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 XII)

Augustine of Hippo’s contemporary, Chrysostom of Constantinople believes Paul was referring to some members of the Jerusalem council who were highly respected, were themselves not being monitored as to what they were preaching. Therefore, when told of Paul’s ministry they added nothing, they corrected nothing because they were aware that the object of his missionary journeys was to communicate to the Gentiles what came to him by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Also, in that he brought Titus with him who was uncircumcised, they did not require that he be circumcised, nor imparted to Paul any additional knowledge.[1] This was not a case of Paul dismissing these revered brethren, but that if they expressed any concerns about his message and ministry, those concerns were so neutralized that it left them speechless.

Another early church scholar of this same period, Ambrosiaster, takes this reference of Paul to mean that the Apostles were originally simple people with no education and no distinction in the law, but this did not matter.  Who would accuse someone if God excused them?  The question is not what a person was, but what they are now.  Paul wants people to understand that he was an expert in the law and of blameless life, and for that reason, he turned into an outstanding minister of the Gospel. The writer goes on to point out that Paul says that he got nothing from the Apostles; it all came from God. In Paul’s words: “The One who imparted the meaning of Christian doctrine to the unlearned is also the One who was pleased to impart it to me as well since I was learned in the law.” Therefore, did Paul need to learn anything from the Apostles, when he already learned from the Anointed One and became even more so by the grace of the Anointed One?[2]

Early church preacher Chrysostom thinks he hears Paul saying this: If these critics at one time preached that circumcision was necessary, they will give an account to God. God will not accept any excuses just because they are well-known and in authority. It is obvious, says Chrysostom, that Paul did not make a big deal out of this. And he does not say “what they are” but “what they were,” indicating that they also later gave up the preaching of circumcision, once the Gospel was manifest everywhere. It is as though Paul were saying, “I do not condemn or criticize those brethren, for they knew what they were doing and they will give an account to God.”[3] In other words, what is in the past is dead and gone. No reason to bring it up now by being defensive. Just leave it alone and God will take care of it.

Medieval commentator Bruno the Carthusian sees the possible friction between Paul and those in Jerusalem expressed this way: Paul conferred with them, and after receiving their assurance I appeared just as right as they were. But Paul’s reference to what sort they were at one time refers to Peter and the others prior to growing in faith as being some of those people who seem wise is their own minds. The Apostle Paul bids them remember that what they were under the Law should be of no interest to anyone. In fact, Paul was more respected in the Jewish community than they were until they met Jesus. But this sort of glory meant nothing to Paul.

Bruno feels that this whole argument started because there seemed to be some people who considered Peter and the others to be great in the Christians community, and this newcomer, Paul, really didn’t amount to much. However, Paul hints that since he knew about them back in those early days, he’d rather not mention anything. What he did know was that God shows no favoritism, meaning that God does not find people acceptable on account of their reputation of ethnicity, wealth, or knowledge. So, there is no reason to bring up what they were. Therefore, if it didn’t matter to Paul, why should it matter to them? As far as Paul was concerned, the best way to judge his position in the congregation was that Peter and the others, who were said to be of some repute, conferred nothing on him, that is, they made no corrections in the Gospel he preached and the way he ministered among the Gentiles. They offered no objections when he discussed his Gospel with them. All in all, the bottom line is that they didn’t change and neither did Paul. But what did come out of all this was the fact that they extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas.[4]

Another early medieval scholar, Peter Lombard, gives his assessment: For Lombard, when the Apostle Paul says, “from those who seemed to be of some repute,” it is as if he were saying, “Regarding that conference about the Gospel, I will share my own assessment.” And Paul’s assessment was that such people, ignorant as they were in comparison to him at one time when under the Law before they became Apostles, seemed to be of some repute. That is, they seemed to be of some authority because they walked with the Lord and were present at His Transfiguration. They seemed to be such in the eyes of those false brethren because those who appeared to be important were counted as being something special based on their reputations. Yet they are not extraordinary unless they are excellent ministers of God and Jesus the Anointed One. That makes them something although they are nothing by themselves.[5]

Jerome finds this passage very intriguing. It clearly shows that Paul was intervening either on behalf of these prominent people or was dismissing them as unimportant. That’s why Jerome says that we should briefly take a look at it two ways. On the one hand, those who were noticeably present at the council meeting added nothing to his reputation, but on the contrary, gave the right hand of fellowship as equals to him and Barnabas. On the other hand, it may be that Paul is saying that those who were evidently present council meeting added nothing to him, he added something to them, and they became more steadfast in the grace of the Gospel.[6] Either way, Paul comes out looking good and respectful of these individuals.

Early church theologian Thomas Aquinas sees Paul describing the status of these brethren of great repute as being what they were before their conversion, namely, the status they enjoyed in the synagogue. This status, he hints gently, was mean and lowly. Hence, he says, what they were at some point in time, for they were coarse, poor, ignorant, and illiterate. But what they were was nothing to him, and did not feel it was right for him to discuss the matter. Perhaps his reason for introducing this was that by considering their status in the synagogue – which was very little – and the status Paul held as a ranking Pharisee – which was quite influential – they might see that Paul’s opinion on legalism should be preferred to theirs. Consequently, since Paul stands equal to them in the congregation of believers, even though he reached a higher rank in the synagogue before their conversion, yet, after his conversion he held a rank equal to theirs.

Hence when matters concerning the synagogue were discussed, the opinion of Paul deserved to prevail over the others, but when it came to the Gospel, his opinion was as good as theirs. And just as the others were not made great through things pertaining to the Law but through the Anointed One, so too was the Apostle’s faith in the Anointed One and not through things pertaining to the Law.[7] In my mind, Aquinas missed the mark on this one. Anything of importance attached to Peter, James, and John that would cause them to be considered of higher rank, was only that they walked and talked with Jesus the Son of God for over three years. There is no hint that back in Capernaum where to live, they made no big impression in the Synagogue there.

Martin Luther once said, in relationship to his conflict with the Vatican in Rome, that if the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through the Anointed One justifies sinners, he would carry him in his arms, he would kiss his feet. But since the Pope will not make such a concession, he will give in to nobody, not even to all the angels in heaven, not to Peter, not to Paul, not to a hundred emperors, not to a thousand popes, not to the whole world. If in this matter he were to give in to them, they would take from him the God who created him, and Jesus the Anointed One who redeemed him by His blood. Said Luther, “Let this be our resolution, that we will suffer the loss of all things, the loss of our good name, of life itself, but the Gospel and our faith in Jesus the Anointed One – we will not stand for it to be taken away by anybody.”[8] Looks like Luther was taking his cue from the apostle Paul here in this letter to the Galatians.

How different the history of the congregation might be if the Roman Catholic authorities during Luther’s day would have expressed the same attitude about him as early church scholar Ambrosiaster did in comparing Paul with Peter. Ambrosiaster noted that Paul mentions only Peter and compares himself to him because he received the leadership role in founding the believing Jewish congregations. Paul was also chosen in a similar way and given the leadership role in founding the Gentile congregations, although, of course, Peter also preached to the Gentiles when the occasion arose, and Paul preached to Jews. Both men are recorded as having done both things. Nonetheless, Peter was recognized as having full authority to preach among the Jews just as Paul preached among the Gentiles with full confidence. This is why he calls himself the Teacher of the Gentiles in Faith and in Truth.[9] Each man received the gift according to their abilities.[10]

Reformer John Calvin was used to having his writings and teachings attacked, so he sees what happened here as necessary. Sometimes, boasting is essential just as long as it is holy boasting, and worthy of the highest praise. If Paul yielded this point to his opponents that his status improved under the Apostles, his opponents could furnish two charges against him. Their immediately reply might be, so you did make some progress meeting with the Council. They helped you correct your past errors and did not admonish you for your former brash attitude. Had that really taken place, the whole doctrine which he taught the Gentiles would come under suspicion.

Not only that, but it would lower his status among the Apostles and treated as an ordinary disciple. We find, therefore, that his boasting was not to elevate himself personally, but became necessary in order to elevate his Gospel. That is what led him to holy boasting. The controversy makes no reference to individuals, and, therefore, cannot be a struggle of personal ambition. But Paul’s determination was that no person, however eminent, should cast a shadow of doubt over his apostleship, on which the authority of his doctrine depended. If this is not enough to silence those stray dogs, says Calvin, at least their barking is sufficiently quieted.[11]

[1] Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

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

[3] Chrysostom: Homily on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.) p. 21

[4] Bruno the Carthusian, Complete Galatians, op. cit., loc., cit.

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

[6] Jerome: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.), p. 22.

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

[8] Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, loc. cit., p. 33

[9] See 1 Timothy 2:7

[10] Ambrosiaster, op. cit.

[11] John Calvin, 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 XI)

2:6-7 Those men who were considered to be important leaders in the congregation who offered no changes the Good News message I preach to people. (It doesn’t matter to me if they were “important” or not. To God everyone is the same.)  But these leaders saw that God gave me a special responsibility, the same as He did to Peter. God gave Peter the work of telling the Good News to the Jews. But God gave me the work of telling the Good News to the non-Jewish people.

In addition, some of those present at the meeting who appeared to be very prominent leaders in the congregation offered no suggestions on what I should preach. That was fine because whatever they were at one time makes no difference to me; it’s what God thinks of them that counts with me. As a matter of fact, they were just as impressed with the ministry God gave me to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles as they were with the ministry God gave Peter to preach the Gospel to the Jews.

George B. Stevens (1854-1906) offers a paraphrase of these verses that really set his true feelings about what he went through during this visit to see the Apostles and Council at Jerusalem. He renders: “The influential primitive apostles and however great their influence or authority might be, it could not affect the truth and divisiveness of my mission, since God’s approval does not follow human judgment did not in any way attempt to supplement or correct my teaching, but rather agreed that I had a divine commission to continue my present work among the Gentiles as had Peter to proceed with his among the Jews.”[1]

Here Paul lets us know that he was not egotistical when it came to his position vis-à-vis the Apostles. In fact, he told the Corinthians that while he did not think of himself as less than those special apostles coming to them,[2] he certainly was not above them. But if Paul were to see himself as more educated and polished than there were, it gave him a lot to go on.[3] Nevertheless, even talking about it makes Paul feel uneasy and foolish.[4]

At the same time, Paul did not feel like Elihu the son of Barakh’el who was afraid to lift his voice to anyone older than he was.[5] Rather, it could be said of Paul what some of the Herodians said about Jesus, that it didn’t really matter what people thought about him as a man sent from God,[6] even though it cost John the Baptizer his life.[7] Paul also knew that looks could be deceiving, from all that is said in Scripture and Christian tradition, Paul was not an imposing figure, nor did he think of himself as an eloquent speaker. That’s why he told the Corinthians not to judge people by the way they look.[8]

And why shouldn’t he feel that way? With the Spirit of God in him, Paul knew from what Job said that God is not impressed nor is he intimidated by anyone.[9] This was a lesson that Peter learned when he preached at Cornelius’ house.[10] That’s why Paul told the Roman believers that God did not treat the Jews nicer than He did the Gentiles.[11] The same is said of sinners. God does not show more respect to a sinful banker who repents than He does to a homeless sinner.[12]

This all seemed to come to a head when Paul met the assembly in Jerusalem. Since Peter was not only the one looked upon as the head Apostle, he also knew what it was to preach to Gentiles for their conversion to become children of God. So, it was Peter who first stood up to address the Council and the assembly. Basically, he told them that Gentile believer should be treated no different than Jewish believers.[13] And when Peter finished, James got up and reinforced Peter’s statement. He added only that which he thought the Gentile believers could learn from the Jewish brethren as it relates to morality and partaking in anything offered to an idol.[14] The assembly was so moved that they agreed to write the Gentile believers in Antioch a letter explaining the whole thing and giving them their total support as fellow believers in the Anointed One.[15]

The one thing that seemed to impress Paul the most was that all those who were gathered together in the assembly said nothing. They listened to Paul and Barnabas who told of the powerful works God did through them among the people who are not Jews.[16] Later on, Peter would mention this in his letter to all the Jews who were scattered throughout the Greek and Roman empires.[17] So it seemed clear to Paul, Bar Nabba, and Titus that the Council and assembly assessed the situation to be that Paul was the head Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the head Apostle to the Jews.

No wonder that when Paul tried to share the Gospel with the Jews in their synagogues and they showed little interest in listening, he quietly moved on to the Gentiles who were ready to listen and believe.[18] Even when things became confrontational and abusive,[19] Paul just moved on knowing that if they were to be reached, Peter needed to send out missionaries. But he was called to the Gentiles.[20] But Paul never missed the opportunity to share the Gospel with the Jews as well.[21] However, Paul did admit to having an ulterior motive.[22] Yet, Paul never tried to persuade the Jews by using flowery language that was meant to tickle their ears.[23]

Some psychologists feel that Paul shows disrespect for the original disciples by using the questionable Greek verb dokeō translated by the KJV as “were of reputation,” in verse two, “who seemed” in verses 6 and 9. The NIV reads, “important.” Today they might be called “influential.”[24] They say that after Paul presents himself as a model of Christian leadership in verse six, he shows disdain for his peers in Jerusalem with the Greek phrase “hoi dokountes,” (they who seemed to be somewhat),[25] which in today’s English might be taken as “big shots.”

Certainly, this term is used positively, negatively, or ironically. For some, it seems Paul uses this phrase ironically here when he says that their being big shots make no difference to him because God’s isn’t impressed with big shots either. It appears that Paul was making a subtle reference to what God said to Moses: “You must be fair in judgment. You must not show special favor to the poor. And you must not show special favor to important people.”[26] Paul no doubt was trying to show that one may disagree with leaders without treating them as super-spiritual. One must always remember, that when something a leader says is dismissed as being wrong, their feelings of love and respect for their supporters is also rejected, thereby making both of them instant opponents.

However, Augustine of Hippo offers a unique insight into Paul’s perception of these prominent people.  He quotes from a Latin version of Matthew which reads: “But from those reputed to be something what they once were makes no difference to me.” Then he goes on to say: “For they are reputed to be something by carnal people; they are not something in themselves. Even if they are good servants of God, it is the Anointed One in them who is something, not they themselves. If they were something in themselves, then they would always have been so. What they once were – the fact that they themselves were once sinners – makes no difference to him.”[27] Some scholars believe that Paul was referencing the fact that Peter, James, John and to others were ordinary uneducated fishermen before they were called.  And the only thing which now brought them respect and prestige is the fact that they were privileged to enjoy personal connections with Jesus while He was here on earth.[28] So Paul is actually saying, it’s not what they used to be that affects my respect for them, but what they are now through God’s grace that impresses me the most.

African Bible scholar Marius Victorinus who wrote during this same period made the observation that Paul is saying, whatever they are not is enough for me, I really don’t care what they used to be. Paul then backs up his statement by noting that God does not regard the public face of a person; rather God regards the person’s mindset, the person’s faith. Whether one is Greek or Jew, whether one is treated as important by others, God does not regard this as important to Him. Rather God regards what one is, and whether possesses unshakable faith in the Gospel. For when God examines us to see if we are being truthful, He doesn’t consider a person’s social position in His assessment. Some scholars believe that what Victorinus is commenting on here involved the opinion these prominent members of the council perceived about Paul, especially knowing all about of his past as a vicious persecutor of the congregation.

Victorinus does not see Paul speaking disparagingly of those who appeared to be important leaders in the congregation. He does not doubt that they follow the Gospel, but it suggests that at one time they were not truly committed to having Gentiles receive the Good News. After all, look at Paul’s past. So, he more or less says that regardless of how high their position was in the congregation, he, and they, all came from the same place so there was no reason to think of what they used to be. It appeared that they were accepted by the other members of the Assembly and that’s all that mattered to Paul.[29] We can say the same thing happens today when it is discovered that members of the congregation council were formerly members of the Mormon congregation, Jehovah’s Witness, or Jesus Only Movement. There is always that tinge of doubt about how convinced they are that of what they now profess to believe.

[1] George B. Stevens: Paraphrase, op. cit., pp. 26-27

[2] 2 Corinthians 11:5

[3] Ibid. 11:21-23

[4] Ibid. 12:11

[5] Job 32:6-7

[6] Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:12

[7] Mark 6:17-20

[8] 2 Corinthians 5:16

[9] Job 34:19

[10] Acts of the Apostles 10:34

[11] Romans 2:11

[12] Cf. 1 Peter 1:17

[13] Acts of the Apostles 15:1-11

[14] Ibid. 15:13-21

[15] Ibid. 15:22

[16] Ibid. 15:12

[17] 2 Peter 3:15-16

[18] Acts of the Apostles 13:46-48

[19] Ibid. 18:6

[20] Ibid. 28:28

[21] Romans 1:5

[22] Ibid. 11:13-14

[23] 1 Thessalonians 2:4

[24] Lexham English Bible, loc. cit

[25] See Interlinear Greek/English N. T. loc. cit. The Tyndale Interlinear has “great leaders.”

[26] See Leviticus 19:15

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

[28] Ibid, footnote (24)

[29] Marius Victorinus: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., Edwards, M. J. (Ed.) p. 21

Great American pianist, Roger Williams, once said that “The greatest crime in the world is not developing your potential. When you do what you do best, you are helping not only yourself but the world.” There are many today who see development in any field as benefiting the person instead of persons. In the Harvard Business Review, Robert Steven Kaplan wrote that many ambitious professionals often spend a substantial amount of time thinking about strategies that will help them achieve greater levels of success. They strive for a more impressive job title, higher compensation, and responsibility for more sizable revenues, profits, and numbers of employees. Their definitions of success are often heavily influenced by family, friends, and colleagues.

Another writer, founder of Media Monsoon, Joseph Summers, says that the first challenge a person must face is realizing where their true potential lies. Once discovered, they must cultivate their skills using effective strategies. First and foremost, they must uncover exactly where their potential lies. It’s going to be a deeply personal search and they must be completely honest with themselves. It doesn’t necessarily have to align with their current skills or qualifications, but it must resonate with them. Each of us knows where our talents lie, those are the ones to push toward excellence.

And Vincent Tan, writer for the HealthMoneySuccess Magazine, offers important steps in helping a person clear their doubts, build their confidence, and find the sleeping potential within them. First, a person must make a conscious choice to pursue personal growth. Secondly, they must set a goal to work toward. Thirdly, they should begin with baby steps. Fourthly, keep a list of advances and successes. This starts with completing all the tasks on their advancement list. And fifthly, establish their own standard of excellence they are aiming for. Don’t let others tell you whether or not you’ve reached a satisfactory goal.

But I also like what I found in Richard Rice who taught at Ambassador College in California, bound all of his lectures into Mr. Rice’s Notebook on how to develop your full potential. He states that God has given mankind a supreme goal which will result in perfection: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt 5:48). The word “perfect” used in this verse actually means “to finish the task, to make it complete.” But to achieve this ultimate spiritual goal — and any other lesser physical goals in life — all Christians must focus their mind firmly on God and Jesus Christ. All areas of life must be viewed from this perspective: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well!” (Matt. 6:33) There are only two dimensions our goals in life can seek: the physical or the spiritual. We must emphasize one or the other. If we emphasize the physical over and above the spiritual, we will eventually lose everything — even the fleeting physical goals we seek. But, if we emphasize the spiritual, we can gain everything — both spiritual and physical! The following principles are given as help and aid to the Christian man, as he seeks to develop his full potential and attain the goals which life sets before him.

Mr. Rice then offers the following points in achieving that effort to always do the best you can with the best that you have. One: Make walking with God your highest ambition and supreme desire. Two: Keep your eye on the ultimate goal – standing before God to give an account of yourself. Three: Learn to be humble and let God be proud of your progress. Four: Be acutely aware of what enters your mind that influences how your character is formed. Five: Create a mental image of the person you wish to become, using Jesus as your model. Six: Determine your overall goal – what is it you want most of all to give God to use in helping those around you. Seven: Remember all the things you’ve accomplished in life with God’s help. Eight: Whatever you become involved in doing, strive for excellence – don’t settle for mediocrity. Nine: Follow through with what you started until you finish what you began. Ten: Become an accomplished learner in some field – be really good at what you do.

Always keep this in mind, not only are others watching you but God has His eye on you. Being faithful to a task or goal is what impresses God the most. Do you have to be as good or equal to others in the same areas of service? No! You are trying to measure up to God’s standard. Remember the words of the wise King Solomon who stated that there are ways in life that look harmless enough. But look again, it may be leading in the wrong direction. Sure, those people who take the easy way out may appear to be having a good time, but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.[1]

Let the Holy Spirit be your Guide – that’s the reason He was sent. Let the Bible be your road map – it will always point you to the right path. And let your spirit be aligned with God’s spirit as your compass – it will never take you in the wrong direction. Here’s the message the Apostle Paul gave to young Timothy: For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths. But you should keep a clear mind in every situation. Don’t be afraid of enduring hardships for the Lord. Work at telling others the Good News, and fully carry out the ministry God has given you. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

[1] Proverbs 14:12-13

A FEW KIND WORDS CAN HAVE A BIG IMPACT

This story was originally posted on the Gimundo.com website. It was then suggested to Truth Book by Linda Sepp. After having read David Wilkerson’s “The Cross and the Switchblade,” I am persuaded that something like this can happen.

When Julio Diaz stepped off the New York City subway platform after work one night, he was simply planning to walk over to his favorite local diner for a meal. But when a teenage boy approached him with a knife blade gleaming in his fist, Diaz, a 31-year-old social worker, knew the evening was about to take a more dramatic turn.

The young man demanded Diaz’s wallet, and Diaz handed it over without objection. But just as his young mugger turned to walk away, Diaz called after him: “Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something.”

The mugger turned around, surprised. “If you’re going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm.”

The teenager looked at Diaz in disbelief and asked why he would do such a thing. Diaz replied, “If you’re willing to risk your freedom for ten to fifteen years for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money.” He told the young man that he’d just been heading out for dinner and that he would be happy for some company.

Diaz told the surprised NPR StoryCorps reporter, “You know, I just felt maybe he really need help more than the money.” Diaz told NPR’s StoryCorps. What did the boy do, asked the reporter? He decided to take me up on my offer, and they headed into Diaz’s favorite local hangout together. As they were sitting at the table, the manager, the dishwashers, and the waiters all came over to say hello to Diaz, and the young man was amazed at Diaz’s popularity. “You’re even nice to the dishwasher,” the boy exclaimed!

“Weren’t you taught that you should be nice to everybody?” Diaz asked him. “Yea, but I didn’t think people actually behaved that way,” the teenager replied. Thanks to Diaz, he was beginning to see that kindness wasn’t such a strange phenomenon, after all.

When the bill came, Diaz told the teen that he’d have to get the check. After all, he still had Diaz’s wallet. But the teenager slid the wallet back across the table without a moment’s thought, and Diaz treated him to dinner. Diaz also gave the would-be mugger a $20 bill to take with him – in exchange for the young man’s knife. “I figured, said Diaz, if you treat people right, you can only hope that they treat you right. “It’s a very simple thing to do in this complicated world.”

After watching the news every night and seeing multiple reports of muggers and purse-snatchers commit their heartless and senseless crimes, if there were such a young man out there who really was looking for acceptance and kindness, they must be far and few between. But there’s always that one in a million chance there may be one. So, we must decide whether it’s worth taking the risk, as we hand over our wallet and cell phone, etc., to ask a would-be mugger if they know there are Christians in this world that would love to help them and keep them out of jail. Jesus did it for the thief on the cross, maybe if we’re confronted, we can do what Jesus did.

But it doesn’t have to be a knife-wielding mugger or some petty thief, there are those who are acting out of desperation and need. And there is no greater need in this world than the need to know Jesus and have Him in your life. So when we see someone who seems to have lost all hope of gaining a better life and get out of poverty or improve their situation, they too need someone to tell them as Christians they are not only interested in their own prosperity, but to fulfill the Scriptures in helping those with spiritual needs as well as material needs. Just a hand on their shoulder and hearing the words, “Did you know that Jesus loves you?” may be the thing that changes their lives. There’s no need in going out and searching for such persons, the Holy Spirit will bring them across your path. If the Holy Spirit is not ready to deal with them yet, then neither should you.  – Dr. Robert R Seyda

A FEW KIND WORDS CAN HAVE A BIG IMPACT

This story was originally posted on the Gimundo.com website. It was then suggested to Truth Book by Linda Sepp. After having read David Wilkerson’s “The Cross and the Switchblade,” I am persuaded that something like this can happen.

When Julio Diaz stepped off the New York City subway platform after work one night, he was simply planning to walk over to his favorite local diner for a meal. But when a teenage boy approached him with a knife blade gleaming in his fist, Diaz, a 31-year-old social worker, knew the evening was about to take a more dramatic turn.

The young man demanded Diaz’s wallet, and Diaz handed it over without objection. But just as his young mugger turned to walk away, Diaz called after him: “Hey, wait a minute. You forgot something.” The mugger turned around, surprised. “If you’re going to be robbing people for the rest of the night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm.”

The teenager looked at Diaz in disbelief and asked why he would do such a thing. Diaz replied, “If you’re willing to risk your freedom for ten to fifteen years for a few dollars, then I guess you must really need the money.” He told the young man that he’d just been heading out for dinner and that he would be happy for some company.

Diaz told the surprised NPR StoryCorps reporter, “You know, I just felt maybe he really need help more than the money.” Diaz told NPR’s StoryCorps. What did the boy do, asked the reporter? He decided to take me up on my offer, and they headed into Diaz’s favorite local hangout together. As they were sitting at the table, the manager, the dishwashers, and the waiters all came over to say hello to Diaz, and the young man was amazed at Diaz’s popularity. “You’re even nice to the dishwasher,” the boy exclaimed!

“Weren’t you taught that you should be nice to everybody?” Diaz asked him. “Yea, but I didn’t think people actually behaved that way,” the teenager replied. Thanks to Diaz, he was beginning to see that kindness wasn’t such a strange phenomenon, after all.

When the bill came, Diaz told the teen that he’d have to get the check. After all, he still had Diaz’s wallet. But the teenager slid the wallet back across the table without a moment’s thought, and Diaz treated him to dinner. Diaz also gave the would-be mugger a $20 bill to take with him – in exchange for the young man’s knife. “I figured, said Diaz, if you treat people right, you can only hope that they treat you right. “It’s a very simple thing to do in this complicated world.”

After watching the news every night and seeing multiple reports of muggers and purse-snatchers commit their heartless and senseless crimes, if there were such a young man out there who really was looking for acceptance and kindness, they must be far and few between. But there’s always that one in a million chance there may be one. So, we must decide whether it’s worth taking the risk, as we hand over our wallet and cell phone, etc., to ask a would-be mugger if they know there are Christians in this world that would love to help them and keep them out of jail. Jesus did it for the thief on the cross, maybe if we’re confronted, we can do what Jesus did.

But it doesn’t have to be a knife-wielding mugger or some petty thief, there are those who are acting out of desperation and need. And there is no greater need in this world than the need to know Jesus and have Him in your life. So when we see someone who seems to have lost all hope of gaining a better life and get out of poverty or improve their situation, they too need someone to tell them as Christians they are not only interested in their own prosperity, but to fulfill the Scriptures in helping those with spiritual needs as well as material needs. Just a hand on their shoulder and hearing the words, “Did you know that Jesus loves you?” may be the thing that changes their lives. There’s no need in going out and searching for such persons, the Holy Spirit will bring them across your path. If the Holy Spirit is not ready to deal with them yet, then neither should you.  – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson X)

John Edmunds (1800-1874) who noted earlier that Paul was telling this story about his encounter with the Judaizers in Jerusalem with the ulterior motive of teaching the Galatians on how to deal with the Judaizers who came to them with the same argument. So, when Paul gets to the point here in verse five where he describes how he dealt with the opposition. He uses the same ulterior motive they did to teach the Galatians on how to handle any arguments the Judaizers might start in trying to persuade them to go all the way back into the teachings of Judaism as a supplement or attachment to their salvation by grace through Jesus the Anointed One.

So, Edmunds says that the Galatians are hearing Paul say, more or less, we gave in on all the points where we could find common ground, but when it came to their demand that Titus must undergo circumcision, we drew a line and would not go past that line. But Paul qualifies their actions by saying that they didn’t do it out of spite or to make the Judaizers mad, that’s a coward’s way of doing things. They did it as taking a stance to defend the privileges that were to be extended to all Gentiles who became followers of Jesus, and the only way to do that was to preach a consistent, unadulterated, Gospel message without fail.[1]

Johann Lange (1802-1884) believes that Paul’s fear of having “run in vain,” came from the fact that he proved unwilling to agree that all he taught the Gentiles was about the elimination of Jewish Law, rites, rituals, and ceremonies from having any impact on their salvation. To do that, then all he did might rightfully be considered as nothing more than a waste of time. His preaching would have been labeled as false. Not only would his credibility be ruined, but the Galatians’ faith in his teaching would also be lost.[2] Like a marathon runner who comes to what he believes is the Finish Line, only to find out he ran the wrong course. Hence, there is no medal to be given him for his efforts. In other words, all of his runnings was in vain.

William O’Conor (1820-1887) sees Paul’s insistence on the purity and perfectness of the doctrine which he originally communicated to his converts in Galatia might be rendered more difficult to defend if he couldn’t tell them that the Apostles examined and approved it. There’d be nothing left but his word against that of the Judaizers. It was Paul’s way of saying to them, “I took the step I described, in order that I may now be able to say that I did so to establish that the Gospel which I preached to you as being genuine.”[3]

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) suggests that in addition to understanding what Paul was saying about these individuals sneaking into the meeting and then rising to disrupt the discussion with their accusations of Paul’s misleading teachings to the Gentiles about Jewish Law, rites, and rituals, that we consider another view. It could also be that these brethren joined the discussion because they were known to the others, but somehow, they were able to “secretly introduce” their objections. This might have been planned to catch everyone off guard so that their defenses were not already in place. It is that Paul discerned that these were false brethren. Hovey says that it is difficult to decide between this and the preceding interpretation. Either of them is consistent with the language and the situation, but neither of them is obvious. Scholars thus far labored in vain to reach a perfectly satisfactory interpretation of it. So that means either one will do. In fact, they both may be right.[4]

George Whitefield Clark (1831-1911) English Anglican cleric and evangelist who was one of the founders of Methodism and the evangelical movement, finds in verse five that Paul gives us the first glimpse of the freedom of grace which he supports and the bondage of works he opposes. Obligation to the Law as a means of salvation based on justification was nothing short of slavery. Freedom is found only in union with the Anointed One and consequent service to Him out of grateful love. There are works, but they are works of love, not forced labor. Paul was very much opposed to the Pharisaic form of bondage they were trying to trick the Gentile Galatians into accepting. He knew that once they yielded, it would become almost impossible to break free again. So, by taking a stand against this teaching, Paul was able to secure an immortal victory on behalf of the Gentile world. We are thankful to the Apostle to this day.[5]

In fact, one of the theologians that Clark uses in his commentary as a resource, written by George Barker Stevens (1854-1906) American Congregational and Presbyterian clergyman, theologian, author, educator, and Yale Divinity School professor, says that the Galatian Christians, being predominately Gentile, would be included as a priority in maintaining the principle of freedom from the Law. One cannot overestimate the importance of the Apostle Paul’s position on this issue. Stevens states that “He was a great champion of the independence, completeness, and sufficiency of Christianity.” He made it clear that justification by grace and salvation by faith should not, and must not, be mixed with legality or obligation to man-made rules.[6]

Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925) notices what may be called the spark that set off the fiery debate that resulted from this uninvited interruption of the proceedings before the Apostles and council. It’s Paul’s words that “not even Titus, who was with him and who was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.” That’s when the fireworks went off. It wasn’t that Paul wanted to make a big show out of his stance on the non-necessity of circumcision for the Gentiles, but to present Titus, obviously a very talented young man since he ended up being a bishop,[7] as an example of a dedicated servant of the Anointed One. So, if God was willing to accept him as one of His children, certainly the Apostles could not object to his being counted among all believers as genuine, even among the Jewish believers. Could it be that some of these interrupters were among those Judaizers that were now causing havoc in Galatia?[8]

Cyril Emmet in his comments on those who were soon to be proven as “false brethren” got into the meeting so they could interrupt the proceedings highlights the fact that they were “privately brought in” through the back door. Paul Kretzmann says, “smuggled themselves in.”[9] And Duncan Hester suggests that there were Judaizers already embedded in the Jerusalem congregation purposefully to disrupt the proceedings.[10] The Greek adjective pareisaktos that Paul uses here either means, “secretly or surreptitiously brought in,” or “one who was stolen in.” So, if we accept the idea that Paul is relating an incident that happened earlier back in Galatia, then perhaps those who tried and failed there, relayed the information to their comrades in Jerusalem to try it again.

In either case, they were not invited. They got in with someone’s help. That means that some individual who was already in the meeting because they were recognized as part of the group, worked in cooperation with these scoundrels to sneak them in without anyone noticing or seeing. No doubt after they interrupted the meeting with their questions, it didn’t take Paul long to recognize that their sole purpose was to discredit the believer’s freedom in the Anointed One so that they might bring them back into bondage to the Law. What was Paul’s response? He said, “not for a minute did we give in to them.”[11]

One Messianic writer makes an interesting point on the fact that Paul was under pressure to force Titus’ circumcision. He notes that the Greek verb anagkazō used here means to necessitate, compel, drive to, by force, threats, etc. It suggests that even Titus, a Gentile believer, did not want to be circumcised and Paul respected his decision. Ronald Fung notes that he and others feel that it would seem preferable, to take what Paul says here as referring to an event which took place not at this Jerusalem meeting but on a subsequent occasion – as we gather, at Antioch[12] – and of which Paul is reminded by his mention of Titus and circumcision.[13]

Messianic Rabbi Avi ben Mordechai shares several thoughts on what Paul meant by “truth of the Gospel.” He believes the word “truth” used here is a reference to Hebrew Scriptures where “truth” is defined as the teaching of Mosaic Law.[14] Of course, says Mordechai, here it is implying that the “truth” in his Gospel is derived from the Torah and the Prophets.[15] This is all confirmed by Yeshua in His statement that God sent Him to the Jews who were lost in their sins.[16] As Mordechai sees it, by combining the truth in the Torah, Prophets, and Wisdom Writings, along with the enhanced teachings of Yeshua, was a way of combining believing Jews and Gentiles into one flock under one Shepherd to do what God instructed His people to do starting with Moses and finishing with the Messiah.[17] This is what the forefathers were promised in a blood oath taken at Mount Horeb in Sinai.[18] [19]

Since it is a clear command of Torah, why wouldn’t Paul and Titus want to exercise that in order to become a seasoned member of the community, accepted by Jews and Gentiles alike? Paul was surely aware of the prevailing rabbinic teaching that Gentiles were not considered covenant members until after conversion and circumcision. Thus, his motives for accepting or refusing circumcision at that time were a reflection of his taking a stand with Paul to send the right signal to the newly formed Gentile faction within Apostolic Judaism. If the pressure wasn’t put on him, there’s every reason to believe that Titus might be more amenable to the idea. As long as Paul was satisfied with it, Titus felt no need to bow to the pressure.

[1] John Edmunds: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p.31

[2] Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Galatians, Vol. 8, loc. cit.

[3] O’Conor, W. A On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 22

[4] Hovey, A: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 27.

[5] George Whitefield Clark: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 68

[6] George B. Stevens: Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., pp. 61-62

[7] See Titus 1:4

[8] Ernest DeWitt Burton: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 75

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

[10] Duncan Hester: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.,

[11] Cyril Emmet: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 15

[12] Acts of the Apostles 15:1, 24

[13] Ronald Y. K. Fung: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 91

[14] Psalms 119:142, 151, 160; Malachi 2:6; Daniel 9:13

[15] See Deuteronomy 30:1-4; Isaiah 11:12; Jeremiah31:10; Ezekiel 37:21-23; Amos 9:11; Hosea 1:10-11; Micah 2:12.

[16] Matthew 15:24; Acts of the Apostles 1:6-8

[17] Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36;27; John 16:11

[18] Exodus 24:3-8

[19] Avi ben Mordechai: On Galatians, op. cit., p. 15

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson IX)

In another place, Calvin notes that there is nothing plainer than this rule: we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if it puts our neighbor in an uneasy position, we are to abstain from it. There are some, says Calvin, who pretend to utilize this discretion that Paul advises, by not using their liberty at all, especially when they utilize it to refrain from being charitable to their neighbor in giving them things because they may be embarrassed by being treated in that fashion. So sometimes, they don’t want the word liberty used when it comes to doing, or not doing, something with their neighbor’s interest in mind. They want to use their liberty for their own good and edification rather than to modify it occasionally just to make themselves look good. It is part of every dedicated believer’s thinking that the proper use of the free power given to them in such external, not eternal, things as charitable giving will qualify them, even more, to deal with such issues.[1]

Jakob Arminius comments on the situation of Titus, one of Paul’s most prominent Gentile converts, who was being used by Jewish converts to attack Paul for not instructing Titus to be circumcised in order to satisfy their interpretation of the Law and the Gospel. Arminius feels that they either forgot or weren’t convinced that the ceremonial law was abolished by the cross, the death, and the resurrection of the Anointed One. That by His ascension into heaven and the mission for which the Holy Spirit was sent to bring the truth out of the shadows, and by His human body the Anointed One was able to fulfill the Law’s demand for circumcision,[2] and be the completion of all the types represented in Jewish sacrifices, ceremonies, rites, rituals, and feasts.[3]

However, no matter what the Anointed One did, we must also acknowledge that the Law is no longer given our allegiance and obedience. And the moment we unchained ourselves from its rule, every obligatory right it exercised over us was once and for all severed from it. In that same instant, it ceased to live in our hearts and minds because it was dead to us.[4] Afterward, it was actually to be abolished as having any part of our salvation. This came about partly by the teaching of the Apostles among believers who by degrees understood “the Anointed One to be the end of the law.” And since we no longer have any relationship with the Law, we voluntarily rejected any use of that law to enhance our salvation.

Its abolition was also accomplished in part, by the power of God in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple which was the seat of Jewish religion, and the place appointed for performing those religious observances, against the disobedience of the unbelieving Jews. From this period on the legal ceremonies began to be pointless for Jews and Christians, although in the intermediate time that elapsed between the ascension of the Anointed One and the destruction of Jerusalem, these rites, even in the judgment of the Apostles themselves, were tolerated only among the Jews, and with a provision, that they should not be imposed on the Gentiles.[5] But for some Messianic Jews, such toleration allowed them to consider their interpretation as being tantamount to launching a new institution.[6]

When commenting on what Paul says about how some of the Messianic Jews in the congregation Council in Jerusalem were wanting to bring the Gentiles under the same rules and regulations that they lived by in compliance with Jewish Ceremonial Law, John Bunyan thought it was important that they maintain unity in the congregation, especially on what is being preached and taught. I’m quite sure that Bunyan seemed puzzled as to why the disciples took so much time and discussion in choosing the successor to the disgraced Judas Iscariot as part of the twelve [7] but then didn’t seem to follow the same protocol in choosing members of the Jerusalem Council.

Bunyan believes that only those with the courage to live and rule by the approved design to promote unity and peace in the congregations should be the ones chosen. They must also possess the wisdom needed to deal with issues that arise, and the courage to correct those who get out of line, but to do so with humility. Yes, there will be times when some must be rebuked sharply, but not as a punishment. It must be done to help them become more mature in the faith. That’s why Paul tells the Galatians here in verse five that when he saw those on the Council trying to implement rules and mandatory compliance of Jewish Ceremonial Laws into his Gospel to the Gentiles, he resisted them without hesitation. So it must be with believers who find some who want to interject into their faith and beliefs rules and mandatory elements that are not found in the Gospel, they too must resist with all their might.[8]

But Bunyan also found a connection between his advice for those who suffer for the Lord Jesus the Anointed One, and are ridiculed or persecuted because of their right standing with God and His Word, and what Paul faced in Jerusalem before the divided congregation’s Council. First of all, Bunyan concludes that Paul and his fellow workers were encountering opposition because of doing what was right in exempting Gentile believers from having to comply with Jewish Ceremonial Law.  Added to that, was the fact that Paul and his fellow missionaries felt that the Gentiles deserved to be treated as equal believers along with the Jews without conforming to Ceremonial Laws, rites, and rituals. Then they must agree that both Jews and Gentiles were sinners in the eyes of God and both needed to be redeemed, forgiven, chosen, and saved by the same grace of God. So anything that was added to that was not of God but of man.

It was also important to note that Gentile converts were living outside Judea so why should they be made to abide by customs and manners that were not known to them. As long as God knew them, that was the most important. And Paul’s other point was that since they were being ridiculed for doing what was right, that criticism did not diminish their standing with God. Both they and the Jewish converts stood equal before God. Also, Bunyan believed that the Gentiles would remain pure and holy before God even if they did suffer for refusing to abide by Jewish Ceremonial Law in order to get the approval of Jews or the ungodly. Not only that, but the Gentiles must never let their suffering for doing right go to their heads and think that made them better than other believers. In fact, they will manage their sufferings with graceful words and actions that will be long remembered after they are gone to their rest in the Lord.

Bunyan believes that is why Paul asked the Colossians to join him and rejoice in his sufferings for the name of the Anointed One.[9] That’s because by his suffering others were made stronger in the Lord. Paul phrased it this way to the Philippians, “Even if I give my life as a gift on the altar to God for you, I am glad and share this joy with you.”[10] But why was Paul rejoicing and asking others to rejoice with him in this? Why? Because as a result of his sufferings that caused him much stress and was taxing on his body, yet it was for the refreshing, comfort, and stability of others. That way at the end of the letter, Paul would tell the Galatians that he considered these things as marks that helped identify him with Jesus the Anointed One who suffered for everyone. But at this point in the letter, he sees that what he and Titus were going through in Jerusalem was nothing more than a little pushing and shoving against the Synagogue Jews. The best he could hope for might be a few bruises here and there.[11]

I like the way German scholar Johann Bengel defines the truths of the Gospel.[12] When it comes to truth, “Truth is unyielding and firm – it abandons nothing that belongs to it and admits nothing foreign to it.[13]”[14] And James Haldane says that the greatness of the Gospel is found in its genuineness and simplicity.[15] And Catholic scholar George Haydock states that by the approval of a living assembly or council, which everyone should be willing to seek for advice, the Scriptures are not made true, altered or amended; they are to declare that God’s Word is infallible, not man’s.[16]

Revivalist Adam Clarke gives his view of what was going on here.  He surmises that the Judaizers were allowed to be introduced into the assembly of the Apostles as legitimate members of the Christian community. Their true intent, however, was to oppose Paul and his associates in their preaching the Anointed One to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the congregation without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. Once the Apostle Paul recognized that such individuals were in the assembly, he thought it better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles at that time, lest, by means of those false brethren, the meeting might deteriorate into altercations and disputes. That’s why he first met with the Apostles in a private conference, to set the whole matter straight, relative to his work among the Gentiles. That when it did come before the conference, they gave him their support.

Clarke goes on to say that this gave Paul such satisfaction with his Divine call and that in preaching among the Gentiles he acted in strict conformity to it, that he did not submit in the least to the opinion of those Judaizing teachers. Therefore, he continued to insist on the exemption of the Gentiles from the necessity of submitting to Jewish rites; that the truth of the Gospel – this grand doctrine, that the Gentiles are admitted by the Gospel of the Anointed One to be fellow-heirs with the Jews, might continue. Because of that, this same doctrine continues until this day.[17]

The one trait that is found in those who are stubborn advocates of the truth as they see it, and insist on following the narrow line as drawn by their imagination, is that they are committed to it day and night, come what may. It is like they are staring straight ahead like a horse with blinders and with earplugs so as not to be distracted by the truth. No matter how you try to introduce them to an alternate way of seeing things by showing them that even the Scriptures do not fully support their beliefs, they still refuse to listen. Even worse, they begin to think of anyone who wanted to help them see a different way that was supported by Scriptures as an enemy of their souls. Only the Holy Spirit is qualified to complete this task, so it’s best to trust Him.

[1] Ibid. Institutes, op. cit., Prefatory Address to Francis, King of France, Bk. 3, Ch. 19, p. 873

[2] Colossians 2:11-12

[3] Hebrews 8:1-6

[4] Galatians 4:9, 10; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 9:19, 20; 2 Corinthians 3:13-16

[5] Acts of the Apostles 15:28; 16:3; 21:21-26; Galatians 2:3, 11, 12

[6] Jakob Arminius: op. cit. Vol. 1, Disputation 12, The Law of God, pp. 479-480

[7] Acts of the Apostles 1:12-26

[8] John Bunyan, Exhortation to Unity and Peace, Vol. 4, Ch 4, Directions and Motives, pp. 300-301

[9] Colossians 1:24

[10] Philippians 2:17

[11] Ibid. Advice to Sufferers, Vol. 8, ch. 6, pp. 209-210

[12] Verse 5; Cf. Colossians 1:5

[13] See Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32 Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:19

[14] Johann Bengel: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 577

[15] James Haldane: On Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 71

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

[17] Adam Clarke: 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 VIII)

Medieval scholar Bruno the Carthusian believes that Paul decision on a private meeting with the leading Apostles before they met the whole Council, was to make sure that when he got up before the Council to share his ministry and they began to question why he took it upon himself to exempt the Gentiles from Jewish ceremonial laws and customs, he’d be able to turn to Peter and James for them to say they supported Paul’s decision because it was the right thing to do and did not violate the Gospel in any way.¹

In addition to all that Paul dealt with concerning these false teachers, some psychologist find an inconsistency here between Paul’s earlier confession that the grace and mercy of God is what made him who he was and helped him accomplish all that he was able to do, and yet being so adamant about proving that he received both a blessing and approval from Peter and James in order to protect himself from being branded as a religious rebel without a cause. What these psychologists fail to see is that Paul’s humility is based on his being such a physically weak human being who was mentally bound to the slavery of the Law, but upon whom God showed mercy; that Paul’s spiritual assertiveness is founded on his personal encounter with the Anointed One and the anointing and Gospel message were given to him along with his appointment as God’s emissary to the Gentiles.

Paul certainly does not hide the fact that he touts his educational achievements, his Roman citizenship, his familiarity with Greek writers, and his outstanding success as a rising star in the ranks of the Pharisees. What Paul is really trying to do, however, is distinguish between what he is as a person, and what he’s become as a minister of the Gospel. In the flesh, Paul takes ownership of his attainments and standing as a result of his long hours of study and hard work. But as a servant of Jesus the Anointed One, he is what he is by the grace of God. There is no doubt that from time to time Paul unconsciously relies on his own strength to be competitive in the ministry, while consciously declaring that we should not take sides or form groups in competition with one another. It’s all part of the ongoing conflict between the flesh and the spirit in all of us.²

But Paul did not let this distraction get in the way of following the commission of the Anointed One to preach the Gospel of salvation through faith in His work on the cross. I often told my colleagues in seminary and in ecumenical gatherings that I learned more about sin, worldliness, immoral living, debauchery, and how to get to hell fast from sermons I heard in church rather than out in the world. It’s proper to preach against sin, but not at the expense of being silent on the tremendous work of God through the Anointed One on the cross to bring us salvation. Believe me, when a person is truly born again, the Holy Spirit is quick to convict them of any act or deed or word that does not please their Father in heaven. They do not need to be beaten over the head each Sunday to get the point.

These Judaizers were looking to provoke a fight and Paul refused to give it to them. They believed in being saved to the old way. But according to Paul’s theology, if it’s not necessary to get saved by your own efforts then why should it be necessary to stay saved through spiritual hard labor? That was one of his main themes, as we will see. As he would write later to the Corinthian believers, anyone who is in union with the Anointed One is already a new creation, the old passed away and everything became new.³ You may be surprised to find out how many believers today put down other believers because they only receive communion on Good Friday or Easter Sunday, or hold baptismal services only twice a year. Yes, these things are important but should never become a point of contention dividing them into groups, each one believing they are better than the other.

Now, in order to show the Judaizers that his method worked, Paul shares with them that when he went to Jerusalem to meet privately with the leaders there he took a new Gentile convert along named Titus. If you read Paul’s personal letter to Titus you’ll see that Paul already had many reasons for involving this young man in the controversy that was going on about being obedient to Mosaic Law and traditions in order to enhance one’s standing in union with the Anointed One. Although Titus was a Greek Gentile, after his conversion Paul did not insist on him being circumcised according to Jewish tradition.

Venerable Catholic scholar Thomas Aquinas offers that Timothy was circumcised and Titus was not, is that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and Jewish mother, whereas Titus’ parents were both Gentiles. And the opinion of the Apostle was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised. If you want to read the whole story on this confrontation, you’ll find it in Acts 15:1-11. Aquinas also believes that by taking Barnabas and Titus with him, since Barnabas was a Jew but Titus a Gentile, is because they both stood as bonafide witnesses to his teaching and showed that he neither leaned to the side of the Jews or the Gentiles.⁴

Martin Luther uttered some strong words for those who opposed his separating from the Roman Catholic Church and preaching that the mass did not impart grace since the bread and wine were not transformed into the body and blood of the Anointed One. As far as Luther was concerned, if his opponents would not accept the fact that faith in the Anointed One alone justifies, he would not yield to them. On the question of justification, Luther insists that his followers must remain adamant, or else they would lose the truth of the Gospel. It is a matter of life and death. It involves the death of the Son of God, who died for the sins of the world.

If we do not surrender in faith to the Anointed One as the only One who justifies us, says Luther, the death and resurrection of Jesus are without meaning. Then the Anointed One as the only Savior of the world would become a myth. God would be a liar because He didn’t fulfill His promises. However, our insistence on believing that all of this is the true Gospel is the right thing to do because we will preserve the liberty which we have in the Anointed One. Only by preserving will our liberty be able to retain the truth of the Gospel inviolate.⁵

Let’s look a Reformer John Calvin’s insightful summation of how the Gospel should be understood. For him, the truth contained in the Gospel is what proves its genuine purity in doctrine. The false apostles did not altogether set aside the Gospel but attempted to mix it with it their own notions so as to give it a false and disguised meaning, which it always does when we make the smallest departure from “the simplicity that is in the Anointed One.”⁶ What upset Calvin is that the Vatican had the audacity to boast that only they possessed the true Gospel, which they not only corrupted with many human inventions but more than adulterated it with many false doctrines.

Let us remember, notes Calvin, it is not enough to retain the name of the Gospel, and some kind of summary of its doctrines, if it’s sterling purity does not remain untouched. Where are those who, by pretended moderation, endeavor to bring about a reconciliation between us and the Vatican? It seems that for them, the doctrine of religion, like a matter affecting money or property, could be compromised. With what abhorrence would such a transaction been regarded by Paul, who affirms that it is not the true Gospel if it is not pure!⁷

Calvin also makes a note on the subject of Christian liberty. He begins by pointing out that it deals with every believer’s conscience that is guarded by the Holy Spirit. But he claims that this is only one factor in the decision process, and it begins by our relationship with congregation laws. Doing what a religious origination says adds nothing to one’s salvation. Rather, it is meant to teach discipleship and discipline. The second factor is the matter of God’s mercy. This involves what the believer does for themselves and what they do for others in their service to the Anointed One. And the third factor is the believer’s calling to be sanctified and holy in all that they do for the Anointed One, others, and themselves.⁸

With this in mind, it is obvious how absurd the charges were against Paul that he was teaching freedom from the Law in order to promote promiscuity. This debate between those who believe that when it says that those the Son sets free are free indeed,⁹ it means freedom from being tied to obey the Law in order to be justified to stand forgiven before God. Others conclude that those who follow such an interpretation are left without any guidance or structure by which to guide their lives and that God gave the Law exactly for that reason. The one thing that seems to be forgotten is that no matter how much obedience one gives to the Law, the Law cannot justify, the Law cannot forgive, and the Law cannot save. The freedom spoken of is, therefore, the freedom to serve the Anointed One without serving the Law because the Anointed One justifies, the Anointed One forgives, and the Anointed One saves. In fact, by serving Him, the believer is fulfilling the Law perfectly.

That’s why the debate in Jerusalem by Paul and some members of the Council was so ludicrous. The reason he did not require that Titus be circumcised, is because it would add nothing to Titus’ standing with God. God did not say anywhere in the Final Covenant, “Thou shalt not be circumcised.” That lies within the purview of the believer’s freedom to choose. And since Jesus didn’t say anything against it, the believer can choose to be circumcised or not. Either way, they will be no more a child of God if they, and no less if they don’t.¹⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson VII)

If this were a drama, who ought to play the part of the congregation and who might be seen in the role of Marcion, early church scholar Tertullian doesn’t leave much doubt. He speaks of Peter and the others as real pillars of the congregation being blamed by Paul for not behaving properly according to the truth of the Gospel. Yes, the same Paul who is just beginning to understand the fundamentals of the Doctrine of Grace, and the one afraid that all his work in Galatia might be in vain. Here he is now for the first time conversing with those who were Apostles before he was called. Therefore, because of the eagerness of his zeal against Judaism and a newcomer to Christianity, he thought that there was something wrong with so-called pillars of the congregation in the way they were acting in Antioch. Yes, the same Paul that would say later that he owed no allegiance to anyone, that he was willing be like those he was with in order for them to accept his Gospel.¹ Yet, here he was censuring Peter for the same conduct. How could he do this after they earlier joined hands in agreement and fellowship as believers in the Anointed One, that each one would accept the other’s views on the Gospel?² It’s obvious whose side Tertullian is on.

Then early congregation scholar Epiphanius (310-403 AD), Bishop of Salamis writes a scathing rebuttal to all the heresies current in his day. And in one section, he singled out Cerinthus (50-100 AD), a Greek agnostic who early spoke against everything that Christians claimed about the Anointed One. He tried to refute their claim that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. That in fact, He was the son of Joseph and Mary by natural means. Furthermore, the dove that landed on Jesus at His baptism was the Holy Spirit who turned Him into a miracle worker. Also, Epiphanius reveals that when Paul went to Jerusalem with Titus, it was Cerinthus who caused all the trouble that led to the Council writing the letter to the congregation in Antioch.³

Paul also sent out a warning to the Colossians telling them that preachers would come along with the goal of changing their minds. They would do this by sounding authoritative and well-informed. The Greek noun pithanologia that Paul uses means “speech adapted to persuade.” But it also means being persuasive in a bad sense. In other words, to convince someone that what they’ve been told and believed from the beginning is wrong.⁴ This is what the Jews tried to do with the Apostles belief in the virgin birth of the Anointed One through Mary. They knew that if they could disproved the virgin birth, it would make it a lie and destroy the disciples’ and the congregations’ message.

Paul wanted the Galatians to know that the Gospel they received from him was the truth. That’s why they were able to put their trust in the Anointed One and receive forgiveness for their sins. God then put His stamp of approval on that Good News by giving them the Holy Spirit to dwell within for guidance, strength, and wisdom. This is the same thing Paul told the Ephesians.⁵ No wonder that Paul seemed to repeat the same message for the Colossians.⁶ And Paul was equally thankful that he was able to deliver the same Word of God to the Thessalonians.⁷

We know from Paul’s own words that he studied at the feet of the esteemed Jewish Rabban Gamaliel in Jerusalem. So it is possible that he may recall an incident where Gamaliel was confronted by his students when they saw him doing things that went directly against what he taught. For instance, he taught that on one’s wedding night the groom need not recite the she-ma, (“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One”).⁸ But on his wedding night, Gamaliel recited the she-ma. So when his students confronted him, his excuse was, “I will not listen to you to remove from myself the Kingship to Heaven even for a moment.” He did the same then when his wife died and when his servant died. Making excuses for violating his own teachings.⁹ This may also be part of what Paul was warning about.

As if the doubters in Galatia didn’t hold enough proof in their hands that Paul’s preaching of the Gospel was in harmony with what the original Apostles taught and preached, he blasts another hole in their sinking ship. Some of these Judaizing brethren apparently came around to hear Paul preach his liberation theology. They wanted proof to take back to Jerusalem so they might return with a real strong memorandum from the Apostles, telling the Galatians to oppose Paul and his fellow workers in their preaching and teaching the Anointed One to the Gentiles; and not to allow them into the congregation without obliging them to observe the conservative teachings on circumcision and keeping the Jewish feasts and ordinances. But Augustine believes “...they were keeping an eye on the apostle Paul, whom they envied and wanted to be viewed with suspicion because he once served as the main persecutor of the congregations.”¹⁰

Chrysostom knew that Paul viewed these people as spies, and the sole object of a spy is to obtain information to bring about devastation and destruction. They do so by becoming acquainted with the adversary’s position. And this is what they tried, wishing to bring the disciples back to their old slavery under the Law. Also, it is apparent how contrary their purpose was to that of the Apostles, who made concessions to tolerate them until they could be removed from their positions. But the spies continued to plot even more sinister plans. Therefore, they looked around and observed closely and made themselves busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised. As Paul says, “they came in secretly to spy out our liberty.” This not only identified their conspiracy as that of spies, but by their stealthy entrance and creeping in they showed their method to be that of spies.¹¹

I found it interesting that one Jewish scholar agrees with Paul that there’s no need for Gentiles to become Jews in order to believe in Jesus. To the contrary, today the shoe is on the other foot. Messianic Jews are having to insist that a Jew need not become a Gentile in order to put their trust in Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah. This point, irrelevant for Jews in Paul’s day, and, therefore, not part of the Gospel as it was presented to them, is essential for Gentiles because it removes a major barrier, namely, the requirement, in addition to trusting God and the Good News, to leave one culture and join another. Paul saw not only that this was unnecessary, but that insistence on it was a grave danger to the truth of the Good News. Circumcision quickly became the token of the entire controversy, precisely because when a Gentile allows himself to be circumcised, he obligates himself to obey the entire Torah, plus all the oral teachings and traditions. In other words, they obligate themselves to join the Jewish people as a Jew, to become fully Jewish.¹² That’s why Paul kept telling them that their full commitment to the Anointed One, was all they needed to be in full compliance with the Torah. After all, Jesus was a Jew by birth.

The importance of this tug-of-war between Paul and the Judaizers was vital. Apparently his opponents gave the impression that they were there by the authority of the Apostle James, and perhaps mentioned the Apostle Peter as well. Paul wanted to pull the rug out from under them by stating categorically that James and Peter were in harmony with what he was doing. Therefore, the Judaizers’ claims were false, which now made them subject to questioning as to their validity and authority. Hence, Robert Gundry renders verse three this way: “However, even Titus, who [was] with me, wasn’t forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.”¹³ Gundry points out that it actually was the result of some false brethren who came in and raised the question of circumcision and used Titus as a way of accusing Paul of being two-faced. But Paul was very clear when he said: “We didn’t yield by way of submission even for an hour, in order that the truth of the gospel might stay with you throughout.”

A contemporary of Bishop Epiphanius, Ambrosiaster, seems to take the same attitude toward Paul that Paul did toward Peter in Antioch over his eating with the Jews at the disdain of the non-Jewish believers there. Ambrosiaster notes that both history and the Epistle tell us that Paul once gave in to the pressure. Paul just said that Titus was not forced to be circumcised because he was a Greek, to which he added, because of the false brethren secretly allowed into the meeting. So it does sound like Paul gave in for a moment because of the false brethren who snuck in unawares? Otherwise, what sense would the sentence make? It is clear that Paul says, Titus did not need to be circumcised. What else does it sound like, except that Paul gave in?¹⁴

Ambrosiaster goes on to make the charge that Paul must deny that he didn’t give in even for a moment, when it is known that he caused Timothy to be circumcised because of the Jews, and went up to the Temple after purifying himself according to the Law? Why say more than that he didn’t give in even for a moment, unless they offered proof that he did? Either he wavered on giving in and did not do so because of the false brethren, or never considered giving in but did so because of them. Also, if Paul never gave in because of the false brethren’s charges, why then give in for the sake of the true believers? These are some things to consider, says Ambrosiaster, in understanding what happened there in Jerusalem.¹⁵

So it appears that Ambrosiaster was not necessarily opposed to Paul one way or the other, it only involved Paul’s statement here as being too ambiguous for the average reader. This no doubt prompted Catholic scholar George Haydock to mention that Jerome took notice that some Latin copies of Galatians read: to whom we yielded, but that was not the true reading by the Greek and Syriac texts.¹⁶ So even if Titus did end up being circumcised, Haydock follows the commentaries of Jerome and Theodoret in showing that no pressure being brought by the false brethren would have caused it to happen. No wonder that at the end of his ministry Paul said, “I fought a good fight! I have kept the faith!”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson VI)

Pastor and writer Vincent Cheung agrees with what Chrysostom said about seeing Paul’s encounter with the Anointed One on the road to Damascus as his calling, and the Holy Spirit’s directions in the Antioch congregation and the laying on of hands as receiving his Apostleship. As Cheung sees it, Jesus was the one who called him into the ministry, but the Holy Spirit called him out to be a missionary. It is on this basis of his divine commission and not by any human recognition that Paul asserts the validity of his Apostolic ministry.¹

Current Dutch Bible scholar Alfred E. Bouter (now living and ministering in Canada), notes that as he looks here at verse two, he notes that we are finally given the details of what happened in Jerusalem, and how, after much discussion, the conclusions were reached under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is wonderful to see this. This is the background to Galatians, chapter two. Paul first met privately with James, Peter, and John to make sure that they understood each other so that there would be no difference of opinion when they met with the congregation’s council. He purposely scheduled private discussions with those who held solid and respected reputations. And what was his purpose? He said it was to make sure that his ministry among the Galatians did not turn out to be a worthless effort. Paul realized that if this challenge of the enemy was not immediately countered, his mission would be in serious jeopardy, and so he was very wise, first by having a private counsel with the top three Apostles, and then later a public statement with them.² This should be wise advice for all of us in dealing with outside or inside opposition to our ministry and message.

2:3-5 Titus was with me, even though he was a Gentile. But he did not go through the religious act of being circumcised. Some of those present, who call themselves Christians, were the ones who brought this up. They snuck into the meeting without being invited. They came there to find out if we were no longer preaching and practicing the Jewish rites, rituals, and ceremonies because we claimed the Anointed One set us free. They were only interested in getting us to go back under the Law instead of staying in Grace. But we did not listen to them nor do what they wanted us to do so the truth of the Gospel might be yours.

While the one reason for God sending Paul to Jerusalem involved sharing the news of his ministry among the Gentiles, the core reason for this visit might concern the cause of Titus being accepted as a valid member of the Congregation of the Anointed One without submitting to the rite of circumcision. But why is Paul putting this in his letter to the Galatian congregations? Perhaps he was sending a message to all the male Gentile members there, not to be pressured into being circumcised. If it was fine with the Council in Jerusalem to accept Titus that way, they need not be worried no matter what the Judaizers were telling them.³

Another striking thing about this meeting and the confrontation that took place there is that it appears Paul planned on meeting privately with the top Apostles. But somehow these legalists learned of his coming and begin plotting on how to sneak in undetected and then catch Paul off guard with their question about circumcision. They showed little interest in meeting with Paul privately to iron out any differences of opinion. They wanted to seize the right moment to openly embarrass Paul in front of the whole Council. Maybe then he would back down and give in to their demands that male Gentiles be circumcised like they demanded from their Jewish converts. So what better proof did they need than Titus standing there with Paul as a genuine born again child of God.⁴

Ben Witherington believes that Paul is not so much interested in exposing the identity of these Judaizers who came from Jerusalem to Galatia but wanted to offer and encourage them on how to properly respond to the false doctrine they were circulating throughout the congregations in the province.⁵ So Paul is now shedding more light on that meeting by sharing that not everyone was in agreement with letting the Gentiles go without being circumcised and observing Jewish holy days. In fact, Paul said he need not write this letter at all if it wasn’t for some of these individuals sneaking into the meeting and raising this issue. That’s what caused all the debate and the Council’s decision to write a response.

To pick up the storyline of Paul, Bar-Nabba [Barabbas], and Titus who were being sent at God’s command to Jerusalem to straighten out whether or not Gentiles should be forced to start practicing Judaism along with Christianity, the Council in Jerusalem decided to write a letter to the congregation in Antioch, and along with the letter they sent two leaders of the Jerusalem congregation. One was named Bar-Sabba and the other Sila. Basically, the letter said circumcision not necessary. All they asked them to do was “abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.”⁶

Alfred Edersheim tells us that as a former Jew, his understanding of this restriction on meats was not new for the Apostle Paul. For instance, when the Corinthians inquired about the lawfulness of meat sold in the marketplace or served as part of a dinner,⁷ Paul told them it could gladly be eaten without making any fuss. However, if it was revealed that this meat came out of the heathen temple after being sacrificed to idols, then politely say “No,” both for the good of the one who informed you and for your own conscience. It is obvious, says Edersheim, that Paul was aware of the Rabbinical law on this subject. For, according to Rabbi Akiba, meat that is on sale where idol worship is permitted is lawful to eat, but meat that is brought out after it being offered in idol worship, that is forbidden, because it is like the sacrifices for the dead⁸.⁹

This is not the first time these things came up in Paul’s ministry. When he met with the Elders of the congregation in Ephesus Paul told them that although they’ve heard him preach the true Gospel, yet they should be careful because, “after I depart, hungry wolves will come in among you. They will try to destroy the congregation. Also men from your own group will begin to teach things that are not true. They will get men to follow them.”¹⁰ Paul also warned the Corinthians about people who would come claiming they possessed the proper credentials and training and bragging about their résumé. But don’t trust them, says Paul, they are fakes, pretending to be commissioned by the Apostles when in fact they are self-appointed.¹¹ Even the Apostle John warned his readers of such false preachers.¹²

We like to think of the Apostolic-age congregations as being harmonious, pure, holy, and on fire for God. But it was not so. In fact, Paul warned Timothy: “They will do things to make it look as if they are Christians. But they will not receive the power that is for a Christian. Keep away from such people.”¹³ But Paul was not alone. The Apostle Peter also warned of false teachers. He said they would come in under false pretenses so that they could introduce nonbiblical teachings. This will lead to behavior that was previously forbidden.¹⁴

And Jude spoke of similar things that would happen to test the believer’s faith. He wrote: “I must write to you and tell you to fight hard for the faith which was once and for all given to the holy people of God. Some sinful men come into your congregation without anyone knowing it. They are living in sin and they speak of the loving-favor of God to cover up their sins.”¹⁵ Not only did those things happen, but there is no reason for us to believe we must still wait for it to come. It is already here and having a great effect on congregations. The only thing that will drive out such insects of darkness is the light of the Gospel.

Perhaps Paul remembered the prayer David prayed when he said: “Let the joy of Your saving power return to me. And give me a willing spirit to obey you.”¹⁶ This was also the thought of another Psalmist who told the Lord that if I never stop obeying your Word, I’ll be able to walk in freedom and not worry about being in sin’s bondage again.¹⁷ That’s why Paul told the Corinthians that wherever the Spirit of the Lord is in control the believers’ hearts are free to worship God in spirit.¹⁸ However, be constantly on the lookout for those with only one goal in mind and that is to take control of your spiritual life for the purpose of making money for themselves. This is nothing but a trap. And when you realize what really happened it will be like a slap in the face.¹⁹

Tertullian (155-240) made a comment about Marcion of Sinope (85-160), the son of the Bishop of Sinope, a port city in Turkey. As a result of being thrown out of his earthly father’s house, Marcion took his anger out on his heavenly Father. Some of his beliefs became that the God of the Jewish Holy Scriptures was an evil creator god that Jesus came to destroy. He also believed that this evil god did, in fact, reveal his will through the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Thus he believed in the “inspiration” of the Jewish Holy Scriptures being from a divine source, although from an evil source. For him, the Jewish Holy Scriptures themselves were a purely human invention, pseudo-oracles of an imaginary god. Marcion accepted only the Gospel of Luke to the exclusion of the other three Gospels. He also accepted all of Paul’s writings but he would “cut out” any Jewish Holy Scriptures quotes or anything else that contradicted his theological views. He rejected all other books of the Bible.

Although Marcion firmly believed that the Jewish Holy Scriptures revealed God’s existence as the Creator of the world. The problem was that his creation was evil, and he himself, therefore, was an evil being; it was precisely the role of Jesus, and of the Unknown God now revealed in Him, to deliver humankind from the malice of the evil creator. Tertullian believes that since Marcion rejected the Gospels and Epistles, but accepted the Jewish Holy Scriptures – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, that his fight with the congregation was much the same as Paul’s fight with Peter.