Galatians Study

[alon]

Galatians Study

[This is a redacted version of several studies given by Rav S at Synagogue Beit Aveinu. This is done with his permission, and I’ll be sending him the link so he can check up on me if he wishes. I will also notify R Reuel of this thread since last time I did my own study he redacted most of it due to others questioning the Bible. So if the thread disappears, you’ll know I got spanked … it happens, even to moderators. Also if there are problems I may edit/redact/trash the whole thing myself. Galatians can be problematic, and I am not here to destroy anyone’s trust in God or His Word. I am leaving out some topics which caused controversy last time I did a study in this book. However this is one thing I guarantee will be thrown at you is some or all of Galatians. So it is important we understand it and know how to answer the things we’ll come up against; both for our own survival in the Word as Meshiachim, and so we can answer and maybe persuade our detractors or their audience.]

Our faith should not be in a book, but in G-d alone. Our Patriarch, Abraham, didn’t have a Bible yet he was a man of great faith. If every Bible was burned tomorrow it shouldn’t shake your faith one bit. You should know whom you serve.

Galatians is THE most misunderstood book in all of the B’rit Chadasha. Translational errors are rampant and because of that, anti-Semitism as well as anti-nomianism is readily available throughout the text. An antinomian is typically a Christian who holds that under the dispensation of grace the Old Testament law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary for salvation. One of the most asked questions put to Messianics is, “Haven’t you read Galatians?” They ask that because they think that Galatians is anti-Law and that G-d’s Laws have been done away with.

Galatians has been chronically misunderstood and misapplied, often at great cost to the Jewish people. Now, in order to understand all of this, you have to have a firm grip on the knowledge that these letters weren’t originally written in Greek. So before we start let’s first show that there were Jews in Galatia. Almost every Bible school teacher and commentator and preacher and Sunday school teacher assume that the people to whom Paul was writing in Galatia were Gentiles. It’s not even questioned at all in these institutions and their reply, if they are asked is, “Well, they were in Galatia, so they were Gentiles.” My reply back to them is, “Well, we have synagogues in America, so should we assume that their membership is primarily Native American?”

There were many Jewish settlements in Galatia founded by Antiochus the Great who sent many Jewish families to Asia Minor. These settlers pioneered synagogues in their towns and these are the very synagogues that Paul preached at. Let’s start there. If there’s still any doubt about the presence of Jews in Galatia then let’s read:

1 Peter 1:1 (CJB) From: Kefa, an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah To: God’s chosen people, living as aliens in the Diaspora — in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bythinia —

Ruins of synagogues can still be found today in Galatia. And letters were written to the Meturgan or the Chazan in the synagogue or the Gabbay Tzedikah: these were all leadership positions in every synagogue. ALL these positions had to be able to speak Hebrew in the synagogues in the Diaspora. So Rabbi Shaul didn’t have to write in Greek to anybody. It was said by the Rabbis in the first century, it is better to feed your son swine’s flesh then to teach him Greek.

And we won’t be looking only at the problems Galatians has, we’ll be looking at the good things it has to offer as well. Many Meshiachim think Galatians should be thrown out. I don’t believe in throwing out First Century books. There are good things in Galatians as well. But we won’t ignore the difficult passages as so many do; we’re going to face them head on.

First, there weren’t any “churches” then, so he was speaking to the synagogues in Galatia that had switched from whatever sect or school they were following and became a part of the sect of the Nots’rim.

But this letter wasn’t written to just one synagogue. It says “unto the churches (synagogues) of Galatia: plural. “Oh so this was to all the people within those various synagogues in Galatia.” Not necessarily. For some reason there is a disconnect when today’s church talks about the epistles. They act as if automatically these letters were written for everyone. Since when is every letter a public letter? “Well it says to the “brethren”.” Yes it does, but it doesn’t say which brethren. You may not be the brethren they’re talking to. We’re going to see in this teaching that not all of these letters were to be read publically. Some of these letters were written to the leaders of those synagogues and then those leaders were to use their best judgment and discernment in how to explain some of those principles to their individual congregations. The church today has become so self-centered that they just assume that everything is for them. No they’re not! There are promises in the Bible that are just for some of the Arabs, that’s a fact. We read in “Gen 21:13 “And also of the son of the handmaid will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.” That was a promise! Is it yours? NO!

Remember Galatia wasn’t a town it was quite a large area; most of modern Turkey, in fact. There were various towns in Galatia and various synagogues there. Some of these letters that Rabbi Shaul sent were encyclical. That means that the leaders of one synagogue read them. Then they were sent to another synagogue in Galatia. Sometimes those letters would even be sent to another synagogue in a completely different area like Laodicea if they were instructed to by Paul. We see an example of this in Col. 4:16 “And when this letter has been read among you, let it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and you in turn must read the one I am sending to Laodicea.” By the way, we don’t have that letter. It disappeared long ago.

Now, just to clear up this particular passage; where it says “church” in English, the word there in Greek is ecclesia, so that doesn’t necessarily mean it was read to the whole church congregation. Ecclesia can also mean a group of leaders like the Meturgan and the Chazzan and so forth. Many people think that ecclesia always means the church body, but it doesn’t. So now we know that this letter was to be passed from congregation to congregation, but not necessarily to be read publically. Let’s move on.

[note: I’ve skiped the introduction, verses 1-5, because studying them necessarily means looking at a lot of things that were problematic last time I tried this]

Galatians 1:6-7 (ESV) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

There is a problem here with poor exposition that is taught doctrinally. In other words, this doesn’t fit in with what the church teaches. Let’s look at it. It says that the Galatians have left the gospel for another gospel right. So, what is the Gospel? It’s the good news right? So according to the church what is the “Good News?” Most would say that the “Good News” is that Jesus came and died for our sins.

Mark 1:14 (YLT) And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,

So, Jesus is baptized and then he goes through the Galilee telling everyone the good news. The Good News according to the Church is that he was going to die for their sins and rise from the dead. Problem is, He didn’t tell anyone that He was going to die till much later on in His ministry. So that obviously isn’t the Good News. Him dying and raising from the dead is not the Gospel. In this context, Gal 1:6-7 doesn’t make any sense at all! I don’t care how you word it, the gospel equaling Jesus dying for our sins doesn’t fit in that passage anywhere.

The Gospel is Yeshua’s Mishna. A Mishna was something passed down from Rabbi to disciple. It contained the teachings of that Rabbi and various truths he gave and things that had happened under that Rabbi’s ministry, kind of like the books of Mathew Mark, Luke and John, you know, the gospels. Now let’s look at that passage in Galatians one more time and have a little understanding of what it’s saying:

6. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Mishna — 7. which is really no Mishna at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Mishna of Yeshua.

[Note that another term is the besorah; good tidings, news, essentially the statement of what all Yeshua did and said and His purpose in all these things. The entire Bible could be said to be the besorah of Yeshua, but in a nutshell it is that God makes a way for us to be reconciled to Himself.]

Paul originally went to some Synagogues in Galatia and he sways them into the truth and they become part of the sect of the Nots’rim, of which he was a ringleader:

Acts 24:5 We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.

Paul goes away for a while and they begin to go either back to the Mishna of their previous Rabbi, or they start learning the Mishna of some other Rabbi and it’s perverting the truth that Paul had shared with them about Yeshua. Probably the latter. Why do I say the latter?

Because of Franz Delitzch, a German theologian and Hebraist. Born in Leipzig, he held the professorship of theology at the University of Rostock from 1846 to 1850. Delitzsch wrote many commentaries on books of the Bible, Jewish antiquities, a history of Jewish poetry, as well as Christian apologetics. There weren’t any Messianics then, but he was about as close as those could get at that time. He says this passage where it says that they had turned to a different Mishna (good news); in Greek there it says “heteron evangelion”. Delitzsch points out that the Hebrew there would’ve been “besora zara” which means “a strange foreign gospel.” Besora zara is similar to Avodah Zara which is idolatry. I think Delitzsch is right because it fits the MO. Once people have been shown the truth and they then turn their back on it, they most often fall into idolatry and strange fire which in Hebrew is “esh zara.” Once people leave the truth, they throw out G-d’s Laws, their love for Yeshua has gone, then they are open to the Enemy’s attacks and like Lucifer they allow themselves to be overcome, rarely ever coming back to the truth. So I doubt they returned to the teachings of Rabbi Shammai; I think they went off the deep end altogether into a foreign and strange fire.

It’s surprising how quickly it can happen to someone, even someone who appears to be so strong in the faith. It should make complete sense to you now. Next verses:

Galatians 1:8-9 (ESV) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Angel means messenger. It can mean a human messenger or it can mean a spirit being messenger. We know which one it’s talking about here because it tells us; “But even if we or a messenger from heaven.”

We’re told in Church not to judge people, yet it says in 1 Cor 2:15 “But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” We’re taught that Jesus said not to judge anyone in Matt 7:1 “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” But in the very next verse “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In other words, if you judge righteously, you’ll be judged righteously. But if you judge unrighteously, you’ll be judged unrighteously.

Do you know why preachers tell their people not to judge anyone even though the Bible teaches us that we should? Two reasons: One - because it’s easier just to tell everyone not to judge than it is to train them in how to do it properly. It is really difficult to teach some people to use discernment. Reason two: they don’t want anyone going around judging people incorrectly and saying “Oh Pastor said it’s ok!” But as a spiritual leader, it still has to be done if someone wants to learn it. If no one wants to learn it, then you don’t have to teach them. The same goes for the members in a Synagogue; if someone doesn’t want to hear the truth, you don’t have to tell them. That’s why I tell people that Judaism is NOT a proselytizing religion. Any Jew will tell you that too. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform; you won’t find them knocking on doors trying to convert you.

“But Jesus changed all that when he told us all to go out into the world and preach the gospel”. No He didn’t. He told His ordained Rabbis (the sheliachim) to go to the nations (goyim) where the Jews were and tell them about His Mishna. If the Gentiles came into the Synagogues and wanted to convert, then you help them.

Galatians 1:10 (ESV) For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant [slave, bondservant] of Christ.

If that isn’t the motto of Observant Messianic Judaism, I don’t know what is. I can really feel Paul in this verse. He knew what he was about to say in his letter wasn’t going to be appreciated at all. And that’s usually the way it is. The truth usually fights against the flesh. I want to read to you a passage from Jeremiah. Let me preface this by saying in churches today I see people standing up and prophesying or giving a message telling the people that everything is going to be alright. You hear this kind of message even though the people of that congregation aren’t keeping G-d’s laws and thus not turning from wickedness. It’s all lies. These are the actual words of the L-rd concerning those people giving those kinds of prophecies while the congregation keeps moving in sin:

Jeremiah 23:16-22 This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep saying to those who despise me, ‘The LORD says: You will have peace.’ And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, ‘No harm will come to you.’ But which of them has stood in the council of the LORD to see or to hear his word? Who has listened and heard his word? See, the storm of the LORD will burst out in wrath, a whirlwind swirling down on the heads of the wicked. The anger of the LORD will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart. In days to come you will understand it clearly. I did not send these prophets, yet they have run with their message; I did not speak to them, yet they have prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways and from their evil deeds.

If you hear someone stand up in church and say that, then you may have heard an actual word from God. Otherwise, you just may be hearing someone seeking approval from human beings.

I want to quote Dr. Yosef Shulam on this portion, “As G-d’s agent Paul is responsible to G-d alone not in any way to men or women. He bears G-d’s authority and must declare G-d’s intentions and desires even when they fit neither human sensibilities nor creaturely sensitivities.” Dr. Shulam isn’t saying that Paul didn’t have to submit to the leaders of the Messianic Congregation in Jerusalem, because we know Paul did submit to them; he’s saying that ultimately he had to do what G-d had told him to do.

Galatians 1:11 (ESV) For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. [or not according to man]

Now we see here that Paul is addressing them as whom? Brothers! How in the world is he calling them brothers if they’re into idolatry, following strange fire? Again we have to understand who he is writing to. He’s writing to the leaders of the congregation. They’re not the ones falling away; it’s their people that are turning to another Mishna.

Just because he says “YOU” are doing such and such, it doesn’t mean everyone. We do the same thing in English. I can write the word “you” meaning an individual or I can write you meaning everyone there. The commentators just lump everyone into the same category and you can’t do that with scripture or you will arrive at some false conclusions. If he’s calling them “brothers” then that means that nobody he’s writing to there is following another gospel. Otherwise he couldn’t call them brothers.

He also says there “the Good News as I proclaim it is not a human product;” In other words, the Mishna, or besorah as I proclaim, it is not a human product. Every time you see the word “Gospel,” translate it in your head as mishna or besorah and that will help you out in understanding what’s being said.

So what does he mean that it’s not a human product? Well, you remember what happened to Paul… before he was saved, he was out killing Nots’rim. Then one day he was struck blind by the L-rd, and Yeshua said to him (in the Hebrew language!), “Why are you persecuting me?” So he received this revelation, this story, this message, this Mishna from Yeshua, not from man, and he verifies that it was from Yeshua in the very next verse:

Galatians 1:12-13 (ESV) For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in [traditional] Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.

So it was from Yeshua, not man, and I like the way that Dr. Stern translates this portion. Let’s look at the KJV and we’ll see the difference, 13 “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:” There it sounds like he’s detached now from the Jews. But Stern translates it correctly: 13 “For you have heard about my former way of life in [traditional] Judaism” It doesn’t sound like he’s left Judaism when it’s put this way.

[Unfortunately, most modern translations follow the KJV’s lead and translate similarly. That indoctrination in false teaching runs deep in Christianity.]

Galatians 1:13 (NIV) For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

And notice that Stern says traditional Judaism. Traditional Judaism meant at that time from one of the main schools, either Hillel or Shammai. We know he wasn’t of the school of Nicodemus back then because in Nicodemus’ school they taught that Yeshua was the Messiah. The Talmud gives us more information concerning Nicodemus. It says he was a wealthy and popular holy man and one of three of the most powerful men in all of Israel. That’s why the New Testament says he was a “ruler of the Jews”. He was also reputed to have been able to perform miracles. That’s not difficult to believe as many of Yeshua’s disciples could perform miracles. We know that Paul was originally of the school of Hillel which was taught at that time by Hillel’s student and grandson, Rabbi Gamaliel son of Rabbi Simeon. Paul couldn’t have possibly stayed with that school because he was given permission from his Rabbis to go and kill the first Messianics. Rabbi Gamaliel would’ve never allowed that. Rabbi Gamaliel was the one who helped set free Peter and some of the other disciples.

Acts 5: 34-39 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, “Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”

So obviously Paul switched to another sect. The Shamamites were closely connected to Sicarii, a group of zealots who wouldn’t have any problem killing people who they thought were heretics. In fact, Josephus tells us that the Zealots in expectation of the Roman siege in AD 70, that Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food. But the Zealots burned the entire supply, hoping that by destroying this "security blanket" it would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. They didn’t care if everyone died of starvation just as long as they fought the Romans to the death. They were relentless, just as Paul was relentless towards the Nots’rim.

Galatians 1:14 (ESV) And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

Again, we see it’s all in how it’s translated…. It sounds so much different when what we read in the King James Version, 14 “And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” “Profited in the Jews’ religion,” again there it sounds like now it’s not his faith and before you know it, Paul’s a Christian, and stands against the Jews. But that’s a misreading of the text.

So why did the KJV translate this so it sounds like Paul was no longer a Jew? Because the KJV was translated during a very anti-Semitic time. The Crusades were just coming to an end in 1600 and the Crusaders killed thousands of Jews. The KJV, was translated by the Church of England in 1604 and completed in 1611. It wasn’t until 1650 that Jews were allowed to return to England and given back their rights of citizenship. So you can’t persecute the Jews on the one hand and make them look good in your Bible on the other. And this translation was political from the outset, even being named for the King of England- who erroneously had his own chapter named in it. Many or even most translations since have taken their cues from the King James Version and those same anti-Semitic sentiments simply passed on to these newer translations.

[alon]

[Note: I've deleted a large portion dealing with copies of the Kethuvai Sheliachim (apostolic writings) as containing things which, when I brought them up early on last time even in one short paragraph, they caused an uproar.]

Basically, if you want to know what is meant in Galatians, go back to . If it matches , then it’s good. If it doesn’t match , then there’s a problem.

It had gotten to the point at the Second Temple period that the people were saying there were two Torahs. Rabbi Hillel was taking positions way over to one side on various topics while Rabbi Shammai was taking an opposite approach on various topics. The Sadducees had thrown out the oral traditions all together. The Essenes had withdrawn themselves from society, as had others. Then Yeshua came and showed the correct way. He showed the true path. And many of all the sects followed Him. Finally; getting to hear the truth is like water to a man dying of thirst. When Yeshua said He was the living waters, imagine how some of his followers felt at that moment.

1 Corinthians 9:21 (ESV) To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

Churches have taken that to mean that Paul stopped keeping the Law. But that’s not what it says. It says very clearly that he was NOT free from G-d’s Laws. Some like to point out in that verse that it says he was under Christ’s Law not G-d’s Law; but if Jesus is God, then Paul is under the same law. So you have to be able to get to their level and become as them in your frame of mind for the purpose of trying to reach them. It doesn’t mean you become a heathen, it means you try to understand them.

So as we study Galatians, we want to keep both frames of mind. Understand where the church dogmas have left the average Christian when talking to them. By doing this we’ll know the truth and we’ll also learn how to be able to defend G-d’s Laws using Galatians. It can be done.

Back to Galatians chapter 1. Here we have Paul writing to the Synagogues that he had won over to the sect of the Nazarenes and after he was gone for a little while, the members in the congregation started to fall away.

Galatians 1:15-16 (ESV) But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;

It sounds like it’s saying that Paul was called to the heathen even before he was born. Dr. Stern’s translations sounds very similar:

Galatians 1:15-16 (CJB) But when God, who picked me out before I was born and called me by his grace, chose to reveal his Son to me, so that I might announce him to the Gentiles, I did not consult anyone;

It’s really important that you remember that Israel can be called “goy” or “goyim” (pl.), a.k.a. “nations.” If you remember this it will keep you from falling into the Ephraimite Heresy also known as Two-House theology. And it will help you understand what really happened with the gentiles in the first century and with Paul’s ministry. So Gentiles here should be translated "nations," which includes Israel.

Exodus 19:6 (ESV) “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

The word nation there is 'goy'! Once we understand that then every time we see that Paul was preaching to the “goyim” it doesn’t always mean he was preaching to the Gentiles. “But what about Acts 14:1-2?”

Acts 14:1-2 (ESV) Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

“See, there were great multitudes of Gentiles that were saved!” Look closely at what it says and think; they spoke at the local synagogue. The synagogues there weren’t that big. Also notice it says vast multitudes of Jews too. You have to point that out, because the premise that the church has been putting forth is that the Jews rejected Jesus and so Paul went to the Gentiles and they came into the faith by huge numbers.
Truth is, neither of those ideas is actually right; no vast multitude got saved in Iconium, Jew or Gentile. The word multitude there in Greek is 'plethos' and it can also mean the “assemblage”: Vines, “Plethos: the whole number, the whole multitude, the assemblage.” The historian Strabo who lived during that time (64/63 BC – 24 AD)) said that Iconium was a “small place” (xii. p.568).

“Then why does it say “multitudes” in the New Testament?” It says “plethos” an assemblage. So do you see what happened there with the translators? The Church Fathers and the translators all want the New Testament so badly to say that the Jews rejected Jesus and the Gentiles welcomed him with open arms by the millions, and they have brainwashed all Christianity to take this view. Yes, you have to look at it through Jewish eyes to pick it out, but it’s there if you care to look.

Galatians 1:16a (ESV) was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles,

Wow, he got saved and was called to the Gentiles. But remember, that goyim can also mean nations, which would include Yisroel. We’re taught in Bible School he was called to the Gentiles at the point of salvation; here’s their proof text:

Acts 26:14-17 (ESV) And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you.

“Delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you” sounds like more of a reassurance that God will protect him. Even if this is not the case, however, the most that can be said here is Rav Sha’ul was sent to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

But the church says “See, right there at his point of conversion, he received his calling!” Well, what does he actually do?

Acts 9:18-20 (ESV) And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”

He was in Damascus, a Gentile country; Gentiles everywhere you looked as far as the eye could see- and he goes straight to the Synagogue. If I had just gotten Saved and I felt I had a calling to the Swiss; and say there I was in Switzerland and the mission field was right out my front door, I think I’d go talk to the Swiss outside. I don’t think I’d go to the local American hangout and preach to them. Yet we’re to believe that there’s this huge calling on his life to reach out to the Gentiles, and he ignores them and goes to Synagogue to win them over instead.

One may say, well, he was supposed to go to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. If that’s true, which it is, then his calling is to the Jews. If I was to say that my callings is to the Swiss first and then to the Chinese, guess who I’m called to. I’m called to the Swiss! If I meet some Chinese while I’m in Switzerland and there’s no other Swiss around, I’m all theirs. It’s really that simple. We’ve been taught by the Church to over complicate matters so that they can force feed us their line of religion that is contrary to the text book they’re trying to teach us from. I’m not saying the Church isn’t getting anything right, but that’s the problem, we’re not supposed to settle for their getting some things right.

Galatians 1:17 (ESV) nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

After Paul was struck blind he was led by the hand to Damascus to meet Ananias. Ananias was a Messianic, and here’s what it says about him:

Acts 22:12 (ESV) “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,"

Why’s he keeping if he’s covered by grace? This is after the death and resurrection of Jesus and he’s keeping the Law! One cannot reasonably read this verse and think that the Law has been done away with.

So Paul went to Damasek (Damascus) and then he went to Saudi Arabia. Why’d he go to Saudi? Probably to go to Mt Sinai. The real Mt. Sinai is not at St. Kathryn's down in the Negev where the tourists are taken, but rather in Saudi Arabia. Paul probably went to Mt. Sinai in order to spend time with and to receive some counseling directly from Yeshua. You have to understand, Paul had been killing the Nazarenes. He didn’t know they were the good guys. He thought he was helping G-d; he thought he was doing the right thing. All of a sudden he finds out that he was on the wrong side. The faces of each of the people he’d killed are now flooding through his mind. Without counseling directly from Yeshua, he may have gone insane. In times of great introspection, it wasn’t uncommon for Jews in ancient times to make a pilgrimage to Mt. Sinai.

Elijah did the same thing. In 1 Kings we read the story of how Jezebel was making Elijah’s life so miserable Elijah asked G-d to take him home. The passage says that He goes to Beer Sheva and sits under a broom tree (not a juniper tree like the KJV says). The only thing that provides any shade down there are broom trees, which are more like bushes. After that Elijah goes to Mt. Sinai and there, the L-rd ministers to him.

So Paul made the trip and while there he became a Shaliach Tzibur. Shaliach Tzibur is where we get the word Apostle. Sometimes we just say the Shaliach. There were different positions within the Synagogue and one of those positions is the Shaliach Tzibur.

a·pos·tle (ə-pŏs′əl) n. a.) (Bible) one of the 12 disciples chosen by Christ to preach his gospel. b.) (Ecclesiastical) any prominent Christian missionary, esp one who first converts a nation or people

Shaliach literally means announcer and Tzibur literally means public. So Public Announcer, but it means Agent of the Community or representative of the community. The Shaliach Tzibur is a well-known position in the Synagogue and it’s written about extensively in Rabbinical writings. Josephus even uses the Greek form of the word apostolos (apostle) when referring to a group sent on a diplomatic mission. You can also use the term secularly; it depends on the context. But when used in a religious context it has a specific meaning and we know at length what that position entailed in the first century. The Shaliach was the representative of the Synagogue or even the entire sect. You could have many within a sect. The sect of the Nots’rim had many Shaliachs. The 12 were Shaliachs, Paul became a Shaliach, Silas was a Shaliach and Yeshua was a Shaliach. What? How could Yeshua be an apostle? Because he was the leader of the sect. The New Testament doesn’t dispute that.

Hebrews 3:1 (ESV) Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession,

If you went by Christian theology and thought an apostle meant a disciple or any Christian teacher, Hebrews 3:1 wouldn’t make any sense to you. But now that you know that it means a representative of the community, now it can come into the light. In church we were taught that an Apostle was one of the twelve original “Christian” Disciples. Yeshua was not a disciple of Yeshua. Neither was He a Christian. There were no Christians at that time! Another popular definition of Apostle is he had to be someone who actually saw Jesus. There’s a variation of that one where they say one had to have seen him and had to be a witness to the resurrection. Their “proofs”:

1 Corinthians 9:1 (ESV) Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?

Rav Sha’ul is simply reminding them who he is. He’s saying to them I’m not some slave, I’ve been around, and free. Not only that, I’m an apostle and I’ve even seen the Messiah with my own eyes. Moreover I am the one who brought you the gospel! It’s his own credentials, not an apostolic checklist.

Acts 4:33 (ESV) And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

This doesn’t mean you have to have seen Jesus in order to be an apostle. All this means is that the apostles at that time saw the resurrection and it was powerful. Nowhere does it say it is a requirement to have seen the resurrection to be an apostle.

Acts 1:20-26 (ESV) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

There were 11 Shaliachim, or Apostles left after Judas. If you were going to be one of the 12 you had to be an apostle, that’s true; the criteria to be one of the 12 was to be an apostle. The criteria for being an apostle was not that you had to see Jesus. You had to see Jesus to be one of the 12. You see, they’re mixing up the terms and thus the criteria. Easy to understand if you don’t read it with Christian interjection, but rather read it with a Jewish Perspective. Even the Christians call him the “Apostle Paul,” yet they persist in these contradictory definitions. Rav Sha’ul did not witness the resurrection, and he was not one of the 12. Yet he was a Sheliach; an apostle.

And Paul was NOT the apostle to the gentiles. No, he was the apostle to the goyim, the apostle to the nations. He was the Shaliach that was first appointed to go to various countries and tell the Jews of those nations the Mishna of Yeshua and that he died for their sins if they repented and paid restitution for the sins they committed. This is in line with Scripture. Any other Gospel is not the gospel of Yeshua.

Why do I sometimes call him Rabbi Sha’ul rather than Paul? Didn’t Jesus change his name to Paul after he converted? Well, first of all, what did he convert from? “Well he converted from Judaism to Christianity.” No he did not. Christianity didn’t exist. “Well he left Judaism to become a Nazarene.” No, the Nazarenes are a part of Judaism; it’s a sect, a section of Judaism. He never converted from one faith to another, he simply switched sects. That wasn’t a big deal back then. Jews switched all the time. Paul had even switched once before he became a follower of Yeshua. He had been a Hillelite and then he switched over to become a Shammaimite and then he switched again and became a Nazarene. So this whole idea that we’re taught in Church that Saul converted to Christianity and then his name was changed to Paul is all myth.

Paul wasn’t even a name that he selected for himself. The Romans placed these names on their citizens if they had a foreign given name. It was no choice of Shaul’s or G-d’s. In fact, Jews didn’t like these pagan, Greek names and wouldn’t use them unless they had to. They preferred, by far, their given Jewish names. The names their parents gave them. So the Church as a whole doesn’t really understand Paul’s name or what an apostle is, or what the gospel is; so what’s really left? They’ve taken the Jewishness out of Scripture, the culture, the background, the language; and we’re left with no context or understanding. It’s all very disappointing.

Galatians 1:18 (ESV) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

So we had read before that Rav Sha’ul had gone to Saudi, probably to Mt. Sinai to get council from Yeshua. And then he goes back to Damascus, stays in Damascus for three years then heads to Jerusalem and stays with Peter for 2 weeks. Now the Bible teachers seize on this seemingly insignificant little bit of information and they draw some conclusions from it. One writes,

“Paul is careful to number his years and even count his days: three years after his conversion he spent only fifteen days with Peter. The contrast he draws between the comparatively long time apart from any contact with the apostles and the brief time with Peter highlights his independence.”

Sounds fine at first but then you have to think, what does he need independence for? Then as you dig deeper into the commentaries some things begin to show. You’re all familiar with Mathew Henry, one of the most famous Bible commentators. He’s not the only one that teaches this, they all do but let’s look at what he has to say:

“He acquaints them how he behaved himself hereupon, from Gal. 1:16; to the end. Being thus called to his work and office, he conferred not with flesh and blood. This may be taken more generally, and so we may learn from it that, when God calls us by his grace, we must not consult flesh and blood. But the meaning of it here is that he did not consult men; he did not apply to any others for their advice and direction; neither did he go up to Jerusalem, to those that were apostles before him, as though he needed to be approved by them, or to receive any further instructions or authority from them: but, instead of that, he steered another course, and went into Arabia, either as a place of retirement proper for receiving further divine revelations, or in order to preach the gospel there among the Gentiles, being appointed to be the apostle of the Gentiles; and thence he returned again to Damascus, where he had first begun his ministry, and whence he had with difficulty escaped the rage of his enemies, Acts 9:20-25.”

So what he’s saying there is Paul went to Arabia because he didn’t need approval of the 12 in Jerusalem, because what he got was directly from G-d, etc. etc. What I recall is Yeshua Himself establishing the authority of the Church to Peter, the rock of the Church (Synagogue). If M. Henry is correct, and he’s not, then Paul was in rebellion against the present authorities and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft!

But that’s not what really happened. The commentators and the translators make Paul into one of the most arrogant people in all of history! Can you imagine for a moment, Paul is responsible for killing many Nazarenes and then he switches to their sect and he has the audacity to say he doesn’t need the authorities that the founder of the sect had established? Both of these commentators are highlighting the independence of Paul from the Disciples. Here’s the first one again:

“Paul is careful to number his years and even count his days: three years after his conversion he spent only fifteen days with Peter. The contrast he draws between the comparatively long time apart from any contact with the apostles and the brief time with Peter highlights his independence.”

Why this need for independence? This is a set up! This is the kickoff to Gentilize Paul. “He’s not like the Disciples, he’s different. He fights against those Judaizers back in Jerusalem, he’s the apostle to the Gentiles, he’s our guy!” And it all begins right there. This initial doctrine from the commentators goes clear back to the Church fathers. When reading this about Paul not needing the disciples, you’re watching the disappearance of the Jewishness of Rabbi Shaul right in front of your eyes. “He doesn’t need the Apostles, he doesn’t need the other Jews, and He doesn’t need authority from Jerusalem. Now armed with his non-Jewish name he only answers to G-d.”

If only they could find a way to Gentilize Jesus. Oh that’s right they did that when they de-Judaized the Galilee, starting by calling it the Galilee of the Gentiles in their New Testament translations instead of what it was directly quoting in the old Testament in Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:1 (ESV) But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.

Matthew 4:15 (ESV) “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—

All these things need to be reversed.

[alon]

[This is a heavily redacted version of this teaching. However there is still so much good information here- information I know at some point you will need in order to answer Christian detractors, many of who will launch attacks based on this information as soon as they find you are Messianic. I know this because it has happened to me more than once. And Rav S has so generously consented to my posting this here, so I could not pass on the opportunity to let you read it from someone who knows.]

Over the years I’ve been accused of being anti-Gentile because I talk positively about the Jews and I don’t just hand over all the Jewish promises to the Gentiles, no questions asked. The Gentiles have promises but so do the Jews. But it’s kind of silly to think I’m anti-Gentile. I’m not 100% Jewish by blood. After our Patriarch Jacob’s son’s, never again was there a pure blooded Jew anyhow. The sons of Jacob married Gentiles and thus our blood line was cut in half right at that time. So truth be told, I have more Gentile blood in me then I do Jewish blood, and so does every Jew out there. So to say I have something against Gentiles would mean I have something against myself. Do I identify more with my Jewish side?

Yes! Because I’ve chosen to. But that doesn’t mean I hate my son, who also has Gentile blood in him. I don’t have anything against any Gentile just because they’re Gentiles. So why do I say that Paul isn’t the apostle to the Gentiles, isn’t that anti-Gentile? “Why don’t you want Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles?” First of all, I only want the truth! I don’t care on which side it falls on. If he’s the apostle to the Gentiles, then great, but if he isn’t then I won’t settle for saying he is. However all the evidence points to Paul being an apostle to the Jews.

There’s a big misunderstanding in the first place concerning G-d’s calling to the Jewish people. Most Christians feel that since Jesus said he was called to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that now they need someone to be called to them. That’s the wrong way to understand it. Yeshua knew that if he could get some Jews on fire about the sect of the Nazarenes, they’d eventually go out into all the world and lead Gentiles to the truth.

Jews are a very determined people, you can call it stiff necked if you like, but the word in Hebrew isn't quite so rude. But once we get ahold of G-d we don’t let go easily. Just look at some of the old Nazi movies and you’ll see Jews die for the things they believe in. Or read the books of the Maccabees or many other historical writings and you’ll see our determination is quite clear. So G-d knew and so did Rav Sha’ul that if you got enough Jews Saved they could light up the world and the Gentiles would start flowing in soon after. Where does that determination come from? It comes from studying , because it doesn’t take a whole lot of study before you realize there’s a G-d and that he requires your service.

One might ask, are you saying this is all a Jewish thing? It’s all about the Jews? Pretty much. It’s not a democracy; the Jews win. It’s better you hear it now rather than later. The good news is, you can become a Jew any day you want to. Start keeping G-d’s laws and attend Synagogue. You don’t have to be born a Jew- we have converts just like anybody else.

The Laws are good for you; they were made with love, they help you live a happier life and they help you make better choices. Take the law forbidding pork for example: eating pork causes toxins in the body. The poisonous substances contained in pork, called sutoxins, cause most of the illnesses which are chronic and difficult to treat. No pork? Good idea. G-d probably knows what he’s doing.

Back to Paul. Rabbi Shaul would never have felt he didn’t need the apostles’ help and instruction. The real Rabbi Shaul would have no part in such thinking. The thing he’d want to do most is receive instruction from the Talmidim, from the Disciples who walked and talked with Yeshua. The Disciples were the most G-dly men who have ever walked the face of the earth since their time. Rabbi Shaul wouldn’t try to avoid them or think he could work independently from them. These were his new brothers and sisters in Yeshua. Remember, Rabbi Shaul had killed their friends and possibly even some of their family members. He would not be such a monster as to go to them thinking he didn’t need their approval. It’s disgusting to think he’d behave in such a way.

Also, these commentators, by taking away Shaul’s Jewishness they’ve taken away his redemption and the Disciples opportunity for forgiveness and they’ve unwittingly turned him into an arrogant villain. The commentators just didn’t think that far ahead. But as long as Paul’s a Gentile, the commentators don’t care about logical conclusions. They don’t care, just as long as they got “their guy!” Well, I’m sorry, Paul is not their guy today and he was not their guy yesterday or ever. He was a Jew, a P’rush (Pharisee) of the tribe of Benyamin and he embraced his calling to His Jewish people who he showed how to be more Jewish. The Church will tell you that Paul drove people away from Judaism, I’m telling you he drove them deeper into it. He talked male adults into circumcising themselves. I’ve yet to be able to achieve those kinds of persuasion skills.

The attitude that Paul had when he went to Jerusalem was that of a broken man ready to submit to the leaders who Yeshua had established here on earth. We have to remember Yeshua is the one who established them! So any portrayal of Paul other than that shows a gross lack of understanding of who Paul really was. No blinded commentator is going to tell me anything different on that topic. Didn’t need their approval; you must be joking!

And people think this stuff is in the Bible, they think G-d said it. G-d didn’t say it, it was Mathew Henry. You’d be surprised how many Pastors have put these commentators up on pedestals. They’re their heroes. So that’s the setup behind their pitch, that Paul didn’t need the Disciples. This part of their story is their starting point no matter if it’s in Galatians or back in Acts.

So Rav Shaul goes to Kefa, Peter, and stays with him for two weeks. Why Peter? Well, because Peter was a very influential member of the Twelve. He’s not the bumbling, clumsy fool he’s often made out to be. Peter was a businessman. He owned his own boat in the Galil: that’s like owning a million dollar fishing boat today! And he had employees. Another reason we know he was well to do is because His house was very close to the Synagogue in Capernaum. Having a house so close to the Synagogue was a sign of affluence.

If you lived close to the Synagogue, you were somebody. It’s still that way to this very day. When you see an Orthodox Synagogue, you can bet the houses close by are owned by wealthy Jews. Peter was influential and he was the rock, the Tzur that Yeshua built his Synagogue on. By the way, this was quite a thing for Yeshua to say to Kefa. That he was the rock that His Synagogue was built on. Many don’t realize, this is when Yeshua appointed the first Shaliach Tzibur. In order to understand this we have to understand more about this position of the Shaliach also known as the apostle.
The Shaliach Tzibur was a representative of the Synagogue. The one who appoints that Sheliach bestows on that person his authority. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the Sheliach becomes the one who commissioned him. In Kefa’s case his Rabbi, Yeshua. The Sheliach isn’t just the Rabbi’s messenger, he’s to be treated as if he’s the Rabbi himself. Unless that Shaliach commits a crime, he’s responsible just as the one who commissioned him is responsible. If he commits a crime, the Rabbi is not held responsible. Otherwise he’s just like the Rabbi. Now you can run too far with this. You can’t say that Peter is now the Messiah because he became a Sheliach commissioned by Yeshua; but he does become tied to his commissioner.

Dr. Joseph Shulam is a true scholar in both Hebrew and Greek as well as Messianic Judaism and Christianity. He writes in his commentary on Galatians page 3:

“The concept of the Sheliach is well established in Judaism. In Jewish texts it designates a legal principle whereby a person, the principle, is enabled to perform a legal act through another, the agent, in order to extend his possible field of legal activity.” He then goes on to quote first century Jewish Law (Ber. 5:5) “which establishes that a man’s agent (Sheliach) is like to himself in the areas of heave offerings, sacrifices, civil law, recovery of debts, betrothal, and divorce.” That means the Sheliach can perform marriages and divorces and so forth just like his Rabbi.

This means Peter was given a lot of authority by Yeshua. Dr. Shulam said that this appointment of the Sheliach was given verbally. Now you may remember the prophecy concerning the messiah:

Isaiah 28:16 (ESV) therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’

This is almost identical to what Yeshua told Peter when Yeshua made him a Sheliach. It’s as if Peter became his commissioner. Yeshua told Peter:

Matthew 16:18 (ESV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

He’s saying Peter you are a stone, a stone on which I’ll build my foundation. Do you hear the verbiage being used here? Not only was Peter being ordained at this time, he was also commissioned as a Sheliach at this time and we’re given the very words of his appointment and Christian scholars don’t even realize it because they refuse to investigate the Judaic roots of our faith! I’m not saying that Peter took over being the corner stone for Yeshua or anything, its two different senses. Yeshua is the cornerstone of the entire faith but Peter was the corner stone for the Messianic community. But I truly believe Yeshua was doing a very effective and powerful play on words here with Kefa and the event of his becoming an apostle, an agent of his commissioner, a Sheliach Tzibur. One may say that Peter was an apostle before this time, before Yeshua said “and on this rock I will build my Community,” and point out the word apostle being used earlier on in the gospels such as:

Mark 6:30 (ESV) The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught.

“This is right at the very beginning of Mark, so they must have been apostles by that time, right after they’d been selected to be a part of the 12.” No, that’s not true. Just because they’re called apostles in retrospect doesn’t mean they had already been commissioned as apostles. For example, one could be speaking about my dad and say, “Dr. Chester was in the Navy.” Does that automatically mean that he was a Dr. while he was in the Navy? Of course not. Even though they were not apostles at that time, they’re still called apostles by the writers. Saying that they were made apostles that early on when Yeshua had recently selected them shows a lack of knowledge concerning the training involved in being a Sheliach for the Synagogue. It takes time to get to that kind of position. It’s not like, “Hey you busy, wanna be a Sheliach?” They had to be able to do everything the one who commissioned them could do. Yeshua was a bona fide Rabbi so the Disciples had to undergo some rigorous and intensive training before becoming apostles. Not just school five days a week, they had to live with Yeshua to get that kind of training and Yeshua would’ve had to travel around and be in various situations in order for them to get the experience they would need in a short 3 and a half years. Yeshua wasn’t just wandering around Israel aimlessly with some followers. It was the most intensive field trip you could ever imagine. There are certain things that cannot be taught in a classroom setting. He had to give the Talmidim some real life examples and experience.

Galatians 1:19 (ESV) But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

At this point Shaul mentions also James. The name James there should actually be Jacob. In Greek Jacob is IAKOBOY; but that was still too Jewish sounding to some translators, so they passed it through the Latin and combined it with some Celtic and it came out Iames, then to James once the English language developed the letter “J”. I prefer the name Ya’akov or Jacob to the name James because James has an anti-Semitic slant built into its name. So he meets with Jacob (a.k.a. James) and that must be quite a humbling experience for Shaul. Jacob/James was well known in Israel. Josephus even knows about him, and insists that the death of Ya’akov was the reason the Jewish people believed Jerusalem fell. Josephus wrote: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus known as Christ, for though he was the most Righteous of men, the Jews put him to death."

Ya’akov was well known as a holy man. Now some non-believing Jews today say that this part in Josephus is an interpolation, that it was added by later Scribes. I disagree because Origen talks about that quote as early as the first century. He writes: "Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

Not only had many of the Jews believed that, the early Christians believed that’s why Jerusalem fell too. None of the early Church Fathers said that Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews killed Jesus, they said it was destroyed because they killed James. There are many Christians today who think that Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews killed Jesus, but their own Church Fathers never believed that. There were some other Rabbinical Rabbis in the first century who believed that Jerusalem was destroyed because of Lashon Hara, speaking evil against each other. But many of them thought it was because they had killed James the Just, the brother of the L-rd.

So here Rabbi Shaul meets Ya’akov, and it must’ve been quite a thing. Ya’akov was a Nazorite from birth. Both Eusibius and Epiphanius testify to that. Ya’akov didn’t eat grapes or drink wine or cut his hair as well as all the other things that were incorporated into being a Nazorite. So his being a Nazorite from birth tells us something about Mary the Mother of Yeshua doesn’t it? It tells us that she was a Nazorite at the time she gave birth to Ya’akov a.k.a. James the Just. That’s not difficult for me to understand. Earlier in her life, an angel comes and tells her she’s going to give birth to the Son of G-d. She’s a virgin and she does give birth. Time for some drastic measures. The most drastic thing you can do in Judaism is become a Nazorite. I’m sure she felt like she needed some extra direction from G-d, seeing her particular calling. We don’t know how long she was a Nazorite. She had obviously finished that oath by the time Yeshua died but we don’t know how long before that she finished her oath. But it’s interesting to know that she had taken it at some point.

So Rav Sha’ul meets this ascetic Ya’akov. That must have been some meeting!

Now the teaching that Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles starts off like this: “Before Jesus came, G-d dealt with Israel. But when Jesus came, that all changed and then Paul was sent to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected Jesus.” Here’s yet another reason why that scenario can’t be true:

Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

If one wants to say “apostle to the Gentiles” then they need to be consistent and translate that Jeremiah was a prophet to the Gentiles. Greater to be a prophet than a sheliach, an apostle. If there wasn’t any major representative to the Gentiles before Jesus, then what was Jeremiah?

See the problem here? But when it came to Jeremiah, they said, prophet to the nations instead of prophet to the Gentiles. If they would've translated it “prophet to the Gentiles”, that could’ve raised some questions about the whole, “G-d was dealing with Israel in the Old Testament but then with the gentiles in the New Testament” theology. But the translators take advantage of people who don’t know Greek or Hebrew. Even Messianic translators sometimes go along with it, because that’s what they’ve always been taught.

The truth is, Jeremiah was a prophet to the nations and Paul was an apostle to the nations. In fact, that’s who Paul was likening himself to. He was comparing himself to Jeremiah. When they both talk about their calling, here’s what they said:

Galatians 1:15 (ESV) But when he who had set me apart before I was born [or set me apart from my mother's womb], and who called me by his grace,

Paul is virtually quoting Jeremiah. If we had the original Book of Galatians I’d bet you he’s quoting him verbatum!

Another thing you have to understand is that the words Sheliach and prophet were at times used as synonyms as they often performed the same functions in the first century Synagogue. One Rabbi writes “the sheliach tzibbur mediates a liturgical conversation through a blend of musical tones and religious language. Prophets once served a similar purpose.”

So that whole Idea that after Jesus came then G-d went to the Gentiles is a myth.

[alon]

[This will finish ch. 1. In retrospect, I probably should have planned to break this study up as some of these teachings can be quite long. So look for ch. 2 under its’ own thread. This will also facilitate better discussion should anyone wish.]

Ok, We left off where Rabbi Shaul, Paul, had met with Ya’akov (James) the brother of the L-rd. It must’ve been a very impressive meeting to Paul; Ya'akov was a Nazorite, a very devout and pious man. The fact that James was even keeping the Nazorite vow tells us that the Law was still in place after the death and resurrection of Yeshua. And this isn’t just a guess that he was a Nazorite, Eusibius writes about it:

"He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath." "Hist. Eccl." ii. 23

All the people of Israel knew who Ya'akov was. He, like his brother Yeshau was of the royal line of David; he was a prince. The royalty of the family of Miriam and Yoseph has to be kept in mind when studying the causes of death for Yeshua and Ya'akov. They were both martyred by some of the ruling Sadducees who felt threatened by anyone in line to the throne. Those Sadducees who were in power were put there by the Romans, and they didn’t want any real royalty to take their positions from them. Yeshua was the crown prince and so of course James was royalty as well. The Romans simply turned a blind eye to the execution of James because they weren’t thrilled about anyone of Royal blood either.

James’ days were numbered, so it was probably best for Paul to meet him as soon as possible. Though Peter was prominent, he wasn’t of Royal blood. Peter was probably of the tribe of Naphtali. We read:

John 1:44 (ESV) Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Bethsaida is located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and is in the area originally allocated to the tribe of Naphtali.

Galatians 1:20 (ESV) (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

I don’t know about you, but whenever I hear someone tell me that what they’re saying is no lie, I usually think they’re lying. That’s not the case here though. It’s not the way it sounds in English. What Rabbi Shaul was doing was making an oath. Most of the translations don’t make that clear because most of the translators believe it’s wrong to swear an oath. They use James 5:12 to back that up:

James 5:12 (ESV) But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

“So Paul couldn’t have possibly been swearing an oath in Galatians 1 because that would condemn him." These translators, and I’ve heard many Bible teachers and Pastors teach this as well, all fail to realize that it’s not wrong to swear. G-d has even sworn:

Genesis 24:7 (ESV) The Lord, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my kindred, and who spoke to me and swore to me, ‘To your offspring I will give this land,’ he will send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there.

Numbers 30:2 (ESV) If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

Deuteronomy 6:13 (ESV) It is the Lord your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear.

Deuteronomy 10:20 (ESV) You shall fear the Lord your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear.

So here we’re commanded to swear by His Name. So what gives with James 5 telling us “Above all, my brothers, do not swear.” What James is saying is do not swear falsely. The translators didn’t put that little tidbit in there because they believed the Old Testament is done away with. They think Jesus came in and changed everything and now one could no longer swear an oath. They forgot a simple principle and that principle is that Jesus is G-d! So the G-d of the Old Testament is the same G-d of the New Testament isn’t He? Churches everywhere today have made them into two god’s. Check your local pastor and you’ll quickly find out that G-d and Jesus are two different beings in their minds even though they say G-d is one. I’m sorry, but they are polytheists, they believe in more than one god.

“Well G-d is three persons.” Nope, G-d is not schizophrenic. He is one G-d and three New Testament manifestations, not three persons. Three persons mean three gods and that’s what the adversary has snuck into Church doctrine over the years. With nice little bible stories and Christmas songs, "G-d in Three Persons, blessed Tri-i-inity." No, He is One God- “sh’ma yisroel adoni eloheynu adoni echad.”

Trinity was a word made up- by the Church Father Tertullian, and he defined it in Latin as “tres personas una substantia,” three persons one substance. Nowhere in Scripture does it declare G-d to be three persons. It declares him as one person with three functions. Huge difference! The difference is one makes you a monotheist and the other makes you a polytheist. In Biblical times in Israel, you’d be killed for being a polytheist. Terminology meant something back then and it will again in the last days and when each of us stands before the Throne individually.

On the topic of oaths we need to make something clear. It’s been said that when Abraham made an oath in Gen 24:9 The servant put his hand under the thigh of Avraham his master and swore to him concerning the matter. It has been said by some Bible teachers that that meant that one would reach and grab the man’s sexual organ. They say that’s what it meant by putting one’s hand under his thigh. This teaching is nonsense. It is a lie and a disturbing lie at that.

I’ll tell you where this idea came from. The word in Hebrew for thigh is Yarek, and it can be used as an idiom to mean genitals, but it is rarely used in that way. Of the 34 times the Bible uses the word Yarek only two times is it used to mean genitals. The rest of the times it is used to mean the thigh as a whole, or the outer thigh where one would carry his sword. In Biblical times it was a custom where one would put his hand on the other’s sword and swear by it. The sword was carried on the thigh.

Song of Solomon 3:8 (ESV) all of them wearing swords and expert in war, each with his sword at his thigh, against terror by night.

For someone to honestly think that the servant grabbed Abraham’s genitals is disturbing and I would question their theology in many other areas as well. It shows a fundamental lack in understanding the modesty aspects of a righteous lifestyle. Clark’s Commentary says:

"1. The rite or ceremony used on the occasion: the person binding himself put his hand under the thigh of the person to whom he was to be bound; i.e., he put his hand on the part that bore the mark of circumcision, the sign of God's covenant, which is tantamount to our kissing the book, or laying the hand upon the New Testament or covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ."

There was no such rite; and even if there was Abraham wouldn’t have anything to do with such a custom. Now, one may say it says, “under” in that passage. It’s probably referring to under his robe.

Judges 3:16 (ESV) And Ehud made for himself a sword with two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his clothes.

Back to Paul. Here in verse 20 he was making an oath. The oath was to inform the reader in this case that the writer was paying special attention to what had just been written. It’s not because of a doubt of credibility. Similar to what we see in Gen 22 where G-d was speaking to Abraham and said:

Genesis 22:15-17 (ESV) And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his [their] enemies,

G-d wasn’t needing any verification and there was no doubt of credibility. Same with Paul, he was making an oath expressing a sincere emphatic truth.

Galatians 1:21 (ESV) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

Cilicia included Tarsus and Syria bordered Cilicia at that time. “Well how do we know he went to Tarsus specifically?” Because Luke (who wrote Acts) tells us:

Acts 11:25-26 (ESV) So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

“Isn’t it saying there that we should be called Christians?” No, the word "Christian" was a derogatory name used against the disciples of Rabbi Shaul and Barnabas. These disciples of Shaul and Barnabas were new Gentile Believers and the local people used "Christian" as a slur against them. Notice that the passage says they were "called" Christians in Antioch, NOT that they called themselves Christians. “So what did the first Believers call themselves?” Paul was clear when he said in Acts 11 "I am a JEW, from Tarsus in Cilicia.”

So Paul went home. Why did he do that? Well for one, he was running for his life. They were going to kill him so he took off to Tarsus to be among familiar faces. Why does the Bible even tell us about Paul’s problems? That could’ve been left out. Paul could’ve skipped any problems he was having and thought to himself “I don’t need to rehash all that. I’ll just ignore that part.” But he didn’t. He told us because we need to know how to handle problems properly. Sometimes Paul stood bravely and confronted the problems and at other times he ran like crazy.

There are pastors that will tell you to always stand up to the problem, there are others that tell you to always ignore the problem, let it go, give it to G-d and there are others that tell you to always capitulate to the person causing the problem (the pacifist approach). That’s not what Paul taught us. What Paul taught us is closer to what Kenny Rogers sang, “You gotta know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away and know when to run.” Kenny Rogers has more discernment than many modern theologians.

If these truly are the end days, you better know when to run. If these are not the end days, then teach your kids some discernment and tell them to teach it to their kids too just in case they find themselves in the last days. Keep it short and easy to remember, put it in your last will and testament if that’s the only way to get them to pay attention to it. But don’t leave them without direction. I’ve seen so many elderly believers just tell their unsaved kids to “follow Jesus”. That’s way too ambiguous. Give them something that can at least save them from the horrors that are coming to the unrighteous. Just follow Jesus. Yeah, what brand of Jesus following are they supposed to pick because not all of them lead to heaven.

Just follow your heart kids, that’s the worst.

Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV) “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick [wicked]; who can understand it?

How many have heard pastors say concerning spiritual things to, follow your heart? Bad Advice! I’m saying don’t follow your heart, follow G-d’s Word! True if they don’t want to hear it, you can’t force anyone to go to heaven and you don’t want to hound them but in a last will and testament, you can be pretty persuasive.

So Rav Sha’ul goes to Tarsus. According to Dr. Joseph Shulam the city itself had a population of 500,000 people, and had a sizable Jewish population as well. According to Epiphanius It had a thriving Jewish community clear down to the 4th century.

Something many people don’t realize is that the word Tarsus means linen weaver. The linen industry was based in Tarsus. That city was all about textiles, cloth etc. What does that have to do with Paul? Paul made his living making tents. He didn’t make them out of linen but what he used to make the tents had a lot in common with those who worked with linen. Have you ever realized that many of Pauls’ friends were also in the same business? You remember Pricilla and Aquila. They lived, worked, and traveled with Paul. What did they do for a living?

Acts 18:1-3 (ESV) After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade.

Pontus was also in Asia-minor, north of Tarsus. Another friend of Paul’s was Lydia.

Acts 16:14-15 (ESV) One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Lydia was from Thyatira, also in Asia Minor! And she worked in cloth related work. Not only that Cilicia, where Paul was from and whose capital Tarsus means linen weaving; and the name Cilicia comes from the Latin Cilicium which means goat hair. That’s what Paul made his tents from.

That whole area was all about textiles. The Jews of that area also made rugs. There’s a book called “Jewish Carpets” it’s an authoritative work on Jews and our history making carpets. We made them from wool, silk, hemp, cotton all kinds of materials. In fact, the oldest record we have concerning carpets are from Sumerian tablets which date to 3,000 BC. Ur was one of their greatest cities. That’s where Abraham was from. Abraham had lots of goats and sheep and camels. Then we see Abraham’s grandson, Joseph with a coat of many colors. That was an expensive coat back then. So it may be that Jews had some connection to textiles way back then.

Syria was a major Jewish center in the second temple period. Its proximity to Israel meant that Jewish life there closely resembled that in HaAretz, the Land. Jewish settlement in Syria in general were very ancient and it was probably augmented by further immigration following the Seleucid conquest of Judea shortly after 200 B.C. more Jews came to Syria at that time. We know there were Jews there because we read in Josephus that Syria possessed the largest percentage of Jewish inhabitants in all the Diaspora. Josephus said in Syria “Jews were to be found in every city”. (Wars 2.463, 7.43)

Rabbinic literature records the mortgaging of land to Jews by Gentiles in Syria in the first century and that some Jews even had large estates (Tos. Ter. 2:13)

Galatians 1:22 (ESV) And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

Obviously he wasn’t unknown, because a few verses earlier he says “For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.” (vs. 13) I think the synagogues knew who he was. What he’s saying is that they didn’t all know what he looked like. He didn’t kill and persecute every single Nots’rim himself. He was a person of power by that time, a man who gave the orders. He didn’t have to be on hand every time a Messianic was jailed, beaten or killed. Was he there for some of the persecution personally? You bet, he was there when Stephen was stoned to death, so he obviously didn’t have a problem watching them being killed. But not every Believer knew what he looked like.

Galatians 1:23-24 (ESV) They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.

That sounds kind of egotistical but what he’s saying is that the people were praising G-d because of what G-d had done in Rav Sha’ul’s life.

[edit: I went through and cleaned up some typos. This is from my notes on Rav S teaching, so there were bound to be some that got through the initial screening when I posted this. I will wait a bit before posting the next chapter, as there is a lot to digest here. Also it will give Rav S and R Reuel some time to check it out. Both are very busy at this time, I imagine. R Reuel with the UMJA Conference coming up and Rav S being in S America starting one synagogue and helping others there; and both with Pesach coming up. So enjoy, read and comment; and we'll get on with the next chapter after Pesach!]

[Elizabeth]

It will take me a while to work all the way through this, but I will. I look forward to thinking and reading over it. Thanks for posting!

[garrett]

Ditto for me on this one too. A lot of good commentary and a lot to think about. I enjoyed reading this.

A quick note on Shaul going to Sinai (Arabia): It's my understanding that many rabbis to this day will take a pilgrimage of sorts after they have finished their rabbinical schooling. This is to get away, get focused and centered. Also, to digest what they believe and the responsibility of being the personal rabbi to their future congregation(s).

In the past I wondered if this was Shaul's getaway before he began his new life's work, sort of the same thing done for centuries.