Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXXI)

1:11 Mark my words, brothers and sisters, the message of salvation that I preached to you was not invented by some human being.

The Gospel that Paul brought to the Galatians was certainly new to the Jews and foreign to the Gentiles. But Paul’s explanation to the Corinthians made it plain as to where it came from. He told them, “The Holy Scriptures say, ‘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.’ God has shown these things to us through His Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit Who looks into all things, even the secrets of God, and shows them to us.”¹ This is the teaching from the Lord² that Paul was bringing to them for their salvation.³

Paul presented a similar revelation to the Ephesians when he wrote them, “In a special way, God showed me His secret plan. When you read this, you will understand how I know about the things that are not easy to understand about the Anointed One. Long ago men did not know these things. But now they have been shown to His missionaries and to the early preachers by the Holy Spirit. Let me tell you that the Good News is for the people who are not Jews also. They are able to have life that lasts forever. They are to be a part of His church and family, together with the Jews. And together they are to receive all that God has promised through the Anointed One. God asked me to preach this Good News. He gave me the gift of His loving-favor. He gave me His power to preach it. Of all those who belong to the Anointed One, I am the least important. But this loving-favor was given to me to preach to the people who are not Jews. I was to tell them of the great riches in the Anointed One which do not come to an end.”⁴

Here we get a glimpse of the gossip being spread throughout the Galatian churches. Paul’s critics suggested that whatever Gospel he received from the original apostles, he customized to fit his audiences; that it was all in his head; an hypnotic form of persuasion. But Paul did not stand back and let such garbage go unchallenged. The Gospel he preached was not home-made, custom-made, or man-made, but God-made – divinely organic. In other words, he’s not making this stuff up.

As Augustine of Hippo (351-430 AD) made clear, human beings are anointed and sent to deliver the Gospel, and when they claim that the gospel they bring is of their own invention, then consider it false. In other words, if anything they say differs from what God said in His Word then it is to be considered a lie. The truth is not found in mankind, it is only found in God. Mankind does not invent the truth, what truth they do preach is sent to and through them by God’s Spirit.⁵

One of Augustine’s contemporaries, the great preacher Chrysostom, tells us to take a look at how insistent Paul was that they understand that he was taught by the Anointed One Himself; who, without human involvement, came down to reveal to him all he needed to know in order to preach the Gospel. And if someone were to ask Paul to prove that God Himself revealed all these indescribable mysteries to him, all he needed to do was point to his former life, arguing that his conversion would not have been possible, or so sudden, were it not for Divine revelation. For when people are zealous and eager in their opposition to some other point of view, their conversion will not come overnight. It will require much time, ingenuity, and patience.

It is clear, therefore, that Paul, whose conversion was sudden, and who was brought to his senses while at the very height of his madness, was only possible by a Divine revelation and teaching in order for him to regain complete sanity. On this account, he is obliged to relate stories of his former life and to call the Galatians as witnesses of past events. He wanted them to know that the Only-Begotten Son of God Himself spoke to him from heaven. And even those who were not present at the time, and did not know what happened, were still very much aware of what a persecutor he was of the Christians. In Paul’s words: “For my violent persecution even reached your ears.⁶ And seeing that the distance between Palestine and Galatia is so great, no such report would been breaking news if it wasn’t for acts of persecution that exceeded all expectations with great impact.⁷

An unknown scholar given the name Ambrosiaster (366-384 AD), in honor of Aurelius Ambrosius, better known as Saint Ambrose, who was also in the peer group of Chrysostom and Augustine, proposes that at this point in his letter Paul begins to explain the underlying principles of his message to the Galatians. Ambrosiaster feels that Paul wanted to make it very clear that he did not learn what he was teaching from other disciples or Apostles, even though it may cause some people to doubt what he was teaching them. Nor did he devise his preaching style just to suit their own religious thinking, which would make it seem unworthy of having divine authority. Rather, Paul insisted that he learned it from the Son of God by way of revelation since after the resurrection Jesus was already in heaven, and the things which Paul learned fit well with the will and majesty of the Anointed One from whom he said he learned them.

Ambrosiaster goes on to say, the things Paul was sharing with the Galatian believers were spiritual principles, that, if believed, would find favor with God. It was an attempt by Paul to show those who were still enamored with the Law of the First Covenant, and continued to observe them necessary, they would neither earn merit or demerits from God. However, if they considered them still valid, then they would certainly receive the punishment outlined because they were not all kept. That was the curse of the Law that Paul tried to show them what the Anointed One freed them from. Did they not understand that keeping the commandments of the old Law was a burden, not a blessing?⁸

The well-known Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), sees a connection here between what happened to Paul and what happened to Isaiah, and points to where the prophet said: “The Lord God gave me the ability to teach, so now I teach these sad people. Every morning He wakes me and teaches me like a student. The Lord God helps me learn, and I have not turned against Him. I will not stop following Him.⁹”¹⁰ In other words, the truth and revelation from God being transmitted to man was dispensed through many means, either by God’s voice, by an angel’s voice, by dreams or visions. But that message must then be communicated to others by way of human vessels that receive it. So in Paul’s case, he experienced an on-the-spot revelation from Jesus that he was being called to go preach the Gospel to the non-Jews, but he also received further information from Ananias in Damascus. Now he delivered what he heard and learned to the believers in Galatia. But the source still remains the same, it all came directly from God.

Reformer, Martin Luther comments about his own experience. He says that when he first took over the defense of the Gospel, he remembered what Doctor Staupitz said to him.¹¹ Staupitz told him that he liked what Paul was doing, and that the doctrine which he proclaim gave glory to God alone and none to man. For never can too much glory, goodness, and mercy be ascribed to God. These words of the worthy Doctor comforted Luther. The Gospel is true because it deprives mankind of all glory, wisdom, and righteousness, and turns over all honor to the Creator alone. It is safer to attribute too much glory to God than to mankind.¹²

Reformer John Calvin puts his stamp on this concept by pointing to those who objected to Paul’s claim of direct contact with the Anointed One. They believed he actually received his revelation from Ananias who was his teacher while in Damascus.¹³ But Paul kept ready an easy answer to give them. His divine instruction, communicated to him by divine inspiration, did not make it any less valid just because God used another human being in teaching it to him. Calvin pointed out earlier that Paul received a direct call from God by revelation, and ordained by the votes and the solemn approval of brethren in Antioch and Jerusalem. So these statements that it came directly from God and through one of His ministers are not inconsistent with each other.¹⁴

The outstanding theologian of the Wesleyan revival era, Adam Clarke (1760-1832), believes that Paul was being insistent that the Galatian believers understood that the Gospel he preached to them contained “not a spark of human invention in it, nor the slightest touch of human cunning.”¹⁵ No doubt, Paul was hoping that the brethren in these churches would see that when it came to the teaching of the Judaizers, that’s exactly the problem with their Gospel. In a way, they tried to crossbreed the seed of their thinking with the pure divinely organic seed of God’s Word brought by Jesus, the Son of God from His Father in Heaven, and that was an unforgivable error. In other words, we could put this in modern terms by saying that the gospel by these false teachers was genetically modified seed. It could also be represented as taking some of the words of Moses and mixing them with some of the Words of Jesus and coming up with a “fusion gospel.”

Ernest DeWitt Burton (1856-1925) points out that Paul’s opening here suggests that he was making a somewhat formal or solemn assertion that he is more than willing to back up what he claimed with evidence.¹⁶ This should be a model for all of us to follow when we declare any doctrine as being genuine and stamped with the approval of the Holy Spirit. If we are not totally convinced and strongly believe that the Word of God is true, and that the message we preach is not because of who we are, but because of whose we are, then don’t expect any who hear what we preach to be convicted and come to Jesus the Anointed One for salvation?

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXX)

William Ramsey (1861-1939) quotes a Professor William Locke about how the Apostle Paul often handles the taunts and criticism launched against him by the Judaizers. He does so by putting these phrases between commas in the text. One example is found here in verse ten with such phrases as “persuade men,” “seek to please men.” Such people should not be considered servants of the Anointed One.”¹ This helps us see better what Paul was being accused of in the Judaizer’s attempt to discredit him in the eyes of his converts. But mentioning these provocative accusations was not enough. Paul goes on to give his explanation of why they could not be more wrong. He starts by saying in verse sixteen that God’s Son was to be seen in him. He did this so he could preach about the Anointed One to the people who are not Jews. When this happened, he did not consult with other apostles.²

But Paul makes another point, and that was to show that his loyalty was to God first, not people. That’s why he could not claim to be a servant of the Anointed One with anything less than complete loyalty to God the Father who sent Him. I like the way verse ten is paraphrased in one version: “Do I sound to you like someone who is wishy-washy, someone who isn’t clear about what he believes, who suits his preaching to the whims and desires of his audience, as some claim I do; that to Jews I preach obedience to God’s Law and circumcision, and to non-Jews I preach faith and free forgiveness; or instead, do I sound like someone that is trying to please God? Or am I trying to seek human approval? If I were adulterating the truth of God for the sake of conciliating men and winning their favor, I could never be a slave of the Anointed One.”³ Yes, Paul stresses his independence from the original disciples, but leaves no doubt about his dependence on the One who sent him, and the message He gave him to preach. How insightful this is for every minister of the Gospel.

Paul reminds us of something many Christians have forgotten today. Our first obligation, responsibility, and duty is to the Anointed One. Perhaps, after we have done all that we can possibly do for Him; and after we have exhausted every possible way to please the Anointed One; if we do have any time left over at the end of each day, then maybe, but just maybe, we can appreciate worldly people’s acknowledgment that what we’re doing is good. But how many of us even accomplished our basic duties for Jesus – which, in Paul’s opinion came as an inherent motivation to follow Jesus, and not something a believer acquires after long thought or consideration – let alone done anything above and beyond the call of duty. Someone might say, “But I serve the Anointed One through the church.” I would disagree. We serve the church through the Anointed One as a member of His body. Over the years I’ve seen many who thought they backslid from the Anointed One, when in fact they backslid from following the church’s requirements, some of which even the Anointed One did not require. By putting the Anointed One first it helps us to deal with these other issues much easier.

Duncan Heaster throws some light in what Paul may be thinking of when he talks about seeking the applause of the audience. He tells us that in the first century AD, it was common for philosophers and orators to present themselves to others by means of what was called an “encomium,” which means “praise by another person.” In other words, one’s résumé. This speech usually consisted of five sections, clearly defined in the various manuals of rhetoric which have survived, and something Paul surely would have learned. The purpose of this encomium was to demonstrate how worthy a person was of being respected for their expertise.

Jewish writer Avi ben Mordechai first points out that he believed that Paul fully understood what it meant to be a true servant, especially a servant of Yeshua. Jesus made it very clear that any servant of His must do things His way because He will always be there watching them.⁴ In like manner, Mordechai speaks to converted Jews today by telling them that if they continue to submit to the authority of the Rabbis or Jewish leaders in any community whose doctrines replace the authority and teachings of Moses in the Written Torah, it means that we are taking what they say and adding to the Word of Yahweh. If the Word of Yahweh is added to, it is thereby His Word that is being altered.⁵ How could anyone do that and still claim to be a servant of Yahweh and His the Anointed One, Yeshua?⁶ They will end up being called liars, and, therefore, do not qualify to be called servants of Yahweh.⁷ Not only that, but they place themselves under a curse,⁸ as well as in violation of what the Anointed One Yeshua Himself said⁹.¹⁰

Some scholars of this letter to the Galatians have detected these sections of the encomium in the first part of Paul’s letter. There are as follows: I. Opening: Paul’s Gospel – 1:10-12; II. Lifestyle: Persecutor of the Church and preacher of the Gospel – 1:13-17; III. Achievements: Deeds of the body – 1:18-2:10; IV. Comparison with others: Paul and Peter: Paul and the Jews – 2:11-20; V. Conclusion: Paul and grace – 2:21. But instead of using the encomium as an instrument of self-praise, Paul almost mocks it by using its elements to show how radically different are the standards of thinking and behavior for a Christian communicator.¹¹

I like the way commentator N. T. Wright finishes this section. In his summary, the opponents of Paul suggested that he got his apostleship, and the message that he preached, from other early Christians, not from Jesus himself. By contrast, they got theirs from Jerusalem, from the original Apostles such as Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. But Paul objects. His apostleship, his commission to build this new family, came from God Himself, and from Jesus the Anointed One. Paul’s vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus is absolutely central for him and his work. So too is the Gospel.

For Paul, this isn’t an alternate system of salvation, or a new way of being religious. It’s the announcement that Jesus, the crucified, the Anointed One, is exalted as Lord of the whole world. Therefore, he is calling into existence a single worldwide family. This is the true Gospel, so beware of illicit imitations. Indeed, shun them; they are a curse, not a blessing. Paul’s apostolic aim to build a single Jesus-based family by announcing this Gospel has been designed for both Jew and Gentile alike. However, it’s as much a challenge in our day as it has ever been. In the wider world, ethnic rivalry and religious hostility continue unabated. Isn’t it time for the church to rediscover the Apostolic Gospel, and to live by it?¹²

And Grant Osborne gives us an excellent summation of what Paul was attempting to say here in this first part of his letter to the Galatians. The opening of this letter, while following ordinary letter-writing protocol, goes far beyond to highlight both the authority of Paul’s apostleship (speaking with authority from God) and salvation by the Anointed One alone via his death on the cross (not by the law). In the Anointed One the new age has arrived, and with Him this world moves toward its intended destiny. The glory of God is paramount, and God’s people must center upon that which leads to the praise and pleasure of God and the Anointed One rather than of self or others. Based on the Galatians’ surrender to the false views of the Judaizers, they failed miserable in doing this. In our day, too, we must make certain that we do not allow false theology to destroy our usefulness to God and endanger our relationship with Him.¹³

So Paul starts out this section with the heartbreak of finding out that all the seeds of the true Gospel he planted were not being dug up and a new crop of modified seeds were being planted in the hearts and minds of the Galatians, and he ends with his declaration that whether they accept his admonition or not, his goal is not to please them but to please the One who sent him. He did not seek the accolades of mankind because in so doing he ran the risk of becoming an unworthy servant of the Most High God. So his motto was pure and simple, stick with the pure gospel through thick and thin because in the end it’s the only thing that will survive in order to bring salvation and eternal life.

I like what Pastor Phil Newton of Memphis, Tennessee says about this subject of being a person-pleaser. He asks, how do we fall prey to this danger of being men-pleasers with the gospel? When our focus is on impressing others with our evangelistic prowess, then we’ve begun to curry the favor of men. When we can water-down the message of the gospel with the rationale that we are trying to be more “seeker-friendly,” we are seeking the favor of men and not of God. When we can eliminate or gloss over the cross of Christ and its centrality in the Gospel message, placing our emphasis in salvation upon what a person prays or upon some outward profession, then we are seeking to please men. Plenty of sinners will be glad to do anything you ask of them in terms of outward response, as long as they do not have to abandon themselves to the grace of God alone revealed in Jesus Christ and His atoning work. But leave them shut up with the Gospel alone and the power of God revealed in the Gospel alone, then you will have them running for the cover of self-righteousness, until the Holy Spirit graciously regenerates them.¹⁴ Paul wasn’t afraid to tell it like it is when it came to the Gospel and salvation, so why should we?

British Sunday school teacher J. L. Nye, collected stories from all around the world to illustrate what was being said in the Bible. So here in verse ten where Paul speaks of not speaking to please men but his Lord Jesus the Anointed One, Nye tells about the great preacher Charles Spurgeon. Spurgeon was invited by a lecture committee in America to come and give a series of twenty lectures. All of his travel expenses would be paid plus a $1,000 stipend given to him. Spurgeon’s response was, “I have no time for lecturing, I am a minister of the Gospel, and if I ever do come to America no one shall pay a penny to hear me preach.”¹⁵

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXIX)

John Calvin interprets Paul’s statement that he is doing very little, if anything, to please people as a remarkable sentiment. What Paul is really saying is that ambitious persons, that is, those who hunt after the applause of their fellow believers, cannot be serving the Anointed One by doing such a thing. That’s why Paul quickly declares for himself, that he willingly renounced seeking the flattery of others in order to devote himself entirely to the service of the Anointed One. In this respect, he contrasts his present position with the one he once occupied during an earlier period in his life. He was regarded back then with the highest esteem, and he received from every quarter loud applause. Therefore, if he had continued to please his fellow Pharisees, he would have never found it necessary to change his condition. That’s why it must become a standard that those who resolve to serve the Anointed One faithfully, must also have the boldness to dismiss the idea of seeking the favor of what the world has to say about their mission.¹

Puritan John Trapp (1601-1669) offers some insight into trying to please people instead of pleasing God. He is convinced that people-pleasers who seek favor with everyone, and do not want to be thought of as a persona non grata to the world, lose a real friend in God. Neither do they keep their popularity for long with those they are doing everything to please. Emperor Constantine once admonished a preacher who was so bold as to call him a “blessed man” to his face, thinking that by doing so the two of them would become best friends.²

In fact, Theodoric the Great, king of the Arians who migrated to Rome from the north during the 3^rd and 4^th centuries and became King of all Italy, really impressed a certain deacon of the East Orthodox Church with his kindness. The deacon, thinking to please King Theodoric better and get preferential treatment, became an Arian believer. When the king heard about it, his admiration for the deacon changed to anger, and ordered his head to be struck from his shoulders. Also, Erasmus, by seeking to please both sides, was neither esteemed by the Roman Catholics nor honored by the Protestants. He was too much of a coward and people-pleasing who other than that, did the Church a very good service.³ So we learn that when you try to please everyone you will end up being hated by everybody.

Brother Lawrence, whose real name was Nicholas Herman, (1614-1691) was a monk in the Carmelite monastery in Paris, France. In one of his conversations with an unnamed writer, Brother Lawrence talked about praising, adoring and loving God continually because of His infinite goodness and always doing what was right. No one should be discouraged about speaking to God on account of their mistakes. Rather, they should pray for His grace with a total confidence based on their reliance on the infinite merits of our Lord. That God never failed offering us His grace at each instance; that Brother Lawrence perceived and never failed to recognize it except when his mind let his thoughts wandered from a sense of God’s Presence, or he forgot to ask His help.

Another thing that Brother Lawrence said, was that God always gives us understanding concerning our doubts about what we did right or did wrong, especially when we wanted nothing else except to please Him. That our sanctification did not depend upon changing how we did it but in doing it for God’s sake. That it is distressing to see how many people mistake the means for the end, addicting themselves to certain works which they performed imperfectly by reason of their human or selfish desires. The most excellent method Brother Lawrence found in going to God was by doing what Paul says here in verse ten. That we do not do our work for God with any view of pleasing others,⁴ and, as far as is possible, purely out of love for God.

Brother Lawrence then adds, that we ought, once and for all, to heartily put our whole trust in God and totally surrender of ourselves to Him, being secure in knowing that He will never deceive us. That we ought never become weary of doing little things out of love for God who doesn’t regard the greatness of our work but the love with which we performed it. That we should not wonder if, in the beginning, we often fail in our endeavors but that should never stop trying, which will naturally produce more things we want to do for Him without any worries and bring us exceeding great joy.⁵

Matthew Poole focuses on Paul’s use of the word “now” to imply that he must have held a different opinion before. Poole believed that Paul is referring to when he was a Pharisee before he became a Christian. Back then, he thought like a Pharisee who was influenced by the unwritten teachings of the Rabbis from the past. But now that he’s a Christian, he isn’t interested in what people say is the truth but what God says is truth. That’s why Paul did not preach to get the applause of others because of his wit or wisdom. Everyone knows that it is the duty of inferiors to please their superiors. Other Apostles were all human beings like Paul was, they were not his superiors. His superior was none other than Jesus the Anointed One, the One who called him, the One who sent him, and the One who gave him his message.⁶

Frederic Rendall (1840-1906) makes an interesting point here in verse ten that will help us decipher the exact intent in what Paul is saying here to his critics. The KJV translates it: “For do I now persuade men, or God?” The NIV renders it: “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God?” When put either way it still leaves a cloud of doubt over what Paul means. Why would he try to persuade or win the approval of God? The Complete Jewish Bible uses the Western way of thinking instead the Eastern way looking at it when he said in Greek: “Now does that sound as if I were trying to win human approval? No! I want God’s approval! Or that I’m trying to cater to people? If I were still doing that, I would not be a servant of the Anointed One.”

So, instead of it being an attempt to win the approval of both people and God, it is either getting the people’s approval or God’s approval. Rendall thinks that it would be helpful if we take the Greek particle “ē” (which means “either” or “than”), and change it to the English adverb, “rather.” So Rendall would have Paul asking the Galatians: “Am I now persuading men rather than God?”⁷ This must certainly be the goal whenever a person preaches, sings, leads praise and worship, or prays, etc. That was Paul unchanging focus and purpose for going through so many heartaches and physical torment in traveling thousands of miles on ship and foot to get out the Good News about the coming of the Anointed One to set free those impounded by Satan, sin, and the Law so they can worship God in freedom and in spirit.⁸

For Joseph Beet (1840-1924), what Paul says here about doing things to be received favorably by others was not easy for him. As a Pharisee, that was his main aim and purpose. When a person does not have the Anointed One in their life then their happiness and self-esteem depends more or less on those around them. That’s why they will do almost anything to get close to those at the top as possible. No doubt, Paul being conscious of this bondage to the wishes of those on whom a person depends for support caused him to be adamant in his condemnation of that kind of allegiance to anyone but the Anointed One. The greatest reward for a servant after a job well done is the Master’s smile. And as servants of the Anointed One we should not be in a hurry to receive the applause of those around us before we are sure that we are pleasing the Anointed One, our Lord, and Master.⁹

Methodist scholar G. G. Findlay (1849-1919) is convinced that Paul calculated these words beginning in verse six through verse ten to startle the Galatians out of their stupor. He meant them to be like a lightning-flash to show these deluded believers that they were standing on the edge of a precipice. It was to enlighten them about the unending severity of the controversy between Judaism and Christianity; the profound gulf that lay between Paul and Judaizers. He is more or less declaring war on these false teachers who’ve come to kidnap his precious children. He did not hesitate to throw out a challenge in defiance to those who are enemies of the cross. With all his tactfulness and stern handling of the situation he was ready to confront the susceptibility of the Galatians to be easily fooled and their tendency of turning ant hills into mountains, even though they were sincere in the consciences. But in this case, Paul found no room for compromise with the Judaizers here.

He knew the sort of men he was dealing with. He was fully aware that the whole truth of the Gospel was at stake. Not circumstantials, but essentials; not his personal authority, but the honor of the Anointed One, The Doctrine of the Cross was involved in this act of desertion by the Galatians. He must speak plainly; he must act strongly, and at once; or the cause of the Gospel is lost. He made that clear when he said here in verse ten, “I am not trying to please you by sweet talk and flattery; no, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please men I could not be the servant of the Anointed One.”

Paul was determined to stand strong against these weak opponents who came to charm these Galatians into switching sides. To consider even looking at this “other gospel” would have been an act of treason for him. There is but one tribunal before which this quarrel can be decided. That was by “the One who called” the Galatians “to live in the grace of the Anointed One.” It was the same One who by the same grace called the Apostle to His service and gave him the message he preached to them. So it was in God’s name and the authority conferred upon him, and for which he must give account, he denounces these troublemakers in verse eight with strong words, “anathema.”¹⁰ They are sworn enemies of the Anointed One, and by their treachery they should be forever excluded from God’s kingdom.¹¹

Many years ago, country singer Tex Ritter sang song about a soldier who didn’t have a Bible to read, so he always pulled out a deck of cards to serve as his Bible. I heard this story back when I was in the Army but my wife was unfamiliar with it. So she thought it would be a good Memorial Day tribute to our troops and I agree. So here it is, I hope you enjoy it.

One Sunday, he and some of his fellow soldiers went to the chapel to attend the Sunday morning service. When the minister asked everyone to take out their Bibles, this young lad didn’t have a Bible, so he pulled out a deck of cards. Later, a sergeant asked him how he could say that his deck of cards was his Bible. Here’s what the young soldier told him:

“You see, Sir, when I look at the Ace it reminds me that there is but one God. The two reminds me that the Bible is divided into two parts; the Old and New Testaments. And when I see the three I think of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. When I see the four I think of the four evangelist who preached the Gospel. There was Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And when I see the five it reminds me of the five wise virgins who trimmed their lamps. Ten of ’em; five who were wise and were saved; five were foolish and were shut out. And when I see the six it reminds me that in six days God made this great heaven and earth. And when I see the seven it reminds me that on the seventh day God rested from His great work.”

“When I see the eight I think of the eight righteous persons God saved when he destroyed this earth. There was Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives. And when I see the nine I think of the lepers our Savior cleansed , and nine of the ten didn’t even thank Him. When I see the ten I think of the Ten Commandments God handed down to Moses on a tablet of stone. When I see the King it reminds me that there is but one King of Heaven, God Almighty. And when I see the queen I think of the Blessed Virgin Mary who is Queen of Heaven. And the jacks, it’s the devil. And when I count the number of spots on a deck of cards I find three hundred sixty-five the number of days in a year. Fifty-two cards, the number of weeks in a year. Four suits, the number of weeks in a month. Twelve picture cards, the number of months in a year. Thirteen combinations, the number of weeks in a quarter. So you see, Sir, my pack of cards serve me as a Bible, almanac, and prayer book.”

So we don’t always need a Bible to remind us of our great God and His presence with us here on earth. There are many things that can make us aware that He left a lot of evidence that He is in us and all around us. The stars in the sky reminded David the shepherd boy of God’s wondrous handiwork. So do the mountains, valleys, oceans and seas. But there is no better evidence that we can have than God’s Spirit living in our hearts. As the blind man in the Bible told the Pharisees that he was healed in an instant, the former blind man said he wasn’t sure exactly who it was that healed him, all he knows is that once he was blind, but now he could see. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

GIVING CAN BE FUN

With us being in springtime, after I read this short poem I felt like sharing it with all of you. It’s short, but sweet. Yes, it’s small but its message is very large. I hope it blesses your heart as it did mine.

I got a dozen roses from a friend the other day

But I only have one left, for I gave them all away.

I gave one to my sister, who to me is very dear

In the hopes that it will bring to her a little floral cheer.

I took one to a friend who’s not feeling very well

The flower or the visit, which helped more I could not tell.

The rest went to the ones who’ve helped me in so many ways

They have been a cheerful presence on my dreariest of days.

The roses were so pretty, I just could not keep them all

Except one single rosebud, standing beautiful and tall.

My friend gave me the flowers to help brighten up my day

But the biggest joy I received was giving them away.

–Author Unknown–

I’ve visited homes and been around friends when I’ve seen a child being given a hand full of candy or M&Ms, and when the other children came with their hands out this child clenched their hand, turned away, and with a scowl on their face said, “No, they’re mine!”

But I’ve also witnessed when a child was given a bag full of candy, and without waiting or being coached they immediately started handing them out, not only to the other children but also to the adults in the room. Why do some children, when they are given an ice cream cone, after taking a few licks then hold it up their parent’s mouth as if to say, “Taste it, it’s good!” That’s because anything that tastes good or makes a person feel good is certainly something any person would want to share. If this is true of roses, candy, or ice cream, then Jesus should be at the top of the list of things we want to share with others. Remember this, anything that you received as a gift, must be given to others as a gift, in order to spread the joy of giving. – Dr. Robert R. Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXVIII)

Paul concludes this part of his plea for the Galatians to reconsider their choice by, as some would say, “Make up your minds!” Since he was a Jew out to convert Gentiles, he faced the accusation of customizing his gospel to please both sides. So he confronts his critics face-to-face with a rhetorical question: “Was his mission in standing up for the Gospel an attempt on his part to win man’s approval, or God’s approval?” Before they could answer, he settles the question for them. If he were trying to become popular with people, he would certainly be out of God’s will. Paul knew what he was talking about. When he practiced as a committed Pharisee, he attempted to serve God and please people at the same time, but no such thing was possible for a Christian Apostle. It’s all about integrity and intention.

Whether or not Paul read all the Greek writings available in his day, there is a chance he heard some of them quoted or used in speeches. Thucydides, an orator who lived in Athens 460 years before the Anointed One came, made the observation that no good citizen should seek to win a debate by frightening their opponents, but by beating them fairly. After all, officials often give credit where credit is due to their best advisers. They don’t punish those whose advice turns out to be incorrect. This way, successful orators will not be tempted to cancel their convictions in order to gain popularity in hopes of winning even higher honors. Likewise, unsuccessful speakers will not be lured into saying something they don’t mean just to win over the crowd.

This is not our way, says Thucydides, and besides that, the moment that a person is suspected of giving advice for ulterior motives, however well-meant, should not be rewarded with any approval they did not merit. Therefore, both good and bad advice has become suspect because the person trying to perpetrate the most hideous deception will be no less tempted to do so in order to become popular than the best counselor will be tempted to lie in order to be believed.¹ Not only should every preacher be required to memorize this pledge, but so should every politician.

After Chrysostom (349-407 AD) deferred being elected as a Bishop, he wrote six books on the priesthood. He wrote it much like Plato, where he formed a dialogue between himself and Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea. He wrote about the prevailing conception of a real priesthood, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of the Anointed One in the sacraments, prayers for the dead, but he was silent about promoting the pope and councils, orders to the clergy, prayers to saints, forms of prayers, priestly vestments, incense, crosses, and other doctrines and ceremonies of the Greek and Roman churches. He held up the Apostle Paul as a model for imitation. The sole subject of the preacher must be to please God rather than mankind.² In Chrysostom’s mind, a minister should combine the qualities of dignity and humility, authority and sociability, impartiality and courtesy, independence and humility, strength and gentleness, with only one intent in mind: to do all for the glory and honor of Jesus the Anointed One and the welfare of the Church.³

As a footnote: Syrian born theologian Theodoret (393-466 AD), Bishop of Cyrrhus (near Antioch), tells us that during the time of Chrysostom’s ministry (344-386 AD), that a pastor named Leontius, a shining example of many virtues, pastored the assemblies in Galatia as a Bishop.⁴ The Bishops who followed him later were: Pancharius (Marcellus) of Ancyra (Ankara), Corconius of Cinæ (Palermo), Dicasius of Tavia (Turkey), Philadelphus of Heliopolis (Egypt), and Erechthius of Tmausont (Greece).⁵ This gives us some flavor as to how the congregations Paul deals with here in this letter survived and the influence they brought in their development in the southern Roman province in Galatia. Later, the Armenian Protestants in this area would come to the forefront for Christianity. Today, it is estimated there are roughly 200,000 to 320,000 faithful believers in that part of Turkey.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) made it clear that in his mind no one can persuade God to think differently because God knows the whole truth, to begin with. On the other hand, someone who aims to make the truth acceptable to people even if they are unacceptable to them is persuading them in the right way. Likewise, someone who is acceptable to people who receive the truth in order that they may be saved, and who are not seeking personal glory for themselves, but the glory of God shining through them, are not only pleasing people, but God – or at least pleasing God and people at the same time, and not just people. It is one thing to please people, it is another to please both God and people. Similarly, in the case of someone the people find pleasing because they are telling the truth, it is not the person who pleases them, but the truth.⁶

As Ambrosiaster (366-384 AD) sees it, here we make note that the Apostle Paul, who taught that we ought to please God with all devotion, was not afraid to offend other people as long as he was promoting the glory of God. Laying aside everything for the present time, he devoted himself to the hope of future reward as a faithful servant of the Anointed One. Servants cannot be faithful if they look after their own interests while claiming to be working for their Master.⁷

Ambrosiaster goes on to point out that before the Anointed One came into the world, it was God’s will that the Law be preached. Consequently, there was a period assigned to it during which it was to be understood and followed. But when the Anointed One Who was promised in the Law came, it was time for the Law to cease – just as the prophets predicted. So it might be said that what Paul saw was that these false teachers convinced the Galatians to resurrect the dead Law so they could be subject to it again, and put the risen Savior back in the grave because He wasn’t needed anymore in order to fulfill the Law.

In the works by Pope Gregory the Great (540-604 AD), we find a letter he wrote to Theocrista (Theoktiste, in Greek), the sister of the Roman Emperor during Gregory’s time when he was Bishop of Rome. Apparently, she was a devout Christian who was distressed because of the way the people of Rome were living in immorality and sin. Gregory wondered how she could remain steadfast being so annoyed since her heart was fixed on heaven. He encourages her to continue her charitable work since it represents the lamp we were given to let shine before people.⁸ Gregory then points out what John the Baptizer went through in his efforts to announce the coming of the Anointed One, as an example.

It was said that John was not like a reed that could be shaken by the wind, and that should be the attitude and resolve of every believer. And he congratulates her on being a loyal student of the writings of the Apostle Paul who God called to be a teacher to the Gentiles. And he was sure that she read what Paul wrote here in verse ten that we should never live our lives just to win human approval. It is God’s approval that we should seek first and foremost. So he didn’t want her to feel that she needed to win the approval of those who were part of the wicked world. If she did this, then she would no longer be considered a loyal servant of Jesus the Anointed One.⁹ Since that was good advice back in Gregory’s time, it is equally good advice to all believers today.

Haimo of Auxerre (800-865 AD) wonders if Paul is not trying to say, that instead of him attempting to persuade people to believe in the Anointed One and hold on to their faith, that he is trying to persuade God to hold on to them as the practiced salvation by works and not let go of them as easily as they let go of Him. Haimo says “No!” Paul was not trying to persuade them to go back and reinstitute circumcision and the Law as part of God’s plan of salvation. Rather, he was attempting to persuade the Galatians that God took something that was broken and mended it so that it would work the way He wanted it to. The Law promised salvation but could not deliver it. It pointed out mankind’s sin but was given no power to forgive or cleanse it. So if God showed no immediate intention of changing things to please them, then Paul was in no hurry to do so either.¹⁰

Another Medieval commentator, Bruno the Carthusian (1030-1101), hears Paul saying this: “Do I speak in a persuasive manner just to please people for my own glory or am I trying to please God so that He receives all the glory?” It is as if he wanted to point out that there was a time before his conversion that Paul also tried to persuade people by preaching the Law for his own glory. But now in faith, he seeks to persuade people in pursuit of giving God glory. So he no longer tries to persuade people because he no longer seeks to please them. For Paul, if he is still trying to please people by preaching the Law, then he is no longer a servant of the Anointed One. For then what he would attribute to the Law would actually take away from the grace of the Anointed One.¹¹

Martin Luther suggests that we carefully observe the masterful cleverness with which the false apostles went about to bring Paul into disrepute. They combed Paul’s writings for contradictions (our opponents do the same, says Luther), to accuse him of teaching inconsistent things. They found that Paul circumcised Timothy according to the Law,¹² that Paul purified himself with four other men in the Temple at Jerusalem,¹³ that Paul shaved his head at Cenchræ.¹⁴ The false apostles cunningly suggested that Paul was talked into observing these ceremonial laws by the other Apostles, perhaps at Peter’s bidding.¹⁵ Since these Jews were unable to sufficiently repudiate the message of Paul, they decided to repudiate Paul the messenger.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXVII)

I like the way retired Baptist minister and English professor Peter Pett describes Paul’s frustration over the Galatians’ so easily turning around and running away from the Gospel. For him, the double-stress and double-curse he felt brought out how much his emotions were being stirred up. These Judaizers who came preaching to the Galatians, and were wrongly stressing that they were given the backing of the Jerusalem church, unlike Paul (or so they said), were bringing a powerless message. Instead of seeking to bring the Galatians into the freedom of the Anointed One they were trying to bring them back into bondage to a rigid set of religious and ethical regulations and ceremonies.

They were entangling them in “do this, do that, and don’t do the other,” until it was not clear to them what they really ought to do. They were loading them down with burdens too heavy to carry. And the sad thing was that these things, that they were involving themselves in, possessed no ability to save them. They were simply man-made requirements which gave an outward show of being religious and substituted for the truth without a fundamental inward change of heart and mind. They imparted a certain satisfaction because people hoped that they were achieving something, but in fact, they were achieving nothing, for they left them worse off than they were before.¹

Richard Longenecker believes that the Apostle Paul was using a bit of irony in suggesting that an angel from heaven might just bring such a corrupt gospel. In other words, Paul didn’t really think that would ever happen, however, he said it for another reason. It was no doubt meant to counter the Judaizer’s claim that they brought impeccable credentials showing them as members in good standing of the Jerusalem church council, or that to have the authority of the Jerusalem apostles supporting them was equivalent to heaven’s approval as messengers, or perhaps both. If they were from the Jerusalem church, then it is quite likely they were present, and even took part in, Paul’s defense of his Gospel before the council,² and also being there when Paul rebuked Peter of hypocrisy in Antioch.³ Paul insisted that a preacher’s authority is derived from the Gospel, and not vice versâ. So his challenge to these Judaizers was on the basis of their claim of authority based on their own credentials and the approval of a higher church authority. All authority for preaching the Gospel comes from the Gospel, not from other human beings.⁴

Ronald Fung explores the “angelic messenger” aspect that Paul speaks of here. He pronounces, without exception, a serious condemnation upon any preacher of a message which is “at variance with” the original apostolic preaching, whether such a preacher is an angel from heaven or even Paul himself or one of his coworkers who first brought the Gospel to the Galatians. First of all, this implies that the Gospel embodies a standard core of fixed tradition so that no preaching deviating from it can be called “Gospel” in the proper sense of the word. Secondly, the authority of the Gospel resides primarily in the message itself and only secondarily in the messenger. The difference between these two points indicates that whereas a message implies the uniqueness and unchangingness of the Gospel, the messenger refers to more than a possibility of something they say turning out to be factual. There is one Gospel but many kinds of messengers. Perhaps the reference to an “angelic messenger” suggests that Paul has in mind specifically the Jewish understanding of a false messenger since the Judaizers might have stressed the connection between the Law and the angels through whom it was mediated⁵,⁶ though this remains uncertain.

As a current scholar, Vincent Cheung points out that since the purpose of the Gospel is salvation; since the Gospel of justification by faith in the Anointed One is necessary for salvation; therefore, anyone who preaches something different is not preaching the true Gospel. Unfortunately, it follows that anyone who believes something different fails to believe in the true gospel and, consequently, receives eternal damnation just as quickly as someone who preaches false doctrines. So we can see at least three points here that combine to narrow the ways to salvation to just one. First, turning to another “gospel” is the same as turning away from God. Secondly, there is, in fact, no other Gospel. Thirdly, anyone who preaches a different Gospel is condemned to suffer the same fate as those who believe it. This passage leaves no room for distortions, alternatives, or lenient interpretations of the true Gospel.⁷

This certainly addresses the growth of “religious legalism.” One Jewish writer came to the conclusion that it becomes clear in what Paul says next, that the particular bad news to which the Galatians have been exposed is religious legalism. Legalism can be defined as, “the false principle that God accepts people as being right with Him and worthy of being in His presence on the grounds of their obedience to a set of rules.” This means, that they can earn salvation apart from putting their trust in God through Jesus the Anointed One, and relying on Him, loving Him, and accepting His love for them.⁸

In his condemnation, Paul does not mince words. He uses the Greek noun anathema which carries a strong factor of condemnation to something that is dedicated to evil such as placing a curse. Here, it actually refers to a thing that guarantees excommunication from the congregation of believers. For instance, imagine you are a sky diving instructor and you tell your students that under no circumstances are they to jump out of an airplane without a parachute. However, someone comes along and says that since man’s arms are the evolutionary product of bird’s wings and can, therefore, be used for flight, and that makes a parachute simply an option. Needless to say, jumping out of the airplane without a parachute would guarantee their quick elimination from the club by their own foolishness.

Without doubt, more sheep have been led astray by those who offer “another route” or an “alternate path,” or a “shortcut,” or an “easy way,” or even the “most logical way,” to salvation and heaven, than by all the atheists and agnostics who ever lived. Some point to the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Modernists, Moonies, and other cults as proof of that. One can be easily fooled into crossing over to a parallel track that appears to be going in the same direction as the one they are on. But if they could see around the bend up ahead it would reveal that they eventually part ways with the true path to God and are led off into a different direction. That “bend” usually occurs when the true path reaches the river labeled “the cleansing blood of Jesus” and on the other side the “land of sanctified living.” There is no bridge at this river, as some false teachers imply. Those who want to reach the other side must go through this river, led by the Holy Spirit.

Not only that, but the true path to righteousness always leads toward the light, while the other leads away from the light. As the psalmist says, His word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our pathway.⁹ The Apostle Paul just couldn’t believe that the believers throughout Galatia were so easily fooled and deceived. Perhaps, he thought, “What didn’t I tell them? What didn’t I make clear What didn’t I explain more fully? But the needed questions might have been, “What didn’t they take seriously? Why didn’t they ask questions about so they could be sure?” And, “Why didn’t they seek the truth more fully while I was with them?” It isn’t always the message or the messenger, sometimes it’s how the message is treated and received that will either cause it to make an indelible impression or only have a brief effect.

1:10 Do you think I’m now saying this just to be a crowd pleaser? Absolutely not! More than anything I want God’s approval. If I was trying to be popular with people I would not qualify to be called a servant of God.

Since these were strong words in the previous verses, Paul offers an explanation of why he is being so hard on those who are causing confusion and discord in the Churches in the province of Galatia. Knowing who to listen to is very important. After all, when Peter and John were told to never mention the name of Jesus when preaching, they said to their persecutors, “If it is better for us to listen to you instead of listening to God we’ll let you decide. But we are going to preach what we have seen and heard.”¹⁰ And when Peter and John were arrested again, Peter told them without flinching that they were going to obey what God says rather than what men say.¹¹ After all, the most these Jewish leaders could do was kill their bodies, but God could do more than that to their persecutors.¹²

The point was that whether believers are standing before men or before God, they will be accountable for what they did while here on earth. So it is always best to do what pleases God instead of what delights mankind.¹³ That’s why Paul told the Thessalonians, “God has allowed us to be trusted with the Good News. Because of this, we preach it to please God, not man.”¹⁴ Paul knew that there were some who might doubt his conversion. But, as he told the Corinthians, after sharing the story of his experience of being taken up into the highest heaven and shown things that were impossible to describe or explain, that he gave credit for all the good he did and any miracles that were performed to the power of God. He was not trying to make himself look good but was doing everything to show the goodness of God for their benefit.¹⁵

And there was a good reason for that. All that God does for us in our calling, redemption, election, justification, and empowerment with the Holy Spirit is to live in such a way that others are blessed, not just ourselves. This was the example the Anointed One left us.¹⁶ And there is another factor. Paul told the Ephesians that they should not try to shine as a good servant of God while others are watching and then act differently when they were alone. After all, God is watching us every minute. We don’t do what we do for Him to please others but to please Him.¹⁷ Never forget who bought your freedom by the price of His blood. By working for Him, you work for others.¹⁸ No wonder Paul kept introducing himself as a “servant owned by Jesus the Anointed One.”¹⁹

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXVI)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXIV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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