“But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter…”
But on the contrary,
In contrast to the idea that the apostles in Jerusalem “added” anything to Paul’s message, they recognized his apostleship was at the same level as Peter’s apostleship.
when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me,
When the Jerusalem Council recognized that God had committed the gospel for the Gentiles (the uncircumcised) to Paul, this dropped like a bombshell on the Judaizers.
The word “committed” means entrusted with, to make a deposit. The Council entrusted the ministry to the Gentiles to Paul. Paul did not invent the gospel of grace; God entrusted him with it.
as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
The word “as” indicates that Paul was on the same plane of authority as Peter. Not only did the apostles in Jerusalem vindicate his message, but also they affirmed his ministry.
The gospel to the uncircumcised and the gospel to the circumcised are not two different gospels. It is one gospel to two different groups. There is only a difference in the recipients, not in the gospel.
God makes a different kind of deposit for ministry in each believer.
It is important to realize that God uses different people in different ways. Many people try to pour others into their own mold of ministry. God is the God of diversity, not similarity (1 Corinthians 12). Christians ought to recognize the differences God designed for different people.
God has made a deposit of ministry in you. Can He trust you with His investment?
“For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship” (1 Corinthians 9:16-17).
“But as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, even so, we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts” (1 Thessalonians 2:4).
What Bible version are you quoting? Is “for” the uncircumcised rather than “to” or “of” the uncircumcised a better translation? The reason I’m asking is that a mid-Acts friend thinks that Peter and Paul preached two entirely different gospels. I think “for” works well for the genitive case. I also think we’re only talking about one gospel.
Bob, excellent question. I use the New King James Version (because of its excellent translation and I like to use both the critical text and the majority texts) but use the Greek as my study text. The word “for” is a definite article, genitive, singular, feminine. As you noted the word “for” does work well for the genitive case. The Greek article (t?s) is here an objective genitive and does not indicate definition (“?of?”) but direction (“to” or “for”), as in our text and most modern translations. Galatians 1:6-9 with Paul’s later rebuke of Peter in this chapter would make no sense if Paul and Peter had different messages. The “pillars” (apostles) recognized that Paul and Peter were given two different but equal tasks. Note A.T. Robertson’s comment on this passage: “Perfect passive indicative of ??????? [pisteu?], to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing (?? ?????????? [to euaggelion]) in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders “denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type” (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same “gospel” (not like 1:6f., the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul’s strong language in verse 5.”
Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Ga 2:7). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
This shows that Peter and Paul did not preach two different gospels, as might be deduced from the KJV, “the gospel of the uncircumcision” and “the gospel of the circumcision.” There was one gospel though it was addressed to two distinct groups of people. The reason the apostles concluded that Paul’s commission was equal to Peter’s was that God gave success to both. This contract was sealed by James, Peter, and John in extending to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. This was a sign of agreement and trust and an indication to all present that they endorsed the division of labor whereby the Jerusalem apostles were appointed to evangelize the Jews and Paul was entrusted to carry the gospel to the Gentiles.
Note Peter’s commendation of Paul’s writings in 2 Peter 3:15-17.
You see no difference between the kingdom gospel Peter preached to the Jew and the gospel of grace Paul preached to the Gentiles?
Keith, the issue that Paul had with Peter was not his kingdom message but that he reverted to legalism of certain Judaizers after he (Peter) preached the gospel of grace. Begin study here and follow the argument in succeeding studies: https://versebyversecommentary.com/galatians/galatians-211/
If no difference in gospels why are 12 sent to Jews and Paul sent to gentiles? Though both gospels are faith in Christ, one is as messiah king of Israel through repentance and baptism, the other is righteousness that is imputed by faith as Abraham was 400 years before the law.
Bennie, both Old Testament believers and New Testament saints become believers the same way–by faith. Faith in the Old Testament pertained to the amount of revelation they had. For example, Abraham believed God’s covenant with him. Because he believed God imputed His righteousness for him (Gen 15:6). This is the very same way New Testament believers are saved.
The apostles in the gospel were sent to offer the kingdom to the nation Israel but Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The New Testament is a change of economy from a nation to the church. Ephesians 3 explains how the doctrine of the church during the economy of grace was revealed to Paul uniquely; the Holy Spirit launched it as a new entity in Acts 2.