Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
"Galatians, Chapter 2, shows the basic differences in their messages. The twelve had preached Christ as Israel's King and, at that point, had not yet learned that through His death the Mosaic law was to be set aside. Paul's whole message to the Gentiles was based on the setting aside of the law, and the unfolding of the dispensation of the grace of God and the all-sufficient finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary." (Stam)
fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem - "This fourteen years has to be added to the three years of Galatians 1:18, when Paul first went back to Jerusalem. His first visit was three years after his conversion, at which time he saw only one the twelve apostles, and that for a few days only (Gal 1:18). Meanwhile, he was unknown to the Judean church. In seventeen years he had conferred with only one of the twelve apostles ... Why this extended trip by Paul to Jerusalem, if he were preaching the same thing among the Gentiles that Peter and the others were preaching in Judea? Here is strong proof of the distinctive character of Paul's apostleship and message." (Stam)
Titus - "A test case: if he were compelled to be circumcised, then other Gentile believers could be too; if not, then freedom from the law was confirmed." (Ryrie)
"Paul probably took him along to make of him a test case on the whole question of Gentile circumcision. This shows the determined spirit with which Paul came to the meeting of the council." (Wuest)
"Titus was a test case. Paul wanted the Jewish believers to see for themselves an uncircumcised Gentile who had been genuinely saved and regenerated, entirely apart from circumcision or the law of Moses. He was determined to have them acknowledge that Titus was indeed a child of God ... Titus was clearly the man for Paul to take to Jerusalem as a test case for Gentile liberty from the law of Moses. Titus was outgoing, brilliant, warm-hearted, and truly devoted to the Lord; at the same time he was bold where the truth was concerned. Paul felt certain he would not waver, and his confidence was justified." (Stam)
"An interesting comparison between Timothy and Titus can be found in what Paul had to say with regard to the visits they both made to Corinth. Timothy was, of course, far above the careless Corinthian believers both morally and spiritually. Yet when Paul sent Timothy to Corinth he had to write a letter in advance, exhorting them, 'Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man therefore despise him...' (1 Cor 16:10-11). Later when Titus had been to Corinth and had returned, Paul wrote to the church there something very different: 'And his [Titus] inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him' (2 Cor 7:15). Quite a difference! The Corinthians were living very loosely, much as the Church today, and there was great permissiveness. Timothy was sent there to teach them, and Paul had to write ahead: 'Do not make him feel shy or afraid; do not despise him. He is working the work of the Lord.' But he did not have to write a letter ahead for Titus. When they knew that he was coming they began to tremble! He was a man of great character and authority. He was clearly the more robust character of the two men." (Stam)
I went up because of a revelation - "In Acts 15 we read that the church in Antioch sent Paul to Jerusalem. This was true, but there is more to this than that, of which Luke does not inform us. Paul declares that Christ sent him by special revelation." (Stam)
"Moreover, if the incident about to be related took place after the Council at Jerusalem at all, it must have taken place immediately after it, for Paul and Barnabas separated soon after their return to Antioch, as recorded in Acts 15:36-40, and were never together again. It is hardly conceivable, however, that Peter, and even Barnabas, should have acted as here described within such a brief space after the Council, to which Barnabas was a delegate, and at which the principle of liberty was asserted largely as a consequence of the intervention of Peter. And the difficulty is the greater in view of the fact that it was from Antioch that the mission which procured this decision was dispatched. Could the question have been raised again in this new form immediately after the receipt of the apostolic edict? Here, indeed, the question is not directly of the liberty of the Gentiles, but of their equality with the Jewish believers. The one seems to involve the other, however, for liberty could not long be preserved to those whom the stigma of inferiority attached. It is highly probable, then, that the apostle here goes back to the time of strain at Antioch mentioned in Acts 15:1, 2. True, Peter is not referred to there, but neither is there any mention of his presence in Antioch between the breakup of the Council and the departure of Barnabas mentioned in Acts 15:39. It is possible that the Judaizing teachers may have given to the Galatians an account of this incident in proof that there was a fundamental difference between the gospel preached by Paul and that preached by Peter. In that case it would call for notice, and the relation of the facts afforded the writer an opportunity of confirming this argument by showing that not only was he not dependent on the Twelve for authority to preach, he had, when occasion demanded, opposed and even publicly rebuked their leader for inconsistency in putting the uncircumcised believers at a disadvantage when compared with their Jewish brethren." (Vine)
in vain - "These words are not to be understood as indicating any misgiving in the apostle's mind concerning the gospel he preached. They refer to his apprehension of the possibility of non-success in his mission. When 'dissension and questioning' arose at Antioch, he had consented to take the judgment of the church at Jerusalem. If the, through any lack of diligence or forethought on his part, a decision adverse to the broader, more liberal gospel were to be given, the work of God among the Gentiles would be set back indefinitely. Hence his precaution that the leaders should be put in possession of all the facts and arguments, so that, if possible, their weighty influence in favor of freedom might be secured before the points in dispute were debated in public. Paul had not come to Jerusalem to obtain sanction for the continuance of his ministry among the Gentiles, indeed, but in view of the efforts that had been made to nullify his labors, to convince the elders and the church there of the validity of the gospel he preached, and to counteract the misrepresentations that had been made. In this aim he seems to have been successful, as subsequent events showed, cp. especially Acts 15:25. Paul and Barnabas seem to have commended themselves as well as their doctrine." (Vine)
"However he was not sent to check with the twelve or to make sure that he was preaching the same message as they. Rather, the Lord sent him to Jerusalem to communicate to the leaders 'that gospel which I [Paul] preach among the Gentiles.' Why did he need to tell them what he had been preaching to the Gentiles, and why this phraseology if his gospel was exactly the same as their gospel? This is not the only place where he used such wording regarding the message which he preached. Three times he called his good news 'my gospel' (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). Frequently he said, 'Our gospel,' or 'that gospel which I preach unto you' or 'that gospel which ye have received of me,' or 'the gospel which was preached of me.' His epistles are filled with such phraseology. Why should he put such emphasis on the distinctiveness of his message if it were not distinct and separate from that which the twelve had been preaching?" (Stam)
false brothers - "Judaizers who wanted to enslave Gentile converts by requiring circumcision and keeping the law of Moses." (Ryrie)
the truth of the gospel - "I.e., grace is everything and for everyone; to compromise these truths was unthinkable." (Ryrie)
those who seemed to be influential - "James, Peter, John (v. 9), who the Judaizers link up with even though they had approved of Paul's ministry to Gentiles." (Ryrie)
added nothing to me - "This conference with the apostles did not change Paul's position in the least, but rather confirmed his stand. Remember that there was a question about Paul's message of grace, because it seemed to conflict with the apostles' message of the Kingdom. Peter's message at Pentecost had been, '...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ' (Acts 2:38). But Paul never preached that message. The message at Pentecost was to the Jews and the Nation of Israel. There was not a Gentile present—only Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:10). Peter preached baptism for the remission of sins. But Paul's message was, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved' (Acts 16:31) ... In Peter's message baptism preceded the remission of sins ... Does God have a double standard? Or has God changed His mind? The only answer can be found in recognizing God's dispensational dealing under the Age of Law and the Age of Grace ... Failure to rightly divide the dispensations closes the door to rightly understand the grace of God." (De Haan)
"He [Paul] also said 'in conference [they] added nothing to me' (Gal 2:6). What could those former fishermen and tax collectors tell him about God's Old Testament prophecies and their program? What could they tell him about Messiah and the promised Kingdom? He was 'a Hebrew of the Hebrews' (Phil 3:5), 'a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee' (Acts 23:6), brought up in the Scriptures under the teaching of Gamaliel (Act 22:3). He was the greatest Pharisee of his time (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6). Paul knew the Old testament Scriptures far better than they. He know, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, how those Scriptures had been fulfilled in Christ for he had now seen Him glorified in heaven. The twelve added nothing to Paul (Gal 2:6-7), but he added something to them. This agrees with Galatians 2:2 because if the gospels were the same, why did Paul go up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles?" (Stam)
the gospel to the uncircumcised - "Better, the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul was especially responsible for spreading the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5) and Peter to the circumcised, the Jews." (Ryrie)
right hand of fellowship - "A pledge of agreement and support of Paul." (Ryrie)
the poor - "The saints in Jerusalem were notoriously poor (Rom 15:26; see also 1 Cor 16:1-4)." (Ryrie)
"The kingdom program, with its 'all things common...possessions and goods [sold], and parted them to all men' (Acts 2:44-45; cf. Matt 10:9-10; Mk 10:21; Lk 12:32-33) was failing. This is further proof of Paul's apostleship and message ... After the Kingdom had again been rejected, after Stephen had been stone, and after Paul had been raised up, the eleventh chapter of Acts records that a delegation was sent from Jerusalem to the Antioch church. In that delegation was a prophet 'named Agabus, [who] signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world' (Acts 11:28). Now this Jerusalem church, as the Lord had commanded them, had nothing in store, anticipating the Millennial kingdom. At Antioch, however, the record state that they were not having everything in common, and that they sent financial aid to the church at Jerusalem. Clearly, the Kingdom program at Jerusalem had broken down. 'Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul' (Acts 11:29-30). Paul later wrote about 'the poor saints which are at Jerusalem' (Rom 15:26), and he had much to say about the collections from all the Gentile churches to the church at Jerusalem. But in writing to Timothy, see how the program had changed: 'But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel' (1 Tim 5:8)." (Stam)
"Galatians, Chapter 2, shows the basic differences in their messages. The twelve had preached Christ as Israel's King and, at that point, had not yet learned that through His death the Mosaic law was to be set aside. Paul's whole message to the Gentiles was based on the setting aside of the law, and the unfolding of the dispensation of the grace of God and the all-sufficient finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary." (Stam)
fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem - "This fourteen years has to be added to the three years of Galatians 1:18, when Paul first went back to Jerusalem. His first visit was three years after his conversion, at which time he saw only one the twelve apostles, and that for a few days only (Gal 1:18). Meanwhile, he was unknown to the Judean church. In seventeen years he had conferred with only one of the twelve apostles ... Why this extended trip by Paul to Jerusalem, if he were preaching the same thing among the Gentiles that Peter and the others were preaching in Judea? Here is strong proof of the distinctive character of Paul's apostleship and message." (Stam)
Titus - "A test case: if he were compelled to be circumcised, then other Gentile believers could be too; if not, then freedom from the law was confirmed." (Ryrie)
"Paul probably took him along to make of him a test case on the whole question of Gentile circumcision. This shows the determined spirit with which Paul came to the meeting of the council." (Wuest)
"Titus was a test case. Paul wanted the Jewish believers to see for themselves an uncircumcised Gentile who had been genuinely saved and regenerated, entirely apart from circumcision or the law of Moses. He was determined to have them acknowledge that Titus was indeed a child of God ... Titus was clearly the man for Paul to take to Jerusalem as a test case for Gentile liberty from the law of Moses. Titus was outgoing, brilliant, warm-hearted, and truly devoted to the Lord; at the same time he was bold where the truth was concerned. Paul felt certain he would not waver, and his confidence was justified." (Stam)
"An interesting comparison between Timothy and Titus can be found in what Paul had to say with regard to the visits they both made to Corinth. Timothy was, of course, far above the careless Corinthian believers both morally and spiritually. Yet when Paul sent Timothy to Corinth he had to write a letter in advance, exhorting them, 'Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do. Let no man therefore despise him...' (1 Cor 16:10-11). Later when Titus had been to Corinth and had returned, Paul wrote to the church there something very different: 'And his [Titus] inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him' (2 Cor 7:15). Quite a difference! The Corinthians were living very loosely, much as the Church today, and there was great permissiveness. Timothy was sent there to teach them, and Paul had to write ahead: 'Do not make him feel shy or afraid; do not despise him. He is working the work of the Lord.' But he did not have to write a letter ahead for Titus. When they knew that he was coming they began to tremble! He was a man of great character and authority. He was clearly the more robust character of the two men." (Stam)
I went up because of a revelation - "In Acts 15 we read that the church in Antioch sent Paul to Jerusalem. This was true, but there is more to this than that, of which Luke does not inform us. Paul declares that Christ sent him by special revelation." (Stam)
"Moreover, if the incident about to be related took place after the Council at Jerusalem at all, it must have taken place immediately after it, for Paul and Barnabas separated soon after their return to Antioch, as recorded in Acts 15:36-40, and were never together again. It is hardly conceivable, however, that Peter, and even Barnabas, should have acted as here described within such a brief space after the Council, to which Barnabas was a delegate, and at which the principle of liberty was asserted largely as a consequence of the intervention of Peter. And the difficulty is the greater in view of the fact that it was from Antioch that the mission which procured this decision was dispatched. Could the question have been raised again in this new form immediately after the receipt of the apostolic edict? Here, indeed, the question is not directly of the liberty of the Gentiles, but of their equality with the Jewish believers. The one seems to involve the other, however, for liberty could not long be preserved to those whom the stigma of inferiority attached. It is highly probable, then, that the apostle here goes back to the time of strain at Antioch mentioned in Acts 15:1, 2. True, Peter is not referred to there, but neither is there any mention of his presence in Antioch between the breakup of the Council and the departure of Barnabas mentioned in Acts 15:39. It is possible that the Judaizing teachers may have given to the Galatians an account of this incident in proof that there was a fundamental difference between the gospel preached by Paul and that preached by Peter. In that case it would call for notice, and the relation of the facts afforded the writer an opportunity of confirming this argument by showing that not only was he not dependent on the Twelve for authority to preach, he had, when occasion demanded, opposed and even publicly rebuked their leader for inconsistency in putting the uncircumcised believers at a disadvantage when compared with their Jewish brethren." (Vine)
in vain - "These words are not to be understood as indicating any misgiving in the apostle's mind concerning the gospel he preached. They refer to his apprehension of the possibility of non-success in his mission. When 'dissension and questioning' arose at Antioch, he had consented to take the judgment of the church at Jerusalem. If the, through any lack of diligence or forethought on his part, a decision adverse to the broader, more liberal gospel were to be given, the work of God among the Gentiles would be set back indefinitely. Hence his precaution that the leaders should be put in possession of all the facts and arguments, so that, if possible, their weighty influence in favor of freedom might be secured before the points in dispute were debated in public. Paul had not come to Jerusalem to obtain sanction for the continuance of his ministry among the Gentiles, indeed, but in view of the efforts that had been made to nullify his labors, to convince the elders and the church there of the validity of the gospel he preached, and to counteract the misrepresentations that had been made. In this aim he seems to have been successful, as subsequent events showed, cp. especially Acts 15:25. Paul and Barnabas seem to have commended themselves as well as their doctrine." (Vine)
"However he was not sent to check with the twelve or to make sure that he was preaching the same message as they. Rather, the Lord sent him to Jerusalem to communicate to the leaders 'that gospel which I [Paul] preach among the Gentiles.' Why did he need to tell them what he had been preaching to the Gentiles, and why this phraseology if his gospel was exactly the same as their gospel? This is not the only place where he used such wording regarding the message which he preached. Three times he called his good news 'my gospel' (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8). Frequently he said, 'Our gospel,' or 'that gospel which I preach unto you' or 'that gospel which ye have received of me,' or 'the gospel which was preached of me.' His epistles are filled with such phraseology. Why should he put such emphasis on the distinctiveness of his message if it were not distinct and separate from that which the twelve had been preaching?" (Stam)
false brothers - "Judaizers who wanted to enslave Gentile converts by requiring circumcision and keeping the law of Moses." (Ryrie)
the truth of the gospel - "I.e., grace is everything and for everyone; to compromise these truths was unthinkable." (Ryrie)
those who seemed to be influential - "James, Peter, John (v. 9), who the Judaizers link up with even though they had approved of Paul's ministry to Gentiles." (Ryrie)
added nothing to me - "This conference with the apostles did not change Paul's position in the least, but rather confirmed his stand. Remember that there was a question about Paul's message of grace, because it seemed to conflict with the apostles' message of the Kingdom. Peter's message at Pentecost had been, '...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ' (Acts 2:38). But Paul never preached that message. The message at Pentecost was to the Jews and the Nation of Israel. There was not a Gentile present—only Jews and proselytes (Acts 2:10). Peter preached baptism for the remission of sins. But Paul's message was, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved' (Acts 16:31) ... In Peter's message baptism preceded the remission of sins ... Does God have a double standard? Or has God changed His mind? The only answer can be found in recognizing God's dispensational dealing under the Age of Law and the Age of Grace ... Failure to rightly divide the dispensations closes the door to rightly understand the grace of God." (De Haan)
"He [Paul] also said 'in conference [they] added nothing to me' (Gal 2:6). What could those former fishermen and tax collectors tell him about God's Old Testament prophecies and their program? What could they tell him about Messiah and the promised Kingdom? He was 'a Hebrew of the Hebrews' (Phil 3:5), 'a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee' (Acts 23:6), brought up in the Scriptures under the teaching of Gamaliel (Act 22:3). He was the greatest Pharisee of his time (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6). Paul knew the Old testament Scriptures far better than they. He know, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, how those Scriptures had been fulfilled in Christ for he had now seen Him glorified in heaven. The twelve added nothing to Paul (Gal 2:6-7), but he added something to them. This agrees with Galatians 2:2 because if the gospels were the same, why did Paul go up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles?" (Stam)
the gospel to the uncircumcised - "Better, the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul was especially responsible for spreading the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom 1:5) and Peter to the circumcised, the Jews." (Ryrie)
right hand of fellowship - "A pledge of agreement and support of Paul." (Ryrie)
the poor - "The saints in Jerusalem were notoriously poor (Rom 15:26; see also 1 Cor 16:1-4)." (Ryrie)
"The kingdom program, with its 'all things common...possessions and goods [sold], and parted them to all men' (Acts 2:44-45; cf. Matt 10:9-10; Mk 10:21; Lk 12:32-33) was failing. This is further proof of Paul's apostleship and message ... After the Kingdom had again been rejected, after Stephen had been stone, and after Paul had been raised up, the eleventh chapter of Acts records that a delegation was sent from Jerusalem to the Antioch church. In that delegation was a prophet 'named Agabus, [who] signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world' (Acts 11:28). Now this Jerusalem church, as the Lord had commanded them, had nothing in store, anticipating the Millennial kingdom. At Antioch, however, the record state that they were not having everything in common, and that they sent financial aid to the church at Jerusalem. Clearly, the Kingdom program at Jerusalem had broken down. 'Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul' (Acts 11:29-30). Paul later wrote about 'the poor saints which are at Jerusalem' (Rom 15:26), and he had much to say about the collections from all the Gentile churches to the church at Jerusalem. But in writing to Timothy, see how the program had changed: 'But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel' (1 Tim 5:8)." (Stam)
No comments:
Post a Comment