church is a building in which the congregation gathers together several times a week. Because of this attitude, the “Church” became more of a museum of pious saints touting their status, open every Sunday for all to visit and admire; rather than a mission filled with dying sinners and wounded saints who need the healing power of a forgiving God.

How many times do we leave the sanctuary after experiencing the joy and presence of the Holy Spirit, where we sang hymns of praise with heartfelt admiration to our heavenly Father and our precious Savior, Jesus the Anointed One, and were we felt so blessed and fulfilled, and the Pastor’s message stirred our hearts to deeper dedication to our Redeemer? But then it just becomes a memory. Why do we not share it what we experienced with our neighbors, our workmates, our other family members? Are we trying to hide something? Then we are surprised when our week begins to go bad and we become despondent. Sharing what God does for us with others is a source of joy.

2:11-13 However, later on when Peter came to Antioch, I was forced to openly oppose him to his face. What he did after he arrived there was totally wrong. He was eating with Gentile Christians who never went through the rite of circumcision, but when some friends of James came Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was scared to death that these friends of James, who insisted on the necessity of circumcision, might reprimand him. As a result, the Jewish Christians broke away to follow Peter in being two-faced, and even Barnabas was led astray by this act of hypocrisy.

At this point in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he decides to confront their faulty mindset that was exhibited by their current defection from the Gospel Paul brought them. It appeared to be a matter of ingratitude on their part, both toward what God did for them in the Anointed One [14] and toward Paul himself.[15] And he challenges their failure to remember what they ought to already know,[16] that which should be shared with both their fellow believers, friends, and even families to be more considerate and not allow, in his absence, such inappropriate behavior to surface among themselves. Why did they not see that it was proper to be just as jealous of what was good in his absence as well as when he was with them.[17] .[18]

Many Bible scholars believe that this incident took place sometime after the events recorded in Acts of the Apostles 15:30-35.[19] For some reason, Peter decided to go to Antioch to see what effect the letter sent by the Council made on the spirit of fellowship between the Jewish and Gentile members. While it is not mentioned in Acts, there is one clue that may be key to understanding it as a direct result of Peter’s visit.

Paul now tells the Galatians that when he called out Peter for being a hypocrite by separating himself from the Gentile believers in order to eat with the Jewish believers, that it caused a split in the Antioch congregation. What disappointed Paul the most was that even his friend Barnabas sided with Peter and the Jewish contingent. So, going back to the Acts of the Apostles, we read that after the Peter incident Paul told Barnabas that he wanted to return to every city they visited to strengthen the believers there. Then Barnabas suggested that they take Peter’s nephew John Mark along. But Paul was not happy with that. It ended up causing an argument. As we read before, Silas was one of the delegates that the Jerusalem Council sent to carry the letter. Silas liked it so much he stayed in Antioch. So, Paul asked Silas to also go with him. That’s why Barnabas and John Mark set sail for Cyprus – Barnabas’ home country, on their own while Paul and Silas headed for Syria and Cilicia – Paul’s home territory.

While Paul does not mention this incident again, we find the same theme of standing up for what is right scattered throughout Paul’s writings. For instance, in his letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: “Do not listen to what someone says against a congregation leader unless two or three persons say the same thing. Show those who keep on sinning where they are wrong in front of the whole congregation. Then others will be afraid of sinning. I tell you from my heart that you must follow these rules without deciding before the truth is known. God and Jesus the Anointed One and the chosen angels know what I am saying. Show favors to no one. Do not be in a hurry about choosing a congregation leader. You do not want to have any part in other men’s sins. Keep yourself pure.”[20]

[1] Leviticus 19:9-10; Deuteronomy 4:19-11

[2] Deuteronomy 14:28-29

[3] Acts of the Apostles 11:27-29

[4] Ibid. 24:17; see Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9

[5] Hebrews 13:16

[6] James 2:15-17

[7] 1 John 3:17

[8] Leviticus 19:9-10

[9] Tzror Hamor, loc. cit, p.1393

[10] Levine, Amy-Jill; Brettler, Marc Z., The Jewish Annotated New Testament, loc. cit., p. 637

[11] Mishnah, Masekhet Pe’ah, Chapter 4

[12] Psalm 109

[13] Leviticus Rabba, p. 103

[14] Galatians 1:4-6; 2:21-3:5, 14, 22; 3:25-4:11; 5:1-5

[15] Ibid. 2:5, 14; 4:12-20; 5:10-11; 6:12-14, 17

[16] Ibid. 1:8-9; 3:1-5; 5:7, 21

[17] Ibid. 4:18

[18] Mark A. Nanos: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 49-50

[19] Acts of the Apostles 15:30-35

[20] 1 Timothy 5:19-22

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XVII)

Simeon goes on to say that when Paul perceived that some of the Corinthian believers were lax in their opinions and conduct, he told them plainly if any person destroys their body which is God’s dwelling place, God will not stop the destruction. God’s dwelling place is holy, and you are the place where He dwells.[1] That’s why, in the passage before us, he, who on other occasions “was like a mother caring for children,”[2] was also filled with indignation against those who perverted the “Gospel of the Anointed One,” and denounced every one of them, even though they were an angel from heaven, with the most awful anathemas.[3] [4]

James Haldane took time to point out that in ten places Peter’s name is placed first before James and John.[5] But here, James is mentioned first. This may be because James was always in Jerusalem while Peter was still traveling. In fact, When the Lord delivered Peter from prison, his first words were that they go and tell James.[6] And at this meeting Paul attended in Jerusalem, Luke tells us that everyone kept quiet except James who stood up and asked them to listen to what he said.[7] Then when another visit was made, it says that Paul took everyone to see James.[8] And when Paul tells the Corinthians about this visit, he mentions that he saw James first before meeting the other Apostles.[9] So it appears that sometime between the days written of in the Gospels and those written after the Anointed One’s ascension, James replaced Peter as the recognized head of the mother congregation in Jerusalem.[10]

Catholic scholar George Haydock tries to argue against Calvin’s attempt to prove that Peter and his successors are not the overseers of all the congregations because Peter was the Apostle only to the Jews. But, says Haydock, Paul is not speaking not here of the power and jurisdiction that was given to Peter, but only the manner that he was used by God to spread the Gospel to the Jews first. It was judged proper that Peter should preach chiefly to the Jews, called the elect people of God, and that Paul should be sent to the Gentiles; yet both of them preached both to Jews and Gentiles. After all, it was Peter, by receiving Cornelius, who first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he told the assembly, “Brothers, you know in the early days God was pleased to use me to preach the Good News to the people who are not Jews so they might put their trust in the Anointed One.”[11] Yet Haydock agrees that with James, Cephas (Peter), and John named in that order, is proof enough that Paul did this because of the Jewish converts’ great respect for the Apostle James, Bishop of Jerusalem, where the ceremonies of the law of Moses were still being observed by many Christians.[12]

Scottish theologian John Eadie does not believe that there was a problem with two Gospels, one that was approved by the Apostles and Paul, and one by the Judaizers, nor does he think it was a matter of two distinct types of one Gospel. It was all about circumcision. The Jewish Christians led by Peter and John still practiced it as a national rite, while the Gentile Christians led by Paul did not need to practice it because it was never a Gentile ritual. So, the problem and controversy were settled by stating that the Gentiles would not look on the Jews with any contempt because they still practiced circumcision, and the Jews would not look on the Gentiles with disparagement because they didn’t practice it.  The problem with the Judaizers was the fact that they said it was required of all believers as part of their salvation.[13]

Charles Spurgeon felt inspired to write a devotional on verse ten. He begins by asking why God allows so many of His children to be poor? He could make them all rich if He wanted to; He could lay bags of gold at their doors; He could send them a large annual income; or fill their yards with an abundance of provisions, as He made the quails lie in heaps around the camp of Israel, and rained bread out of heaven to feed them. Did not the Psalmist say that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills?[14] With that He could supply them; He could make them the richest, the greatest, and the mightiest by bringing all their power and riches to the feet of His children. Even though there is no necessity that they should be poor, He chooses to do what He sees as the best for them.

Why is this? There are many reasons: one is, to give us, who are favored with enough, an opportunity of showing our love to Jesus. We show our love to the Anointed One when we sing of Him and when we pray to Him; but if there were none of His children in need in this world, we would lose the sweet privilege of demonstrating our love, by ministering in charitable giving to His poorer children. He ordained that through this we prove that our love stands not in word only, but in deed and in truth. If we truly love the Anointed One, we will care for those who are loved by Him. Those who are dear to Him will be dear to us. Let’s not look on it as a duty but as a privilege to relieve the poor of the Lord’s flock-remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.”[15] Surely this assurance is sweet enough, and this motive strong enough to lead us to help others with a willing hand and a loving heart-recollecting that all we do for His people is graciously accepted by the Anointed One as done to Himself.[16]

J. N. Darby (1800-1882), was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher and active among the original Plymouth Brethren. He was somewhat annoyed at how the congregation in his day elevated Peter’s position in the congregation to exceed that of Paul when it came to the ministry among the Gentiles. He points out that we do not hear very often of Peter being spoken of as overseer of all the congregations. That Peter, ardent and full of zeal, began the work at Jerusalem, the Lord working mightily through him, is certain; we see it plainly in Scripture that there’s no record of Peter involved in work among the Gentiles outside Palestine. That work was done by Paul, who was sent by the Lord Himself, and Paul entirely rejected the authority of Peter. For him, Peter was but a man; and he, sent by the Anointed One, was independent of men. The congregations among the Gentiles, is the fruit of Paul’s, not of Peter’s work: it owed its origin to Paul. and to his labors, and in no way to Peter, whom Paul resisted with all his strength, in order to keep the congregations among the Gentiles free from the influence of that Mosaic legality which ruled Christians who were the fruit of Peter’s work. God maintained unity by His grace. So, the congregations faced being divided into two parts, even in the days of the Apostles themselves.[17]

Greek scholar Frederic Rendall suggests that the Greek verb energeō used here in verse eight (“wrought effectively” KJV), when applied to the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, the preposition “in” shows the object of the Spirit’s work. So the absence of “in” before Peter’s name in the Greek text makes it clear that this work of grace is not directed toward the hearts of Peter and Paul, but the work of God “for” them to do for the promotion of the Gospel which they were called to preach to the Jews and Gentiles.[18] So the verse should read like this: “For the Spirit who was at work in Peter sent as an Apostle to the Jews, was also at work in Paul who was sent as an Apostles to the Gentiles.”

Grant Osborne believes that Paul’s Gospel and ministry were no challenge to the leaders of the congregation in Jerusalem. In fact, they were a God-ordained extension of their own ministry, the natural outgrowth of the Final Covenant reality in the Anointed One that God’s salvation is intended for Gentiles as well as Jews. The Greek verb pisteuō (“was committed unto” KJV; “had been entrusted” NIV), is a divine passive, meaning God was the One who acted in giving Paul his commission. So, it was not the Apostles but God who approved Paul; they simply recognized and endorsed what God already did. They did so because they recognized God’s hand on Paul, acknowledging that “the task of preaching the Gospel to the uncircumcised” (a common Jewish term for Gentiles), a divine commission he received from the Anointed One Himself.[19]

Messianic pastor Thomas Lancaster feels that the congregation, in general, made a tactical, as well as a theological, error in dismissing the Torah as a necessary part of the Gospel.  He points out that it is clear here that Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles was accepted, but it did not replace Peter’s ministry to the messianic Jews.  He reminds us that Paul’s Gospel was distinct from the Gospel of the rest of the Apostles and that his mission was an outgrowth of the mission of the Messiah to redeem Israel. Therefore, when Paul speaks of not being “under the law” and free from the obligation of circumcision, having freedom in the Spirit, and all of that, he was speaking to Gentiles – not to Jewish believers. Christianity overlooked that important detail, and Christian theology became a Gentile theology positioned against the Torah observance that taught (and still teaches today) that if a Jewish person becomes a Christian believer, they should be compelled to set aside the Torah and leave Judaism. What happened here? The theology of the Final Covenant is dominant over the First Covenant.[20]

With all respect to Brother Lancaster, who states emphatically that if faith in Yeshua means that Jewish people should be exempt from circumcision or the other commandments and distinctions imposed upon them by the Torah, then faith in Yeshua, for a Jewish person, is a sin against God. As Lancaster sees it, according to the Bible’s own testimony, Jesus must be scolded as a false prophet, and the Gospel message should be rejected, I would strongly disagree. For any Jew who comes to believe in Yeshua, first of all they are no longer Jewish believers, they are now Christian believers.  And as Christians, the old passed away and all things become new for them as a new creation in the Anointed One Jesus. As a Jew, they certainly continue to honor non-religious Jewish manners and customs. But to insist on circumcision as a needed sign to support their claim as natural children of Abraham as opposed to baptism as evidence that they are now spiritual children of Abraham, is to lessen the importance of the Anointed One’s death on the cross as the final sacrifice for sin, and to dismiss His claim that in Him all the words and requirements of the Torah and the Prophets are fulfilled. So, to follow Yeshua is to follow the Law.

[1] 1 Corinthians 3:17

[2] 1 Thessalonians 2:7

[3] Galatians 1:8-9

[4] Charles Simeon: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[5] See Matthew 10:2; 17:1; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; Luke 6:14; 8:51; 9:28; Acts of the Apostles 1:13

[6] Acts of the Apostle 12:17

[7] Ibid. 15:13

[8] Ibid. 21:18

[9] 1 Corinthians 15:7

[10] James Haldane: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit. p. 74

[11] Acts of the Apostles 15:7

[12] George Haydock: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[13] John Eadie: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, Published by T & T Clarke, Edinburgh, 1869, p.124

[14] Psalm 50:10

[15] Matthew 25:40

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

[17] J. N. Darby: Notes on Galatians, Collected Writings of J. N. Darby

[18] Frederic Rendall: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 160

[19] Osborne, G. R: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 55

[20] D. Thomas Lancaster: On Galatians, op. cit., pp. 73-74

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XVI)

Calvin then goes on to note that when our Savior “ascended far above all heavens” that He might complete the teaching staff of His earthly congregation, He gave some to be Apostles, and some, prophets; and some, evangelists, and some, pastors, and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of the Anointed One till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.[1]  Therefore, since we all are of Him, in Him, and do our ministry through Him in order to maintain our unity with Him, there should be no disunity among us.

Yet in Calvin’s day (as well in our day), there are some having disputes over who is more important to the congregation? Apostles, Preachers, Teachers, etc? But Calvin interjects that we must determine if we are talking about the local congregation, the congregation’s denomination, or the universal congregation. No matter which one you may be talking about, it is part of the congregation that stands before God, of which all members are added by adoption through the Anointed One, by God’s choice. This seems to be the point the Apostle Paul was trying to make to the Galatians when he says here in verse eight that the same God who worked through Peter as the Apostle to the Jews also worked through him as the Apostle to the Gentiles.[2]

But Calvin is not finished. In another writing, he focuses in on the claim of the supremacy of one congregation over all the others. In his day, it was the Roman Catholic Church that saw itself as the original congregation that came down from the original Apostles. Therefore, any congregation that did not give its allegiance to them was considered to have been founded by heretics. Thank goodness that today it’s quieted down quite a bit which allows for more fellowship between Catholics, Protestants, and even Jews. But Calvin is troubled that any one church or Christian denomination should assume that it is above all others so as to be the head of the whole Body of the Anointed One. There is only one head, and that is the Anointed One Himself.[3] It is to Him alone that all churches owe their allegiance.

Calvin sees the Roman Catholic Church’s claim of supremacy a real problem. Just because they alleged that the primacy of the church was transferred from Antioch to Rome, did that mean that the congregation in Antioch was now reduced to second place?  Was Rome now first simply because of their dubious claim that Peter was their founder? That’s why it is so important that we see who Paul mentions as leaders of the entire congregation: Peter, James, and John. But nowhere does he say that one was more important than the other. When John ended up in Ephesus, he didn’t transfer the primacy there because he was the disciple whom Jesus loved.[4] Nor did James insist that the congregation in Jerusalem be seen as the Mother congregation just because he was the brother of Jesus. So, reckons Calvin, let them confess their preposterous claims and let them concede that it is not always true that each congregation is entitled to the degree of honor which its founder possessed. But to say that an Apostle of whom is never recorded that he visited Rome, and was the only one of the three that told Jesus He was wrong about His needing to die, and the only one of the three that denied Jesus three times, is their founder![5] [6]

Jakob Arminius says a few things about Peter, James, and John being leaders in the early congregation and how Paul desired their approval to validate that Gentiles did not need to go through or observe Jewish rites in order to be considered genuine Christians. This was necessary because once these original Apostles were dead and gone, there existed no plans for God to reveal anything new that was not already revealed to them by His Son and with the help of the Holy Spirit who inspired all Scripture to be written through His anointing. So Arminius is convinced that all the doctrines necessary for the salvation of sinners and their new life in the Anointed One by being part of His Body – which is the congregation, that no tradition needed to be given later by the Holy Spirit that started any new ceremony found to be necessary for the salvation of sinners.

Arminius goes on to say that because in the Anointed One and His Gospel “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are revealed and fulfilled in the Anointed One.”[7] But the Apostles explained in its entirety all about the Anointed One and His Gospel;[8] so that anyone who preaches any other gospel than that which the apostles preached and the congregations received is to be shunned. Furthermore, the congregation is built upon the foundation of what the Prophets and Apostles said.[9] Therefore, the universal congregation is one body, possessing the same nature and principles which is put into action by one Spirit that leads to one hope and salvation, and enjoyed in one communion that represents the body and blood of the one Lord and one Savior, Jesus the Anointed One.[10]

Then Arminius acknowledges that some of the Roman Catholic professors and theologians accepted this as the truth. But in his experience, Arminius says that there is very little evidence of this in any of their writings, and especially in the writings of those appointed to develop a system of laws and legal principles that ended up canonizing the Mass, the Rosary, difference between mortal sins and venial sins and all the sacraments of grace, the veneration of Mary, and praying to the saints, etc.[11]

In the first place, the edicts issued by Jesus the Universal Bishop, Supreme Pastor, Prime Head, Bridegroom, the Perfecter and Illuminator of His body – the Church, is now ascribed to the Roman Pontiff. This means that there are no limitations on the introduction of new traditions and church sacraments. That means then, that the authority of governing, commanding, and forbidding of establishing, and abolishing laws, of judging and condemning, and of loosing and binding,[12] now have an immense and infinite authority, which is not merely attributed to the Pope, but is actually assumed and practiced by him without limits.

Another thing that bothered Arminius and his fellow Reformers is that certain rites or rituals were now added by Decree as necessary for salvation, that every human creature is placed in subjection to the Roman Pontiff. It is also the method used by which authentic authority is ascribed to the ancient Latin translation of the Scriptures. Arminius said, there are many more but the general point is obvious that in multiple instances this became the central point between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church leadership. All that was being asked at first was that they agree to put a number on how many of these unwritten traditions were acceptable. However, they avoided this so that they may reserve to themselves the power of producing a new tradition if necessary, to handle any disagreements. Some of them, therefore, assert that other doctrines are necessary as the congregation changes over time.[13]

John Bengel surmises that Peter, James, and John held different opinions on whether or not Gentile believers should be held to certain Jewish traditions, rites, rituals, and ceremonies. However, he believes that James was the swing vote, so to speak, and convinced the other two to accept what Paul was saying as worthy of their approval for the Gentiles’ sake. Nevertheless, the dispute continued when it came to satisfying the Judaizing faction. That continued for some time before the Jewish influence in the congregation was finally gone.

Bengel also chastises Luther for calling the Epistle of James an epistle of straw. It involved James’ statement that “faith without works is dead.”[14] Bengel feels that this came from a misunderstanding that James was referring to works after justification, not works that merited justification. He also believes that this whole affair was arranged by Divine Providence that James, who was more inclined to view the Law favorably was the spokesman for the Jewish contingent while Paul was more attached to faith and liberty for the Gentiles. As such, each one brought a character and qualification to be adopted in the best possible manner to their individual ministries. In other words, they agreed to disagree with mutual respect.[15]

Minister Charles Simeon believes we learn a lot from these verses on how to exercise fair-mindedness and patience towards those who differ from us as our duty to everyone. Yet, there are boundaries beyond which fairness becomes irrelevant, which equates to treason. It is only on those things which are incidental and only of passing importance we need to be less rigid. Since we have the right to form our own opinions, the same right should be given to others to follow their own conscience. In fact, rather than grieve them by an unnecessary demand to accept our ways, or force ourselves to accept their position unconditionally, we should simply appreciate each other’s points of view.

This was the attitude of the Apostle Paul.[16] That’s why he went ahead and circumcised Timothy in order that he might be able to reach the Jews with the Gospel.[17] This is something Paul practiced when it came to integrating himself among both Jews and Gentiles.[18] The whole idea was not to end up being the winner but keeping less informed believers from becoming losers.[19] However, was this his practice when he came to essential doctrines? Did he express concern when he saw the whole city of Athens given to idolatry? Yes! In fact, Paul confesses that troubled him deeply,[20] but it did not keep him from openly and fairly discussing it with the Athenians.[21]

[1] Ephesians 4:10-13

[2] John Calvin: Institutes, op. cit., Vol. 4, pp. 1047-1055

[3] Colossians 1:18

[4] John 13:23

[5] Luke 22:61

[6] John Calvin, Institutes, Vol. 4, Ch. 6, pp. 1143-1144

[7] Colossians 2:3

[8] Acts of the Apostles 20:26, 27

[9] Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14

[10] 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

[11] Ibid. 4:4, 6

[12] Matthew 18:18

[13] Jakob Arminius: op. cit., Vol. 1, Disputation 3, On the Sufficiency and perfection of the Holy Scriptures in Opposition to Human Traditions, para. 7, pp. 377-378

[14] James 2:14, 26

[15] John Bengel: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 578

[16] See Romans 14:1; 15:1

[17] Acts of the Apostles 16:1-3

[18] 1 Corinthians 9:19-22

[19] Ibid. 8:13

[20] Acts of the Apostles 17:16

[21] Ibid. 17:22

One of America’s finest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, once remarked: “The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time.” It’s only natural for us to want the future to hurry up and get here, especially what we are waiting on something special to happen. But as Brian Lee, Chief of Product Management at Lifehack says, every day that goes by you either move closer towards achieving a goal or you move further away from that goal. If you take specific steps you can be assured that you are moving towards your goal. If you do nothing you are moving away from the goal. By being hesitant, you lose momentum and the level of inertia of moving you on from your current position decreases.

So, what we need is something to motivate us, and help us understand that waiting for the future to come to us will not be in vain. I like what the prophet Habakkuk said: “The vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end—it will not lie still. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.”[1] And the Psalmist David revealed, “I wait for the Lord, my soul waits, and I hope in His Word; yes, my soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen wait for the morning.”[2]

Jesus also pointed out we should be like a servant who is waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. And the Apostle James instructed his readers to be patient until the coming of the Lord. He tells us to look at how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it until it receives the early and the late rains.[3]

That means, waiting for the future to arrive is not wasted time. In fact, the prophet Isaiah put it best: They who wait for the Lord will renew their strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles; they will run and not be weary; they will walk and not faint.[4] And the one factor that makes such waiting enjoyable is that whatever the LORD promised, He will without a doubt fulfill. But as President Lincoln mentioned, we will eventually arrive at our future appointments, but only one day at a time. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Habakkuk 2:3

[2] Psalm 130:5-6

[3] James 5:7

[4] Isaiah 40:31

JUST KEEP PEDALING

When an idea comes to mind or an illustration brings a certain truth out for us to see, they all are worthy of us letting them teach us simple truths. When I read this article, it spoke to me about things I may not think of every day that is so true. I hope you enjoy the message it brings.

The person who wrote this said that at first, they saw God as their observer, their judge, keeping track of the things they did wrong, helping them to know whether they should go to heaven or hell when they die. He was out there sort of like a President of the Universe. They recognized His picture when they looked up into the sky at night. But had to confess, they really didn’t know Him.

So, this was their testimony: The day came when I finally met God through His Son. It dawned on me that sometimes life is like riding a tandem bicycle, and I noticed, at the time, that God was at the back, helping me pedal my way through life’s ups and downs.

I don’t know when it was that He suggested that we change places. After we did, life has not been the same since then. When I was in control, I believed I knew the right way. It was rather boring, but predictable. It was the shortest distance between two points. But when He took the lead, He knew delightful paths, up mountains, and through rocky places at breakneck speeds. It was all I could do to hang on!

Even though it looked like madness, He just kept saying, “Trust Me, and just keep pedaling!” I worried and was anxious and asked, “Where are you taking me?” He laughed and didn’t answer, and I started to learn to trust His leadership. I forgot my boring life and entered into a great adventure with Him. And when I’d say, “I’m scared,” He’d reach back and touch my hand.

He took me to people with gifts that I needed; gifts of healing, acceptance, and joy. They gave me gifts to take along on my journey. And we were off again. He said, “give those gifts away; they’re extra baggage, too much weight.” And that’s what I did, to the people we met, even though I didn’t know them, and I found that in giving what I received, pedaling the bicycle got easier.

At first, I didn’t trust Him being totally in control of my life and destiny. I thought we might have an accident if I wasn’t steering the bicycle. But I found out He knew how to keep bicycle going steady and straight; how to make it lean to take sharp corners; how to jump to clear obstacles in the way, and how to zoom through scary passages. And I am learning to just shut up and pedal even if I don’t know where we are going, and I’m enjoying the scenery and the cool breeze on my face with God as my delightful constant companion.

And when there are times, I’m not sure I can make it, the hills seem too high and long, when I tell Him how I feel like giving up, He just smiles and says, “Keep pedaling.” Then He also reminds me of what He said in His Word: “There are a lot of great people who’ve gone along these same trails who should be an example to us. The way they made it all the way through telling us much about what real faith means and can do. Therefore, we, too, should stay on the road that lies before us and never give up. We should remove from our lives anything that would slow us down and the mistakes caused by inattention that so often makes us have a fall. We must never stop looking to Jesus. He is the designer of the course, and He is the one who can keep us going. After all, He suffered death on a cross. But he accepted the shame of the cross as if it were nothing because of the joy He could see waiting for Him. And now He is sitting at the right side of God’s throne, wanting us to join Him.”[1]

Consequently, we must not let tiredness, disappointments, suggestions that we take a break or those who lie to us about what’s up ahead if we keep going this way. With God’s Holy Spirit in control, we know He knows the way and has never failed to get those who ride with Him through to God’s intended goal for us. Believe what He says about holding on and staying firm in our commitment to go all the way. That’s why, when we may start thinking it isn’t worth the time and trouble, don’t be surprised if God’s Spirit whispers, “Just keep pedaling.”

Who can read this without thinking about what it says in Scripture that we are to trust God from the bottom of our heart; don’t try to figure out everything on our own? Listen for God’s voice in everything we do, everywhere we go; He’s the one who will keep us on track. Don’t assume that we know it all.[2] And Jesus, our Messiah, told us that until He returns to gather His saints, that He would send the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide us into the true way of following God’s will.[3] But the real question for us is: are we willing to listen and to follow His lead? And like the person says in this illustration when you are in doubt He may say, “Trust me, and just keep pedaling. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1]Hebrews 12: 1-2

[2] Proverbs 3:6 – The Message

[3] John 16:13

[1]Hebrews 12: 1-2

[2] Proverbs 3:6 – The Message

[3] John 16:13

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XV)

So, when Paul and Barnabas went to the city of Iconium (called Konya today, and located in central Turkey), and attempted to preach to the Jews as well as to the Greeks. Yet, when the Jews turned against them, they did not become discouraged. In fact, Luke tells us that they stayed there for a long time preaching with the strength the Lord gave them.[1] And while Paul took this privilege of preaching to the Gentiles as being normal, when Peter shared about his opportunity to preach to Gentiles he said it was God who was pleased to let him have that experience.[2] Also noteworthy is that Paul experienced the same type of reverence from the people in Ephesus that Peter did in Jerusalem. Namely, that people put such faith in them that just being in their presence resulted in the healing of the sick.[3]

Even when Paul faced persecution and was in danger of being harmed, he still did not shy away from telling even his enemies about his call to be a missionary to the Gentiles.[4] And when his possible freedom or incarceration were held in the balance, Paul’s was quick to testify before King Agrippa about his calling to the Gentiles.[5] That’s why Paul’s assurance to the Gentile Corinthian believers was so reassuring that their being added to the family of God was all part of God’s plan.[6] So whatever the Judaizers where saying about Paul not being a true emissary of the congregation, and, therefore, not an Apostle called by God, this information should make it clear as to who was telling the truth.

But Paul was not finished. He carried another shoulder bag full of information to offer them. Not only was Peter fully behind his ministry, but the Apostle James gave his stamp of approval. He stood up before the Council and Assembly in Jerusalem and told them this: “Brothers, listen to me. Simon Peter told how God first visited the people who are not Jews. He was getting a people for Himself. This agrees with what the early preacher said, ‘After this I will come back and build again the building of David that fell down. Yes, I will build it again from the stones that fell down. I will set it up again. Then all the nations may look for the Lord, even all the people who are not Jews who are called by My name. The Lord said this. He does all these things. God made all His works known from the beginning of time.’”[7] [8]

It is worthwhile to take note of how Paul refers to Peter and John with the Greek noun stylos, which is translated by the KJV as “pillars.” It is a literal reference to a pillar or column that holds up the roof on a building, especially ancient Greek temples and buildings.[9] It is used here as a figure of speech to identify those for whom a movement owes their prestige. We see this exemplified in John’s revelation when the Angel to the congregation in Philadelphia announced that the One who overcomes, or wins the victory, will be made a pillar in the Temple of God and He will never forsake it.[10] In other words, just like strong pillars held up a building so Peter and James were holding up Paul’s claim of being a congregation approved Apostle to the Gentiles. Referring to such people in that way was not new, it was done before in Jewish tradition, especially of eminent Rabbis.[11]

Paul did not take this commendation as something he automatically deserved or felt that it was owed to him. He said it was a matter of their loving-favor. In other words, it was a gift from these pillars of the congregation sealed with the right hand of fellowship. So Paul was able to add this to the favor he received from Jesus who was the One who called him to this ministry.[12] In fact, Paul said it  was also God’s loving-favor that helped him write his letter to the believers in Rome.[13] And because of God’s loving-favor, he turned out to be a better missionary than most expected.[14]

The Apostle Peter also appreciated this loving-favor of God. He told his constituents that God gave each of you a gift. Use it to help each other. This will show God’s loving-favor. If a person preaches, let them do it with God speaking through them. If a person helps others, let them do it with the strength God gives them. So, in all things God may be honored through Jesus the Anointed One. Shining-greatness and power belong to Him forever. Let it be so.[15]

At this point Paul wants to summarize the outcome of his going to Jerusalem. And who does he focus on? Peter?  No!  James?  No!  John?  No!  He focuses on God.  Paul declares that the same God who worked through Peter in his ministry to the Jews was the same God who worked through his ministry to the Gentiles. This made it clear that the Judaizers’ were not really registering a complaint against Paul, but against God. One Jewish commentator made this observation: “Contrary to the claim by some in today’s non-Messianic Jewish community that Jews should not be approached with the Gospel, let alone singled out for special attention, Scripture teaches precisely the opposite.”[16]

Early congregation theologian Haimo of Auxerre gives his take on the controversy between Paul and the higher-ups in Jerusalem. He hears Paul saying to the Galatians that the same one who made Peter the teacher and leader of all the believing Jews also bestowed upon him the duty of preaching to all the Gentiles. Augustine says somewhere that the blessed Apostle received greater wisdom than all the other Apostles precisely because he planned to preach to all the Gentiles and philosophers in Greece. Hence, his preaching would prove to be effective among these Gentiles and philosophers. But someone might say here, “Does this mean that if Peter, as teacher of the Jews, were to see Gentiles who wish to be converted to the faith, he would not accept them unless they agreed to be circumcised? Or does it mean that Paul, as teacher of the Gentiles, did not accept any of the circumcised among the Jews?” Of course, Peter accepted Gentiles without compelling them to be circumcised, as in the case of Cornelius.[17] Paul did not reject Jews on account of circumcision; he only instructed them not to preserve the legal observations in a ceremonial manner.[18]

Look at what God did through Peter: his walking on water; curing the beggar that was lame from his birth; people cured when his shadow passed over them; bringing Tabitha back to life; and striking Ananias and Sapphira dead for telling lies. Not only that but his message with the help of the Spirit, brought about the conversion of three thousand by one sermon on the Day of Pentecost.  And look at what this same God did through Paul: striking Elymas the sorcerer blind, healing the cripple at Lystra, raising Eutychus from the dead, with many other signs and wonders among the Gentiles, through the power of the Spirit of God.  Could they not see that the same Spirit that inspired Peter also inspired Paul to preach the Gospel, so that multitudes were converted, including Jews and Gentiles and the establishment of many famous congregations throughout Asia?

So powerful was the agreement between Paul and the pillars of the congregation that they quickly extended to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship in ministry.  In the Jewish mind, leaders who were called “pillars” met the highest standards of ethics and veracity. As John Gill points out, these men were called pillars in response to their constant availability and stability in preaching the Gospel, and suffering for the sake of the Anointed One. They proved to be steadfast and immovable in their work, nor could they be shaken or deterred from it by harassment, reproaches, and persecutions by their opponents. Also, they proved to be the means of supporting others that were feeble-minded, and of defending and maintaining the truths of the Gospel. They were set, as Jeremiah was, as a defensed city, an iron pillar, and brazen walls against all the enemies of the Anointed One.[19] Such were those among the Jews who stood out like pillars.  In one instance we read in Jewish writings that when Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai fell ill, his disciples went in to visit him. When he saw them, he began to weep. His disciples said to him: “Lamp of Israel, pillar of the right hand, mighty hammer!”[20]

They all agreed that the mission work among the Gentiles belonged to Paul, and the mission work among the Jews belong to Peter, James and John. And what was the main point of their agreement?  Was it Paul’s style of preaching; or Paul’s use of the Greek language; or maybe Paul’s attire, shiny sandals, toupee to cover his bald head? No! No! They concluded that he was preaching the same Gospel under the anointing of the same Holy Spirit that they were. So why mess with it, leave it alone, let the Holy Spirit do the work and reach the lost. But Ambrosiaster concludes that there was only one thing about which Paul and the Apostles agreed on teaching the Gentiles all those things contained in the Torah pertaining to faith and conduct, not Jewish ceremonial law. That meant, reminding those to whom they preached to remember the poor in order to exhibit the same mercy by which they were redeemed by God. It was for this reason that Paul explains the agreement between him and the Apostles, so that the Galatians now knew that what they received from him was true as agreed upon.[21]

John Calvin writing, on the necessity of having unity in the congregation, begins by pointing that we all, from Peter and Paul down to the ordinary believer today, were made equal partakers of the salvation and timeless life that the Anointed One paid for on the cross. And He didn’t pay any less for yours than he did for Peter and Paul. That’s why whenever we cite our creeds or declarations of faith, not only are we making reference to the visible congregation but also to the unseen elect of God all over the world, those who are still with us and those who’ve gone on before us. Furthermore, it is our brotherly and sisterly love that define the term “communion of saints.”[22]

[1] Ibid. 14:1-5

[2] Ibid. 15:7

[3] Ibid. 5:15; 19:11-12

[4] Ibid. 22:21-22

[5] Ibid. 26:17-18

[6] 1 Corinthians 1:6-9

[7] Amos 9:11-12

[8] Acts of the Apostles 15:13-18

[9] See 1 Timothy 3:15; Revelation 10:1

[10] Revelation 3:12-13

[11] Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera’im, Masekhet Barachoth, folio 28b

[12] Romans 1:5

[13] Ibid. 12:3; 15:15

[14] 1 Corinthians 15:10; cf. Ephesians 3:8

[15] 1 Peter 4:10-11

[16] David H. Stern: Jewish New Testament Commentary, loc. cit.

[17] Acts of the Apostles 10:17-48

[18] Haimo of Auxerre, Complete Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[19] John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, On Galatians, The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., Digitized Version 1.0, 1999, p. 42

[20] Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera’im, Masekhet Berakoth, folio 28b

[21] Ambrosiaster, op. cit.

[22] This is a line found in the original Apostles’ Creed. It is also noteworthy to observe that the term “holy catholic congregation” which precedes “communion of the saints,” the word “Roman” placed before the word “catholic,” using the lower case “c,” make “catholic” a common noun, meaning “universal,” not a proper noun.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XIV)

This principle of not judging a person by their looks became vital when God sent Samuel to visit Jesse’s family to pick out the next king of Israel. God told Samuel: “Do not look at the way he looks on the outside or how tall he is, because I have not chosen him. For the Lord does not look at the things man looks at. A man looks at the outside of a person, but the Lord looks at the heart.”[1] And in the Book of Jubilees we read: “And He [ADONAI] is not one who will regard the person (if any), nor is He one who will receive gifts, if He says that He will execute judgment on each: if one gave everything that is on the earth, He will not regard the gifts or the person, if any, nor accept anything at his hands, for He is a righteous judge.”[2]

This same instruction was given by Jesus when He told His disciples: “When you go without food so you can pray better, do not be as those who pretend to be someone they are not. They make themselves look sad so people will see they are going without food. For sure, I tell you, that’s all the reward they are going to get.”[3] The use of this word as a reference to “the face” is the most prominent in the Scriptures. While clothes, body language, gestures, are other expressions that people use to communicate, it is clear that a person’s face is like a fingerprint of their personality. But we must remember that Paul says that what they were “formerly” did not matter to him, implying that in the course of events their overinflated status in the eyes of many diminished.[4]

Messianic writer Lancaster labels this as “Paul’s dismissive tone.”[5] He says that by those who seemed to be influential, Paul was referring to James, Peter, John, and any other elders of the community who were present at the big meeting. I disagree somewhat with Lancaster. Paul already mentioned these top Apostles by name so there would be no reason to repeat them anonymously. I believe that among the members of the Jerusalem Council were members that were not only respected as fellow Christian brothers but were also esteemed as high-ranking converted Pharisees. In other words, if anyone on the Council could stand toe to toe with Paul, it would be these gentlemen.

It sounds like he dismissed their authority when referring to them as those who seemed to be influential and when he said what they made no difference to me; God shows no partiality. Lancaster goes on to note that despite the negative atmosphere, Paul submitted to their authority. He conceded that for them to reject his Gospel of Gentile inclusion meant he ran his race in vain. They exercised the power to utterly discredit the Gospel message he presented. Therefore, he certainly did respect their authority. It was important in Paul’s mind that the Galatians understood that he successfully passed the test of authenticity with the Apostles. This would be an encouragement to those in Galatia who supported him, and a slap in the fact to those there that were opposing him and his authority.

Paul does not deny the importance of these Apostles or their positions. Therefore, it appears that he uses the term big-shot to help the Galatians understand the difference between appearance and reality: the leaders of the Jerusalem congregation seem to be prominent people, and should be recognized as such.  But in reality, their worth depends not on their looking like big-shots but on what they are in God’s eyes. Claims of Paul’s emphatic disdain for the apparent importance of these leaders is better understood when we realize Paul was merely attempting to show that the original apostles were his peers in calling, commission, and position in God’s congregation.

Martin Luther, who himself grappled with those in the Roman Catholic congregation, experienced firsthand, those in authority still hold sway over the thoughts and minds of the people who are willing to be open to the truth.  He comments that Paul possessed the right to make refutation of any suggestions offered by those in authority.  After all, it was not they who called him, it was the Lord Jesus Himself.  Yes, the congregation in Antioch did send him out as a missionary, but even they did not dictate to him what to say, because they respected his calling as being directly from God.

This turns out to be a straightforward jab by Paul against those who sought to gain importance because of who they claimed to know, or the influence they supposedly brought with them.  Paul says that during his visit to Jerusalem with the most respected leaders of the congregation they found no differences between the Gospel they preached and the Gospel he preached.

Let’s listen to Paul now, “Hey you critics, you must learn that God does not make a judgment of importance based on a person’s position, or the suits they wear, or the name tags they carry, or the titles behind their names, or where they sit on the platform.  After we talked and discussed the things, I shared with them, they found no reason to correct my views or give me a different understanding of the Gospel.  Furthermore, they found no need for me to report to them or follow any particular evangelistic outreach program they sponsored.  They agreed that since God appointed me to do the work I was in, that if I needed any advice, He’d give it to me.”  Wow! You talk about taking the wind out of their sails or the air out of their balloons!  If you want to read the whole findings of that meeting you read it in Acts of the Apostles.[6]  Not only did the council rejoice and support what Paul was doing, but the congregation’s leading statesman, Peter, who spent most of his time converting Jews, offered no objections either.

Current Bible commentator Robert Gundry is impressed by how the abundantly gracious revelation of God’s Son to Paul the persecutor made him so confident of the freedom believers are given in the Anointed One Jesus because of His sheer, unimaginable grace, that what the prominent members of the Jerusalem congregation thought about him didn’t faze him at all. He even sets his indifference to their being so renown alongside a similar indifference on the part of God Himself! And despite their celebrity status they “added not one thing” to Paul by way of requiring him to make changes to his Gospel with the addition of circumcision for converts, or with any other demand that would distort sheer grace.

On the contrary, we see a twofold emphasis placed on those leaders’ acknowledgment of God who entrusted Paul with the Gospel he’d been proclaiming to Gentiles, an acknowledgment that put this entrustment on par with God’s having entrusted Peter, the leader of the twelve original Apostles, with the Gospel he’d been proclaiming to Jews. This acknowledgment drew no distinction between Peter’s Gospel and Paul’s Gospel of sheer grace. Paul ascribes the acknowledgment to God’s having activated Paul’s and Peter’s respective Apostleship. In other words, Paul success in converting Gentiles, Peter enjoyed in converting Jews. This made Paul’s Apostleship so obviously God-ordained that not only Cephas himself but also James and John the Apostle recognized the grace given to Paul. This grace refers at one and the same time to the grace that God gave to Paul in his conversion, in his commission as an Apostle to the Gentiles, and in the Gospel, he proclaimed to them.[7]

Alfred E. Bouter sees Paul’s emphasis here on God’s practice of not looking at a person’s position in making an evaluation, but at their potential. This is similar to what we read that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view. At one time we thought of the Anointed One merely from a human point of view. How differently we know Him now!”[8] Paul represented this new order of things that God introduced on the basis of the resurrection. This is the basis on which we stand and this has nothing to do with what is part of human nature. That is why Paul even went so far as to say even if we Jews thought of the Anointed One as human Messiah, we do not judge Him on that basis anymore, because we now envision Him crowned with glory and honor, and we serve Him as such, not as the One who was human and subject to the law.

The Lord Jesus Himself was indeed subject to the Law, but He fulfilled the Law, and now has replaced Law as the object of our attention and obedience. The Mosaic law can lay no claim on us anymore. That is why now we see the Anointed One in all His risen glory and are able to from Him by looking at His journey here on earth. He is the ultimate model for us all.[9] So rather than looking for some ideal person to imitate, we must keep our eyes on Jesus. After all, He wrote the book on faith because He put faith into action in a marvelous way.[10]

2:8-9 For, the same God who worked through Peter as the Apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the Apostle to the Gentiles. In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as prominent leaders of the congregation, recognized the gift God gave me; they even shook hands with Barnabas and me in accepting us as co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews.

Whatever these intruders expected Paul to say after they confronted him in front of the Council about not requiring circumcision of the male Gentile converts, they may not have been prepared for how he disassembled their argument.[11] He was not there to defend his actions as some personal opinion, but to show that such converts already are accepted as fellow believers by the senior Apostle Peter. According to the will of the Holy Spirit, He approved their status by indwelling them without their being circumcised [12] and witnessing miracles,[13] as well as their shared experiences under Paul’s ministry.[14] So how could these self-righteousness brethren dare question the spiritual status of born-again believers filled with the Spirit of God?[15]

It is clear that Paul wants the Galatians to know that plenty of opportunities existed for Peter, James, and John to take charge of the congregation’s ministry to the Gentiles. But they all agreed that Paul held that special area and they respected his calling to that ministry. In fact, this fit very neatly into the commission that Jesus gave His disciples that after they received power when the Holy Spirit came into their lives, would empower them to tell about Him in the city of Jerusalem and over all the countries of Judea and Samaria (the Jews) and to the ends of the earth (the Gentiles).[16]

Of course, Paul accepted the prophecy that Ananias received from God to back up his claim of being especially chosen to take the Gospel to the Gentiles. Ananias heard about Paul but didn’t know him, and Paul never heard of Ananias. And yet, the Lord made it clear for Ananias to go and anoint this Saul of Tarsus. He told him, “This man is the one I chose to carry My name among the people who are not Jews and to their kings and to Jews. I will show him how the many hardships he will go through because of Me.”[17] So it was no surprise that when the congregation at Antioch was inspired by the Holy Spirit to send out missionaries, He named Barnabas and Saul as the ones chosen.[18]

[1] 1 Samuel 16:7

[2] Book of Jubilees 5:16

[3] Matthew 6:16

[4] Don Garlington: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 60

[5] D. Thomas Lancaster: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 70

[6] Acts of the Apostles 15:12-35

[7] Robert H. Gundry: On Galatians, op. cit, loc. cit., Kindle Location 340-365

[8] 2 Corinthians 5:16 – New Living Translation

[9] Alfred E. Bouter: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[10] Hebrews 12:2

[11] See Galatians 2:14; 3:8-9, 14; 3:26-4:7, 8-9; 5:2, 5; 6:12-15

[12] Ibid. 3:1-4, 7

[13] Ibid. 4:12-16

[14] Ibid. 3:5

[15] Mark A. Nanos: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 82

[16] Acts of the Apostles 1:8

[17] Ibid. 9:13-15

[18] Ibid. 13:1-2

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XIII)

Wesleyan theologian Adam Clarke interprets what he sees as Paul’s way of thinking about the situation there in Jerusalem. As far as Paul was concerned, he saw no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and himself; God is not influenced by any individual’s personality. That’s why in the meetings he held with them, they added nothing new – gave him no new light – to his ministry or doctrine. They also did not attempt to impose on him any restrictions, because they observed that God appointed him to the work he was doing and that God’s Spirit provided guidance for him. At the same time, they never brought up any suggestion that he alter his plan, or introduced anything new in his doctrine to the Gentiles. They plainly saw that his doctrine was the same as theirs, coming immediately from the same source; and, therefore, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. They realized, much to their satisfaction, that Paul was as expressly sent by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was to preach it to the Jews.[1]

In fact, one 19th century Catholic theologian named George Haydock (1774-1849) takes note of Calvin’s concept of Peter’s position juxtaposed to that of Paul’s. For him, Calvin pretends to prove that Peter and his successors are not heads of the whole congregation because Peter was only the Apostle to the Jews. But Paul does not speak here of power and jurisdiction, but of the manner that Peter and he were to be used by God’s Spirit. It was judged proper that Peter should preach chiefly to the Jews, who were the elect people of God, and that Paul is sent to the Gentiles. Yet, both of them preached to Jews and Gentiles. It was Peter, by receiving the Roman officer Cornelius, who first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he says of himself,[2] that God chose him so that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the Gospel, and believe.[3] He goes on to say that this confirms Peter as being the head of all congregations.

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) tells us why Paul generally commenced preaching in synagogues for two reasons. First, because it furnished the most convenient venue with a natural and historical connection to the announcement of the Good News, and, secondly, because it was the assembling place for numerous Gentile proselytes who formed the bridge to world missions.[4] On the other hand, Peter, though he was then, and continued to be, the head of the Jewish Christian branch of the Apostolic congregations, opened the door for the conversion of the Gentiles by the baptism of Cornelius.[5] His Epistles show that in his later years he did not confine himself to the Jews, for the congregations to which he wrote his letters were of a mixed character and partly founded by Paul. So, they were no enemies. They admired and loved each other as fellow Apostles of Jesus the Anointed One.[6]

George Whitefield Clark (1831-1911) shares his thoughts on the confrontation between the Apostles Peter and Paul in Antioch and notes that in verse eleven Paul writes that he needed to confront Peter because “he was to be blamed.” The KJV renders it, “because he stood condemned.” Other English versions say that Peter “was guilty,”[7] “was very wrong,”[8] and “clearly out of line.”[9] Clark feels that these are Paul’s conclusions based on the reaction of the Gentile members at Antioch. As such, we can see why Paul must have felt the need to back them up with his own public condemnation of Peter’s actions.

Some, says Clark, erroneously think that this encounter was to discredit Peter’s position as a senior Apostle, especially for such a grievous error, but likewise, not excusing Paul for his use of severity in his denouncement of Peter’s actions. There’s little doubt that on both sides there were those who were ashamed that such a dispute between two transpired.  Apostles should quarrel out in the open. We see today how bad conduct on the part of a child, or member of the armed forces or police can cast a shadow over the whole family, unit, or force. But Clark insists that it must be understood that this misunderstanding did not involve the preaching of false doctrine, but in the inconsistency of conduct.[10] No one at Antioch thought either Peter or Paul were perverting the truth of the Gospel, but if not corrected would leave a dark scar on the character of one or even both of them. Both Peter and Paul were of one heart, says Clark, in defending the Gospel, as it is especially shown by Peter’s loving reverence several years later, to “our beloved brother Paul.”[11] Both Peter and Paul proved their worth and strong Christian character in this incident: Paul for standing up for the truth, and Peter for accepting the truth.

Bible writer and renown Greek scholar Frederic Rendall (1840-1906) comments on the emphatic opening of verse seven which gives importance to the contrasts Paul sees in his reaction and the reaction of James, Peter, and John to the cold stares of those suspicious and prejudiced opponents in Jerusalem who raised the issue of circumcision and ceremonial laws as being necessary for converted Gentiles. This way they could be accepted as legitimate members of the congregation. Rendall notes that where the KJV reads, “when they saw,” that in the Greek text “they” (which is referring to James, Peter, and John) are the subject of the next two verses. It was “they” who saw the marvelous success of Paul and Barnabas as a visible token of their divine commission by the grace conferred on them as called and anointed servants of God to make known Jesus the Anointed One as His personal emissaries to the world.[12] So the message to the Galatians is this: ignore those Judaizers in Galatia in the same way I ignored them in Jerusalem and concentrate on what brings unity between you and all the other true believers in the world.

Walter Adeney (1849-1920) gives his view on why Christians need to be aware of the fact that the various functions of Christian work are determined by the various gifts of the Christian workers. The Apostle Paul was most fitted for Gentiles, the Apostle Peter for Jews, the Apostle Philip for evangelizing. They wisely recognized their diversity of vocations. It is important to see that we are in the right ministry. What is the best work for one person may be very unsuitable for another? We will fail if we slavishly copy the most successful servants of the Anointed One in an area of service that may not be ours. We may be needlessly discouraged if we fail. Try some other function until the right position is discovered. The important point is to find our mission in our capacities rather than in our inclinations. We may not be necessarily fit for the work we like best. Having appreciation and interest in a particular work might be an aid to success. But we should never confuse our admiration with ambition.[13]

Lutheran Bible scholar Paul Kretzmann (1883-1965) believes that Paul wrote this portion of his epistle with great agitation. He points out how Paul breaks the construction of the sentence, again and again, apparently losing the thread of his discourse, but he never fails to bring out the central idea which he keeps in mind. He wants to emphasize that his apostolic commission was totally independent of the Council and congregation in Jerusalem. Not only that, but those reputed to be high up in the congregation, no matter who they were and how they got there, made no difference to him. In fact, Paul notes that they really never came up with anything to offer him as advice or instruction. In his anxiety to emphasize the point he wishes to make in the proper manner, Paul does not finish his first sentence, although he brings out the thought. Those that were esteemed highly in the congregation of Jerusalem uttered no word of disapproval for the content and manner of Paul’s preaching, and, on the other hand, they offered no instructions for him, they did not attempt to teach him anything as to his doctrine.

Furthermore, in order that this fact might be impressed upon the minds of the false teachers and their followers in the midst of the Galatian congregations, he explains his use of the Greek verb dokounton, “ones-being-of-repute”[14] by the parenthetical remark that the status of these people in no way impressed him. God does not judge according to outward appearance and station. Apostolic authority and power did not rest upon their being commissioned or approved by others. They never subscribed to preach the same form doctrine as his. This, he says, in order to show that he, in the judgment of the very Apostles of whom the false teachers boasted against Paul, taught correctly and that the apostles stood on his side against the false apostles, who boasted of the authority of men.[15]

Jewish writer David Stern observes a very critical factor in what Paul said about how he viewed those who came to the meeting that was acknowledged to be prominent figures in the Jerusalem congregation. As he sees it, Paul was calling attention to the fact that the office, position, eminence, distinction – that is, outward appearance, did not matter to him. What did matter, concerns the content and the truth of their Gospel? So, while they enjoyed a significant position of great importance within the Messianic Community in Jerusalem, that did not impress him as much by what they thought of his message and mission. Andrew Roth points out another nuance to what Paul says here in his translation from the Aramaic text: “Those who consider themselves to be great, although what they were, I really do not care about since Elohim does not discriminate among men. Furthermore, not even these men were able to contribute to my knowledge.”[16]

Stern then goes on to say that Paul is going to great pains to show that although his distinctive form of preaching the Good News places a different emphasis on certain things than the other Apostles’ version. Nevertheless, they accepted him, his work, and his Gospel with the right hand of fellowship. That’s their way of saying that those who still insist on circumcision of Gentiles, therefore, do not possess a better, purer, more Jewish Gospel at all, but a perversion of the Gospel which denies its fruits to Gentiles and which is disapproved of by the very people to whose authority they appeal.[17]  In other words, were these visiting teachers to Galatia to offer a clearer and fuller explanation of the Gospel than that preached by Paul, he would no doubt be open-minded and opened-armed about it. But their efforts were to tear down, not build up.

Don Garlington makes a note on the distinction found in what Paul said about how God does not judge based on outward appearance in verse six. The KJV translates the Greek noun prosōpon as “person.” The word was used to denote a person’s face or countenance. Thayer, in his Lexicon, sees it being used here as a way of saying that people often judge others to be something or nothing just by the way they look. This was already part of Jewish customs and manners. Moses told the children of Israel to “Be fair in how you judge. Do not show favor to the poor or to the great. Be fair in how you judge your neighbor.”[18] Later on, God caused Moses to repeat this dictum with some additions, “Do not show favor as you judge. Listen to the small and the great alike. Do not be intimidated any person, because you are judging for God. Bring to Me any problem that is too hard for you, and I will hear it.”[19]

[1] Adam Clarke: Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit.

[2] Acts of the Apostles 15:7

[3] George Haydock, Catholic Bible Commentary, loc. cit.

[4] Cf. Acts of the Apostles 13:5, 46; 14:1; 18:6; Romans 1:16; 9:1, 3

[5] Acts of the Apostles, 10, 11, 15:7

[6] Philip Schaff: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 305

[7] New Life Version

[8] New Living Translation

[9] The Message

[10] See Acts of the Apostles 10:15; 11:3, 17; 15:9

[11] 2 Peter 3:15-16

[12] Frederic Rendall: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 160

[13] Walter Adeney: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

[14] See Tyndale Interlinear Greek/English N. T. loc. cit. Strong’s concordance #G1380

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

[16] Andrew G. Roth: Aramaic Galatians, A Hebraic Understanding, op. cit., loc. cit.

[17] Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary, op. cit., loc. cit.

[18] Leviticus 19:15

[19] Deuteronomy 1:17; Cf. 10:17; 16:19