Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LIII)

As expected, Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas was eager to answer the question of whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?¹ In one of his responses, he contends that the woman “Mary” who is called the mother of James and John is not to be mistaken for “Mary” the mother of Jesus. However, “Mary” the wife of Alphaeus whose son was James the less, known as the “brother of our Lord,” is the one mentioned here in verse nineteen. In other words, Paul was referring to another James, not to the brother of Jesus. However, Aquinas goes on to answer whether Mary the mother of Jesus took a vow of perpetual virginity?² He writes that it would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow of virginity. For it is written, “You will be blessed more than all other peoples; there will not be a sterile male or female among you.”³ For Aquinas, sterility is a consequence of virginity. Therefore, the keeping of virginity was contrary to the commandment of the Law. The Law was still in effect before the Anointed One was born. Therefore, at that time the Blessed Virgin could not lawfully take a vow of perpetual virginity.⁴

Martin Luther also makes a point about the fact that Paul went to Jerusalem uninvited, not to be instructed, but to visit with Peter. Another thing to make note of is, that Paul says he visited with Peter, but he only “saw” James. Furthermore, he makes no reference to learning anything from them. There are some who might argue that when we say “I saw” somebody, it not only means we spotted them but that we interacted with them. For instance, today I saw the boss to discuss my salary. But in Greek verb eidō used here, it only means to perceive with the eyes, also, to perceive, and, to come to the realization of.

Luther also wonders why does Paul emphasize this seemingly unimportant fact? Perhaps it was to convince the churches of Galatia that his Gospel was the true Word of the Anointed One which he learned from no man other than the Anointed One Himself. Paul was forced to affirm and re-affirm this fact several times. His significance to all the churches that enjoyed his ministry as their pastor and teacher were at stake. Paul knew, now that he was away from Galatia and perhaps never to return again, it was absolutely necessary that he not allow what he preached to them to be discounted or even declared false.⁵

Reformer John Calvin writes about how the problem of corruption in the church administration in the early years led them down the road to effecting the way the church was being governed in the Middle Ages by Rome. Shouldn’t it be that the high officials of the Church should surpass all other levels of leadership in terms of dignity and authority over the whole body? Furthermore, should those who flaunt the Gospel of the Anointed One and deviate from the teachings of the Final Covenant be allowed to turn their personal ideas into becoming perpetual church law? Or how could they assume that what the Anointed One told Peter about whosoever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and vice versâ⁶ could be twisted to mean that they also possessed the same power? Not only that, but they can find nowhere else where Jesus said the same thing to any of the other disciples. So how can they take what was said to one Apostle and claim it as their own?

The truth is, says Calvin, only the Holy Scriptures can resolve these questions. When we look at all the passages that show what office and power Peter held among the Apostles, how he acted among them, how he was received by them,⁷ and compare them with each other we will find that Peter was just one of twelve, their equal, and colleague, not their master. He indeed did bring matters before the council in Jerusalem when decisions were to be made and shares what he thinks is necessary. But when a letter was written to the Gentiles, it was signed by James. Now, if James was just another Apostle, how did he achieve such a high status? It seems that being known as “the Lord’s brother,” may have something to do with it. But, at the same time, Peter listens to the others, giving them an opportunity to express their opinions and options, sentiments, and allows them to decide. And once they’ve decided, even he follows and obeys.

As a matter of fact, when Peter wrote a letter to the pastors of assembly of believers abroad, he did not do so authoritatively as a superior, but addresses them as colleagues, and courteously advises them as co-equals on what needed to be done.⁸ When he is accused of joining in with the Gentiles, he accepts the responsibility and stands ready to clears his name.⁹ When being ordered by his colleagues to go with John into Samaria, he did not decline to do so.¹⁰ The Apostles, by sending him, declare that they by no means regard him as a superior, while he, by obeying and undertaking the deputation committed to him, confesses that his association with them as possessing no authority over them.

However, even if none of these facts existed, this one Epistle to the Galatians would easily remove all doubt. There are two chapters devoted to the fact that when it came to the honor of the Apostleship, Paul is co-equal to Peter.¹¹ That’s why he states, that he went to visit Peter, it was not to acknowledge his subjection to him, but only to solidify their agreement on doctrinal matters and do it openly. Furthermore, Peter did not demand that he must give such approval, but merely shook hands with Paul as a fellow believer. This way, others could see that they were common laborers in God’s vineyard; that less grace was not bestowed on Peter than on Paul. They both acknowledged that Paul was called as an Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter as the Apostle to the Jews.

So we can see, that when Peter got out of line in Antioch and acted in a hypocritical way by separating himself from the Gentiles to join his fellow Jews from Jerusalem for a meal, Paul showed no hesitation in rebuking him, and he submitted to the rebuke.¹² All these things make it abundantly clear that either there was equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter exerted no more authority over the other Apostles than they did over him. Calvin is quick to point out that he congratulates Paul’s professional and spiritual handling of this situation, without making it appear that he was above Peter and would expect the same preferential treatment from others. Peter, James, John, and Paul were colleagues, without one master among them except our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. Perhaps that will explain why Paul tells the Galatians that it took him fourteen years before he went up to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and the others.¹³ No doubt, Calvin would agree, that Peter was a very assertive person and just by his nature took control of the situation. Not only that but when Jesus came walking on the Sea of Galilee, there must have been a reason why it was Peter He called to walk out and meet Him.

In another writing, Calvin adds that almost all the early church scholars agreed that James was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and called, “James the Just,” and that he presided over the assembly of believers at Jerusalem. Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by his first wife, and others scholars that he was the cousin of the Anointed One on his mother’s side as he is counted among the Apostles, Calvin does not hold that opinion, however. Nor does he accept the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve. This subject under consideration is the highest rank of Apostleship, and we will see that he was considered one of the chief pillars of the assembly of believers.¹⁴ Calvin concludes that is it most probable, that the person of whom Paul is speaking is the son of Alphaeus¹⁵.¹⁶ Even John Wesley, notes that James the brother of Jesus, should read “the kinsman” of the Lord.¹⁷

James Haldane (1769-1851), brings up something that should give us reason to consider it as one of the main reasons why Paul was so hated by the Jews in Jerusalem. No doubt, some of them, having been his fellow Pharisee friends before, perhaps one or two that were students with him, not to mention the influential Sanhedrin member and Paul’s highly venerated teacher Gamaliel, found it hard to accept a former comrade who so suddenly switched sides. Saul of Tarsus could not have been such an ardent persecutor of this Christian sect called “the Way,” and have received letters from the High Priest to go after them in Damascus, without it having impressed many other zealots in Jerusalem.

So now Paul returns after a three-year absence with a new name and a new religion. We all know what people think when a good or close friend changes from one Christian denomination to another, such as having been a Baptist they suddenly announce they have converted to Catholicism. Or a long-serving Senator or Representative in one political party makes the decision overnight to join the opposition party. Paul, a stellar Pharisee, a student of Gamaliel, a persecutor of the Christian sect, who when off to Damascus to have them jailed and beaten, now comes storming back as a crusader for these same followers of the Anointed One.¹⁸

Marvin Vincent gives us the historical perspective on the argument of just who James, the brother of our Lord, was envisioned to be. First of all, Paul has already taken the step of calling him the brother of our Lord here in verse nineteen in order to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee,¹⁹ who was still living, and from James the son of Alphaeus.²⁰ The Lord’s brother means that James was at least a son of Joseph, Mary’s husband. There were several theories that contended for acceptance by the early assembly of believers. First, there was the Helvidian Theory. This was a paper written around 380 AD by Helvidius, a church layman in the Church in Rome against the belief of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Helvidius maintained that the biblical mention of “sisters” and “brothers” of the Lord constitutes solid evidence that Mary engaged in normal marital relations with Joseph and additional children after the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus. Secondly, he was also against “Mariolatry” and required celibacy of the clergy that was a growing trend in the Church at that time. He supported his opinion by the writings of early church scholars such as Tertullian and Victorinus. While this has nothing to do with our salvation, it still remains a sticking point between Protestants and Roman Catholics to this day.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LII)

So, was Paul being stuck-up or high-minded? Did he want to make a big deal out of the fact that Peter was not much more than an uneducated fisherman fortunate enough to be chosen by Jesus, while he was a noted scholar and high ranking Jewish zealot? No, I’m ready to believe that as he and Peter visited and ate together they laughed and shared a lot of good stories. No doubt they were curious about each other’s experiences and asked some very personal questions. Paul did not see himself as a disciple or subordinate to Peter; rather, they were equals in God’s sight. It’s just that Peter seemed more comfortable preaching to the Jews, while Paul was specifically sent to the Gentiles.

Chrysostom went through a period of testing his loyalty either to the Church of Rome or the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. As to the question of the papacy, it is reported by Rome that he saw no problem in accepting the Roman Church’s contention that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. It also appealed to him in his exile against the unjust condemnation of the Council at the Oak (Nicea).¹ Such appeals from archbishops and priest furnished the popes in Rome with a welcome opportunity to act as judges in the controversies of the Eastern church, and greatly strengthened their claims of superiority.

However, after examining Chrysostom’s Epistle to Pope Innocent, we see it was also addressed to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia, and falls far short of the language of submission to any infallible authority. He conceded to the pope importance of honor, but not the supremacy of jurisdiction. He calls the bishop of Antioch (Ignatius and Flavian) likewise a successor of Peter, who labored there according to the express testimony of Paul. In order to justify his actions, Chrysostom appealed to what Paul said here in verse eighteen. He represents Paul (Father of the Eastern Orthodox Church) as equal in dignity to Peter (Father of the Western Roman Church).

In Chrysostom’s mind, what Paul said about not visiting Jerusalem until three years after he started his ministry in order to get acquainted with Peter, as a sign that although Paul saw his Apostleship as coequal to that of Peter’s, he attempted to build a bridge between the two of them. So it was, that Chrysostom wanted to follow Paul’s example of ecumenicism since he lived during the violent controversies between the successor to the Apostle Andrew, the Bishop of Constantinople,² with Pope Linus of Rome which eventually brought about a complete schism in 1054 AD. There is no doubt on which side he chose to stand since he became Archbishop of Constantinople (398 AD).³ As we can see, Paul provided an example for all leaders of different denominations to follow.

Ambrosiaster, a contemporary with Chrysostom and Augustine, makes note that both Peter and Paul received their education directly from Jesus. Peter walked with the Lord for three years, while Paul, after his conversion, spent three years in the area outside Damascus, preaching to the people living there about the One who called him. Ambrosiaster feels that Paul wanted Peter to know that they both received a commission from our Lord Jesus the Anointed One. Apparently, these callings gave their friendship a sense of comradery. So over the fifteen days, they spent in each others company, they found they shared more in common than any differences that the false apostles were whispering about Paul.⁴

One early Church scholar, Haimo of Auxerre, (820-865 AD) speculated about Paul’s staying in Jerusalem for fifteen days. He shares a theory, as espoused by other Catholic scholars, that was prevalent in his day, that the number “fifteen” pertains to both the First and Final Covenants on account of the numbers “seven” and “eight.” The number seven relates to the First Covenant because of the Sabbath, and eight to the Final Covenant because of the Lord’s resurrection celebrated on the eighth day. The Apostle was so filled with the teachings of both the First and the Final Covenants that he saw no reason to remain with Peter for more than fifteen days.⁵ However, I believe there is a simpler explanation in that Paul stayed two weeks (fourteen days), and then after the Sabbath left again for Damascus on the fifteenth day.

I wonder if Paul was familiar with Plato’s work, “Gorgios” in which we find Socrates asking Callicles if he believed that having knowledge implies one must also have courage and Callicles agreed. Socrates then asks Callicles if he thought knowledge and courage were two separate virtues, and Callicles said, “Certainly.” Paul knew that his willingness to stand up to the accusations and false charges against him required both knowledge and courage. The reason is simple: without knowing what you believe makes it hard to courageously defend what you believe. By the same token, without courage, whatever you believe in does not stand a chance of surviving against those who oppose you. To put it another way: it can be risky if you try to stand up for something you know in your mind but do not believe in your heart. Likewise, if you know something to be true in both heart and mind but fail to stand up for what you believe, it can be fatal. Paul was convinced both in heart and mind that what he received to preach to the Gentiles came straight from Jesus the Anointed One, and his critics could not shake his confidence.

There’s a difference between being certain and being conceited. I remember being asked to address a Minister’s meeting outside the United States where about one hundred pastors gathered. The Lord laid it on my heart to speak on the subject of Salvation and Sanctification being simultaneous works of the same grace; which I knew a great number of ministers anguished over but felt the need to stick with the denomination’s view because they didn’t want to be criticized or questioned about their theology. When the meeting was over many of them came up to me and said: “For the first time I understand that doctrine, why don’t some of our church leaders preach it the same way?” Afterward, as we were riding back to the hotel, the lead bishop of that area said to me, “I’m in full agreement with what you said, but I don’t have the guts to preach it.”

Paul was not the least bit intimidated by Peter; he willingly told Peter what the Lord Jesus revealed to him. Perhaps Peter was able to confirm what he heard by saying, “Yes, that’s the same thing the Lord Jesus taught us.” At the same time, I’m sure there were plenty of reasons why Paul wanted to meet Jesus’ brother, James. Possibly he wanted a firsthand account of how Jesus grew up and for James to tell him of the miracles he saw his brother, Jesus, perform. Whatever they talked about, James took the opportunity to better understand Paul’s commitment and dedication in carrying out the message he received from the Anointed One on that Damascus Road, followed by his baptism by Ananias. I’m confident that since James knew his brother Jesus better than anyone else, he would have been able to tell if Paul was talking about the same Jesus he knew. It also gave Paul even more assurance that they were all preaching the same Gospel.

The fact that Paul calls James the brother of Jesus, touches on a subject well discussed and dissected, but to no sure and final conclusion. As early as the time of John Chrysostom of Constantinople (349-407 AD), this great preacher assesses the reason why Paul referred to James that way. Paul was showing what a sincere person he was by honoring James when he referred to him as “the Lord’s brother,” although he was not by birth His brother.⁶ Jerome comes to the conclusion that even cousins and other close relatives were called “brothers” in Jewish culture. Therefore, even while James may have been related to Jesus, he was not a flesh and blood brother borne to Mary and Joseph.⁷ One early Catholic scholar came to the conclusion that James was the son of Mary, wife of Clopas, the Lord’s maternal aunt⁸.⁹ This view is shared by most Catholic scholars and many Evangelical scholars as well.

Roman Catholic scholar Ambrosiaster addresses this topic as well. For him, Paul also saw James at Jerusalem because he was appointed the city’s bishop by the Apostles. He too was once an unbeliever, as the Evangelist says: “Even Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him.”’¹⁰ This James was the son of Joseph, which is why he is called the brother of the Lord. Joseph was his father and is also called the father of the Lord.

This is what Mary says to Jesus in Luke’s Gospel: “Why have you done to us, son? Look, your father and I have been searching for you anxiously and worried.”¹¹ And Philip says to Nathanael: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”¹² It is in this way, that Jesus is said to be the brother of James and the others, for he too was called the son of Joseph.¹³

But then Ambrosiaster goes on to say something very interesting. As he sees it, there were some people insane enough to make the ungodly claim that these men were the Lord’s brothers because they were born of Mary. These are the same ones who say that Joseph was not our Lord’s true father. But if they were really His brothers, then Joseph was their real father because whoever said that Joseph was His father also said that James and the others were His brothers. Ambrosiaster is not making the case here for Joseph being Jesus’ biological father the same way James and the others were his fathered sons. It is that the term “father” is used here in the parental sense, thus making James and the others our Lord’s step-brothers, but not his cousins.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LI)

1:18-19  It wasn’t until three years later I made a trip to Jerusalem. I went up there to get acquainted with Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. The only other Apostle I visited with during this time was James, our Lord’s brother.

Paul does not tell us what motivated him to finally make a journey to Jerusalem to meet the other Apostles. But it is clear, that he may have picked out Peter because of his reputation of how he handled their early persecution by the religious leaders in Jerusalem and Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. But in any case, Paul set his heart on staying with him for fifteen days. This may have been because his stay of two weeks would have included two Sabbaths on which travel was restricted. So if he arrived on Sunday, he could leave on Sunday fifteen days later.

When Luke tells this story, he mentions that when Paul arrived in Jerusalem many of the believers were still afraid of him and would not let him join them in fellowship or worship. But Barnabas was sympathetic to Paul’s situation and took him to see the Apostles. Barnabas then shared with them about Paul’s conversion and how, since then, he fearlessly preached the Gospel. Even though Paul mentions here that the only two Apostles he saw were Peter and James, yet Luke tells us that he took advantage of his stay in Jerusalem to go about the city freely sharing his testimony. He debated with Jews who adopted the Greek language and culture, with which he was very familiar. But this upset them so much they plotted to assassinate him. When the Christian believers, who at first did not accept him, heard about what was happening they took Paul and accompanied him over to Cæsarea when he could board and ship and return to Tarsus.¹

The rest of what Paul says in verse nineteen raises one issue that to this day is still unsettled in Christendom as an accepted fact. That is, was James the biological brother of Jesus? The main sticking point is not whether Joseph was his father, but, was Mary the mother of Jesus his mother also. The Jews attacked the Apostles teaching that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, even claiming that it was a cover-up to a premarital affair she engaged in with a German mercenary. So the leaders of the assembly of believers felt that they must do something to counter these claims. Out of this came, centuries later, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The earliest evidence for the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin occurs in the writings of the early church father Jerome who was born in 347 AD and died about 419 AD. Prior to Jerome, there is no evidence that the early church taught anything other than the scriptural record – that Jesus had siblings: flesh and blood brothers and sisters. Some have claimed that Origen was the first early father who wrote that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but a close examination of his statement reveals that is not true.

And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. His statement was simply that Jesus’ mother was a virgin, and not that she was a perpetual virgin.

You might say, that when Mary conceived, even though it was through the Holy Spirit, she was no longer a virgin. Also, as soon as she delivered Jesus in the stable, she was certainly no longer a virgin. But this is the biological, physical view. What they interpreted her virginity to be that she never had sexual relations with Joseph. Furthermore, Origen also says that in the Epistle to the Galatians, that when Paul visited Jerusalem he saw, none of the other Apostles except James the Lord’s brother. ²Not only that, but respect for James rose so high among both Christians and Jews that Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote that the people of Jerusalem suffered such great a misfortune that even the Temple was razed to the ground as a result of God’s wrath over the things they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus the Anointed One³.⁴

This did not sit well with all the Catholic scholars. One named Helvidius wrote a pamphlet sometime around 380 AD in which he spoke against Mary’s perpetual virginity. He quoted Tertullian and Victorinus as sources for his argument. Then in 383 AD, Jerome wrote a pamphlet against Helvidius and rejected his claim that since the Bible mentions the sisters and brothers of our Lord,⁵ that constitutes solid evidence of Mary’s normal marital relations with Joseph and additional children were born after the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus.⁶ The debate has continued to this day.

In fact, one Jewish polemic writer dismisses any relationship based on the statement by John: “For neither did his brethren believe in Him,”⁷ as evidence that there was mutual discord between Jesus and His family.⁸ However, Church historian Eusebius tells us that according to his research and evidence, James was known to be the brother of Jesus and that he presided over the assembly of believers in Jerusalem, as was entrusted to him by the other apostles, and that he “was esteem by all as the most just of men” among the Jews.⁹ Even Jewish historian Josephus refers to him as “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Anointed One.”¹⁰ Since Josephus was a contemporary of James, and since he was particular about historical accuracy, it would seem strange that he would identify James as the full brother of Jesus if he knew it not to be true. So in a way, this gives us insight as to why Paul would include James in his visit to Jerusalem.

In addition to the reference of Matthew 13:55-56 above, there are two other sources that are often quoted to back up Paul’s contention here that James was the brother of Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel, he too repeats what Matthew said. So if Matthew was wrong and misspoke, certainly Mark would have corrected it, or vice versa.¹¹ When Paul wrote the Corinthians, he mentioned that many of the Apostles took their wives along on their journeys, including the Lord’s brothers and Peter.¹² To this we may add the witness of a Jewish historian who wrote during the time of Jesus. He stated: ”...and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Anointed One, whose name was James.”¹³ So does it matter? It didn’t seem to phase the Galatians, so we should see no need to argue over it at present.¹⁴ Eternity will reveal the truth.

What Paul pointed out up until now is that God gave no man, or any group of men, nor any one in the assembly of believers organization the authority to be the final judge in approving a person’s claim to be a disciple of Jesus the Anointed One. Jesus Himself pointed this out to His disciples when they wanted to stop others who were preaching His gospel but didn’t belong to the original group of twelve.¹⁵ Paul received his revelation directly from the Anointed One, and even though the Apostles were at first uncertain about him, he stuck with it. Same say when John was given the “Revelation,” he didn’t send out draft copies for the other Apostle’s approval. So we must ask ourselves, how can the validity of true discipleship be authenticated? As Paul said, if anyone, even an angel, preaches another gospel other than one that proclaims Jesus the Anointed One as the Son of God and the only Savior of the world, and that our salvation comes through faith in the work of the Anointed One, not any work that we may do, then they are false disciples and need to be identified as such.

One thing I’ve experienced is that when I meet someone who belongs to a different denomination than I do, or is independent of any church organization, I still feel a kindred spirit and accept them wholeheartedly without reservation. Yes, I may find out that they may practice water baptism differently than I was taught, or view the gifts of the Spirit in a different light, but our spirits bear witness with His Spirit that we are part of the same spiritual body of the Anointed One. But if they take away from any of the true core truths that Jesus taught, then I do not accept them as a brother or sister in the Anointed One, but lovingly let them know where I disagree with their gospel.

Paul now puts to rest another possible gossip tidbit, that he was so aloof and so self-absorbed that he was unwilling to submit to the supervision of apostolic leaders. He makes it clear that he voluntarily went to Jerusalem, a place he visited many, many times before, just to get acquainted with Peter. He admits, he did not go there to get Peter’s blessing or be instructed, but to get to know the apostolic Rock better. Paul does not tell us what they discussed, but you can be assured that spending fifteen days with someone will provide plenty of opportunities for sharing notes and ideas.

What could they have talked about? Since Peter was part of the inner circle and spent a lot of personal time with Jesus, I’m sure Paul wanted to get a firsthand account of what it was like to walk and talk with the Lord. Peter may have shared about his walking on water, or his experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, or his three denials, or cutting off Malchus’ ear in the garden, or even his encounter with the risen Lord in the upper room. But one thing for sure, Paul did not go there to get Peter’s approval of his ministry. If anything, he went to share with Peter what happened on the road to Damascus, then in Damascus, while out in the Arabian Desert, and after his return to Damascus.

Early church scholar Marius Victorinus believes that if the foundation of the church was laid on Peter’s shoulders, as the Gospel says, Paul knew that he ought to see Peter first. When he speaks of seeing Peter, it is as one to whom the Anointed One committed so much authority, not as one from whom he needed to learn anything. Victorinus suggests that below the surface, Paul may have implied that only fifteen days would not be long enough to gain any great depth of knowledge of God from Peter in such a short time?¹⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson L)

When Paul returned to Damascus, in the very city he was headed for to hunt down Christians for execution, and begin preaching Jesus of Nazareth as the Anointed One some people were astonished, some were outraged, and some tried to kill him.¹ “So,” exclaims Paul to the Jews and Gentiles in Galatia, “I am one of God’s chosen instruments; how do you feel about treating one of God’s anointed the way you are doing?” And can you imagine how the good ole boys back in Jerusalem felt about this upstart not coming to explain himself and get their blessing right after his conversion? Why did he wait so long? Who did he learn from? Who gave him their blessing? If these Judaizers thought Paul could be scared if they raised objections to his calling as an Apostle to the Gentiles; or that the higher-ups in the assembly of believers might object to his style of preaching and teaching, they were in for a big shock.

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) outlines some of the things that made Paul such a confident Apostle of the Anointed One to the Gentles. His calling and commission were not accomplished in an ordinary way, says Henry, nor by simple, ordinary means. First of all, God established this plan for him long before he exited his mother’s womb, and before he did anything to qualify himself for such a calling. The next thing, he was called by God’s grace, not as a favor or reward from the Believers’ Assembly Council in Jerusalem nor any of the other Apostles. Nor did he receive such a revelation to announce himself an emissary from God after meditating under a fig tree like Buddha, or in a cave, like Mohammad.

There was something peculiar in the case of Paul, both in the suddenness and in the greatness of the change that occurred in him, and also in the manner by which it was brought about by Jesus the Anointed One’s personal appearance to him, and the immediate command to follow the Lord’s instructions to initiate his calling. As such, it was rendered a more special and extraordinary instance of divine power and favor. Furthermore, the Anointed One not only revealed Himself to Paul but was revealed as dwelling in Paul. This goes for all Christians, comments Henry. It will be of little help to us if we have the Anointed One revealed to us if He is not also revealed in us. We may say that we’ve seen Jesus, but can others see Jesus in us? And finally, this was all designed by God for him to preach among the Gentiles whom, as a Jew, he once hated, and, among Christians whom he once persecuted. For such a radical Jewish Pharisee to suddenly become a Christian and an Apostle by direct revelation from God was something only God could do.²

John Bengel (1687-1752) makes a good point by noting that the good pleasure of God is the farthest point which a man can reach when he is inquiring with respect to the causes of his salvation. Paul attributes nothing to merit, not even his years of study as a Pharisee under the tutelage of the venerable Rabban Gamaliel.³ However, Joseph Benson attributes Paul’s mastery of the Gospel to his three years in Arabia during which time he employed himself in studying the Jewish Scriptures more carefully than ever, with the help of a new light which was bestowed on him; in searching into the true nature of the Law of Moses, and in attending to such revelations as the Anointed One was pleased to give to him. And by these revelations, he acquired a complete knowledge of all the Anointed One’s doctrines, sayings, miracles, sufferings, resurrection, and ascension, and of the design both of the law and of the Gospel, and of the confirmation which the Gospel is derived from the writings of Moses and the prophets.⁴

Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889), a Jewish convert to Christianity and Biblical scholar, made a trip into Palestine sometime before 1876 and shares what he found there. Upon reaching the city of Capernaum on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, he noticed that the busiest road in Palestine, was the one on which the publican Levi Matthew sat at the “receipt of custom,” and when our Lord came by and called him into the fellowship of the Gospel. Matthew then made that great feast to which he invited his fellow-publicans, that they also might see and hear Him in Whom he found everlasting life and peace.⁵ For, it was the only truly international road of all those which passed through Palestine; indeed, it formed one of the great highways of the Middle East’s commerce.

At the time during which Paul wrote, it may be said, in general, that six main arteries of commerce and communication traversed the country of Israel, the chief objective points being Cæsarea, the military encampments, and Jerusalem the religious capital. One was the southern route, which led from Jerusalem, by way of Bethlehem, on to Hebron, and then westwards to Gaza, and branched off northeastwards into Arabia, from which it then led directly north to Damascus. It is by this road we imagine that the Apostle Paul traveled when retiring into isolation in Arabia immediately after his conversion that he mentions here in verses seventeen and eighteen.⁶ It helps us understand why the Evangelists and Luke gave little time to such detailed directions of where Jesus walked and where Paul traveled. But to know that it did not change all that much in 1800 years is remarkable. How would you like to have today’s technology and be able to travel back in time and visit that area? If you find a way, take me and my wife with you.

Edward Huxtable (1833-1893) sees here in verse twelve, the effects that perception has on the reception of teaching or a message. I remember when studying Psychology at the University of North Dakota that we were told how a teacher wanted to prove this point so he chose a young fellow professor to help him. He picked out a good number of students from Freshmen to Seniors, equal men and women, and of various age groups to attend a seminar on government policies on education. When the first group came in, the older professor introduced young professor as a Senior Student Associate. To the next group he was introduced as a Graduate Student; to the next as a Post-Graduate Student with a Master’s Degree. And finally, to the last group as an Official from the Federal Government’s Department of Education. At the end of each session, the students were asked to fill out a form in which they expressed their confidence in the speakers level of believe-ability. The speaker introduced as a Senior Student Assistant got the lowest score and the government official got the highest score, even the young professor said the very same things to all the groups.

Huxtable believes that Paul is doing a similar thing here to establish his credentials as a bonafide expert on the Gospel of Jesus the Anointed One. In Paul’s own words he told the Galatians: I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus the Anointed One. You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion – how I violently persecuted God’s assembly of believers. I did my best to destroy it. I was far ahead of my fellow Jews in my zeal for the traditions of my ancestors. But even before I was born, God chose and called me by his marvelous grace. Then it pleased Him to reveal His Son to me so that I could proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles.

When this happened, says Paul, I did not rush out to consult with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were Apostles before I was. Instead, I went away into Arabia, and later I returned to the city of Damascus.⁷ Paul was the only one among the Apostles with that kind of history. The Judaizers who came from Jerusalem were no match for Paul in his knowledge of the Torah and Oral Teachings. Nor were they able to claim any special revelation from Jesus the Anointed One Himself. So isn’t it a shame that the Galatians were ready to believe these pretend apostles instead of a God-ordained and Jesus-taught the Apostle with his great testimony of deliverance and empowerment by the Holy Spirit.

George B. Stevens (1854-1906) spoke earlier about Paul’s disappointment in how the Galatians didn’t seem to appreciate all he went through to bring them the freedom-giving Gospel of the Anointed One. Now here in verses eleven through seventeen, it appears that Paul was led to believe that part of this rejection of him is because they were being persuaded that the Good News he brought them was something he borrowed from someone else or thought up and invented on his own. So with strong language, Paul writes them that the teaching he gave them was not composed by human hands and minds. Rather, it came to him by a personal revelation of Jesus the Anointed One.

Now, just in case they weren’t fully aware of what that meant to him and eventually to them, he reminds them that at one time, not too long ago, he was a zealous defender of the Jewish religion that led him to become a fanatic persecutor of the assembly of believers. So it should be obvious to them that this sudden transformation could not have happened without God working a miracle. And the reason his abrupt change occurred is that God already had plans for him to serve the great purpose of revealing the Anointed One as the truly risen and glorified the Anointed One, Yeshua of Nazareth, to the Gentile world. That’s why this persecutor became a preacher and missionary to the whole world, That is the only way to explain it because that’s what really happened.

Furthermore, after his conversion and anointing by Ananias in Damascus, he didn’t head for Jerusalem to get instructions from the Apostles. Rather, the Spirit led him into the remote regions of Arabia where this was all further revealed to him. Paul is more or less saying, it’s alright if you want to reject me, but you are on dangerous ground by rejecting the Gospel I brought you because it came directly from God.⁸ This is a lesson for all of us who have been chosen and called to preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus the Anointed One. Let people know it’s alright with you if they don’t want to accept you as a person, they should be careful that they do not reject the message God gave you to share with them.

Then Grant Osborne has an interesting point to make. It is an interesting question whether the Greek preposition/dative pronoun en emoi in verse sixteen should be translated as “in me” (KJV, NIV) or as “to me” (New Living Translation, Good News Translation), which seem more natural. Is the emphasis on the internal change in Paul (in me) or on the vision itself (to me)? Likely the revelation to Paul is implicit in the verb itself, and the unusual language “in me” should be taken literally as a reference to the internal change in Paul – his conversion. It is hard to imagine a more complete transformation. Paul was transformed from an Anointed One-hater to an Anointed One-believer, then an Anointed One-worshiper, and finally to a missionary to the despised Gentiles – all as the result of a single vision! No wonder he spent the next three days blind and isolated in Damascus.⁹ It took him that long just to begin to process the radical alteration of everything he ever believed and thought.¹⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLIX)

Paul wanted to emphasize again that nobody taught him about Jesus. In fact, he was led by the Holy Spirit into the Arabian Desert east of Israel. We have a comparison between what Paul remembers, and what he told Luke about his experience in the desert.¹ Paul understood the Torah and the Prophets, but not in the light of the Gospel. Jesus needed to show Paul the connection. In his letter to the Corinthians Paul shares a somewhat hazy account of his experience in the Arabian Desert. He starts out by telling them: “Let me teach you a few things about visions and revelations. I hope you won’t think I’m bragging because I have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so. I personally know a Christian believer, who fourteen years ago was literally raptured into the third heaven. I cannot tell you whether he went there bodily, or whether it was an out-of-body experience, God alone knows. Let me repeat, I know for certain that this man was raptured up into paradise, but as I said, whether it was an in-body or out-of-body experience, I’m certain God knows for sure. While he was there he heard things said that are impossible to put into words; things that the human tongue is forbidden to repeat.”²

Bible scholars say that we should remember that the great Hebrew lawgiver, Moses, spent forty years in the desert of Midian before he was prepared to do his great work of leading and delivering the people of God out of Egypt; that Elijah, the great prophet wandered in the desert before he came out to do his great work; the forerunner of the Anointed One – John the Baptizer – “was in the desert until the day he appeared in Israel,” and there he grew and became strong in spirit. Also, the Redeemer Himself was “led by the Spirit into the wilderness” to be tempted and tried after His baptism, and before He entered His public ministry in Galilee as Messiah, the Anointed One.³

Bible scholars tell us we should take note that the Arabic Version reads: “I went to Balcam,” which was a city in Syria; but without any provable facts. It was not Syria, but Arabia to which Paul went. There are three countries which bear the name of Arabia, and which are called such to distinguish them from one another, Arabia Petræa, Arabian Desert, and Arabia Felix. It is very likely it was the first of these which the Apostle went to since it was near Syria, and he went there from Damascus which was at this time under the government of an Arabian king.⁴

Paul himself gives us some hint of who this Arabian king was when he wrote: “When I was in Damascus, the governor under King Aretas wanted to arrest me, so he put guards around the city. But some friends put me in a basket. Then they put the basket through a hole in the wall and lowered me down. So I escaped from the governor.”⁵ British theologian Adam Clarke states, Paul went to that part of Arabia which was next door to Damascus, over which Aretas was then king.⁶

In other writings, we are told more about this King Aretas. He was a Nabatæan King who reigned from BC 9 to 40 AD. His full title, as depicted on numerous inscriptions, was “Aretas, King of the Nabatæans, Friend of his People.”⁷ Being the most powerful neighbor of Samaria and Judæa, he frequently took part in the state affairs of those countries and was influential in shaping the destiny of its rulers. His daughter Phasælis married Herod Antipas (BC 4 to 39 AD), otherwise known as Herod the Tetrarch. When Herod divorced Phasælis to take his brother’s wife Herodias, mother of Salome, in 36 AD, Phasælis fled back to her father in Damascus. Relations between Herod and Aretas IV were already strained over border disputes, and with his family’s honor shamed, Aretas IV invaded Judæa, and captured territories along the West Bank of the Jordan River, including the areas around Qumran. The Jewish author Josephus connects this battle, which occurred during the winter of 36/37 AD, with the beheading of John the Baptist, which occurred about the same time.

Jewish writer Avi ben Mordechai offers his answer to those who question, why did Paul go to Arabia? For him, this was the land of Midian where Moses wandered around for 40 years before Elohim met him there on Mount Moriah in the Sinai desert.⁸ Then, later on, the prophet Elijah came to this same mountain where he sought God for mercy and direction.⁹ So what better place could Paul choose to go to have God retool his mind and reform his ideas developed by the oral laws of the Rabbis than to go to where the Written Torah was given to Moses. There, the empty cistern of his Pharisaic life could be filled with the true knowledge of Yahweh about Yeshua the Anointed One, who came to fulfill God’s plans for all Israel. God’s people were scattered among all the nations and needed to hear the good news – the Gospel of the Anointed One¹⁰.¹¹

One scholar sees Paul’s solitary period as more than simply not seeking instruction from the Apostles in particular, but that he kept himself from being in communication with anyone at all, excluding not only the receiving of instruction but sharing what he was being revealed to him. The most natural, almost the lone possible, implication is that he sought communion exclusively with God.¹² In other words, he wanted to be alone with God so he could more fully understand the new revelation he received from the Anointed One, God’s Son. No one should fault him for that.

Historian Pliny tells us that where Syria bordered on lands to the east and south is called Arabia. Among these are Palestine, Judæa, Coele, Phoenicia, and Damascus.¹³ In other words, Paul did not need to go to the area we know today as Arabia, nor did he need to go far to be in the uninhabited parts of these lands. This raises another question: if he stayed there three years how was he sustained with food and housing? Apparently, it was so private an experience that Paul never felt the need to describe everything in detail. However, Jerome tells us that the river Jordan divides Judæa and Arabia; so that this country into which the Apostle went was not a great way off from Damascus, to which he returned again after some time. This all happened in about three years. We see this in the next verse when he carried out the work and will of God in those parts. No doubt he was the instrument of converting souls and planting churches in that area. In fact, there were churches in Arabia in the decades following the third-century AD, which are mentioned along with the churches in Syria.¹⁴

Likewise, church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD) tells us about the work of God that went on in that area. He explains that all the churches throughout the East and beyond were once divided but now united. And all the Bishops are of one mind, and rejoice greatly in the peace which was enjoyed beyond all expectations. Eusebius then names Bishops that were appointed: Demetrianus in Antioch, Theoctistus in Cæsarea, Mazabanes in Aelia, Marinus in Tyre (replacing Alexander who moved on), Heliodorus in Laodicea (replacing Thelymidres who died), Helenus in Tarsus, and all the churches of Cilicia, Firmilianus, and all Cappadocia. He named the more illustrious Bishops so that his letter was not too long and there was so much to read. Eusebius then notes that in all of Syria, and Arabia they sent help when needed, and to whom they previously wrote a letter, namely, Mesopotamia, Pontus, Bithynia, and, in short, people everywhere are rejoicing and glorifying God for being in one accord with brotherly love.¹⁵ This should help us appreciate how far and wide the assembly of believers spread and how influential it became by the middle of the fourth century.

Eusebius goes on to tell us that he felt no need to mention the rest by name, or count the multitude of workers, or tell the stories of the admirable martyrs of the Anointed One. Some of them were killed with an ax, as in Arabia. The arms and legs of some were broken, as in Cappadocia. Some were hung by their feet, with their heads down, while a small fire burned beneath them in order to suffocate them with the smoke which arose from the burning wood, as was done in Mesopotamia. Others were mutilated by cutting off their noses and ears and hands and cutting to pieces other parts of their bodies, as in Alexandria. Do we need to be reminded of those in Antioch who were roasted on fire-pit grates, not in order to kill them, but to subject them to longer, painful punishment? Or of others who preferred to stick their right hand into the fire rather than touch the profane sacrifice to idols? Some preferred not to go to trial. So rather than be arrested and fall into the hands of their enemies, threw themselves from rooftops, considering death preferable to the cruel punishment of the godless.¹⁶ How long would many believers today remain faithful to the Anointed One if they were treated the same way?

Since there is no other record of any Apostles going into these areas, we may assume that Paul spent his three years there preparing for what would become the greatest missionary journey in the assembly of believers’ history. Paul does not say how long he stayed in Arabia before he returned to Damascus, but scholars reckoned it to be about three years based on this verse here. The one thing he wanted to impress on the Corinthians was that while he spoke so highly of this man’s spiritual encounter with God, he refused to use that as adding any value to himself as a person. Rather, the one thing he would say about himself is how frail and human he was.

Should Paul have kept this experience a secret and thereby avoid any criticism of wanting to appear in the company of Enoch or Elijah? Eusebius doesn’t think so, because he’s telling the truth of what happened. The bottom line was that Paul did not want anyone to think he would use such a heavenly experience to make them feel they needed to treat him as somebody special. He simply wanted them to think of him as an ordinary person they heard and saw. Paul did not envision himself as a renown Pharisee who came to believe in Yeshua of Nazareth through a personal encounter with His Holiness, but as the chief of sinners, a worthless human being who persecuted the assembly of believers, and who did not deserve such grace and mercy from Almighty God. He was not made proud of his experience in the desert. Rather, it made him humble and repentant that God would care that much about him. Perhaps more believers today should adopt Paul’s humble attitude.

Here is something to think about. There are many in the world who are more than willing to offer their opinion on how you should deal with certain situations. It is possible to consider their proposals but you are not forced to accept them. You must make up your own mind. Here are some for you to consider:

A man fell into a pit and couldn’t get himself out.

A subjective person came along and said, “I feel for you down there.”

An objective person walked by and said, “It’s logical that someone would fall down there.”

A Pharisee said, “Only bad people fall into pits.”

A mathematician calculated how deep the pit was.

A news reporter wanted the exclusive story on the pit.

A proud person would say, “Try to be more like me and you won’t end up in such a pit.”

A self-pitying person said, “You haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen my pit.”

A fire-and-brimstone preacher said, “You deserve your pit.”

A Christian Scientist observed, “The pit is just in your mind.”

A psychologist noted, “Your mother and father are to blame for your being in that pit.”

A self-esteem therapist said, “Believe in yourself and you can get out of that pit.”

A hateful person would say, “It’s the survival of the fittest, buddy. So you know what that makes you!”

An optimist said, “Things could be worse.”

An egotistical person would say, “I’ve got enough problems of my own to handle, I don’t need yours.”

A pessimist claimed, “Things will get worse.”

Jesus, seeing the man, took him by the hand and lifted him out of the pit

Now ask yourself the question, if someone were to ask your opinion on how to get out of a tight or difficult situation with the least amount of loss or hurt, which on of these categories would they place you in?

HIS EYE IS ON THE SPARROW

This touching story was shared by “TRUTH BOOK” without mentioning the contributor’s name. It shows us that all creatures show their feelings in their own way; feelings evidently are not exclusive to humans. Let this little fellow’s feelings for his soul mate touch your heart as it did mine.

A male barn swallow’s female mate is injured and the condition is soon fatal. She was hit by a car as she swooped low across the road. She looks around desperately to her mate.

Here he comes bringing her food and attending to her with love and compassion.

He comes back again to check on her and is shocked to find she has died. He tries to gently move her….a rarely-seen effort for swallows!

Realizing now that his sweetheart is gone and will never come back to him again, his heart cries with adoring love.

He stands beside her grieving because she’s gone, she meant everything to him.

Finally aware that she would never return to him, he stood beside her body with sadness and sorrow.

Supposedly, millions of people cried after watching this picture in America and Europe and even in Asia. It is said that the photographer sold these pictures for a nominal fee to the most famous newspaper in France. All copies of that newspaper were sold out on the day these pictures were published.

And many people think animals don’t have a brain or feelings…Is it possible that some do? You have just witnessed a scene of Love and Sorrow felt by God’s creatures. Listen to what Jesus said about how much God cares for you. “Don’t be afraid of certain people. They can kill the body, but they cannot kill the soul. The only one you should fear is God, the One who can destroy the body and send the soul to hell. When birds are sold, two small sparrows only cost one copper penny. But not even one of those precious little birds can fall without your heavenly Father knowing it.¹

So we should live with what God gives us, love generously with what we have, care deeply and speak kindly to those who need comforting. That is God’s way of reaching down to care for His own, and humanity’s way of reaching up by faith to hold His hand. So if God cares enough to see when a sparrow falls, certainly He cares if He sees you fall? As someone once said, the mind asks is there anything more important than knowledge? The soul answers back, caring and seeing with the heart. So why is it then that those creatures God created in His own image seem to care less about each other than does the small barn swallow? It all starts in the heart so it can be transferred to the mind and then shared in love.

As I began to read this touching story, my mind immediately back to a song by Frank E. Gräff wrote I used to sing that expresses our Lord’s tender loving care.

Does Jesus care when my heart is pained
Too deeply for mirth or song,
As the burdens press, and the cares distress,
And the way grows weary and long?

Does Jesus care when my way is dark
With a nameless dread and fear?
As the daylight fades into deep night shades,
Does He care enough to be near?

Does Jesus care when I’ve tried and failed
To resist some temptation strong;
When for my deep grief there is no relief,
Though my tears flow the whole night long?

Does Jesus care when I’ve said “goodbye”
To the dearest on earth to me,
And my sad heart aches till it nearly breaks—
Is it aught to Him? Does He see?

Chorus:
Oh, yes, He cares, I know He cares,
His heart is touched with my grief;
When the days are weary, the long nights dreary,
I know my Savior cares.

So as you look at these picture of these two precious little barn sparrows, remember that if God is compassionate enough about His creation to look after them, don’t you think He cares enough to look after you? – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLVIII)

Even though Paul saw the bright light in the sky with his eyes, and heard the Lord speaking to him with his ears, that was not the whole revelation. It wasn’t until Ananias’ prayer and prophesy caused the scales to peeled away from Paul’s eyes after he heard what the Lord said to his repentant heart and mind that the revelation began. So as Paul says, it was not flesh and blood that reveals the Anointed One to us. Without the teaching of the Spirit, what we see and hear will only be like the letters of the alphabet in a book to a child that cannot read.¹ Both Strong and Matheson are joined by W. E. Channing who stated, we must never forget that being able to perceive and understand things we see and hear is a great gift from God, and for this we should give Him our grateful gratitude.² Channing goes on to say that he is surer that his mental reasoning nature is from God more than those things written in a book is the expression of His will.³ Channing is referring to books written about God’s will by philosophers and scholars.

Paul’s treatment by the Judaizers after he converted to Christianity makes one think of how the Roman Catholic Church handled Martin Luther and John Calvin, who, after their conversion, went out to preach the Gospel without first going to Rome to get approval. One Jewish commentator says that while Paul was in Arabia, he began putting together his revolutionary version of the Gospel. It was revolutionary in that for the first time a Scriptural and theological basis was given for presenting the Gospel to Gentiles without their having to become Jews first.⁴

Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918), notes that what happened to Paul has been true down through the ages. The open revelation of God to mankind has varied again and again, but His secret revelation to the soul that turns a person away from sin to Him has always been the same. That’s what the Psalmist said: “He brought me up from the roaring pit, up from the muddy ooze, and set my feet on a rock, making my footing firm. He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will look on in awe and put their trust in Adonai.”⁵ That’s why even as His saints sang this three thousand years ago so we can sing it again today.⁶ Anderson goes on to note that Paul’s words here in verse sixteen, “It pleased God to reveal His Son in me,” is Paul’s personal testimony. So if Peter recognized Paul as a child of the Living God, what he said was certainly a revelation from the Father in heaven.⁷ And it was with the rest of those with Peter, they needed to listen to the words of Paul as if they were being spoken by God.⁸

Bible scholar Walter F. Adeney (1849-1920) focuses on what he sees as Paul’s teaching on destiny. It is clear that the Apostle Paul feels that from his birth he was set apart for the great apostolic work of his later years. In fact, there is a destiny in every life. God has His purpose of calling us into being. This destiny is determined for us, not by us. We do not choose the circumstances in which we are born, nor our own gifts and attitudes. We can sometimes escape from our surroundings, but we can never escape from ourselves. Whether a person discovers the world as a prince in a palace, or as a parentless child in an orphanage, is entirely beyond their control. It is equally impossible for them to determine whether they will have the genius of Einstein or confined to the mind of a two-year-old up until adulthood.

Yet, says Adeney, these differences have a huge effect a person’s necessary future! They may unaware of their destiny for a long time. No doubt the Apostle Paul never dreamed, while he sat at the feet of Gamaliel nor while he was harassing Christians, that he would one day be a Champion for the Anointed One. Our destiny is controlled by the providence of God who gradually reveals it to us. But it is our duty to walk in the path we have been assigned to until our destiny is finally realized. God may show you your destiny but He will not carry you to it. To resist God’s leading is to insinuate He doesn’t know what He’s doing. This often happens, because although we have been set apart for a particular job in His vineyard, we may refuse to follow it by our free-will,⁹ but at great cost.¹⁰

Charles B. Stevens (1854-1906) confesses here in verses fifteen and sixteen that as a radical Pharisee Paul was closed minded to any instruction, critique, or intervention by outside sources. For him, it was the Torah and the oral Teachings of the Pharisees that occupied his mind constantly. However, now that the Anointed One revealed Himself to Paul in such an indisputable and miraculous way, he was now just as closed-minded to any other gospel or teaching that might try and persuade him differently. All his understanding of the Jewish way of approaching God was dependent upon what his natural eye could see and comprehend which required good works in order to show one believed. But this unveiling of the Anointed One on the road to Damascus and the witness of Ananias was seen and comprehended by his spiritual eye. The first one required works, this last one required faith in order to believe.¹¹

Jewish scholar Adriaan Liebenberg offers us some insight into how this verse can be understood in a somewhat different way when we see how it was written in the Aramaic text, the language Jesus and Paul spoke. The Aramaic verb negla, which is akin to the Hebrew verb glah means to “uncover, disclose, reveal,”¹² but in Aramaic, it can also mean “manifested,” as in revealing through a visual process. Paul told Timothy how Jesus was manifest in the flesh to be seen and heard.¹³ This was how the disciples saw Him. So Paul wanted everyone to know that Jesus revealed Himself to him through a visual process. So there could be no doubt that his calling was as valid as that of the other Apostles.¹⁴

Several current Bible scholars made a very salient point when they wrote that we should praise God that it was His will to show us grace, not our will. That’s what Paul says: “So then it does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy.”¹⁵ Paul didn’t deserve mercy; he didn’t even ask for it. It pursued him. The same holds true for us: we do not deserve God’s mercy, nor do we even know how to seek it. It seeks us. And it finds us. Mercy comes running, and by His grace, God pursues you with His love. His pleasure in you is not dependent on your pursuit of Him, but His pursuit of you. That’s one of the reasons the Judaizers were criticizing the Gospel of free grace that Paul was preaching, and, therefore, tried to discredit his ministry.¹⁶

There’s an old Puritan saying that goes, “God does not break all hearts in the same way.” In other words, we all may have our hearts set on what we think God should do for us, but it doesn’t always work out that way. Because of that, it is necessary that anyone chosen by God for a special ministry, like Paul’s should be willing to include their joys and disappointments in their story and do so honestly. For Paul, his story occurred during the period when God chose to unveil Jesus of Nazareth as the true Anointed One; it paralleled the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of our LORD and Savior. As a result, Paul’s life, his vocation, his whole identity was impacted by the original Gospel message being carried out in his lifetime. Therefore, since he already received God’s approval and direction, he did not need to get any critic’s stamp of approval.

1:16b-17 But I didn’t rush off right away to get approval from anyone. I didn’t even go up to Jerusalem to visit with those who were apostles before I became one. Instead, I took a trip into the Arabian Desert for a while. After that, I returned to Damascus.

Underlying the attitude that Paul expresses here about not feeling obligated to run up to Jerusalem to get the approval of the Apostles for his conversion is expressed very well in the Book of Hebrews: “It is true that we share the same Father with Jesus. And it is true that we share the same kind of flesh and blood because Jesus became a man like us. He died as we must die. Through His death He destroyed the power of the devil who has the power of death.”¹⁷ In other words, Paul entered the arena of the ministry on the same level as the Apostles, and his calling to be an Apostle by the Anointed One Himself was no less important than the calling of the others.

What happened in Damascus after Paul’s conversion was proof enough that his calling was genuine. Luke tells us that once Saul began to preach in the Jewish synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God, all who heard him were surprised and amazed. They wondered if this was the same man who beat and killed the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem; the same person who came to Damascus and shackled the followers of the Anointed One in chains and took them to the head Jewish leaders for interrogation. But this didn’t keep Saul from growing in influence. The Jews living in Damascus were astonished by Saul’s preaching. He was proving that Jesus was the Anointed One.¹⁸ Later, Paul told the Corinthians that in the city of Damascus the leader of the people under King Aretas put soldiers at the gates to arrest me. But I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and I got away.¹⁹

Augustine of Hippo has a very Roman Catholic view on this part of Paul’s story. For him, if Paul visited Peter after preaching the Gospel in Arabia, it was not for the purpose of learning the Gospel from him. Were that the case, he would surely have seen Peter first. Rather, he visited Peter so that by meeting him in person he might build up brotherly love between them. But he did not see any of the other Apostles except James the Lord’s brother.²⁰ James is understood to be the Lord’s brother because he was one of Joseph’s sons by another wife or perhaps one of the relatives of the Lord’s mother Mary²¹.²²

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLVII)

1:16a Then, at a predesignated point in time God revealed His Son to me so I could go out and evangelize the Gentiles, telling them the good news about Jesus. At that very moment, I decided not to discuss it with anyone.

Paul’s use of the Greek verb euaggelizō (evangelize) defines the centerpiece of his life and ministry. It is variously translated into English by the King James Version as: “Gospel preached,”¹ “glad tidings,”² “good tidings,”³ “exhortation preached,”⁴ “to preach,”⁵ “to declare,”⁶ “preaching the Gospel,”⁷ “preaching,”⁸ etc. So as we can see, it meant to bring good news to announce good things. And in Paul’s case, it involved bringing the Good News about Yeshua the Anointed One whom God the Father sent in order for the whole world to be saved from the death penalty issued by the Law for sinners. But the idea of euaggelizō is not restricted to the Gospel, it can include proclaiming the truth about the Anointed One in order to win souls for Him, and in this case here in Galatians, to instruct believers in knowing the difference between those who share “good news” and those who peddle “bad news.”⁹ We can see this more clearly when we use the term “evangelize” instead of just “preach” or “preaching.”

Here it sounds very much like Paul experienced something similar to what the Apostle Peter did when he too acknowledges for the first time that Jesus was the Anointed One, the Son of the living God.¹⁰ In Paul’s case, he gave all the credit to God for using the Holy Spirit to help him see what no teaching or learning from what people said may have communicated. In fact, Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah where it is said, “No eye has ever seen or no ear has ever heard or no mind has ever thought of the wonderful things God has made ready for those who love Him.¹¹”¹² While some put this verse in the context of the future, Paul saw it as prophesying what was happening in his day. Perhaps we too can take hope that there are some things yet unrevealed that will happen in our day.

Furthermore, Paul told the Ephesians that many times these revelations are simply waiting on the Holy Spirit to help them gain the wisdom they need in order to understand these secrets that are there for the taking.¹³ In fact, Paul said that God waited to that particular point in time to reveal some of these mysteries, that believers of old would not have understood in their day.¹⁴ And what does that mean for us today? Are there things just waiting to be revealed if we get earnest enough and with plenty of fiery motivation to pray for such an anointing? To tarry until they are endowed with wisdom from on high to understand and participate in what God has waiting for us? When we look back at the Day of Pentecost, the calling of Paul, the Reformation, the Wesleyan Revivals, the Pentecostal Renewal, it tells us that the days of revival are not over.

But that didn’t mean it would be easy. It never has been. Paul experienced that first hand when he went back to Jerusalem to deliver the donations he collected on his last missionary trip. Being among Jews again he went to the Temple to pray. But his reception was not cordial. In fact, when Paul told them about his mission, it caused a riot and a demand to have him killed.¹⁵ However, Paul was not deterred. He told the occupying Romans how God helped him carry out his mission.¹⁶ Yet he ended up in prison.¹⁷ But that was not going to stop him.

Why should he stop? He was given the code to a secret part of God’s plan. He was determined not to quit sharing the Good News even if it killed him.¹⁸ Many obstacles were put in his way but with God’s help, he found a way over them, around them, and even through them.¹⁹ No other religion proclaimed the message he preached.²⁰ And to his young protégé, Timothy, he sent words of encouragement to keep letting God use him for this same purpose. In the end, his trust in God would be rewarded because the Holy Spirit lived in him to help him cope and continue strong to the end.²¹

“So,” Paul is telling the Galatians, “you know God was involved by picking a mean-spirited man like me who thought that Jews, and especially Pharisees, were the elite in God’s kingdom, and send him out to preach to Gentiles, something no self-respecting Jew would even think of doing.” Was Paul telling them this in order to win their approval on how he was carrying out God’s commission to the Gentiles? No! Had Paul doubted his calling, or questioned if this was God’s predetermined plan for his life; he certainly would have been outraged when he ended up with so much jail time during his ministry.

When early church scholar Tertullian (155-240 AD), read verse sixteen, he believes that Paul acted with an ulterior motive by not consulting the Apostles. In one of the earliest Roman Catholic Bibles translated into English, verse sixteen reads, “Immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood.”²² Now Paul knew that there might be plenty in the Jerusalem assembly of believers who insisted that only those who were circumcised would rise in the resurrection. So when Paul identified those he decided not to consult with as “flesh and blood,” he was pointing to these Jewish converts who were not yet freed from what Tertullian calls their “old or former conversation” (“way of doing things”).²³ In other words, Paul’s intent was to do it God’s way not man’s way, even if it went against custom and tradition.

We know that Paul added to his library of Jewish writings the popular Greek writers of his day.²⁴ Whether or not he read the writings of Plato we don’t know, but perhaps he was aware of the two valuable principles Socrates ascribed to: First, that true knowledge is knowledge of causes. Secondly, the process of learning consists not in what is brought to learners, but in what is drawn out of them.²⁵ One main point of contention between Paul and the Judaizers involved their question of how much was he taught or was he taught at all. Paul’s testimony on the revelation he received from the Anointed One proves that it’s what flows out of him to others that counted most.

Baptist preacher Charles Simeon (1759-1836) in his preaching using the text: Galatians 1:15-16 makes clear to his congregation what Paul seems to be saying to the Galatians, that is, we must not negotiate with uncertainty, but act with promptness and decision. There must be in us a firmness that is immovable: yet such firmness must be moderated with graciousness. There is no reason to think that just because those over us in the Lord are not as eager as we are to grow in the Word and it is inhibiting our growth in the Anointed One, we must not remain submitted to remaining stationary. We have been given the liberty to agree or disagree with their stance just as long as we don’t violate the teachings of the Anointed One.

Simeon finishes by saying that while we guard against any unreasonable conformity to the world’s views and lifestyles, we must also guard against two common corruptive tendencies: they are, “being too much in control of every step believers should take,” and “unnecessary criticism of those who do not agree with us.” Unnecessary criticism has the danger of making something that is not sinful, to be sinful. and too much control can become too out of control when demanding compliance with the rules of sanctification when it has nothing to do with holiness. We must be willing to learn and be taught better ways of doing what we are trying to do in helping others to grow as spiritual adults. When there are differences of opinion, we must be willing to listen. But in matters of remaining faithful and true to God’s Word, we must be firm and faithful no matter what the cost.²⁶ Paul once was that legalistic Pharisee trying to keep people away from the Anointed One, but now he’s learned the Christian way of love, mercy, and grace in convincing people to come to the Anointed One.

Augustus H. Strong (1836-1921), Reformed Baptist minister and noted theologian best known for his Systematic Theology, (and not to be confused with James Strong who published his Concordance in 1890), in answering what he called the “idealists in philosophy,” on the subject or “revelation,” made the point that in order for revelation to be effective it must involve causing a new model of intelligence to develop. In other words, one must have a clear understanding of what they are teaching. However, when it comes to understanding divine mysteries, it is impossible without a divine quickening of man’s cognitive powers. Granted, says Strong, that revelation, when originally imparted, was often internal and subjective. Strong was speaking in reference to what Paul says here in verse sixteen about how God’s Son was to be seen in him in order for him to preach about the Anointed One to Gentiles, that did not come by way of revelation by men but by God.²⁷

Strong then appeals to what George Matheson (1842-1906), blind Scottish minister and hymn writer²⁸ said about Paul’s revelation. Matheson asks, “Can any picture be a vision to the eye? Can a thing be revealed to me which has never been revealed in me?” Looking at a picture of a beautiful landscape is not enough to reveal all that one sees, says Matheson, “There could be no beauty without if there were no sense of beauty within.” The same goes for music, says Matheson, without a sense of harmony within there is no harmony perceived in the ear. Likewise with the beauty and oneness with Jesus the Anointed One.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLVI)

Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) focuses on what Paul wanted to say about his being set apart by God for this ministry to the Gentiles. For Hovey, this is to be understood as Paul being assigned or devoted to a special work, even the preaching of the Anointed One to the Gentiles.¹ The word separated in the King James and the Revised Versions is ambiguous. Paul represents himself as singled out and set apart by the will of God from his very birth to become an Apostle. And the next clause, “called me by His grace,” directs attention to another act of God – namely, the divine authority in his conversion. The same verb is used in Romans 8:30: “And whom He foreordained, them He also called.” This divine calling encompasses all that God does to bring conviction to the moral nature of sinners and directs them to repentance. In Paul’s case, it was the supernatural radiance and the voice of the Anointed One, together with the work of the Holy Spirit in his soul that made a powerful impact on his moral nature which led him so quickly into the new life.²

J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889), feels that verse fifteen could be condensed to make Paul’s point about his calling, selection, and appointment this way: God did it, not me!¹ Also English theologian William Sanday (1843-1920), Professor of Exegesis on Holy Scripture says of Paul’s selection, calling, and struggle to become an Apostle to the Gentiles, that this was such a crisis that no other being dare interfere, “the soul must wrestle out its own problems between itself and God.”⁴

Charles Spurgeon thinks that all this points to something to often overlooked when it comes to what happens before regeneration and conversion. He calls it, PRECEDING GRACE. Spurgeon laments that we do not attach enough importance to the Grace of God in its dealings with people before He actually brings them to Himself. Paul says that God designed a way to love him before He called him out of the dead world into spiritual life.⁵ To put it another way, most of us are totally unaware of all that God did before He ever sent His Holy Spirit to call us to repentance.

British Baptist Bible scholar A. F. Barfield (1869) explained what his concept was of how God’s preceding grace worked. He said that as he looked at this earth in which we live, he finds it captured and clothed by God’s all-embracing laws, just like gravity influences the ebb and flow of the tides, of light, of the procession of the seasons – all utterly and absolutely beyond any human control. They reach above, beneath, around, and within; we cannot touch them. There they are; unalterable, unswerving, and necessary – in its most profound sense, predestinated.⁶ The same is true of God’s spiritual realm. There are powers and forces at work over which humankind has no control. Anything that moves or comes into being is all done by God’s will and grace. Those who are called and converted owe nothing to themselves for who they are or what they may become. As Lightfoot indicated, God did it, not us!

Canadian George W. Ridout (1870-1954), who accepted the Chair of Theology at Asbury College (now Asbury University), in Wilmore, Kentucky, where he remained until 1927, before going out to do missionary work in Asia and South America, noted from his experience that God commences His work in a soul by causing it to feel alienated from Him. As the old hymn goes, “I’ve wandered far away from God.”⁷ It causes the sinner to experience true grief and sorrow over their sins and knows it may be a long way back to God. But this is a good thing, because it redoubles their restlessness, and increases their desire to reach out to Him.

However, at first, some try to clean up their lives on their own. But it’s only on the outside and does not make any difference on the inside. The wounds that need healing are on the heart, not just the body. When they become unsatisfied with their progress, some give up but others become more eager and struggle with all their energy and resolve to make even bigger changes. But it’s like taking two steps forward and then three steps backward. Now they feel even more helpless. It’s only when the mercy of God is explained to them and they are instructed to seek inwardly for what they’re looking for outwardly. By God’s grace, they are then made aware of the treasure the Holy Spirit helps them to discover in their heart and soul. They went far and wide looking for an answer when all the time it was near to their heart. For Ridout, this is the message Paul is reminding the Galatians of here in verse sixteen.⁸

Theologian Robert Gundry sees Paul being set apart while in his mother’s womb and then called while on the road to Damascus. This came while he was persecuting the assembly of believers and wreaking havoc on them. This testifies dramatically to God’s absolute sovereign grace, so dramatically, in fact, that the Galatians should retrace their steps back to the Gospel that features this grace undistorted and unappended. And the fact that God was actually “pleased” or “delighted,” as Paul’s Greek verb eudokeō could equally be translated – to reveal His Son in Paul. Nothing need be added to it, Paul wants the Galatians (and us) to know. “In me” doesn’t define the manifestation of God’s Son as an interior revelation that took place only in his mind, although the manifestation certainly did change his mind. For in another place he says that he actually saw the risen Jesus and that the risen Jesus actually appeared to him.⁹ So “in me” means “in my case.¹⁰”¹¹ However, Gundry thinks it only fair to consider that Paul’s revelation that he was called while still in his mother’s womb did not come to him until he was converted and became a follower of the Anointed One.

Based on Jewish tradition of his day, at the age of five Paul began to memorize scripture and study the Torah, along with writing and arithmetic. Then at age ten he listened to a teacher recite a compilation of all the teachings of great rabbis down through the ages, later compiled in the Mishnah, which means “to repeat.” All of this while growing up in the city of Tarsus until he reached age thirteen, when he qualified to be a Bar Mitzvah, which means, “son of the commandment.” Then at age fifteen, his parents sent him to Jerusalem to study all the cultural laws and traditions of Judaism at the feet of the highly revered Rabbi Gamaliel. These would later become part of the Talmud, which combines the Mishnah and the Rabbi’s commentary called the Gemara, which means “to complete.” This section of discussions, debates, interpretations, and commentary on the Mishnah begin in 350 BC, and presented in a question and answer style, so the students could memorize them.

Messianic writer Tim Hegg gives us a picture here from a Jewish perspective of Paul’s calling. Paul speaks of “being set apart from my mother’s womb.” This seems too close a parallel to Jeremiah’s calling to be coincidental,¹² and we should most likely presume that Paul considered his own calling (and thus his authority) to be like that of Jeremiah’s. Even more so, since the meaning of “Pharisee” is (as many believe) derived from the Hebrew root, parash, “to separate,” then Paul’s claim to have been “separated” to the Lord from the time of birth would be speaking directly to the Judaizers. Paul’s association with the Pharisees (of which they may have belonged to or sympathetic of) came to an end when he recognized his true “separation” being unto God through Yeshua, and his life’s mission for which he was separated from the “separated ones” – Pharisees. But the fact that this separation was from birth would mean that his time within the strict sect of Pharisees of which he was a part, was not wasted but something necessary for his ultimate calling.¹³

Nevertheless, some of his critics questioned why Paul thought he was so special that Jesus needed to confront him personally to explain the truth. In their minds, it wasn’t because he was exceptional, but that Paul was such a stubborn and hardheaded person that if anyone possessed the persuasive powers to convinced them they needed to change their ways, it would take the Anointed One to do it. Paul did not argue, he openly admitted that he did not deserve God’s mercy and kindness; he knew God selected a special job for him to do. But just in case any of these Judaizers or Gentiles felt that Paul might become bigheaded, he assures them it was all by God’s grace. So it wasn’t that he felt he earned it, but that God deserved all the credit for being so loving and kind to such an undeserving person.

Perhaps the Galatians, and even those who read this passage today, may wonder if Paul is introducing the doctrine of predestination by believing he was picked out for this ministry before he was born, and, therefore, had little if anything to do with how it came into being. In exploring this, let’s first ask these questions: was Abraham just lucky to be in the right place at the right time, or was he called because God made a plan for his life?¹⁴ Was Moses simply fortunate to be discovered by Pharaoh’s daughter or was it part of God’s grand design? Or was Jeremiah picked by some divine lottery to be “the prophet of the hour” to the Israelites, or did God already factor him in as part of Israel’s future?¹⁵

Needless to say, we can go on and on with Joshua, Daniel, Jeremiah, David, and the disciples, etc. Most Christians accept that God possesses the authority, power, and intellect to do such things without anyone’s permission. But how does it fit into His plan of Divine Will and also human will? Predestination, as it is understood by some, indicates that neither man’s will nor obedience to God’s will plays any role in how they live out their lives. It is preset, and will happen as planned no matter what. But for others, predestination actually refers to predetermination. It’s all part of God’s plan, purpose, and will, but whether or not we participate depends on our willingness and obedience, as Jonah learned the hard way.

But now we need to ask further, even if it is part of God’s plan from the beginning, does it mean that all these people were called and then forced to do what God wanted them to do unwillingly? Moses found out the cost of disobedience when he struck the rock instead of speaking to it as God directed. What if he did what God asked him to do? He would have no doubt entered the Promised Land with everyone else. Judas Iscariot was certainly called, but he gave up his position in the ranks of the disciples because he took things into his own hands. So every believer should strive to syncronize their will with God’s will, and this is done by following God’s Word.