Galatians 2:7-9

[alon]

Galatians 2:6 (ESV) 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.

The translators here are using unnecessary harsh language. Even some Christian commentators agree on this:

Adam Clark commentary on Gal 2.6: Perhaps this verse had best be translated thus, connecting διαφερει with απο των δοκουντων· But there is no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and myself; God accepts no man's person; but, in the conferences which I held with then, they added nothing to me - gave me no new light; did not attempt to impose on me any obligation, because they saw that God had appointed me my work, and that his counsel was with me.

Albert Barnes commentary Gal 2.6: The most distinguished persons among the apostles at Jerusalem, he says, received him kindly, and admitted him to their confidence and favor without hesitation. They added no heavy burdens to him;

Rav S translates this verse “And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. I was doing fine. By the way what these leaders were before they were the pillars of the Church… in other words before they were Saved…. makes no difference to me as G-d is no respecter of persons.” (RSV- Rabbi Stanley Version).

So why would Rav Sha’ul make that statement translated in parenthesis, “(what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)?” Well, if we read on we see:

Galatians 2:7-9 (ESV) 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.

John was a Sadducee! The Pharisees and Sadducees had been embroiled in an often bloody seesaw fight for dominance in the Sanhedrin. Josephus said Yanai brought 800 Pharisees to Jerusalem to be crucified. The throats of their wives and children were cut before their eyes while Yanai ate with his concubines. Altogether he was responsible for the deaths of aproximately 6,000 Pharisees about 80 BCE.

Rav Sha’ul, who himself had not long ago been killing Not’srim had some things to work through here. It couldn’t have been easy for these men who had recently been enemies to reconcile their feelings. But here we witness part of Rav Sha’ul’s process of coping with the baggage.

For us, the lesson is the same as for Rav Sha'ul- no matter who or what a person was before they came to and accepted the truth, we are all Meshiachim now.

Romans 10:12-13 (ESV) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Dan C

Primary source is a teaching by Rav S

[alon]

Galatians 2:7 (ESV) 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.

This verse is used to put forth the doctrine that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. This is catholic, or Universal theology. Before the Roman Catholic Church, some Gentiles calling themselves Christians became invested in the Universal Church. They had nothing in common with the sect of the Nots’rim. The Church Father Clement wrote:

“All the churches of the west were Greek religious colonies. Their language was Greek, their organization Greek, their writers Greek and their ritual Greek. Thus the church at Rome was but one of a confederation of Greek religious republics rounded by Christianity”.

In his own words, the church was thoroughly pagan Greek and in no way Jewish. Epiphanius writes of the Nots’rim:

“They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law-circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest- they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.” (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

So clearly, according to “the church” the Nots’rim were not Christians; they were Jews! Christianity is Greek and it’s full of Greek paganism.

Vs. 7 says “On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the Uncircumcised” This sounds like he means Gentiles. However if we look at the word for uncircumcision, Gk “akrobystia,” Helps Word Studies says: properly, uncircumcised (figuratively) a person outside God’s covenant.

Strong’s says: G203 ἀκροβυστία akrobustia ak-rob-oos-tee'-ah … by implication an uncircumcised (that is, gentile, figuratively unregenerate) state or person: - not circumcised, uncircumcised [with G2192], uncircumcision.

So the translators must choose; is it figurative or literal? If literal, then it’s Gentiles. But if figurative it could mean Jews outside the covenant; those not practicing Judaism, keeping . Since the translators have been trained to believe Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles there’s no question. They just say "uncircumcision" when they could have said “those outside of the covenant.”

Well how do we know which is right? Simple! We match it up to the rest of Scriptur! We can see that Paul is the sheliach, the apostle to the Jews. The first place he went to after he was called was to the Synagogue to try and reach the Jews.

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 - and he goes to the Synagogue. If Yeshua appeared to me and called me to the Gentiles, I think I’d doggone well go to the Gentiles! Yet he ignores them, going to Synagogue to win the Jews over instead. And after that he says himself, “First to the Jew and then to the Gentiles.” (Rom 1:16, 2:10). So Paul is sheliach to the Jews! Nowhere can it scripturally be backed up sufficiently to translate this “uncircumcised” in the context of Rav Sha’ul’s calling. It doesn’t fit contextually with the rest of scripture, and that’s how a word should be translated. By context. Context of the passage and context of the entire Word of G-d.

What about where it says “just as Kefa had been for the Circumcised?” Proper hermeneutics says we must be consistent. If Sha’ul was being metaphorical in the first part of this sentence, then he must be being metaphorical in the next part as well.

The word for circumcised there is peratome, G4061 περιτομή peritomē per-it-om-ay' From G4059; circumcision (the rite, the condition or the people, literally or figuratively): - X circumcised, circumcision.

Looking at this verse with proper understanding: 7. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News to those Jews outside of the covenant, just as Peter had been entrusted with the Good News to the saved Jews who are keeping covenant. 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of those Jews outside of the covenant, the same was mighty in me toward the Jews of the nations. (RSV, Rav S Version)

Now it makes sense. By using our minds and the tools available to us we’re no longer dependent on any translators particular doctrinal predisposition. When reading a translation of scripture you are hardly reading the very words of G-d. You are reading the translators interpretation of the words of G-d. As Meshiachim, we need to do better than that.

Dan C

Again, primarily based on the same teaching by Rav S

[alon]

These things are important for us to understand, as the book of Galatians is one of the primary texts which Christians will confront you with. We need to know these things first so that we will not ourselves be swayed by false theology based on poor (and very biased) interpretations. Also, if we can explain these things to those who use them to attack us we may persuade them to look further with us into the truth of God's Word. It is tough to understand and internalize, but well worth the effort. Hope this all helps.

Dan C

[jimmie]

Nov 11, 2015 5:14:19 GMT -8 alon said:

Galatians 2:6 (ESV) 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.

The translators here are using unnecessary harsh language. Even some Christian commentators agree on this:


Dan C

Primary source is a teaching by Rav S

Am I connecting the dots wrong here. The harsh language directed at the "false brethren" in verse 4 is warrented is it not?

[alon]

Galatians 2:4-5 (ESV) 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.

I’d characterize this as strong language. If you want to say it is harsh, well, I am a Shamaimite, remember? Harsh is fine with me, except I’d then possibly add “May the Siccari have their way with thee!”

Really what Rav Sha’ul is saying here is that there is a problem. Some people were coming in and trying to compel everyone to keep the laws the way they saw it! They were actually saying if you didn’t, you couldn’t be saved, but he didn’t go that much into detail here. These were legalists, and we still have the same problem today only in its many permutations. Christianity is rife with various types of legalists, and the Messianic movement seems to be a magnet for other types.

I’ve been told by Christians my salvation depends on my being their kind of Trinitarian, and by those posing as Messianic that if I didn’t say the names of God correctly, as they taught it, I wasn’t saved. And just as in the time of Rav Sha’ul, some say you must be circumcised to be saved. You can probably come up with your own examples of this if you try. But salvation is by grace through faith/trust in Yeshua, and nothing else. This is what we teach, and it is what every true Christian teaches also. The rest, and there are many, are imposters.

Fortunately in equally strong language Rav Sha’ul tells us how we should handle this. We preserve the gospel by not yielding an inch to the false brothers. My spiritual as well as political motto is “Never compromise with evil.” That, I think is what Rav Sha’ul is saying here. Sadly he didn’t say anything about sicking the Siccari on them; but I’ll get over that.

So to answer your question, I think the tone of both vss. 4 & 5 is appropriately strong; perhaps to some it may seem harsh. Rav Sha’ul here gives a strong warning and an implied exhortation to stand against these false brethren with their false teachings.

Dan C