Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LVII)

1:22-24 Now, my face was unknown to the churches in Judæa; all they knew was what other people were telling them: “The one who used to persecute us is now preaching the very faith he tried to wipe out!” In spite of that, they still praised God for what He was doing through me.

Luke tells us that the churches throughout all the provinces of Judæa and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace for awhile. The assembly of believers was made strong and was given comfort by the Holy Spirit. It honored the Lord. More and more people were being added to the assembly of believers.¹ It may be, that due to their being outside the walls of Jerusalem and quite far from Antioch and Damascus, they never saw Paul in person. But upon hearing that the most ferocious persecutor of the assembly of believers was now tamed by the Anointed One and was preaching the Gospel with the same fervor and dedication, they rejoiced in the news. It may have been brought by Philip who preached throughout this area.²

We are not sure how word got around in those days other than it being transported from town to town by word of mouth as people traveled and visited one another. It already reached the ears of Ananias up in Damascus even before Paul went there to carry out his sinister plan of persecution.³ In fact, before Paul ever went to Corinth other missionaries came there and no doubt told the Jews what was going on back in Jerusalem.⁴ That’s why when Paul returned to Jerusalem to tell the Apostles what happened on his missionary trips, they rejoiced in what they heard. According to Luke, by this time there were thousands of converted Jews and Gentiles now in the assembly of believers, and all because of what God was doing through Paul and his associates.⁵

In order to distance himself from any charges that he was merely a puppet of the Apostles in Jerusalem, Paul makes it clear that the Messianic congregations in Judæa never heard him preach or teach; in fact, they didn’t even know what he looked like. However, they heard what he was preaching and sent word that they were behind him 100 percent. I’m certain you’ve heard the familiar saying, “I’m not what I want to be; and I’m not what I’m going to be, but thank God I’m not what I use to be.” Can you imagine the believers in Syria and Cilicia when the announcement was made that this maverick from Tarsus, known to his Jewish friends by his Hebrew name, “Sha’ul,” (which means: “above others”) and to his Gentile friends by his Latin name, “Paulus,” (which means: “humble”) was coming back to preach this new Message of the Anointed One? No doubt some wondered why he changed his name. You only chose an alias when you earn a bad reputation, or you’re trying to evade the law. In reality, he didn’t change his name; it is simply that since he was called to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles he wanted to be known by his Latin name.

But Paul is gracious and tells the Galatians what the folks in Syria and Cilicia heard about his early life – now that is not something that any guest speaker may want the audience to know. I can hear Paul telling the Christians in Galatia, “Let me introduce myself. I use to hate people like you! As a matter of fact, I hated you so much I tried my best to kill as many of you as possible! But now I’m one of you! I would be willing to die for you! At this very moment, I preach the same Gospel I once tried my best to destroy and wipe off the face of the earth!” Yep! That ought to fill up the seats! What was Paul trying to convey at this point to the Galatians? As the venerated Augustine of Hippo surmised, Paul was trying to communicate that he absolutely did not please people for his own sake but in order that God might be glorified in him. Isn’t this what Jesus recommended when He said: “Let your works shine before others so that they may see the good things you have done and glorify your Father who is in heaven.⁶”

Augustine focuses on the fact that although the churches in Judæa heard of him, Paul says here in verse twenty-two that none of them ever met him in person. There were thousands in Jerusalem in the presence of the Apostles. Paul openly declared to the Ephesians that the Anointed One stopped the fighting between Jews and Gentiles by His death on the cross. Then, He made of the two groups, one new body for Himself. Now all of us can go to the Father through the Anointed One by way of the one Holy Spirit. So, from now on you are not strangers and people who are not citizens of heaven. You are citizens together with those who belong to God. You belong to God’s family. This family is built on the teachings of the Apostles and the early prophets.

Paul went on to say that Jesus the Anointed One Himself is the cornerstone, which is the most important part of the building. The Anointed One keeps this building together and it is growing into a holy building for the Lord. You are also being put together as part of this building because God lives in you by His Spirit And by being part of the building process as the Apostle to the Gentiles with Peter being the Apostle to the Jews, it was in their best interest to grow together. And tell the Galatians here that everything comes under the Anointed One because His power identifies Him as the head over all things in the assembly of believers.⁷ Furthermore, they are all part of this building because His Spirit lives in them to guide and comfort them as long as they are in this world. Could it be that by the Anointed One being the One who called Paul and now lives in him, that he could be looked on as part of the Cornerstone for the Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome.⁸

Chrysostom asks, “What soul could be more modest than this?” Here, Paul was openly admitting to things that brought shame and disgrace to him as a persecutor of the assembly of believers. But he narrates it with such compassion that he chooses not to follow it up with all the great things he has done for God.⁹ And early church writer Ambrosiaster points out that just as Paul was once a fierce defender of the Jewish faith, he now became an even fiercer champion of the very faith he once persecuted. Therefore, these Jewish believers should rejoice with him who previously oppressed them and give thanks that their persecutor now became the defender of their faith in God through Jesus the Anointed One. This should help them come to the realization that they were being led astray by the Judaizers to the point where, even though they claimed to be Christians through the grace Paul preached, they were actually professing the very legalism Paul rejected.

Ambrosiaster goes on to note, that they were circumcising the flesh, although the law of the Anointed One taught something quite different from Judaism. This circumcision of the flesh was to become circumcision of the heart. The Jews were tied to the elements and worshiped new moons and the Sabbath, but Christians truly worshiped God alone in spirit, because they worshiped with their hearts, not their hands. The Jews did this because of their tendency to sin, but Christians enjoyed the freedom which comes from the forgiveness of sins. There is, therefore, a huge difference between Judaism and Christianity.¹⁰

Martin Luther, a German Roman Catholic priest and theology professor, and John Calvin a French Roman Catholic trained as a lawyer, both went from their belief in God according to the teachings prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, to a reformed faith considered diametrically opposed to what they use to believe. They both expressed their appreciation for what Paul went through. Luther put it this way: “God did not call Paul out of darkness into His marvelous light because of his being a Pharisee, or on account of his prayers, fasting, ceremonial cleansing, ritualism’s and creeds, or because of his persecutions, oppressions, and zealousness, No! He called Paul by His grace.” Something Luther knew all too well. And John Calvin points out that God did not call Paul because of his accomplishments and his years of preparation dedicated to Judaism. No! He called Paul by as part of His predetermined purpose and will for Paul’s life.

John Bunyan has a couple of things to share about what the churches in Judæa were saying about this fanatic persistent persecutor, Saul of Tarsus, now being called a fiery Pentecostal preacher. This was further proof for Bunyan that when some well-known sinners get converted, they are usually the best help in church getting some of those who are still sitting on the fence to realize why God saved them and why He intervened in their lives when He did. What amazed Paul was that many of his former victims were now praising God for what He did in Paul’s life. But Paul wanted everyone to know that none of that praise and glory should for his being in God, and God being in him. ¹¹

Adam Clarke, who wrote during the time of the Wesleyan revivals in the 1700s, offers a very good summation on what Paul is saying in this chapter. First, it was of great importance to Paul that he defend and vindicate his divine mission received from the Anointed One Himself. Second, the apostle was particularly anxious that the Gospel he brought to Galatian not be corrupted so that the assembly of believers might end up being perverted because whoever or whatever corrupts the Gospel, subverts the assembly of believers. Thirdly, anyone who introduced the old Jewish rites, rituals, and ceremonies that promoted faith by works should be considered dangerous. Those listening to the minister must be receiving the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Clarke goes on to lament the situation in his own day. He questions why there are so many churches like those in Galatia in England? Is it not because, on the one hand, the simplicity of Christian worship was made complicated by adding improper rites and ceremonies, and on the other, corrupted the purity of Church doctrine by adding ideas invented by people? How does the Apostle react to such acts of subversion? “Let them be accursed.”¹² How confrontational is this! That’s why every minister who officiates as a pastor should take note of this. Their own soul is at stake, and if any of their flock perish through such ignorance or neglect, God will require the blood of the watchman as payment¹³.¹⁴

All I can say is, if Clarke could see the church he represented back then, I’m afraid his heart would not be able to stand the shock in seeing how far it has drifted from its original message and mission. The churches in England did not grow cold and indifferent because the Bible changed, nor because the truth of the Gospel changed, but because the whole truth of the Gospel was not being preached. If you want people to admire the reality of their salvation, preach about where they are going. If you want people to appreciate their salvation, preach about where they are not going.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LVI)

1:21 After that, I went north to visit cities in Syria and Cilicia.

The country of Syria is in the news as much today as it was back in Paul’s day. It was first mentioned in Genesis as “Aram,”¹ one of the children of Shem, Noah’s son. But after the children of Israel crossed over into Canaan,² it is called “Syria” 67 times, in the First Covenant. It became part of the Final Covenant narrative when it tells us of how Jesus’ fame spread from Galilee throughout Syria,³ and when Cyrenius, the governor of Syria, ordered a census and tax be taken.⁴

Damascus, the capital of Syria, is mentioned about sixty times in the Bible, starting at the time of Abraham.⁵ And Antioch, one of its other main cities first comes to light in Acts of the Apostles.⁶ When in this sacred spot of God’s Kingdom World, He chose prophets for the First Covenant, and Apostles for the Final Covenant. We must continue to remember, Jerusalem and Damascus are the ancient centers of Bible history. So the fact that the Apostle Paul begins his ministry in this area should be of no surprise – not by his will but by the will of God.

It is also from this chosen middle east spot on the globe, God the Almighty caused it to become the cradle of the prophets and Apostles who spread the Word of God out into the world. His prophets reveal His love, so it is not a surprise that our Lord Jesus the Anointed One selected his twelve disciples from this area to follow Him and learn of the Gospel they would be sent out to share. There are many villages, towns, and cities that still exist and carry the same names as at the time of the Anointed One, like, Damascus, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, and Magdal, the town of Mary Magdaline. There is also Ethra’e (Der’a today), the area, as some say, where Job lived close to his three wise friends. Still, many cities and towns in Palestine are also called the same as at the time of the Anointed One. We may consider Jerusalem as the center of the Bible World in Bible prophecies.

Paul also mentions going into the province of Cilicia. Tarsus was the capital city of the Roman province of Cilicia. Before then, it was a major linen and lumbering center during the time of the Greeks, and before that, it was the seat of the provincial governor during the time of the Persians. Tarsus was known for its wealth and for its great schools which are said to have rivaled Athens and Alexandria. Located in what is today southern Turkey, it was situated adjacent to the Cydnus River, about ten miles north of the Mediterranean Sea. Tarsus is mentioned by name only five times in the Bible, all in relationship to the Apostle Paul who was born there. It is located in south-central Turkey on the Tarsus River, about twelve miles from the Mediterranean Sea coast. If you look at a map of the missionary journeys of Paul, you’ll see how Tarsus and Colossæ, Ephesus, and Corinth line up on a major roadway that runs through Galatia.

The reason for Paul’s departure to this area is because of the overwhelming persecution he received after his conversion to become a follower of the Anointed One, both in Damascus and Jerusalem.⁷ Bible scholars reckon that Paul stayed about five years in his home town before Barnabas showed up to bring him back to Antioch.⁸ And after another year, this is where Paul and Barnabas received their commission to go out and do the work for which God called them.⁹ It is also worthwhile to note that some of the Jews that got into an argument with Stephen, leading to his martyrdom, were from Cilia. Luke does say, but Paul could have been counted among them since that was his home area.¹⁰

Paul continues his itinerary where his travels led him; after visiting Peter and James, the only two Apostles he saw during his visit to Jerusalem. He apparently did not hang around to visit or preach in any of the churches in Judæa, even though they were thrilled at his success among the Gentiles. This is so interesting because Acts of the Apostles tells us there were plenty of churches in Judæa, Galilee, and Samaria.¹¹ And if Peter, who was well acquainted with churches in Lydda and Joppa, wanted to introduce Paul to these brethren, he was given plenty of opportunities. Since Paul identified himself as a resident of Cilicia,¹² he was, in fact, going home. I’m sure that once he got there, he found out that word about his conversion spread like wildfire. After all, this former arch-enemy of Christianity who tried to kill them now became a champion ready to defend them. Why is Paul so intent on telling this story? Again, it was the pressure he felt from the doubters in Galatia on whether or not he could be trusted, and the Gospel he preached could be accepted.

Paul now further recounts what happened after his conversion. His course of travels went something like this: From Damascus to Jerusalem, from Jerusalem into Syria and Cilicia. “At Damascus, the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket; and when Saul arrived in Jerusalem, he decided to join himself to the disciples.”¹³ Afterward, when the brethren knew the conspiracy formed against him at Jerusalem, they brought him down to Cæsarea and sent him back to his hometown of Tarsus in Cilicia.¹⁴ This account in the Acts agrees with that in this epistle.¹⁵

Let’s get a better view of the role that Cilicia played in Paul’s selection of destinations. Theologian Robert Gundry points out that Syria was north of Israel. Even farther away was Cilicia, a province in southeast Asia Minor. So distance separated him once again from the Apostles in Jerusalem.¹⁶ But he was unknown by face to the churches of Judæa, which means, that the churches there hadn’t seen Paul, much less spoken to him so as to teach him the Gospel during his fifteen days in Jerusalem. He describes those churches as “in the Anointed One” to point up that their theological location outclasses their geographical location by virtue of their having been called “by the grace of the Anointed One” just as the Galatians were.

Their only hearing about the conversion of their former persecutor into a proclaimer of the Gospel reemphasizes Paul’s independence from them so far as the origin of his Gospel was concerned. He calls this Gospel “the faith” to prepare for an upcoming contrast between faith and works of the Mosaic law in the matter of gaining salvation. Faith means belief both in the sense of believing and in the sense of what is believed. “The faith” is such a part of those who have it that Paul’s having wreaked havoc on God’s assembly of believers now turns into his having wreaked havoc on the faith itself. And they were glorifying God in him shows that they, the early churches in Judæa, recognized that Paul’s case demonstrated the Gospel to be one of sheer grace. The Galatians should come to the same conclusion.¹⁷

More or less, those were the conditions Paul faced when he went into Galatia, and now some opposition members were bringing it up all over again. No wonder he sounded disappointed and disgusted. Why did he have to prove to them he could be trusted? That would be enough to drive anyone to their wit’s end. But Paul wrote this letter with a purpose, and by the time the Galatian believers read the whole thing they would be glad he did. Paul mentions that after his visits in Jerusalem, he went back to Damascus in Syria, and then across the mountains into Cilicia. Since that wasn’t too far from his home town of Tarsus, it would be a surprise if he didn’t drop by to see his family and relatives.

Messianic writer Lancaster goes on to say that Paul spent fourteen years in Syria and Cilicia. The first eight years he spent in his home town of Tarsus. He passed his time preaching the Anointed One in the synagogues there as he worked in the tent-making business and tailor shop, both which no doubt belonged to his father. It is also very possible that he engaged in many debates with the Rabbis there on how faith in Jesus the Anointed One compared to faith in the Law of Moses. Paul also may have searched through the writings of the Torah and the Prophets to confirm that indeed the word of the LORD – that the salvation of the Anointed One extended even to the Gentiles.

It was sometime in his eighth year at home that Joseph Barnabas, the disciple he knew from Damascus, showed up at his door looking for him. He explained that the Apostles in Jerusalem sent him to the new assembly of believers in Antioch, Syria to see how it was doing. Barnabas found out that a large group of non-Jews joined the assembly of believers and joined the Messianic Jews in their faith in Jesus the Anointed One. That’s when Barnabas remembered his friend Paul, the one whom the Anointed One called to minister to the non-Jews, and came to get him so he could come and help out in the ministry there in Antioch, Syria.

Imagine if today some atheist who openly and viciously opposed anything to do with Christianity; went around the country filing lawsuits resulting in clergy being jailed and recommending the death penalty for members because belonging to an assembly of believers was a crime, goes on a trip to persecute more Christians in foreign countries. Suddenly news reports come back that while on his way he saw a vision of the Anointed One, and claimed that Jesus gave him a revelation to preach the Gospel, what would you think? Not only that, but he stayed overseas in some Muslim country and did not come back until three years later claiming he did not need to submit to the authority of any denomination. If asked where he went to Bible School or Seminary, he responded that he graduated from the School of Learning Things the Hard Way and did not need any further training because God gave him all he needed through visions and revelations in order to preach the Gospel.

This dispute between Paul and the intruders from Jerusalem reminds me of when Socrates and Crito were having a discussion on principles and remaining true to one’s convictions. Socrates asks Crito, “Should we follow the opinion of the crowd because we fear them, or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world: and if we desert him we will destroy and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by more justice and less injustice? Surely, such a principle exists!”¹⁸

Paul knew the benefit of having majority support and having the assembly of believers leadership bestowing their favor on him. That would open many doors and put his picture on the wall as “Evangelist of the Year.” But he refused to go against the one Man from whom he received his revelation; the one Man who knew the truth and taught him all he knew about the Gospel. So, for better or for worse; for richer or for poorer; in sickness and in health, Paul was committed to remaining true and faithful to the One who loved him, gave Himself for him, saved him, and commissioned him to preach His glorious Gospel to all the world.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LV)

1:20  Believe it or not, what I’m telling you in front of God that this is the truth, and I’m not lying.

These words to the Galatians were already on Paul’s mind when he defended himself to the assembly of believers in Rome: “I am telling the truth because I belong to the Anointed One. The Holy Spirit tells my heart that I am not lying.”¹ Not only that, but Paul felt obligated to tell the Corinthians twice that they should believe what he was saying.² This does not raise any doubts about Paul’s honesty, rather, it points to the hardheadedness of those to whom he was telling the truth.

Now Paul really gets to the heart of the issue. It appears that the Judaizers and other critics were passing the word around Galatia that Paul was a maverick who claimed to be accepted and respected by the original apostles, when in fact he wasn’t. They inferred that all Paul wanted to do was drop names in order to gain their trust and open doors for him; that Paul wanted all the credit for starting this new Jesus Movement. In fact, they charged that he was just short of being a heretic and could not be believed or depended on, to tell the truth, even though he knew what the truth was.

Augustine of Hippo has an interesting take on Paul’s oath here. If a person has to say, “Before God, I am not lying!” is undoubtedly taking an oath. And what is more sacred than this oath? But an oath is not against the Lord’s command if the reason the person feels obligated to make such an oath because the person they are talking to is more or less calling them a liar. We see that the Lord prohibited swearing if it lies within a person’s power not to do so. Unfortunately, many disregard this prohibition by our Lord, keeping an oath on their lips as if it were some great delicacy.

There can be no doubt that the Apostle Paul knew the Lord’s command, Yet he still swore an oath. Those who do not regard these as oaths are not to be taken seriously. For what will they make of this: “By your glory, brethren, which I have in the Anointed One, Jesus our Lord: I die every day!”³ which the Greek text clearly proves to be an oath. Therefore, the Apostle does not swear so far as it lies within in his power, for he does not resort to swearing because it gives him pleasure or enjoyment. It is more than “Yes, Yes” or “No, No,” and, therefore, comes from evil, but the evil lies in the weakness or unbelief of those who are not otherwise moved to faith.⁴

Perhaps the Judaizers were taking a cue from Plato where Socrates and Hippias are discussing the difference between lying on purpose and getting things wrong out of ignorance. So the question is asked: If someone unschooled and uneducated makes a guess at answering a question and gets it wrong are they guilty of lying? On the other hand, if someone schooled and educated also guesses at an answer, are they also lying? Socrates and Hippias concluded that neither one should make a guess, but admit that they don’t know the answer; otherwise, they are lying when they pretend to know, whatever their answer.⁵

Socrates then asks Hippias to answer another question: Since you are known for being such an honest and fair-minded person, tell me, if a person were to ask you what 700 times 3 equals; and you have the intellectual capacity to give the correct answer; and you know that the person asking the question will believe your answer no matter what you say, doesn’t this put you in the enviable position of being able to decide whether or not to give a truthful answer or knowingly tell a lie?

By the same token, if a man who does not know how to multiply decides to make a guess when he has no idea if it is true or not, is he also not considered a liar? It may be by sheer luck his answer may turn out to be right after all. However in your case, since you know the answer and are capable of giving a correct or incorrect answer, then you can knowingly lie on purpose anytime you want. Paul now invokes an oath that no one would dare use unless they were absolutely, positively, and unquestionably certain that what they claimed to be true, was true.

Today you might hear someone say, “I swear to God, I’m telling the truth.” I’ve even heard some say, “I swear on my mother’s grave.” But Paul gave a more dramatic assurance to the Galatians and the Judaizers that can be expressed today as something like this: “God will kill me if I’m not telling you the truth.” What Paul faced should not surprise us, we see a similar phenomenon today in our assembly of believers’ world of competing views over the Gospel of the Anointed One, similar to what Paul encountered in Galatia.

Many people today know John Bunyan (1628-1688) as the author of his famous work “Pilgrim’s Progress.” But Bunyan wrote many other books which you don’t hear much about today. It is quite remarkable that Bunyan became one of the most successful English writers in the days of Richard Baxter and John Milton. These men, who were well off, could afford to write because they didn’t need to earn a living. But Bunyan, a traveling tinsmith who made household utensils like his father, was nearly penniless before becoming a most famous author. His wife was also destitute. In those days, when women were selected for marriage, their families would show their joy and respect for the groom by giving her a dowry to take to her new husband. The only thing she brought were two books written by Puritans. But they were much greater in value than what they cost because it affected Bunyan’s life in a marvelous way.

Once he converted he began to preach and drew large crowds. But Bunyan was not part of the State Church of England, he began to worship and preach in the independent churches that sprang up in the spirit of the Reformation. But when Charles II took the reigns of government, he shut down these separatist churches and Bunyan was hauled off to jail where he sat for the next 16 years. But just like the Apostle Paul, Bunyan took the time to read and write. While in prison he wrote nine books. He was granted his freedom for a short while but was soon imprisoned again for six months. It was after that he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress.

In one of his earlier books, he dealt with the resurrection of believers. He stated emphatically that any persons who denied the resurrection of the Anointed One are worthless to Christianity and the Church. He was making reference to some churchmen in his day who did question whether or not the Anointed One was resurrected from the dead or was revived after being in somewhat of a coma for several days. Says Bunyan, they not only cause many believers to doubt and can lead to the destruction of the church. He calls them cankerworms. They are a caterpillar-like insect whose newly hatched larvae eat the soft tissue of young leaves at the tips of branches, giving them a skeletonized appearance. And the older they get the more destructive they become.

For Bunyan, it proved that such individuals were ignorant of God’s power, faithfulness, and His Word. He points to where God said to Abraham and his descendants that He would be their God ⁶ So we who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are counted as part of the living under a threefold consideration. First, being that they are in the Lord and He is in them; that He is the head and they are part of the Body of the Anointed One, all of the elect may be said to be alive in the Anointed One. They have been from eternity chosen by Him who also is their life, although possibly many of them yet unconverted. Yet it can be said that the Anointed One is their life, by the eternal purpose of God. Secondly, the children of the new covenant live here by faith, but in glory, they will live in the Spirit because of their eyes being opened and because of grace they remained in communication with the Anointed One since He was Lord of their souls.⁷

I remember hearing about ministers and ministries on the periphery labeled: “Independents.” They did not owe allegiance to any of the big denominations. Yet strangely enough, they seemed to be more successful and better known than traditional churches. Ministers from mainline denominations would debate over whether or not these people were genuine, while reluctantly admiring them for their success. Paul found himself in the same situation. He was “Independent” of Peter, James, and John as a minister of the gospel. No wonder the Galatians were leery of him and the Judaizers were distrustful as well. But Paul was adamant in demanding that they acknowledge his personal acquaintance with Jesus the Anointed One, rather than whether or not he made connections with the original disciples.

In other words, the Judaizers were telling the Galatians: Paul knows the truth but he just won’t admit it. And since he’s an educated man and has no excuse to tell anything other than the truth, then he is knowingly telling you a falsehood, and that makes him a liar. So don’t believe him, listen to us! In his letter, Paul shares how he coped with this, and it should give us great admiration for his willingness to be persecuted for defending his calling and the Gospel he preached.

As believers, there are times when we are asked why we believe what we believe. If we don’t know, then say so, and apologize because you haven’t made more of an effort to find out. This doesn’t make you a doubter of your faith or doctrine. And since you don’t know, then don’t pretend you do and give some answer that is more of a guess than solid truth. However, if you do know, then share it with confidence. But whatever you do, don’t purposely mislead them because you’re afraid your answer may offend them. Once you tell them the truth, and then they attack you anyhow, let them know that’s something they will need to settle with God, because you are at peace with your belief.

While pastoring in South Dakota I answered the knock on the door of my pastor’s office and saw a well-dressed young man with several magazines in his hand. A quick glance told me he was a Jehovah’s Witness. I welcomed him and told him how glad I was to see him. He seemed surprised by my cordial invitation to come. After he was seated, I told him I had a burning question for him. I reached for two books on my library shelf, the New World Bible and the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures Jehovah’s Witness. Everywhere else in your Greek Final Covenant, I pointed out, the word “kyrios” is translated as “Jehovah,” but here in Philippians 2:1 it is translated as “Lord.” It really should read: “And every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus the Anointed One is Jehovah to the glory of God the Father.” He wiggled in his chair and then picking up his material said he needed to go, but that he would send his superior to talk with me. I told him that would be fantastic because I want to learn more about their Bible. Nobody ever came.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson LIV) 

But the desire to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary caused Catholic priest, confessor, theologian, and historian Jerome to counter Helvidius by developing a theory known as the Hieronymian (Jeromian) Theory in 383 AD. According to Jerome, the brethren of the Lord were the sons of his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Alphaeus or Clopas, and, therefore, Jesus’ cousins. It was traditional during the time of the Anointed One for Jewish uncles, cousins, nephews, and even fellow countrymen to refer to each other as “brothers,” since they all came from the same Abrahamic family tree. This is something they did frequently. That’s no doubt why even today Christian men call each other “brother” since they are all part of God’s family.¹

Another theory bears the name “Epiphanian Theory” in honor of Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. He proposed that James was the brother of our Lord, by way of Joseph and his first wife who died, leaving him with several children. That is no doubt why Joseph proposed to Mary. This view was supported by Church Historian Eusebius. Epiphanius must have written his theory before his death in 403 AD. It also could be seen as a compromise theory between those of Jerome and Helvidius. The main dividing line between them all was the perpetual virginity of Mary which raised her from a simple handmaiden to a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.²

William G. Moorehead (1839-1913), was a Final Covenant professor at Xenia Theological Seminary for over forty years. Before this, he was a missionary in northern and central Italy. It so happened that a book titled The Millennial Dawn by Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, published in 1902 was a hot item in Moorehead’s day. The original book was followed by a series in which over 1600 Scriptures were examined and used from the First and Final Covenants. Moorehead called the teachings found in Millennial Dawn wicked and disastrous. For him, audacity and falsehood reached its final climax in Russell’s writings.

First of all, the essential, vital truth on which Christianity rests, namely, the absolute certainty of the Anointed One’s literal, bodily resurrection is denied, it is utterly twisted and misrepresented despite the overwhelming testimony of the Four Gospels, of all the Epistles, and of John’s Revelation, and the word of the glorified Son of God Himself. As the Apostle Paul said it best, if the Anointed One did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is wiped out as a supernatural system, and Christians are of all people the most pitiable, the most pathetically deceived.³ The heretics of the early centuries, Cerinthus, Marcion, Valentinus were not as daring nor more destructive in their wild speculations of what the Scriptures really say, than the author of these books.

For instance, the lie invented by the Jewish chief priests and elders that Jesus’ disciples stole His body away during the night while the soldiers slept is less shocking than the baseless and wicked conjecture that Jesus’ body dissolved into gas! To the devout, believing mind, nothing could be more profane or blasphemous than this slander. A thousand years before Yeshua appeared in human form, the Spirit of God promised Him that His flesh should rest in hope, that it should not decay.⁴ Also, there was the new tomb wherein no one ever laid before, the official seal, the angels watching, God’s mighty guard, all combined to protect and safeguard His sacred remains until the resurrection.

Moorehead’s point here is that it is recorded that the disciples, Mary of Magdala, Peter and John, then the two men on the road to Emmaus, then all the rest of the twelve disciples, but especially James, the Lord’s brother as Paul refers to him here in verse nineteen, all saw Him alive in His own resurrected body; talked with Him, walked with Him, even ate with Him.⁵ So to say that our Lord’s body dissolved into gas is not only shocking but disgusting! Wouldn’t you think that there would have been some among the followers of Jesus who knew of such deception if it really happened? Wouldn’t one of Paul’s old Pharisee friends have been disappointed at Paul’s conversion and told him the honest truth so that he would come back to his former faith? ⁶

Alfred Edersheim, the converted Jew who traveled to Palestine so he could better know the Yeshua he now believed in, also was struck by his own peoples’ reluctance to accept the resurrection of the Anointed One. For Edersheim, the real question was: since the Apostles and others evidently believed Him to be dead, and weren’t sure of His Resurrection, and since the fact of His Death was not a formidable challenge to His Messianic Character – causing them to invent or imagine His resurrection – how are we to account for the history of the Resurrection with all its details in all the four Gospels and by the Apostle Paul? The details, or “signs” are clearly intended as pieces of evidence to all of the reality of the Resurrection, without which it would not have been believed; and the many who actually saw Him cannot be dismissed. And the language of the Apostle Paul implies a careful and searching inquiry on his part⁷.⁸

Cyril W. Emmet (1875-1934), gives us a different sense of what he feels Paul is saying here. First of all, he does not believe that by saying “after three years,” he meant 36 months (1095 days). And if we count his time in Damascus after his conversion, his stay in Arabia both before his trip to Arabia and after, it would have been even shorter. Rather, that we should understand it saying: “in the third year since my conversion.” For instance, if Paul was converted in August of 38 AD and went up to Jerusalem for the first time in April of 40 AD, that would be one complete year and part of two others. Secondly, the Greek verb historeō translated by KJV as “to see” also means, “to learn more about,” “become acquainted with.” Today we would say, “I wanted to get acquainted with.” So this was an informal trip to Jerusalem to visit the Temple, some old friends, and get to know the Apostle Peter of whom he heard so much.⁹

Grant Osborne inspires some insight as to why Paul waited this third year after his conversion to go up to Jerusalem to have a chat with Peter and any other Apostles he might encounter. And of all places, why did he go into neighboring Arabia. First of all, Paul was forced to leave Damascus because he was turning the place upside down with his preaching and aggravating the Jewish leaders, who were his former comrades against the Christians. Then secondly, no doubt when word got back to Jerusalem of what happened to him even before he reached Damascus, those who authorized his mission were no doubt incensed by his betrayal. So going up to Jerusalem right away was not an option.

Another thing that Osborne brings up is that it must have felt strange for Paul to consider seeking the acquaintance of these two former archenemies, the leaders of the assembly of believers. We can only imagine that Paul was enamored with James, asking him question after question about having grown up with Jesus. The two men would find a lot in common, for James, like Paul, was not a believer until Jesus’ postresurrection appearance.¹⁰ James went through his childhood and early adulthood rejecting Jesus, as Paul did.¹¹ The terse rendering of this verse implies that Paul’s time with James was quite brief. The point again is that Paul wanted to get to know these men but did not come to solicit their imprimatur to authenticate his ministry.¹²

One commentator makes a good point here, in that when Paul says he saw none other than Peter and James, he was not saying that he avoided all contact with the other brethren, especially Barnabas and his own family members, but that of the original twelve disciples, he visited only with Peter and James. This may not mean he did not hope to meet John or the others, but they may have been out of town ministering in the immediate area. If you have ever visited Jerusalem you know why this is possible.¹³

Theologian Robert Gundry points out that Paul does not say that he spent three years meditating in the Arabian desert away from Damascus so as to figure out the Gospel in view of God’s having revealed His Son to him. In fact, Paul started proclaiming Jesus as God’s Son immediately in Damascus.¹⁴ and it remains unclear here in Galatians 1:17–18 how much of the three years Paul spent in Damascus and how much in Arabia. Since he’d started proclaiming the Gospel three years before going up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (Peter), he couldn’t have gotten the Gospel from Cephas. Besides, he stayed with Cephas only fifteen days; and he didn’t see any of the other Apostles so that they weren’t the source of Paul’s Gospel any more than Cephas was.

Gundry also believes that Paul’s reminding the Galatians of this to underline how very delayed, short, and limited were his Christian contacts in Jerusalem and, therefore, how impossible it was for him to have learned the Gospel of grace by any means other than divine revelation, Paul assures the Galatians that he’s not lying. The words “Believe it or not” (“Behold” – KJV) in our text punctuates this assurance, and “in front of God” (“before God” – KJV) implies that the assurance is given in full awareness that God will punish him if he’s not telling the truth.¹⁵

Maria Mavromataki tells us that Aretas IV Philodemus held Damascus and other areas of Judæa between the years 37 and 40 AD. This fact leads to the conclusion that the conversion of Paul to Christianity took place in 35 – 36 AD, while his escape from Damascus must have been before 40 AD. Paul next visited Jerusalem, where, as he tells us himself, he arrived three years after he was called by God. There, through the good offices of Barnabas, he met the Apostles and formed a close relationship with them. Here his life was threatened for a second time and, after seeing a vision of Christ, he fled to Cæsarea and Tarsus. Later, he visited Antioch and, after delivering, together with Barnabas, funds collected to support the assembly of believers in Jerusalem, returned there. It was from Antioch that the spread of Christianity throughout the world was to begin. The Apostle Paul, having now believed in Christ with his heart and mind, set a new and single purpose in his life: the preaching of Christianity. As he told young Timothy, “Of this Gospel, I have been appointed herald, apostle, and teacher.”¹⁶

I came across this goody the other day and wanted to share it with you, just in case you’ve been asking God for the same things. It’s something to ponder.

I asked God to give me happiness.

God said, No ~ I’ll give you blessings; happiness is up to you.

I asked God to spare me pain.

God said, No ~ Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares and brings you closer to me.

I asked God to make my spirit grow.

God said, No ~ You must grow on your own, but I will prune you to make you fruitful.

I asked God for all things that I might enjoy life.

God said, No ~ I will give you life, so that you may enjoy all things.

I asked God to help me love others, as much as He LOVES me.

God said… Aha! Finally, you have the right idea.

I read this article on the Inspiring Pretty Website. It should give us something to think about as we approach our 4^th of July holiday. It will help remind you that we’ve been through all this before and need to keep our eyes on the reason and purpose for which the United States was founded.

While he was in office, he was one of the most unpopular presidents to ever serve the United States. But he was still ridiculed in public print, accused of being power hungry, and called a tyrant by a leading newspaper editor of the day. Some said he used the office of being President just to gain favor and become more respected, and critics didn’t even like the parties he gave. On and on it went.

His Secretary of State resigned in disagreement over foreign policy; two of his Cabinet members quit and joined an opposing political party to fight him. There were riots in the streets, and Congress refused to give him what he needed to enforce the law. Everyone felt the United States was on the brink of a full-scale civil war. Predictably, scores of newspapers and many American patriots demanded his immediate resignation.

He ultimately declared: “I would rather be in the grave, than in the Presidency.” Sound familiar? No, it was Abraham Lincoln, even though he was treated terribly. And no, it isn’t someone you may think it is. This man was the man on whom later was conferred the highest honor possible: the undying title, the Father of his country. Yes, that’s right! George Washington!

Feelings may vanish with vision, and misunderstandings rise to cloud issues, but if God ordained this nation, then it didn’t come into existence to fail. Having served in the military and was ready to give my life for this country so America could remain free, perhaps I view the Fourth of July from a different perspective. And having worked continuously since I began working at age sixteen-years-old, I didn’t have the government giving me anything, I had to earn it all. Would I trade what I went through with what young people expect today? Absolutely not! That would be like asking a butterfly if it would rather go back to being a pet caterpillar. Happy 4^th of July, everyone. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

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