Gálatas 2
John Phillips · Citado em PreceptAustin
Gálatas 2
Phillips has an interesting comment on Barnabas - "Barnabas was a thoroughly likeable man. He was the kind of man for whom the Bible says that other men would die. "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die," Paul wrote, "yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die" (Rom. 5:7). Quite possibly, he had Barnabas in mind when he wrote that verse because Barnabas was "a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 11:24).....Barnabas knew nothing of jealousy. He must have known that Paul would soon eclipse him, no matter what the enterprise or where the place. Spurgeon once wrote, "It takes more grace than I can tell, to play the second fiddle well." He could have been describing Barnabas. Barnabas and Paul became the first church-sent foreign missionaries of the gospel age. Together, they pioneered and suffered and triumphed in Cyprus and Galatia. The Galatians, of course, knew Barnabas as a good, godly, gracious, and gifted brother." (Exploring Galatians: An Expository Commentary) Went up again to Jerusalem - Why Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the hub of Christianity at that time and all the original Apostle’s were there. Paul knew Willie Sutton's law to "go where the money was" (so to speak). Jack Arnold explains that one of the reasons Paul went up to Jerusalem was "to demonstrate that the Gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles was the same Gospel the Apostles were preaching to the Jews." (ref) Earlier Paul had emphasized "the Gospel which was preached by me is not according to man." (Gal 1:11+) Went up (305)(anabaino from ana = upwards, up, as a pref. denotes up, again, back + basis = a foot) means to go up, to ascend, cause to ascend from a lower to a higher place. Click for full definition at bottom of page. A T
Gálatas 2
Phillips adds that Paul "had certainly not gone, cap in hand, to seek some kind of authorization for his ministry from the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem. He had gone to force the issue and to fight for Gentile independence from Judaism and the Mosaic Law." (Exploring Galatians: An Expository Commentary) Revelation (602)(apokalupsis from apó = from + kalúpto = cover, conceal, English = apocalypse) literally means cover from and so the idea is to remove that which conceals something. Apokalupsis conveys the idea of "taking the lid off" and means to remove the cover and expose to open view that which was heretofore not visible, known or disclosed. It means to make manifest or reveal a thing previously secret or unknown. It describes removing of a veil (an unveiling) or covering thus exposing to open view what was concealed. In all its uses, revelation refers to something or someone, once hidden, becoming visible and now made fully known. George Duncan - When Paul adds, by way of parenthesis, that this visit was paid [Gal 2:2a] in consequence of a revelation which had come to him, he wants to make it clear that no mere personal motive lay behind the visit. If he did see the Jerusalem ‘authorities’ and confer with them, it was not to seek any ruling from them that he went. Revelations meant much in the life of the apostle (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1)—not merely as mystical experiences but as indications of the divine will. Acts shows how many of the great decisions of his missionary career were taken as the result of divine ‘guidance’ (e.g. Acts 13:2; 16:6, 7; 20:22). In particular we may recall that on his previous visit to Jerusalem he had received a revelation to quit the Holy City, for his witness would not be received there and his destined work was among the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21); and it was therefore natural that he should not wish to return until another revelation authorized him to do so. (The Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton 1934). Went up (305) see preceding discussion of anabaino. When one goes to Jerusalem (on a hill) the NT almost always says "went up" or "go up." If you have ever been to Jerusalem you remember ascending that winding road up to the Holy City of God. And I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles - TDNT says the verb submitted in this context means Paul expounding the Gospel to them "with the request for counsel, approval or decision.” The point is that he did not go to find out what to preach or to be corrected. He knew he had the truth of the Gospel "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12+) and sought their affirmation that it was the same Gospel which they had been preaching in Jerusalem and beyond. Martin Luther - “The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.” (Galatians 2 Commentary) Submitted (aorist middle indicative)(394)(anatithemi from ana = up, again, back + histemi = to place, put or lay) is a verb which literally means to set up or lay up (literal sense in Lxx of 2 Sa 6:17 = "set it in its place") or to set apart (this sense in Lxx of Lev 27:28 = "anything which a man sets apart [dedicates] to the LORD"). Anatithemi is only used in the middle voice in the NT and means to set forth or lay a matter before someone for their consideration or to communicate with a view to consultation. Anatithemi is the root of the noun anathema (334) which refers to a consecrated gift hung up or laid up in a temple (Luke 21:5+) Friberg - (1) as setting forth one’s cause declare, refer to (for counsel) (Acts 25.14+); (2) as giving additional information with a request for consideration explain, communicate, put before (Gal 2.2) (Borrow Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament) TDNT - “to set forth, impart or communicate one’s cause” (At 25:14+); “to expound with the request for counsel, approval or decision” (Gal 2:2). The only other NT use of anatithemi is in Acts 25:14+ where Luke records "While they were spending many days there, Festus laid Paul's case before the king, saying, "There is a man who was left as a prisoner by Felix." There are 6 uses of anatithemi in the Septuagint - Lev. 27:28, 29; 1 Sa 31:10; 2 Sa 6:17; Mic. 4:13; 7:5 Paul used the related longer form (prosanatithemi - to lay any matter before others with a view to obtaining advice or instruction) of this verb in Gal 1:16+) emphasizing that he "did not immediately consult with flesh and blood." Phil Newton - To make such a submission implies that Paul laid the gospel before them for their consideration. It may have been that he had capsuled his gospel in writing and presented it to them. But more than likely, he outlined verbally to the key apostles the contents of the gospel which he preached. I do not think we should get the idea that Paul went in with fear and trembling. He was quite confident in the gospel which he preached, for he "received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul was not concerned about his gospel preaching as much as he was concerned about what was being preached in Jerusalem! He wanted to make sure that they were "running" together in gospel proclamation. He viewed their task as a race in which they were moving forward in declaring the message of the Kingdom. (Galatians 2:1-10 Affirming the Gospel Message) Gospel (2098)(euaggelion from eú = good + aggéllo = proclaim, tell) is literally good news or glad tidings. In modern secular use Gospel has an interesting meaning of something accepted as infallible truth or as a guiding principle (e.g., such and such is "the Gospel truth"). This is not a bad Biblical definition either and one for which Paul is writing to Galatians. Newton adds that "The message of the gospel centers on what God has done in Jesus Christ to deliver sinners from the justice of divine wrath. It points to a holy, sovereign God and sinful, depraved humanity that exists completely at enmity with God. Then God came to man in the Incarnation. He took on humanity, fulfilled the Law on behalf of sinners so that sinners might receive the imputation of His righteousness for their standing with God. And more so, Jesus Christ satisfied all of the righteous demands of God toward sinners, bearing His own wrath in His body upon the cross, so that the enmity between us and God might be removed; that we might be reconciled to God, being made heirs forever. He rose from the dead and unites us with Him in resurrection power, with the promise that one day we will be raised eternally with Him. We receive all that Christ accomplished through faith alone in Him and His finished work. Nothing can be added to this, nor is anything necessary, for Jesus Christ finished all that God demanded for our eternal salvation. Neither circumcision, nor baptism, nor church membership, nor observance of the sacraments, nor adherence to the Law can add one drop of righteousness to our standing with God. For in Jesus Christ, our standing is complete! Through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone we are justified before God. We can disagree about many things within the local church and within the broader scope of Christian churches. But we have no room to disagree on the gospel. That was the essence of what Paul was addressing in Jerusalem. There are plenty of wonderful brethren with whom we cannot dot the same 'i's' and cross the same 't's' on non-essential areas of teaching. But we stand together on the gospel! My great concern is for those who call themselves evangelical Christians and gospel preachers, yet they convolute the gospel of Jesus Christ. When they substitute some outward movement for faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death, then they convolute the gospel. When they claim that praying a particular prayer will save you, they have failed to leave a person with the sufficiency of the cross of Christ to remove our enmity with God. When they claim that your trip down a church aisle at their beckoning is what you need to do to be saved, then they have detracted from the sufficiency of the gospel and its power to save. When we examine the methods that have confused the message of the gospel in our day, we find much of what professes to be the gospel lacking the very gospel it professes! Let us not hesitate to examine the message we speak or hear, lest the cross of Christ and the necessity of faith alone be pushed aside for showy manipulation of carnal minds. (Galatians 2:1-10 Affirming the Gospel Message) Preach (2784)(kerusso from kerux/keryx = a herald - one who acts as the medium of the authority of one who proclamation he makes; kerugma = the thing preached or the message) means to proclaim (publicly) or to herald or act as a public crier - the town official who would make a proclamation in a public gathering. Kerusso was used of the official whose duty it was to proclaim loudly and extensively the coming of an earthly king, even as our gospel is to clearly announce the coming of the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 19:16+)!
Gálatas 2
Phillips comments that "Paul's first concern, upon arriving in Jerusalem, had been to secure a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders of the Jerusalem church. This was simple common sense. It is far easier to arrive at a consensus when a few fair-minded and intelligent people sit down together to discuss an issue than it is to carry the day with a crowd. Paul, Barnabas, Peter, John, and James, the Lord's brother, in conference together, could pray, meditate, wait upon the Holy Spirit, reason, discuss, disagree, and seek calmly and rationally to find common ground." (Exploring Galatians: An Expository Commentary) Those who were of reputation - That is, the Jewish leaders who were well thought of (see Wuest's note below) and he names three - Cephas, John and James, the Lord’s brother (the other James has been martyred by Herod Acts 12:1f+).
Gálatas 2
Phillips has a good paraphrase - "But when I saw that this behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter so that everyone could hear, "If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?"" When I saw - Paul's spiritual discernment "kicked in" immediately for he realized that this was no small matter but that the truth of the Gospel was in jeopardy! Proverbs 10:9 says "He who walks in integrity walks securely, But he who perverts his ways will be found out." It did not take long for Paul to "find out" or sense the potential significance of Peter's hypocrisy. That they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel - Literally "they were not walking uprightly". As the NET Bible says "they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel." One could paraphrase it as "They were not walking on the straight path in accord with the truth of the Gospel." The NIV has "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel." Paul quickly saw that Peter had contradicted the truth of the Gospel. Why? Hansen explains - The gospel proclaimed that salvation for both Jews and Gentiles was by way of the cross of Christ and union with Christ. But Peter's separation from table fellowship with Gentile Christians implied that salvation for Gentiles required strict adherence to the law and incorporation into the Jewish nation. No doubt Peter would have denied that he meant to communicate this requirement to the Gentile believers. But how else could his action be interpreted? The Gentile believers could not help but conclude from Peter's withdrawal that they were lacking something, that they were unacceptable outcasts. If they wanted to enjoy fellowship with Peter and the mother church in Jerusalem, they would have to become Jews. Their experience of salvation would be incomplete until they became Jews and observed the Jewish law. Gentile believers would have seen these implications of Peter's action even if Peter did not. (Galatians 2 Commentary) David
Gálatas 2
Phillips - Well, let's listen in again on his conversation with Peter. "Now look here, Peter," we can almost hear him say, "we Jews discovered ourselves to be sinners when we sought the real truth about being justified by Christ. We discovered that we, too, had missed the mark (hamartōlos) just as badly as any Gentile. Now let me ask you a question. When Christ revealed to us our true condition as sinners, does that mean that He made us sinners? Nonsense! However, if I try to rebuild the whole structure of justification by law, if I put myself back under law after discovering the truth of justification through Christ, then I really do become a sinner (parabatēs), I really do become one who steps over the line. In other words, Peter, if I build again the things that I broke down to be justified by Christ, then I really do become a sinner. By yielding to faith in Christ as a means of salvation, we abandon law keeping as a means of being justified. We acknowledge that we are sinners, wholly dependent on God's grace. Jew and Gentile alike have no other way of being justified before God." (Exploring Galatians: An Expository Commentary) Ryken - The doctrine of justification by faith alone raises an obvious problem. If by his free grace God has already declared us righteous, then why bother to become a better person? What incentive do we have to live for God? The doctrine of justification seems irresponsible. It sounds, in fact, like winning the spiritual lottery. If God gives righteousness away for free, who will ever work for him again? Paul anticipates this objection by making it part of his argument. "But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?" (Gal. 2:17). This is a fair question, and from the way he poses it, Paul seems to have something specific in mind. The clue is the word "sinners," which Paul used back in Gal 2:15 to indicate the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles. The Gentiles were "sinners," not so much because they were immoral, but because they lived outside the boundaries of the law. According to the Judaizers, this was precisely the problem with Peter and Paul: they had become outlaws. In their personal habits, they were living like Gentile sinners rather than like Jews. They used to keep the law in all its detail. Now they were doing things like eating unholy food with uncircumcised Gentiles. Hence the accusation that they were making Jesus a servant of sin, almost as if he were doing promotional work for the devil. Peter and Paul had sought to be justified by faith in Christ. This included giving up on the law as a way to get right with God. Whereas before they had always been law-abiding Jews, they were sinking to the level of pagans. When the Judaizers discovered that Peter and Paul were living like "Gentile sinners," they reached the obvious conclusion: being justified by faith causes people to sin in the name of Christ. And if Peter and Paul were guilty of this charge, then so were the Gentiles. They had come to faith in Christ, but they were still living like so-called sinners. Someone needed to hold them to a higher moral standard, and the Judaizers were just the men to do it! What is the best way to answer this line of thinking? It must be admitted that Christians do not always make good advertisements for Christianity. When this is the case, it helps to remember that by definition, all Christians are sinners. Martin Luther said, “A Christian is not someone who has no sin or feels no sin; he is someone to whom, because of his faith in Christ, God does not impute his sin.” This is the crucial difference. Christians are sinners too, but their sins do not count against them. Therefore, with the possible exception of the prison system, the church is the only institution in the world for bad people. This does not mean, however, that God himself is in the business of sin. “Certainly not!” Paul says (Gal. 2:17). God forbid! Or to put it in the vernacular, “No way!” Perish the thought that Christ is a “servant of sin,” as if his grace is somehow to be blamed for my guilt. When God justifies sinners by faith, he is not aiding and abetting their sin. The very suggestion is blasphemous. God cannot sin (James 1:13), nor can he be held responsible for my sin. If I am still a sinner after I become a Christian, it is no one’s fault but my own. (Reformed Expository Commentary – Galatians) UBS Handbook "The whole verse may be understood in the following way: Paul is saying that to be put right with God by faith, Jewish Christians have to abandon the Law. By abandoning the Law, they have become sinners, that is, outside the Law. Can it therefore be deduced from this that they have made Christ a minister of sin? To this, Paul answers: By no means. The expression is emphatic." HCSB Study Bible - Paul's opponents in Syrian Antioch and Galatia were apparently depicting his message of being justified by faith in Jesus Christ alone as "lowering" Jews spiritually to the level of being "Gentile sinners," which somehow would make Christ... a promoter of sin (i.e., by making Jews common "sinners"). Paul's response to this preposterous idea was the strongest possible negation—absolutely not (Gk mâ genoito)." Reformation Study Bible - The Galatian agitators and the “men … from James” (v. 12) considered Paul a “sinner” (like the Gentiles of Gal 2:15) for breaking the Jewish dietary food laws. They had probably also accused Paul’s gospel of promoting sin (Rom. 3:8). Grant Richison - But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ - Paul’s antagonists contended that justification by faith eradicates the moral law. If grace does away with law, then people can live as they please. They argued that eliminating the law would mean that a person could do as he or she pleases. Peter and his crowd argued by implication that a person has to work for justification. The cross of Christ is not enough for salvation. we ourselves also are found sinners, It was an admission on the part of Jewish Christians that justification by works proves that they are sinners. Their failure in keeping the law forces them to admit their sinful condition. They did not find righteousness in keeping the law. is Christ therefore a minister of sin? If God declares a person right in His eyes by faith, does this make Christians lawless? Legalists argued in this way, “If Christ does away with the law for salvation and sanctification then that would make Christ lawless.” Christ would endorse sin. This conclusion is false because Christ dealt with the sin issue on the cross. To believe that God justifies and sanctifies a person by faith does not imply lawlessness. Liberty is not liberty from God’s righteous standards. Neither is it lawlessness to fellowship with Gentiles. Going back to the law as a system of salvation and sanctification abandons the grace principle. We imply what Christ did on the cross was not sufficient. If Peter is right in going back to the Mosaic Law, then he was wrong in eating with the Gentiles. If he is right in eating with the Gentiles, then he was wrong in going back to the Mosaic Law. If he is right in one place, he is wrong in the other. He cannot hold the two at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. If he starts out by grace, then goes back to the law, he then abandons grace. He would say in effect that what Christ did on the cross was not enough. Peter’s return to legalism was an attack on grace. Certainly not! The conclusion that Christ is the minister of sin is the right inference if Peter’s reversion to legalism is right. The thought that Christ is the minister of sin is a revolting thought to Paul. The law cannot add anything to the death of Christ for our sins. If we carefully investigate justification in Christ and find ourselves to still be sinners, that doesn’t make Christ the minister of sin. This is an abhorrent thought. Paul adamantly denied the accusation that Christ promotes sin by offering the principle of grace. PRINCIPLE: The principle of grace does not endorse licentiousness. (Galatians 2:17) Thomas