Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLIII)

Richard Longenecker believes that the reason it was important in Paul’s day for any Pharisee to see that the Law of Moses was obeyed to the fullest degree, was because it was a vitally important prerequisite for the coming of the Anointed One.¹ This may have been Paul’s Pharisaic attitude when it came to his actions against Christians who, in his eyes, were teaching something totally contrary to his perception of the coming of the Anointed One, by proclaiming this itinerant prophet from Galilee as the Messiah. After all, isn’t this what Moses did when he ordered the immoral Israelites slain at Baal-Peor?² And what about Phinehas ordering the Israelite man and Midianite woman be put to death on the plains of Moab?³ And then there was the actions of Mattathias and the Hasidim in stamping out apostasy from among God’s people.⁴ Or, says Longenecker, it might have been the commendation given to Phinehas for his actions that rang in Paul’s ears as he marched toward Damascus: “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the religious leader, has turned My anger away from the people of Israel. He was jealous with My jealousy among them, so I did not destroy the people of Israel in My jealousy.⁵”⁶

This certainly conforms to what the Essenes taught in their Dead Sea Scrolls.⁷ For instance, in Psalm (Hymn) 4, we find the following words: “The closer I approach [You], the more I am filled with zeal against all workers of iniquity the men of deceit. For none of those who [can] approach You rebel against Your command, nor do any of those who know You alter Your words; for You are righteous, and all Your elect [chosen] are truth [real]. You wilt blot out all injustice and wickedness forever, and Your righteousness will [finally] be revealed before the eyes of all Your creatures.”⁸ These words were written around the time of Jesus’ appearance, so it is not impossible that the Apostle Paul was familiar with them. It certainly would give him more reason to persecute the assembly of believers who worshiped this false Anointed One, Yeshua of Nazareth.

Ronald Fung sees parallelism in what Paul said about why he persecuted the assembly of believers so severely and his total commitment to the ideals of the Pharisees. It was his zeal for this ancestral law as an intense personal concern for its fulfillment, which provided both the inspiration and the vehicle of expression for Paul’s progress in the Jewish religion, and it would seem that his “advance” amounted to, primarily and especially, with “the achievement of righteousness according to the standards and ideals of Pharisaism.” It was the same zeal, moreover, which led to his relentless hostility towards Christianity and intense persecution of the assemblies of believers. Paul claimed there were two forces driving him, which we can see by comparing verse 13b with 14b in the chart below:⁹

13b	beyond measure	I persecuted	the assembly of believers
14b	extremely	zealous for	the traditions of my fathers

Paul was insistent that the Galatians and the Judaizers know what drove him forward and propelled him from being the worst enemy of God and the assembly of believers into being the best friend of God and of these “called-out ones.” He felt that his first motivation (13b) came from him, the second motivation (14b) came from God. That’s why they needed to understand that Paul did not forsake all to follow Jesus the Anointed One by any personally induced karma or vow. It was all God’s doing.

Don Garlington gives a very descriptive review of what the term “zeal” meant to a Jew before and in Paul’s day. Some commentators wish to restrict zeal to “ardent observation of the Torah,” in conformity to what was expected of a first-century Jew. It certainly meant such. But the very mention of zeal calls to mind the war for independence against the Syrians some two hundred years before Paul wrote Galatians. The war was spearheaded by an aged priest named Mattathias who issued the summons: “Let everyone who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!”¹⁰ Mattathias himself was a mirror copy of Phinehas,¹¹ whose own zeal for Yahweh set the pattern for all subsequent defenders of covenant purity. Garlington tells us that Pentecostal scholar N. T. Wright notes zeal for a first-century Jew was something he did with a knife. Remember Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane? From that point onward, “zeal for the law” became a battle cry for all loyalist Jews.¹²

Thomas Lancaster highlights Paul’s argument on why he could not have received any education or mentoring from the Apostles that resulted in his understanding of the Gospel and initiated his being called as an Apostle to the Jews. Up until Paul became a disciple of Yeshua of Nazareth, he hated all the disciples of Yeshua. He persecuted them and actually hunted them down to have them incarcerated and even martyred. As such, he displayed a mean streak that drove him to become the most zealous persecutor of Christian believers during his time. After he observed Stephen’s stoning, Paul broke his allegiance with his teacher Gamaliel, defying his ruling regarding the believers .¹³ He went over to the Sadducees, to Caiaphas the high priest, for legal permission to hunt them down, drag them out of synagogues and publicly punish them with severe flogging. It would be three years before he ever met the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem.¹⁴

1:15 But little did I know that by the mercy of God I was chosen for this ministry before I was separated from my mother’s womb.

Being chosen was something that Paul was taught from his youth up. Moses told the children, “The Lord did not give you His love and choose you because you were more people than any of the nations. For the number of your people was less than all nations.”¹⁵ This was something Samuel needed to remind them of when they became worried because they thought to ask for a king somehow hastened his death.¹⁶

Then when King David neared the end of his life and was turning everything over to his son Solomon, he gave the people assurance that all of this was part of God’s plan. He told them, “The Lord, the God of Israel, chose me from all the house of my father to be the king of Israel forever. For He has chosen Judah to be a leader. And in the house of Judah, my father’s house, and among my father’s sons, He was pleased to make me king of all Israel. The Lord has given me many sons. And of all my sons, He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the nation of the Lord over Israel. He said to me, ‘Your son Solomon is the one who will build My house and My open spaces. For I have chosen him to be My son, and I will be his father.”¹⁷

This was not the first time Paul mentioned being chosen. He wrote the Corinthians, “I have been chosen by God to be a missionary of Jesus the Anointed One.”¹⁸ And all of this fit into God’s plan. As he told the Ephesians, “God already planned to have us as His own children. This was done by Jesus the Anointed One. In His plan God wanted this done… He planned long ago to send the Anointed One into the world. The plan was for the Anointed One to gather us all together at the right time.”¹⁹ So if all this was already part of God’s plan for this world and His assembly of believers back then, can we not then believe that the same is the case today? Take heart, none of what you see or hear is by accident. It is all part of God’s great plan.

Paul’s mention that, in his case, he was unknowingly called to this ministry even before he was born. This certainly was something that Paul knew about by studying the prophet Isaiah.²⁰ And the prophet Jeremiah was also given the same assurance by the Lord, “Before I started to put you together in your mother, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart as holy. I chose you to speak to the nations for Me.”²¹ How could all of this be possible? As we have learned before, God’s mystery plan of salvation was already conceived and planned in eternity past. It is only now being revealed and coming true.

For me, we can see this illustrated in Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. This involves the speed of light through space. We know that it takes approximately 8 minutes and 20 seconds for light to travel from the sun to earth. So when you look up at the sun, what you see was in existence for 8 minutes and 20 seconds before you felt it. By the same principle the light from earth’s nearest star, Alpha Centauri, reaches us after traveling through space for 4 years at 186,000 miles per second. That means when you look at this star, what you see already existed 4 years ago before you saw it. So what can we say to galaxies and planets that are hundreds and thousands of light years away? The same as Paul said about the mystery of God’s plan to save not only the Jews but the Gentiles. When it started to happen through Paul’s ministry, this plan was already in effect before such a thing as time and years and centuries were every thought of.

You might take heart in believing that your call by grace out of sin into a personal relationship with God through His Son, was not a last minute decision. It was planned all along before you were born. But there are some, who when they felt the heat of the Holy Spirit’s presence bringing the light of truth of their sinfulness and God’s offer to redeem them through the work of His Son on the cross on your behalf, they run for cover; they put up the umbrella of resistance. Thank God every day that you finally saw the light, felt the warmth of His love, and heard the voice of the Spirit calling you.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLII)

It was the characteristic of a Pharisee to hold these traditions as being of equal authority with the principles of the Law. Not only that but in many cases, they awarded them preference. That’s why our Lord told them, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”¹ These are the traditions that Paul mentions and admits his zeal for observing them to the very letter. After all, in his mind, these things were absolutely necessary for salvation. That why he now tried to convince the Galatians, that his preaching of justification without works of the Law could be attributed to nothing less than the force of truth communicated to him through a revelation from God’s Son by the Holy Spirit.²

James Haldane felt that it was worth mentioning back in the late 1700s in Europe, what corrupted the Jewish religion in Paul’s day, corrupted the Christian religion in Haldane’s day. Both religions held doctrines attributed to the same Holy Scriptures. Both believed that they were given by inspiration of God through the Holy Spirit. Once the educated Rabbis began teaching their understanding of the Scriptures, the Torah was put away, and only what the Rabbis said about the Torah was taught in their synagogues. This was done as a way of preserving the true message of what Moses taught and was seen as an honor to God. In England, the church clergy was doing the same thing by putting their words above the Word of God.

But Haldane believes by doing so they took away the key of knowledge. Jews even forbid the reading of the Torah least someone misinterpreted it. When Rabbis disagreed in their interpretations, it was not on what the Torah said but on what the other Rabbi said. Unfortunately, the same thing happened to the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. Only priests were allowed to read the Scriptures, but even they never read the Gospels through to see what was said. They took the word of the Vatican teachers and most of all, the Pope. What he said became “ex-cathedra.”³

Believe it or not, even in Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, the creeds and Declarations of Faith that they composed were the final interpretations of whatever Scriptures were attached to them. More people were dismissed from local church roles over violation of church rules than any offence against the Scriptures. But today, the pendulum seems to have swung the other way. While church rules have been softened and not enforced to the letter, the Bible still seems to be a sealed book to many ministers and believers. It is a sad thing that so many Christians are ignorant of even the fundamentals of God’s Holy Word.⁴

Johann Lange believes that Paul is talking here about more than just what he was taught as a Pharisee. His education included the whole Jewish religion. Lange notes that J. B. Lightfoot’s paraphrase of verse thirteen: “My early education is proof that I did not receive the Gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the Gospel,”⁵ is proof enough that Paul’s training in Judaism left no room for the Gospel, which came later. Being subject to the constant repetition in memorizing the principles of his Jewish faith is what led him to become a relentless persecutor of the Christian faith. So his conversion to Christianity did not come from some splinter group within Judaism, which was more tolerant of opposing views.⁶ He became a member of the “called out ones” who followed Yeshua of Nazareth because He was the true Messiah.

Alfred E. Bouter (born 1943) sees a comparison between Paul’s fanatic commitment to the principles of Jewish Pharisaism and the Law, and his ultimate commitment to the Gospel of Yeshua the Anointed One and the Cross. Bouter offers a paraphrase of verses thirteen and fourteen to make his point. “For you have heard what was my conversation formerly in Judaism, that I excessively persecuted the assemblies of believers, and ravaged them and advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my nation, being exceedingly zealous of the doctrines of my fathers.”

So when the Lord came to earth, His problem was not with the Law itself that God authorized for Moses to mediate with the children of Israel. Yeshua proved to be a perfect Jew. He lived His life according to the Law God gave through Moses. He Himself said, “Don’t misunderstand why I came. I did not come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them all perfectly.”⁷ He was a law-abiding Jew, the only One who ever kept the Law to perfection. Even a zealot like Paul could not compare to Him. His conflict was not with the Law but with the Jews’ interpretations of the Law and their man-made traditions (later recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud), and in other rabbinical writings.

The conflict the Lord encountered with rabbinic Judaism, was not the Law of Moses, and its oral laws of the Rabbis of which He was always in disagreement. As for Paul, before his conversion he promoted rabbinic Judaism and was, therefore, by definition, in conflict with the Lord, as he was “exceedingly zealous of the doctrines of his forefathers.”⁸ It was not until Paul gave up his oral law and traditions of the Pharisees to accept the Teaching of Yeshua the Anointed One that he finally saw the light. The Messiah’s teachings agreed with the Law of Moses – which spoke of the Messiah as the successor to Moses,. Based on that Paul was able to reject his errant ways.⁹

Avi ben Mordechai (born 1960) points out that it was exactly this departure by Paul from enforcing the oral laws of the Rabbis and his return to the pure words of the Written Torah and the Prophets,¹⁰ that stirred up so many of the Jewish leaders wherever he went to become his avid enemies,¹¹ and attempt to do to him what they did to Yeshua.¹² So Paul is painting a picture of himself as one time being a great rabbinical master of Jewish oral law, who is now seen by his former friendly friends and colleagues as nothing but a traitor and needed to be silenced. Not because he was breaking the Law, but because they didn’t want to let the truth get out.¹³

As mentioned before, when Paul speaks of the traditions of his forefathers he is talking about oral Rabbinical teachings that later became part of the Mishnah and Talmud. Jewish scholar Adriaan Liebenberg (born 1970) enforces that concept by noting that Paul is revealing who he was before the Anointed One appeared to him. He tells us that he was a very learned man in the oral teachings of the Rabbis.¹⁴ Although he did study the Torah and knew it exceptionally well, many of the teachings and traditions of Judaism were based on the traditions of the elders. Many of these teachings and traditions contradicted the Written Torah. The reason why Paul persecuted the “Assembly of Elohim” is because the Pharisaical law, which was based on Oral Law, was the Law of the State of Israel. Anyone rejecting the Oral Law and following only what is written in the Hebrew Scriptures was persecuted by the Pharisaical rulers.¹⁵

Another Jewish writer, Tim Hegg, asks if Paul’s use of the word “Judaism” here to identify a split between “Judaism” and “Christianity” that already occurred in his time? No! Not in the normal understanding of the word “Christianity.” But it does indicate that the people of “The Way” already had a different view of what membership in the covenant of Abraham really meant and that this fell outside of the boundaries of the Judaism defined according to a Pharisaic view of covenant membership status. Paul uses the Greek noun loudaismos to identify what the KJV calls, “the Jews religion.” It is interesting that the Complete Jewish Bible renders it, “the traditions handed down by my forefathers,” even though the earliest Orthodox Jewish Bible used Yahadut – Judaism.

Unfortunately, during the time following the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, early church writer Ignatius already identified this word Judaism as “that which stood opposed to” Christianity. For instance, in his Letters to the Magnesians, he pits “Judaism” against “Christianity,” which he defines as those who believe in Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah. In the short version of this letter, Ignatius wrote: “Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divine prophets lived according to the Anointed One – Jesus.”¹⁶ So for early Jewish converts, according to Ignatius, “It is absurd to profess Jesus the Anointed One and to live under Judaism. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism embraced Christianity, so that tongue which believers might use be in union with God”¹⁷.¹⁸

We have a similar situation with the history of Protestantism. At first, it was not an outside organization or cult opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. Many of its early leaders, like Martin Luther, we devout Catholics. The more they read the Scriptures the more they saw that the Church needed reform. So they attempted to reform it from within. It was only when the Roman Church authorities rejected their reforms that they were excommunicated and forced to struggle to stay alive on their own. But before then they tried their best to get the Church’s leadership to see the light. But all for naught. Some of the individual state governments were allowed to choose between Luther’s point of view and that of the Vatican. But that was also denied and religious freedom died. As a result, the followers of Luther and others filed a “Protest” against the cancellation of this freedom. Hence they became known as “Protestants.” So it might be in error for any church organization to refer to themselves as “Protestants” when, in fact, they are not protesting anything the Roman Catholic Church does in the realm of ecumenism.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XLI)

Even though Paul excelled as a Pharisee in the Jewish religion, he would later come to learn that he was like those God spoke of to Isaiah who says “they belong to me.” They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. And their worship of me is nothing but memorized prayers and creeds.¹ Also, very much similar to what was said about them later as being uncaring and self-centered.² The sad part is that when Paul said he rose above others in the ranks it simply means there were many more just like him, of which he was the best.³ But as the prophet Jeremiah learned, being the best at doing what’s wrong does not count with God.⁴ These are the same people Jesus dealt with during His time on earth, and we must deal with today.⁵ No wonder Paul warned the Colossians to be aware of such misguided pretenders.⁶

After reading this verse, Chrysostom feels that Paul is saying: what he did against the assemblies of believers was done, not on man’s account but, through zeal for God – mistaken zeal, but zeal nonetheless – so how can he be accused of promoting the assembly of believers just to make himself look good when what he does now for the assembly of believers is done because he knows the truth?⁷ And Jerome feels that Paul is wisely adding to the discussion the fact that he did what he did out of adherence to the traditions of his forefathers, not because it was a law of God. This he no doubt based upon the fact that the Pharisees, who teach doctrines and precepts of men and reject the Law of God, do so to set up their own traditions.⁸

Theologian Robert Gundry gives us a descriptive look at the language Paul uses here to describe his advancement through the ranks of Jewish scholars. Gundry contends that the literal translation of the Greek reads, “I was beating my way forward in Judaism,” means the same as “I was advancing in Judaism.” But a literal translation come across so well with “persecuting the assemblies of believers outrageously and wreaking havoc on it” that it makes one wonder whether Paul intended to portray his advancement in Judaism being credited to him at the expense of the Christians he ravaged.⁹ To put it another way, imagine Paul saying: “I beat my way through the crowd of my fellow Jews in order to get to Christians so I could persecute them, and thereby worked my way up to the front of a zealous mob.”

Gundry then goes on to explain that the phrase: “Beyond my many contemporaries among my kinfolk” (“above many of my equals” – KJV) portrays his advancement, at least in comparative terms, and perhaps also in competitive terms. Even if only in the comparative, we detect self-righteousness in pre-Christian Paul.¹⁰ “Beyond my many contemporaries” may also mean “beyond my contemporaries, who were many,” in which case he claims to have surpassed all his contemporaries in the practice of Judaism. Then the statement: “Being an extraordinary zealot” (“being more exceedingly zealous” – KJV) is reminiscent of the extraordinary zealot Phinehas in the Sinai wilderness.¹¹ And finally: “For my ancestral traditions” (“of the traditions of my fathers” – KJV) doesn’t refer to the First Covenant as such – rather, to it as interpreted in the Pharisaic school of thought which Paul attended to become a Pharisee.¹²

As Gundry sees it: That a revelation of Jesus the Anointed One tore Paul loose from those traditions despite his extraordinary zeal for them should draw the Galatians away from the non-gospel of the Judaizers and back to the Gospel he proclaimed to them. In other words, Paul, at one time, was in deeper and more committed to the old way of the Law than any of these Jewish believers or converted non-Jews in Galatia would ever be. So if the Anointed One could rescue him and set him on the right path, then certainly they should see that the liberation they received through the Gospel Paul preached to them should do the same.¹³

Messianic writer Daniel Thomas Lancaster gives us his view of what Paul is saying here. Says Lancaster, that when Paul said he was advancing in Judaism zealously according to the old traditions, he was not saying “I used to be a legalistic, law-abiding, orthodox Jew, but after finding Jesus I dumped all that.” The Greek verb prokoptō translated as, “going forward, advancing,” is a term which originally meant “ships making headway against the wind and waves at sea.” But Jewish historian Josephus and other contemporary literature of that time used it to mean “making great progress in education.” Paul was really saying: I was an important disciple of an important teacher (Rabban Gamaliel the Elder), and I was zealous to learn the Oral Law, namely, the traditions, and I was advancing very fast to the top of the class. I was headed for a big seat on the Sanhedrin; I was going to be one of the top scholars because I was a prodigy of Gamaliel.¹⁴

By listing the religious pedigree he once cherished but now counts as insignificant, Paul gives us a chance to look at the history of Judaism and the Law. The Jewish faith, based on what God revealed to Moses and passed on through the Prophets, increased by an incredibly large volume of traditions and customs as added by Israel’s religious hierarchy. In his case, Paul was very familiar with the additional teachings that the Scribes and Rabbis added to God’s Law. As such, it became a form of psychological and religious reinforcement from a select group who focused on what the flesh could do to please God and not on what faith could do. Therefore, the Galatians needed to be aware that Paul was not some obscure religious hermit, but that he attained a higher level of respect among his peers than any of them would ever reach.

But now he sees the same thing happening to the Gospel given to believers by the Anointed One Himself. These Judaizers wanted to add some of these same old traditions and customs to improve the teachings of Jesus. This upset Paul because he believed that the Anointed One’s sacrifice, as well as his own personal sufferings, should have given the Galatians a new perspective on the spiritual reinforcement of Love. Here the focus was on others and being significant in their lives. Paul is basically saying: If by following what the Anointed One said is not good enough to get us into heaven, then we might as well throw the whole thing away and start all over.

As a preacher of the Gospel, I cherish the Cross of the Anointed One as much as anyone, and I made it one of the central points of my preaching. But I wonder sometimes if we haven’t taken away it’s real appeal by dressing it up with silver, gold, and precious stones to make it look like an artifact or souvenir, rather than the gross object of torture it really was. Wearing the cross attached to one’s lapel or draped around one’s neck for all to see is not as significant as wearing it attached to the heart and draped in front of the mind for all to experience.

Ambrosiaster sums up what he finds significant here in Paul’s writings. He concludes that if Paul, who was an Israelite and held the rank of rabbi among the Jews, having studied with Gamaliel, a brilliant teacher, and stood head and shoulders above his peers and contemporaries, abandoned the Law for Yeshua, how much less should those outside the Law subject themselves to it! And if this man rejoiced at having gotten out from under the heavy yoke of slavery to the Law, why should the Galatians now lose their freedom to be chained to the Law?¹⁵

Martin Luther continues to compare his personal experience to that of Paul’s. Even as the Apostle was enlightened by the Gospel, so Luther was unfamiliar with their message. And just as Paul was zealous for Judaism’s laws, rites, rituals, regulations, and ceremonies, the same was true of Luther’s zeal for those same things in the Roman Catholic Church. In Luther’s own words he said, “I tried hard to live up to every law as best I could. I punished myself with fasting, meditating, praying, and other exercises more than all those who today hate and persecute me. I was so much in earnest that I imposed upon my body more than it could stand. I honored the pope as a matter of conscience. Whatever I did, I did with a single heart to the glory of God.”¹⁶ Luther is certainly to be applauded for his dedication, but once he found out it was driving him further and further away from God and the Gospel, the more he understood when doing something in error, no matter how zealous you are, it still does not make it right. If there’s anything that keeps you from going directly to God through His Son, it’s best to be free of it before it destroys your freedom to choose.

The Syriac Version translates verse fourteen this way: “I went much farther in Judaism than many of my contemporaries who were of my nation, and was peculiarly zealous for the doctrine of my fathers.”¹⁷ In other words, Paul knew more about the oral teachings started by the scribe Ezra in 450 BC, that would eventually wind up in the Mishnah and Talmud, than his fellow students, but only because he spent more time studying at the feet of Gamaliel than they did. His own personal dedication and persistence are what paid off by expanding his knowledge of what previous Jewish Rabbis said. It wasn’t some inherent superior brainpower that made this possible, but it was his actions in pursuing the truth of his religion. No wonder he was so opposed to any other interpretations of what these Jewish teachers said. And since they did not accept any other Anointed One than the one they envisioned, since Yeshua the Nazarene did not fit their description, he was vehemently opposed to those who heralded Him as the Anointed One. That’s was, until he met Jesus, then everything changed dramatically.

Joseph Benson finds it interesting that Paul mentioned the fact that he started his studies with many boys of the same age. When they arrived in Jerusalem to study for their bar mitzvah, they were all at the same level of education. But then Saul began to pull ahead because of his enthusiasm and zeal to learn the writings of the Rabbis. Over and over he studied their comments on the Law until it was burned into his mind. These are what the Gospel writers and our Lord called the traditions of men began to separate them from what was written by Moses and the Prophets. And then becoming a Pharisee was the crown jewel of Jewish accomplishment. So Paul was not someone down at the bottom looking up at these Judaizers, but someone at the top looking down on them.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XL)

But let me illustrate, says Bunyan, one reason why the Anointed One, Jesus, shows mercy to sinners is so that they will love Him more. That way, they will start loving Him instead of the things of this world. Now, if He loves to be loved a little, certainly He loves to be loved a lot. Yet, there are few capable of loving Him that much except those that were forgiven much.¹ But the Apostle Paul confessed, that of all the sinners the Anointed One came into the world to save, he was the worst..² That’s why he labored more for the Anointed One than many others because he sinned against God more than others..³ But Paul let people know that wasn’t because of anything that he did that caused him to love the Anointed One, it was because of the grace of God shown to him. That’s why Paul here in verse fifteen reminded the Galatians that they heard all about his former life as a persecutor of Jesus and His followers, but now they’re hearing of him as a preacher for Jesus the Anointed One.

Bunyan could almost hear Paul saying to the Galatians: You talk about grace! You don’t know how much grace it took to save me! It required the marvelous grace of God to look down from heaven on me and rescue me from the terrible end I was headed for. To say that I am now captivated with the sense of the riches of His grace would be an understatement. That’s why I work so hard for Him; for how could I do otherwise since God not only separated me from my sins and from sinners but sanctified all the talents and abilities I have for His royal service? Oh! I’ll never forget His love, nor the circumstances under which I came into contact with that love. When His love took hold of me. I was on my way to Damascus with letters from the high-priest to wreak havoc on God’s people there. That was until that wonderful man of God named Ananias made intercession for me to the Lord that He would have mercy on me. That’s when I became a monument of grace. It made a saint out of me because I was fully persuaded that my transgressions were forgiven and that I now knew I was right with God.⁴

John Edmunds (1801-1874) gives us some insight into why, after Paul’s conversion and the laying on of hands by Ananias in Damascus, he headed for the Arabian Desert instead of for Jerusalem to receive his ordination from the Apostles. The only prior communication between Paul and them was when he helped to hold the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death. From there on out he was infamous as the raging persecutor of Christians, causing many of them, men and women, to be dragged off to prison.⁵ It would be like inviting the fox back to apologize to the farmer for killing so many of his chickens. There were plenty of reasons for the Apostles back in Jerusalem to doubt his story and suspect him of being a wolf wearing a sheepskin costume. In fact, after things quieted down, he still would not have gone to the holy city were it not for Barnabas taking him there and vouching for him as being a genuine dedicated believer in Jesus.⁶

Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893), a theology professor at the University of Oxford, gives a similar paraphrase of Paul’s words by having the Apostle say: All of you who know about my former life will totally agree that it was nothing short of a miracle, that I was converted. After I tell you the whole story you will also see how impossible it was that I received the Gospel message I preach, from anyone other than Jesus the Anointed One.⁷ What Jowett is trying to communicate, I believe, is that because of Paul’s stringent persecution of the assembly of believers, he was considered so dangerous that none of the Apostles in Jerusalem would even venture to invite him there, nor come to Damascus to train him. In fact, if it had not been for Barnabas’ intervention, he may have never met Peter, James, and John..⁸

Looking at Paul’s conversion from a Jewish perspective, one Jewish writer notes that it is critical that we recognize the sentence structure of the Greek sentence in this verse to gain a proper understanding of Paul’s confession. His rendition of verse thirteen reads: “For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I violently persecuted the assembly of believers and tried to destroy it.” The word order shows that the Greek particle pote – “former,” (“in time past” – KJV; “my previous way” – NIV), modifies the Greek noun Ioudaïsmos – “life in Judaism.” (“the Jews religion” – KJV). This careful observation is made to show a shift within the makeup of Judaism and not outside of it. Paul did not leave Judaism for a new religion called Christianity. What he did do was switch party lines, from an unbelieving Jewish Pharisee to a believing Yeshua Pharisee, all within the confines of 1st-century Judaism.⁹

Jewish writer Avi ben Mordechai reminds us of how significant Paul’s background was in understanding why he was so persecuted by the Jews no matter which Synagogue he went into during his missionary journeys. After all, he studied under Gamaliel,¹⁰ one of the most highly respected members of the Sanhedrin of that era. But there were other things that made this significant. Gamaliel and those who served before him worked with the chief priests who were aligned with Rome and the Sadducees. Together, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes enforced Rome’s political policies and Judaism’s rabbinical oral laws above the Law of Moses. This is what Paul bought into when he was a Pharisee and a fanatical persecutor of this new group of dissenters who followed the Nazarene called Yeshua, and referred to their teachings as “The Way.”¹¹ And why not, Yeshua said He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.¹² So Paul was not some ragtag individual who wanted to get attention by persecuting these followers of Yeshua. He was part of the establishment and given their backing in his endeavors to jail and even kill them.¹³ Paul shares how he felt about this in the next verse.

Tim Hegg, another Jewish writer, echoes the same thing. He suggests that we should note that the word “former,” which, when functioning as a particle means “once upon a time,” in modifying the word “manner of life” or “lifestyle.”¹⁴ It does not imply that Paul formerly lived within Judaism but at the time he wrote the Galatians, he was no longer living within Judaism. What he is contrasting is his personal adherence to Jewish Law before and after his faith in Yeshua as the Anointed One, not his former life in Judaism as opposed to his present life apart from Judaism. We might compare his words to what Paul told the Ephesians, “So far as your former way of life is concerned, you must strip off your old nature because your old nature is thoroughly rotted by its deceptive desires.¹⁵”¹⁶

In Andrew Roth’s translation of the Aramaic text of verse thirteen, it gives us the same impression. It reads: “You have heard then, regarding my previous conduct in Judaism, especially about how I followed (pursued) the congregation of Elohim and greatly devastated it.” Ronald Fung also sees Paul’s purpose here is to offer evidence of the divine origin of his Gospel and thereby also for his claim to be an apostle by direct revelation. That’s because “Gospel” and “Apostleship” are for him “quite inseparable: they form the two sides of the one coin bearing the impress of the authority of God’s divine will. So Paul appeals first to his non-Christian past, representing it as something that the Galatians already heard of.¹⁷

Grant Osborne does not believe that Paul stopped being Jewish and became a Gentile. In fact, in Acts of the Apostles, it shows that he continued to observe many aspects of the sacrificial system and never repudiated his Jewish background.¹⁸ Rather, he was a Jewish Christian. He stopped being a slave to the Law under the First Covenant and became part of free-will service in the Final Covenant. When he performed a sacrifice or followed a purity law, he did so from the perspective of one who followed the Anointed One. In fact, Paul found no issues that bothered him over certain Jewish holidays, feasts, and certain rituals as long as they were never counted as merit toward justification and salvation.¹⁹

1:14 I went far beyond anything those of my age in studying the ancient traditions of the Jewish religion. I was totally committed to following these teachings with all my heart and soul.

Paul is not finished letting the Galatians know where he came from on his path to believing in the Anointed One and His Gospel. The same thing emerges almost as clear in one of his other epistles where he argues that he has greater reason for confidence in the flesh than others do. After mentioning his circumcision on the eighth day, he itemizes significant bragging points which are his by virtue of birth, namely, “being of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” Then he lists three reasons for confidence in the flesh which are his own achievements: “as to the Law a Pharisee” – a member of a prestigious group of Jews; “as to zeal a persecutor of the assembly of believers,” that is, he was so ardent that he actively persecuted those he opposed; and “as to following religious laws, he was blameless,” that is, a perfect follower of Jewish religious rituals and regulations.

But Paul had a complete turnaround. All these things that were important to me, but because of the Anointed One, I decided that they are worth nothing. Not only these things but now I think that all things are worth nothing compared with the greatness of knowing the Anointed One Jesus my Lord. Because of the Anointed One, I threw away all these things, now that I know that they are all worthless trash. All I want now is the Anointed One. I want to belong to him. In the Anointed One, I am right with God, but my being right does not come from following the Law.²⁰

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXXIX)

Venerated Medieval Catholic theologian, Robert of Melun, makes a comparison between Paul and the Catholic Church in his day. He starts by pointing out that some Catholics were asking whether the Apostle Paul sinned by persecuting the assembly of believers? They wanted to know since he showed such zeal for the Law and believed he must do this for God’s sake. Many Catholics still hold this position, says Robert. For when conscience dictates that people must do something for God’s sake, they would sin if they did not do it since they would then be acting against their own conscience. Yet if they were to do it, they would offend God. Moreover, “everything that is not of faith is a sin.”¹

Consequently, notes Robert, for such people, Paul believed that he must persecute these assemblies of believers in the Name of God. If he refused to do so, he would be showing contempt for God and would thereby be sinning. Then again, to persecute the assembly of believers is in itself a sin. So, it would seem that he sins if he does this, and yet sins in his conscience if he does not. Either way, then, he would end up sinning. Some people concede, therefore, that the Apostle would have sinned no matter what he did. This was the thinking of some during the Middle Ages.

Others, however, say that his desire was good because he wished to demonstrate his obedience to God, obedience that he exhibited by destroying what he thought was contempt for God by these Christians. Yet the deed itself was still evil and wrong because he carried it out based upon an incorrect understanding. Nevertheless, the zeal and fervor of love that was in the Apostle’s heart were good, and it is on that basis that the erroneous deed is excused.² Sometimes misplaced zeal and enthusiasm can do more harm than good.

Not only were Medieval Catholics judged by such criteria, but Protestants and Pentecostals followed suit. In many cases, Catholics were not only censured by what they did in contradiction to Roman Catholic teachings, but they were also criticized for what they did not do as taught and outlined by Catholic doctrine. For instance, if they did not pray to the saints each day for a certain length of time; pray the Rosary or go to the confession booth on a regular basis; or, in some cases, if they were not baptized in water as the Church specified it should be done, they were looked down on as being insincere. However, those who followed such dictates with holistic fervor were seen as the holiest in their dedication to God and Catholicism. My, what a heavy burden to carry!

Those who’ve studied the Greek writings available in Paul’s day have noted that the way most men dealt with traditional teachings, even teachings of their own country, was to receive them all exactly as they were delivered, without applying any critical test of authenticity whatsoever.³ Jewish scholars, like Paul, did the same thing. We can even say, that in some fundamental Protestant and Pentecostal denominations many ministers followed the same pattern of preaching what they heard from the previous generation without finding out, through research and study, if what they were preaching was Biblically correct.

Martin Luther gives a personal testimony about his conversion. He came to the knowledge of the truth by the same kindness of God. From his own lips, Luther confessed that he crucified the Anointed One daily in cloistered life as a monk, and blasphemed God by practicing his wrong faith. Outwardly he kept himself celibate, poor, and obedient. He was constantly fasting, tarrying, praying, saying the masses, and the like. Yet under the cloak of his outward respectability, he continually mistrusted, doubted, feared, hated, and blasphemed God. His self-righteousness was like a muddy puddle of water. But now, he realizes that Satan loves such saints. They are his darlings, for they quickly destroy their body and soul by depriving themselves of the blessings of God’s generous gifts. He also stood in awe of the pope’s authority. To dissent from him, he considered a crime worthy of eternal death.

Luther heard about Bohemian Reformer John Huss (1369-1415),⁴ and considered him as nothing but a cursed heretic. He counted it a sin even to even think about him. He would have gladly gathered the wood to burn him. And, he would feel that he was doing God a real service.⁵ Then one day, Luther was rummaging through the shelves of a library and happened upon a volume of sermons by Huss. “I was overwhelmed with astonishment,” Luther later wrote. “I could not understand for what cause they burned such great a man at the stake, a man who explained the Scriptures with so much gravity and skill.” Everyone’s testimony is different, but the principle is the same. Doing what you think was right without knowing how wrong it is. Like a rancher’s son who was taught from his youth up that red meat was the most beneficial for protein and muscle build, only to find out later how much it contributed to cholesterol and blocked arteries.

Reformer John Calvin also noticed how strongly Paul was attached to the old customs and how he strove to get ahead of his peers in compliance. Calvin points out that those Paul called his equals were those of his own age; for a comparison with older persons would have been unsuitable. When he speaks of the traditions of the fathers, he means, not those oral traditions by which the Law of God was corrupted, but the Law of God itself. This was the kind of education Paul received from his childhood, which was supplied through the hands of his ancestors and parents. Having been strongly attached to the customs of his forefathers, it would have been no easy matter to tear himself from them, were it not for the fact that the Lord drew him away by a miracle.⁶

Puritan theologian William Perkins (1558-1602) tells a personal story to go along with what Paul is telling the Galatians about his conversion. Perkins recalled, that a minister was invited to speak to a Protestant congregation in western England. There was much persecution then against the Puritans, this is why they fled to America. Three young men entered the church with the intention of interrupting the minister and even brought stones in their pockets for that purpose. Not too long after the minister began, one of the youths cursed and whispered, “Let’s have a go (attack) at him now.” But one of the others cautioned that they should wait a little longer just in case he said something that they could really harass him for. After a short time, another boy in the group said, “We’ve heard enough, let’s throw some stones now.” But again, the older boy stopped him. “He’s not as bad as I expected. Let’s hear a little more.” In Perkins’ own words he says: “The preacher concluded without having been interrupted.” Now mark my words, one of these three young men was later executed for forgery; the second sits under a death sentence for murder; the third, through the infinite mercy of God, is the one speaking to you now.⁷ No doubt Paul felt the same way.

Jakob Arminius (1560-1609) shares what he thinks about those who must learn by overcoming some weakness or obstruction put in their path out of ignorance. It’s like taking away a stony heart and having a soft heart put in its place.⁸ This is accomplished by the Holy Spirit by exciting in the hearts of believers sacred respect and reverence for God.⁹ From what these Scriptures say, those acts will easily be made manifest if all ideas are suspended that might allow sins of every kind.

Think about this: God permitted Saul, whom “in His anger, He gave to the Israelites as their king,”¹⁰ even though God knew Saul would through hatred persecute David, even though he knew David’s integrity was faithful and true.¹¹ Nevertheless, David enjoyed the friendship and fellowship of Saul’s son Jonathan who resisted his father’s attempts against David. And God even permitted David, after having enjoyed many victories and having already been crowned King of Judah and Israel, to remain as king despite his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. Even though David went back on his commitment to God, God did not go back on His commitment to Judah and Israel.

By the same token, God permitted Peter, who loved Jesus the Anointed One, although he was somewhat boastful, to be endued with Power from on High even after he denied Him in a moment of doubt and fear. As a result, Peter was able to declare his allegiance to the Anointed One with even greater energy through the Holy Spirit. In fact, he confessed the Anointed One courageously even to his moment of death.¹² In the same manner, God permitted Saul of Tarsus, a fanatic zealot for the Law to persecute the Anointed One through ignorance, until “He revealed His Son in him,” by which a persecutor was transformed into a preacher.¹³

John Bunyan (1628-1688) also touches on the fact that by saving Paul, God was showing mercy to a great and unworthy sinner. The news that Paul converted would have been good news for the vilest of sinners. It would have come as welcomed good news for those with despairing souls. For Bunyan, this is the Doctrine that Jesus came to have mercy and save sinners no matter how unworthy they might be to receive grace. One reason for this is because the biggest sinners need to be saved the most. And when any of them receive the Anointed One’s offer of mercy and forgiveness, that lifts up His name even higher. Not only that, but once the word spreads, others will be even more encouraged to come to Him for salvation.

Also in Bunyan’s thinking, this display of love and mercy to sinners will weaken the kingdom of Satan and cause it to lose favor in the world. And once these delivered sinners become part of the Body of the Anointed One, their testimony will help struggling believers to fight any temptation to return to the bondage of sin. That’s because the vilest of sinners becoming one of God’s chosen saints will love Him even more than maybe someone who was found with little to forgive.

Pablo Picasso famous Spanish painter, sculptor, and ceramicist is regarded as one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. We should take what this great artist has to say because the latest sale of one of his paintings went for $106.5 million dollars. On one occasion Pablo said, “I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it.”

For most people today, the exact opposite is true. They don’t want to try doing something they cannot do because it’s a waste of time. Psychologist Heidi Halvorson offers several things a person should do when they just don’t want to do it. We all know those things we keep wanting to do but there’s so much else we need to do first. It’s the worst kind of procrastination. We keep moving things in the way so we can push it off for another day or week.

But can you imagine how much less guilt, stress, and frustration you would feel if you could somehow just make yourself do the things you don’t want to do when you are actually supposed to do them? Not to mention how much happier and more effective you would be? The good news (and it’s very good news) is that you can get better about not putting things off if you use the right strategy. Figuring out which strategy to use depends on why you are procrastinating in the first place, says Dr. Halvorson.

One of the reasons you keep putting something off is because you’re afraid you’ll fail or mess things up. But instead of thinking negative, think positive. Start promoting the idea that you’ll end up so much better off if you do it than you will be trying to avoid it. Such motivation will push you forward while being anxious and doubtful will cause you to take no action at all.

Another reason why we often postpone doing something we know ought to be done is because we keep telling ourselves it will work itself out. Sorry, but the theory of evolution doesn’t work in these cases. Instead of concentrating on promotion, you are obsessed with prevention. Why not leave things the way they are instead of taking a chance and ruining things.

Another reason you keep putting something off is that you just don’t feel like doing it. It’s hard to ignore your feelings. How many times have you used the excuse of “I can’t get out of bed that early to exercise,” or, “I just can’t get up the energy to exercise with so much on my mind?” The truth is, your excusing yourself just because you don’t “feel” like it. There’s no one tying you to your bed in the morning, there are no imitating people preventing you from exercising. If you wait until you “feel” like doing something, nothing will ever get done. The truth is, you don’t have to feel like it to do it. The only thing stopping you is yourself.

One more reason you may be putting something off that needs to be done is because you’re not excited about doing it. So the excuse you use is that tomorrow you’ll start, or the next time you have the opportunity you’ll get started. Remember, “self-control” is not only a method used to keep from doing something, but it can also be used to start doing something. You must do yourself a favor and stop leaning on willpower and switch to mindpower. Make up your mind to do it whether you feel like it or not.

With our just having celebrated the heroes of D-Day at Normandy, do you think those soldiers, sailors, airmen, paratroopers, and marines were excited about running full speed into the hail of bullets, shells, mortars, and grenades knowing they may not live more than five to ten minutes? No! They did it because they knew they “had” to do it in order to save Europe, and eventually the USA, from the terrors of Nazism. They weren’t thinking about failure, they were concentrating on victory. That’s why Europe is free today.

The Apostle Paul put it very succinctly, everyone is in the race, but the only ones who receive a prize are the ones who exercise self-control and keeps going.¹ He no doubt said that because as a young Jewish lad he was told what wise King Solomon once said about a lazy person who wants something without trying to get it, while the persevering person will have their desires fulfilled.² And in the Book of Ecclesiastes we read that every time we have work that needs to be done, we should do the best we can. If we don’t it will never get done once we are in the grave. There are no ideas, no planning, and no visions for success there. It’s the place where everything we needed to do dies with us.³

There are few joys and elation that a person can experience any better than when you know you’ve pushed yourself beyond your doubt, fears, anxieties, and unwillingness to try something because you don’t want to be a failure at it and are able to look at you effort and handiwork and be proud of yourself. This not only applies to this world and everyday life, but also to our spiritual world and our place in the life to come. So don’t think about it, just do it! – Dr. Robert R Seyda

BLUE RIBBON DAY

This heart touching story ought to be inspiring to everyone, not just teachers and professors. In a sense, we are all teachers. But the question is, what are we teaching? What are we teaching our children? What are we teaching our spouses? What are we teaching our neighbors? What are we teaching our workmates? What are we teaching our fellow believers? When we find the answers to these questions, perhaps we can then find out what we are teaching ourselves.

As the report goes, a teacher in New York decided to honor each of her seniors in High School by telling them the difference they each made, using a plan developed by Helice Bridges of Del Mar, California. She called each student to the front of the class, one at a time. First, she told them how they made a difference to her and the class. Then she presented each of them with a blue ribbon imprinted with gold letters which read, “Who I Am Makes A Difference.”

Afterward, the teacher decided to do a class project to see what kind of impact recognition would have on a community. She gave each of the students three more blue ribbons and instructed them to go out and spread this Acknowledgment Ceremony around the community. Then they were to follow up on the results by noting who honored whom and report back to the class in a week.

One of the boys in the class went to a junior executive in a nearby company and honored him for helping him with his career planning. He gave him a blue ribbon and put it on his shirt. Then he gave him two extra ribbons, and said, “We’re doing a class project on recognition, and we’d like you to go out, find somebody to honor, give them a blue ribbon, then give them the extra blue ribbon so they can acknowledge a third person to keep this acknowledgment ceremony going. Then please report back to me and tell me what happened.”

Later that day the junior executive went in to see his boss, who was known as being kind of an old grouchy fellow. He sat his boss down and he told him that he deeply admired him for being such a creative genius. The boss seemed very surprised. The junior executive asked him if he would accept the gift of the blue ribbon and would he give him permission to put it on him. His surprised boss said, “Well, sure.”

The junior executive took the blue ribbon and placed it on his boss’s jacket just above his heart. As he gave him the last extra ribbon, he said, “Would you do me a favor? Would you take this extra ribbon and pass it on by honoring somebody else? The young boy who first gave me the ribbons is doing a project in school and we want to keep this recognition ceremony going and find out how it affects the people who receive it.”

That night the boss came home to his 14-year-old son and sat him down. He said, “The most incredible thing happened to me today I was in my office and one of the junior executives came in and told me he admired me and gave me a blue ribbon for being a creative genius. Imagine that, he thinks I’m a creative genius. Then he put this blue ribbon that says ‘Who I Am Makes A Difference’ on my jacket above my heart. He gave me an extra ribbon and asked me to find somebody else to honor.

As I was driving home tonight, I started thinking about whom I would honor with this ribbon and I thought about you. I want to honor you, son. My days are really hectic and when I come home I don’t take the time to pay much attention to you. Sometimes I scream at you for not getting good enough grades in school, or for your bedroom being in a mess. But somehow tonight, I just wanted to sit here and, well, just let you know that you do make a difference to me. Next to your mother, you are the most important person in my life. You’re a great kid and I love you!

The startled boy began to sob and sob, and he just couldn’t stop crying. His whole body shook. He looked up at his father and said through his tears, “Dad, you don’t know how important this blue ribbon is to me now. You see, I was planning on committing suicide tomorrow because I didn’t think you loved me. But now I don’t need to do that because I found out I am important to you!”

I wouldn’t say that Jesus had this in mind when He told His followers to do to others what they would like others to do to them. But I don’t think He would have rejected it either. But the one thing that I do believe is that when Jesus said that we are to love one another just as much as He loved us, that is more than a class project, that is a commandment.¹ If Jesus were to visit you tonight and ask you if you have kept this commandment, what would your answer be? – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXXVIII)

1:13 I’m sure you’ve heard about my past, when I was a Jewish religious fanatic, and how I viciously attacked God’s assembly of believers and did everything I could to destroy it.”

Jewish writer Mark A. Nanos believed that Paul was wanting to do more here than just bring up his well-known past. His was his modest way of saying that he anticipated that these Judaizers would come to these Galatians, saying that they were bringing a new revelation. They would also attempt to put themselves on the same spiritual and intellectual level as the Galatian believers. This would certainly allow them to assume the authority to instruct the believers to accept what they were telling them and that any resistance on their part would jeopardize getting the intended message. In other words, Paul by his own experiences knew that it was quite ordinary for any audience, who was being told of a new revelation, to be curious as to where it came from and by whom was it given. In such a case, these Judaizers should have been ready to defend what they were saying the same way Paul answered those who opposed the Gospel message that he was delivering. So why didn’t they do so, that was certainly a mystery to Paul.¹

So Paul shares his personal biography with them on how things were at one point in his life. Apparently, this came as no secret to the good folks in Galatia, most likely because Paul’s family, who live in the next province of Cilicia to the east, already spread the word. He showed no interest in hiding anything about his past. The Gospel Paul preached to them was the same message by which he was converted. So, he not only talked the talk but walked the walk. If the Judaizers thought they were pious champions of the Jewish faith, Paul outdid them all as one of the most devout defenders of Judaism. That’s why he hated this new cult that followed this Jesus of Nazareth. He went after them like a bounty hunter. His fellow Pharisees looked on him as a hero, while Christians saw him as a religious hoodlum. It should be understood that Paul did not attack the believers in Jesus the Anointed One because he necessarily hated them, but he did so as a patriotic defender of the traditions of the Pharisees which he zealously lived by and believed all should do so.

In case the Galatians weren’t sure Paul actually converted to Christianity, he confesses to his guilt in persecuting them. He thought he was standing up for God’s chosen people and their faith, without realizing he was persecuting God’s Son and His Gospel. So, now that he’s on their side, he refers to this new company of believers as God’s Church. If he used the term “the Anointed One’s Church,” the Judaizers would immediately be on his case for ignoring all God taught His people through Moses and the Prophets. But Paul wanted both Jew and Gentile believers to know that just as God the Father and God the Son were one, therefore, everyone who believes in Jesus, be they Jew and Gentile, are also one with God and His Church.

This is not the only time Paul felt led to share the testimony of his conversion to calm down his critics. When he was back in Jerusalem and was at the Temple with others to show his respect for God’s house, he was arrested for defiling this holy institution. So he asked his Roman guard if he could speak to those who raised such a ruckus about bringing in unauthorized individuals onto the Temple grounds. So in Aramaic, he told them about when he persecuted the followers of Jesus because he felt about them the same way the Jews now felt about him.² Paul repeated this again when he stood before King Agrippa some days later.³

But for anyone in Galatia who wanted to know more, surely they would have been able to find out what happened during Paul’s persecution of the Anointed One’s followers when he participated in Stephen being martyred.⁴ But that was not all, Paul (known at that time as Saul), was a fanatic persecutor of all those who called Jesus the Anointed One.⁵ He was honest enough to tell the Corinthians, “I am the least important of all the missionaries. I should not be called a missionary because I made it so hard for God’s church. I am different now.”⁶ And Paul told the Philippians he was so eager to defend his religion that he persecuted the church. And no one could find fault with the way I obeyed the Law of Moses.⁷ And to Timothy, Paul shared what he was before he met the Anointed One and how meeting Him changed his life.⁸

Early church African scholar Marius Victorinus believes that by Paul telling this unsavory part about his life, was another way to show that he learned all that from listening and watching others, so it was far better that he learn the truth from God and Jesus the Anointed One. The aim of this is to prevent the Galatians from entertaining another opinion or supposing that anything needs to be added to the Gospel.⁹ We must remember in those days there was no such thing as a denomination. These converts to the Anointed One were simply known as “The Way” and “Followers of the Anointed One.”

Augustine of Hippo expresses a particular view on Paul’s persecution of the church. In Paul’s mind, if by persecuting God’s church and trying to destroy it Paul advanced up Judaism’s ladder of notables. So it is clear that Judaism is opposed to God’s “called out” ones, not because of the spiritual law that the Jews received but because of their own carnal and slavish way of life. And if by imitating the traditions of his forefathers Paul persecuted the followers of the Anointed One, and the traditions of his ancestors are opposed to their assemblies. Nevertheless, the law is not to blame. For the law is spiritual and does not force anyone to understand it using human logic.¹⁰ The fault lies rather, with those who view what they received intellectually and, moreover, handed it down through many teachings of their own.¹¹ I saw this in my own lifetime growing up in an extremely conservative Pentecostal denomination, where people were judged more by what preachers said the Bible teaches, rather than by what the Bible actually taught.

The great preacher Chrysostom of Constantinople offers what he feels was Paul’s argument. As Paul saw it if his efforts against these assemblies were not based on ulterior motives but from mistaken religious zeal, why should he be motivated by self-pride now that he was promoting these assemblies and embraced the truth? If this then was not his motive, but a godly zeal, similar to what possessed him when he was in error, how much more should he be fired up now that he knows the truth? Ought he not be free from being questioned about his motives. As soon as he changed over to the doctrines of these assemblies he shook off his Jewish prejudices and manifested a zeal even more ardent than before. This should be proof enough that his conversion was sincere, and that the zeal which possesses him now is from above. What other incentives could he have for making such a change, and exchange honor for contempt, peace for peril, and security for distress? Nothing else but his love of truth.¹²

Another member of the 4th-century scholars, Ambrosiaster, notices a theme in what Paul is saying here to those who may have doubted his allegiance to the Anointed One. Perhaps pointing to the false apostles who were causing such discord because of their commitment to the Law, Paul, more or less, says: “He was more dedicated than any of them in his attempts to defend the Law, which he did not do in order to gain the favor of other people but because he thought it was what God wanted.” However, Ambrosiaster feels that Paul now acknowledges that in fact, he was pleasing the leaders of the Jewish faith although he thought he was pleasing God. This seems like a hidden message to the individuals involved, that they too were making the same mistake he once did.

Ambrosiaster suggests that Paul admits he did not know that the time for keeping the Law was in order to gain salvation was over, and that he was faithfully following the teaching of his ancestors as outlined in the oral teachings of the Rabbis, both out of respect for Jewish religion and out of spite against this new way started by Jesus of Nazareth. Not only that, but he was aiming at another goal, and that was to stand head and shoulders above his peers in his zeal for the Law. It took a direct revelation from God through the Anointed One to bring him to his senses, and it was this same revelation he brought to Galatia. So why couldn’t these new believers in Galatia remain as faithful as he was? Why did they so quickly buy into the polluted gospel brought by these false teachers?¹³

Ninth century theologian Haimo of Auxerre offered paraphrase on what he thinks Paul is saying here: “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries, that is, beyond all those of my own era and those who were my own age. I was advancing in the teaching of the Law according to the tradition of the Pharisees from whose class I was descended. Nobody could rival my zeal for the lessons and inquiries, nor indeed for the persecution of Christians. Thus, they could not match my status in the synagogue.¹⁴ Among my own people, the people of the Pharisees, I was more dedicated to a greater degree, an ardent follower, meaning a diligent imitator, living to prop up the synagogue of my ancestral traditions, namely, of the Pharisees.”¹⁵

When Paul was speaking about his peers, Bruno the Carthusian hears Paul saying: “I advanced, I say, by performing beyond many of my contemporaries who were young and industrious just as I was. I call them contemporaries, not proselytes, for they were among my own people and thus children of Abraham nurtured in the Law just as I was. I also say that I lived as an ardent imitator, a follower, and a lover not only of the Law but also of my ancestral traditions.” Paul is revealing that the prophets bestowed certain traditions that went beyond the Law, such as when Zechariah speaks of the fasting on the first month, the fasting on the fourth, etc.¹⁶ Paul accepted them as traditions for his life because he was so fascinated by them that it was as though they belonged to him. That’s why when he persecuted the assemblies of believers, it was obvious that he didn’t learn anything about the Gospel prior to his conversion.¹⁷

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXXVII)

Methodist minister Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945) thinks that after what Paul says here, it is then incorrect to speak of a “Pauline theology” and a “Pauline gospel,” as if his mind was able to somehow put this all together as his personal idea of the Gospel’s plan of salvation. No mind of man could have ever invented or discovered the marvelous truths of the Gospel on its own. It is supernatural in its revelation and in its power. This makes his experience even more remarkable when we trace and discover what a religious, zealous, law-keeping Pharisee he was before. And where did all this zeal and pain-staking law-keeping dedication lead him? It made him a persecutor of God’s church. On the road to Damascus, the God who separated him at birth called him by His grace, and the Son of God in His glory was revealed to him as well as in him so that He might preach Him to the Gentiles. And he did not confer with Barnabas or Ananias after his conversion, neither did he go to Jerusalem to visit the other Apostles.

To have gone up to Jerusalem, says Gaebelein, would have been for him a natural thing; to go back to the city where he wrought such havoc as a persecutor and there to confess his guilt and testify of the Anointed One, may have appealed to his manhood. But he did not confer with flesh and blood; he did not follow his own reasoning. And why should he go to Jerusalem to consult with the other Apostles? Should he go there to report to them what happened, ask their council and gain their sanction? All this was unnecessary at the moment because he received his calling and commission from the Lord, and there was no need to go and consult any man about it. His independence of Jerusalem and his dependence on the Lord as His servant is thereby established. Those in Jerusalem did not make him an Apostle; the Lord Yeshua did this. After all, once the disciples were called and then sent out by the Anointed One, they didn’t go back to the Rabbis and Elders in Jerusalem to see if they approved.

After three years he went up to Jerusalem to visit with Peter. What happened during that visit? The Apostles did not meet in council to examine Paul about his experience and fitness to preach the Gospel. He did not seek the sanction or authority of the Jerusalem Church counsel, but he visited there with Peter for only fifteen days to become acquainted with him. The other Apostles did not see him at all, not even the beloved disciple, John. Only James the Lord’s brother. The many churches of Judæa did not know him by face but heard that the former persecutor now preached the faith he once tried to destroy.

All this proves his claim “an apostle not from men, nor through man,” notes Gaebelein, Afterwards he went into the provinces of Syria and Cilicia preaching and teaching his God-given Gospel everywhere. He tells the Galatians how little time he spent with Peter and the other Apostles. The false teachers brought this against him and challenged his authority as an Apostle on account of not being linked with Peter. He fully affirms all this and shows that his apostleship was entirely independent of Jerusalem and the twelve Apostles. And here we have the character of a true Final Covenant ministry. It is from the Lord, independent of mankind and ecclesiastical authority. Its message is the message of God, from God.¹ I don’t believe that Gaebelein is discounting the need and blessing of having the leadership of a church or denomination behind you. But that’s not where it begins. It starts with a calling from God through His Holy Spirit.

J. C. Philpot, a descendant from Huguenot Protestants,² has an interesting point of view on this verse. He feels that by looking at God’s people in general and their ordinary mode of spiritual living, the revelation of the Anointed One to the soul is a gracious internal discovery by the power of the Holy Spirit that reveals to them who the Anointed One really is by eyes of faith. Nothing is seen or heard by the bodily senses, and yet the presence of His glorious Person is as real as if He could be visibly seen, and His voice is as clear as if He could audibly be heard. It is as though the believer’s eyes and ears have seen His glory and listened to His words.

It is all the result of grace, entirely heavenly and divine, and, therefore, natural senses and reason have no place here. It is a divine bringing into the heart of the power and presence, grace and glory, love and blood of the Anointed One in a way that may only be felt spiritually. Under these spiritual operations and influences – for it is the Spirit’s work to take the things of the Anointed One and reveal them to the soul; it is the Spirit’s role to testify of Jesus – under these sacred influences, divine anointings, and gracious operations, the Anointed One is made known to the heart and looked up to by the spirit. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, the Anointed One is saying to all who believe in Him, “Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God; there is no other.³”⁴

Jewish scholar W. Adriaan Liebenberg offers some insights into what he sees here in relationship to Paul’s Jewish heritage. In spite of the fact that Paul’s letter was written in Greek, Liebenberg sees the reference here in Hebrew. So for a Jewish believer, the point Paul is trying to make begins in verses ten and eleven, and in the Jewish Bible this section reads: “Now does that sound as if I were trying to win human approval? No! I want Elohim’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. Furthermore, let me make clear to you, brothers, that the Good News as I proclaim it is not a human product; because neither did I receive it from someone else nor was I taught it – it came through a direct revelation from Yeshua the Messiah. ”

Paul makes it clear that he is not out to please people, but rather to please YaHWeh by teaching His will and using His Words and not the words of mankind. Where can these words of YaHWeH be found? Only in the Hebrew TaNaKh.⁵ No wonder Yeshua used the same reference to these documents consistently by saying, “It has been written.”⁶ Now Paul makes the claim that Jesus the Anointed One taught him the Good News. Does this mean that the Anointed One taught him anything that is not written in the Hebrew Scriptures? Definitely not! We can know this because of what is written in the Book of Acts.

Here we see that Paul used the Hebrew Scriptures to teach the truth of Jesus the Anointed One. If he did not, then the Jews of Berea would not have believed him at all.⁷ Paul taught only from the Hebrew Scriptures. Another fact is that the Final Covenant, especially the Book of Acts, was not yet written so it was impossible to quote from.⁸ It is very clear that Paul used the Scriptures, the TaNaKh, to teach about the Anointed One. So the Anointed One Himself did not teach Paul anything new that is not already found in the Hebrew Scriptures.⁹

Grant Osborne notes that Paul attended no classes, nor did he studied under any Christian teacher. The Gospel was given to him directly by “revelation from Jesus the Anointed One.” There is a question whether this should be interpreted as a general revelation or as a specific revelation. The latter is more likely, referring to the specific revelation Paul received from Jesus on the Damascus road.¹⁰ There is also a question whether this was “a revelation from Jesus” or “a revelation about Jesus.” It is likely that Paul was wanting to show that he received both revelations, they were already his. And he was crystal clear in verse sixteen that it was God who called him, and it was God’s Son Who was revealed to him. So since Yeshua is both God and man, then Paul fully understood about Yeshua from Yeshua.

Osborne points out that it is difficult to determine how much meaning to read into the word “revelation” (Greek apokalypsis) since this word normally has prophetic overtones dealing with the unveiling of God’s heavenly secrets about the last days. It is unlikely that Paul was thinking here of the second coming and the end of this age. Rather, he appears to be saying that the giving of the Gospel is part of the inauguration of the age to come, the age that began with the Anointed One’s incarnation. In the back of his mind may have been the kingdom truths represented in the Gospel of Mark,¹¹ which summarizes Jesus’ message as “The time has come. The kingdom of God has arrived. Repent and believe the Good News!” The main emphasis here, however, is on the Damascus road vision of the Anointed One who called Paul to be an Apostle and revealed to him these Gospel truths.¹²

English Sunday School teacher J. L. Nye offers this illustration on how the message that Paul brought to the Galatians was not something he or someone else made up. It was from God, and, therefore, possessed more power than anything he could have come up with. Nye says:

During the 1880s in Lawrence, England13 evangelist E. P. Hammond held an evangelistic campaign. As a result, several thousand were brought to the Lord. One of those was the wife of a local theater owner. So many townspeople were converted that both theaters in town went out of business. The husband, whose wife was converted, was so upset about this, plus the closing of their theater, it caused their marriage to suffer and they separated. He vowed secretly that if that evangelist ever came back to Lawrence he would kill him. Sure enough, two years later Evangelist Hammond was back for a special meeting. The theater owner sneaked in to get a good look at this culprit who ruined his marriage and business. The Spirit of the Lord was so strong that he ended up at the altar. At the end, he gave his testimony in which he revealed his intentions of harming the evangelist. He joined his wife’s church and became a co-laborer with other Christians to win more souls for the Anointed One in that town.14

No wonder Paul said with confidence that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation, of which he was not ashamed.¹⁵ So neither should we. Just remember, you will never be shamed by the Gospel if you are not ashamed of the Gospel. That’s why the writer of Hebrews said, Jesus, our leader, and teacher. He was willing to die a shameful death on the cross because of the joy He knew would be His afterward. So keep your eyes on Him.¹⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

PAUL’S LETTER TO THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

CHAPTER ONE (Lesson XXXVI)

Obviously, the Apostle Paul and his ministry are a prime example of just the opposite of what Brown describes. Paul’s dedication to his calling and ministry rose above all other things in his life. He willingly suffered end endured many things that he called small in comparison to what awaited him in heaven. Pleasing the One who called him was more important than pleasing himself or his admirers. The angels in heaven rejoiced over each new member born into God’s spiritual family.¹ And I agree with Brown, that the angels in heaven probably weep each time they see one of His chosen servants indulging in personal delights and ego trips rather than carrying their cross to the glory of God.

Johann Lange (1802-1884) sees a clear distinction made here by Paul as to his calling and his revelation. His calling came on the road to Damascus and later with the laying on hands by Ananias. But his revelation was soon to be described as three years in the Arabian desert before he ever went to Jerusalem to meet the Apostles.² So it appears that Paul must first meet the Anointed One, receive his calling, and then his anointing before he can understand anything about the Gospel the Anointed One was going to send him out to preach, especially to the Gentiles.³

James Barr Walker (1805-1887), professor of philosophy at Wheaton College, makes the comparison between a traveler being told by another traveler of a spring by the roadside. There is no reason to doubt someone who has been there and drank from the spring with water that strengthened them as it did many others. In the same way, the Apostle Paul says that what he knows about the Anointed One and the Gospel, was shared with him by the Holy Spirit.⁴ And that spring represented the promises of the First Covenant about who the Anointed One would be, all of which was fulfilled in Jesus the Anointed One. It’s not so much that Paul was given insight and knowledge that none of the other Apostles learned from Jesus. It was only that this was what made Paul believe what Jesus told him as opposed to not believing the Apostles when he was persecuting the Church.⁵

William O’Conor (1820-1887) touches on a point that so far has not been fully explored by other commentators. Paul was given the privilege of sitting in Jerusalem at the feet of the venerated Sanhedrin member, Rabbi Gamaliel. So he was very familiar with the Jewish form of teaching. In fact, when the Mishnah was composed by Rabbi Judah HaNasi (the Prince), the oral teachings of the Rabbis were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. The first known printed edition of the Mishnah was published by Joshua Solomon ben Israel Nathan Soncino on May 8, 1492.⁶

Before the times of Rabbi Judah, it was forbidden to write a public record of the Oral Law, although notes for teaching and private use were permitted. This prohibition existed for several reasons. First, because new situations always arise, writing down the Oral Law would limit its scope. Second, just as any complex body of knowledge, such as surgery, cannot be learned from textbooks alone but also requires interaction with a master teacher, so, too, the Oral Law cannot be fully understood without a living Rebbe to explain its meaning. Third, Gentiles could claim it as their own, saying they are the chosen Jewish people, much as they attempted to do based on their translation of the Bible. Without the oral interpretation of the Written Torah, it remains a sealed book, thus forestalling such claims. All those important ideas to the contrary, Rabbi Judah realized that Roman rule was only temporary. Eventually, times would become unstable again, and Jews would scatter throughout the world. It was thus necessary for every Jew to have a guidebook spelling out the major points of all the mitzvim (Laws).

So the Apostle Paul was very much aware of how these oral traditions slowly replaced the Torah as the guiding light for Judaism around the world. So he expressed no interest in seeing the Gospel, which contained the teachings of the Anointed One, following the same route. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened the last few years where Ministers cite a Scripture but never read it, and the text for their sermon is not from the Bible but from book or audio tape. No wonder Paul wanted the Galatians to know that he did not arrive at his understanding of the Gospel after years of listening to any oral traditional teaching. It was a revelation, just like John’s revelation on the Isle of Patmos, made possible by the Holy Spirit.

Theologian Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) thinks that Paul included the I as an unexpressed reference to the older Apostles; “for neither did I,” any more than the other Apostles, received it from a man, such as Peter, James, or John. But German Reformed theologian Friedrich Sieffert objects to this as improbable, because Paul makes no reference to the other Apostles up to this point. The Greek noun apokalypsis used here in verse twelve and translated “revelation” (KJV) signifies, literally, an uncovering, laying bare, unveiling, disclosing. And here in the Final Covenant it always denotes a disclosure of religious truth which was before unknown to the individual. This disclosure is made to the soul either by God himself or by the ascended Anointed One, especially through the operation of the Holy Spirit,⁷ and is in that way distinguished from other modes of instruction.

Hovey contends that a partial revelation of Christian truth, before unknown, was made to Paul when Jesus appeared to him on the way to Damascus; but we cannot suppose that his knowledge of the Gospel was completed at once. The most natural opinion would certainly seem to be this: that as, on the one hand, we may reverently presume that all the fundamental truths of the Gospel would be fully revealed to the Apostle Paul before he commenced preaching. So, on the other hand, it might have been ordained that its deepest mysteries and most profound harmonies should be seen and felt through the practical experiences of his apostolic labors. One cannot avoid speculating that during the first three years of Paul’s conversion a great part of the truth, which he was to preach as the only Gospel, was revealed to him with divine clearness and evidence.⁸

Prominent Northern Irish member of the Plymouth Brethren Movement, William Kelly (1821-1908) states there may be some who object to Paul’s claim of being an independent Apostle apart from the approval or ordination of the other Apostles. After all, they say, we do read of believers setting apart and laying on of hands in the Final Covenant. That is not to be argued, all Bible scholars accept that as being Scriptural. But in some cases, a person who exhibits excellent qualifications for the work of sharing and spreading the Gospel can be chosen by a local congregation and put in charge. They may lack the formal manner in which the church authorities appoint such pastors, but they are clothed with a certain dignity in the eyes of the saints to serve their needs.

For instance, says Kelly, we see that elders are not called “teachers” in Scripture, but simply that they are “likely to teach.”⁹ Their primary function is to oversee the work without being required to get a higher degree in teaching. The power in their teaching will make itself felt. Saints of God will always, in the long run, be obliged to accept it. That’s why when a person receives a gift from the Lord, they need not be worried about having the endorsement of those higher up in the Church just to make it valid. Since God gave the gift He will make it respected. But when there are ministers who have highly respectable qualities as teachers but without ministerial power, they may need to be invested with authority by those above them to be accepted by unspiritual people. Therefore, it seems we read of an Apostle going around and taking the lead in governing, appointing, advising, where certain insights were lacking among the saints.¹⁰

What Kelly is saying, is that a minister or teacher must, first of all, receive a calling from God before they accept a calling from church authorities. And where such individuals are planted in the Body of the Anointed One, but who are without any higher church authority to set them forth, their local congregation can recognize God’s calling on their life and receive them as preachers and teachers. But even as Paul did three years later, he sought out the senior Apostle Peter to get his recognition as being one sent by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. And if Peter suspected or detected that Saul of Tarsus was not a genuinely called servant of God, neither he, James, John, or the Council would have approved of his ministry, for he was equal to them in all facets of the ministry. This can be seen both in his calling and his instruction, even though he never mentions any other individual as being his teacher in the desert except the Spirit of Anointed One Himself.¹¹

Joseph Beet (1840-1924) feels that what Paul is trying to explain here is that the preaching of the true Gospel is not possible based on the powers of human intellectual discovery alone. It must be accompanied by a revelation received from God through the Anointed One. Just because someone tells you something they think the Bible says, it is not enough unless the Holy Spirit makes it clear to you.¹² Paul is referencing back to the revelation conveyed to him¹³ by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit¹⁴ of wisdom and revelation received at Damascus though¹⁵ the agency of Ananias. There is no reason to believe that all of this was instantaneous, but that it came progressively. He certainly knew of Jesus before his conversion, that’s why he persecuted Jesus’ followers and saw Stephen martyred. But he was ignorant, like Nicodemus, and needed to be born again before he could fully comprehend the kingdom of God.¹⁶

J. B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) sees Paul’s explanation of how he received the revelation of who Jesus really was and the Gospel that He brought to be transmitted to all mankind through preaching, was no different than that of the other Apostles. They too received this revelation directly from Jesus without it going through another medium such as John the Baptizer. Their three years of walking with Jesus was also similar to Paul’s three years in the Arabian Desert. So Paul was not trying to distinguish himself from the other Apostles as being better than they were.