728x90
Paul Accepted by the Apostles
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those lwho seemed influential) the gospel that mI proclaim among the Gentiles, nin order to make sure I was not running or had not orun in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, pwas not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 qYet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who rslipped in to spy out sour freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, tso that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that uthe truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those vwho seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; wGod shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential xadded nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been yentrusted with zthe gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, vwho seemed to be apillars, perceived the bgrace that was given to me, they cgave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, dthe very thing I was eager to do.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 갈 2:1–10.
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those lwho seemed influential) the gospel that mI proclaim among the Gentiles, nin order to make sure I was not running or had not orun in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, pwas not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 qYet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who rslipped in to spy out sour freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, tso that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that uthe truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those vwho seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; wGod shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential xadded nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been yentrusted with zthe gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, vwho seemed to be apillars, perceived the bgrace that was given to me, they cgave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, dthe very thing I was eager to do.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016), 갈 2:1–10.
1-2절) 14년 후에 내가 다시 예루살렘에 바나바와 디도를 동행하여 올라갔다. 나는 계시 때문에 올라갔습니다. 또한 나는 이방인 중에서 선포하던 복음을 유력해 보이는 그들에게 개인적으로 전했습니다. 이는 내가 달리지 않고 있고 또한 내가 달리는 것이 헛되지 않다는 것을 확실히 하기 위해서이다.
14년만에 바나바와 디도와 함께 예루살렘을 방문한 본 사건이 과연 행 15장의 예루살렘 공의회를 의미하는지에 대해서 의견이 분분하다. 예루살렘 공의회는 이방인에게 할례를 행하는 것이 꼭 필요한가에 대한 교회의 공식적인 입장인데 반해서 갈 2장은 공의회의 내용을 담지 않고 도리어 사사로이 쓴 내용이라고 밝히고 있기에 두 사건이 동일한 사건이 아닌것으로 보인다.
본문에 등장하는 세 부류가 있는데 첫번째는 바울의 일행(바나바와 디도)이고 두번째는 거짓 형제들로 율법의 준수를 고집하는 부류이다. 세번째는 예루살렘 교회의 지도자들로 야고보와 베드로와 요한이다.
바울은 본문의 예루살렘 방문에 세가지 중요한 동기를 가지고 있다. 첫번째는 계시를 따라 올라갔다라고 말한다. 이는 이러한 행동이 개인적인 의도나 계획으로 이루어진 것이 아니라는 사실을 밝히는 것이다. 두번째로 이방 가운데 자신이 선포하는 복음을 제시하고자 한 것이다.
- Paul’s second motivation in convening the conference is succinctly expressed: “I went … to set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.” The verb anethemēn, “set before them,” means literally “to declare, communicate, advocate, propound.”
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 139.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 139.
세번째로 이 공회의 주도권이 자신에게 있음을 밝히고 있다. 바울 자신이 공회에 소환당한 것이 아니라 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해서 주도적으로 모임을 소집했음을 밝힌다.
- The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 also was a public event, one fraught with great tension and controversy. Yet in the providence of God that public airing and resolution of the question of Christian liberty was a necessary antidote against the destructive teachings of those who would have reduced the Christian faith to a small sect within Judaism. How do we know when to seek private counsel and when to take a public stand? When is it right to swallow our scruples and yield to a fellow Christian on a matter of secondary importance? Conversely, when is it wrong to sit still and keep the peace when our speaking out could make a difference about whether our church or our denomination will remain faithful to the gospel? There is a time to speak and a time to keep silent. Every Christian must seek the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to know which is appropriate at a given time.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 140.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 140.
3-5절) 나와 함께 한 디도는 그가 헬라인이었음에도 불구하고 억지로 할례를 받도록 하지 않았다. 하지만 그리스도안에서 우리가 가지고 있는 자유를 엿보기 위해서 몰래 들어온 거짓 형제들은 우리를 종으로 삼으려고 했다. 그들에게 우리가 잠시도 복종하지 않았는데 이는 복음의 진리가 너희를 주장하게 하기 위해서이다.
- Later, in his Letter to Titus, Paul addresses him as “my true son in our common faith” (Titus 1:4). Titus was probably won to Christ through the witness of Paul himself and thus became one of his most trusted coworkers (2 Cor 8:23).94 Titus is nowhere mentioned in Acts but he appears frequently in Paul’s letters serving as the apostle’s confidential agent especially in the gathering and administration of the love offering the Gentile churches were collecting for the poor saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:20; 12:17). It has been well said that Titus “possessed considerable people skills … and was a man of unquestioned integrity, especially with regard to financial resources.”95
94 E. E. Ellis, “Paul and His Co-workers,” NTS 17 (1971): 437–52. See also C. K. Barrett, “Titus,” Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 118–31, and B. Reicke, “Chronologie der Pastoral briefe,” TLZ 101 (1976): 82–94.
95 T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffin, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 273.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 141.
94 E. E. Ellis, “Paul and His Co-workers,” NTS 17 (1971): 437–52. See also C. K. Barrett, “Titus,” Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 118–31, and B. Reicke, “Chronologie der Pastoral briefe,” TLZ 101 (1976): 82–94.
95 T. D. Lea and H. P. Griffin, Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 273.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 141.
왜 바울이 디도와 동행했을까? 모 교회인 예루살렘 교회에 시리아의 이방 교회에서 회심하여 돌아온 이를 통해서 이방인에게 전해진 복음이 얼마나 놀라운 것인지를 직접 보여주고자 했다. 또한 이방인에 대한 할례에 대한 논쟁을 위해서 동행했을수도 있다.
Why did Paul take Titus with him to Jerusalem? If, as we have argued, this visit was made for the purpose of delivering famine relief to the Christians of Judea, then it would be perfectly natural for a Gentile member of the church at Antioch to be sent along as an expression of solidarity between the predominantly Gentile church in Syria and the largely Jewish mother congregation at Jerusalem. However, there is also the possibility that Paul may deliberately have included Titus in the delegation to have a living example of a Gentile convert on hand when he “set forth” his gospel to the church leaders there. He surely knew that Titus was uncircumcised, and he may well have anticipated the controversy over this issue.
On this reading, then, Paul took Titus with him as a test case for the principle of Christian freedom. In some sense this was a deliberate act of provocation although, as John Stott has said, “It was not in order to stir up strife that he brought Titus with him to Jerusalem, but in order to establish the truth of the gospel. This truth is that Jews and Gentiles are accepted by God on the same terms, namely, through faith in Jesus Christ, and must therefore be accepted by the church without any discrimination between them.”96
Here for the first time in Galatians we encounter the issue of circumcision. It will be mentioned again later in this same chapter and also in the closing section of the book (2:7–9, 12; 5:1–11; 6:12–15). Controversy over circumcision was not limited to the Galatian context. It dogged Paul wherever he went as can be seen from his discussions of it in Romans (2:25–29; 3:1, 20; 4:9–12; 15:8), Philippians (3:3–5), 1 Corinthians (7:18–20), and Colossians (2:9–15; 3:10–11). In Gal 2:12 Paul identified the troublemakers in Antioch as “those who belonged to the circumcision group.” The same expression recurs in his Letter to Titus (1:10), where the apostle warned his younger colleague against “many rebellious people” who oppose sound doctrine, “mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.” In order for us to understand more clearly what was at stake in the episode over Titus at Jerusalem, and indeed in the Galatian crisis generally, we must review briefly the role of circumcision both within Judaism and early Christianity.
96 J. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1968), 42. Cf. also Barrett’s comment: “Paul could see that trouble was blowing up (the next few verses will show how near it was), and went to lay his cards on the table.… Perhaps what he wanted was a showdown, and he took Titus with him as a deliberate provocation. Jerusalem was evidently a divided church, for we leave the authorities and come first to the false brothers (2:4), that is, people who looked like Christians, and claimed to be Christians, but (in Paul’s view) were not Christians. It was these men who required that Titus, the Greek, should be circumcised, evidently taking the line that this was the only way into the Christian body, the people of God. Paul would not have it” (Freedom and Obligation, 11)
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 141–142.
On this reading, then, Paul took Titus with him as a test case for the principle of Christian freedom. In some sense this was a deliberate act of provocation although, as John Stott has said, “It was not in order to stir up strife that he brought Titus with him to Jerusalem, but in order to establish the truth of the gospel. This truth is that Jews and Gentiles are accepted by God on the same terms, namely, through faith in Jesus Christ, and must therefore be accepted by the church without any discrimination between them.”96
Here for the first time in Galatians we encounter the issue of circumcision. It will be mentioned again later in this same chapter and also in the closing section of the book (2:7–9, 12; 5:1–11; 6:12–15). Controversy over circumcision was not limited to the Galatian context. It dogged Paul wherever he went as can be seen from his discussions of it in Romans (2:25–29; 3:1, 20; 4:9–12; 15:8), Philippians (3:3–5), 1 Corinthians (7:18–20), and Colossians (2:9–15; 3:10–11). In Gal 2:12 Paul identified the troublemakers in Antioch as “those who belonged to the circumcision group.” The same expression recurs in his Letter to Titus (1:10), where the apostle warned his younger colleague against “many rebellious people” who oppose sound doctrine, “mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.” In order for us to understand more clearly what was at stake in the episode over Titus at Jerusalem, and indeed in the Galatian crisis generally, we must review briefly the role of circumcision both within Judaism and early Christianity.
96 J. Stott, Only One Way: The Message of Galatians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1968), 42. Cf. also Barrett’s comment: “Paul could see that trouble was blowing up (the next few verses will show how near it was), and went to lay his cards on the table.… Perhaps what he wanted was a showdown, and he took Titus with him as a deliberate provocation. Jerusalem was evidently a divided church, for we leave the authorities and come first to the false brothers (2:4), that is, people who looked like Christians, and claimed to be Christians, but (in Paul’s view) were not Christians. It was these men who required that Titus, the Greek, should be circumcised, evidently taking the line that this was the only way into the Christian body, the people of God. Paul would not have it” (Freedom and Obligation, 11)
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 141–142.
창 17장에 아브라함으로부터 시작된 할례는 하나님의 선택된 백성의 징표로 생후 8일에 행하도록 했다. 이후 이 할례는 회개와 여호와에 대한 완전한 헌신을 의미하는 것으로 확장되었다. 이후 헬라시대에 할례는 유대인을 상징하는 매우 중요한 징표가 되었다.
- Circumcision is the act of removing the foreskin of the male genital, a rite practiced among various peoples of the ancient world as a sign of initiation at puberty or marriage.97 Among the Jewish people, however, circumcision originated in the special covenant God made with Abraham (Gen 17:1–27) whereby every male child, whether freeborn Israelite or household slave, would be circumcised on the eighth day after birth as a sign of participation in the chosen people of God. In the tradition of the great prophets of Israel circumcision is extended metaphorically to refer to the act of repentance and total consecration demanded by the Lord. Thus Jeremiah could deliver this word from the Lord for the people of his day, “Circumcise yourselves, and take away the foreskins of your heart” (Jer 4:4, KJV). Obviously the children of Israel were guilty of overreliance on the external rite of circumcision and the sacrificial system of the temple to the neglect of what Jesus would call “the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness” (Matt 23:23). There may well be, as some scholars have claimed, a line of continuity between Jeremiah’s spiritualizing of circumcision in terms of a genuine response of the heart and Paul’s use of the term as a metaphor for the Christian life.98
In the Hellenistic Roman period, circumcision became more and more prominent as a distinguishing mark of Jewish identity as the people of Israel found themselves in a political environment that grew increasingly hostile. According to the Maccabean literature, the reign of terror unleashed by Antiochus IV (175–163 b.c.), included a prohibition of circumcision and a policy by which babies who had been circumcised were put to death along with the mothers who had submitted them to this sign of the covenant.
97 The following summary is based on the article by R. Meyer, “Περιτέμνω,” TDNT 6.72–84. Also see J. B. Polhill, “Circumcision,” MDB. Also worthy of note are N. J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and Law,” NTS 20 (1974): 319–41, and J. M. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85 (1966): 473–76.
98 See, e.g., Paul’s comment in Phil 3:3: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.” Similarly, Paul can say to the Colossians that in Christ we have received a circumcision made without hands. This has happened through a putting off of the old life in the circumcision of Christ, evidently a reference to the experience of forgiveness secured by the cross and the inner transformation of the believer wrought thereby (Col 2:12–13). For Paul, regeneration, not baptism, is the New Testament antitype for which literal circumcision in the OT was the type. On how this issue has fared in recent baptismal controversies, see T. George, “The Reformed Doctrine of Believers’ Baptism,” Int 47 (1993): 242–54.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 142–143.
In the Hellenistic Roman period, circumcision became more and more prominent as a distinguishing mark of Jewish identity as the people of Israel found themselves in a political environment that grew increasingly hostile. According to the Maccabean literature, the reign of terror unleashed by Antiochus IV (175–163 b.c.), included a prohibition of circumcision and a policy by which babies who had been circumcised were put to death along with the mothers who had submitted them to this sign of the covenant.
97 The following summary is based on the article by R. Meyer, “Περιτέμνω,” TDNT 6.72–84. Also see J. B. Polhill, “Circumcision,” MDB. Also worthy of note are N. J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and Law,” NTS 20 (1974): 319–41, and J. M. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85 (1966): 473–76.
98 See, e.g., Paul’s comment in Phil 3:3: “For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.” Similarly, Paul can say to the Colossians that in Christ we have received a circumcision made without hands. This has happened through a putting off of the old life in the circumcision of Christ, evidently a reference to the experience of forgiveness secured by the cross and the inner transformation of the believer wrought thereby (Col 2:12–13). For Paul, regeneration, not baptism, is the New Testament antitype for which literal circumcision in the OT was the type. On how this issue has fared in recent baptismal controversies, see T. George, “The Reformed Doctrine of Believers’ Baptism,” Int 47 (1993): 242–54.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 142–143.
- Thus, during the period of the New Testament, circumcision was regarded by devout Jews as an indispensable precondition and seal of participation in God’s covenant community. The strictest Jews insisted that even proselytes be circumcised as a rite of initiation into the special people of God. When Paul listed among his preconversion bragging points the fact that he had been “circumcised on the eighth day” (Phil 3:5), he was giving witness to the powerful emotional and ideological force this ancient rite conveyed to Jewish people everywhere.100
100 In the rabbinic Judaism of the post-NT era, this high view of circumcision was maintained. If the circumcision day fell on a Sabbath, “the duty of circumcision took precedence of the law of the Sabbath.” The circumcision ceremony was a high moment of family ritual including a series of benedictions and concluding with a feast. A major contributing factor to the Bar Kochba revolt of a.d. 135 was an imperial ban on circumcision promulgated by the emperor Hadrian. This ban was lifted by his successor Antoninus Pius (Meyer, “Περιτέμνω,” 79–81).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 144.
100 In the rabbinic Judaism of the post-NT era, this high view of circumcision was maintained. If the circumcision day fell on a Sabbath, “the duty of circumcision took precedence of the law of the Sabbath.” The circumcision ceremony was a high moment of family ritual including a series of benedictions and concluding with a feast. A major contributing factor to the Bar Kochba revolt of a.d. 135 was an imperial ban on circumcision promulgated by the emperor Hadrian. This ban was lifted by his successor Antoninus Pius (Meyer, “Περιτέμνω,” 79–81).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 144.
바울에게 있어서 할례자인가 무할례자인가가 아니라 하나님의 말씀을 지키느냐, 새로운 피조물이 되었느냐가 중요한 것이었다.
- As he wrote to the Corinthians: “This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Cor 7:17–19). He explained the same principle somewhat differently in Gal 6:15: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.”
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 144–145.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 144–145.
할례를 중요시 여기는 유대주의자들은 할례를 받지 않으면 구원을 받지 못한다라고 주장했다.(행 15:1) 바울은 할례의 행위 자체가 아니라 이처럼 복음의 진리를 왜곡시키거나 부정하는 이들의 주장을 반박하고 있는 것이다. 예수그리스도의 십자가의 죽음을 통해서 완성된 복음은 개인이 이를 믿음을 통해서 이루어지는 것이지 할례의 행위여부로 이루어지는 것이 아님을 분명히 하고 있다. 만약 율법의 행위로 구원을 얻는다면 예수님의 십자가의 죽음과 부활이 아무 의미가 없어지는 것이 되는 것이다.
- Then why all the fuss over Titus? If circumcision is after all a matter of indifference, then why not submit Titus, a Gentile believer, to this harmless ritual in order to keep peace with the more scrupulous element of the Jerusalem church? The answer relates to the claims for circumcision advanced by the Judaizing party, “Unless you are circumcised … you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). To accept this verdict is to renounce the truth of the gospel, that salvation is by divine grace manifested in Jesus’ completed work on the cross, the benefit of which is received through personal faith in the Redeemer, and that alone. In this case, for a Gentile believer to submit to circumcision is to “make Christ of no value to you” (Gal 5:2). Those to whom Christ is of no value are still under the curse of the law, without God and without hope in this world and the next.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 145.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 145.
이처럼 디도는 할례를 받는 것을 거부했지만 디모데가 할례를 받는 것은 반대하지 않았다. 이는 디도의 경우 이방인으로 구원을 받기 위해서 할례를 받을 것을 요구받았지만 디모데의 경우는 어머니가 유대인으로 유대 전통을 따라 행하는 것으로 구원의 문제와는 관계가 없었기 때문이다.
- Why would Paul be so adamant in refusing to have Titus circumcised when he was later so concessive in submitting Timothy to the same rite? The answer, of course, is that Timothy was not Titus. We know that Timothy had a Jewish mother, which, then as now, was a recognized criterion of Jewish identity. Moreover, the two situations were quite different. Titus, a Gentile, was being pressured to be circumcised in order to receive salvation and full membership in the church. Timothy, however, could submit to the ancestral traditions of his mother’s family without compromising the cardinal doctrine of salvation by grace. He did so with Paul’s full blessing in order to enhance their missionary witness among the Jews.104
To summarize: during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, perhaps even during the course of his private meeting with the church leaders, certain “false brothers” made a big deal over the fact that he had brought with him an uncircumcised Gentile Christian, Titus, whom they insisted should undergo this sacred Jewish rite. Paul resisted, and their scheme came to naught: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.
104 On the circumcision of Timothy see the perceptive comments of J. B. Polhill (Acts, NAC [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 341–43: “Many scholars have argued that Paul would never have asked Timothy to be circumcised, since he objected so strenuously to that rite in Galatians. That, however, is to overlook the fact that Galatians was written to Gentiles and Timothy was considered a Jew. There was no question of circumcising Gentiles.… The converse was also true: Jews would not be required to abandon their Jewishness in order to become Christians. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul ever asked Jews to abandon circumcision as their mark of membership in God’s covenant people.… To have had a member of his entourage be of Jewish lineage and yet uncircumcised would have hampered his effectiveness among the Jews. It was at the very least a matter of missionary strategy to circumcise Timothy (1 Cor 9:20). It may have been much more. Paul never abandoned his own Jewish heritage. He may well have wanted Timothy to be true to his (cf. Rom 3:1f.).” See also W. O. Walker “The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered,” ExpTim 92 (1981): 231–35.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 146–147.
To summarize: during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, perhaps even during the course of his private meeting with the church leaders, certain “false brothers” made a big deal over the fact that he had brought with him an uncircumcised Gentile Christian, Titus, whom they insisted should undergo this sacred Jewish rite. Paul resisted, and their scheme came to naught: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.
104 On the circumcision of Timothy see the perceptive comments of J. B. Polhill (Acts, NAC [Nashville: Broadman, 1992], 341–43: “Many scholars have argued that Paul would never have asked Timothy to be circumcised, since he objected so strenuously to that rite in Galatians. That, however, is to overlook the fact that Galatians was written to Gentiles and Timothy was considered a Jew. There was no question of circumcising Gentiles.… The converse was also true: Jews would not be required to abandon their Jewishness in order to become Christians. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul ever asked Jews to abandon circumcision as their mark of membership in God’s covenant people.… To have had a member of his entourage be of Jewish lineage and yet uncircumcised would have hampered his effectiveness among the Jews. It was at the very least a matter of missionary strategy to circumcise Timothy (1 Cor 9:20). It may have been much more. Paul never abandoned his own Jewish heritage. He may well have wanted Timothy to be true to his (cf. Rom 3:1f.).” See also W. O. Walker “The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered,” ExpTim 92 (1981): 231–35.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 146–147.
가만히 들어왔다라는 의미는 둘사이를 갈라놓기 위한 악의적인 의도를 나타내는 단어이다.
- The verb Paul used is a kindred word, pareiserchomai, “to slip in,” “infiltrate.” It deepens the idea of a conspiratorial activity carried out for sinister purposes. True, this word can mean simply “to come in between or intercept.” Paul himself used it this way in Rom 5:20 to describe the unique purpose of the “intrusion” of the law into salvation history, “The law was added so that the trespass might increase.” The Galatian context, however, points unmistakably to the unworthy motives of these infiltrators. This is spelled out in the third word Paul used to describe what they did: kataskopeō, “to spy on, to destroy in a sneaky manner.” The word kataskopē is closely related to another Greek word, episkopē, “oversight,” a word Paul used in a positive sense to describe pastoral authority in the governance of a New Testament congregation. Perhaps Paul was here making a deliberate contrast between the proper oversight of a godly pastor and the arrogant usurpation of ecclesiastical power the false brothers had assumed for themselves.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 147–148.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 147–148.
거짓 형제들의 특징
1) The false brothers were not what they seemed to be.
2) The false brothers were secretive in their work of disruption.
3) The false brothers carried out their destructive mission step-by-step.
4) The false brothers demonstrated the connection between false teaching and unworthy behavior.
5) The heretical trajectory of false teaching.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 148–150.
2) The false brothers were secretive in their work of disruption.
3) The false brothers carried out their destructive mission step-by-step.
4) The false brothers demonstrated the connection between false teaching and unworthy behavior.
5) The heretical trajectory of false teaching.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 148–150.
결국 본문에서 디도와 거짓 형제들의 이야기는 우리들에게 자유와 진리라는 두가지의 매우 중요한 개념을 이야기해주고 있다. 결국 거짓 형제들은 그리스도안에서 우리가 누리는 자유를 파괴하려고 한다.
- The parenthetical paragraph on Titus and the false brothers concludes with the introduction of two concepts that will dominate the remainder of Galatians: freedom and truth. The underhanded efforts of the false brothers were aimed at subverting “the freedom we have in Christ Jesus,” a phrase that sums up the central theme of the entire letter. To submit to their demands would have been to abrogate the No Longer of Christ’s finished work on the cross and the present reality of the Holy Spirit, who had been poured out in the lives of the Galatian believers. Paul used the example of Titus to encourage the Galatians to resist the same kind of bondage that was being urged upon them by equally subversive interlopers who had intruded into their midst. Later in the letter he would reiterate this theme: “Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (5:1).
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 151.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 151.
'성경묵상 > 갈라디아서' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 갈 2:11-14 베드로의 외식을 책망하는 바울 (0) | 2017.04.05 |
|---|---|
| 갈 2:6-10 이방인의 사도 바울 (0) | 2017.04.04 |
| 갈 1:18-24 바울이 전한 그 믿음 (0) | 2017.03.30 |
| 갈 1:10-17 이방인의 사도 바울 (0) | 2017.03.29 |
| 갈 1:6-9 다른 복음 (0) | 2017.03.28 |