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 XXV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Colossians 4:10

[3] 1 Peter 5:13

[4] Acts of the Apostles 10:10ff

[5] Ibid. 10:34-35

[6] Ibid. 11:2-3

[7] Luke 15:2

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

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

[10] Ibid. 15:20, 29

[11] Cf. Genesis 9:4-5

[12] Leviticus 17:18.

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Titus 2:13 – New Living Translation

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

[20] Psalm 15:1-5

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] 2 Corinthians 12:11-12

[3] See Acts of the Apostles 15:5

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXIII)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5] Ibid. p. 395

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14] Genesis 9:1-17

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXII)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Hebrews 3:13

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XXI) 08/12/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Acts of the Apostles 22:20

[5] 2 Corinthians 11:5-6

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

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

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

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

[10] See Acts 15:28

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] 2 Timothy 3:14-17

[2] 1 Peter3:13-15

HOW TO START A GOOD COPYCAT ACT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]1 Corinthians 9:21

[2] Galatians 6:2

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Galatians 2:11-16

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

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

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

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

[7] 2 Samuel 12:7

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

[9] Bruno the Carthusian, Commentary on Galatians, op. cit., loc. cit.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Exodus 32:21-24

[3] Numbers 20:8-12

[4] Jeremiah 1:17

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

[6] Ephesians 3:6

[7] See Luke 15:1-2

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

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

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

[11] 1 Corinthians 9:20-22

[12] Acts of the Apostles 21:26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CONGREGATIONS OF BELIEVERS

CHAPTER TWO (Lesson XVIII)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Deuteronomy 14:28-29

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

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

[5] Hebrews 13:16

[6] James 2:15-17

[7] 1 John 3:17

[8] Leviticus 19:9-10

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

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

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

[12] Psalm 109

[13] Leviticus Rabba, p. 103

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

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

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

[17] Ibid. 4:18

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

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

[20] 1 Timothy 5:19-22