Gal. 2:9

[JM]

Isn't this just an agreement between fellow workers of the Gospel to preach the same message to different people?

 

[eph3Nine]

Isn't this just an agreement between fellow workers of the Gospel to preach the same message to different people?

Nope. Note the words used. Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Two differing pieces of good news to two audiences. One for the Jew and one for the BODY of Christ (which was PART of the mystery truth given to Paul alone..Peter didnt have this information)

Also:

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation (implies NEW information here, which is supported by other scriptures as well) and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Paul is saying here that he communicated to Peter and the boys the NEW information which he received DIRECTLY FROM the RISEN LORD. If it was the SAME message, why would he have said "the gospel which "I" preach? IF if was the same, why would Paul have been necessary at all? No...he was telling them of something NEW that God had communicated to him, and Peter and the boys "acknowledged it". See below:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw (here it is...they...Peter and those that Paul went to communicate this...they DID SEE the difference)that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

also:Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

See, it tells us here that Peter and the boys SAW that it was different, and gave to him a handshake ...agreeing that they should go to the jews, and Paul would go to the nations.

 

[sanct1fym3]

Nope. Note the words used. Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Two differing pieces of good news to two audiences. One for the Jew and one for the BODY of Christ (which was PART of the mystery truth given to Paul alone..Peter didnt have this information)

Also:

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation (implies NEW information here, which is supported by other scriptures as well) and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Paul is saying here that he communicated to Peter and the boys the NEW information which he received DIRECTLY FROM the RISEN LORD. If it was the SAME message, why would he have said "the gospel which "I" preach? IF if was the same, why would Paul have been necessary at all? No...he was telling them of something NEW that God had communicated to him, and Peter and the boys "acknowledged it". See below:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw (here it is...they...Peter and those that Paul went to communicate this...they DID SEE the difference)that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

also:Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

See, it tells us here that Peter and the boys SAW that it was different, and gave to him a handshake ...agreeing that they should go to the jews, and Paul would go to the nations.

I agree, but i was wondering if there is a distinction in the original greek that we have lost in transalation?

 

[eph3Nine]

I agree, but i was wondering if there is a distinction in the original greek that we have lost in transalation?

Nope. Its all there. I would say that its two different words....circumcision and UNcircumcision. If you mean other words, you will have to be more concise in your answers. WINK

The distinctions are CLEAR in every area. Peter saw it, the others saw it, they had a handshake on it. Paul made it clear it was HIS gospel. If his was the same as Peters , then why the need to differentiate?

 

[sanct1fym3]

Nope. Its all there. I would say that its two different words....circumcision and UNcircumcision. If you mean other words, you will have to be more concise in your answers. WINK

The distinctions are CLEAR in every area. Peter saw it, the others saw it, they had a handshake on it. Paul made it clear it was HIS gospel. If his was the same as Peters , then why the need to differentiate?

Nope your nailed my question right on the head, This is semi-new, i'll have to research it more.

 

[eph3Nine]

Nope your nailed my question right on the head, This is semi-new, i'll have to research it more.

Happy to send you some study material for your own use...several booklets that describe with accompanying scripture all of the things we have discussed here. If you want it...PM me and I will mail it FREE.