Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXVI)

It is interesting that Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), one of Martin Luther’s closest advisers and the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, spoke about this same issue. In writing about the question concerning the jurisdiction of bishops, he said that civil authority must be distinguished from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They are certainly given the divine right according to the Gospel to oversee things related to people’s conduct in the ministry, the interpretation of the God’s Word, and the correct manner in which to use the ordinances of water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and also the preaching of any doctrine contrary to the Gospel. Such ministers who misinterpret or stray away from the Word of God should be disciplined, and if they did not change, then have their ministerial license withdrawn and excluded from offices in the Church.

He goes on to say, that it is a necessity and by divine right that congregations must respect them as being over them in the Lord.¹ Also, that congregations were to exercise the right given to them by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount.² That’s why what Paul says here in verse eight, is just as important for them to remember. False prophets were not to be tolerated, not even those claiming to be sent directly from God.³

Jakob Arminius (1560-1609) has something to say about those who come around with a new revelation or insight into God’s Word that is unfamiliar teaching to the church body. When any believer finds out by whose authority what is being said becomes known, and when what is said blends in with the consciences of all those to whom the teaching or the writing is addressed or directed, they can then accept or reject it in the appropriate way. However, when those who are receiving any teaching or writing can be confident that what they are receiving has been delivered with God’s anointing on those that approve of it, publish, preach, interpret, and expound it, it is much easier to distinguish and separate it from words or writings which are suppositions and alterations of the Divine Word.

What these people say and write does not add one ounce of legitimacy to their claim that it is from God because their sole authority, whether contemplated on their own or with others, is only that of mortals. Things that have God’s anointing need no further confirmation, nor indeed can receive it from what humans may say about it. This whole concept of approving, preaching, explaining, and discerning the truth of God’s word and the ideas of mankind, even when it is discharged by the Church Universal, can only be taken to mean that she declares, holds, and acknowledges these words or writings under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are from God and God alone⁴.⁵

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) poses a practical question on what Paul says here in verse eight: “How confident was Paul that the Gospel he preached to the Galatians was the only true Gospel?” It is clear that he was so fully persuaded that he pronounced condemnation on those who pretended to preach any other Gospel, and, to let them see that these instructions did not proceed from any irritableness or intense zeal in him. In fact, he repeats it again in verse nine. This does not mean that we are justified in thundering out condemnation on against anyone who differs from us in minor things. It is only against those who devise a counterfeit gospel, who remove forgiveness and justification from the solid foundation of the covenant of grace. Instead, they set up a program of good works in the place of the Anointed One’s work on the cross.

This is what the Judaizers were doing in corrupting Christianity with Judaism which Paul strongly denounces. He even asks the Galatians, Do you think I would do such a thing? Do you think that an angel would be sent down from heaven to do that? Paul was at ease asking such questions because he knew they were both impossible. But just in case, by some unexplainable reason, someone would come to Galatia saying that he sent them with a different version of his original Gospel, or someone saying that God sent them to preach an enlightened gospel rather than the one Paul preached, they would be lying! Anyone who would do such a thing puts themselves under a curse and is in danger of having the curse put upon those who accept them. So we can see why Paul was so worried about what was happening to his converts in the churches in Galatia.⁶

J. P. Lange (1802-1884) in his commentary mentions that these Judaizers were out to destroy the Gospel of the Anointed One that brought the Galatians out of the darkness of heathen ignorance into the marvelous light of understanding the Gospel. So Paul was saying, more or less, let these troublemakers be destroyed for what they are doing. It doesn’t matter if they do call themselves messengers from God. It was an effort on their part to counter Paul’s claim that he was commissioned by God to bring them the Gospel, don’t pay any attention to them, says Lange, they are only out to cause havoc not harmony.⁷

W. A. O’Conor does not believe that the persons referred to taught anything logically contrary to the Gospel, but they made what seemed to be a seemingly harmless addition that drained its life. If falsehood were openly opposed to the truth there would be no difficulty in detecting it. The danger is when it comes in the form of friendship, and advances the claims of coming from a longtime tradition. The teaching of the Judaizers, in its uncorrupted form, expressed at one time the relation between God and man. Circumcision and the observance of seasons were of heavenly origin. They were as the stringy ringlets on an ear of corn, which, when the grain is ripe, becomes chaff, and must be cast aside and burnt. The Apostle Paul communicated the pure sifted truth to the Galatians, and now other men were mingling straw and chaff with it. The evil of this mixture was, that the cross would become only another form like circumcision.⁸

Charles Spurgeon makes an interesting comment on what Paul said about not receiving anyone who comes preaching another gospel. For Spurgeon, it was a way of “fraternizing” with people with different views. But the modern way of saying this would be, “Let’s see if we can get along with them; they are people who think out of the box.” This comes from the idea that we shouldn’t tie people down to just one way of expressing themselves. After all, if they make mistakes we’ll just point it out to them and they will begin to see things our way. “No, no!” says Paul. “I’ve told you once and I’ll tell you again, if they preach any other gospel to you than what you received from me, let them be accursed.”⁹ In more up-to-date terms, treat them as persona non grata.

Marvin Vincent in his Word Studies tells us that many Roman Catholic interpreters insist that the Greek preposition para should be rendered as “contrary to,” since their Vulgate uses the Latin “præterquam“ which means “not comparable, beyond, besides, except.” Even some Protestant interpreters insist on the word “besides” as being against supplementing the true Gospel with traditions. The explanation is found in the previous words, “a different gospel.” Any gospel which is different from the one true Gospel,¹⁰ is both beside – as noted in the margin, and contrary to – as contradicting the original.¹¹

Sir Robert Anderson, in his own police detective way, supposes that a stranger suddenly shows up in metropolitan London claiming to be the bearer of a Divine revelation to mankind. And in order to give any credence to his claim, he proceeds to display miraculous power. Let us assume, for the moment, that after a thorough examination by experts, the miracles are unanimously established as genuine. That would certainly allow for people to believe them. Now in like manner, everyone must come face-to-face with this question: If the “Christian message” is also found to be sound, the Gospel preached by this Apostle must also be accepted without question. However, anyone who knows anything about human nature would doubt that any such unanimous agreement could be reached on even in the best of times and on the best of days.

The Christian, however, would certainly be cautious about accepting the words of a doubter over that of believers. Does not Paul say here that when even one claiming to be an angel from heaven came preaching any gospel other than that which was preached by a true servant of God, let them be considered an abomination? Any serious Christian would insist on taking any new miracle-accredited gospel and testing it with God’s Holy Word. And if they found it to be inconsistent with the Gospel they already received, would reject it. That is to say, they would test the message, not by the miracles, but by the Bible they accept as a revelation from God.¹² Could it be that Anderson is curious as to whether or not Paul’s reference here to “another angel” being an undercover jab at Peter for what he did in Antioch? Also, could Paul’s reference here to “other gospel,” be a hint at what he would say later on in the letter about his confrontation with Peter in Antioch?¹³

As Cyril Emmet (1875-1924) sees it, Paul’s reason for calling what the Judaizers were teaching “another gospel” is because Paul’s Gospel was built upon the revelations from the mind of God expressed in the First Covenant. However, the gospel of the Judaizers was built upon the revelations of the human mind found in the writings of the Rabbis. It is true that the essential principles of salvation by the love of God and the free grace of the Anointed One can be presented in different forms, but what these Judaizers was spreading was a radically different concept of salvation based on adherence to a temporary law. Emmet warns that the same thing can happen when preachers today try to lay down these same principles of God’s love and grace in terms of modern thought. The Gospel will always be the Gospel the way it was taught by the Anointed One and preached by the Apostles.¹⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXV)

Let’s look again at what Paul meant when he said that he would be willing to suffer all the punishment that was coming on his fellow Jews because of their calling Jesus the Anointed One a curse, if somehow it would bring them back to God. All they needed to do was to accept Jesus the Anointed One as their Messiah, Lord, and Savior.¹ And Paul used this same analogy when he told the Corinthians that if they are filled with the Holy Spirit, then it would be impossible to call the Anointed One cursed, as many of the Jews did. At the same time, it is equally as impossible to call the Anointed One “Lord” unless the Holy Spirit dwells within.²

In fact, Paul went so far as to tell the Corinthians that if anyone who calls themselves a Christian does not really love the Lord Jesus, let them be cursed. In other words, that they miss out on the Rapture.³ And the Apostle Peter was not far behind, for he told his readers that he prayed that those who once knew the Lord and returned back into sin. They did so because they found more satisfaction in serving sin than serving the Lord. This would only send them to hell.⁴

This was so important to Paul, that he repeated himself by saying that if anyone comes along preaching a Gospel that is not based on God’s Word and the revelation of the Anointed One, let them suffer the embarrassment of having a curse placed on them. And Paul wasn’t fooling. He once told the Corinthians that when he says “yes” he means “yes,” and when he says “no” he means, “no.”⁵ So they should take him seriously. He has no tolerance for those who corrupt the Gospel in order to benefit themselves, nor should we.⁶

In other words, Paul didn’t want anything he said to be watered down so that it didn’t sound too harsh, or advance too high as to give the impression that only intellectuals could understand it. He was totally against those who were out to mislead and redirect people away from the Gospel of salvation by grace, not by works. Did not Agur son of Jakeh⁷ say, “Every word of God has been proven true. He is a safe-covering to those who trust in Him. Do not add to His words, or He will speak strong words to you and prove you to be a liar.”⁸ So it is no mystery why the Apostle John used these same words at the end of his Revelation.⁹

Paul now raises the bar of proof for these Judaizers to show that the good news they preached was not the Good News approved by God and taught by Jesus the Anointed One. Paul refuses to allow the Good News he preached to be served alongside other so-called gospels, like a side dish. There is only one true Gospel of the Anointed One. For Paul, the true test of whether to accept a message from anyone who came preaching good news was how it matched up with God’s Word, even if that messenger claimed to have come from heaven.

Unfortunately, some ministers want their authority to be based on their position in the organization. If they preach something that does not conform to the Gospel of the Anointed One and confronted by laity or ministers of lower rank, they point to their position of authority and feel insulted that anyone of lesser importance dare question their interpretation. Paul felt no fear in declaring that even if one thought of themselves as being part of God’s angelic ranks, if they preached a gospel other than what the Anointed One ordained, denounce them, and get rid of them.

The Patriarch of Alexandria, Athanasius (293-373 AD) was closely associated with the Coptic Orthodox Church in Constantinople rather than the Catholic Church in Rome. He was somewhat of a rebel when it came to the Church’s hierarchy, but never left his solid belief in the Word of God as being sovereign over the believer’s faith. As a member of the Nicene Council, he penned a defense of the Council’s stand on how the Word of God was wrongly used by the Arians who objected to the Council’s conclusions.¹⁰ He said that they were like the Jews who questioned why Jesus healed on the Sabbath.

He points out how each generation since Adam, passed on what the Lord revealed to them. Likewise, what Paul received directly from the Anointed One he passed on to the Galatians. That’s why he was so shocked that they so suddenly were led astray by another gospel. So the Arians needed to be careful that they would not be declared anathema by the Council.¹¹ We see already that the Church which grew mostly out of Paul’s ministry was now facing what Paul himself faced in Galatia.

Early church scholar Jerome (347-420 AD), says that we must understand this idea of angels preaching another gospel, as a hyperbole. It is true that some angels were doing so – not meaning that an Apostle or an angel would preach something other than what he preached. Yes, angels are changeable because some listened to Lucifer and fell with him when God cast him out of heaven. And his tendency, to this day, is to confuse everyone through deceit. And Bishop Theodoret feels that Paul certainly knew that the holy angels were incapable of distorting the truth. But through this, Paul criticized what he saw as a serious shortcoming of all humanity.¹²

Vincent of Lérins (d. 446 AD), a French monk and early church Christian writer, felt led to write about how heretics in his day were citing obscure passages in the writings of ancient philosophers in support of their own novel way of looking at Christianity and the Gospel. I like Lérins’ colorful description of those he likens to the wandering Judaizers in the Apostle Paul’s day, who wandered about in provinces and cities, and carrying with them their dishonest teachings, found their way to Galatia, and when the Galatians, on hearing them coughing up their nauseating ideas, and regurgitating their soured doctrines of the Apostolic and Catholic faith, somehow became fascinated with the garbage of their heretical fairy-tales.

But here in verse eight, the Apostle Paul put into action the authority of his office and delivered his condemnation with the utmost severity. For Paul, such nonsense should not be accepted even it was brought by someone claiming to be an angel. If that happens, says Paul, treat them as scum and order them out of your presence. For Lérins, this is what the church leaders should have been doing back in the Fifth Century.¹³ If it was the right thing to do in Paul’s day, and in Lérins day, then it should be the right thing to do today.

Haimo of Auxerre (865 AD) feels that Paul may have been more astonished that the Galatians turned away so quickly, rather than that they turned away in the first place. And in addition, that it took so little persuasion to get them to switch from the Gospel Paul preached to the false teachings of those who came in behind him. The Gospel that Paul preached was the “Good Tidings of New News!” The teachings that this others brought was “Bad Tidings of Old News.” Why were they fooled so convincingly, when the plan of salvation that came through the Gospel of the Anointed One was a gift by grace, and the plan of salvation that came through the Law that required hard work. Many of them already learned that it was an impossible task to earn ones salvation by works.¹⁴

Bruno the Carthusian (1030-1101) has an interesting comment on Paul’s skillful response to those who opposed him on the grounds that he would not allow Jewish rituals in the Churches in Galatia. Perhaps it was because these Judaizers did not understand that Peter only approved of these things because he thought it was better to nourish the simple faith of Jewish converts to Christianity through these concessions than to destroy it by scaring them away with excessive holiness. In reality, what Peter allowed was only intended for the Messianic Jews. Since Paul was sent to preach to the Gentiles, then these things did not apply to them. As far as the Jews were concerned, the stronger their faith in the Anointed One and the Gospel, the easier it would be for them to eventually abolish such needless rites and rituals.¹⁵

On the subject of someone being excommunicated because they came preaching a different Gospel than the one preached by the Apostles, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) dealt with the question of whether or not an individual church member may excommunicate themselves, or excommunicate an equal member, or a superior.¹⁶ Aquinas uses what Paul says here in verse eight concerning excommunicating an angel if they came preaching a gospel other than what the Apostles preached. Therefore, it would seem that an individual church member can excommunicate himself, his equal, or his superior.

After all, an angel of God is greater than Paul. And according to what Jesus said, “I tell you, of those born of women, there is no one greater than John the Baptist. The least in the holy nation of heaven is greater than he.”¹⁷ Now if Paul suggested excommunicated an angel from heaven for preaching a false gospel, and if the least of those in the Kingdom of God are greater than John the Baptizer, then certainly an individual church member may excommunicate a superior.¹⁸ The term excommunicate is used here in the context of an ordinary member of a church telling another member, their pastor, or even a visiting minister to leave, to go away and never return because they were preaching a false and unacceptable gospel.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXIV)

Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925) suggests that the Apostle Paul was dealing with the Galatians caught up in a perplexity between salvation by faith and salvation by works and salvation by faith and works. To make matters even worse, Burton says, the Greek verb tarassō suggests that the agitators were still there and working hard. So it wasn’t that the Judaizers troubled them earlier, but they were still troubling them as Paul wrote his letter. Burton points out that tarassō can be taken to mean “to disturb mentally” with perplexity or fear.¹ And although the influence of these Judaizing missionaries did not win the Galatians over completely, their trouble-making remained an ongoing fact. They also knew that the Galatians were not yet irreversibly persuaded, but it was still their goal.²

Robert Gundry gives us the evangelical view of this “different gospel” theme. For him, any gospel that stands in opposition to believers being saved by “the grace of Jesus the Anointed One,” is a “different gospel.” That is to say, a different gospel displaces the Anointed One’s grace. Since this grace makes the Gospel what it is – namely, “good news” – the subversion of the Anointed One’s grace produces “a different gospel,” even a “non-gospel” (which isn’t even another gospel). Given our sins, the diluting of His grace makes for bad news, not good news.³

Gundry goes on to add that these Judaizers were stirring up the Galatians to defect from Paul’s Gospel. This implies that the defection was a kind of rebellion, a transfer of allegiance from the One who called the Galatians, to a different gospel that’s not really a gospel at all.⁴ Because of the preceding emphasis on his apostleship, we might have expected Paul to portray their defection as deserting him. But because both his apostleship and the grace of salvation stem ultimately from God, Paul portrays the defection as deserting God. And the description of God as “the One who called the Galatians in the grace of the Anointed One” makes the defection and desertion not only unwarranted, but also ungrateful.⁵

Gundry also believes that Paul takes exception to his own expression of astonishment at the Galatians’ ungrateful defection. For the blame shifts now from them to “some who are stirring you up and wanting to distort the Gospel about the Anointed One.” This deflection softens Paul’s tone so as to make the Galatians responsive to his upcoming defense of the Anointed One’s grace and his critique of the non-gospel. They know they’re changing the Gospel that Paul proclaimed to the Galatians. They haven’t corrected it, they’ve distorted it! The grace in essence is the grace of no less a personage than the One anointed by God to give Himself for our sins.⁶

1:8-9 But even if we – or, someone claiming to be an angel from heaven! – were to announce to you some so-called “Good News” contrary to the Good News we announced to you, let them be under a curse forever! I said it before, and I’ll say it again: if anyone announces “Good News” contrary to what you received from me, let him be under a curse forever!

Mark A. Nanos says that Paul is reminding the readers that since he was in Galatia preaching the Gospel, some time has passed since they separated.⁷ However, Paul did not feel that time pushed them apart as fellow believers in the Anointed One. They still shared their unbroken spirit of unity in the Anointed One. So this letter to the Galatians should not be looked at as some historical discourse dealing with supposed or imagined problems, but was a personal letter from some person to some people who shared a common love for God and His Word. And since Paul was inconvenienced from returning to Galatia at this time, such a personal letter provided the closest means for a face-to-face conversation, even though it was one-sided. So what Paul says here to his Galatian brothers and sisters should be read with feeling.⁸

Furthermore, the way Paul starts and writes this letter is similar to what is found in many ancient middle-east texts of someone who gave instructions before the letter was written but those guidelines were being ignored or disobeyed. If Paul sent such instructions before hand, no doubt he was still waiting for an answer. After all, he expected a lot more from them. In fact, he taught against the very false doctrine that was now being circulated among them. So it was understandable that he expected through his teaching, his instructions, and by the Holy Spirit that they would know and behave otherwise.⁹ He wants them to know that even though they’ve been apart, he has been fighting on their behalf to preserve the truth of the Gospel for a long time at great personal expense. That’s why, from his perspective, he possessed every right to be exasperated by their failure to remain faithful to the Gospel of the Anointed One¹⁰.¹¹

So why should anyone in Galatia question if Paul should expect more from them than what he heard about their conduct. What seemed to surprise Paul was that all the trust he put in them to follow what he taught was apparently misplaced. We all know the feeling that comes when after we have given instructions to someone on how to operate a piece of equipment or how to find a certain location by giving them all the left and right turns to get there, and then to hear that they got all mixed up because they failed to write our instructions down or decided to do things their own way. If that would cause frustration, then we can understand why Paul was not only astonished but perplexed and stunned that they did the same with his instructions and guidelines. In fact, some think that Paul was reiterating what he told them before, only this time in an ironic, ridiculing tone, something he would not do were he still with them. Certainly Paul felt constrained to ask them to reconsider who they are and who they want to become even after all this took place in spite of his attempts to prevent it.¹²

When Paul warned about someone claiming to have a new revelation from God, even if they were to call themselves an angel, do not be fooled. When Paul warned the Corinthians about false evangelists, he told them not to be surprised because even the devil can make himself look like an angel of light. And so it is no surprise if his servants also make themselves look like preachers of the Good News.¹³ Paul felt the need to caution young Timothy against several such impostors in their day.¹⁴

And to Bishop Titus Paul gave this advice, “Do not argue with people about foolish questions and about the Law. Do not spend time talking about all of your early forefathers. This does not help anyone and it is of no use. Talk once or twice to a person who tries to divide people into groups against each other. If he does not stop, have nothing to do with him. You can be sure he is going the wrong way. He is sinning and he knows it.”¹⁵ From the context of Paul’s comments it seems obvious that those annoying Judaizers were still on his mind.

Then Paul brings up a custom that was well-known in Jewish writings and stories. It all began in the Garden of Eden after the serpent fooled Adam and Eve, causing them to disobey God and not only lose fellowship with Him but also were evicted from the Garden. Then God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all livestock and wild animals.”¹⁶ In other words, the worst will come to him and he will not be spared with any mercy.

The Hebrew verb ‘arar (meaning “cursed”) is used, and it’s a way of wishing the worst on someone. As such, a person who has been cursed will be detested and treated badly by everyone around them. No matter how bad things may get, they will be looked on without compassion by everyone. Unfortunately, the next person to suffer this horrible curse was Canaan who violated the privacy and decency of his grandfather Noah.¹⁷ Rabbi Saba tells us that when Noah contemplated how to curse Canaan, he decided to forever place him in a subordinate position to all the rest of his siblings and relatives. This meant neither he or his descendants would ever rise to a position of power and authority.¹⁸ So in a sense, Paul was saying that anyone who perverted the Gospel should never be respected or given a position of authority in the Church.

This same curse was wished upon anyone who would make an idol, or image, or icon meant to replace God in their worship.¹⁹ This is also what happened to those who decided they would try to fool Joshua into thinking they were in need when they were not, and they came because they heard about His God. In reality, they only wanted to keep Joshua from conquering their land. When Joshua found out he called them together and told them, “Now you are cursed. You will never stop being servants, cutting wood and bringing water, for the house of my God.”²⁰

Siddharta Gautama, known better as Buddha (483-400 BC) a monk and well-known teacher in India and Nepal was quoted as saying: “Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.” It is obvious that these are all things that money cannot buy nor can wealth guarantee. When anyone attempts to purchase these things, they will only get imitations.

Psychologists and trainers all tell us that no matter who you are, what your goal is and how you define success, one thing holds true: a healthy body and mind is essential if you want to lead a truly successful life. Even the most influential motivational speakers and business tycoons know that when they get sick they lack the energy and enthusiasm to stay involved with their work.

But Buddha calls it a gift. By that he no doubt meant that while we can maintain good health, it comes to us at birth. At first our parents are responsible for keeping us in good health. But eventually it falls into our hands to continue on. Without this, it will be hard to gain any contentment. Yes, disease may invade our bodies, but we are not always culpable.

But even greater is contentment. Contentment means a feeling of calm satisfaction. One way of achieving satisfaction in life is to separate your needs from wants. As we have been taught, human wants are insatiable. Contentment is not about getting what you want but the ability to enjoy what you have. Be content enough with the person you are so that you seek ways to develop yourself. further You are not in competition with anybody but yourself. Get ahead of yourself, and stop worrying about what others are thinking about you or want you to be. You were not created to be like everybody else! As someone once said: “Contentment will make a pauper act like a prince.”

And then comes faithfulness. Faithfulness is built on trust. What does trust mean? Trusting someone means that you think they are reliable, you have confidence in them and you feel safe with them physically and emotionally. Trust is something that two people in a relationship can build together when they decide to have confidence in each other. You can’t demand or buy trust; trusting someone is a choice that you make. But faithfulness to such trust does not come quickly or easily. Building faithfulness requires mutual commitment. The more faithful we are, the more faithful they will become.

When the Bible speaks about good health, it talks about what we take in to maintain our wellness. That’s not only food, but what we see, hear, have interest in. King Solomon says that we should never become egotistical about what we know or think, but have reverence and respect for the Lord and stay away from evil. If you do this, it will be like a refreshing drink and medicine for your body.¹ And in another place he says that being optimistic is good medicine, but when we become pessimistic, it will sap our strength.²

And the Apostle Paul asked the Corinthians, don’t you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself, for God bought you with a high price. So you must honor God with your body…. whatever you do, whether it’s eating or drinking or anything else, do it all so as to bring glory to God.³

And when it comes to contentment, King David told his people to trust in the Lord and do what’s good. Work with what you’ve been blessed with and be dependable and reliable. Enjoy serving the Lord, and He will see to it that you will be given more.⁴ Jesus no doubt knew of this Scripture, so He told His followers that what they should want most is being part of God’s kingdom and doing what He wants them to do. Then He will give them all the other things you need.⁵

So the Apostle Paul tells the Philippians that he knew what it was to survive on almost nothing or love with everything. He learned the secret of being content in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For he was able to do it all with the help of Jesus who gave him the strength.⁶ And to young Timothy Paul wrote that godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.⁷

But the Word of God also talks about faithfulness. But mostly, God’s faithfulness. That His blessings are new every morning. He does not use leftovers from yesterday nor does He borrow from tomorrow, they are freshly delivered every day.⁸ Without faithfulness to God there can be no Christian life. Christianity is based first on faith that God is faithful, then, that through Christ Jesus we can be forgiven and are saved. Our faithfulness is a commitment to adhere to the One God who is true and supreme and to follow His will.

What are the benefits of faithfulness to God? Here are some of the things I read:

To some, perhaps the most beneficial aspect of faithfulness to God would include the fact that the faithful will not suffer God’s judgment. Until our judgment day, there are many other benefits while we are here on earth.

• Psalm 37:28 – “For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones.” (NIV)
• Proverbs 3:1-2 – “My child, never forget the things I have taught you. Store my commands in your heart. If you do this, you will live many years, and your life will be satisfying.” (NLT)
• Proverbs 16:6-7 – “Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for; through the reverence of the Lord evil is avoided. When the Lord takes pleasure in the way people live, He causes their enemies to make peace with them.”
• Proverbs 28:20a – “A faithful person will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.”
• Revelation 2:10 – “Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested and will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” (NKJV)

So we can see that faithfulness is based on one’s trustworthiness. It is ironic that on all U.S., currency the words, “In God We Trust” are stamped or printed. We know that we can trust God, but I’m not sure God can trust us as a nation.

So in response to what Buddha said about good health, contentment, and faithfulness, once a person has all three, then life can become pleasant. But they all three must be genuine, otherwise, like many imitations, they will stop working, the paint will begin to peel, and the veneer will start to fall off. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

YOU ARE MY SUNSHINE

After reading a story that touches my heart, I’ve found a lot of times that the writer wants all glory to go to God so they don’t add their name. But when I find it in a reputable magazine I must believe that they would not publish it without verification. I pray that this story not only touches your heart but increases your faith to believe that God can do anything.

Like any good mother, when Karen found out that another baby was on the way, she decided to do what she could to help her three-year-old son, Michael, prepare for a new member of the family. And when she found out that the new baby is going to be a girl, she settled on teaching him a song to sing to his little sister while she was still in mommy’s tummy.

So day after day, night after night, she teaches to Michael sing to the little sister that he can’t see but believe she’s there. And once he felt his little sister kick inside his mommy’s tummy, he really began to sing loud so she could hear him. And when the labor pains started coming, off mommy and his little sister went to the hospital.

But complications arose during delivery. Hours of painful labor. Would a C-section be required? Finally, Michael’s little sister is born. But she was in serious trouble and Karen couldn’t take her home for Michael to see her for the first time. Then, with the siren howling in the night, an ambulance rushes the infant to the neonatal intensive care unit at St. Mary’s Hospital, Knoxville, Tennessee.

The days slowly inched by. Michael’s precious little sister keeps getting more and more critical. The pediatric specialist tells the parents, “There is very little hope. Be prepared for the worst.” So Karen and her husband contact a local cemetery about a burial plot. While Karen carried her little gift from God around during pregnancy, she and her husband fixed up a special room in their home for the new arrival. But now, they tried to pick out the right casket in planning for the funeral.

Michael keeps begging his mom and dad to let him see his tiny sister. “I want to go sing to her,” he whimpers. After two weeks in intensive care, it looks for sure as if a funeral will come before the week is over. Michael keeps nagging and crying about singing to his sister. But he may never be given a chance because children are never allowed in intensive care. But Karen makes up her mind. She will take Michael whether they at the hospital like it or not. If he doesn’t see his sister now, he’ll probably never see her alive.

Now Michael is all excited as mom dresses him in over-sized scrubs and marches him into ICU. He looks like a walking laundry basket, but the head nurse recognizes him as a child and bellows, “Get that kid out of here now! No children are allowed in the ICU!” But the protective mother spirit rises up strong in Karen, and the usually mild-mannered lady glares steely-eyed into the head nurse’s face, her lips a firm line. “He’s not leaving until he sings to his sister!’

Karen tows Michael into his sister’s room and stands him next her bedside. He gazes at the tiny infant hooked up to all kinds of tubes, not knowing that she is fighting a losing battle just to live through the night. Then, with mom’s go ahead signal he begins to sing the song he learned and practiced day after day. In the pure-hearted voice of a three-year-old boy, Michael begins to sing: “You are my sunshine, my only sunshine, you make me happy when skies are gray.” Instantly the baby girl responds. It’s as though she’s heard that voice before.

Suddenly her pulse rate becomes calm and steady as Michael keeps on singing. “You never know, dear, how much I love you. Please don’t take my sunshine away…” Miraculously, that familiar voice causes her ragged, strained breathing to become as smooth as a kitten’s purr. But Michael isn’t finished, he keeps on singing. “The other night, dear, as I lay sleeping, I dreamed I held you in my arms…”

Now Michael’s little sister relaxes in as though she’s being sung to sleep. Tears conquer the face of the bossy head nurse. Tears flow from Karen’s eyes as well, but they trickle down over smiling, glowing cheeks as Michael finishes his song, “You are my sunshine, my only sunshine. Please don’t take my sunshine away.”

All of a sudden Karen is no longer thinking of a casket and funeral service, now she’s got the picture of the little nursery room they made for her at home. So the next day – the very next day – the little girl is well enough to go home! Woman’s Day magazine, who published the story called it “the miracle of a brother’s song.” But the medical staff at the ICU just called it a “miracle.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXIII)

It is clear from Scripture that once a person accepts salvation by grace through the Anointed One, they are responsible to seek and live by God’s will and purpose for their lives. But Paul suspected there were those who would take the freedom they gained through grace too far one way or the other way. Since no one could have accomplished what the Anointed One did; and no one can add any value to it; they also cannot diminish what Jesus did at Calvary. Some, therefore, argued that once you are freed from sin through grace then you are eternally secure in your salvation. So, they reasoned, you may limp or crawl or stumble into heaven, but you have a guarantee you will still get in. That doctrine is still alive today.

On the other hand, there were those that bound one’s salvation to their faithful adherence to strict religious practices and conformity. As such, you are eternally insecure until you actually arrive in heaven and only then you can relax. This doctrine suggests that someone who accepted salvation, but then through a violation of man’s holiness decrees are declared a sinner, they must be saved all over again. That means, if their violation of church rules is considered the same as original sin for which Jesus died, this would require that the Anointed One go back to the cross and die once more. In either case, it’s man’s vain attempt to add to or subtract from the work of the Anointed One on the cross. It suggests that God’s plan of salvation is lacking in some way or incomplete without man’s amendments. This concept is still in some churches today. No wonder Paul was all upset at this attempt to modify the Gospel of the Anointed One.

However, even the great Reformer Martin Luther, who credits Paul’s letter to the Galatians for leading him to the light on salvation by grace and not by works, felt an affinity with Paul over this dispute with the teachers who followed him to the churches in Galatia. Luther explains that this passage produces further evidence that the false apostles defamed Paul as an imperfect apostle and a weak and erroneous preacher. They condemn Paul, so Paul condemns them. Such warfare of condemnation is always going on in the church. The Vatican and the fanatics hate us, says Luther, the condemn our doctrine and want to kill us. We in turn hate and condemn their cursed doctrine.

Luther goes on. In the meanwhile the people are uncertain whom to follow and which way to turn, for it is not given to everybody to judge these matters. But the truth will win out. So much is certain, we persecute no one, neither does our doctrine trouble people. On the contrary, we have the testimony of many good individuals who thank God on their knees for the consolation that our doctrine has brought them. Like Paul, we are not to blame that the churches have trouble.¹ Luther was no doubt convinced that he was being fair, but on many occasions he blamed the Anabaptists and other Reformers for causing his listeners to began questioning him on certain points.

John Calvin is convinced that the problem with the Judaizers is not so much that they brought another gospel, but that they were speaking contemptuously of the Gospel that Paul delivered to the Galatians. Paul was more interested in knowing on what grounds do they attacked the doctrine which he preached. In Paul’s mind, it was to confuse and disorient the Galatians, so that in their confusion these false teachers could sow the seeds of religious legalism in their minds. So they did not bring another gospel, they only brought trouble and deception. And by doing this, Calvin charges them with the additional crime of doing an injury to the Anointed One, by endeavoring to subvert His Gospel. Subversion is an enormous crime. It is worse than corruption. And Paul has every reason to charge them with this crime. When someone or something else is given the credit for justification, a trap is set for people’s consciences. The Savior no longer occupies His rightful place in their hearts and minds, and the message of salvation by grace is utterly ruined.²

Matthew Poole (1624-1679) believes that this verse should read that these Judaizers were trying “to pervert the Gospel of the Anointed One.” He explains, there was no other doctrine or teachings to replace the Torah and the Gospel of the Anointed One. It was all a matter of their wanting to offer a new interpretation to give them more peace about their salvation but were causing more doubt and confusion instead. Where are the instructions that Paul gave Timothy?³ They were attempting to replace the truth with personal opinion. What was most disrespectful was that they were doing in Jesus’ Name. They were trying to add the good works of the Law to what the Anointed One already fulfilled on the cross. It made no sense to require additional obedience to the Law since the Anointed One and the Anointed One alone was the One they put their faith in for a right standing before God and their salvation.⁴

A Roman Catholic commentator George Leo Haydock (1774-1849) offers us insight into how what Paul is saying here was accepted during his era of the 1800’s. He shares what he thought Paul meant by another gospel. It may not have been entirely “another” gospel just because they pretended to be Christians and teach the faith their way. Yet, in some measure it was another gospel because such teachers made changes that resulted in a lot of errors, particularly that all converted Gentiles were to observe the Jewish law. In this sense, they are said to be corrupting, or destroying the Gospel of the Anointed One. That’s why the Apostle hesitates in pronouncing and repeating a curse upon all that preach something else, that is, as a religious practice, not agreeing with what he taught about Grace.

Haydock then goes on to offer his own reflection on something that Chrysostom said about the seventh verse. Where are they, he asks, who condemn us (Roman Catholics) for the differences we have with heretics [Protestants]? The same ones who pretend there is no essential differences between us and them, except that they are excluded from the communion of the Catholic Church, out of which there is no salvation, unless perhaps through ignorance. (This shows the closed-mindedness that existed between Roman Catholics and Protestants for centuries).

Haydock continues by pointing to something the Apostle Paul says, that they destroyed the Gospel who made any such innovations: that is, by introducing again as necessary some of the Jewish ceremonies, even at a time when the Christians, who were Jews at one time, might lawfully use them, and even they who were once heathens. Paul says, this is to change and destroy the Gospel, repeating anathema against them.⁵ Let them hear, and take notice of this, who pretend that the unity of the one Catholic faith is sufficiently maintained by all Christian societies, that agreeing, as they say, in fundamentals, their faith is a saving faith: that the council of Trent, without reason, pronounced such anathemas against them: that all Catholics are uncharitable for denying them to be in the way to salvation, when they make Scripture alone, as interpreted by their private judgment, the only rule of their faith. They may as well accuse not only Chrysostom but also St. Paul, of uncharitableness.⁶

In the case of Chrysostom, Haydock may have read some of the sermons this great early church preacher offered in his day against believers in the church joining in with the Jews to celebrate their holidays. In one homily, Chrysostom notes now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the door, if he should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease, he was afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may join the Jews in their transgressions. Once they have done so, he feared that his sermons on these transgressions would be in vain. For if they hear no word from him today, they will then join the Jews in their feasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for him to apply any remedy.⁷

Many scholars believe that Chrysostom was referring to the same condition that faced Paul in Galatia. That members of the church were joining the Jews because they thought it would enhance their salvation. On the other hand, Haydock may have encountered a similar problem with Catholics insisting that Protestants adopt Catholic rites and rituals in order to make their salvation more secure. In either case, this has been going on for centuries between various denominations. But the main point here is that under no circumstances must the truth of the Gospel be compromised.

George Whitefield Clark (1831-1910) points to the Greek verb tarassō which the KJV translates as “trouble.” As used here in the Final Covenant it has but one meaning, and that is to “agitate.” But there are different ways a person can be agitated. One is to cause inward commotion so as to “take away one’s calmness of mind.” Another is to “make restless,” another to “stir up,” another means “striking fear or dread in one’s mind,” another is to “cause anxiety or distress,” and yet another, “to perplex the mind so as to cause doubt.” It is obvious that these are tied together in a sequence. That means, no matter which one is the root cause of one’s trouble, the others will automatically follow suit. Thayer in his Greek Lexicon says that as used here in verse seven, it all begins by causing someone to become anxious, distressed, perplexed by suggesting doubts about what they believe.⁸

So it appears that Paul clearly understood that the Judaizers did not come to Galatia from Jerusalem to call Paul a liar, or to denounce the Gospel he preached as a fake hearsay. No, their first attempt was to cause the Galatians to doubt what Paul said as being the only way to God and salvation. That there were other ways besides free grace. If they worked a little harder and did all that the Law said they should do it would enhance their standing with God and make their salvation more certain. It doesn’t take a psychologist to see why this would cause them to become fearful, anxious, restless, distressed and perplexed. With Paul no longer around, they turned to the Judaizers for help. Now Paul was writing them to assure them that the Gospel he preached was received from God. So by rejecting the Gospel he brought them from God, they were rejecting God Himself.⁹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXII)

One Jewish writer hears Paul saying this to the Galatians: Because there is only one Good News, and no other way exists of being guiltless, righteous, and holy before God, other than the one we told you about, that of faith in Jesus the Anointed One alone, I must tell you that you are being led astray by those who pervert the truth concerning the Anointed One, those who try to adulterate the Good News of free forgiveness by faith alone with the teaching that we must earn our righteousness. Those who say that while dependence on Jesus the Anointed One and His sacrifice is important, we must also conscientiously keep some of the requirements of God’s Law in order to have a perfect standing with Him.¹ I’m sure Paul would say “Amen!” that’s exactly what I’m trying to convey.

One Messianic Gentile writer feels that these troublemakers and distorters that are commonly referred to as “Judaizers,” should rather be called “influencers.” He accepts that the influencers were most likely believers in Yeshua of Nazareth. Their only error at this point is that as teachers within the Galatian Christian communities they were attempting to influence the non-Jewish believers to undergo circumcision as part of their conversion. As such, Paul does not like their influence, and has some harsh words for them. Lancaster gives his view of how these influencers were perceived. As he sees it, when you are a leader and a teacher – a spiritual leader and a Bible teacher – there is nothing more devastating than the presence of “influencers” in your flock. Influencers always have a contrary agenda. They are always dissatisfied with the leadership; they always have a critical spirit; they are always trying to be leaders without leading, by spreading discontent and planting seeds of dissension.² As such, Lancaster agrees that the distorting of the Gospel is hazardous to the soul, and even though they were fellow Christians, Paul wished them nothing but bad luck.

One Jewish commentator asked whether Paul was a disciplinarian with an uncontrollable temper, or is he filled with venom against anyone whose opinion differs from his own? The answer depends on whether one believes there is such a thing as a true Gospel, God’s genuine Good News, summed up in verses 1 and 3b–5, answering the deepest questions of human existence. If in fact Yeshua called Paul by His grace to proclaim God’s Good News, then this is the true Good News that saves. Any other “gospel” is not good news at all but misleading bad news, capable of drawing people off into perdition who began on the road to salvation. So Paul has every right to come down hard on these Galatians for being so foolish.³

Jewish writer Avi ben Mordechai Paul expressing his surprise that the Galatians so quickly started combining Jewish religious customs with their religious faith in Jesus the Anointed One. Mordechai asks: “What did the Anointed One teach that the Galatians community so quickly forgot?” He points to what Yeshua said to His followers: “I’m telling you, as long as heaven and earth last, not one dot over an ‘i’ or an accent mark over an ‘à’ will be erased out of the Law of Moses until it has all been completely fulfilled. Anyone who breaks even the least important law in the Torah and teaches people not to do what it says, will be called the least in the holy nation of heaven. He who obeys and teaches others to obey what the Law of Moses says, will be called great in the holy nation of heaven.”⁴

The reason for this strong reminder by Yeshua was no doubt due to the fact that even the Jews long ago ceased using the Torah as their basis for deciding what was right or wrong in God’s eyes, and instituted the Mishnah commentary and Talmud interpretation based on various Rabbi’s perceptions of what the Torah said. So the Written Torah – the true Word of God, was exchanged for rabbinic oral laws (the word of men). So for Paul, the same happened in Galatia. They perverted the Gospel of the Anointed One. Mordechai explains that any teaching that leads people away from the Written Torah requires that they submit to the man-made laws of the Mishnah and Talmud and is turning people’s attention away from the Word that Yahweh approved of to teachings and customs that rabbis approved of⁵.⁶ If Paul were to enter any church today and listen to the sermon, I wonder if he would be as equally shocked and outraged at how far from the True Gospel churches have strayed.

Commentator Vincent Cheung makes the point that Paul mentions the reason for his letter right away. At this point we are not provided with details about the problem, but the Galatians know what Paul is writing about. He begins by referring to the issue in general terms, describing the problem and noting its consequences. Some people are trying to pervert the gospel, and convince the Galatians to affirm another gospel. We will be able to infer from the rest of the letter the nature of the doctrinal perversion and this “other gospel” – what Paul says in this passage belongs to that context, but there are some points here that demand application everywhere.⁷

For Cheung, it all boils down to a simple test: when the true Gospel of the Anointed One is preached it will lead to conviction and conversion as well as sparking a greater love for God, His Word, His Son, His Holy Spirit, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The one thing that seems to attract so many Christians to these dubious prophets of today is the fact that no leap of faith is required to accept their doctrine. Their words appeal more to human reasoning than spiritual insight. But these questionable teachings also tend to enforce doing things to impress God with one’s own spiritual strength, rather than exposing one’s weaknesses so the believer can depend more on God’s strength. These populist theories are fads for awhile, but they soon fade into history because they lack the power of the Holy Spirit and God’s truth to keep them going.

1:7b Someone is trying to make fools out of you with this nonsense. They have gotten the Gospel of Jesus the Anointed One all mixed up.

Paul must have felt the same sense of frustration over the sudden turn by the Galatians to entertain these Judaizers⁸ as the Lord felt when He told Jeremiah, “How long will there be lies in the hearts of those who speak false words in My name, who speak the lies of their own heart?”⁹ It could also be that some of Paul’s consternation with these Judaizers came from his recollection of what he ran into in Paphos in Cyprus when he confronted Elymas and called him a false preacher and trouble-maker.¹⁰ And what about those Paul heard about in Macedonia who were only in it for the money?¹¹

Because of what he learned in dealing with impostors, Paul wrote to young Timothy and warned him to be on the lookout for those who claimed they received a special revelations from the Lord to back up what they taught.¹² And Paul’s warning is also relevant for us today. So we must ask ourselves, has the time come when people will not listen to the truth? Rather, they look for teachers who tell them only what they want to hear. They won’t listen to witnesses in the Scriptures. Instead, they will listen to stories made up by self-proclaimed prophets.¹³

The Apostle Peter must have run into similar individuals. He told his readers to remember that God’s Word was inspired by the Holy Spirit, not by man’s imagination. Furthermore, they will not tell the people where they got their revelation or inspiration anymore than a magician will tell the audience how they work their magic. Unfortunately, many will be misled and run after them as though they are true emissaries of God.¹⁴ But the Apostles Paul and Peter were not the only ones. The Apostle John gave a warning to believers in his day that applies to us today.¹⁵ However, God did not leave us without discernment, John also told his readers to test the spirits to see if they are from God. And one way to test those spirits is to see if they can pass the test of being in harmony with God’s Word.¹⁶

It is interesting that in Jewish writings, a fool is compared to a deaf man and a child. Fools, like a deaf man, cannot hear and, therefore, obtain no knowledge; fools, like a minor, are incapable of understanding anything above the simplest of matters.¹⁷ Sounds like Paul agrees with the Rabbis in that the Galatians were treated like responsible adults when he taught them, but now act children who didn’t hear or understand a thing he said. Bruno the Carthusian explains it this way: These Judaizers are stirring up trouble. It resembles stirred muddied waters in which nothing can be clearly discerned. It is in this sense that Paul’s opponents have confused the understanding of the Galatians since they are now unable to distinguish good from evil.”¹⁸

Ambrosiaster does not hold back on his support of Paul’s outrage. Nobody should be surprised that the Apostle, who was known for taming wild behavior, should be so worked up about this, but it was for the sake of the Galatians’ salvation that he was so angry with the enemies of Christian discipline. He believes the intensity of his anger showed that he considered it a serious mistake to turn back to the Law as a duty after having received the Gospel in faith. Paul asserted that the Gospel which he preached to them was so firm and true that even if some of Apostles were to change their minds and begin preaching something different, they should not be listened to, even if their reputation as Apostles reached the ends of the earth.¹⁹

What rattled Paul so badly, besides being dumped for leaders of less stature and even less credibility, was their attempt to mix Law with Grace. This made their Gospel man-centered rather than the Anointed One-centered. Forcing believers to religiously observe ceremonial rituals in order to reach spiritual perfection was an attempt to add value to the work of the Anointed One on the cross. Either He paid the full price, or He didn’t. What these false teachers preached is often referred to as “legalistic gospel.” This teaches that although they were saved by grace, they could only remain saved through their own efforts. But it is useless to consider such nonsense. No one can live a perfect life on earth, only Jesus the Anointed One was capable of that.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXI)

In another place, Professor Stevens notes that Paul couldn’t understand why the Galatians were having trouble with him and his message. Didn’t they realize that his mission and theology came as a package, they cannot be separated.¹ It all begins with Yeshua of Nazareth being the Anointed One, the Anointed One sent from God, and the Anointed One then sent him to the Gentiles to share the Anointed One’s message. It was not something Paul dreamed up. It was all about how every sinner can stand justified as right before God in Faith by Grace, not by any good works of their own. Today, we might say it would be like trying to separate the film from the camera and hope to take pictures. They go together, you can’t use one without the other. So by rejecting Paul and the Gospel – the man from his mission, they were actually rejecting God who planned this ministry for him and the Anointed One who called and commissioned him. No doubt, Paul was thinking that if they just understood this they would stop turning away from Jesus and turning back to Jesus in repentance.²

Earnest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925), Biblical scholar and president of the University of Chicago points out that the Greek verb metatithēmi is in the present tense, thereby indicating that the Galatians turning away from Paul’s Gospel was not over, it was only in progress. This would certainly prove that Paul didn’t think it was too late and hoped that his letter would stop them from turning and make them think it over and turn back around. However, the mind of Paul wavers somewhat between hope and fear, as he writes this letter, concerning to the final outcome³.⁴

Arno Gaebelein (1861-1945), also focuses on Paul’s claim that these Judaizers were perverting the Gospel by teaching that the finished work of the Anointed One was not sufficient for salvation, but that a person must add their good works by keeping of the law and becoming circumcised. It was a God-dishonoring denial of the completeness and perfection of the work of the Anointed One in His life on earth and in His death on the cross. Not only was it a perversion of the Gospel, but more than that it was the setting aside of that Gospel altogether. Unfortunately, says Gaebelein, it was almost a universal thing in Christendom in his time. People were hearing a lot about “salvation by character,” but not “salvation by Christ,” which is Satan’s invention.

Ritualism, which makes church ordinances the necessary means of salvation, is another perversion of the Gospel of Grace. The phrase one hears so much, “God has done His part and we must do our part,” is another phase of a perverted gospel. A human is a lost sinner, helpless and hopeless in themselves. They can do nothing for they are without strength.⁵ The doing is all on God’s side; all the sinner can do is to accept what the grace of God in Jesus the Anointed One offers to them. “For by His loving-favor you have been saved from the punishment of sin through faith. It is not by anything you have done. It is a gift of God. It is not given to you because you worked for it. If you could work for it, you would be proud.⁶”⁷

Cyril Emmet (1875-1923), adds another aspect as to why Paul thought the forsaking of the Gospel that he brought to the Galatians came so suddenly. In addition to the fact that it may have been soon after his last visit there or so quickly upon the arrival of the Judaizers who misled them, that Emmet adds their hastiness may have surprised Paul because it was done without any serious consideration of the consequences.⁸ And even more frustrating for the Apostle, they did not turn to a “different” Gospel message the way it may be preached by Peter, James, or John, but “another” gospel that seemed to cancel out the Gospel that Paul delivered to them. Paul’s Gospel was one based upon God’s Love, this other gospel was based upon God’s Law. The one based on Love set them free, the one based on Law would only put them back in bondage again. How could they have done that so quickly without thinking?⁹ Didn’t they realize that complete Love replaced the Law which was incomplete; a person’s works were replaced by the work of the Anointed one?

Arthur Pink (1886-1952) makes a clear and important point when he notes the central issue raised in the letter to the Galatians is not “what is the basic conduct for the believer’s life,” but “what is the basis for conduct in the believer’s life.” The proof needed to make this assertion is found here in what Paul says in verse seven that there is not another kind of gospel, even though some who would like to lead them to God by a different but wrong way. They’re trying to do this by substituting or subtracting from the Good News about the Anointed One. Furthermore, Paul was not hesitant in pointing out that it was the Judaizing troublemakers who were the ones corrupting the Gospel of Jesus the Anointed One. They wanted to take the believer’s faith in their salvation from believing in the Anointed One as their Savior to believing in the Law as their Savior.¹⁰

Lutheran theologian Otto Paul Kretzmann (1901-1975) makes note that in many prior commentaries dating back to the early church scholars, the unstableness or undependability of the Gauls (from France) and Celtics (from mainland Europe) who migrated to this part of the world was often the cause for their irrational actions. This then made them easy targets for the Judaizers. For Kretzmann, the result of this deception was twofold: First, they were disturbing and troubling the minds and consciences of the Galatians, causing them to become doubtful as to the doctrine which they were taught by Paul. Secondly, they were incidentally doing their best to distort and pervert the real Gospel of the Anointed One, the glorious message of salvation through His name. If they succeeded in their design, it would mean the end of pure evangelical preaching in the affected congregations. Kretzmann also notes, that this verse must be kept in mind at all times against the perverters of the message of sin and grace, no matter what disguise may be use. This is what the Reformers exposed in their day in order to reject the claims of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.¹¹

Jewish writer W. A. Liebenberg looked at the Greek verb thaumazō translated as “marvel” (KJV) in verse six from a Hebrew perspective, and he parses it out to literally mean, “left speechless.”¹² In other words, when Paul first got the message of the Galatians falling prey to the Judaizers’ corrupt message, Paul was absolutely stunned for a moment or two. Of course, as soon as he could recover he wrote this blistering opening as part of a letter he sent after hearing the grieving news. It would be one thing if these Judaizers came wearing a badge identifying them as such, but they came disguised as a delegation from the Church in Jerusalem. Perhaps that’s why the Galatians didn’t listen very carefully and were so willing to comply with their message because they thought it was already approved. If this fooled people back in Paul’s day, who says it won’t fool people today?¹³

Torah Teacher Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy puts a different twist on the commonly held belief in what Paul meant by “another” gospel being taught by the Judaizers. Ben-Lyman makes note that pertinent to the study of Galatians is the historical fact that 1st century Judaizers were not teaching salvation by following Torah (as the emerging Church might assume). The “other gospel” that gave Paul such consternation was the prevailing Rabbinic view that only Isra’el alone shared a place in the world-to-come, that is, only Jews were granted covenant membership through Abraham. Taking this view meant that the Gentiles must first convert to Judaism before being considered full-fledged members of God’s kingdom. Looking at it this way, the Torah was not the means of salvation; “works of the Torah” (defined elsewhere in this commentary) were the prerequisite to “salvation.” In this view, the Torah was used to help maintain membership granted to native born Jews and proselytes alike. Rabbi ben-Lyman personally disagrees with this central tenets of this Rabbinic view.¹⁴

Philip Ryken has an enlightening and sobering assessment of the “other” gospel factor in today’s church. He wants to know if we can distinguish between the “true” gospel and the “other” gospels in today’s contemporary churches? In some churches, you may hear the gospel of material prosperity, which teaches that Jesus is the way to financial gain. In other churches you might hear the gospel of family values, which teaches that Jesus is the way to a happy home. Then there is the gospel of self value, which teaches that Jesus is the way to personal fulfillment. There is also the gospel of religious tradition, which teaches that Jesus is the way to respectability. There is the gospel of morality, which teaches that Jesus is the way to be a good person. What makes these other gospels so dangerous is that the things they offer are all benefits. It is good to be prosperous, to have a happy home, and to be well behaved. Yet as good as all these things are, they are not the Good News. When they become for us a sort of gospel, then we are in danger of turning away from the only Gospel there is.¹⁵

Grant Osborne reminds us of just who the Judaizers were in those days. The descriptive term “Judaizers” was used for a group of Jewish Christians who wanted to make all Christians practitioners of Judaism. Rejecting the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council in Acts fifteen, they continued to believe that Gentile converts to Christianity must become Jews before they can become Christians. Today we would call them “hardliners.” For them, becoming circumcised and following all Torah (the Mosaic law) regulations was necessary for Christians to attain salvation. In effect, they were replacing the cross with ceremony; Jesus with Moses. This group sent missionaries to the Christians in Asia Minor whom Paul evangelized on his first missionary journey,¹⁶ trying to convince them that Paul was wrong and to get them to join the Judaizing movement in the church. They were all about going back to the basics of the Jewish religion.¹⁷

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XX)

J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) agrees that during the time period Paul mentions here, many were left to deal with things that were not present when he was there, so the quickness with which they fell victim to the Judaizer’s deceit astounded him. But what happened to the Galatians is an even more disturbing matter. Some scholars see the trouble that the Judaizers were making as causing doubt in the Galatians’ minds. But Lightfoot believes it was more like rebel rousing. They were stirring up the believers against Paul for hiding certain truths that the Torah teaches. This then dissolved their allegiance to Paul as their spiritual father. So instead of continuing on the path that Paul outlined for them, the reversed course and went back in the direction they were going in, to begin with. For Lightfoot, this was the prominent thought in the Apostle Paul’s mind when he called this heresy a “turnabout,”¹ or “turncoats” as we would say today of those who become traitors to their country.²

Anglican scholar Frederic W. Farrar (1831-1902), makes a good point when he says that it appears that Paul planted the seed of the Gospel in shallow and rocky soil. And Eugène Reuss believes that these Judaizers were part of the same contingent that antagonized Paul when he was in Jerusalem,³ something they no doubt would have disputed.⁴ They also fashioned themselves to be the true disciples of the Anointed One,⁵ and in His name imposed, as a condition of salvation, circumcision and all the rites of the Law.⁶ In Antioch, they fellowshipped with the Gentiles until Peter came, and thereafter they would have little to do with them.⁷ They loved to be called “brethren,” but they gave no reciprocal greeting to the Gentile believers.⁸ So we can see why Paul wanted nothing to do with them, let alone encourage the Galatians to fellowship with these troublemakers.

Edward Huxtable (1833-1893) points to the wording in verses six and seven where it read, “following a different gospel – not that there really is another gospel,”⁹ and seems to imply a change in the quality of the Gospel into a “strange new-fangled character.” The Greed adjective allos (“another” KJV) in verse seven sometimes does display this shade of meaning of something being contorted, distorted, twisted, etc. Huxtable likens it to what Paul said to the Corinthians about strange tongues and lips of strangers.¹⁰ Also, when Paul talks about a Jesus other than the real Jesus, and a different spirit than the Holy Spirit, and a different gospel from the gospel they received from him.¹¹ He also wrote to Timothy about letting anyone with a false doctrine come in and teach something different than the doctrine that Timothy learned from Paul¹².¹³ What Huxtable is driving at is that Paul suspected that this teaching of the Judaizers was no so blatantly different from his Gospel that the Galatians were able to dispute what they were saying. That’s what may have fooled them.

I remember my father, who was a preacher, telling about what was called the “Jesus Only” movement, starting in California around 1913, and then the “Latter Rain Movement,” that came sweeping through the country in 1947 right after the Second World War, and that it was the signal that the return of the Anointed One was close at hand. So there was no need for those seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit to tarry as the Apostles did in the Upper Room, but that the gift of tongues and gifts of the Spirit could be imparted from one believer to another simply by the “laying on of hands.” After I entered the ministry in 1964 I didn’t have to wait long before other doctrines began to swirl around such as the Prosperity Gospel, The “Rhema” movement, also known as the “Word of Faith” doctrine where if you speak it, it will happen, followed by the hierarchy of demons ruling over the earth and the casting out of demon obsessing and oppressing believers. This should also serve as a warning for every believer to test these spirits to see if they harmonize with the spirit of God’s Word and the witness of the Holy Spirit in unity among believers.¹⁴

Cyrus I. Schofield (1843-1921), American Theologian and minister and writer of the Annotated Bible, makes the point that God used the Apostle Paul to call the Galatians into the grace of the Anointed One here in verse six. This is important because grace means unmerited, uncompensated favor. It’s not something one is getting paid for. Scofield believes that it is essential to get this clear. No options or factors are to be added to grace. That’s why Paul rejected good works, circumcision, adherence to the Law such as obedience to commandments. But just like oil and water, grace and works do not mix.¹⁵ This is so true, that grace cannot even begin with us until the law has reduced us to speechless guilt.¹⁶ So long as there is the slightest question of utter guilt, utter helplessness, there is no place for grace. If a person feels that they are not good enough for heaven but too good for hell, they do not seek help in God’s grace but in the “Do-it-Yourself” manual for justification. Unfortunately, that is the beginning of a dead end road to nowhere.

Scofield then goes on to note that this misconception was brought on by false apostles bringing to them a gospel different than the one Paul gave them. It wasn’t so much “another gospel,” as it was an in direct opposition to the Gospel that Paul used, by adding anything that cannot be found in the Gospel so as to make it complete in their mind. But the deception came when they claimed it was part of a revelation that Paul failed to preach. The Gospel preached by Paul was known as the “glad tidings,” that brought forgiveness, joy, peace, and salvation. Nowhere is the Law referred to as “glad tidings” of “good news.”¹⁷ As Scofield put it, “Surely that is no good news. The law, then, has but one language; it pronounces “all the world” — “good,” “bad,” and “goody-good” – “guilty!”¹⁸

Bible scholar extraordinaire William Ramsey (1851-1939), expresses his thoughts on what Paul says here in verse six about the sudden switch by the Galatians from Paul’s Gospel to the Judaizer’s enlightened version. Some, says Ramsey, try to blame this movement from Grace to Law as part of the fickleness of the Galatians. That would certainly make any changes superficial. But no large group of people changes its moral, political, or religious position because they can’t make up their minds about what they already possessed. They only change because they believe a new and better form of belief and worship is clearer and truer and more advantageous than the old one. Such a sudden redirection does not come easy.¹⁹

Ramsey is prone to believe that Paul was on many long journeys since leaving Galatia and was not that reachable by Timothy or others with the latest news. It was only after he stopped for rest either in Ephesus or Corinth that the news was waiting for him when he arrived. So the sense of the sudden, unexplained movement by the Galatians away from Paul’s Gospel of Grace to the Judaizer’s Gospel of Law was not overnight. But it was done without any consultation or any attempt to reach him for counseling before they made their decision. That’s what really bothered Paul. That’s why he is trying now to give that counseling through this letter.

Presbyterian pastor, theologian, educator, and Yale Divinity School professor, George Barker Stevens (1854-1906), suggests that the one thing that left him speechless is “how quickly you have moved away from the One who redeemed you.” It almost seems as though Paul could hardly wait to finish his greeting and tell them what he really was feeling. When we try to envision such a scene, who would be surprised at what was happening, the Galatians or Jesus? We already know that Jesus dealt with the plague of unbelief.²⁰ Stevens points out that Christian writers such as Chrysostom (349-407 AD) and German theologian Wilhelm Martin Leberecth de Wette (1780-1849) who believe that they seized hold of false doctrines that drew them away. But other scholars such as John Calvin (1509-1564), Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752), and Karl Georg Wieseler (1906-1945), believe that their moving away was initiated by Paul’s departure, and yet others such as J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889), Heinrich August Wilhelm Meter (1800-1873), and Hermann Olshausen (1796-1839) see it as something that happened not too soon after their conversion .

It is obvious that even the top theologians of centuries past were unable to agree upon one single reason why the Galatians moved away from the Anointed One. Perhaps there were some who fit into each of these categories. But in any case, the key factor is that it caused them to leave the side of Jesus to join the side of the Law. The sad thing is that God gave them a gracious invitation which they accepted but then exited unceremoniously. But there is no evidence that the Law issued them a more gracious invitation to embrace them. Didn’t they know they were freed from the prison of sin under the management of the Law by their Savior, Jesus the Anointed One, and turning around and willingly went back into bondage. Stevens marvels that the Gentile Galatians so quickly forgot that the Anointed One first went to the Jews, and when they rejected Him He turned to the Gentiles, now they were repeating the sin of the Jews and becoming just like them,²¹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XIX)

In William Burkitt’s (1650-1703) commentary we read that there are three things we can learn from what Paul’s says here. First, there is nothing new or unique for us to be told that needs to be added to the Gospel. Secondly, that adding anything to the Christian faith as being necessary to be believed and practiced in order to bring salvation, is perverting the Gospel of the Anointed One, and substituting another gospel. And thirdly, there is no authority in the Christian church, in all or any of its ministries with the power to impose upon Christians anything as a necessity for salvation which is not already included in the Gospel. The Apostles themselves were given no authority to add anything to the Gospel, much less any of those that came after them. Jesus the Anointed One commanded them to teach all nations, to observe all things whatsoever He commanded.¹ If the Apostles themselves added any point of faith and practice to what the Anointed One gave and charged them to do, they would fall under the curse themselves that Paul denounces here as false teachers.²

Perhaps this is why Adam Clarke (1760-1851) gave his revivalist view of what Paul is saying here. For him, it was a matter of surprise and wonder that a people, so soundly converted to God, should have so soon a shipwreck of their faith. But when it comes to changeability, there is nothing more susceptible to modification than the human heart. We know that the interaction between different passions is continually either changing the character or giving it a different coloring. The Word of God is divine reasoning, not passion, nor the philosophy of mankind. It alone must be consulted concerning our salvation and everlasting life.³

Clarke goes on to give us some interesting insight into the lingering battle between what Jesus said in the true Gospel and what others were saying in their versions of the Gospel. Clarke notes that it is certain that in the very earliest ages of the Christian Church there were several spurious gospels in circulation, and it was the volume of these false or inaccurate renderings that motivated Luke to write his own. We have the names of more than seventy of these spurious narratives still on record, and in ancient writers, many fragments of them still remain. Many of these were collected and published by Fabricius,⁴ in his account of the apocryphal books of the Final Covenant. In some of these gospels, the necessity of circumcision, and subjection to the Mosaic law in unity with the Gospel were strongly combined. Even as early as Paul’s day he may have heard about some of these.⁵

James Haldane (1768-1742) points out that while the Gospel is the Good News of pardon, peace, and eternal life, without works, moral or ceremonial rites, but through faith in the Anointed One alone, Paul was surprised that the Galatians so quickly abandoned this Rock of Salvation for the slippery slope of adding the ceremonial laws of the Jewish faith to the Gospel. In other words, these Judaizers convinced the Galatians that while their trust in the Anointed One gave them certain assurances of salvation, it was not complete. They need to add the Law, rites, rituals, regulations, and ceremonies of Jewish customs and manners to make it absolute.

The Gospel was a revelation of a long-held mystery of God, but the legal system of salvation was already out-of-date. the Anointed One came to complete what God started with Abraham and Moses. The water of life through the Gospel was filtered and pure, no mixture of other man-made taste enhancing elements were permitted. To drink such a concoction was to invite spiritual sickness and death. Paul was not so concerned about what it did to their bodies, but its harmful effect on their souls. The days of earning one’s salvation were over, now it was a gift of God through grace. So why did the Galatians so quickly discarded such a wonderful gift from God? Paul could not comprehend it.⁶

John Brown (1800-1874) feels that one of the contributing factors in the sudden turning away from the Gospel by some of the Galatians was due to the fact that they were Christians in name only. Brown states emphatically, “No man is ‘born again’ till he is ‘born of the Spirit’.”⁷ As far as he’s concerned there is very little, if anything, that exposes the religious and moral depravity of some church-goers than this. Pretending to be what something or someone you are not is bad enough, but pretending to be a child of God is even worse. This is caused by the fact that no one can ever really understand and believe and live a holy Christian life until they become a new creation through the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be rationalized, manufactured, or successfully imitated. The principles of the Christian faith cannot be memorized or mimicked by constant practice. They are built from within by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God.

I like the way John Edmunds (1801-1874) paraphrases verse six: “I marvel that you are so soon changing sides.” That certainly encapsulates what was going on between the “works” crowd and the “faith” crew. And we know who the Apostle Paul was rooting for. But what caught him by surprise was their “couldn’t care less” attitude about losing him as a mentor and so willingly to let these intruders steal the joy the Gospel brought to them by faith in Jesus the Anointed One. Instead of walking forward by faith, they were backsliding into heresy.⁸ On top of that, they were forsaking the One who called them out of the sin’s slavery in heathenism into the light of sonship through the Anointed One.

It is important to keep in mind that the One who called the Apostle was not Paul himself, nor the Anointed One alone, but God Himself through the Anointed One, through Ananias, then to the Apostle Paul.⁹ This should not seem strange to us because Jesus said that He was sent to do His Father’s will, and Paul was called by the Anointed One to do the same Father’s will. So instead of these misguided Galatians thinking that they were only severing their ties with Paul, or planning to serve the Anointed One by a different way, Paul reminds them that they are disobeying their One True God. The same goes for all of us who for some reason do not feel that the Bible is relevant for today, or that the emphasis on the Anointed One’s crucifixion and resurrection as important in making people feel loved by God are doing the same thing.¹⁰

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) cautions that we must understand what Paul means by “another” gospel. The Greek adjective heteros can be used either to mean “another of the same, another kind, or any other,” when it comes to quantity. It can also be used to mean “another, one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different,” when it comes to quality. Heteros is the root word from which we get the English word, heterosexual. Whether the person is of the male or female gender, they are both a type of human being in quantity. Yet, you can tell them apart because when it comes to procreation, one can do what the other cannot do. That’s what makes them different in quality.

Schaff agrees with Thayer’s Greek Lexicon that points to heteros as something not of the same nature, form, class, or kind. This is a different conclusion than what some other scholars came to. They say it was more of an imitation or modification of the true Gospel. In Paul’s Gospel, the work of Jesus the Anointed One led to salvation, while in the Judaizers version works of the Law facilitated one’s salvation. Schaff says that what the Judaizers produced was not deserving of the term “gospel” – namely, the Good News of love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, and everlasting life with God. Both the Law and the Anointed One, – the Word made flesh, were both ordained of God. But the Law was the prototype while the Anointed One was the finished product.¹¹

W. A. O’Conor (1820-1887) has an interesting analogy on what the Judaizers were trying to do in Galatia. As he sees it, perversion of doctrine is usually one in a long line of circumstances that succeed each other by a fixed law. Men corrupt their creed in order to bring it into consistency with their degenerate conduct. There was not enough time for this process in the case of the Galatians. Paul wonders at their change from real to token religion before a sufficient period of time elapsed for their zeal to cool, and their faith to be infringed upon by the world. He expected much better things from them.¹² This would really make suspect their change in faith to begin with. It looks like Christianity was nothing more than a substitute for heathenism for some of them.

That’s what happened after the conversion of Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 AD ended Roman persecution of Christians and began imperial patronage of the Christian churches. A public holiday celebrated around December 25th in the family home was a time for feasting, goodwill, generosity to the poor, the exchange of gifts and the decoration of trees. This was Saturnalia, the pagan Roman winter solstice festival. So in order to get the Romans to convert to Christianity, December 25th was declared a religious church holiday in honor of the birth of Jesus the Anointed One. So a mass was started in honor of Christ. That’s how it became known as Christ-mass.

For Alvah Hovey (1820-1903), the abruptness with which Paul introduces the occasion for his Epistle reveals his intense and painful anxiety – an anxiousness mingled with surprise that was hard to express. The Greek verb thaumazō which is translated “marvel,” occurs very often in the Final Covenant, and in the KJV is frequently rendered as “wonder,” once each as “admiration” and “admire.” It may denote either a joyful or a painful surprise,¹³ a sudden and powerful emotion occasioned by something that is very admirable or very dreadful, and in either case unexpected. Whether Paul meant he was astonished at how quickly the Galatians changed their minds due to the shortness of times since he left them around 53 AD and when he wrote this letter in 56 AD or the time between when the Judaizers arrived and the Galatians yielded in some measure to their new doctrine. In any case, it happened faster than Paul would have ever expected it to.¹⁴