Gálatas 2
James Montgomery Boice · Citado em PreceptAustin
Gálatas 2
Boice writes that "Chapter 2 begins a significantly different section of Paul's argument. There is a connection, of course. Paul is still speaking of his apostolic authority. But now he wants to demonstrate the essential unity existing between himself and the Twelve, whereas in chapter 1 his focus was on his independence from them. There are four important differences between the first ten verses of this chapter and those preceding it: (1) There is a new subject—not the source of Paul's gospel, but the nature of the gospel itself centered in the issue of circumcision for Gentiles; (2) there is a new aspect of Paul's relationship to the Twelve—not independence from them, as during the early years of his ministry, but harmony and cooperation; (3) there is a new period of Paul's ministry and of early church history; and (4) there is a new conclusion—namely, that in the essential content of the gospel and of the plan for missionary activity, Paul and the Twelve were one. (The Expositor's Bible Commentary – Volume 10: Romans through Galatians - 1977) Donald Campbell - While chapter 2 continues Paul’s defense of his apostolic authority and the gospel he preached, he focused not on the source of his message but on its content. Further, whereas in chapter 1 he emphasized his independence from the other apostles, he now demonstrated that there was a basic unity between himself and them. (BKC) Leon Hyatt summarizes Galatians 2:1-10 - The fifth event Paul mentioned that confirmed he received his doctrine from God and not from men was a visit he made to Jerusalem fourteen years after his conversion. He said he went to Jerusalem on that occasion because God revealed to him he should go. He took Barnabas and Titus with him to confirm his testimony about the results he was having from preaching the Gospel to Gentiles. In Galatians 2:1-19, Paul says that, when he got to Jerusalem, he presented his doctrine to three key leaders of the church. Those leaders were James, Cephas (Peter), and John, though others also were present. James was Jesus’ half-brother and pastor of the church in Jerusalem. Cephas and John were two of Jesus’ twelve apostles. Paul met with them in private because they were recognized as pillars in the church, and he wanted them to be aware of his understanding of the Gospel before he revealed it to the whole church. He wanted to confirm to them that he was not working in vain but was preaching the truth, as God had revealed it to Him. When he explained to James, Cephas, and John the Gospel he was preaching, he introduced Titus as evidence that Gentiles were responding to the Gospel. Titus was a young Greek who had not been circumcised but who had accepted Jesus and was assisting with the work in Antioch. When Paul introduced Titus, some intruders, who had come into the meeting uninvited, objected and said Titus could not be saved because he had not been circumcised. A debate resulted in which Saul and Barnabas did not yield an inch in holding to their convictions. In the end James, Cephas, and John agreed that Titus was a true believer and did not need to be circumcised. They also agreed that Saul and Barnabas were preaching the same doctrine they were preaching. They had nothing to add to Saul and Barnabas’ doctrine. They only asked Paul and Barnabas to be sure they did not preach God’s grace in such a way as to eliminate the importance of caring for the poor. Saul and Barnabas assured them they had that same concern and that they gladly accepted the advice. James, Cephas, and John shook hands with Saul, Barnabas, and Titus to show that they accepted that Saul and Barnabas were called to preach the Gospel to the nations (Gentiles), while James, Cephas, and John were called to preach the same Gospel to the Jews. (Galatians 2:1-10 Commentary) Hansen - In the previous section of his autobiography (Galatians 1:17-24) Paul has been describing the nature of his relationship with the original apostles in Jerusalem to show that he had been commissioned directly by God, not by the apostles, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. He has worked independently from them; he is not their messenger boy. In fact his contact with them has been minimal. He did not visit them until three years after his conversion; and then he spent only two weeks with Peter in Jerusalem in order to get acquainted with him. On that trip to Jerusalem, the only other apostle he saw was James. After that time he remained unknown to the churches in Judea except for the good reports they heard about his evangelistic work in the provinces of Syria and Cilicia. It was a long time before Paul met again with the apostles in Jerusalem, not until fourteen years after his conversion, or about eleven years after his first visit (Galatians 2:1). (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Galatians 2) Max Anders says: In chapter 2, Paul informs the Galatian Christians "I am a true apostle, and two proofs demonstrate that my gospel of grace is true. First, it is true because the apostles and leaders in Jerusalem approved my gospel of grace and authenticated my apostleship. Second, my gospel of grace is true because I confronted and corrected the apostle Peter when he was showing preference to the Judaizers and their false system of legalism. Such a bond and uncontested act validates my apostolic authority and message." (HNTC-Galatians) SUMMARY OF PAUL'S FIVE VISITS TO JERUSALEM FIRST VISIT - After he left Damascus and stayed with Peter 15 days (Acts 9:26-30+; Galatians 1:18-20+) SECOND VISIT - Famine visit with no record of meeting other apostles (Acts 11:27-30+; some favor Galatians 2:1-10 referring to this visit) THIRD VISIT - The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29+; some favor Galatians 2:1-10 referring to this visit) FOURTH VISIT - At the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:22+) FIFTH VISIT - His final resulted in his arrest and taken to prison in Caesarea (Acts 21:15+ to Acts 23:35+) Then after an interval of fourteen years - The question is fourteen years after what event - Paul's conversion or his first visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30+; Galatians 1:18-20+)? There is disagreement among scholars regarding whether this refers to Paul's SECOND VISIT or his THIRD VISIT to Jerusalem. KJV Bible Commentary summarizes the two interpretations of fourteen years - If fourteen years after his conversion, it could be his visit recorded in Acts 11:27-30+; but if fourteen after his first visit, it would be the one recorded in Acts 15:1-6+. Scholars are divided. J. B. Lightfoot and others (ED: JOHN MACARTHUR, HENDRIKSEN, ROBERTSON, J VERNON MCGEE, LENSKI, DE HAAN, GAEBELEIN, BARKER, JAMIESON) hold to the traditional view (Acts 15:1-6+) but Sir William Ramsay and many contemporary scholars (ED: SWINDOLL, CONSTABLE, RYRIE, DONALD CAMPBELL) hold to the other view (Acts 11:27-30+). The evidence is not conclusive, so we must be tolerant, and not dogmatic (1 Cor 13:12-13). The exact date is important in establishing the chronology of Paul’s mission but not in the exposition of his message. (KJV Commentary) Criswell say "The phrase "after...fourteen years" may be understood as 14 years from the time of Paul's conversion, in which case this visit would be equated with the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11:29, 30+ at the time of the great famine there (A.D. 46-47+). However, the phrase may also mean 14 years after the last event discussed, which is Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal 1:18+). If this be the case, the meeting described in Galatians 2:1-10 corresponds with the Jerusalem Conference recorded in Acts 15:1-29+ (A.D. 49 or 50). If this latter reconstruction is correct, Paul probably omits the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 11 from his discussion in Galatians because he is recounting his contacts with the apostles, with whom he probably did not meet at that time. The difference in the meetings in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, then, may be due to the fact that ch. 2 describes the private meeting Paul had with the church leaders, while Acts 15 describes the meeting held with the entire church over the matter of Gentile salvation. (Believer's Study Bible) Leon Hyatt favors fourteen years after his conversion but adds either way "Paul’s point in referring to the length of time between his conversion and this visit to Jerusalem was to show that he had been preaching his Gospel for a long time before he went to Jerusalem and explained his doctrine to recognized Christian leaders." Don Anderson also favors Galatians 2 as occurring at the Jerusalem Council and gives us a six point summary to help keep the chronology of events straight... The DAMASCUS ROAD experience. He then went away into ARABIA—some 50 to 75 miles east of Damascus. He came back to DAMASCUS for the rest of the three-year period involved in this whole operation and ministry in the north. He then went to JERUSALEM for a two-week retreat. This was 130 miles southwest of Damascus; and there he met with Peter and James, the brother of our Lord. He then went north and homeward bound to SYRIA and CILICIA. Because of opposition in Jerusalem he went 60 miles northwest to Caesarea and there he took a boat for the 300 mile trip north to his home territory, Tarsus of Cilicia. After FOURTEEN YEARS, he then returned to JERUSALEM. (Read Acts 14:26-15:4+) (Note) I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also - The Greek word for "with" is meta which in context conveys the sense of Barnabas "as colleague and fellow worker, being an equal in age and experience." (Vine) See Map of Paul's Conversion and Post-Conversion events - copyright Holman, do not copy
Gálatas 2
Boice - From Generation to Generation JUDAIZERS R David Rightmire Judaizers - Those who adopted Jewish religious practices or sought to influence others to do so. The Greek verb ioudaizo [ Esther 8:17) and once in the New Testament (Galatians 2:14). In the Septuagint this verb is used in relation to the Gentiles in Persia who adopted Jewish practices in order to avoid the consequences of Esther's decree (Esther 8:13 ), which permitted Jews to avenge the wrongs committed against them. The Septuagint not only uses ioudaizo to translate the Hebrew mityahadim ("to become a Jew"), but adds that these Gentiles were circumcised. In Galatians 2:14 ioudaizo means to "live like Jews" (RSV, neb, NASB, Phillips), "follow Jewish customs" ( NIV ), or "live by the Jewish law" (Barclay). The context for this reference is the episode in Antioch when Paul condemns Peter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Peter's actions are viewed by Paul as a serious compromise of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone, lending support to the position that sought to impose Jewish ceremonial law on the Gentiles. Thus, Paul interprets Peter's withdrawal in terms of its effect in compelling Gentile Christians to live like Jews. The term "Judaizer" has come to be used in theological parlance to describe the opponents of Paul and Barnabas at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and those who sought to preach "another gospel" in the churches of Galatia (Galatians 2:4,12; Gal 6:12+; cf. Philippians 3:2). In this sense, "Judaizers" refers to Jewish Christians who sought to induce Gentiles to observe Jewish religious customs: to "judaize." It appears that these individuals agreed with much of the apostolic kerygma but sought to regulate the admission of Gentiles into the covenant people of God through circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial law. Insisting that "Unless you are circumcised … you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1+), these "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5) posed a serious threat to the gospel of grace and the uNIVersality of the Christian mission. Paul's Galatian epistle portrays the Judaizers as having come from the Jerusalem church to his churches in Galatia, stressing the need for Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law, both for full acceptance by God (legalism) and as the basis for Christian living (nomism [ Galatians 6:12-13+). Amidst the rising pressures of Jewish nationalism in Palestine during the mid-first century, and increased Zealot animosity against any Jew who had Gentile sympathies, it would appear that these Jewish Christians embarked on a judaizing mission among Paul's converts in order to prevent Zealot persecution of the Palestinian church. (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology) (bold added) Judaizers—Legalists: these were Jews who professed Christ but still hung on to their Judaistic religion, in particular to the rite of circumcision and to the law of Moses (see Acts 5:1–35, esp. Acts 5:1, 24–29). They believed a man became a Christian (1) by first becoming a Jew. The man was to embrace Judaism with all its rituals and ceremonies and be circumcised, and begin to obey the laws of Moses (2) then the man could accept Christ as his Savior. In the mind of the circumcised, Christianity was a mixture of Judaism and the teachings of Christ. The law was just as important as Christ and Christ was no more important than the law. They failed to grasp (1) that Christ was the fulfillment of the law (Ed: Mt 5:17+ = "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Ro 10:4+ = "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."), (2) that Christ had kept the law perfectly, thereby becoming the Ideal Man, the Perfect Pattern of what every man should be, (3) that Christ was not only the embodiment of the law, but so much more—the very embodiment of God Himself, the Ideal Man, the Perfect Pattern to whom all men were to look for their salvation and standard (4) that Christ, as the Son of God, as the Ideal Man, and as the Perfect Pattern, was the One to whom all men were now to look and obey. Some Jews were impressed with Christ and professed Him, but they were never able to understand or else were unwilling to accept Christ as the fulfillment of the law and as the Savior of all men. Therefore, they never turned to Christ alone, never broke away from their legalistic religion or from requiring men (Gentiles) to become Jews before they could become Christians. (POSB Galatians) Phillip Ryken adds - These men are sometimes called "the Judaizers" because they confused Judaism with Christianity. They taught that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to become Christians. Their slogan was, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1+). Since they opposed Paul's law-free gospel, one might call them "the Torah police." But Paul knew them for what they really were: "false brothers" (Gal. 2:4)—"brothers" because they claimed to be Christians, but "false" because they did not follow Christ after all. (Reformed Expository Commentary – Galatians) (Bold added) Gotquestions on Who Were the Judaizers? - There have always been those who balk at the idea of God’s salvation being offered freely to those who believe. They reason that such a grand gift as forgiveness from such a holy God must require some kind of payment from us. We thank God for His grace, but we understand that He expects us to somehow earn that grace—in other words, there must be something that we can do to pay off the debt we owe to God. In the early church, those who taught a combination of God’s grace and human effort were called “Judaizers.” The word Judaizer comes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14+ where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.” A Judaizer taught that, in order for a Christian to truly be right with God, he must conform to the Mosaic Law. Circumcision, especially, was promoted as necessary for salvation. Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes first, and then they could come to Christ. The doctrine of the Judaizers was a mixture of grace (through Christ) and works (through the keeping of the Law). This false doctrine was dealt with in Acts 15 and strongly condemned in the book of Galatians. (for full article see Who were the Judaizers?) (Bold added) Related Resources: Hastings' Dictionary of the NT Judaizing Watson's Theological Dictionary Judaizing Christians McClintock and Strong's Bible Encyclopedia Judaizing Christians Semi Judaizers The Nuttall Encyclopedia Judaizers The Jewish Encyclopedia Judaizers Who were the Judaizers? Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law? What is the Sacred Name Movement? What was the meaning and importance of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)? Christian liberty – what does the Bible say? Galatians 2:3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Greek: all’ oude (not even) Titos ho syn emoi Hellēn ōn (V-PPA-NMS) ēnagkasthē (V-AIP-3S) [e] peritmēthēnai (V-ANP) Amplified: But [all went well!] even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled [as some had anticipated] to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. Phillips Not one of them intimated that Titus, because he was a Greek, ought to be circumcised. NET Galatians 2:3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. GNT Galatians 2:3 ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι· NLT Galatians 2:3 And they supported me and did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile. KJV Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: ESV Galatians 2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. ASV Galatians 2:3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: CSB Galatians 2:3 But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. NIV Galatians 2:3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. NKJ Galatians 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. NRS Galatians 2:3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. YLT Galatians 2:3 but not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised -- NAB Galatians 2:3 Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, NJB Galatians 2:3 Even then, and although Titus, a Greek, was with me, there was no demand that he should be circumcised; GWN Galatians 2:3 Titus was with me, and although he is Greek, no one forced him to be circumcised. BBE Galatians 2:3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was made to undergo circumcision: Ga 5:2-6 Ac 15:24 16:3 1Co 9:20,21 Galatians 2 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries TITUS A "TEST CASE" FOR FREEDOM FROM THE LAW But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised - Paul knew that one of the key false teachings of the Judaizers'works based system was the necessity that anyone who believed in Jesus must also be circumcised. And so Titus was the perfect test case for he had believed in Jesus and being a Greek had not undergone circumcision. Paul reasoned that if some (possibly some of the sect of the Pharisees who felt it was necessary for Gentiles to be circumcised and to observe the Law of Moses - Acts 15:5) compelled Titus to be circumcised, then other Gentile believers would have to be circumcised to be in accord with this false teaching, which would be in effect be "another gospel" (Gal 1:6, 7+) which he has stated warranted their being accursed (Gal 1:8+). On the other hand if Titus were not compelled to be circumcised, then freedom from the law was confirmed. Notice that "compel" is used again in Gal 2:14+ in Paul's confrontation of Cephas (Peter) declaring "how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (NET). Swindoll explains "The point is that even in the center of Judaism, in the presence of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, surrounded by the most Law-loving Jews in the world, nobody compelled Gentile believers to be circumcised. What sense would it make, then, for the Judaizers to insist on enforcing the rite of circumcision for Gentile believers living in the remote regions of Galatia?" (Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary – Galatians, Ephesians) Bartlett says: We need to get the full force of this waiving of circumcision in the case of Titus. Paul was not against circumcision as such. He even permitted Timothy to be circumcised (Acts 16:3) because his mother was a Jewess. But to insist upon Jewish usages for Gentile converts would be to make them essential parts of Christianity. And this Paul would not, and could not, do. The non-circumcision of Titus was really a decision in favor of Gentile freedom from the yoke of Judaism. One of the urgent challenges that incited Paul to write Galatians was that Judaizers in Galatia were compelling the Galatians to be circumcised as he describes in chapter 6 where "compel...to be circumcised" is the very same phrase as in herer in Galatian 2:3. Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel (anagkazo) you to be circumcised (peritemno), simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. (Gal 6:12+) Compelled (315)(anagkazo from anagke - compelling need requiring immediate action) refers to an inner or outer compulsion for someone to act in a certain manner (Gal 2:3, 14, 6:12, Acts 26:11), and to do so with a sense of urgency (as a pressing necessity). Anagkazo conveys the idea of to urge strongly in Mt 14:23. It conveys the idea of an inward feeling of obligation in Acts 28:19. This word was used in surgery of force to reduce dislocations, etc. (Liddell-Scott). Thayer on anagkazo - to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain, whether by force, threats, etc., or by persuasion, entreaties, etc., or by other means Friberg on anagkazo - (1) of compulsion outwardly compel, force (Acts 26.11); of friendly pressure (strongly) urge, constrain (MT 14.22); (2) passive, of compulsion inwardly feel obliged to, feel compelled (Acts 28.19) (Borrow Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament) In English compel means to force or oblige someone to be or do something Anagkazo - 9x in 9v - translated - compel(3), compelled(2), force(1), forced(1), made(2). Matthew 14:22 Immediately He made the disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side, while He sent the crowds away. Mark 6:45 Immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go ahead of Him to the other side to Bethsaida, while He Himself was sending the crowd away. Luke 14:23 "And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. Acts 26:11 "And as I (Saul prior to his conversion) punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities. Acts 28:19 "But when the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar, not that I had any accusation against my nation. 2 Corinthians 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. Galatians 2:3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? Galatians 6:12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Anagkazo in the OT is used only once in the Septuagint and 19x in the Apocrypha - 1 Esdras 3:24; 4:6; Judith 8:30; 1 Macc. 2:25; 2 Macc. 6:1, 7, 18; 7:1; 8:24; 11:11, 14; 4 Macc. 4:26; 5:2, 27; 8:2, 9; 15:7; 18:5; Bel 1:30. Pr 6:7 Which, having no chief, Officer or ruler, (LXE = For whereas he has no husbandry, nor any one to compel him, and is under no master) Phil Newton makes an interesting point on the desire of the Judaizers to have Gentile converts circumcised - "Teaching circumcision for salvation was an issue among Jewish converts because they were already circumcised. But the addition of Gentile converts created a problem with those Jews who had superficially embraced the Gospel. They still clung to their circumcision and obedience to the ceremonial law as part of their righteousness before God....Paul explains that being Jews by nature meant that circumcision was part of the national heritage (Gal 2:15+). It was a sign of their covenant relationship with God initiated with Abraham. Over time, the Jews became over-reliant upon circumcision and the sacrificial system to the neglect of weightier matters. They had faced persecution and even death for practicing circumcision during the reign of the brutal Antiochus IV (175-163 BC). For the price paid, the practice of circumcision was elevated in the eyes of the Jews. It was considered an indispensable part of their identity with the covenant community and the worship of the Lord God [cf. George, 142-145 for excellent treatment on circumcision]. (Galatians 2:1-10 Affirming the Gospel Message) To be circumcised (4059) (peritemno from perí = around + témno = cut off - see study of peritome) means literally to cut something off or away ("to cut off around"), signifying a removal of that which has been cut away. While belief in Jesus does not require physical circumcision, it is associated with figurative circumcision in both the Old and New Testaments. For example in Col 2:11-12+ Paul using the well known procedure of circumcision to describe spiritual circumcision ("without hands") that is wrought by the Spirit and results in spiritual rebirth. We see a similar use in Romans 2:24-29+, where Paul addressed the Jews (his primary audience in Romans 2) who possessed the Law of Moses and who had undergone physical circumcision and yet were still considered "uncircumcised" because they had not been spiritually circumcised "of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter (law)." (Ro 2:29+) Spiritual circumcision should have been something with which Jews were familiar for it is repeatedly alluded to in the Old Testament - Deut 10:16 could not have been more clearly stated! Deut 30:6+, cf Jer 4:4, Jer 9:26, Ezek 44:7, 9 Spurgeon on circumcision in Deut 30:6 - HERE we read of the true circumcision. Note the author of it: “The Lord thy God.” He alone can deal effectually with our hearts and take away their carnality and pollution. To make us love God with all our hearts and souls is a miracle of grace which only the Holy Ghost can work. We must look to the Lord alone for this and never be satisfied with anything short of it. Note where this circumcision is wrought: it is not of the flesh, but of the spirit. It is the essential mark of the covenant of grace. Love to God is the indelible token of the chosen seed; by this secret seal, the election of grace is certified to the believer. We must see to it that we trust in no outward ritual, but are sealed in heart by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Note what the result is: “that thou mayest live.” To be carnally minded is death. In the overcoming of the flesh we find life and peace. If we mind the things of the Spirit, we shall live. Oh, that Jehovah, our God, may complete His gracious work upon our inner natures, that in the fullest and highest sense we may live unto the Lord. Related Resource: In depth discussion of the Spiritual Circumcision = Circumcision of the Heart Galatians 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. Greek: dia de tous pareisaktous pseudadelphous, hoitines pareiselthon (3PAAI) kataskophesai (AAN) ten eleutherian hemon en echomen (1PPAI) en Christo Iesou, hina hemas katadoulosousin (3PFAI) Amplified: [My precaution was] because of false brethren who had been secretly smuggled in [to the Christian brotherhood]; they had slipped in to spy on our liberty and the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might again bring us into bondage [under the Law of Moses]. Phillips In fact, the suggestion would never have arisen but for the presence of some pseudo-Christians, who wormed their way into our meeting to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and then attempted to tie us up with rules and regulations.
Gálatas 2
Boice has an interesting comment on this passage - Paul’s references to the false brothers in Gal 2:4 entail a military metaphor, used to indicate the subversive and militant nature of the evil that Paul was fighting. The term “false brothers” (pseudadelphos) is used only twice in the NT (here and in 2 Cor 11:26). In each case Paul uses the term of those who are not in fact Christians, though pretending to be so. The overtone is that of a traitor or spy. “Infiltrated” (pareisaktous) is used in the same way, as in 2 Peter 2:1, where we are told of those who will “secretly introduce” destructive heresies to weaken and ruin the church. In the LXX reading of 2 Samuel 10:3, “spy” (kataskopeō) is used of the servants of David who, according to his enemies, had come “to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it.” Similarly, Paul speaks of the desire of the legalizers “to make us slaves” (katadoulōsousin), in the manner of those who would take a city by stealth or force in order to place the inhabitants in chains. (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) Swindoll adds this comment on the words Paul uses in this passage - ""Secretly" . . . "sneaked" . . . "spy" . . . "bondage." Paul saw himself in the midst of a life-and-death battle, striving to protect a priceless treasure: the gospel of Jesus Christ. Judaizing spies whose loyalty remained with the old Law of Judaism were merely playing the part of followers of Christ, having infiltrated the ranks of the church in order to destroy the doctrine of grace from the inside out. And the best way to destroy grace is to enslave believers with a strenuous religious system including prerequisites for meriting salvation; rituals to receive salvation; and righteous works to maintain salvation." (Swindoll's Living Insights New Testament Commentary – Galatians, Ephesians) False brethren (5569)(pseudadelphos from pseudes = false + adelphós = brother) refers to those who pretend to be a believers ostentatiously professing belief in Jesus but destitute of the authenticating down payment of the Spirit. This noun is used here and in 2Co 11:26, so that in both NT uses it describes those who are not genuine believers. These men look true but in truth are staunch adversaries of the truth of the Gospel. They may have professed Christ, but they did not possess Christ (Ro 8:9+). THOUGHT - Have you professed Christ? Good. Then let me ask have you possessed Christ, or better, has He possessed you? There are many people sitting in pews in American churches who have professed Christ (prayed a prayer, walked an aisle, etc), but they have never been possessed by Him, by His Spirit (Ro 8:9+) and are still deceptively dead in their trespasses and sins and are headed tragically for a Christ-less eternity. How do you know if you are a professor who has been possessed? Does 2 Cor 5:17+ describe your life? "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new (kainos = brand new, a spiritual "new born"!) creature; the old things passed away; behold, new (kainos = brand new desires, new likes, new habits such as desire to read the Word of God, etc) things have come." Paul is not speaking of perfection in this passage, but he is speaking of a "new direction," "Heavenward," not "Hellward!" Has your life significantly changed since you professed Christ? The places you go, the things you say, the things you watch, the things you buy, etc, etc? If so you are born again and eternally secure in Christ! If not, you need to soberly ponder the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Mt 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does (present tense) the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many (NOT A FEW SADLY WILL BE DECEIVED!) will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE (present tense = as a lifestyle, habitually, still living like an "old creature" in Adam) LAWLESSNESS.’" (Mt 7:21+, Mt 7:22-23+) In context the false brethren are surely the so-called Judaizers. By calling them "false" Paul is saying he had absolutely no confidence in their profession of faith because of their steadfast insistence on the need of circumcision for salvation. "Though they might have professed a belief in the gospel, they did not do so without an addition to the gospel. In Paul's assessment, this was "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6)." (Newton)
Gálatas 2
Boice - In the opening part of this chapter, Paul has demonstrated his essential unity with those who were apostles before him. Now he shows that he stood so firmly grounded in the Gospel that he opposed even Peter, contradicting him publicly when Peter’s conduct at Antioch threatened to compromise that Gospel. (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) I opposed (436)(anthistemi from anti = against + histemi = to cause to stand) is literally to stand or set against. To set one's self against. Antihistemi gives us a vivid picture of this apostolic confrontation for the verb was used in secular Greek to describe an army in battle array against the enemy, thus depicting a face to face ("to his face" - prosopon) confrontation. This verb usually implies that the initial attack came from the other side. It was Peter, in Paul’s mind, who was the aggressor. Anthistemi is used repeatedly in the context of spiritual warfare - Acts 13:8 = "Elymas the magician....was opposing" Barnabas and Saul; Eph 6:13 = "take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day." 2 Ti 3:8 "these men (2 Ti 3:5-7 describes them) oppose the truth." 2 Ti 4:15 = "he (Alexander the coppersmith 2 Ti 4:14) vigorously opposed our teaching." James 4:7 = "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." and 1 Peter 5:9 "resist him (devil - 1 Pe 5:8), firm in your faith." Indeed was there not "spiritual warfare" in Antioch on this fateful day? Notice how the effect was to cause DIVISION, one of the devil's primary modus operandi! It is also interesting that the verb antihistemi gives rise to our pharmacological term antihistamine which blocks the effect of histamine which causes blood vessels to dilate. When Cephas came to Antioch - We do not know the timing of this visit, as it is not described elsewhere in Scripture. Some think it was after the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, but we cannot be dogmatic. Antioch (location and city schematic, Map of the City in Paul's day, Hastings Bible Dictionary, Wikipedia) About 20 miles from the Mediterranean, the Orontes, turning abruptly westward, enters a fertile plain, 10 miles long and 5 wide, which separates the great Lebanon range from the last spurs of the Taurus. Antioch is the site of the missionary sending church that sent out Paul and Barnabas (and John Mark). - 16 mentions, most in Acts - Acts 6:5; 11:19, 20, 22, 26, 27; 13:1, 14; 14:26; 15:22, 23, 30, 35; 18:22; Gal. 2:11.
Gálatas 2
Boice says "This personal form of expression continues as Paul begins to unfold the full nature of the justification that is his because of his being “in Christ.” And if Paul did that, he, not Christ, would be the transgressor! By preaching the Gospel of grace and salvation by faith alone in Christ alone Paul had in effect "destroyed" (set aside, pulled down, broken up) the false Jewish notion that "justification" was attainable by keeping the law. Now for Paul to go back to that false teaching (like Peter's actions at least suggested to those who were present) would be for him to transgress or deviate from the clear truth of the Gospel.
Gálatas 2
Boice - This last sentence of ch. 2 is introduced abruptly and from a new point of view. In the preceding verses Paul has answered the objections of his critics. Now he objects to their doctrine, showing that if they are right, then Christ has died in vain. The heart of Christianity lies in the grace of God and in the death of Jesus Christ. To insist on justification by works undermines the foundation of Christianity by nullifying God’s grace. Paul’s logic is incontrovertible. Yet many still pursue the fallacious logic of the legalizers. They suppose that to earn their salvation is somehow praiseworthy and noble, when actually it is vainglorious and ignoble. True nobility (and humility) is to accept what God offers John MacArthur on nullify the grace of God - In effect he was saying to Peter, “By withdrawing from fellowship with your Gentile brothers you take your stand with the Judaizers and against Christ. You nullify the grace of God by denying the need for Christ’s death, just as you did when you rebuked the Lord for declaring it was necessary for Him to suffer, be killed, and raised on the third day (see Mt. 16:21–22)."(MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Galatians) The law says DO, grace says DONE. Leon