Գաղատացիներին / Galatians - 2 |

Text:
< PreviousԳաղատացիներին - 2 Galatians - 2Next >


jg▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ mh▾ all ▾
Matthew Henry: Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible - 1706
The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself at that time, ver. 1-10. And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two following chapters.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
The apostle mentions his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1. Shows that he went thither by revelation; and what he did while there, and the persons with whom he had intercourse, Gal 2:2-8. How the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:10. Here he opposes Peter at Antioch, and the reason why, Gal 2:11-14. Shows that the Jews as well as the Gentiles must be justified by faith, Gal 2:15, Gal 2:16. They who seek this justification should act with consistency, Gal 2:17, Gal 2:18. Gives his own religious experience, and shows, that through the law he was dead to the law, and crucified with Christ, Gal 2:19, Gal 2:20. Justification is not of the law, but by the faith of Christ, Gal 2:21.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:0: The second chapter is closely connected in sense with the first, and is indeed a part of the same argument. Injury has been done by the division which is made. The proper division would have been at the close of Gal 2:10. The general scope of the chapter, like the first, is to show that he did not receive the gospel from man; that he had not derived it from the apostles; that he did not acknowledge his indebtedness to them for his views of the Christian religion; that they had not even set up authority over him; but that they had welcomed him as a fellow-laborer, and acknowledged him as a co-adjutor in the work of the apostleship. In confirmation of this, he states Gal 2:1 that he had indeed gone to Jerusalem, but that he had done it by express Revelation Gal 2:2; that he was cordially received by the apostles there - especially by those who were pillars in the church; and that so far from regarding himself as inferior to the other apostles, he had resisted Peter to his face at Antioch on a most important and vital doctrine.
The chapter, therefore, may be regarded as divided into two portions, namely:
I. "The account of his visit to Jerusalem and of what occurred there," Gal 2:1-10.
(a) He had gone up 14 years after his conversion, after having labored long among the Gentiles in his own way, and without having felt his dependence upon the apostles at Jerusalem, Gal 2:1-2.
(b) When he was there, there was no attempt made to compel him to submit to the Jewish rites and customs; and what was conclusive in the case was, that they had not even required Titus to be circumcised, thus proving that they did not assert jurisdiction over Paul, and that they did not intend to impose the Mosaic rites on the converts from among the Gentiles, Gal 2:3-5.
(c) 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 Gal 2:6; they saw evidence that he had been appointed to bear the gospel to the Gentiles Gal 2:7-8; they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship Gal 2:9; and they asked only that they should remember and show kindness to the poor saints in Judea, and thus manifest an interest in those who had been converted from Judaism, or contribute their proper proportion to the maintenance of all, and show that they were not disposed to abandon their own countrymen, Gal 2:10. In this way they gave the fullest proof that they approved the course of Paul, and admitted him into entire fellowship with them as an apostle.
II. "The scene at Antioch, where Paul rebuked Peter for his dissimulation;" Gal 2:11-21. The main object of mentioning this seems to be to show, first, that he did not regard himself as inferior to the other apostles, or that he had not derived his views of the gospel from them; and, secondly, to state that the observance of the Jewish rites was not necessary to salvation, and that he had maintained that from the beginning. He had strongly urged it in a controversy with Peter, and in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong; and it was no new doctrine on the subject of justification which he had preached to the Galatians. He states, therefore:
(a) That he had opposed Peter at Antioch, because he had dissembled there, and that even Barnabas had been carried away with the course which Peter had practiced; Gal 2:11-14.
(b) That the Jews must be justified by faith, and not by dependence on their own law; Gal 2:15-16.
(c) That they who are justified by faith should act consistently, and not attempt to build again the things which they had destroyed; Gal 2:17-18.
(d) That the effect of justification by faith was to make one dead to the Law that he might live unto God; that the effect of it was to make one truly alive and devoted to the cause of true religion; and to show this, he appeals to the effect of his own heart and life Gal 2:19-20.
(e) And that if justification could be obtained by the Law, then Christ had died in vain; Gal 2:21. He thus shows that the effect of teaching the necessity of the observance of the Jewish rites was to destroy the gospel, and to render it vain and useless.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
Gal 2:1, He shows when he went up again to Jerusalem, and for what purpose; Gal 2:3, and that Titus was not circumcised; Gal 2:11, and that he resisted Peter, and told him the reason; Gal 2:14, why he and others, being Jews, do believe in Christ to be justified by faith, and not by works; Gal 2:20, and that they live not in sin, who are so justified.
John Gill
INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 2
In this chapter the apostle proceeds with the narrative of himself, and gives an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, where he had a conversation with the chief of the apostles; in which they approved of his ministry, allowed of his commission, and took him into fellowship with them, but gave him no new instructions, nor added to his spiritual light and knowledge; from whence it appeared that the Gospel he preached was not after men, or received from men, as he had asserted in the preceding chapter; and he also gives an account of his meeting with Peter at Antioch, and how he reproved him for some judaizing practices; which leads him to assert the doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; which is the grand point he had in view to establish in this epistle, and which he vindicates from the charge of licentiousness. He begins with an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, the circumstances of which he relates, as the time when, fourteen years ago; the persons he took with him as his companions, Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1 what moved him to it, a revelation from God; and the business he did when come thither, he communicated the Gospel, and that not to any but to such that were of reputation, and not publicly but privately; his end was, that it might appear how successful he had been in his ministry, and had not laboured in vain, Gal 2:2 then follows a narrative of a particular event relating to Titus, who is described as one of his companions, and by his nation, a Greek; and who though an uncircumcised person, yet the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did not oblige him to be circumcised, which showed that they were of the same mind with the apostle in this point, Gal 2:3 and the reason of it was because of the false teachers, that they might not give them any handle; who are described by their character, false brethren, by their private manner of getting in among the saints, and by their ends and views, which were to spy out their Christian liberty and bring them into bondage, Gal 2:4 to whom the apostle opposed himself, and would not give way for the least space of time; for this end, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the Gentiles, Gal 2:5 and as for the apostles, though they were men of great character and reputation, nor would the apostle detract from it; yet they added nothing to him, he received nothing from them, Gal 2:6 but, on the other hand, partly because they saw that as the Gospel to be preached to the Jews was committed to Peter, so the same Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was committed to Paul; and partly because of the same efficacy and success in the ministry of the one as in the ministry of the other; as also because they perceived what gifts of grace were bestowed on the apostle; they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, as a token of their mutual agreement, and as being of the same society, Gal 2:7 nor did they give him and Barnabas anything in charge, but only to remember the poor, to which he was forward enough of himself, Gal 2:10 after which follows an account of an opposition made by the apostle to Peter, which was done at Antioch, and to his face, and not without reason, Gal 2:11 for whereas some time before he ate with the Gentiles, which was commendable in him, he afterwards declined conversation with them, moved to it by fear of the converted Jews, Gal 2:12 and such was the force of his example, that other Jews, who before did not scruple eating with the Gentiles, separated likewise, and even Barnabas himself, Paul's companion, Gal 2:13 wherefore seeing this was not walking according to the Gospel of Christ, and with that integrity and uprightness which became such persons, the apostle publicly reproved Peter, and expostulated with him; partly on account of his former conversation with the Gentiles, though he himself was a Jew, and therefore it was absurd and contradictory in him to oblige the Gentiles to live as the Jews did, Gal 2:14 and partly on account of the ledge which he and Peter and others who were Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles, had of the doctrine of justification; that it was not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ; for to this end they had believed in Christ that they might be justified, not by the one, but by the other; which doctrine is confirmed by a passage referred to in Ps 149:2 and whereas it might be objected that this doctrine of free justification opened a door to licentiousness, the apostle answers to it by an abhorrence of it, Gal 2:17 and by observing that this would build up what he had destroyed, Gal 2:18 besides, he argues the contrary from his being dead to the law, that he might live unto God, Gal 2:19 and from his crucifixion with Christ, and of the old man with his deeds; and from Christ's living in him, and his living by faith upon him, Gal 2:20 and for the further confirmation of the doctrine of justification being by faith, and not by works, he suggests, were it otherwise, both the grace of God would be frustrated and made void, and the death of Christ be in vain, Gal 2:21.
2:12:1: Ապա յետ ամաց չորեքտասանից, մի՛ւս անգամ ե՛լի յԵրուսաղէմ ընդ Բառնաբայ, առեա՛լ ընդ իս եւ զՏիտոս[4191]։ [4191] Ոմանք. Ամաց չորեքտասանց... ընդ իս զՏիտոս։
1 Այնուհետեւ, տասնչորս տարի յետոյ, նորից ելայ Երուսաղէմ Բառնաբասի հետ՝ ինձ հետ վերցնելով նաեւ Տիտոսին:
2 Տասնըչորս տարի յետոյ նորէն Երուսաղէմ գացի Բառնաբասին հետ՝ Տիտոսն ալ մէկտեղ առնելով։
Ապա յետ ամաց չորեքտասանից միւսանգամ ելի յԵրուսաղէմ ընդ Բառնաբայ` առեալ ընդ իս եւ զՏիտոս:

2:1: Ապա յետ ամաց չորեքտասանից, մի՛ւս անգամ ե՛լի յԵրուսաղէմ ընդ Բառնաբայ, առեա՛լ ընդ իս եւ զՏիտոս[4191]։
[4191] Ոմանք. Ամաց չորեքտասանց... ընդ իս զՏիտոս։
1 Այնուհետեւ, տասնչորս տարի յետոյ, նորից ելայ Երուսաղէմ Բառնաբասի հետ՝ ինձ հետ վերցնելով նաեւ Տիտոսին:
2 Տասնըչորս տարի յետոյ նորէն Երուսաղէմ գացի Բառնաբասին հետ՝ Տիտոսն ալ մէկտեղ առնելով։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:11: Потом, через четырнадцать лет, опять ходил я в Иерусалим с Варнавою, взяв с собою и Тита.
2:1  ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ βαρναβᾶ, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ τίτον·
2:1. Ἔπειτα (Upon-if-to-the-ones) διὰ (through) δεκατεσσάρων ( of-ten-four ) ἐτῶν (of-years) πάλιν (unto-furthered) ἀνέβην (I-had-stepped-up) εἰς (into) Ἰεροσόλυμα (to-a-Hierosoluma) μετὰ (with) Βαρνάβα, (of-a-Barnabas) συνπαραλαβὼν (having-had-taken-beside-together) καὶ (and) Τίτον: (to-a-Titos)
2:1. deinde post annos quattuordecim iterum ascendi Hierosolyma cum Barnaba adsumpto et TitoThen, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
1. Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
2:1. Next, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, taking with me Barnabas and Titus.
2:1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also:

1: Потом, через четырнадцать лет, опять ходил я в Иерусалим с Варнавою, взяв с собою и Тита.
2:1  ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ βαρναβᾶ, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ τίτον·
2:1. deinde post annos quattuordecim iterum ascendi Hierosolyma cum Barnaba adsumpto et Tito
Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
2:1. Next, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, taking with me Barnabas and Titus.
2:1. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ mh▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
1-10. В доказательство того, что Апостол Павел всегда был признаваем в Церкви истинным Апостолом Христовым, нисколько не низшим 12-ти Апостолов, Павел припоминает то, что было спустя 14: лет после первого посещения им Иерусалима (I:18). В это второе посещение им Иерусалима он предложил всей Иерусалимской церкви и в особенности Апостолам свое Евангелие, и никто не нашел нужным в чем либо поправить понимание Апостолом сущности и задачи христианства. Апостолы подали руки Павлу и признали за ним преимущественное право проповедывать язычникам.

1. Ап., очевидно, начинает счет 14-ти лет от своего первого посещения Иерусалима, потому что он употребляет выражение "опять", возвращающее мысль читателя к первому его посещению Иерусалима. Но какое путешествие из трех следующих, имевших место после первого, разумеет Ап. в настоящем случае? Таких путешествий до написания послания к Галатам было три (см. Деян ХІ-я, ХV-я и ХVІІІ-я главы). В новейшее время установился взгляд, что Апостол имеет здесь в виду то путешествие, о котором упоминает ХV-я глава книги Деяний, именно путешествие на так называемый Апостольский собор. За такое предположение говорит согласие отдельных моментов описания пребывания Павла в этот раз в Иерусалиме, как они излагаются здесь и в книге Деяний (подробности см. у о. Галахова стр. 139)... - Взяв с собою и Тита. Тит был необрезанным принят в лоно Церкви Христовой, и Ап. намеренно берет его с собою в самый центр иудейского христианства, чтобы показать на деле, как он понимает христианство, чтобы показать, что он учит свободе от закона и обрезания. - В каком отношении на этот раз Варнава стоял к Павлу - как помощник его или как лицо равноправное, - об этом настоящее место не дает представления. Можно только сказать, что выражение "с (meta) Варнавою" не показывает, чтобы Варнава занимал в антиохийской депутации (ср. Деян XV:2) первенствующее положение.
Matthew Henry: Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible - 1706
Paul's Journey to Jerusalem; Paul's Decision and Fidelity.A. D. 56.
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, 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. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for a hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 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; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 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. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

It should seem, by the account Paul gives of himself in this chapter, that, from the very first preaching and planting of Christianity, there was a difference of apprehension between those Christians who had first been Jews and those who had first been Gentiles. Many of those who had first been Jews retained a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to keep up the reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles had no regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that. Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity. Now in this chapter he tells us what passed between him and the other apostles, and particularly between him and Peter hereupon.

In these verses he informs us of another journey which he took to Jerusalem, and of what passed between him and the other apostles there, v. 1-10. Here he acquaints us,

I. With some circumstances relating to this his journey thither. As particularly, 1. With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years after the former (mentioned ch. i. 18), or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God that so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his work. And it was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the other apostles, but had an equal authority with them, that he had been so long absent from them, and was all the while employed in preaching and propagating pure Christianity, without being called into question by them for it, which it may be thought he would have been, had he been inferior to them, and his doctrine disapproved by them. 2. With his companions in it: he went up with Barnabas, and took with him Titus also. If the journey here spoken of was the same with that recorded Acts xv. (as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went about. But, as it does not appear that Titus was put into the same commission with him, so the chief reason of his taking him along with him seems to have been to let those at Jerusalem see that he was neither ashamed nor afraid to own the doctrine which he had constantly preached; for though Titus had now become not only a convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it too, yet he was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by making him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to own and converse with those who were uncircumcised. 3. With the reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had concerning it: he went up be revelation; not of his own head, much less as being summoned to appear there, but by special order and direction from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was often favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions and undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect, yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain before us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of Providence.

II. He gives us an account of his behaviour while he was at Jerusalem, which was such as made it appear that he was not in the least inferior to the other apostles, but that both his authority and qualifications were every way equal to theirs. He particularly acquaints us,

1. That he there communicated the gospel to them, which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately, &c. Here we may observe both the faithfulness and prudence of our great apostle. (1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and fair account of the doctrine which he had all along preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach--that of pure Christianity, free from all mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ. And yet, (2.) He uses prudence and caution herein, for fear of giving offence. He chooses rather to do it in a more private than in a public way, and to those that were of reputation, that is, to the apostles themselves, or to the chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than more openly and promiscuously to all, because, when he came to Jerusalem, there were multitudes that believed, and yet continued zealous for the law, Acts xxi. 20. And the reason of this his caution was lest he should run, or had run, in vain, lest he should stir up opposition against himself and thereby either the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more hinders the progress of the gospel than differences of opinion about the doctrines of it, especially when they occasion quarrels and contentions among the professors of it, as they too usually do. It was enough to his purpose to have his doctrine owned by those who were of greatest authority, whether it was approved by others or not. And therefore, to avoid offence, he judges it safest to communicate it privately to them, and not in public to the whole church. This conduct of the apostle may teach all, and especially ministers, how much need they have of prudence, and how careful they should be to use it upon all occasions, as far as is consistent with their faithfulness.

2. That in his practice he firmly adhered to the doctrine which he had preached. Paul was a man of resolution, and would adhere to his principles; and therefore, though he had Titus with him, who was a Greek, yet he would not suffer him to be circumcised, because he would not betray the doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the Gentiles. It does not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon this; for, though they connived at the use of circumcision among the Jewish converts, yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles. But there were others who did, whom the apostle here calls false brethren, and concerning whom he informs us that they were unawares brought in, that is, into the church, or into their company, and that they came only to spy out their liberty which they had in Christ Jesus, or to see whether Paul would stand up in defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught as the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of those who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was to bring them into bondage, which they would have effected could they have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they prevailed with Paul and the other apostles to have circumcised Titus, they would easily have imposed circumcision upon other Gentiles, and so have brought them under the bondage of the law of Moses. But Paul, seeing their design, would by no means yield to them; he would not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, not in this one single instance; and the reason of it was that the truth of the gospel might continue with them--that the Gentile Christians, and particularly the Galatians, might have it preserved to them pure and entire, and not corrupted with the mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he yielded in this matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing indifferent, and what in some cases might be complied with without sin; and accordingly we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it, as in the case of Timothy, Acts xvi. 3. But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his consenting to it, though only in a single instance, is likely to be improved as giving countenance to such an imposition, he has too great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit to it; he would not yield to those who were for the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, but would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, which conduct of his may give us occasion to observe that what under some circumstances may lawfully be complied with, yet, when that cannot be done without betraying the truth, or giving up the liberty, of the gospel, it ought to be refused.

3. That, though he conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge or authority from them, v. 6. By those who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles, particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by name, v. 9. And concerning these he grants that they were deservedly had in reputation by all, that they were looked upon (and justly too) as pillars of the church, who were set not only for its ornament, but for its support, and that on some accounts they might seem to have the advantage of him, in that they had seen Christ in the flesh, which he had not, and were apostles before him, yea, even while he continued a persecutor. But yet, whatever they were, it was no matter to him. This was no prejudice to his being equally an apostle with them; for God does not accept the persons of men on the account of any such outward advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he was at liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And it was evident in this case that he had done so; for in conference they added nothing to him, they told him nothing but what he before knew by revelation, nor could they except against the doctrine which he communicated to them, whence it appeared that he was not at all inferior to them, but was as much called and qualified to be an apostle as they themselves were.

4. That the issue of this conversation was that the other apostles were fully convinced of his divine mission and authority, and accordingly acknowledged him as their fellow-apostle, v. 7-10. They were not only satisfied with his doctrine, but they saw a divine power attending him, both in preaching it and in working miracles for the confirmation of it: that he who wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards the Gentiles. And hence they justly concluded that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter. And therefore, perceiving the grace that was given to him (that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves) they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, a symbol whereby they acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that these should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the circumcision, as judging it most agreeable to the mind of Christ, and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so to divide their work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire harmony and agreement; they approved both Paul's doctrine and conduct, they were fully satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as an apostle of Christ, and had nothing further to add, only that they would remember the poor, which of his own accord he was very forward to do. The Christians of Judea were at that time labouring under great wants and difficulties; and the apostles, out of their compassion to them and concern for them, recommend their case to Paul, that he should use his interest with the Gentile churches to procure a supply for them. This was a reasonable request; for, if the Gentiles were made partakers of their spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in carnal things, as Rom. xv. 27. And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his charitable and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many of them could scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles, and that mere difference of opinion was no reason with him why he should not endeavour to relieve and help them. Herein he has given us an excellent pattern of Christian charity, and has taught us that we should by no means confine it to those who are just of the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all whom we have reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:1: Then fourteen years after - There is a considerable difference among critics concerning the time specified in this verse; the apostle is however generally supposed to refer to the journey he took to Jerusalem, about the question of circumcision, mentioned in Act 15:4-5, etc. These years, says Dr. Whitby, must be reckoned from the time of his conversion, mentioned here Gal 1:18, which took place a.d. 35 (33); his journey to Peter was a.d. 38 (36), and then between that and the council of Jerusalem, assembled a.d. 49 (52), will be fourteen intervening years. The dates in brackets are according to the chronology which I follow in the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. Whitby has some objections against this chronology, which may be seen in his notes.
Others contend that the journey of which the apostle speaks is that mentioned Act 11:27, etc., when Barnabas and Saul were sent by the Church of Antioch with relief to the poor Christians in Judea; there being at that time a great dearth in that land. St. Luke's not mentioning Titus in that journey is no valid objection against it: for he does not mention him in any part of his history, this being the first place in which his name occurs. And it does seem as if St. Paul did intend purposely to supply that defect, by his saying, I went up with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. The former St. Luke relates, Act 11:30; the latter St. Paul supplies.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:1: Then fourteen years after - That is, 14 years after his first visit there subsequent to his conversion. Some commentators, however, suppose that the date of the fourteen years is to be reckoned from his conversion. But the more obvious construction is, to refer it to the time of his visit there, as recorded in the pRev_ious chapter; Gal 2:18. This time was spent in Asia Minor chiefly in preaching the gospel.
I went up again to Jerusalem - It is commonly supposed that Paul here refers to the visit which he made as recorded in Acts 15. The circumstances mentioned are substantially the same; and the object which he had at that time in going up was one whose mention was entirely pertinent to the argument here. He went up with Barnabas to submit a question to the assembled apostles and elders at Jerusalem, in regard to the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses. Some persons who had come among the Gentile converts from Judea had insisted on the necessity of being circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas had opposed them; and the dispute had become so warm that it was agreed to submit the subject to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. For that purpose Paul and Barnabas had been sent, with certain others, to lay the case before all the apostles. As the question which Paul was discussing in this Epistle was about the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses in order to justification, it was exactly in point to refer to a journey when this very question had been submitted to the apostles. Paul indeed had made another journey to Jerusalem before this with the collection for the poor saints in Judea Act 11:29-30; Act 12:25, but he does not mention that here, probably because he did not then see the other apostles, or more probably because that journey furnished no illustration of the point now under debate. On the occasion here referred to Acts 15, the very point under discussion here constituted the main subject of inquiry, and it was definitely settled.
And took Titus with me also - Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles Act 15:2, says, that there were others with Paul and Barnabas on that journey to Jerusalem, but who they were he does not mention. It is by no means certain that Titus was appointed by the church to go to Jerusalem; but the contrary is more probable. Paul seems to have taken him with him as a private affair; but the reason is not mentioned. It may have been to show his Christian liberty, and his sense of what he had a right to do; or it may have been to furnish a case on the subject of inquiry, and submit the matter to them whether Titus was to be circumcised. He was a Greek; but he had been converted to Christianity. Paul had not circumcised him; but had admitted him to the full privileges of the Christian church. Here then was a case in point; and it may have been important to have had such a case before them, so that they might fully understand it. This, as Doddridge properly remarks, is the first mention which occurs of Titus. He is not mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, and though his name occurs several times in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Co2 2:13; Co2 7:6; Co2 8:6, Co2 8:16, Co2 8:23; Co2 12:18, yet it is to be remembered that that Epistle was written a considerable time after this to the Galatians. Titus was a Greek, and was doubtless converted by the labors of Paul, because he calls him his own "son," Tit 1:4. He attended Paul frequently in his travels; was employed by him in important services (see 2 Corinthians in the places referred to above); was left by him in Crete to set in order the things that were missing, and to ordain elders there Tit 1:5; subsequently, he went into Dalmatia Ti2 4:10, and is supposed to have returned again to Crete, where it is said he propagated the gospel in the neighboring islands, and died at the age of 94 - Calmet.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:1: fourteen: Gal 1:18
I went: Act 15:2-4
Barnabas: Gal 2:13; Act 4:36, Act 4:37, Act 11:25, Act 11:30, Act 12:25, Act 13:2, Act 13:50, Act 14:12, Act 15:25, Act 15:36-39; Co1 9:6; Col 4:10
Titus: Gal 2:3; Co2 8:16, Co2 8:23; Tit 1:4
Geneva 1599
2:1 Then (1) fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.
(1) Now he shows how he agrees with the apostles, with whom he grants that he conferred concerning his Gospel which he taught among the Gentiles, fourteen years after his conversion. And they permitted it in such a way, that they did not force his companion Titus to be circumcised, although some tormented themselves in this, who traitorously laid wait against him, but in vain. Neither did they add the least amount that might be to the doctrine which he had preached, but rather they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and acknowledged them as apostles appointed by the Lord to the Gentiles.
John Gill
2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem,.... That is, either after it pleased God to call him by his grace, and reveal his Son in him; or rather after he had been at Jerusalem to see Peter, with whom he stayed fifteen days, and then went into Syria and Cilicia; so that it was seventeen years after his conversion that he took this journey to Jerusalem he here speaks of; and he seems to refer to the time when he and Barnabas went from the church at Antioch to the apostles and elders about the question, whether circumcision was necessary to salvation, Acts 15:1 which entirely agrees with the account the apostle here gives of this journey, and which he went not alone, but
with Barnabas: and took Titus with me also; Barnabas is mentioned in Luke's account as going with him at this time, but Titus is not; who, though he was not sent by the church, yet the apostle might judge it proper and prudent to take him with him, who was converted by him, was a minister of the Gospel, and continued uncircumcised; and the rather he might choose to have him along with him, partly that he might be confirmed in the faith the apostle had taught him; and partly that he might be a living testimony of the agreement between the apostle's principles and practice; and that having him and Barnabas, he might have a competent number of witnesses to testify to the doctrines he preached, the miracles he wrought, and the success that attended him among the Gentiles; and to relate, upon their return, what passed between him and the elders at Jerusalem; for by the mouth of two or three witnesses everything is established.
John Wesley
2:1 Then fourteen years after - My first journey thither. I went up again to Jerusalem - This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts 15:2; several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:1 HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Gal. 2:1-21)
Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Acts 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY].
Titus . . . also--specified on account of what follows as to him, in Gal 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (Acts 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.
2:22:2: Եւ ելի ըստ յայտնութեանն, եւ զգացուցի՛ նոցա զաւետարանն՝ զոր քարոզէի ՚ի հեթանոսս, առանձինն այնոցիկ՝ որ կարծեալքն էին, գուցէ՛ ընդունայն ինչ ընթացեա՛լ իցեմ, կամ ընթանայցեմ[4192]։ [4192] Ոմանք. Զոր քարոզեցի ՚ի հեթ՛՛։
2 Եւ այնտեղ ելայ ինձ պատահած մի յայտնութեան հետեւանքով. եւ նրանց ներկայացրի այն Աւետարանը, որը քարոզում էի հեթանոսների մէջ մասնաւորապէս նրանց, որոնք երեւելիներ էին համարւում, այն մտածումով, որ մի գուցէ իմ ընթացքը ի զուր է եղել եւ կամ ի զուր է:
2 Ելայ յայտնութիւնով ու անոնց իմացուցի այն աւետարանը՝ որ հեթանոսներուն մէջ կը քարոզեմ, բայց առանձին անոնց՝ որոնք երեւելիներ էին, որ չըլլայ թէ պարապ տեղ վազեմ կամ վազած ըլլամ։
Եւ ելի ըստ յայտնութեանն. եւ զգացուցի նոցա զաւետարանն զոր քարոզէի ի հեթանոսս, առանձինն այնոցիկ որ կարծեալքն էին, գուցէ ընդունայն ինչ ընթացեալ իցեմ կամ ընթանայցեմ:

2:2: Եւ ելի ըստ յայտնութեանն, եւ զգացուցի՛ նոցա զաւետարանն՝ զոր քարոզէի ՚ի հեթանոսս, առանձինն այնոցիկ՝ որ կարծեալքն էին, գուցէ՛ ընդունայն ինչ ընթացեա՛լ իցեմ, կամ ընթանայցեմ[4192]։
[4192] Ոմանք. Զոր քարոզեցի ՚ի հեթ՛՛։
2 Եւ այնտեղ ելայ ինձ պատահած մի յայտնութեան հետեւանքով. եւ նրանց ներկայացրի այն Աւետարանը, որը քարոզում էի հեթանոսների մէջ մասնաւորապէս նրանց, որոնք երեւելիներ էին համարւում, այն մտածումով, որ մի գուցէ իմ ընթացքը ի զուր է եղել եւ կամ ի զուր է:
2 Ելայ յայտնութիւնով ու անոնց իմացուցի այն աւետարանը՝ որ հեթանոսներուն մէջ կը քարոզեմ, բայց առանձին անոնց՝ որոնք երեւելիներ էին, որ չըլլայ թէ պարապ տեղ վազեմ կամ վազած ըլլամ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:22: Ходил же по откровению, и предложил там, и особо знаменитейшим, благовествование, проповедуемое мною язычникам, не напрасно ли я подвизаюсь или подвизался.
2:2  ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν· καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον.
2:2. ἀνέβην (I-had-stepped-up) δὲ (moreover) κατὰ (down) ἀποκάλυψιν: (to-a-shrouding-off) καὶ (and) ἀνεθέμην ( I-had-placed-up ) αὐτοῖς (unto-them) τὸ (to-the-one) εὐαγγέλιον (to-a-goodly-messaglet) ὃ (to-which) κηρύσσω (I-herald) ἐν (in) τοῖς (unto-the-ones) ἔθνεσιν, (unto-nations,"κατ' (down) ἰδίαν (to-private-belonged) δὲ (moreover) τοῖς (unto-the-ones) δοκοῦσιν , ( unto-thinking-unto ,"μή (lest) πως (unto-whither) εἰς (into) κενὸν (to-empty) τρέχω (I-might-circuit) ἢ (or) ἔδραμον. (I-had-circuited)
2:2. ascendi autem secundum revelationem et contuli cum illis evangelium quod praedico in gentibus seorsum autem his qui videbantur ne forte in vacuum currerem aut cucurrissemAnd I went up according to revelation and communicated to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles: but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain.
2. And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.
2:2. And I went up according to revelation, and I debated with them about the Gospel that I am preaching among the Gentiles, but away from those who were pretending to be something, lest perhaps I might run, or have run, in vain.
2:2. And I went up by revelation, 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.
And I went up by revelation, 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:

2: Ходил же по откровению, и предложил там, и особо знаменитейшим, благовествование, проповедуемое мною язычникам, не напрасно ли я подвизаюсь или подвизался.
2:2  ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν· καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον.
2:2. ascendi autem secundum revelationem et contuli cum illis evangelium quod praedico in gentibus seorsum autem his qui videbantur ne forte in vacuum currerem aut cucurrissem
And I went up according to revelation and communicated to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles: but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain.
2:2. And I went up according to revelation, and I debated with them about the Gospel that I am preaching among the Gentiles, but away from those who were pretending to be something, lest perhaps I might run, or have run, in vain.
2:2. And I went up by revelation, 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.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
2. Ап. не хочет здесь писать историю Иерусалимского собора, а хочет сказать только о своем личном отношении к старейшим Апостолам и к иудейским христианам Палестины. Поэтому он не говорит о поводе и цели своего путешествия в Иерусалим в этот раз, как говорил в I гл. 8-м стихе. Он говорит только, что отправился в этот раз "по откровению", - может быть бывшему ему самому или кому либо из христиан Антиохийской церкви, но во всяком случае не по личному своему соображению. Он не находил для себя необходимым идти в Иерусалим, но повиновался "откровению", причем воспользовался возможностью пред Иерусалимской церковью заявить о характере своей проповеди. - Предложил там - правильнее: "им", т. е. тамошним христианам (ср. I:23). - И особо знаменитейшим. Частным образом (kat'idian) Апостол предложил ознакомиться с своим Евангелием наиболее уважаемым представителям Церкви (t. dokousin - термин, который, очевидно, в то время был в употреблении среди иудейских христиан вообще и среди иудействующих противников Павла - в особенности). Ведь враги Павла старались его унизить пред наиболее выдающимися представителями христианства и даже говорили, что эти представители неодобрительно смотрят на деятельность Павла. Поэтому-то Апостолу и хотелось, чтобы отнят был у врагов всякий повод ссылаться на якобы отрицательное отношение к нему со стороны представителей христианства. - И особо. По лучшему чтению, это выражение относится к слову "знаменитейшим". - Не напрасно ли подвизаюсь или подвизался? Апостол этими словами вовсе не выражает какой либо неуверенности в истинности своей проповеди или даже в ее успехе. Он был вполне убежден в первом, а тогдашние обстоятельства достаточно убеждали его и во втором (ср. I:22-24). Естественно поэтому понимать рассматриваемое выражение как непрямой вопрос: "я таким образом хотел их спросить: разве даром я тружусь или трудился? И они, конечно, ответили мне: нет, не даром, не без успеха". Так можно передать смысл рассматриваемого выражения. Если Ап. желал получить от старейших Апостолов ответ в таком духе, то это показывает, что его враги, бывшие в то время в Иерусалиме, иначе говорили о деле Павла: они, конечно, представляли это дело не имеющим никакого успеха и прямо ничтожным.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:2: I went up by revelation - This either means, that he went up at that time by an express revelation from God that it was his duty to do so, made either to the Church of Antioch to send these persons to Jerusalem, or to these persons to go according to the directions of that Church; or the apostle here wishes to say, that, having received the Gospel by revelation from God, to preach Christ among the Gentiles, he went up according to that revelation, and told what God had done by him among the Gentiles: or it may refer to the revelation made to certain prophets who came to Antioch, and particularly Agabus, who signified by the Spirit that there would be a dearth; in consequence of which the disciples purposed to send relief to their poor brethren at Jerusalem. See Act 11:27-30.
But privately to them which were of reputation - Τοις δοκουσι· To the chief men; those who were highest in reputation among the apostles. Δοκουντες, according to Hesychius, is οἱ ενδοξοι, the honorable. With these the apostle intimates that he had some private conferences.
Lest by any means - And he held these private conferences with those more eminent men, to give them information how, in consequence of his Divine call, he had preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the great good which God had wrought by his ministry; but they, not knowing the nature and end of his call, might be led to suppose he had acted wrong, and thus labored in vain; and that, if he still continued to act thus, he should labor in vain. It was necessary, therefore, that he should give the apostolic council the fullest information that he had acted according to the Divine mind in every respect, and had been blessed in his deed.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:2: And I went up by Revelation - Not for the purpose of receiving instruction from the apostles there in regard to the nature of the Christian religion. It is to be remembered that the design for which Paul states this is, to show that he had not received the gospel from human beings. He is careful, therefore, to state that he went up by the express command of God. He did not go up to receive instructions from the apostles there in regard to his own work, or to be confirmed by them in his apostolic office, but he went to submit an important question pertaining to the church at large. In Act 15:2, it is said that Paul and Barnabas went up by the appointment of the church at Antioch. But there is no discrepancy between that account and this, for though he was designated by the church there, there is no improbability in supposing that he was directed by a special Revelation to comply with their request. The reason why he says that he went up by direct Revelation seems to be to show that he did not seek instruction from the apostles; he did not go of his own accord to consult with them as if he were dependent upon them; but even in a case when he went to advise with them he was under the influence of express and direct Revelation, proving that he was commissioned by God as much as they were.
And communicated unto them that gospel ... - Made them acquainted with the doctrines which he preached among the pagans. He stated fully the principles on which he acted; the nature of the gospel which he taught; and his doctrine about the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligations of the Law of Moses. He thus satisfied them in regard to his views of the gospel; and showed them that he understood the system of Christianity which had been Rev_ealed. The result was, that they had entire confidence in him, and admitted him to entire fellowship with them; Gal 2:9.
But privately - Margin, "Severally." Greek (κατ ̓ ἰδίαν kat' idian. The phrase means that he did it not in a public manner; not before a general assembly; not even before all the apostles collected together, but in a private manner to a few of the leaders and chief persons. He made a private explanation of his motives and views, so that they might understand it before it became a matter of public discussion. The point on which Paul made this private explanation was not whether the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, for upon that they had no doubt after the Revelation to Peter Acts 10; but whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. Paul explained his views and his practice on that point, which were that he did not impose those rites on the Gentiles; that he taught that people might be justified without their observance; and that they were not necessary in order to salvation. The reasons why he sought this private interview with the leading men in Jerusalem he has not stated. But we may suppose that they were something like the following:
(1) The Jews in general had very strong attachment to their own customs, and this attachment was found in a high degree among those who were converted from among them to the Christian faith. They would be strongly excited, therefore, by the doctrine that those customs were not necessary to be observed.
(2) if the matter were submitted to a general assembly of converts from Judaism, it could not fail to produce great excitement. They could not be made readily to understand the reasons why Paul acted in this manner; there would be no possibility in an excited assemblage to offer the explanations which might be desirable; and after every explanation which could be given in this manner, they might have been unable to understand all the circumstances of the case.
(3) if a few of the principal men were made to understand it, Paul felt assured that their influence would be such as to pRev_ent any great difficulty. He therefore sought an early opportunity to lay the case before them in private, and to secure their favor; and this course contributed to the happy issue of the whole affair; see Acts 15. There was indeed much disputation when the question came to be submitted to "the apostles and elders" Act 15:7; many of the sect of the Pharisees in that assembly maintained that it was needful to teach the Gentiles that the Law of Moses was to be kept Act 15:5; and no one can tell what would have been the issue of that discussion among the excitable minds of the converts from Judaism had not Paul taken the precaution, as he here says, to have submitted the case in private to those who were of "reputation." and if Peter and James had not in this manner been satisfied and had not submitted the views which they did, as recorded in Act 15:7-21, and which terminated the whole controversy.
We may just remark here that this fact furnishes an argument such as Paley has dwelt so much on in his Horae Paulinae - though he has not referred to this - of what he calls undesigned coincidences. The affair in Acts 15 and the course of the debate, looks very much as if Peter and James had had some conference with Paul in private, and had had an opportunity of understanding fully his views on the subject before the matter came before the "apostles and elders" in public, though no such private conference is there referred to by luk But on turning to the Epistle to the Galatians, we find in fact that he had on one occasion before seen the same Peter and James Gal 1:18-19; and that he had had a private interview with those "of reputation" on these very points, and particularly that James, Peter, and John had approved his course, and given to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; Gal 2:9. Thus understood, the case here referred to was one of the most consummate instances of prudence that occurred in the life of Paul; and from this case we may learn:
(1) That when a difficulty is to be settled involving great principles, and embracing a great many points, it is better to seek an opportunity of private explanation than to submit it to a general multitude or to public debate. It is not well to attempt to settle important points when the passions of a general assembly may be excited, and where prejudices are strong. It is better to do it by private explanations, when there is an opportunity coolly to ask questions and to state the facts just as they are.
(2) the importance of securing the countenance of influential men in a popular assembly; of having men in the assembly who would understand the whole case. It was morally certain that if such men as Peter and James were made to understand the case, there would be little difficulty in arriving at an amicable adjustment of the difficulty.
(3) though this passage does not refer to preaching the gospel in general, since the gospel here submitted to the men of reputation was the question referred to above, yet we may remark, that great prudence should be used in preaching; in stating truths that may excite prejudices, or when we have reason to apprehend prejudices; and that it is often best to preach the gospel to men of reputation κατ ̓ ἰδίαν kat' idian "separately," or "privately." In this way the truth can be made to bear on the conscience; it may be better adapted to the character of the individual; he may put himself less in a state of defense, and guard himself less against the proper influences of truth. And especially is this true in conversing with persons on the subject of religion. It should be if possible alone, or privately. Almost any person may be approached on the subject of religion if it is done when he is alone; when he is at leisure, and if it is done in a kind spirit. Almost anybody will become irritated if you address him personally in a general assembly, or even with his family around him. I have never in more than in one or two instances been unkindly treated when I have addressed an individual on the subject of religion if he was alone; and though a minister should never shrink from stating the truth, and should never be afraid of man, however exalted his rank, or great his talents, or vast his wealth, yet he will probably meet with most success when he discourses privately to "them which are of reputation."
To them which were of reputation - Meaning here the leading men among the apostles. Tyndale renders this, "which are counted chefe." Doddridge, "those of greatest note in the church." The Greek is, literally, "those who seem," more fully in Gal 2:6; "who seem to be something," that is, who are persons of note, or who are distinguished.
Lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain - Lest the effects of my labors and journeys should be lost. Paul feared that if he did not take this method of laying the case before them privately, they would not understand it. Others might misrepresent him, or their prejudices might be excited, and when the case came before the assembled apostles and elders, a decision might be adopted which would go to prove that he had been entirely wrong in his views, or which would lead those whom he had taught, to believe that he was, and which would greatly hinder and embarrass him in Iris future movements. In order to pRev_ent this, therefore, and to secure a just decision, and one which would not hinder his future usefulness, he had sought this private interview, and thus his object was gained.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:2: by: Act 16:9, Act 16:10, Act 18:9, Act 23:11
communicated: Gal 2:9, Gal 1:16; Act 15:4, Act 15:12; Co1 1:23, Co1 2:2
privately: or, severally
which: Gal 2:6, Gal 2:9; Ecc 10:1; Act 5:34; Phi 2:29
I should: Mat 10:16; Co1 9:26; Phi 2:16; Th1 3:5
Geneva 1599
2:2 And I went up by revelation, 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, (a) in vain.
(a) Unfruitful, for as touching his doctrine, Paul does not doubt it, but because there were certain reports being spread about him, that he was of another opinion than the rest of the apostles were, which thing might have hindered the course of the Gospel. Therefore he labours to remedy this dangerous situation.
John Gill
2:2 And I went up by revelation,.... He was not sent for by the apostles at Jerusalem, nor did he go of himself, nor only by the vote of the church at Antioch, but by a divine revelation; not a revelation made to the church, or by the prophets there, but by God himself to him; he had a secret impulse from the Spirit of God, and a private intimation given him, that it was the will of God he should go up at this time; which is no ways inconsistent with his being sent by the church, but served as a confirmation to him, that what they determined was right, and according to the mind of God:
and communicated unto them that Gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles; that self-same Gospel, which he had preached, and still continued to preach to the Gentiles; relating to free and full remission of sin by the blood of Christ, justification by his righteousness without the works of the law, and freedom from all the rituals and bondage of the Mosaic dispensation: for as the Gospel he preached was all of a piece, uniform and consistent, so he did not preach one sort of doctrine to the Gentiles, and another to the Jews; but the very self-same truths which were the subject of his ministry in the Gentile world, which were a crucified Christ, and salvation alone by him, these he communicated, laid before, and exposed unto the consideration of the elders and apostles at Jerusalem; not with a view either to give or receive instructions, but to compare their sentiments and principles together; that so it might appear that there, was an entire harmony and agreement between them; and this he did not publicly, to the whole church, at least at first, and especially the article of Christian liberty, which respects the freedom of the believing Jews, from the yoke of the law; for as yet they were not able to bear this doctrine; they could pretty readily agree that the Gentiles were not obliged to it, but could not think themselves free from it; wherefore the apostle, in great prudence, did not avouch this in the public audience:
but privately to them which were of reputation; or "who seemed to be", i.e. somewhat, very considerable persons; not in their own opinion, or appearance only, but in reality, they seemed to be, and were pillars in the house of God; particularly he means James, Cephas, and John, then in great esteem with the saints, and deservedly honoured and respected by them, they being faithful labourers in the word and doctrine; so the Jewish doctors (a) call men of great esteem, who "seem to be", or "are accounted of", a word to which the phrase here used answers: these were spiritual men, capable of judging of all spiritual things; men of full age, whose senses were exercised to discern between truth and error; and were very proper persons for the apostle to lay the scheme of his ministry before, and the various truths he insisted on in it: these he met "privately", or "separately", and "singly", as it may be rendered; he either conversed with the apostles alone, and all together, in some private house; or separately, one by one, in their own houses, and there freely and familiarly discoursed with them about the several doctrines of the Gospel; and particularly this, of freedom from the law: his end in it was, as he says,
lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain: which is said, not with regard to himself, as if he had entertained any doubt of the doctrines he had preached, and needed any confirmation in them from them; for he was fully assured of the truth of them, and assured others of the same; or that he questioned the agreement of the apostles with him; or that his faith at all depended on their authority; but with regard to others, and his usefulness among them. The false teachers had insinuated that his doctrine was different from that of the apostles in Jerusalem, and so endeavoured to pervert the Gospel he preached, and overthrow the faith of those that heard him; and could this have been made to appear, it would in all likelihood have rendered, in a great measure, his past labours in vain, and have prevented his future usefulness: some read these words as an interrogation, "do I in any manner run, or have I run in vain?" no; from the account he laid before the church, the elders, and apostles, both in private and in public, Acts 15:4 it clearly appeared what success attended his ministry, how many seals he had of it, what numbers of souls were converted under it, and how many churches were planted by his means; for by "running" here is not meant the Christian course he ran, in common with other believers, which lies in the exercise of grace, and the discharge of duty; but the course of his ministry, which he performed with great activity, application, diligence, and constancy, until he had finished it.
(a) Vid. Sol. Ben Melech in Psal. xl 17.
John Wesley
2:2 I went up - Not by any command from them, but by an express revelation from God. And laid before them - The chief of the church in Jerusalem. The gospel which I preach among the gentiles - Acts 15:4, touching justification by faith alone; not that they might confirm me therein, but that I might remove prejudice from them. Yet not publicly at first, but severally to those of eminence - Speaking to them one by one. Lest I should run, or should have run, in vain - Lest I should lose the fruit either of my present or past labours. For they might have greatly hindered this, had they not been fully satisfied both of his mission and doctrine. The word run beautifully expresses the swift progress of the gospel.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:2 by revelation--not from being absolutely dependent on the apostles at Jerusalem, but by independent divine "revelation." Quite consistent with his at the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as Acts 15:2 states. He by this revelation was led to suggest the sending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led by vision, and at the same time by Cornelius' messengers, to go to CÃ&brvbr;sarea, Acts 10:1-22.
I . . . communicated unto them--namely, "to the apostles and elders" (Acts 15:2): to the apostles in particular (Gal 2:9).
privately--that he and the apostles at Jerusalem might decide previously on the principles to be adopted and set forward before the public council (Acts 15:1-29). It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles should know beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was the same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the results it wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related to the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (as Paul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafed in proof of God's sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12).
to them . . . of reputation--James, Cephas, and John, and probably some of the "elders"; Gal 2:6, "those who seemed to be somewhat."
lest, &c.--"lest I should be running, or have run, in vain"; that is, that they might see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain. Paul does not himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain; but lest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so to them. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles (compare "run," Margin, for "Word . . . have free course," Th2 3:1). His running would have been in vain, had circumcision been necessary, since he did not require it of his converts.
2:32:3: Այլ եւ ո՛չ Տիտո՛ս որ ընդ իս ՚ի հեթանոսաց էր, բռնադատեցաւ թլփատե՛լ[4193]. [4193] Ոմանք. Որ ՚ի հեթանոսաց ընդ իս էր։
3 Եւ Տիտոսն իսկ, որ ինձ հետ էր, թէեւ հեթանոս, չպարտաւորուեց թլփատուել՝ հակառակ ներս սպրդած սուտ եղբայրներին.
3 Բայց ինծի հետ եղող Տիտոսն ալ, որ Յոյն էր, չպարտաւորուեցաւ թլփատուիլ.
Այլ եւ ոչ Տիտոս որ ընդ իս ի հեթանոսաց էր` բռնադատեցաւ թլփատել:

2:3: Այլ եւ ո՛չ Տիտո՛ս որ ընդ իս ՚ի հեթանոսաց էր, բռնադատեցաւ թլփատե՛լ[4193].
[4193] Ոմանք. Որ ՚ի հեթանոսաց ընդ իս էր։
3 Եւ Տիտոսն իսկ, որ ինձ հետ էր, թէեւ հեթանոս, չպարտաւորուեց թլփատուել՝ հակառակ ներս սպրդած սուտ եղբայրներին.
3 Բայց ինծի հետ եղող Տիտոսն ալ, որ Յոյն էր, չպարտաւորուեցաւ թլփատուիլ.
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:33: Но они и Тита, бывшего со мною, хотя и Еллина, не принуждали обрезаться,
2:3  ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι·
2:3. ἀλλ' (Other) οὐδὲ (not-moreover) Τίτος (a-Titos) ὁ (the-one) σὺν (together) ἐμοί, (unto-ME,"Ἕλλην (a-Hellian) ὤν, (being,"ἠναγκάσθη (it-was-up-armed-to) περιτμηθῆναι: (to-have-been-cut-about)
2:3. sed neque Titus qui mecum erat cum esset gentilis conpulsus est circumcidiBut neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.
3. But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
2:3. But even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised,
2:3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

3: Но они и Тита, бывшего со мною, хотя и Еллина, не принуждали обрезаться,
2:3  ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι·
2:3. sed neque Titus qui mecum erat cum esset gentilis conpulsus est circumcidi
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.
2:3. But even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised,
2:3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
3. Россказни врагов Павла о ничтожестве дела Павлова не оказали влияния на Иерусалимских представителей христианства. И Тита, как и других бывших в то время в Иерусалиме греков и вообще не иудеев (на это указывает выражение oude TitoV), представители Иерусалимской церкви не стали принуждать к принятию обрезания, хотя попытка к этому, очевидно, была сделана со стороны иудействующих по отношению ко всем христианам из язычников. Ап., значит, увел с собою Тита необрезанным, каким и привел его в Иерусалим, и это было опять доказательством его правоты, как проповедника Евангелия среди язычников, - правоты, признанной теми, кого и ценил только Павел, именно Апостолами из 12-ти.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:3: But neither Titus, who was with me - The apostle proceeds to state that his account was so satisfactory to the apostles, that they not only did not require him to insist on the necessity of circumcision among the Gentiles, but did not even require him to have Titus, who was a Greek, circumcised; though that might have appeared expedient, especially at Jerusalem, to have prevented false brethren from making a handle of his uncircumcision, and turning it to the prejudice of the Gospel in Judea.
To spy out our liberty - The Judaizing brethren got introduced into the assembly of the apostles, in order to find out what was implied in the liberty of the Gospel, that they might know the better how to oppose St. Paul and his fellows in their preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the Church without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. The apostle saw that while such men were in the assembly it was better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles, lest, by means of those false brethren, occasion should be given to altercations and disputes; therefore he took the opportunity, by private conferences, to set the whole matter, relative to his work among the Gentiles, before the chief of the apostles.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:3: But neither Titus, who was with me - Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. It was a case just in point. He had gone up to Jerusalem with the express reference to this question. Here was a man whom he had admitted to the Christian church without circumcising him. He claimed that he had a right to do so; and that circumcision was not necessary in order for salvation. If it were necessary, it would have been proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But Paul that says this was not demanded; or if demanded by anyone, the point was yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised. It is to be remembered that this was at Jerusalem; that it was a case submitted to the apostles there; and that consequently the determination of this case settled the whole controversy about the obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts.
It is quite evident from the whole statement here that Paul did not intend that Titus should be circumcised; that he maintained that it was not necessary; and that he resisted it when it was demanded; Gal 2:4-5. Yet on another occasion he himself performed the act of circumcision upon Timothy; Act 16:3. But there is no inconsistency in Paul's conduct. In the case of Titus, it was demanded as a matter of right and as obligatory upon him, and Paul resisted the principle as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where it was not pressed as a matter of obligation, and where it would not be understood as indispensable to salvation. No danger would follow from compliance with the custom, and it might do much to conciliate the favor of the Jews, and he therefore submitted to it. Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the circumstances were different; and when it was insisted upon as a matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of principle and of obligation with him to oppose it.
Being a Greek - Born of Gentile parents, of course he had not been circumcised. Probably both his parents were Greeks. The case with Timothy was somewhat different. His mother was a Jewess, but his father was a Greek Act 16:3.
Was compelled to be circumcised - I think it is implied here that this was demanded and insisted on by some that he should be circumcised. It is also implied that Paul resisted it, and the point was yielded, thus settling the great and important principle that it was not necessary in order for salvation; see Gal 2:5.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:3: Gal 5:2-6; Act 15:24, Act 16:3; Co1 9:20, Co1 9:21
John Gill
2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,.... There was such an agreement between the apostle, and his fellow apostles at Jerusalem, even about this article of the necessity of circumcision, and other rituals of the law of Moses, to salvation; that Titus, whom he brought along with him, an intimate companion of his in his travels, a fellow labourer with him in the ministry, and now upon the spot, though he was a Gentile, an uncircumcised person, yet even not he
was compelled to be circumcised: the elders did not urge it, or insist upon it, as proper and necessary; they looked upon it as a thing indifferent, left him to his liberty, and made use of no forcible methods to oblige him to it; yea, were of opinion, as Peter and James in the synod declared, that such a yoke ought not to be put upon the necks of the disciples, and that those who turned to God from among the Gentiles, should not be troubled with these things.
John Wesley
2:3 But neither was Titus who was with me - When I conversed with them. Compelled to be circumcised - A clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on the circumcising gentile believers. The sense is, And it is true, some of those false brethren would fain have compelled Titus to be circumcised; but I utterly refused it.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:3 But--So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," Gal 2:4 ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," Acts 15:5), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:5), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (Acts 16:1), he circumcised (Acts 16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (1Cor 9:22; compare Rom 14:1-7, Rom 14:13-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.
2:42:4: այլ վասն սպրդողաց սո՛ւտ եղբարցն, որք սպրդեցին մտանել դիտե՛լ զազատութիւնն մեր՝ զոր ունիմք ՚ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս. զի զմեզ ծառայեցուսցեն[4194]։ [4194] Յօրինակին. Մտանել դիմել զա՛՛։ Ոմանք. Զմեզ ծառայեցուցանեն։
4 նրանք սպրդել մտել էին՝ լրտեսելու մեր այն ազատութիւնը, որ ունենք Քրիստոս Յիսուսով, որպէսզի մեզ ծառայ դարձնեն.
4 Մանաւանդ ներս սպրդող սուտ եղբայրներուն համար՝ որոնք սահելով ներս մտան Քրիստոս Յիսուսով մեր ունեցած ազատութիւնը լրտեսելու համար, որպէս զի մեզ ծառայեցնեն.
Այլ վասն սպրդողաց սուտ եղբարցն, որք սպրդեցին մտանել դիտել զազատութիւնն մեր զոր ունիմք ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս. զի զմեզ ծառայեցուսցեն:

2:4: այլ վասն սպրդողաց սո՛ւտ եղբարցն, որք սպրդեցին մտանել դիտե՛լ զազատութիւնն մեր՝ զոր ունիմք ՚ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս. զի զմեզ ծառայեցուսցեն[4194]։
[4194] Յօրինակին. Մտանել դիմել զա՛՛։ Ոմանք. Զմեզ ծառայեցուցանեն։
4 նրանք սպրդել մտել էին՝ լրտեսելու մեր այն ազատութիւնը, որ ունենք Քրիստոս Յիսուսով, որպէսզի մեզ ծառայ դարձնեն.
4 Մանաւանդ ներս սպրդող սուտ եղբայրներուն համար՝ որոնք սահելով ներս մտան Քրիստոս Յիսուսով մեր ունեցած ազատութիւնը լրտեսելու համար, որպէս զի մեզ ծառայեցնեն.
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:44: а вкравшимся лжебратиям, скрытно приходившим подсмотреть за нашею свободою, которую мы имеем во Христе Иисусе, чтобы поработить нас,
2:4  διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν χριστῶ ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν·
2:4. διὰ (through) δὲ (moreover) τοὺς (to-the-ones) παρεισάκτους ( to-led-into-beside ) ψευδαδέλφους , ( to-false-brethrened ) οἵτινες (which-ones) παρεισῆλθον (they-had-came-into-beside) κατασκοπῆσαι (to-have-scouted-down-unto) τὴν (to-the-one) ἐλευθερίαν (to-an-en-freeing-unto) ἡμῶν (of-us) ἣν (to-which) ἔχομεν (we-hold) ἐν (in) Χριστῷ (unto-Anointed) Ἰησοῦ, (unto-an-Iesous,"ἵνα (so) ἡμᾶς (to-us) καταδουλώσουσιν,-- (they-shall-en-bondee-down,"
2:4. sed propter subintroductos falsos fratres qui subintroierunt explorare libertatem nostram quam habemus in Christo Iesu ut nos in servitutem redigerentBut because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude.
4. and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
2:4. but only because of false brothers, who were brought in unknowingly. They entered secretly to spy on our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might reduce us to servitude.
2:4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

4: а вкравшимся лжебратиям, скрытно приходившим подсмотреть за нашею свободою, которую мы имеем во Христе Иисусе, чтобы поработить нас,
2:4  διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν χριστῶ ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν·
2:4. sed propter subintroductos falsos fratres qui subintroierunt explorare libertatem nostram quam habemus in Christo Iesu ut nos in servitutem redigerent
But because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude.
2:4. but only because of false brothers, who were brought in unknowingly. They entered secretly to spy on our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might reduce us to servitude.
2:4. And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
4-5. Что касается тех, кого Ап. называет "вкравшимися лжебратьями" (touV pareisaktouV yeodadelfouV; член touV показывает, что Павел имеет здесь в виду группу людей известную и читателям послания), то этих людей Ап., очевидно, считает ложными христианами (ложные братья - ложные христиане, потому что слово "брат" на языке Ап. Павла означает "христианина"). Эти люди, выдающие себя за христиан (ср. выражение "лжеапостолы" в 2Кор. XI:26: или "лжепророки" в Мф VII:15), обманным образом вошли (собственно: были по недосмотру допущены в Церковь, как показывает страд. форма прич. pareisaktoi). - Скрытно приходившим (oΐtineV pofeishlqon). Здесь уже указывается на то, что сделано было этими самими "лжебратиями". Они вкрались туда, где Павел и Варнава действовали как полноправные руководители (за нашею свободою - поработить нас). Это была преимущественно церковь Антиохийская и стоящие от нее в зависимости церкви Сирии и Киликии (Гал I:21: и Деян XV:1, 23), в составе которых Ап. мыслит и себя с Варнавою, а также и остальных иудейских христиан Антиохии (ср. ст. 13). Дело идет здесь о "свободе" иудейских христиан, которую они имели как христиане (во Христе) - о свободе от исполнения Моисеева закона. "Лжебратия" доказывали, что всякий, носящий на себе печать обрезания, непременно через это признается обязанным исполнять и весь закон Моисеев, хотя бы этот обрезанный принадлежал уже к христианам. Ап. ни на самое короткое время (ни на час) не уступил требованиям этих людей, какие те к нему предъявляли в отношении к необрезанному Титу и другим христианам, пришедшим с Апостолом, которых "лжебратия" хотели заставить, как иудеев по происхождению, исполнять закон Моисеев. - Дабы истина благовествования сохранилась у вас. Галаты, как христиане из язычников, могли бы соблазниться относительно истинности проповеданного им Павлом Евангелия, если бы им сообщили, что Апостол хотя на краткое время сделал какую-нибудь уступку из своей программы. Ап. поэтому и не сделал никакой уступки на этот раз, хотя в другое время и шел на разные уступки (например принял посвящение в назореи). - Заметить нужно, что русский перевод 4-5-го стихов довольно далек от греческого текста, даже и от принятого у нас (славянский в этом случае гораздо лучше, так как точно воспроизводит слова греческого). Выражение dia de t. pareisaktouV yeud. нельзя переводить дательным падежом: вкравшимся лжебратиям, а затем нельзя оставлять стоящее в начале 5-го стиха местоимение oiV - без перевода. Лучше считать период 4-5-го стихов просто неоконченным (анаколуф), примеры чего нередки в посланиях Ап. Павла. Впрочем некоторые толкователи, на основании многих древних рукописей и переводов послания к Галатам, считают первые слова 5-го стиха вставочными и оба стиха передают так: "ради вкравшихся лжебратий ... мы на момент уступили в силу покорности (нам приличествующей)". Так, напр., переводит Цан. В таком переводе мысль Апостола становится уже вполне ясною. Он дает понять, что "лжебратия" вошли в церковь Антиохийскую и произвели там смущение в умах. Нужно было положить конец такому смущению, и Апостол не нашел для этого иного лучшего способа, как пойти в Иерусалим и заявить о своей программе старейшим представителям христианства, на которых ссылались лжебратия в Антиохии, как на сторонников их воззрения на закон Моисеев. В Иерусалиме, таким образом, должна была решиться борьба между Павлом и иудействующими и вместе с тем заградиться доступ их влиянию на церкви, основанные Павлом. Но понятно, что это путешествие в Иерусалим было со стороны Павла некоторою уступкою - сам он не находил вовсе нужным излагать свое Евангелие пред старейшими Апостолами, - хотя уступкою и временною (на час)... Разумеется, принятие такого толкования обусловливается согласием на то положение Цана, что чтение 5-го стиха без oiV oude совершенно согласно с древними чтениями. Но дело в том, что этого нельзя сказать, и он сам указывает на то, что текст Синайский и Ватиканский имеют эти оба слова. Имеют их и многие другие тексты, так что утверждение Цана, что предлагаемое им чтение - наиболее удостоверенное, не согласно с действительностью.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:4: And that because of false brethren - Who these false brethren were is not certainly known, nor is it known whether he refers to those who were at Jerusalem or to those who were at Antioch. It is probable that he refers to Judaizing Christians, or persons who claimed to be Christians and to have been converted from Judaism. Whether they were dissemblers and hypocrites, or whether they were so imperfectly acquainted with Christianity, and so obstinate, opinionated, and perverse, though really in some respects good men, that they were conscientious in this, it is not easy to determine. It is clear, however, that they opposed the apostle Paul; that they regarded him as teaching dangerous doctrines; that they perverted and misstated his views; and that they claimed to have clearer views of the nature of the true religion than he had. Paul met such adversaries everywhere Co2 11:26; and it required all his tact and skill to meet their plausible representations.
It is evident here that Paul is assigning a reason for something which he had done, and that reason was to counteract the influence of the "false brethren" in the case. But what is the thing concerning which he assigns a reason? It is commonly supposed to have been on account of the fact that he did not submit to the circumcision of Titus, and that he means to say that he resisted that in order to counteract their influence and to defeat their designs. But I would submit whether Gal 2:3 is not to be regarded as a parenthesis, and whether the fact for which he assigns a reason is not that he sought a private interview with the leading men among the apostles? Gal 2:2. The reason of his doing that would be obvious. In this way he could more easily counteract the influence of the false brethren. He could make a full statement of his doctrines. He could meet their inquiries, and anticipate the objections of his enemies. He could thus secure the influence of the leading apostles in his favor, and effectually pRev_ent all the efforts of the false brethren to impose the Jewish rites on Gentile converts.
Unawares brought in - The word rendered "unawares" (παρεισάκτους pareisaktous) is derived from a verb meaning to lead in by the side of others, to introduce along with others; and then to lead or bring in by stealth, to smuggle in - Robinson, Lexicon. The verb occurs nowhere in the New Testament but in Pe2 2:1, where it is applied to heresies, and is rendered "Who privily shall bring in." Here it refers probably to men who had been artfully introduced into the ministry, who made pretensions to piety, but who were either strangers to it, or who were greatly ignorant of the true nature of the Christian system; and who were disposed to take every advantage, and to impose on others the observance of the special rites of the Mosaic economy. Into what they were brought, the apostle does not say. It may have been that they had been introduced into the ministry in this manner (Doddridge); or it may be that they were introduced into the "assembly" where the apostles were collected to deliberate on the subject - Chandler. I think it probable that Paul refers to the occurrences in Jerusalem, and that these false brethren had been introduced from Antioch or some other place where Paul had been preaching, or that they were persons whom his adversaries had introduced to demand that Titus should be circumcised, under the plausible pretence that the laws of Moses required it, but really in order that there might be such proof as they desired that this rite was to be imposed upon the Gentile converts. If Paul were compelled to submit to this; if they could carry this point, it would be just such an instance as they needed, and would settle the whole inquiry, and prove that the Mosaic laws were to be imposed upon the Gentile converts. This was the reason why Paul so strenuously opposed it.
To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus - In the practice of the Christian religion. The liberty referred to was, doubtless, the liberty from the painful, expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish religion; see Gal 5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which Paul and others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that they did not observe the special rites of the Mosaic system; to make report of it; to insist upon their complying with those customs, and thus to secure the imposition of those rites on the Gentile converts. Their first object was to satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not insist on the observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the authority of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his ministry should be required to comply with those laws.
That they might bring us into bondage - Into bondage to the laws of Moses; see the note at Act 15:10.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:4: because: Gal 5:10, Gal 5:12; Act 15:1, Act 15:24, Act 20:30; Co2 11:13, Co2 11:17, Co2 11:26; Jo1 4:1
unawares: Ti2 3:6; Pe2 2:1, Pe2 2:2; Jde 1:4
liberty: Gal 3:23-26, Gal 5:1, Gal 5:13; Psa 51:12, Psa 119:45; Joh 8:31-36; Co2 3:17; Pe1 2:16; Pe2 2:19
bring: Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9, Gal 4:10, Gal 4:25; Isa 51:23; Co2 11:20
Geneva 1599
2:4 And that because of (b) false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
(b) Who by deceit and counterfeit holiness crept in among the faithful.
John Gill
2:4 And that because of false brethren,.... This is the reason why the elders did not insist upon the circumcision of Titus, why he did not submit to it, and why the apostle would not admit of it: had it been left as a thing indifferent, or had it been moved for in order to satisfy some weak minds, it might have been complied with, as in the case of Timothy; but these men insisted upon it as necessary to salvation; they were sly, artful, designing men; could they have gained their point in such an instance; could they have got such a precedent at such a time, when this matter was canvassing, they would have made great use of it in the Gentile churches, for which reason it was by no means judged proper and expedient. These men are described as "false brethren": they had the name, but not the grace, which entitles to the character of "brethren"; they called themselves Christians, but were in reality Jews: at the head of these, Cerinthus, that arch-heretic, is said (b) to be. They are further described as such,
who were unawares brought in, who came in privily; into the churches, and into the ministry, into private houses, where the apostles were; or rather into the public synod, where they were convened together about this article of the necessity of circumcision to salvation. Their views, aims, and ends were,
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus; by which is meant, not a liberty to sin, which is no Christian liberty, is contrary to Christ, to the Spirit of Christ, to the principle of grace in believers, and to the doctrines of the Gospel; but a liberty from sin; not the being of it, but the dominion and damning power of it: that branch of Christian liberty the apostle here chiefly designs is a freedom from the law, both the moral law, as in the hands of Moses, and as a covenant of works, though not from obedience to it as in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation; but from obeying it, in order to obtain life, righteousness, and salvation by it, and from the curse and condemnation of it; and chiefly the ceremonial law, circumcision, and all the other rituals of it, and the free use of all things indifferent, provided the glory of God, and the peace of weak believers, are secured. This liberty is said to be had "in Christ", because Christ is the author of it; it is that with which Christ makes his people free; and such as are made free by him, are free indeed; and is what they come to enjoy by being in him; for by having union to him, they come to partake of all the blessings of grace which come by him, and this among the rest. Now the design of these false teachers getting in privily among the apostles, elders, and brethren, was to make their remarks upon this liberty, to object to it, and, if possible, to break in upon it, and destroy it, and so gain another point, which follows:
that they might bring us into bondage; to the moral law, by directing souls to seek for justification and salvation by the works of it, which necessarily induces a spirit of bondage, genders to a state of bondage and involves in it; and to the ceremonial law, by engaging to an observance of circumcision, that yoke of bondage, and of day, months, times, and years, and other beggarly elements, which naturally lead on to such a state.
(b) Epiphan. contr. Haeres. l. 1. Tom. 2. Haeres. 28.
John Wesley
2:4 Because of false brethren - Who seem to have urged it. Introduced unawares - Into some of those private conferences at Jerusalem. Who had slipped in to spy out our liberty - From the ceremonial law. That they might, if possible, bring us into that bondage again.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:4 And that--that is, What I did concerning Titus (namely, by not permitting him to be circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but "on account of the false brethren" (Acts 15:1, Acts 15:24) who, had I yielded to the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the case into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary.
unawares--"in an underhand manner brought in."
privily--stealthily.
to spy out--as foes in the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of
our liberty--from the yoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found that we circumcised Titus through fear of the apostles, they would have made that a ground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the Gentiles.
bring us into bondage--The Greek future implies the certainty and continuance of the bondage as the result.
2:52:5: Որոց եւ ո՛չ առժամանակ մի անսացաք հնազանդութեանն. զի ճշմարտութիւն աւետարանին հաստատեսցի առ ձեզ[4195]։ [4195] Ոմանք. Հաստատեսցի ՚ի ձեզ։
5 նոյնիսկ, ժամանակաւորապէս, չանսացինք հնազանդուել նրանց, որպէսզի Աւետարանի ճշմարտութիւնը հաստատ մնայ ձեր մէջ:
5 Որոնց նոյնիսկ քիչ մը ատեն մտիկ չըրինք, որպէս զի աւետարանին ճշմարտութիւնը հաստատուն մնայ ձեր մէջ։
Որոց եւ ոչ առ ժամանակ մի անսացաք հնազանդութեանն, զի ճշմարտութիւն աւետարանին հաստատեսցի առ ձեզ:

2:5: Որոց եւ ո՛չ առժամանակ մի անսացաք հնազանդութեանն. զի ճշմարտութիւն աւետարանին հաստատեսցի առ ձեզ[4195]։
[4195] Ոմանք. Հաստատեսցի ՚ի ձեզ։
5 նոյնիսկ, ժամանակաւորապէս, չանսացինք հնազանդուել նրանց, որպէսզի Աւետարանի ճշմարտութիւնը հաստատ մնայ ձեր մէջ:
5 Որոնց նոյնիսկ քիչ մը ատեն մտիկ չըրինք, որպէս զի աւետարանին ճշմարտութիւնը հաստատուն մնայ ձեր մէջ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:55: мы ни на час не уступили и не покорились, дабы истина благовествования сохранилась у вас.
2:5  οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
2:5. οἷς ( unto-which ) οὐδὲ (not-moreover) πρὸς (toward) ὥραν (to-an-hour) εἴξαμεν (we-resembled) τῇ (unto-the-one) ὑποταγῇ, (unto-an-arranging-under,"ἵνα (so) ἡ (the-one) ἀλήθεια (an-un-secluding-of) τοῦ (of-the-one) εὐαγγελίου (of-a-goodly-messagelet) διαμείνῃ (it-might-have-stayed-through) πρὸς (toward) ὑμᾶς. (to-ye)
2:5. quibus neque ad horam cessimus subiectioni ut veritas evangelii permaneat apud vosTo whom we yielded not by subjection: no, not for an hour: that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
5. to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
2:5. We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the Gospel would remain with you,
2:5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you:

5: мы ни на час не уступили и не покорились, дабы истина благовествования сохранилась у вас.
2:5  οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
2:5. quibus neque ad horam cessimus subiectioni ut veritas evangelii permaneat apud vos
To whom we yielded not by subjection: no, not for an hour: that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
2:5. We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the Gospel would remain with you,
2:5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:5: To whom we gave place by subjection - So fully satisfied was he with his Divine call, and that he had in preaching among the Gentiles acted in strict conformity to it, that he did not submit in the least to the opinion of those Judaizing teachers; and therefore he continued to insist on the exemption of the Gentiles from the necessity of submitting to Jewish rites; that the truth of the Gospel - this grand doctrine, that the Gentiles are admitted by the Gospel of Christ to be fellow-heirs with the Jews, might continue; and thus the same doctrine is continued with you Gentiles.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:5: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour - We did not submit to this at all. We did not yield even for the shortest time. We did not waver in our opposition to their demands, or in the slightest degree become subject to their wishes. We steadily opposed their claims, in order that the great principle might be foRev_er settled, that the laws of Moses were not to be imposed as obligatory on the Gentile converts. This I take to be the clear and obvious sense of this passage, though there has been a great variety of opinions on it. A considerable number of manuscripts omit the words οἵς οὐδὲ hois oude), "to whom neither" (see Mill, Koppe, and Griesbach), and then the sense would be Rev_ersed, that Paul did yield to them for or after a short time, in order that he might in this way better consult the permanent interests of the gospel. This opinion has been gaining ground for the last century, that the passage here has been corrupted; but it is by no means confirmed. The ancient versions (the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Arabic) accord with the usual reading of the text. So also do by far the largest portion of mss., and such, it seems to me, is the sense demanded by the connection. Paul means, in the whole passage, to say, that a great principle was settled. That the question came up fairly whether the Mosaic rites were to be imposed upon Gentile converts. That false brethren were introduced who demanded it; and that he steadily maintained his ground. He did not yield a moment. He felt that a great principle was involved; and though on all proper occasions he was willing to yield and to become all things to all men, yet here he did not court them, or temporize with them in the least. The phrase "by subjection" here means, that he did not suffer himself to be compelled to yield. The phrase "for an hour" is equivalent to the shortest period of time. He did not waver, or yield at all.
That the truth of the gospel might continue with you - That the great principle of the Christian religion which had been taught you might continue, and that you might enjoy the full benefit of the pure gospel, without its being intermingled with any false views. Paul had defended these same views among the Galatians, and he now sought that the same views might be confirmed by the clear decision of the college of apostles at Jerusalem.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:5: we: Gal 3:1, Gal 3:2; Act 15:2; Col 2:4-8; Jde 1:3
that: Gal 2:14, Gal 4:16; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; Th1 2:13
Geneva 1599
2:5 To whom we gave place by (c) subjection, no, not for an hour; that the (d) truth of the gospel might continue with (e) you.
(c) By submitting ourselves to them, and betraying our own liberty.
(d) The true and sincere doctrine of the Gospel, which remained safe from being corrupted with any of these men's false doctrines.
(e) Under the Galatian's name, he understands all nations.
John Gill
2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection,.... Meaning not the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, who did not insist upon the observance of the rituals of the law as necessary, but were one and all of opinion that the Gentiles should be free from them; but the false teachers with whom they combated, and would not yield in the least unto, so as to be brought into subjection to their impositions, nor suffer others to yield unto them:
no, not for an hour; for the least space of time, knowing what advantages and improvements would be made of it, should they allow of the use of these things as necessary for any short time, though it should be agreed then to drop them. This is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they would express their steady adherence to any principle or practice; of which take the following instance from Gamaliel (c):
"it happened to Rabban Gamaliel, that he read the first night he was married; his disciples said to him, master, hast thou not taught us, that the bridegroom is free from reading the Shema, i.e. "hear, O Israel", &c. the first night? he replied to them, I will not hearken to you to cause to cease from me the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, , "even one hour".''
The reason why the apostle, and others with him, were so resolute and pertinacious in this matter was,
that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you; with the Galatians in particular, and with all the Gentiles in general, which otherwise would have been in danger of being entirely removed from them, at least of being adulterated and mixed with the Mosaic rites, and the inventions of men; whereas the apostle's desire was, that, the Gospel might be continued with them genuine, sincere, and unmixed, in opposition to the shadows of the law, and the false doctrines of men.
(c) Misn. Beracot, c. 2. sect. 5.
John Wesley
2:5 To whom we did not yield by submission - Although in love he would have yielded to any. With such wonderful prudence did the apostle use his Christian liberty ! circumcising Timothy, Acts 16:3, because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false brethren. That the truth of the gospel - That is, the true genuine gospel. Might continue with you - With you gentiles. So we defend, for your sakes, the privilege which you would give up.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:5 Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." ALFORD renders the Greek article, "with THE subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have yielded for love [BENGEL] (if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel" (Gal 2:14; Col 1:5) was at stake (namely, the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, Gal 1:6). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it [BENGEL].
might continue with you--Gentiles. We defended for your sakes your true faith and liberties, which you are now renouncing.
2:62:6: Բայց զկարծելոցն եթէ իցեն ինչ, որպիսիք ոք երբեմն էին, չէ՛ ինչ ինձ փոյթ. քանզի Աստուած ակն մարդկան ո՛չ առնու. զի ինձ կարծեալքն այնպիսի ինչ ո՛չ զգացուցին[4196]. [4196] Ոմանք. Բայց զկարծելոյն թէ իցեն... որպիսիք երբեմն էիք, ինձ չէ փոյթ։
6 Ինչ վերաբերում է երեւելիներին (թէ նրանք երբեւիցէ մի բան եղել են, իմ հոգը չէ, քանզի Աստուած մարդկանց աչառութիւն չի անում), այդ երեւելիները նման որեւէ բան չիմացրին ինձ:
6 Բայց անոնք որ բան մը կը կարծուէին, ինչ որ էին՝ այն իմ հոգս չէ. Աստուած մարդոց աչառութիւն չ’ըներ, վասն զի այնպէս կարծուածները բան մը չիմացուցին ինծի։
Բայց զկարծելոցն եթէ իցեն ինչ, որպիսիք ոք երբեմն էին, չէ ինչ ինձ փոյթ. քանզի Աստուած ակն մարդկան ոչ առնու. զի ինձ կարծեալքն այնպիսի ինչ ոչ զգացուցին:

2:6: Բայց զկարծելոցն եթէ իցեն ինչ, որպիսիք ոք երբեմն էին, չէ՛ ինչ ինձ փոյթ. քանզի Աստուած ակն մարդկան ո՛չ առնու. զի ինձ կարծեալքն այնպիսի ինչ ո՛չ զգացուցին[4196].
[4196] Ոմանք. Բայց զկարծելոյն թէ իցեն... որպիսիք երբեմն էիք, ինձ չէ փոյթ։
6 Ինչ վերաբերում է երեւելիներին (թէ նրանք երբեւիցէ մի բան եղել են, իմ հոգը չէ, քանզի Աստուած մարդկանց աչառութիւն չի անում), այդ երեւելիները նման որեւէ բան չիմացրին ինձ:
6 Բայց անոնք որ բան մը կը կարծուէին, ինչ որ էին՝ այն իմ հոգս չէ. Աստուած մարդոց աչառութիւն չ’ըներ, վասն զի այնպէս կարծուածները բան մը չիմացուցին ինծի։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:66: И в знаменитых чем-либо, какими бы ни были они когда-либо, для меня нет ничего особенного: Бог не взирает на лице человека. И знаменитые не возложили на меня ничего более.
2:6  ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι _ ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει· πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει _ ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο,
2:6. ἀπὸ (Off) δὲ (moreover) τῶν (of-the-ones) δοκούντων ( of-thinking-unto ) εἶναί (to-be) τι-- (to-a-one," ὁποῖοί ( which-whither-belonged ) ποτε (whither-also) ἦσαν (they-were,"οὐδέν (not-moreover-one) μοι (unto-me) διαφέρει-- (it-beareth-through,"πρόσωπον (to-looked-toward) [ὁ] "[the-one]"θεὸς (a-Deity) ἀνθρώπου (of-a-mankind) οὐ (not) λαμβάνει-- (it-taketh) ἐμοὶ (unto-ME) γὰρ (therefore,"οἱ (the-ones) δοκοῦντες ( thinking-unto ,"οὐδὲν (to-not-moreover-one) προσανέθεντο , ( they-had-placed-up-toward ,"
2:6. ab his autem qui videbantur esse aliquid quales aliquando fuerint nihil mea interest Deus personam hominis non accipit mihi enim qui videbantur nihil contuleruntBut of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man): for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing.
6. But from those who were reputed to be somewhat ( whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)— they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
2:6. and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me.
2:6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, ( whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man' s person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:

6: И в знаменитых чем-либо, какими бы ни были они когда-либо, для меня нет ничего особенного: Бог не взирает на лице человека. И знаменитые не возложили на меня ничего более.
2:6  ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι _ ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει· πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει _ ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο,
2:6. ab his autem qui videbantur esse aliquid quales aliquando fuerint nihil mea interest Deus personam hominis non accipit mihi enim qui videbantur nihil contulerunt
But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man): for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing.
2:6. and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me.
2:6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
6. Враги Павла могли сказать: "а все же Павел нашел нужным подкрепить свой авторитет авторитетом старейших Апостолов, - значит он признает себя зависимым от них". В виду возможности таких перетолкований своего путешествия в Иерусалим Ап. в ряде отрывочных положений выражает ту мысль, что уважаемые представители Иерусалимской церкви, как бы они ни высоко стояли во мнении верующих, нисколько не выше его по положению Апостолов-проповедников Евангелия (pote, переведенное по-русски выражением "когда либо", собственно есть частица, стоящая в тесной связи с словом opoioi = каковы бы ни). - Бог не взирает на лицо, т. е. на внешнее положение человека. След. если старейшие Апостолы и пользовались среди христиан иудейских большим авторитетом, чем Павел, то это еще не служит доказательством того, что Павел и на самом деле (пред Богом) стоял бы ниже их. Но, кроме того, эти старейшие Апостолы и не оказались вовсе в какой либо оппозиции к Павлову Евангелию: они не нашли нужным что-либо прибавлять к его проповеди. - Впрочем Цан, следуя блаж. Феодориту и другим древним толкователям, видит здесь другой смысл. Он обращает внимание на глагол prosaneqento, по-русски неточно переведенный выражением "возлагать более, прибавлять". Этот глагол, по нему, может иметь только тот смысл, какой имеют параллельные ему выражения aneqemhn (II:2) и prosaneqemhn (I:16), т. е. "предлагать на рассмотрение, советоваться о чем либо". Отсюда смысл стиха получается такой: "Я, называя других Апостолов, знаменитыми, вовсе не хочу через это воспользоваться их словом как особенно авторитетным и полезным для меня лично. В этом искательстве виновны иудействующие, а не я. Как Бог не обращает внимания на лицо, т. е. на внешнее положение человека, а только на его внутренние достоинства, так должен поступать и человек, так поступаю и я. Да притом я и не призван оценивать достоинство старейших Апостолов (может быть, враги Павла указывали ему, что старейшие Апостолы иначе смотрят на закон Моисеев, чем он. - Златоуст и др.): ведь я им, а не они мне предложили для рассмотрения свое Евангелие. Кто рассматривает чье-либо дело тот действительно может обращать внимание на внешнюю обстановку того, кто ходатайствует о рассмотрении своего дела. А я, Павел, вовсе не был в положении судящего Апостолов и потому не обращал и не обращаю внимания на тот внешний почет, каким они пользуются и пользовались среди христиан". - Такое толкование представляется весьма правдоподобным.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:6: Those who seemed to be somewhat - Των δοκουντων ειναι τι· Those who were of acknowledged reputation; so the words should be understood, see Gal 2:2. The verb δοκειν, to seem, is repeatedly used by the best Greek writers, not to call the sense in question, or to lessen it, but to deepen and extend it. See the note on Luk 8:18. 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: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:6: But of those who seemed to be somewhat - See Gal 2:2. This undoubtedly refers to those who were the most eminent among the apostles at Jerusalem. There is an apparent harshness in our common translation which is unnecessary. The word used here (δοκούντων dokountō n) denotes those who were thought to be, or who were of reputation; that is, men who were of note and influence among the apostles. The object of referring to them here is, to show that he had the concurrence and approbation of the most eminent of the apostles to the course which he had pursued.
Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me - Tyndale renders this, "What they were in time passed, it maketh no matter to me." The idea seems to be this. Paul means to say that whatever was their real rank and standing, it did not in the least affect his authority as an apostle, or his argument. While he rejoiced in their concurrence, and while he sought their approbation, yet he did not admit for a moment that he was inferior to them as an apostle, or dependent on them for the justness of his views What they were, or what they might be thought to be, was immaterial to his claims as an apostle, and immaterial to the authority of his own views as an apostle. He had derived his gospel from the Lord Jesus; and he had the fullest assurance that his views were just. Paul makes this remark evidently in keeping with all that he had said, that he did not regard himself as in any manner dependent on them for his authority. He did not treat them with disrespect; but he did not regard them as having a right to claim an authority over him.
God accepteth no man's person - See the Act 10:34 note; Rom 2:11 note. This is a general truth, that God is not influenced in His judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or external condition of anyone. Its particular meaning here is, that the authority of the apostles was not to be measured by their external rank, or by the measure of reputation which they had among men. If, therefore, it were to be admitted that he himself were not in circumstances of so much external honor as the other apostles, or that they were esteemed to be of more elevated rank than he was, still he did not admit that this gave them a claim to any higher authority. God was not influenced in His judgment by any such consideration; and Paul therefore claimed that all the apostles were in fact on a level in regard to their authority.
In conference - When I conferred with them, Gal 2:2. They did not then impose upon me any new obligations; they did not communicate anything to me of which I was pRev_iously ignorant.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:6: these who: Gal 2:2, Gal 2:9, Gal 6:3; Co2 11:5, Co2 11:21-23, Co2 12:11; Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17
it maketh: Gal 2:11-14; Job 32:6, Job 32:7, Job 32:17-22; Mat 22:16; Mar 6:17-20, Mar 12:14; Luk 20:21; Co2 5:16
God: Job 34:19; Act 10:34; Rom 2:11; Pe1 1:17
in: Gal 2:10; Acts 15:6-29; Co2 12:11
John Gill
2:6 But of these, who seemed to be somewhat,.... Not the false brethren, but the Apostles James, Cephas, and John, who were "men of great esteem": high in the opinion of all good men; not that they were looked upon to be more than human, as Simon Magus gave out that he was "some great one", and his followers thought him to be "the great power of God"; for such an extravagant conceit of these men was never entertained; nor were they thought to be something when they were nothing, for they really were somewhat; they were ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of grace; they were the Lord's ambassadors, and the apostles of the Lamb. However, says the apostle,
whatsoever they were; "formerly", some time ago, which our version does not so fully express,
Tit maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person. This is said, not by way of slight or contempt, but in vindication of himself, whom the false teachers endeavoured to lessen, by giving high encomiums of the apostles at Jerusalem. It looks as if they had upbraided the apostle with being a persecutor of the church before his conversion, when nothing of such a nature could be laid to the charge of these men, and therefore he was not to be set upon a level with them: to which he may be thought to reply in such manner as this, that as for himself, it is true, he had been an injurious person to the saints; and he was ready to own it, for his own humiliation, and to illustrate the grace of God in his conversion; and as these excellent men, what they were before their conversion, it was no concern of his; though, perhaps, was he disposed to inquire into their characters then, some blemishes might be found therein, as well as in his; but it is not what he and they had been, but what they now were: he could have observed, that they were persons formerly of a very low figure in life, of mean occupations, fishermen by employment, and very illiterate persons, when he was bred a scholar at the feet of Gamaliel; but he chose not to make such observations, he knew that God was no respecter of persons, nor was he influenced by any such external circumstances, but chose whom he pleased to such an high office; and that he, who of fishermen made them apostles, of a persecutor had made him one also. Or these false teachers perhaps had objected to him, that these valuable men had been with Christ from the beginning, were eyewitnesses of his majesty, heard the doctrines of the Gospel from his lips, and saw his miracles, had had a similar conversation with him, when he was a preacher of much later date, and could not pretend to such advantages, and therefore ought not to be equalled to them: his answer is, that whatever privileges of this kind they had enjoyed, as could not be denied but they were considerable, yet this mattered not, nor did it make any great difference between him and them; he had seen Christ too, though as one born out of due time; had received an immediate commission from him to preach his Gospel, and was appointed an apostle by him as they were, without any respect of persons: and whereas it might have been urged, that these men had entertained different sentiments from him formerly, concerning the observance of the law, he signifies he had nothing to do with that, to their own master they stood, to whom they must give an account, who, without respect of persons, will render to every man according to his works: and, adds he,
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; whatever opinions they formerly gave into, in their conversation with him, when he communicated the Gospel he preached to them, they found no fault with it; they did not go about to correct it; nor did they make any addition to it; the scheme of truths he laid before them, which had been the subject of his ministry, was so complete and perfect, containing the whole counsel of God, that they had nothing to add unto it; which shows the agreement between them, that he did not receive his Gospel from them, the perfection of his ministry, and that he was not a whit behind them in knowledge and gifts.
John Wesley
2:6 And they who undoubtedly were something - Above all others. What they were - How eminent soever. It is no difference to me - So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no man's person - For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives. In that conference added nothing to me - Neither as to doctrine nor mission.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:6 Greek, "From those who," &c. He meant to complete the sentence with "I derived no special advantage"; but he alters it into "they . . . added nothing to me."
accepteth--so as to show any partiality; "respecteth no man's person" (Eph 6:9).
seemed to be somewhat--that is, not that they seemed to be what they were not, but "were reputed as persons of some consequence"; not insinuating a doubt but that they were justly so reputed.
in conference added--or "imparted"; the same Greek as in Gal 1:16, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew. This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.
2:72:7: այլ զնորին հակառա՛կն, իբրեւ տեսին եթէ հաւատացեալ է ինձ աւետարանն անթլփատութեան, որպէս Պետրոսի ՚ի թլփատութեան[4197]. [4197] Ոմանք. Որպէս եւ Պետրոսին թլփա՛՛։
7 Այլ, դրան հակառակ, երբ տեսան, թէ հեթանոսների աւետարանն ի՛նձ է վստահուած, ինչպէս Պետրոսին՝ հրեաների աւետարանը
7 Հապա անոր հակառակը՝ երբ տեսան թէ անթլփատներուն աւետարանը ինծի յանձնուած է, ինչպէս Պետրոսին ալ՝ թլփատուածներունը,
այլ զնորին հակառակն, իբրեւ տեսին եթէ հաւատացեալ է ինձ աւետարանն անթլփատութեան, որպէս Պետրոսի` ի թլփատութեան:

2:7: այլ զնորին հակառա՛կն, իբրեւ տեսին եթէ հաւատացեալ է ինձ աւետարանն անթլփատութեան, որպէս Պետրոսի ՚ի թլփատութեան[4197].
[4197] Ոմանք. Որպէս եւ Պետրոսին թլփա՛՛։
7 Այլ, դրան հակառակ, երբ տեսան, թէ հեթանոսների աւետարանն ի՛նձ է վստահուած, ինչպէս Պետրոսին՝ հրեաների աւետարանը
7 Հապա անոր հակառակը՝ երբ տեսան թէ անթլփատներուն աւետարանը ինծի յանձնուած է, ինչպէս Պետրոսին ալ՝ թլփատուածներունը,
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:77: Напротив того, увидев, что мне вверено благовестие для необрезанных, как Петру для обрезанных--
2:7  ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς,
2:7. ἀλλὰ (other) τοὐναντίον (to-the-one-ever-a-one-in) ἰδόντες (having-had-seen) ὅτι (to-which-a-one) πεπίστευμαι (I-had-come-to-be-trusted-of) τὸ (to-the-one) εὐαγγέλιον (to-a-goodly-messagelet) τῆς (of-the-one) ἀκροβυστίας (of-an-extremity-stuffing-unto) καθὼς (down-as) Πέτρος (a-Petros) τῆς (of-the-one) περιτομῆς, (of-a-cutting-about,"
2:7. sed e contra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi evangelium praeputii sicut Petro circumcisionisBut contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
7. but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with of the circumcision
2:7. But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was entrusted to Peter.
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;
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter:

7: Напротив того, увидев, что мне вверено благовестие для необрезанных, как Петру для обрезанных--
2:7  ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς,
2:7. sed e contra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi evangelium praeputii sicut Petro circumcisionis
But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
2:7. But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was entrusted to Peter.
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;
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
7-10. Итак, Павел не высказывал в тот раз какого либо суждения о деятельности и взглядах на дело проповеди Евангелия старейших Апостолов. Напротив, это они сами должны были рассмотреть образ действий Павла, и действительно рассмотрели его (толкование Цана). Тут они увидели, что Ап. Павел действительно получил от Христа полномочия проповедывать среди необрезанных, подобно тому как Петру поручено нести Евангелие (euaggelwn по-русски не точно: благовествование. Слово euaggelion означает не самый процесс благовествования, а проповеданную Христом весть или учение о спасении всех людей ср. I:7) главным образом к обрезанным. Основывались в таком заключении старейшие Апостолы на том соображении, что Павел без особого полномочия от Бога и Христа не мог бы творить среди язычников таких чудес (ср. 2Кор. XII:12; Деян XV:12), какие он творил, как и Ап. Петр. - Из числа этих старейших представителей христианства Павел особо упоминает об Иакове (под которым, конечно, нужно разуметь упомянутого в I:19: ст. брата Господня - иначе Ап. точно бы определил, какого Иакова здесь он разумеет), Кифе (так называет Петра Павел, очевидно, потому, что так именовали постоянно Петра иудействующие) и Иоанн, потому что они трое почитались "столпами" или представителями Церкви в Палестине. Эти "столпы", узнав о благодати (carin), т. е. об успехах деятельности Павла (о призвании его благодатного призвания сказано уже выше - в 7-м стихе), подали ему и Варнаве, как проповедникам Евангелия среди язычников, руку общения и этим торжественно подтвердили (дело, вероятно, происходило в торжественном собрании иерусалимских христиан) право Павла и Варнавы выступать повсюду в качестве миссионеров среди язычников. Себе же они взяли главною задачею распространение Евангелия среди иудеев. Таким образом совершилось размежевание области деятельности между Апостолами, но, конечно, только в географическом отношении, так как и Ап. Павел не лишен был права действовать среди иудеев и другие Апостолы не отказывались выступать с словом наставления среди христиан из язычников. Но чтобы при этом размежевании сохранилось все-таки чувство единения между Апостолами и руководимыми ими церквами, Апостолы просили Павла помогать из средств более богатых церквей, образовавшихся из обращенных язычников, более нуждающимся членам церкви Иерусалимской. Ап. говорит, что он старался исполнить это условие, причем говорит только о себе, а не о Варнаве, так как Варнава отделился от Павла вскоре после этого путешествия в Иерусалим (Деян XV:39).
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:7: But contrariwise - They were so far from wishing me to alter my plan, or to introduce any thing new in my doctrine to the Gentiles, that they saw plainly that my doctrine was the same as their own, coming immediately from the same source; and therefore gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.
The Gospel of the uncircumcision - They saw, to their utmost satisfaction, that I was as expressly sent by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was to preach it to the Jews.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:7: The gospel of the uncircumcision - The duty of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles Paul had received this as his unique office when he was converted and called to the ministry (see Act 9:15; Act 22:21); and they now perceived that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the remarkable success which had attended his labors. It is evidently not meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews, and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile Acts 10; but it is meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or that this was especially entrusted to him.
As the gospel of the circumcision - As the office of preaching the gospel to the Jews.
Was unto Peter - Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had been principally employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly, doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to show that he was himself regarded as on a level in regard to the apostleship with the most aged and venerable of those who had been called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:7: when: Gal 2:9; Act 15:12, Act 15:25, Act 15:26; Pe2 3:15
the gospel of the uncircumcision: Gal 1:16; Act 13:46-48, Act 18:6, Act 28:28; Rom 1:5, Rom 11:13; Th1 2:4; Ti1 2:7; Ti2 1:11
Geneva 1599
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the (f) uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
(f) Among the Gentiles, as Peter had to preach it among the Jews.
John Gill
2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel,.... James, Cephas, and John, were so far from blaming or correcting anything in the apostle's ministry, or adding anything to it, that they highly approved of it; and as a token of their agreement with him and Barnabas, gave them the right hand of fellowship: the reasons of their so doing are inserted here, and in the following verse, and in the next to that: the reason here given is, because
they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter; by "the uncircumcision and circumcision" are meant the Gentiles and Jews; see Rom 2:26 by the Gospel of the one, and the Gospel of the other, two Gospels are not designed, for there is but one Gospel, and not another. Paul did not preach one Gospel unto the uncircumcised Gentiles, and Peter another to the circumcised Jews; but the same Gospel was preached by both, and is so called with respect to the different persons to whom it was preached by these apostles. The Apostle Paul was ordained a minister of the Gentiles, and he chiefly preached among them, though not to them only. Peter was principally employed among the Jews, though also as he had opportunity he sometimes preached to the Gentiles: however, the subject of both their ministrations was the Gospel, which is said to be "committed" to them, as a trust deposited in their hands, not by man, but by God; the management of which required both prudence and faithfulness, and which were eminently seen in these good stewards of the mysteries of God. This being observed by the apostles at Jerusalem, they came into an agreement that one part should discharge their ministry among the Gentiles, and the other among the Jews.
John Wesley
2:7 But when they saw - By the effects which I laid before them, Gal 2:8; Acts 15:12. That I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision - That is, with the charge of preaching it to the uncircumcised heathens.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:7 contrariwise--on the contrary. So far from adding any new light to ME, THEY gave in THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles.
when they saw--from the effects which I showed them, were "wrought" (Gal 2:8; Acts 15:12).
was committed unto me--Greek, "I was entrusted with."
gospel of the uncircumcision--that is, of the Gentiles, who were to be converted without circumcision being required.
circumcision . . . unto Peter--Peter had originally opened the door to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48; Acts 15:7). But in the ultimate apportionment of the spheres of labor, the Jews were assigned to him (compare 1Pet 1:1). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the Hebrews (compare also Col 4:11), though his main work was among the Gentiles. The non-mention of Peter in the list of names, presciently through the Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, shows that Peter's residence at Rome, much more primacy, was then unknown. The same is palpable from the sphere here assigned to him.
2:82:8: զի որ յաջողեացն Պետրոսի յառաքելութիւն թլփատութեանն, յաջողեա՛ց եւ ինձ ՚ի հեթանոսս[4198]։ [4198] Ոմանք. Զի զոր յաջող՛՛։
8 (որովհետեւ նա, որ Պետրոսին յաջողեցրեց առաքելութիւն հրեաների մէջ, ինձ էլ յաջողեցրեց առաքելութիւն հեթանոսների մէջ),
8 (Վասն զի ան որ Պետրոսին յաջողութիւն տուաւ թլփատուածներուն առաքելութիւն ընելու, ինծի ալ՝ հեթանոսներունը,)
զի որ յաջողեացն Պետրոսի յառաքելութիւն թլփատութեանն, յաջողեաց եւ ինձ ի հեթանոսս:

2:8: զի որ յաջողեացն Պետրոսի յառաքելութիւն թլփատութեանն, յաջողեա՛ց եւ ինձ ՚ի հեթանոսս[4198]։
[4198] Ոմանք. Զի զոր յաջող՛՛։
8 (որովհետեւ նա, որ Պետրոսին յաջողեցրեց առաքելութիւն հրեաների մէջ, ինձ էլ յաջողեցրեց առաքելութիւն հեթանոսների մէջ),
8 (Վասն զի ան որ Պետրոսին յաջողութիւն տուաւ թլփատուածներուն առաքելութիւն ընելու, ինծի ալ՝ հեթանոսներունը,)
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:88: ибо Содействовавший Петру в апостольстве у обрезанных содействовал и мне у язычников, --
2:8  ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη,
2:8. ὁ (the-one) γὰρ (therefore) ἐνεργήσας (having-worked-in-unto) Πέτρῳ (unto-a-Petros) εἰς (into) ἀποστολὴν (to-a-setting-off) τῆς (of-the-one) περιτομῆς (of-a-cutting-about) ἐνήργησεν (it-worked-in-unto) καὶ (and) ἐμοὶ (unto-ME) εἰς (into) τὰ (to-the-ones) ἔθνη, (to-nations,"
2:8. qui enim operatus est Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis operatus est et mihi inter gentes(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
8. ( for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
2:8. For he who was working the Apostleship to the circumcised in Peter, was also working in me among the Gentiles.
2:8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:

8: ибо Содействовавший Петру в апостольстве у обрезанных содействовал и мне у язычников, --
2:8  ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη,
2:8. qui enim operatus est Petro in apostolatum circumcisionis operatus est et mihi inter gentes
(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
2:8. For he who was working the Apostleship to the circumcised in Peter, was also working in me among the Gentiles.
2:8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:8: For he that wrought effectually - Ὁ ενεργησας Πετρῳ, ενηργησε και εμοι· He who wrought powerfully with Peter, wrought powerfully also with me. He gave us both those talents which were suited to our work, and equal success in our different departments.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:8: For he that wrought effectually in Peter ... - Or by the means or agency of Peter. The argument here is, that the same effects had been produced under the ministry of Paul among the Gentiles which had been under the preaching of Peter among the Jews. It is inferred, therefore, that God had called both to the apostolic office; see this argument illustrated in the notes at Act 11:17.
The same was mighty in me ... - In enabling me to work miracles, and in the success which attended the ministry.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:8: he: Act 1:8, Act 2:14-41, Act 3:12-26, Act 4:4, Act 5:12-16, Act 8:17
the same: Gal 3:5; Act 9:15, Act 13:2-11, Act 14:3-11, Act 15:12, Act 19:11, Act 19:12, Act 19:26, Act 21:19, Act 22:21; Act 26:17, Act 26:18; Co1 1:5-7, Co1 9:2, Co1 15:10; Co2 11:4, Co2 11:5; Col 1:29
John Gill
2:8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter,.... The Syriac version renders it, "he who exhorted Peter to"; the Arabic version is, "he who strengthened Peter in"; the Spirit of God is meant, who filled Peter with such eminent gifts, and inspired him with so much zeal and resolution
to the apostleship of circumcision, to discharge his office as an apostle among the Jews; and who wrought by him such wonderful works for the confirmation of it, as curing the man that was lame from his birth, striking Ananias and Sapphira dead for telling lies, and raising Dorcas from the dead, and communicating miraculous gifts by the imposition of his hands; and which same Spirit also made his ministrations effectual to the conversion of a large number of souls, as of three thousand by one sermon.
The same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles. The Spirit of God wrought as effectually in, and by him, as in Peter; filled him with extraordinary gifts for the discharge of his work among the Gentiles, and inspired him with equal zeal, constancy, and intrepidity of mind; wrought as many miracles by him to confirm his mission; such as striking blind Elymas the sorcerer, healing the cripple at Lystra, raising Eutychus from the dead, with many other signs and wonders wrought by him among the Gentiles, through the power of the Spirit of God, whereby they became obedient by word and deed. The same Spirit also accompanied the Gospel preached by him, to the conversion of multitudes, by which means many famous churches were founded and raised among the Gentiles; and this is another reason which induced the apostles at Jerusalem to take Paul and Barnabas into an association with them.
John Wesley
2:8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision - To qualify him for, and support him in, the discharge of that office to the Jews. Wrought likewise effectually in and by me - For and in the discharge of my office toward the gentiles.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:8 he--God (1Cor 12:6).
wrought effectually--that is, made the preached word efficacious to conversion, not only by sensible miracles, but by the secret mighty power of the Holy Ghost.
in Peter--ELLICOTT and others, translate, "For Peter." GROTIUS translates as English Version.
to--with a view to.
was mighty--Translate as before, the Greek being the same, "wrought effectually."
in me--"for (or 'in') me also."
2:92:9: Իբրեւ գիտացին զշնորհսն որ տուեալ էին ինձ, Յակովբոս, եւ Կեփաս, եւ Յոհաննէս, որ կարծեալ սիւնքն էին, ձե՛ռն ետուն հաւանութեան ինձ եւ Բառնաբայ. զի մեք ՚ի հեթանոսս, եւ նոքա ՚ի թլփատութեանն[4199]. [4199] Օրինակ մի. Եւ իբրեւ տեսին զշնորհս։ Ոմանք. Որ կարծեալք սիւնք էին։
9 երբ Յակոբոսը, Կեփասը եւ Յովհաննէսը, որոնք սիւներ էին համարւում, իմացան այն շնորհների մասին, որ տրուած էին ինձ, հաւանութեան ձեռք մեկնեցին ինձ եւ Բառնաբասին, որպէսզի մենք գնանք հեթանոսների մէջ, իսկ իրենք՝ հրեաների մէջ.
9 Ու երբ ինծի տրուած շնորհքը գիտցան ու Յակոբոսն ու Կեփասը եւ Յովհաննէսը, որոնք սիւներ սեպուած էին, աջ ձեռքերնին տուին ինծի ու Բառնաբասին՝ ի նշան հաղորդակցութեան, որպէս զի մենք հեթանոսներուն մէջ երթանք ու անոնք՝ թլփատուածներուն.
իբրեւ գիտացին զշնորհսն որ տուեալ էին ինձ, Յակովբոս եւ Կեփաս եւ Յովհաննէս որ կարծեալ սիւնքն էին, ձեռն ետուն հաւանութեան ինձ եւ Բառնաբայ. զի մեք` ի հեթանոսս, եւ նոքա` ի թլփատութեանն:

2:9: Իբրեւ գիտացին զշնորհսն որ տուեալ էին ինձ, Յակովբոս, եւ Կեփաս, եւ Յոհաննէս, որ կարծեալ սիւնքն էին, ձե՛ռն ետուն հաւանութեան ինձ եւ Բառնաբայ. զի մեք ՚ի հեթանոսս, եւ նոքա ՚ի թլփատութեանն[4199].
[4199] Օրինակ մի. Եւ իբրեւ տեսին զշնորհս։ Ոմանք. Որ կարծեալք սիւնք էին։
9 երբ Յակոբոսը, Կեփասը եւ Յովհաննէսը, որոնք սիւներ էին համարւում, իմացան այն շնորհների մասին, որ տրուած էին ինձ, հաւանութեան ձեռք մեկնեցին ինձ եւ Բառնաբասին, որպէսզի մենք գնանք հեթանոսների մէջ, իսկ իրենք՝ հրեաների մէջ.
9 Ու երբ ինծի տրուած շնորհքը գիտցան ու Յակոբոսն ու Կեփասը եւ Յովհաննէսը, որոնք սիւներ սեպուած էին, աջ ձեռքերնին տուին ինծի ու Բառնաբասին՝ ի նշան հաղորդակցութեան, որպէս զի մենք հեթանոսներուն մէջ երթանք ու անոնք՝ թլփատուածներուն.
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:99: и, узнав о благодати, данной мне, Иаков и Кифа и Иоанн, почитаемые столпами, подали мне и Варнаве руку общения, чтобы нам [идти] к язычникам, а им к обрезанным,
2:9  καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, ἰάκωβος καὶ κηφᾶς καὶ ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·
2:9. καὶ (and) γνόντες ( having-had-acquainted ) τὴν (to-the-one) χάριν (to-a-granting) τὴν (to-the-one) δοθεῖσάν (to-having-been-given) μοι, (unto-me,"Ἰάκωβος (an-Iakobos) καὶ (and) Κηφᾶς (a-Kefas) καὶ (and) Ἰωάνης, (an-Ioanes,"οἱ (the-ones) δοκοῦντες ( thinking-unto ) στύλοι (pillars) εἶναι, (to-be,"δεξιὰς (to-right-belonged) ἔδωκαν (they-gave) ἐμοὶ (unto-ME) καὶ (and) Βαρνάβᾳ (unto-a-Barnabas) κοινωνίας, (of-an-en-commoning-unto,"ἵνα (so) ἡμεῖς (we) εἰς (into) τὰ (to-the-ones) ἔθνη, (to-nations,"αὐτοὶ (them) δὲ (moreover) εἰς (into) τὴν (to-the-one) περιτομήν: (to-a-cutting-about)
2:9. et cum cognovissent gratiam quae data est mihi Iacobus et Cephas et Iohannes qui videbantur columnae esse dextras dederunt mihi et Barnabae societatis ut nos in gentes ipsi autem in circumcisionemAnd when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
9. and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
2:9. And so, when they had acknowledged the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed like pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we would go to the Gentiles, while they went to the circumcised,
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.
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:

9: и, узнав о благодати, данной мне, Иаков и Кифа и Иоанн, почитаемые столпами, подали мне и Варнаве руку общения, чтобы нам [идти] к язычникам, а им к обрезанным,
2:9  καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, ἰάκωβος καὶ κηφᾶς καὶ ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν·
2:9. et cum cognovissent gratiam quae data est mihi Iacobus et Cephas et Iohannes qui videbantur columnae esse dextras dederunt mihi et Barnabae societatis ut nos in gentes ipsi autem in circumcisionem
And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
2:9. And so, when they had acknowledged the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed like pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we would go to the Gentiles, while they went to the circumcised,
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.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:9: James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars - Οἱ δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι· Who were known to be very eminent, and acknowledged as chief men among the apostles. See the note on Luk 8:18, for the meaning of the verb δοκειν, and see before on Gal 2:6 (note).
Among the Jews, persons of great eminence and importance are represented as pillars and foundations of the world. So Abraham is said to be עמוד העולם ammud heolam, "the pillar of the universe; for by him to this day are the earth and heavens supported." Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 29.
"Rabbi Simeon said, Behold, we are the pillars of the world." Idra Rabba, s. 23.
"When Rabbi Jochanan ben Zachai was near death, he wept with a loud voice. His disciples said unto him, O Rabbi, thou high pillar, thou light of the world, thou strong hammer, why dost thou weep?" Aboth. R. Nathan, chap. 24.
So, in Sohar Genes, fol. 5, it is said: "And he saw that Rab. Eleazar went up, and stood there, and with him שאר עמודין shear ammudin, the rest of the pillars (eminent men) who sat there."
Ibid., fol. 13: "These are the seven righteous men who cleave to the holy blessed God with a pure heart, and they are the seven pillars of the world."
Ibid., fol. 21, on the words bearing fruit, Gen 1:11, it is said: "By this we are to understand the just one, who is the pillar of the world." See Schoettgen, who adds: "These pillars must be distinguished from the foundation. The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ alone; the pillars are the more eminent teachers, which, without the foundation, are of no value."
The right hands of fellowship - Giving the right hand to another was the mark of confidence, friendship, and fellowship. See Lev 6:2 : If a soul - lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, בתשומת יד bithsumeth yad, "in giving the hand."
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars - That is, pillars or supports in the church. The word rendered "pillars" (στύλοι stuloi) means properly firm support; then persons of influence and authority, as in a church, or that support a church as a pillar or column does an edifice. In regard to James, see the note at Gal 1:19; compare Act 15:13. Cephas or Peter was the most aged of the apostles, and regarded as at the head of the apostolical college. John was the beloved disciple, and his influence in the church must of necessity have been great. Paul felt that if he had the countenance of these men, it would be an important proof to the churches of Galatia that he had a right to regard himself as an apostle. Their countenance was expressed in the most full and decisive manner.
Perceived the grace that was given unto me - That is, the favor that had been shown to me by the great Head of the church, in so abundantly blessing my labors among the Gentiles.
They gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship - The right-hand in token of fellowship or favor. They thus publicly acknowledged us as fellow-laborers, and expressed the utmost confidence in us. To give the right-hand with us is a token of friendly salutation, and it seems that it was a mode of salutation not unknown in the times of the apostles. They were thus recognised as associated with the apostles in the great work of spreading the gospel around the world. Whether this was done in a public manner is not certainly known; but it was probably in the presence of the church, or possibly at the close of the council referred to in Acts 15.
That we should go unto the heathen - To preach the gospel, and to establish churches. In this way the whole matter was settled, and settled as Paul desired it to be. A delightful harmony was produced between Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem; and the result showed the wisdom of the course which he had adopted. There had been no harsh contention or strife. No jealousies had been suffered to arise. Paul had sought an opportunity of a full statement of his views to them in private Gal 2:2, and they had been entirely satisfied that God had called him and Barnabas to the work of making known the gospel among the pagan. Instead of being jealous at their success, they had rejoiced in it; and instead of throwing any obstacle in their way, they cordially gave them the right hand. How easy would it be always to pRev_ent jealousies and strifes in the same way! If there was, on the one hand, the same readiness for a full and frank explanation; and if, on the other, the same freedom from envy at remarkable success, how many strifes that have disgraced the church might have been avoided! The true way to avoid strife is just that which is here proposed. Let there be on both sides perfect frankness; let there be a willingness to explain and state things just as they are; and let there be a disposition to rejoice in the talents, and zeal, and success of others, even though it should far outstrip our own, and contention in the church would cease, and every devoted and successful minister of the gospel would receive the right-hand of fellowship from all - however venerable by age or authority - who love the cause of true religion.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:9: James: Act 15:7, Act 15:13, Act 15:22-29
pillars: Gal 2:2, Gal 2:6, Gal 2:12-14; Mat 16:18; Eph 2:20; Rev 3:12, Rev 21:14-20
the grace: Rom 1:5, Rom 12:3, Rom 12:5, Rom 12:6, Rom 15:15; Co1 15:10; Eph 3:8; Col 1:29; Pe1 4:10, Pe1 4:11
fellowship: Co2 8:4; Jo1 1:3
we should: Act 15:23-30
Geneva 1599
2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who (g) seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right (h) hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
(g) Whom alone and only these men count for pillars of the Church, and whose name they abuse to deceive you.
(h) They gave us their hand to show that we agreed wholly in the doctrine of the Gospel.
John Gill
2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John,.... These are the persons all along designed, though not till now named. James was the brother of our Lord, the son of Alphaeus, who wrote the epistle that goes by his name, made that famous speech in the synod at Jerusalem, Acts 15:13, presided in that church, was a man of great holiness, and much esteemed of by the saints, and had a good report of them that were without. Cephas is Simon Peter. This name was given him by Christ, Jn 1:42 and in the Syriac language signifies a "stone", as Peter does in the Greek, to which our Lord alludes, Mt 16:18. John was the evangelist, and the same that wrote the epistles, was the beloved disciple, and who outlived all the rest:
who seemed to be pillars; not as the Arabic version, "who thought themselves such", but were esteemed so by others, and very rightly. They were pillars among the apostles of the highest note and greatest eminence among them; they were the very chief of the apostles; for though they were all in the same office, and had the same commission, and were employed in the same work, yet there were some who made a greater figure than others, as these did, and are therefore called pillars; they were more conspicuous, and to be observed, and taken notice of, than the rest; they were pillars in the church, set in the highest place there, and the ornaments of it; see Prov 9:1. They are called so for their constancy and stability in preaching the Gospel, and suffering for the sake of Christ; they were steadfast and immoveable in his work, nor could they be shaken or deterred from it by the menaces, reproaches, and persecutions of men; and they were the means of supporting others that were feeble minded, and of defending and maintaining the truths of the Gospel; and were set, as Jeremiah was, as a defenced city, an iron pillar, and brazen walls against all the enemies of Christ, and his Gospel; and were, as the church is said to be, "the pillar and ground of truth". The apostle may have respect to the titles of this kind which were bestowed on the Jewish doctors. It is said (d),
"when R. Jochanan ben Zaccai was sick, his disciples went in to visit him; and when he saw them, he began to weep; his disciples said to him, lamp of Israel, , "the right hand pillar", &c. why dost thou weep?''
So another of their Rabbins is said (e) to be
"one of the walls, "and pillars" of the school.''
The character better agrees with these eminent apostles, who when they
perceived the grace that was given unto me; meaning not so much the grace of the Spirit of God that was wrought in him, or the good work of grace upon his soul, with which the church at Jerusalem, and the apostles there, had been made acquainted some years before; but the grace and high favour of apostleship, which was conferred upon him, and all those extraordinary gifts of grace, whereby he was qualified for the discharge of it; and particularly the efficacy and success of his ministry through the grace of God which went along with it, and was so visible in it:
they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; as a token of a covenant or agreement between them; they took them, as it were, into partnership with them, admitted them as apostles into their society, and gave their full consent, particularly to this article,
that we, Paul and Barnabas,
should go unto the Heathen, preach among the Gentiles;
and they, Peter, and those that were with him,
unto the circumcision, and discharge their office among the Jews; and, to show their joint agreement, used the above rite; and which ceremony was used as among other nations (f), so with the Jews, when covenants were made, or partnership was entered into; see Lev 6:2 where the phrase, , "in putting of the hand", and which we render in fellowship, is, both by Onkelos, and Jonathan ben Uzziel, rendered , "in fellowship of the hand", or "by the right hand of fellowship"; that being given in token of their agreement and consent to be partners together, to which the allusion seems to be here; or to the making of proselytes, to whom they "stretch out the hand" to bring them under the wings of the Shekinah (g), or in token of their being proselytes.
(d) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 28. 2. (e) Ganz Tzemach David, par. 1. fol. 46. 1. (f) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 2. c. 19. Cormel. Nepos, l. 2. c. 8. Gale's Court of the Gentiles, part 2. book 2, c. 6. sect. 9. & c. 9. sect. 3. (g) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 147. 4.
John Wesley
2:9 And when James - Probably named first because he was bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Cephas - Speaking of him at Jerusalem he calls him by his Hebrew name. And John - Hence it appears that he also was at the council, though he is not particularly named in the Acts. Who undoubtedly were pillars - The principal supporters and defenders of the gospel. Knew - After they had heard the account I gave them. The grace - Of apostleship. Which was given me, they - In the name of all. Gave to me and Barnabas - My fellow - labourer. The right hands of fellowship - They gave us their hands in token of receiving us as their fellow - labourers, mutually agreeing that we - I and those in union with me. Should go to the gentiles - Chiefly. And they - With those that were in union with them, chiefly to the circumcision - The Jews.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:9 James--placed first in the oldest manuscripts, even before Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council (Acts 15:1-29). He was called "the Just," from his strict adherence to the law, and so was especially popular among the Jewish party though he did not fall into their extremes; whereas Peter was somewhat estranged from them through his intercourse with the Gentile Christians. To each apostle was assigned the sphere best suited to his temperament: to James, who was tenacious of the law, the Jerusalem Jews; to Peter, who had opened the door to the Gentiles but who was Judaically disposed, the Jews of the dispersion; to Paul, who, by the miraculous and overwhelming suddenness of his conversion, had the whole current of his early Jewish prejudices turned into an utterly opposite direction, the Gentiles. Not separately and individually, but collectively the apostles together represented Christ, the One Head, in the apostleship. The twelve foundation-stones of various colors are joined together to the one great foundation-stone on which they rest (1Cor 3:11; Rev_ 21:14, Rev_ 21:19-20). John had got an intimation in Jesus' lifetime of the admission of the Gentiles (Jn 12:20-24).
seemed--that is, were reputed to be (see on Gal 2:2 and Gal 2:6) pillars, that is, weighty supporters of the Church (compare Prov 9:1; Rev_ 3:12).
perceived the grace . . . given unto me-- (2Pet 3:15).
gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship--recognizing me as a colleague in the apostleship, and that the Gospel I preached by special revelation to the Gentiles was the same as theirs. Compare the phrase, Lam 5:6; Ezek 17:18.
heathen--the Gentiles.
2:102:10: բայց միայն զի զաղքա՛տսն յիշեսցուք. զոր եւ ե՛ս փութացայ զնոյն առնել։
10 միայն թէ նրանք խնդրեցին, որ յիշենք աղքատներին. եւ ես հոգ տարայ այդ նոյն բանն անելու:
10 Միայն թէ կը կամենային որ աղքատները յիշենք եւ ես ալ աշխատեցայ բան մը ընել։
բայց միայն զի զաղքատսն յիշեսցուք, զոր եւ ես փութացայ զնոյն առնել:

2:10: բայց միայն զի զաղքա՛տսն յիշեսցուք. զոր եւ ե՛ս փութացայ զնոյն առնել։
10 միայն թէ նրանք խնդրեցին, որ յիշենք աղքատներին. եւ ես հոգ տարայ այդ նոյն բանն անելու:
10 Միայն թէ կը կամենային որ աղքատները յիշենք եւ ես ալ աշխատեցայ բան մը ընել։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1010: только чтобы мы помнили нищих, что и старался я исполнять в точности.
2:10  μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.
2:10. μόνον (to-alone) τῶν (of-the-ones) πτωχῶν ( of-beggared ) ἵνα (so) μνημονεύωμεν, (we-might-remember-of,"ὃ (to-which) καὶ (and) ἐσπούδασα (I-hastened-to) αὐτὸ (to-it) τοῦτο (to-the-one-this) ποιῆσαι. (to-have-done-unto)
2:10. tantum ut pauperum memores essemus quod etiam sollicitus fui hoc ipsum facereOnly that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.
10. only that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
2:10. asking only that we should be mindful of the poor, which was the very thing that I also was solicitous to do.
2:10. Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do:

10: только чтобы мы помнили нищих, что и старался я исполнять в точности.
2:10  μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.
2:10. tantum ut pauperum memores essemus quod etiam sollicitus fui hoc ipsum facere
Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.
2:10. asking only that we should be mindful of the poor, which was the very thing that I also was solicitous to do.
2:10. Only [they would] that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:10: Only they would that we should remember the poor - They saw plainly that God had as expressly called Barnabas and me to go to the Gentiles as he had called them to preach to the Jews; and they did not attempt to give us any new injunctions, only wished us to remember the poor in Judea; but this was a thing to which we were previously disposed.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:10: Only they would that we should remember the poor - That is, as I suppose, the poor Christians in Judea. It can hardly be supposed that it would be necessary to make this an express stipulation in regard to the converts from among the Gentiles, and it would not have been very pertinent to the case before them to have done so. The object was, to bind together the Christians from among the pagan and from among the Jews, and to pRev_ent alienation and unkind feeling. It might have been alleged that Paul was disposed to forget his own countrymen altogether; that he regarded himself as so entirely the apostle of the Gentiles that he would become wholly alienated from those who were his "kinsmen according to the flesh," and thus it might be apprehended that unpleasant feelings would be engendered among those who had been converted from among the Jews. Now nothing could be better adapted to allay this than for him to pledge himself to feel a deep interest in the poor saints among the Jewish converts; to remember them in his prayers; and to endeavor to secure contributions for their needs.
Thus he would show that he was not alienated from his countrymen; and thus the whole church would be united in the closest bonds. It is probable that the Christians in Judea were at that time suffering the ills of poverty arising either from some public persecution, or from the fact that they were subject to the displeasure of their countrymen. All who know the special feelings of the Jews at that time in regard to Christians, must see at once that many of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth would be subjected to great inconveniences on account of their attachment to him. Many a wife might be disowned by her husband; many a child disinherited by a parent; many a man might be thrown out of employment by the fact that others would not countenance him; and hence, many of the Christians would be poor. It became, therefore, an object of special importance to provide for them; and hence, this is so often referred to in the New Testament. In addition to this, the church in Judea was afflicted with famine; compare Act 11:30; Rom 15:25-27; Co1 16:1-2; Co2 8:1-7.
The same which I also was forward to do - See the passages just referred to. Paul interested himself much in the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and in this way he furnished the fullest evidence that he was not alienated from them, but that he felt the deepest interest in those who were his kindred. One of the proper ways of securing union in the church is to have the poor with them and depending on them for support; and hence, every church has some poor persons as one of the bonds of union. The best way to unite all Christians, and to pRev_ent alienation, and jealousy, and strife, is to have a great common object of charity, in which all are interested and to which all may contribute. Such a common object for all Christians is a sinful world. All who bear the Christian name may unite in promoting its salvation, and nothing would promote union in the now divided and distracted church of Christ like a deep and common interest in the salvation of all mankind.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:10: that: Act 11:29, Act 11:30, Act 24:17; Rom 15:25-27; Co1 16:1, Co1 16:2; 2Cor. 8:1-9:15; Heb 13:16; Jam 2:15, Jam 2:16; Jo1 3:17
John Gill
2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor,.... Not in a spiritual sense, as some have thought, though these the apostle was greatly mindful of; but properly and literally the poor as to the things of this world; and may design the poor in general, everywhere, in the several churches where they should be called to minister, and particularly the poor saints at Jerusalem; who were become such, either through the frequent calamities of the nation, and a dearth or scarcity of provisions among them, and which affected the whole country; or rather through the persecutions of their countrymen, who plundered them of their goods for professing the name of Christ; or it may be through their having given up all their substance into one common stock and fund, as they did at first, and which was now exhausted, and that in a great measure by assisting out of it the preachers who first spread the Gospel among the Gentiles; so that it was but just that they should make some return unto them, and especially for the spiritual favours they received from them, as the Gospel, and the ministers of it, which first went out of Jerusalem: the "remembering" of them not only intends giving them actual assistance according to their abilities, which was very small, but mentioning their case to the several Gentile churches, and stirring them up to a liberal contribution:
the same which I also was forward to do; as abundantly appears from his epistles to the churches, and especially from his two epistles to the Corinthians. Now since the apostles at Jerusalem desired nothing else but this, and said not a word concerning the observance of the rites and ceremonies of the law, and neither found fault with, nor added to the Gospel the apostle communicated to them, it was a clear case that there was an entire agreement between them, in principle and practice, and that he did not receive his Gospel from them.
John Wesley
2:10 Of the poor - The poor Christians in Judea, who had lost all they had for Christ's sake.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:10 remember the poor--of the Jewish Christians in Judea, then distressed. Paul and Barnabas had already done so (Acts 11:23-30).
the same--the very thing.
I . . . was forward--or "zealous" (Acts 24:17; Rom 15:25; 1Cor 16:1; 2Co. 8:1-9:15). Paul was zealous for good works, while denying justification by them.
2:112:11: Այլ յորժամ եկն Կեփաս յԱնտիոք, ընդդէ՛մ դարձայ նորա. քանզի գո՛գ իբրեւ ստգտեա՛լ իմն էր[4200]։ [4200] Ոմանք. Ընդդէմ դարձան նորա։
11 Եւ երբ Կեփասն[71], Անտիոք եկաւ, ընդդիմացայ նրան, որովհետեւ մեղադրելի ընթացքի մէջ էր.[71] Կեփասը Պետրոսի անուան արամերէն ձեւն է, որ նշանակում է ժայռ:
11 Երբ Պետրոս Անտիոք եկաւ, ես անոր դէմ կեցայ. որովհետեւ ինք մեղադրելի էր։
Այլ յորժամ եկն [3]Կեփաս յԱնտիոք, ընդդէմ դարձայ նորա, քանզի գոգ իբրեւ ստգտեալ իմն էր:

2:11: Այլ յորժամ եկն Կեփաս յԱնտիոք, ընդդէ՛մ դարձայ նորա. քանզի գո՛գ իբրեւ ստգտեա՛լ իմն էր[4200]։
[4200] Ոմանք. Ընդդէմ դարձան նորա։
11 Եւ երբ Կեփասն[71], Անտիոք եկաւ, ընդդիմացայ նրան, որովհետեւ մեղադրելի ընթացքի մէջ էր.
[71] Կեփասը Պետրոսի անուան արամերէն ձեւն է, որ նշանակում է ժայռ:
11 Երբ Պետրոս Անտիոք եկաւ, ես անոր դէմ կեցայ. որովհետեւ ինք մեղադրելի էր։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1111: Когда же Петр пришел в Антиохию, то я лично противостал ему, потому что он подвергался нареканию.
2:11  ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν κηφᾶς εἰς ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῶ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.
2:11. Ὅτε (Which-also) δὲ (moreover) ἦλθεν (it-had-came,"Κηφᾶς (a-Kefas,"εἰς (into) Ἀντιόχειαν, (to-an-Antiocheia,"κατὰ (down) πρόσωπον (to-looked-toward) αὐτῷ (unto-it) ἀντέστην, (I-had-ever-a-one-stood,"ὅτι (to-which-a-one) κατεγνωσμένος (having-had-come-to-be-acquainted-down) ἦν: (it-was)
2:11. cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei restiti quia reprehensibilis eratBut when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
11. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
2:11. But when Cephas had arrived at Antioch, I stood against him to his face, because he was blameworthy.
2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed:

11: Когда же Петр пришел в Антиохию, то я лично противостал ему, потому что он подвергался нареканию.
2:11  ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν κηφᾶς εἰς ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῶ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν.
2:11. cum autem venisset Cephas Antiochiam in faciem ei restiti quia reprehensibilis erat
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:11. But when Cephas had arrived at Antioch, I stood against him to his face, because he was blameworthy.
2:11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ mh▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
11-21. Итак, самостоятельность Апостола была открыто признана в самом центре иудейского христианства - в Иерусалиме. Цель, какую имели Ап. Павел и Варнава, отправляясь в Иерусалим, была вполне достигнута, и враги христианской свободы были посрамлены; авторитет Павла как истинного Апостола Христова стоял высоко. Но этого мало. Был случай, когда Павел сам выступил в качестве увещателя по отношению к Ап. Петру; это было, когда Тит, вместе с некоторыми христианами из иудеев, будучи в Антиохии и сначала вкушая пищу обще с христианами из язычников, потом, по прибытии в Антиохию "некоторых от Иакова", прекратил это общение, опасаясь обрезанных. Павел выяснил тогда открыто пред всеми неправильность такого образа действий и был выслушан Петром без всяких возражений со стороны последнего.

11. Неизвестно, когда имел место этот случай - до собора или после него. Вероятно только, что это было ранее собора, потому что едва ли, во-первых, Ап. Петр, после того размежевания областей деятельности между Павлом и другими Апостолами, какое имело место на соборе, решился бы в скором времени внести смущение своим неожиданным появлением в Антиохии, которая для Ап. Павла в то время была почти постоянным местом пребывания. Во-вторых, едва ли Ап. Петр после тех принципиальных рассуждений, в каких он принимал самое живое участие (Гал II:1-10: и Деян XV:7-14), стал бы держаться такой колеблющейся тактики в отношении к вопросу об общении с христианами из язычников, которой он держался в Антиохии. Вероятно, он пришел пред собором в Антиохию, как в церковь, стоявшую в близком отношении к Иерусалимской (Деян XI:18-21). - Лично, т. е. прямо в лицо и в присутствии нескольких свидетелей (kata proowpon ср. Лк II:31; Деян III:13). - Подвергся нареканию, - т. е. заранее, еще прежде, чем его обличил Ап. Павел, был уже осужден собственными своими поступками (kategnwsmenoV hn, ср. Ин III:18).
Matthew Henry: Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible - 1706
Peter Reproved by Paul.A. D. 56.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I. From the account which Paul gives of what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them. But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there, v. 11-14. Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which he made thither. In their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement. Peter and the other apostles had both acknowledged Paul's commission and approved his doctrine, and they parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself obliged to oppose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope's pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter. Here we may observe,

1. Peter's fault. When he came among the Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts x.), when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean. But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the Gentile churches. Then he withdrew, and separated himself. His fault herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised. And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation. Here note, (1.) The weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour.

2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault. Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled upon. When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel--that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force--when he observed this, as Peter's offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it: He said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews--not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion.

II. Paul having thus established his character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel--That justification is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews. For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in this epistle to mention and confirm. Now concerning this Paul acquaints us,

1. With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves: "We," says he, "who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?" To give the greater weight to this he adds (v. 17), "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ the minister of sin? Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed with?" This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: "God forbid," says he, "that we should entertain such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to sin and sinners." This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them also. "For," says he (v. 18), "if I build again the things which I destroyed--if I (or any other), who have taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification, should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary--I make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently with myself." Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law.

2. He acquaints us what his own judgment and practice were. (1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to it. He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did not look upon himself as with law. He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God. The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and better life to God (as Rom. vii. 4, 6), such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could now be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably hereunto he acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (v. 20): I am crucified with Christ, &c. And here in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. [1.] He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (Rom. vi. 6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. [2.] He lives, and yet not he. This is strange: I live, and yet not I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence. [3.] He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God. [4.] He lives in the flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is Christ's loving us and giving himself for us. The great evidence of Christ's loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our living to him.

Lastly, The apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the contrary opinion was loaded with:-- 1. That he did not frustrate the grace of God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues (Rom. xi. 6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace. 2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain; for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might have been saved without it?
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:11: When Peter was come to Antioch - There has been a controversy whether Πετρος, Peter, here should not be read Κηφας, Kephas; and whether this Kephas was not a different person from Peter the apostle. This controversy has lasted more than 1500 years, and is not yet settled. Instead of Πετρος, Peter, ABCH, several others of good note, with the Syriac, Erpenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, later Syriac in the margin, Vulgate, and several of the Greek fathers, read Κηφας. But whichsoever of these readings we adopt, the controversy is the same; for the great question is, whether this Peter or Kephas, no matter which name we adopt, be the same with Peter the apostle?
I shall not introduce the arguments pro and con, which may be all seen in Calmet's dissertation on the subject, but just mention the side where the strength of the evidence appears to lie.
That Peter the apostle is meant, the most sober and correct writers of antiquity maintain; and though some of the Catholic writers have fixed the whole that is here reprehensible on one Kephas, one of the seventy disciples, yet the most learned of their writers and of their popes, believe that St. Peter is meant. Some apparently plausible arguments support the contrary opinion, but they are of no weight when compared with those on the opposite side.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:11: But when Peter was come to Antioch - On the situation of Antioch, see the note at Act 11:19. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the oldest, and probably the most honored of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Gal 2:14-21 to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.
I withstood him to the face - I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candor. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known that Paul made his remarks before the church Gal 2:14 because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.
Because he was to be blamed - The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:11: to Antioch: Act 15:30-35
I withstood: Gal 2:5; Co2 5:16, Co2 11:5, Co2 11:21-28, Co2 12:11; Ti1 5:20; Jde 1:3
because: Exo 32:21, Exo 32:22; Num 20:12; Jer 1:17; Jon 1:3, Jon 4:3, Jon 4:4, Jon 4:9; Mat 16:17, Mat 16:18, Mat 16:23; Act 15:37-39, Act 23:1-5; Jam 3:2; Jo1 1:8-10
Geneva 1599
2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the (i) face, because he was to be blamed.
(i) Before all men.
John Gill
2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch,.... The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, instead of "Peter", read "Cephas", who, by some ancient writers, is said to be not Peter the Apostle, named Cephas by Christ, but one of the seventy disciples. So Clemens (h) says, that Cephas, of whom Paul speaks, that when he came to Antioch he withstood him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples who had the same name with Peter the Apostle: and Jerom says (i) that there were some who were of opinion, that Cephas, of whom Paul writes that he withstood him to his face, was not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples called by that name: but without any manner of foundation; for the series of the discourse, and the connection of the words, most clearly show, that that same Cephas, or Peter, one of the twelve disciples mentioned, Gal 2:9, with James and John, as pillars, is here meant. Our apostle first takes notice of a visit he made him, three years after his conversion, Gal 1:18, when his stay with him was but fifteen days, and, for what appears, there was then an entire harmony between them; fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem again, and communicated his Gospel to Peter, and the rest, when they also were perfectly agreed; but now at Antioch there was a dissension between them, which is here related. However, the Papists greedily catch at this, to secure the infallibility of the bishops of Rome, who pretend to be the successors of Peter, lest, should the apostle appear blameworthy, and to be reproved and opposed, they could not, with any grace, assume a superior character to his: but that Peter the Apostle is here designed is so manifest, that some of their best writers are obliged to own it, and give up the other as a mere conceit. When Peter came to Antioch is not certain; some have thought it was before the council at Jerusalem concerning the necessity of circumcision to salvation, because it is thought that after the decree of that council Peter would never have behaved in such a manner as there related; though it should be observed, that that decree did not concern the Jews, and their freedom from the observance of the law, only the Gentiles; so that Peter and other Jews might, as it is certain they did, notwithstanding that, retain the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses; and according to the series of things, and the order of the account, it seems to be after that council, when Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, and with others continued there for some time, during which time Peter came thither; see Acts 15:30 and the following contention happened,
I withstood him to the face: not in show, and outward appearance only, as some of the ancients have thought, as if this was an artifice of the apostle's, that the Jews, having an opportunity of hearing what might be said in favour of eating with the Gentiles, might be convinced of the propriety of it, and not be offended with it: but this is to make the apostle guilty of the evil he charges Peter with, namely, dissimulation; no, the opposition was real, and in all faithfulness and integrity; he did not go about as a tale bearer, whisperer, and backbiter, but reproved him to his face, freely spoke his mind to him, boldly resisted him, honestly endeavoured to convince him of his mistake, and to put a stop to his conduct; though he did not withstand him as an enemy, or use him with rudeness and ill manners; or as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, and false teachers resist the truth; but as a friend and an apostle, and in an amicable manner, and yet with all uprightness: his reason for it was,
because he was to be blamed; some read it, "was blamed", or "condemned", either by others, by the Jews, for his going into Cornelius's house formerly; but what has this to do with the present case? or by those who lately came from James to Antioch, for his eating with the Gentiles there; yet this could be no reason for the apostle's withstanding him, but rather a reason why he should stand by him; or he was condemned by himself, self-condemned, acting contrary to the sentiments of his mind, and what he had declared in the council at Jerusalem; though it is best to render the word, to be blamed, which shows that the apostle did not oppose him for opposition sake, rashly, and without any foundation; there was a just reason for it, he had done that which was culpable, and for which he was blameworthy; and what that was is mentioned in the next verse.
(h) Apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 12. (i) In loc.
John Wesley
2:11 But - The argument here comes to the height. Paul reproves Peter himself. So far was he from receiving his doctrine from man, or from being inferior to the chief of the apostles. When Peter - Afterwards, Came to Antioch - Then the chief of all the Gentile churches. I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed - For fear of man, Gal 2:12; for dissimulation, Gal 2:13; and for not walking uprightly. Gal 2:14.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:11 Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts Paul's withstanding Peter is the strongest proof that the former gives of the independence of his apostleship in relation to the other apostles, and upsets the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always inspired; but were so always in writing the Scriptures. If then the inspired men who wrote them were not invariably at other times infallible, much less were the uninspired men who kept them. The Christian fathers may be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but not implicitly followed in matters of opinion.
come to Antioch--then the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first the Gospel was preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name "Christians" was first given (Acts 11:20, Acts 11:26), and where Peter is said to have been subsequently bishop. The question at Antioch was not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming circumcised--that was the question settled at the Jerusalem council just before--but whether the Gentile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish Christians without conforming to the Jewish institution. The Judaizers, soon after the council had passed the resolutions recognizing the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, repaired to Antioch, the scene of the gathering in of the Gentiles (Acts 11:20-26), to witness, what to Jews would look so extraordinary, the receiving of men to communion of the Church without circumcision. Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they explained away the force of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also desired to watch whether the Jewish Christians among the Gentiles violated the law, which that decision did not verbally sanction them in doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (Acts 15:19).
to be blamed--rather, "(self)-condemned"; his act at one time condemning his contrary acting at another time.
2:122:12: Քանզի մինչչեւ՛ եկեալ էին ոմանք առ ՚ի Յակովբայ, ընդ հեթանոսս ուտէ՛ր անխտիր. իսկ իբրեւ եկին, զատանէր՝ եւ որոշէ՛ր զանձն, երկուցեա՛լ յայնցանէ որ ՚ի թլփատութենէ անտի էին[4201]։ [4201] Ոմանք. Քանզի մինչեւ եկեալ։
12 քանզի, մինչ Յակոբոսի շրջանակից ոմանք դեռ չէին եկել, նա հեթանոսների հետ էր ուտում անխտիր, իսկ երբ եկան, բաժանուեց եւ մի կողմ քաշուեց՝ վախենալով թլփատութեան կողմնակիցներից:
12 Վասն զի դեռ Յակոբոսին քովէն մէկ քանի հոգի չեկած, ինք հեթանոսներուն հետ անխտրաբար կ’ուտէր. բայց երբ եկան՝ մէկդի կը քաշուէր եւ ինքզինք կը զատէր, վախնալով թլփատուածներէն։
Քանզի մինչչեւ եկեալ էին ոմանք առ ի Յակովբայ, ընդ հեթանոսս ուտէր [4]անխտիր. իսկ իբրեւ եկին, զատանէր եւ որոշէր զանձն` երկուցեալ յայնցանէ որ ի թլփատութենէ անտի էին:

2:12: Քանզի մինչչեւ՛ եկեալ էին ոմանք առ ՚ի Յակովբայ, ընդ հեթանոսս ուտէ՛ր անխտիր. իսկ իբրեւ եկին, զատանէր՝ եւ որոշէ՛ր զանձն, երկուցեա՛լ յայնցանէ որ ՚ի թլփատութենէ անտի էին[4201]։
[4201] Ոմանք. Քանզի մինչեւ եկեալ։
12 քանզի, մինչ Յակոբոսի շրջանակից ոմանք դեռ չէին եկել, նա հեթանոսների հետ էր ուտում անխտիր, իսկ երբ եկան, բաժանուեց եւ մի կողմ քաշուեց՝ վախենալով թլփատութեան կողմնակիցներից:
12 Վասն զի դեռ Յակոբոսին քովէն մէկ քանի հոգի չեկած, ինք հեթանոսներուն հետ անխտրաբար կ’ուտէր. բայց երբ եկան՝ մէկդի կը քաշուէր եւ ինքզինք կը զատէր, վախնալով թլփատուածներէն։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1212: Ибо, до прибытия некоторых от Иакова, ел вместе с язычниками; а когда те пришли, стал таиться и устраняться, опасаясь обрезанных.
2:12  πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.
2:12. πρὸ (before) τοῦ (of-the-one) γὰρ (therefore) ἐλθεῖν (to-have-had-came,"τινὰς (to-ones) ἀπὸ (off) Ἰακώβου (of-an-Iakobos,"μετὰ (with) τῶν (of-the-ones) ἐθνῶν (of-nations) συνήσθιεν: (it-was-eat-belonging-together) ὅτε (which-also) δὲ (moreover) ἦλθον, (they-had-came,"ὑπέστελλεν (it-was-setting-under) καὶ (and) ἀφώριζεν (it-was-bounding-off-to) ἑαυτόν, (to-self," φοβούμενος ( feareeing-unto ) τοὺς (to-the-ones) ἐκ (out) περιτομῆς. (of-a-cutting-about)
2:12. prius enim quam venirent quidam ab Iacobo cum gentibus edebat cum autem venissent subtrahebat et segregabat se timens eos qui ex circumcisione erantFor before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
2:12. For before certain ones arrived from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
2:12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision:

12: Ибо, до прибытия некоторых от Иакова, ел вместе с язычниками; а когда те пришли, стал таиться и устраняться, опасаясь обрезанных.
2:12  πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.
2:12. prius enim quam venirent quidam ab Iacobo cum gentibus edebat cum autem venissent subtrahebat et segregabat se timens eos qui ex circumcisione erant
For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
2:12. For before certain ones arrived from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
2:12. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
12-13. Ап. Петр во время своего пребывания в Антиохии, не стесняясь, вкушал пищу вместе с христианами из язычников, - очевидной такую, какая недозволена была законом Моисеевым еврею. Он в настоящем случае поступал очевидно так, как внушил ему поступать Сам Бог (Деян X:1-11, 18), конечно, в Иерусалиме, среди единоплеменников, поступая по иудейским обычаям (ср. Деян XXI:20-26). Но когда пришли люди от Иакова, т. е. стоящие в очень близком отношении к этому строгому ревнителю закона Моисеева, который впоследствии на соборе ясно высказал мысль о том, что соблюдение законов Моисеевых о пище обязательно для христиан из Иудеев (Деян XV:21: и XXI:20, 24), Ап. Петр, чтобы не соблазнить этих гостей иерусалимских, решил на некоторое время прекратить общение в пище с христианами из язычников. Он даже опасался этих "обрезанных", пришедших от Иакова, которые очевидно были настроены очень реакционно и могли, распустить слухи об Ап. Петре, как о либеральном проповеднике. - Прочие Иудеи, т. е. христиане из Иудеев, жившие в Антиохии, пошли по стопам Ап. Петра и стали "лицемерить", т. е. принимать вид строгих исполнителей закона Моисеева, какими они на самом деле не были. Даже сотрудник Павла, Варнава, - и тот впал в такое же лицемерие.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:12: Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles - Here was Peter's fault. He was convinced that God had pulled down the middle wall of partition that had so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the latter and eating with them; but when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the law still to be in force, lest he should place a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all commerce with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the law to be still in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should still be kept up.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:12: For before that certain came - Some of the Jews who had been converted to Christianity. They evidently observed in the strictest manner the rites of the Jewish religion.
Came from James - See the note at Gal 1:19. Whether they were sent by James, or whether they came of their own accord, is unknown. It is evident only that they had been intimate with James at Jerusalem, and they doubtless pleaded his authority. James had nothing to do with the course which they pursued; but the sense of the whole passage is, that James was a leading man at Jerusalem, and that the rites of Moses were observed there. When they came down to Antioch, they of course observed those rites, and insisted that others should do it also. It is very evident that at Jerusalem the special rites of the Jews were observed for a long time by those who became Christian converts. They would not at once cease to observe them, and thus needlessly shock the prejudices of their countrymen; see the notes at Act 21:21-25.
He did eat with the Gentiles - Peter had been taught that in the remarkable vision which he saw as recorded in Acts 10. He had learned that God designed to break down the wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles, and he familiarly associated with them, and partook with them of their food. He evidently disregarded the special laws of the Jews about meats and drinks, and partook of the common food which was in use among the Gentiles. Thus he showed his belief that all the race was henceforward to be regarded as on a level, and that the special institutions of the Jews were not to be considered as binding, or to be imposed on others.
But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself - He withdrew from the Gentiles, and probably from the Gentile converts to Christianity. The reason why he did this is stated. He feared those who were of the circumcision, or who had been Jews. Whether they demanded this of him; whether they encountered him in debate; or whether he silently separated himself from the Gentiles without their having said anything to him, is unknown. But he feared the effect of their opposition; he feared their reproaches; he feared the report which would be made to those at Jerusalem; and perhaps he apprehended that a tumult would be excited and a persecution commenced at Antioch by the Jews who resided there. This is a melancholy illustration of Peter's characteristic trait of mind. We see in this act the same Peter who trembled when he began to sink in the waves; the same Peter who denied his Lord. Bold, ardent, zealous, and forward; he was at the same time timid and often irresolute; and he often had occasion for the deepest humility, and the most poignant regrets at the errors of his course. No one can read his history without loving his ardent and sincere attachment to his Master; and yet no one can read it without a tear of regret that he was left thus to do injury to his cause. No man loved the Saviour more sincerely than he did, yet his constitutional timidity and irresolutehess of character often led him to courses of life suited deeply to wound his cause.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:12: certain: Gal 2:9; Act 21:18-25
he did: Act 10:28, Act 11:3; Eph 2:15, Eph 2:19-22, Eph 3:6
he withdrew: Isa 65:5; Luk 15:2; Th1 5:22
fearing: Pro 29:25; Isa 57:11; Mat 26:69-75
Geneva 1599
2:12 (2) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(2) Another most vehement proof of his apostleship, and also of that doctrine which he had delivered concerning free justification by faith alone. And it was for this doctrine alone that he reprehended Peter at Antioch, who offended in this, in that for the sake of a few Jews who came from Jerusalem, he played the Jew, and offended the Gentiles who had believed.
John Gill
2:12 For before that certain came from James,.... The Lord's brother, mentioned before with Cephas and John, who resided at Jerusalem, from whence these persons came; and who are said to come from James, because they came from the place and church where he was, though, it may be, not sent by him, nor with his knowledge. They were such as professed faith in Christ; they were "judaizing" Christians believing in Christ, but were zealous of the law. Now before the coming of these persons to Antioch,
he, Peter,
did eat with the Gentiles; which is to be understood, not of eating at the Lord's table with them, but at their own tables: he knew that the distinction of meats was now laid aside, and that nothing was common and unclean of itself, and that every creature of God was good, and not to be refused if received with thankfulness; wherefore he made use of his Christian liberty, and ate such food dressed in such manner as the Gentiles did, without any regard to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews; and in this he did well, for hereby he declared his sense of things, that the ceremonial law was abolished, that not only the Gentiles are not obliged to it, but even the Jews were freed from it, and that the observance of it was far from being necessary to salvation: all which agreed with the preaching and practice of the Apostle Paul, and served greatly to confirm the same, and for this he was to be commended: nor is this mentioned by way of blame, but for the sake of what follows, which was blameworthy:
but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself; not from the church, and the communion of it, for then he had been guilty of schism, but from private conversation with the Gentiles: he did not visit them in their own houses, and sit down at table and eat with them, as he was wont to do; which argued great inconstancy and instability, very unbecoming one that seemed to be, and was a pillar in the church of God, as well as much dissimulation, for he knew better than he acted; his conduct did not agree with the true sentiments of his mind, which he covered and dissembled; and which must be very staggering to the believing Gentiles, to see so great a man behave in such a manner towards them, as if they were persons not fit to converse with, and as if the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies was necessary to salvation. What induced him to take such a step was, his
fearing them which were of the circumcision: that is, the circumcised Jews, who professed faith in Christ, and were just now come from Jerusalem; not that he feared any danger from them; that they would abuse his person, or take away his life; but he might either fear he should come under their censure and reproofs, as he formerly had for going to Cornelius, and eating with him and his; or lest that they should be offended with him, and carry back an ill report of him, as not acting up to his character as an apostle of the circumcision. This led him into such a conduct; so true is that of the wise man, that "the fear of man bringeth a snare", Prov 29:25.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:12 certain--men: perhaps James' view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles should be free (Acts 15:19). NEANDER, however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really from him. Acts 15:24 favors this. "Certain from James," may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James' bishopric. Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Acts 21:18-26).
eat with . . . Gentiles--as in Acts 10:10-20, Acts 10:48, according to the command of the vision (Acts 11:3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Prov 29:25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles (Acts 15:7-11). We recognize the same old nature in him as led him, after faithfully witnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny Him. "Ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths" [ALFORD]. An undesigned coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of character as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthly misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in 2Pet 3:15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own condemnation. Though apart from one another and differing in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ.
withdrew--Greek, "began to withdraw," &c. This implies a gradual drawing back; "separated," entire severance.
2:132:13: Եւ կեղծաւորեցա՛ն ընդ նմա եւ ա՛յլ Հրեայքն. մինչեւ Բառնաբաս անգամ խոնարհեցաւ ՚ի նոցա կեղծաւորութիւնն[4202]։ [4202] Ոմանք. Եւ այլ Հրէայքն ընդ նմա։
13 Եւ ուրիշ հրեաներ էլ կեղծաւորութիւն արեցին նրա հետ. մինչեւ իսկ Բառնաբասը ներքաշուեց նրանց կեղծաւորութեան մէջ:
13 Եւ անոր հետ կեղծաւորուեցան միւս Հրեաներն ալ, այնպէս որ Բառնաբաս ալ անոնց կեղծաւորութեանը հակեցաւ։
Եւ կեղծաւորեցան ընդ նմա եւ այլ Հրեայքն, մինչեւ Բառնաբաս անգամ խոնարհեցաւ ի նոցա կեղծաւորութիւնն:

2:13: Եւ կեղծաւորեցա՛ն ընդ նմա եւ ա՛յլ Հրեայքն. մինչեւ Բառնաբաս անգամ խոնարհեցաւ ՚ի նոցա կեղծաւորութիւնն[4202]։
[4202] Ոմանք. Եւ այլ Հրէայքն ընդ նմա։
13 Եւ ուրիշ հրեաներ էլ կեղծաւորութիւն արեցին նրա հետ. մինչեւ իսկ Բառնաբասը ներքաշուեց նրանց կեղծաւորութեան մէջ:
13 Եւ անոր հետ կեղծաւորուեցան միւս Հրեաներն ալ, այնպէս որ Բառնաբաս ալ անոնց կեղծաւորութեանը հակեցաւ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1313: Вместе с ним лицемерили и прочие Иудеи, так что даже Варнава был увлечен их лицемерием.
2:13  καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῶ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει.
2:13. καὶ (And) συνυπεκρίθησαν (they-were-separated-under-together) αὐτῷ (unto-it,"[καὶ] "[and]"οἱ (the-ones) λοιποὶ ( remaindered ) Ἰουδαῖοι , ( Iouda-belonged ,"ὥστε (as-also) καὶ (and) Βαρνάβας (a-Barnabas) συναπήχθη (it-was-led-off-together) αὐτῶν (of-them) τῇ (unto-the-one) ὑποκρίσει. (unto-a-separating-under)
2:13. et simulationi eius consenserunt ceteri Iudaei ita ut et Barnabas duceretur ab eis in illa simulationeAnd to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.
13. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:13. And the other Jews consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness.
2:13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation:

13: Вместе с ним лицемерили и прочие Иудеи, так что даже Варнава был увлечен их лицемерием.
2:13  καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῶ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει.
2:13. et simulationi eius consenserunt ceteri Iudaei ita ut et Barnabas duceretur ab eis in illa simulatione
And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.
2:13. And the other Jews consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness.
2:13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:13: And the other Jews dissembled likewise - That is: Those who were converted to Christianity from among the Jews, and who had also been convinced that the obligation of the Jewish ritual had ceased, seeing Peter act this part, and also fearing them that were of the circumcision, they separated themselves from the converted Gentiles, and acted so as to convince the Jews that they still believed the law to be of moral obligation; and so powerful was the torrent of such an example, that the gentle, loving-hearted Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation, αυτων τῃ ὑποκρισει, with their hypocrisy - feigning to be what they really were not.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:13: And the other Jews - That is, those who had been converted to Christianity. It is probable that they were induced to do it by the example of Peter, as they would naturally regard him as a leader.
Dissembled likewise with him - Dissembled or concealed their true sentiments. That is, they attempted to conceal from those who had come down from James the fact that they had been in the habit of associating with the Gentiles, and of eating with them. From this it would appear that they intended to conceal this wholly from them, and that they withdrew from the Gentiles before anything had been said to them by those who came down from James.
Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away ... - Concerning Barnabas, see the note at Act 4:36. Barnabas was the intimate friend of Paul. He had been associated with him in very important labors; and the fact, therefore, that the conduct of Peter was exciting so unhappy an influence as even to lead so worthy and good a man as he was into hypocrisy and error, made it the more proper that Paul should publicly notice and reprove the conduct of Peter. It could not but be a painful duty, but the welfare of the church and the cause of religion demanded it, and Paul did not shrink from what was so obvious a duty.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:13: the other: Gen 12:11-13, Gen 26:6, Gen 26:7, Gen 27:24; Ecc 7:20, Ecc 10:1; Co1 5:6, Co1 8:9, Co1 15:33
carried: Job 15:12; Co1 12:2; Eph 4:14; Heb 13:9
Geneva 1599
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was (k) carried away with their dissimulation.
(k) By example rather than by judgment.
John Gill
2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him,.... Not the men that came from James, for they never acted otherwise, and therefore could not be said to dissemble; but the Jews that were members of this church at Antioch from the beginning; or who came along with Paul and Barnabas, and stayed with them there; see Acts 15:35 and who before had ate with the Gentiles, as Peter; but being under the same fear he was, and influenced by his example, concealed their true sentiments, and acted the very reverse of them, and of their former conduct:
insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation; so good a man as he was, full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost; who had been a companion of the Apostle Paul's in his travels among the Gentiles, had greatly assisted him in preaching the Gospel to them, was a messenger with him at the council in Jerusalem, heard the debates of that assembly, and the issue of them, returned with him to Antioch, and was one with him both in principle and practice; and yet so forcible was the example of Peter, and the other Jews, that, as with a mighty torrent, he was carried away with it, and not able to withstand it; such is the force of example in men who are had in great veneration and esteem: wherefore it becomes all persons, particularly magistrates, masters of families, and ministers of the Gospel, to be careful what examples they set, since men both of grace and sense are much influenced by them.
John Wesley
2:13 And the other believing Jews - Who were at Antioch. Dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation - Was borne away, as with a torrent, into the same ill practice.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:13 the other--Greek, "the rest."
Jews--Jewish Christians.
dissembled likewise--Greek, "joined in hypocrisy," namely, in living as though the law were necessary to justification, through fear of man, though they knew from God their Christian liberty of eating with Gentiles, and had availed themselves of it already (Acts 11:2-17). The case was distinct from that in 1Co. 8:1-10:33; Rom. 14:1-23. It was not a question of liberty, and of bearing with others' infirmities, but one affecting the essence of the Gospel, whether the Gentiles are to be virtually "compelled to live as do the Jews," in order to be justified (Gal 2:14).
Barnabas also--"Even Barnabas": one least likely to be led into such an error, being with Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles: showing the power of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of Gentile Christianity and the central point of Christian missions, the controversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke out afresh; and here Paul had first to encounter the party that afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labors (Acts 15:30-35).
2:142:14: Այլ իբրեւ տեսի, թէ ո՛չ ուղիղ գնան ՚ի ճշմարտութիւն աւետարանին, ասե՛մ ցԿեփաս առաջի ամենեցուն. Եթէ դու որ Հրեայդ ես՝ հեթանոսաբա՛ր եւ ո՛չ Հրեաբար կեաս, զիա՞րդ ստիպես հեթանոսաց լինել Հրեարէն[4203]։ [4203] Ոմանք. Եթէ ոչ ուղեղ գան ՚ի ճշ՛՛... հեթանոսաբար կեանս եւ ոչ... լինել Հրէերէն։
14 Իսկ երբ տեսայ, որ ուղիղ չեն ընթանում Աւետարանի ճշմարտութեամբ, բոլորի առաջ Կեփասին ասացի. «Եթէ դու, որ հրեայ ես, հեթանոսի նման ես ապրում եւ ոչ հրեայի նման, ինչո՞ւ ես ստիպում հեթանոսներին, որ հրեայի նման լինեն»:
14 Բայց ես երբ տեսայ թէ աւետարանին ճշմարտութեանը մէջ շիտակ չեն քալեր, ամենուն առջեւ Պետրոսին ըսի. «Եթէ դուն, որ Հրեայ ես, հեթանոսի պէս ու ո՛չ թէ Հրեայի պէս կ’ապրիս, ի՞նչպէս հեթանոսները կը ստիպես Հրեայի պէս վարուելու»։
Այլ իբրեւ տեսի թէ ոչ ուղիղ գնան ի ճշմարտութիւն աւետարանին, ասեմ [5]ցԿեփաս առաջի ամենեցուն. Եթէ դու որ Հրեայդ ես` հեթանոսաբար եւ ոչ Հրէաբար կեաս, զիա՞րդ ստիպես հեթանոսաց լինել Հրեարէն:

2:14: Այլ իբրեւ տեսի, թէ ո՛չ ուղիղ գնան ՚ի ճշմարտութիւն աւետարանին, ասե՛մ ցԿեփաս առաջի ամենեցուն. Եթէ դու որ Հրեայդ ես՝ հեթանոսաբա՛ր եւ ո՛չ Հրեաբար կեաս, զիա՞րդ ստիպես հեթանոսաց լինել Հրեարէն[4203]։
[4203] Ոմանք. Եթէ ոչ ուղեղ գան ՚ի ճշ՛՛... հեթանոսաբար կեանս եւ ոչ... լինել Հրէերէն։
14 Իսկ երբ տեսայ, որ ուղիղ չեն ընթանում Աւետարանի ճշմարտութեամբ, բոլորի առաջ Կեփասին ասացի. «Եթէ դու, որ հրեայ ես, հեթանոսի նման ես ապրում եւ ոչ հրեայի նման, ինչո՞ւ ես ստիպում հեթանոսներին, որ հրեայի նման լինեն»:
14 Բայց ես երբ տեսայ թէ աւետարանին ճշմարտութեանը մէջ շիտակ չեն քալեր, ամենուն առջեւ Պետրոսին ըսի. «Եթէ դուն, որ Հրեայ ես, հեթանոսի պէս ու ո՛չ թէ Հրեայի պէս կ’ապրիս, ի՞նչպէս հեթանոսները կը ստիպես Հրեայի պէս վարուելու»։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1414: Но когда я увидел, что они не прямо поступают по истине Евангельской, то сказал Петру при всех: если ты, будучи Иудеем, живешь по-язычески, а не по-иудейски, то для чего язычников принуждаешь жить по-иудейски?
2:14  ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῶ κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων, εἰ σὺ ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;
2:14. ἀλλ' (Other) ὅτε (which-also) εἶδον (I-had-seen) ὅτι (to-which-a-one) οὐκ (not) ὀρθοποδοῦσιν (they-correct-footeth-unto) πρὸς (toward) τὴν (to-the-one) ἀλήθειαν (to-an-un-secluding-of) τοῦ (of-the-one) εὐαγγελίου, (of-a-goodly-messagelet,"εἶπον (I-had-said) τῷ (unto-the-one) Κηφᾷ (unto-a-Kefas) ἔμπροσθεν (in-toward-from) πάντων ( of-all ,"Εἰ (If) σὺ (thou,"Ἰουδαῖος (Iouda-belonged) ὑπάρχων (firsting-under,"ἐθνικῶς (unto-nationed-belonged-of) καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) Ἰουδαϊκῶς (unto-Iouda-belonged-of) ζῇς, (thou-life-unto,"πῶς (unto-whither) τὰ (to-the-ones) ἔθνη (to-nations) ἀναγκάζεις (thou-up-arm-to) Ἰουδαΐζειν; (to-Iouda-belong-to?"
2:14. sed cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem evangelii dixi Cephae coram omnibus si tu cum Iudaeus sis gentiliter et non iudaice vivis quomodo gentes cogis iudaizareBut when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
2:14. But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: “If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews?”
2:14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews:

14: Но когда я увидел, что они не прямо поступают по истине Евангельской, то сказал Петру при всех: если ты, будучи Иудеем, живешь по-язычески, а не по-иудейски, то для чего язычников принуждаешь жить по-иудейски?
2:14  ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῶ κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων, εἰ σὺ ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν;
2:14. sed cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent ad veritatem evangelii dixi Cephae coram omnibus si tu cum Iudaeus sis gentiliter et non iudaice vivis quomodo gentes cogis iudaizare
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
2:14. But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: “If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews?”
2:14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
14. Павел в то время еще не был увенчанным Апостолом языков, а только простым учителем веры в Антиохии, быть может, даже последним между ними (см. Деян XIII:1). Но он среди всех учителей проявил наибольшую силу воли, наивысшее мужество (в отношении к убеждениям с ним согласны были и другие учителя), именно в том, что выступил с открытым обличением против Ап. Петра (некоторые древние Отцы и учители Церкви полагали, что это выступление, равно как и самый поступок Ап. Петра, были делом предварительного соглашения между Апостолами, но блаж. Августин в своей переписке с бл. Иеронимом ясно доказал, что такого соглашения между Апостолами быть не могло и что Петр - погрешил, а Павел - вполне неожиданно для Петра - выступил его обличителем). - Не прямо поступают - точнее: "не прямо шагают, идут колеблющимся шагом по отношению к евангельской истине". - При всех. Соблазн, причиненный Петром открыто, - вероятно, он принес с собою на вечерю любви свое иудейское кушанье - должен был быть излечен также публично, пред всеми. Павел обращается к Петру как к главному виновнику происшедшего в Антиохии смятения. - Живешь, т. е. обычно держишь себя иначе, чем теперь, при посторонних, и, конечно, будешь держать себя так свободно и впредь (поэтому поставлено наст. время zhV). - Язычников принуждает. Христианам из язычников, которые видели, что "знаменитый" Апостол Христов отказывается продолжать с ними тесное общение, ничего больше не оставалось, в самом деле, как принять иудейские законы о пище и проститься таким образом с своею христианскою свободою. Принуждение, производимое Петром на христиан из язычников, было, таким образом, моральное, и сам Ап. вовсе не имел в виду произвести такое давление на означенных христиан. Однако из его поведения эти христиане вполне основательно могли заключить, что Апостолы Христовы считают их нечистыми и неравноправными членами Церкви Христовой. - Что Петр мог поступить так неосторожно - этому не следует удивляться. Хотя он был и Апостол Христов, но не был непогрешим в поступках, а только в учении. "Как пророки Ветхого Завета, так и Апостолы, действуя под влиянием Святаго Духа, не теряли при этом человеческого сознания и воли... В обыкновенных делах Апостолы не чужды были ошибок. Примеры таких ошибок и не абсолютно совершенного поведения встречались и в жизни Ап. Павла (Деян XXIII:3-5)... В данном случае Ап. Петр явился таким же непостоянным человеком, каким был при троекратном отречении от Господа. Здесь и там, в критический момент, твердость характера оставила его, уступив место безотчетному страху, под влиянием которого он на деле противоречил самым святым своим убеждениям, делал не то, что хотел, с чем соглашался, что непогрешимо проповедывал" (о. Галахов стр. 171-172).
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:14: That they walked not uprightly - Ουκ ορθοποδουσι· They did not walk with a straight step - they did not maintain a firm footing.
According to the truth of the Gospel - According to that true doctrine, which states that Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the law.
If thou, being a Jew, livest - This was a cutting reproof. He was a Jew, and had been circumstantially scrupulous in every thing relative to the law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were admitted, on their believing in Christ, to become members of the same Church, and fellow heirs of the hope of eternal life; and in consequence of this, he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; i.e. associated with them as he would with Jews. But now, fearing them of the circumcision, he withdrew from this fellowship.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles - Thou didst once consider that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou actest as if thou didst consider the law in full force; but thou art convinced that the contrary is the case, yet actest differently! This is hypocrisy.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:14: But when I saw that they walked not uprightly - To walk, in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest.
According to the truth of the gospel - According to the true spirit and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity; and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire honesty and truth.
I said unto Peter before them all - That is, probably, before all the church, or certainly before all who had offended with him in the case. Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before "them all," proves:
(1) That he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.
(2) that public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led into error; compare Ti1 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
(3) that it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty, and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He does a favor to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for his faults.
(4) if it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit, and with thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by nature, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so plain, as it usually is if men would be honest, that he seems to have felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be added here that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was sometimes timid, and even, for a period, timeserving, but it does not prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.
If thou, being a Jew - A Jew by birth.
Livest after the manner of the Gentiles - In eating, etc., as he had done before the Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Gal 2:12.
And not as do the Jews - Observing their special customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles ... - As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the special Jewish rites. The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. "Is it not at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was for thee to do it but a few days ago?" Doddridge. The word here rendered "compellest," means here moral compulsion or persuasion. The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. For similar use of the word, see Mat 14:22; Luk 14:23; Act 28:19.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:14: walked: Psa 15:2, Psa 58:1, Psa 84:11; Pro 2:7, Pro 10:9
the truth: Gal 2:5; Rom 14:14; Ti1 4:3-5; Heb 9:10
I said: Gal 2:11; Lev 19:17; Psa 141:5; Pro 27:5, Pro 27:6; Ti1 5:20
If thou: Gal 2:12, Gal 2:13; Act 10:28, Act 11:3-18
why: Gal 2:3, Gal 6:12; Act 15:10, Act 15:11, Act 15:19-21, Act 15:24, Act 15:28, Act 15:29
Geneva 1599
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not (l) uprightly according to the (m) truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why (n) compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
(l) Literally, "with a right foot", which he sets against halting and hypocrisy, which is a backwards state.
(m) He calls the truth of the Gospel, both the doctrine itself, and also the use of doctrine, which we call the practice.
(n) He says they were forced who lived as Jews by Peter's example.
John Gill
2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly,.... Or "did not foot it aright"; or "walked not with a right foot": they halted, as the Jews of old did, between two opinions, being partly for God, and partly for Baal; so these seemed, according to their conduct, to be partly for grace, and partly for the works of the law; they seemed to be for joining Christ and Moses, and the grace of the Gospel, and the ceremonies of the law together; they did not walk evenly, were in and out, did not make straight paths for their feet, but crooked ones, whereby the lame were turned out of the way; they did not walk in that sincerity, with that uprightness and integrity of soul, they ought to have done:
nor according to the truth of the Gospel; though their moral conversations were as became the Gospel of Christ, yet their Christian conduct was not according to the true, genuine, unmixed Gospel of Christ; which as it excludes all the works of the law, moral or ceremonial, from the business of justification and salvation, so it declares an entire freedom from the yoke of it, both to Jews and Gentiles. Now when, and as soon as this was observed, the apostle, without any delay, lest some bad consequences should follow, thought fit to make head against it, and directly oppose it:
I said unto Peter before them all. The Alexandrian copy, and others, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, read "Cephas", as before. The reproof was given personally and principally to Peter, though Barnabas and others were concerned with him, because he was the first in it, the chief aggressor, who by his example led on the rest; and this was given publicly before Barnabas, and the other Jews that dissembled with him, and for their sakes as well as his; before the Jews that came from James for their instruction and conviction, and before all the members of the church at Antioch, for the confirmation of such who might be staggered at such conduct; nor was this any breach of the rule of Christ, Mt 28:15 for this was a public offence done before all, and in which all were concerned, and therefore to be rebuked in a public manner: and which was done in this expostulatory way,
if thou being a Jew; as Peter was, born of Jewish parents, brought up in the Jews' religion, and was obliged to observe the laws that were given to that people:
livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; that is, he had done so, he had ate with the Gentiles, and as the Gentiles did, without regarding the laws and ceremonies of the Jews relating to meats and drinks; being better informed by the Spirit of God, that these things were not now obligatory upon him, even though he was a Jew, to whom these laws were formerly made:
why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? he asks him, with what conscience, honour, and integrity, with what consistency with his own principles and former practice, he could compel, not by force, nor, it may be, even by persuasions and exhortations, but by his example, which was very strong and powerful, the Gentiles, to whom these laws were never given, and to observe which they never were obliged; how he could, I say, make use of any means whatever to engage these to comply with Jewish rites and ceremonies. The argument is very strong and nervous; for if he, who was a Jew, thought himself free from this yoke, and had acted accordingly, then a Gentile, upon whom it was never posed, ought not to be entangled with it: and in what he had done, either he had acted right or wrong; if he had acted wrong in eating with the Gentiles, he ought to acknowledge his fault, and return to Judaism; but if right, he ought to proceed, and not by such uneven conduct ensnare the minds of weak believers.
John Wesley
2:14 I said to Cephas before them all - See Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou being a Jew, yet livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the gentiles - Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished. Why compellest thou the gentiles - By withdrawing thyself and all the ministers from them; either to judaize, to keep the ceremonial law, or to be excluded from church communion ?
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:14 walked not uprightly--literally, "straight": "were not walking with straightforward steps." Compare Gal 6:16.
truth of the gospel--which teaches that justification by legal works and observances is inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintained the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (Ti2 4:16-17).
Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts
before . . . all-- (Ti1 5:20).
If thou, &c.--"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to be more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, without scruple and from conviction, Acts 15:10-11) as a Gentile (freely eating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legal ordinances in no way justify, Gal 2:12), and not as a Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts read, for 'why') is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (literally, to Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it.
2:152:15: Զի մեք բուն Հրեայք եմք, եւ ո՛չ ՚ի հեթանոսաց մեղաւորք։
15 Իսկ մենք, որ իսկական հրեաներ ենք եւ ոչ թէ այդ հեթանոս մեղաւորներից,
15 Մենք որ բուն Հրեայ ենք եւ ոչ թէ հեթանոս մեղաւորներ,
Զի մեք բուն Հրեայք եմք, եւ ոչ ի հեթանոսաց մեղաւորք:

2:15: Զի մեք բուն Հրեայք եմք, եւ ո՛չ ՚ի հեթանոսաց մեղաւորք։
15 Իսկ մենք, որ իսկական հրեաներ ենք եւ ոչ թէ այդ հեթանոս մեղաւորներից,
15 Մենք որ բուն Հրեայ ենք եւ ոչ թէ հեթանոս մեղաւորներ,
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1515: Мы по природе Иудеи, а не из язычников грешники;
2:15  ἡμεῖς φύσει ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί,
2:15. Ἡμεῖς (We) φύσει (unto-a-spawning) Ἰουδαῖοι ( Iouda-belonged ) καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) ἐξ (out) ἐθνῶν (of-nations) ἁμαρτωλοί , ( un-adjusted-along ,"
2:15. nos natura Iudaei et non ex gentibus peccatoresWe by nature are Jews: and not of the Gentiles, sinners.
15. We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
2:15. By nature, we are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners.
2:15. We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles:

15: Мы по природе Иудеи, а не из язычников грешники;
2:15  ἡμεῖς φύσει ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί,
2:15. nos natura Iudaei et non ex gentibus peccatores
We by nature are Jews: and not of the Gentiles, sinners.
2:15. By nature, we are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners.
2:15. We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
15-16. Некоторые толкователи (напр. Цан) полагают, что отсюда начинается новая речь Апостола Павла, обращенная к христианам из Иудеев. Но Ап. не делает ни малейшего намека на то, что он покончил беседу с Петром. Если же ст. 17: и сл. представляются не совсем подходящими к Петру, то можно предположить, что Павел здесь уже несколько расширяет свое обращение и имеет в виду даже иудействующих. Итак, продолжая свою речь, Ап. говорит, что он сам, а равно Ап. Петр и другие христиане из Иудеев, не смотря на свое преимущество пред язычниками, которых Апостол здесь по прежнему, с прежней иудейской теократической точки зрения, называет грешниками (ср. Лк XVIII:32; XXIV:7), имеют полное убеждение в том, что оправдаться можно только через веру во Христа, а не делами, каких требует закон Моисеев (см. Рим III:20). Поэтому то - прибавляет Ап. - мы и уверовали во Христа.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:15: We who are Jews by nature - We who belong to the Jewish nation - who have been born, bred, and educated Jews.
And not sinners of the Gentiles - Ἁμαρτωλοι· Not without the knowledge of God, as they have been. Ἁμαρτωλος often signifies a heathen, merely one who had no knowledge of the true God. But among the nations or Gentiles many Jews sojourned; who in Scripture are known by the name of Hellenists, and these were distinguished from those who were termed εξ εθνων ἁμαρτωλοι, sinners of the Gentiles - heathens, in our common sense of the word; while the others, though living among them, were worshippers of the true God, and addicted to no species of idolatry. Some have translated this passage thus: We Jews, and not Gentiles, by nature sinners; for it is supposed that φυσει here refers to that natural corruption which every man brings into the world. Now, though the doctrine be true, (and the state of man, and universal experience confirm it), yet it can neither be supported from this place, nor even from Eph 2:3. See the note on Rom 2:16. It appears, from the use of this word by some of the best Greek authors, that φυσει did not signify by nature, as we use the word, but expressed the natural birth, family, or nation of a man; to distinguish him from any other family or nation. I can give a few instances of this, which are brought to my hand in a small elegant pamphlet, written by Dr. Mnter, the present bishop of Zealand, entitled Observationum ex marmoribus Graecis Sacrarum Specimen, and which has been lent to me by the right honorable Lord Teignmouth, to whose condescension, kindness, and learning, many of my studies have been laid under particular obligation.
The word in question is the xxviiith example in the above pamphlet, the substance of which is as follows: In an inscription on a Greek marble, given by Dr. Chandler, page 27, we find these words Ὁ γαμβρος μου Λεων Αρτεμεισιου, ὁ επικαλουμενος Ιασων, οικονει μεν Μειλησιος, φυσει δε Ιασευς· "My son-in-law, Leo, the son of Artemisius, who is called a Jasian, is of the house of Milesius, though by nature he is from Jaso." That is: Jaso being a town of Caria, this Leo is said to be φυσει Ιασευς, by nature a Jasian, although he sprang from the Milesian family. The following examples will place this in a clearer light. Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. xi. cap. vi. sec. 5, speaking of Amanes, the Amalekite, says: Και γαρ φυσει τοις Ιουδαιοις απηχθανετο, ὁτι και το γενος των Αμαλεκιτων, εξ ὡν ην αυτος, ὑπ' αυτων διεφθαρτο· "For he was by nature incensed against the Jews, because the nation of the Amalekites, from whom he sprang, had been destroyed by them;" that is, he had a national prejudice or hatred to the Jewish people on the above account. The following example from Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxi., is also to the point: Οἱγε (Αθηναιοι) τον δεινα μεν Ολυμπιον κεκληκασι, ουδε φυσει πολιτην ἑαυτων· "For they (the Athenians) called this person an Olympian, though by nature he was not their citizen;" that is, he was called an Olympian, though he was not naturally of that city, or, in other words, he was not born there. From these examples, and the scope of the place, we may argue that the words, we who are Jews by nature, mean, we who were born in the land of Judea, and of Jewish parents. And hence the passage in Eph 2:3, which speaks most evidently of the heathens, "and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others," may be thus understood: Being Gentiles, and brought up in gross darkness, without any knowledge of God, abandoned to all sensual living, we were, from our very condition, and practical state, exposed to punishment. This sense is at least equally good with that given of the words in Rom 2:16, where it is proved that φυσει, in several connections, means truly, certainly, incontestably; "we were, beyond all controversy, exposed to punishment, because we had been born among idolaters, and have lived as they did. Here both senses of the word apply.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:15: We who are Jews by nature - It has long been a question whether this and the following verses are to be regarded as a part of the address of Paul to Peter, or the words of Paul as a part of the Epistle to the Galatians. A great variety of opinion has pRev_ailed in regard to this. Grotius says, "Here the narrative of Paul being closed, he pursues his argument to the Galatians." In this opinion Bloomfield and many others concur. Rosenmuller and many others suppose that the address to Peter is continued to Gal 2:21. Such seems to be the most obvious interpretation, as there is no break or change in the style, nor any vestige of a transfer of the argument to the Galatians. But, on the other hand, it may be urged:
(1) That Paul in his writings often changes his mode of address without indicating it - Bloomfield.
(2) that it is rather improbable that he should have gone into so long a discourse with Peter on the subject of justification. His purpose was answered by the reproof of Peter for his dissimulation; and there is something incongruous, it is said, in his instructing Peter at such length on the subject of man's justification. Still it appears to me probable that this is to be regarded as a part of the discourse of Paul to Peter, to the close of Gal 2:21.
The following reasons seem to me to require this interpretation:
(1) It is the most natural and obvious - usually a safe rule of interpretation. The discourse proceeds as if it were an address to Peter.
(2) there is a change at the beginning of the next chapter, where Paul expressly addresses himself to the Galatians.
(3) as to the impropriety of Paul's addressing Peter at length on the subject of justification, we are to bear in mind that he did not address him alone.
The reproof was addressed to Peter particularly, but it was "before them all" Gal 2:14; that is, before the assembled church, or before the persons who had been led astray by the conduct of Peter, and who were in danger of error on the subject of justification. Nothing, therefore, was more proper than for Paul to continue his discourse for their benefit, and to state to them fully the doctrine of justification. And nothing was more pertinent or proper for him now titan to report this to the Galatians as a part of his argument to them, showing that he had always, since his conversion, held and defended the same doctrine on the subject of the way in which people are to be justified in the sight of God. It is, therefore, I apprehend, to be regarded as an address to Peter and the other Jews who were present. "We who were born Jews."
By nature - By birth; or, we were born Jews. We were not born in the condition of the Gentiles.
And not sinners of the Gentiles - This cannot mean that Paul did not regard the Jews as sinners, for his views on that subject he has fully expressed in Rom. 2; 3. But it must mean that the Jews were not born under the disadvantages of the Gentiles in regard to the true knowledge of the way of salvation. They were not left wholly in ignorance about the way of justification, as the Gentiles were. They knew, or they might know, that men could not be saved by their own works. It was also true that they were under more restraint than the Gentiles were, and though they were sinners, yet they were not abandoned to so gross and open sensuality as was the pagan world. They were not idolaters, and wholly ignorant of the Law of God.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:15: Jews: Mat 3:7-9; Joh 8:39-41; Rom 4:16; Eph 2:3
sinners: Mat 9:11; Mar 7:26-28; Act 22:21; Rom 3:9; Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12; Tit 3:3
Geneva 1599
2:15 (3) We [who are] Jews (o) by nature, and not (p) sinners of the Gentiles,
(3) The second part of this epistle, the state of which is this: we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus without the works of the Law. Which thing he propounds in such a way, that first of all he meets with an objection (for I also, he says, am a Jew, that no man may say against me that I am an enemy to the Law), and afterward, he confirms it by the express witness of David.
(o) Even though we are Jews, yet we preach justification by faith, because we know without any doubt that no man can be justified by the Law.
(p) So the Jews called the Gentiles, because they were strangers to God's covenant.
John Gill
2:15 We who are Jews by nature,.... I Paul, and you Peter and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews at Antioch. Some are Jews by grace, in a spiritual sense, as all are that are Christ's, that are true believers in him, that are born again, and have internal principles of grace formed in their souls, of whatsoever nation they be; see Rom 2:28. Others become Jews by being proselytes to the Jewish religion: such were the Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, that were dwelling at Jerusalem, when the Spirit was poured down on the apostles on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:5, but these here spoken of were such as were Jews by birth; they were born so, were descended of Jewish parents, and from their infancy were brought up in the Jewish religion, and under the law of Moses, and in the observance of it:
and not sinners of the Gentiles: , "the wicked of the nations of the world", as the (l) Jews call them. Not but that the Jews also were sinners both by nature and practice, were involved in the guilt of sin, under the power of it, and defiled with it, as the apostle elsewhere most fully proves: nor is this said with regard to the vain opinion the Jews had of themselves, as very holy and righteous persons, who in their own apprehension needed neither repentance nor remission; and who looked upon the Gentiles as very unholy and unfit for conversation with them: but this more particularly respects that part of the character of the Heathens, that they were without the law, and were under no restraints, but lived in all manner of wickedness, without hope and God in the world, and so were notorious sinners, filled with all unrighteousness, profligate and abandoned to every evil work, and are therefore called emphatically "sinful men", Lk 24:7. And indeed the word Gentiles, among themselves is sometimes used for , "a certain most wicked part" of Gentiles in a city (m), and so may here design such who lived the most dissolute lives and conversations, to which the Jews are opposed, who had a written law, and were under a better regulation and discipline. The reason of this description, both in the positive and negative branch of it, is to observe, that since they, the apostles, and others, who were born Jews, and so under the law of Moses, and, until Christ came, were under obligation to observe it, but had now relinquished it, and wholly and alone believed in Christ for righteousness and life; then it was the most unreasonable thing in the world, by any means whatever, to lead the Gentiles, who never were under the law, to an observance of it.
(l) Mattanot Cehunah in Vajikra Rabba, fol. 164. 3. (m) Harpocratian. Lex. p. 93.
John Wesley
2:15 We - St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number. Gal 2:18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure; and without a figure, Gal 2:19, &c. Who are Jews by nature - By birth, not proselytes only. And not sinners of the gentiles - That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners, as the heathens generally were.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:15 Connect these verses together, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts "But" in the beginning of Gal 2:16 : "We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), Jews, and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from among the Gentiles, YET (literally, 'BUT') knowing that . . . even we (resuming the 'we' of Gal 2:15, 'we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away trust in the law), have believed," &c.
2:162:16: Զայս գիտեմք, եթէ ո՛չ արդարանայ մարդ ՚ի գործոց օրինաց, եթէ ոչ ՚ի հաւատոցն Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի. եւ մեք ՚ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս հաւատացաք, զի արդարասցուք ՚ի հաւատո՛ցն Քրիստոսի, եւ ո՛չ ՚ի գործոց օրինաց. զի ՚ի գործոց օրինաց ո՛չ արդարասցի ամենայն մարմին[4204]։[4204] Ոմանք. Օրինացն ոչ արդարանայ ամենայն։
16 գիտենք, որ մարդ չի արդարանայ օրէնքի գործերով, այլ միայն՝ Յիսուս Քրիստոսի հաւատով. եւ մենք հաւատացինք Քրիստոս Յիսուսին, որպէսզի արդարանանք Քրիստոսի հաւատով եւ ո՛չ թէ օրէնքի գործերով. քանի որ ոչ մի մարդկային էակ չի արդարացուելու օրէնքի գործերով:
16 Գիտնալով՝ թէ մարդ օրէնքին գործերէն չի կրնար արդարանալ, հապա Յիսուս Քրիստոսի հաւատքէն, մենք ալ Քրիստոս Յիսուսին հաւատացինք՝ որպէս զի արդարանանք Քրիստոսին հաւատքով եւ ո՛չ թէ օրէնքին գործերով, որովհետեւ օրէնքին գործերով ոչ ոք պիտի արդարանայ։
Զայս գիտեմք եթէ ոչ արդարանայ մարդ ի գործոց օրինաց, եթէ ոչ ի հաւատոցն Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի. եւ մեք ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս հաւատացաք, զի արդարասցուք ի հաւատոցն Քրիստոսի, եւ ոչ ի գործոց օրինաց. զի ի գործոց օրինաց ոչ արդարասցի ամենայն մարմին:

2:16: Զայս գիտեմք, եթէ ո՛չ արդարանայ մարդ ՚ի գործոց օրինաց, եթէ ոչ ՚ի հաւատոցն Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի. եւ մեք ՚ի Քրիստոս Յիսուս հաւատացաք, զի արդարասցուք ՚ի հաւատո՛ցն Քրիստոսի, եւ ո՛չ ՚ի գործոց օրինաց. զի ՚ի գործոց օրինաց ո՛չ արդարասցի ամենայն մարմին[4204]։
[4204] Ոմանք. Օրինացն ոչ արդարանայ ամենայն։
16 գիտենք, որ մարդ չի արդարանայ օրէնքի գործերով, այլ միայն՝ Յիսուս Քրիստոսի հաւատով. եւ մենք հաւատացինք Քրիստոս Յիսուսին, որպէսզի արդարանանք Քրիստոսի հաւատով եւ ո՛չ թէ օրէնքի գործերով. քանի որ ոչ մի մարդկային էակ չի արդարացուելու օրէնքի գործերով:
16 Գիտնալով՝ թէ մարդ օրէնքին գործերէն չի կրնար արդարանալ, հապա Յիսուս Քրիստոսի հաւատքէն, մենք ալ Քրիստոս Յիսուսին հաւատացինք՝ որպէս զի արդարանանք Քրիստոսին հաւատքով եւ ո՛չ թէ օրէնքին գործերով, որովհետեւ օրէնքին գործերով ոչ ոք պիտի արդարանայ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1616: однако же, узнав, что человек оправдывается не делами закона, а только верою в Иисуса Христа, и мы уверовали во Христа Иисуса, чтобы оправдаться верою во Христа, а не делами закона; ибо делами закона не оправдается никакая плоть.
2:16  εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς χριστὸν ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.
2:16. εἰδότες ( having-had-come-to-see ) δὲ (moreover) ὅτι (to-which-a-one) οὐ (not) δικαιοῦται (it-be-en-course-belonged) ἄνθρωπος (a-mankind) ἐξ (out) ἔργων (of-works) νόμου (of-a-parcelee) ἐὰν (if-ever) μὴ (lest) διὰ (through) πίστεως (of-a-trust) Χριστοῦ (of-Anointed) Ἰησοῦ, (of-an-Iesous,"καὶ (and) ἡμεῖς (we) εἰς (into) Χριστὸν (to-Anointed) Ἰησοῦν (to-an-Iesous) ἐπιστεύσαμεν, (we-trusted-of,"ἵνα (so) δικαιωθῶμεν (we-might-have-been-en-course-belonged) ἐκ (out) πίστεως (of-a-trust) Χριστοῦ (of-Anointed) καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) ἐξ (out) ἔργων (of-works) νόμου, (of-a-parcelee,"ὅτι (to-which-a-one) ἐξ (out) ἔργων (of-works) νόμου (of-a-parcelee) οὐ ( not ) δικαιωθήσεται ( it-shall-be-en-course-belonged ) πᾶσα ( all ) σάρξ . ( a-flesh )
2:16. scientes autem quod non iustificatur homo ex operibus legis nisi per fidem Iesu Christi et nos in Christo Iesu credidimus ut iustificemur ex fide Christi et non ex operibus legis propter quod ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caroBut knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
16. yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2:16. And we know that man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ. And so we believe in Christ Jesus, in order that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. For no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.
2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified:

16: однако же, узнав, что человек оправдывается не делами закона, а только верою в Иисуса Христа, и мы уверовали во Христа Иисуса, чтобы оправдаться верою во Христа, а не делами закона; ибо делами закона не оправдается никакая плоть.
2:16  εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς χριστὸν ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.
2:16. scientes autem quod non iustificatur homo ex operibus legis nisi per fidem Iesu Christi et nos in Christo Iesu credidimus ut iustificemur ex fide Christi et non ex operibus legis propter quod ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro
But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
2:16. And we know that man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by the faith of Jesus Christ. And so we believe in Christ Jesus, in order that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. For no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.
2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified - See the notes on Rom 1:17; Rom 3:24 (note), Rom 3:27 (note); Rom 8:3 (note). And see on Act 13:38 (note) and Act 13:39 (note), in which places the subject of this verse is largely discussed. Neither the works of the Jewish law, nor of any other law, could justify any man; and if justification or pardon could not have been attained in some other way, the world must have perished. Justification by faith, in the boundless mercy of God, is as reasonable as it is Scriptural and necessary.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:16: Knowing - We who are Jews by nature, or by birth. This cannot mean that all the Jews knew this, or that he who was a Jew knew it as a matter of course, for many Jews were ignorant of it, and many opposed it. But it means that the persons here referred to, those who had been born Jews, and who had been converted to Christianity, had had an opportunity to learn and understand this, which the Gentiles had not. This gospel had been preached to them, and they had professedly embraced it. They were not left to the gross darkness and ignorance on this subject which pervaded the pagan world, and they had had a better opportunity to learn it than the converts from the Gentiles. They ought, therefore, to act in a manner becoming their superior light, and to show in all their conduct that they fully believed that a man could not be justified by obedience to the Law of Moses. This rendered the conduct of Peter and the other Jews who "dissembled" with him so entirely inexcusable. They could not plead ignorance on this vital subject, and yet they were pursuing a course, the tendency of which was to lead the Gentile converts to believe that it was indispensable to observe the laws of Moses, in order to be justified and saved.
That a man is not justified by the works of the law - See the notes at Rom 1:17; Rom 3:20, Rom 3:26; Rom 4:5.
But by the faith of Jesus Christ - By believing on Jesus Christ; see the Mar 16:16 note; Rom 3:22 note.
Even we have believed in Jesus Christ - We are therefore justified. The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified, there was no necessity of obeying the Law of Moses with any view to justification. The thing had been fully done without the deeds of the Law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on the observance of the Mosaic rites.
For by the works of the law ... - See the notes at Rom 3:20, Rom 3:27. In this verse, the apostle has stated in few words the important doctrine of justification by faith - the doctrine which Luther so justly called, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis ecclesioe. In the notes referred to above, particularly in the notes at the Epistle to the Romans, I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful, however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as possible, the leading ideas on the subject of justification, as it is Rev_ealed in the gospel.
I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation among people. An illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e. g., with an act of trespass on his neighbor's property. Now there are two ways which he may take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded and treated as innocent. He may:
(a) Either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may,
(b) Admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defense that he had a right to do it.
In either case, if the point is made out, he will be just or innocent in the sight of the Law. The Law will have nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises as an innocent man; or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought against him.
II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged with violating the Law of God; with a want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart; with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all people; and to the entire life of every unrenewed person. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, nor merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God; a charge, in short, of total depravity; see, especially, Rom. 1; 2; 3. That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt. That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in proof of it to the history of the world, to every man's conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.
III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the Law. The Law will not acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged will alter the ease; and he must stand condemned by the Law of God. In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which the Law did not contemplate, for no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the Law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the Law contemplates.
IV. This other system of justification is that which is Rev_ealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does not consist in either of the following things:
(1) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part of the sinner against the Law or against God. He did not come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most fully, and endeavored constantly to show, that God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner against God in any such sense that he endeavored to show that the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.
(2) it is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be innocent. God justifies the "ungodly," Rom 4:5. We are not innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favor of God.
(3) it is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favor and not by desert.
(4) it is not a declaration on the part of God that we have worked out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and would not be made.
(5) it is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people.
Moral character cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful. But if justification is none of these things, it may be asked, what is it? I answer - It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Saviour. It is not mere pardon. The main difference between pardon and justification respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God's future dealings with him. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offences.
It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. It is an act of remission on the part of God. Justification has respect to the Law, and to God's future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. The ground or reason of this is, the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our own. The rationale of it is that the Lord Jesus has accomplished by his death the same happy effects in regard to the Law and the government of God, which would have been accomplished by the death of the sinner himself. In other words, nothing would be gained to the universe by the everlasing punishment of the offender himself, which will not be secured by his salvation on the ground of the death of the Lord Jesus. He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own head if he had not interposed (see my notes at isa 53) and now the great interests of justice will be as firmly secured if we are saved, as they would be if we were lost.
The Law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us, and as much honor has been done to it by his obedience as could have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the Law is worthy of obedience to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that the Law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience to have it obeyed by an only son and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the evil of the violation of the Law to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves. If transgression whelm the innocent in calamity; if it extends to those who are perfectly guiltless, and inflicts pain and woe on them, it is as certainly an expression of the evil of transgression as if the guilty themselves suffer. And an impression as deep has been made of the evil of sin by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if we had suffered ourselves.
He endured on the cross as intense agony as we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure; and the dignity of the person who suffered, the incarnate God, is more than an equivalent for the more lengthened sorrows which the penalty of the Law exacts in hell. Besides, from the very dignity of the sufferer in our place, an impression has gone abroad on the universe more deep and important than would have been by the sufferings of the individual himself in the world of woe. The sinner who is lost will be unknown to other worlds. His name may be unheard beyond the gates of the prison of despair. The impression which will be made on distant worlds by his individual sufferings will be as a part of the aggregate of woe, and his individual sorrows may make no impression on distant worlds. But not so with him who took our place. He stood in the center of the universe. The sun grew dark, and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene, and from his cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the universe, showing the tremendous effects of the violation of law, when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender, by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and this constitutes justification. God admits him to favor as if he had himself obeyed the Law, or borne its penalty, since as many good results will now follow from His salvation as could be derived from his punishment; and since all the additional happy results will follow which can be derived from the exercise of pardoning mercy. The character of God is thus Rev_ealed. His mercy is shown. His determination to maintain his law is evinced. The truth is maintained; and yet he shows the fulness of his mercy and the richness of his benevolence.
(The reader will find the above objections to the doctrine of imputation fully considered in the supplementary notes on Rom 4:5; see especially the note at Rom 4:3, in which it is observed, that almost every objection against the imputation of righteousness may be traced to two sources. The first of these is the idea that Christ's righteousness becomes ours, in the same sense that it is his, namely, of personal achievement; an idea continually rejected by the friends, and as often proceeded on by the enemies, of imputation. The second source is the idea that imputation involves a transference of moral character, whereas the imputing and the infusing of righteousness are allowed to be two very different things. Now, in this place, the commentator manifestly proceeds on these mistaken views. What does he mean by "transference of the righteousness of Christ" when he says, "justification is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people?" What follows, at once explains. "Moral character," he continues, "cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent, as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it." But this is quite aside from the subject, and proves what never had been denied. The same remarks apply with equal force to what is said about our being "always personally undeserving," and never regarded as having ourselves actually "wrought out salvation." These objections belong to the first source of misconception noticed above.
It has been asked a thousand times, and the question is most pertinent, How can God treat believers as innocent, if there be not some sense in which they are so? "The imputations of God are according to truth," so is his treatment. The author tells us, that the ground of justification is the "merits of the Saviour," which phrase he prefers throughout, to the more scriptural and more appropriate one of the righteousness of Christ; more appropriate, because the subject if forensic, belonging to judicature and dealing in matters of law; see Hervey's reply to Wesley, vol. iv. p. 33. Yet if these merits, or this righteousness, be not imputed to us - held as ours - how can we be justified on any such ground? "I would further observe," says Mr. Hervey, replying to Wesley in the publication just quoted, "that you have dropped the word 'imputed,'" which inclines me to suspect you would cashier the thing. But let me ask, Sir, how can we be justified by the merits of Christ, unless they are imputed to us? Would the payment made by a surety procure a discharge for the debtor, unless it were placed to his account? It is certain the sacrifices of old could not make an atonement, unless they were imputed to each offerer respectively. This was an ordinance settled by Yahweh himself, Lev 7:18. And were not the sacrifices, was not their imputation, typical of Christ and things pertaining to Christ, the former prefiguring his all-sufficient expiation; the latter shadowing forth the way whereby we are partakers of its efficacy?
The language of President Edwards, the prince of American clergymen, indeed of theologians universally, is decisive enough, and one would think that the opinion of this master in reasoning should have its weight on the other side of the Atlantic. "It is absolutely necessary," says he, "that in order to a sinner's being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked on as, in himself, ungodly: but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in scripture, and a judicial thing or the act of a judge; so that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed, that is, by the Judge properly looked upon as his."
Nor are we sure, if our author's distinction between pardon and justification be altogether accurate. By those who deny imputed righteousness, justification is frequently said to consist in the mere remission of sin. In a recent American publication, the views of the "new school party" are thus given: "Though they retain the word justification, they make it consist in mere pardon. In the eye of the Law, the believer, according to their views, is not justified at all, and never will be throughout eternity. Though on the ground of what Christ has done, God is pleased to forgive the sinner upon his believing, Christ's righteousness is not reckoned in any sense as his, or set down to his account. He believes, and his faith or act of believing is accounted to him for righteousness; that is, faith is so reckoned to His account that God treats him as if he were righteous" - Old and New Theology, by James Wood. Now Mr. Barnes does not exactly say that justification and pardon are the same, for he makes a distinction. "The main difference between the two respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God's future dealings with him." "Pardon is a free forgiveness of least offences. Justification has respect to the Law and to God's future dealings."
But this difference is not respecting the nature of the things. It is simply a matter of time, of past and future; and justification, after all, is neither more nor less than pardon of sins past and to come. A criminal is often pardoned while his guilt is still allowed. To exalt pardon to justification there most be supposed a righteousness on the ground of which not only is sin forgiven, but the person accepted and declared legally righteous. And in this lies the main difference between the two. In the case of the believer however these are never found apart. Whoever is pardoned is at the same time justified. Earthly princes sometimes remit the punishment of crime, but seldom or never dream of honoring the criminal; but wheRev_er God pardons, he dignifies and ennobles.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:16: that: Gal 2:19, Gal 3:10-12, Gal 5:4; Job 9:2, Job 9:3, Job 9:29, Job 25:4; Psa 130:3, Psa 130:4; Luk 10:25-29; Act 13:38, Act 13:39; Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 3:27, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:2, Rom 4:13-15; Phi 3:9
but: Gal 3:13, Gal 3:14, Gal 3:22-24, Gal 4:5; Rom 1:17, Rom 3:21-26, Rom 3:28, Rom 3:30, Rom 4:5, Rom 4:6, Rom 4:24, Rom 4:25, Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2, Rom 5:8, Rom 5:9; Rom 8:3, Rom 8:30-34; Co1 6:11; Co2 5:19-21; Phi 3:9; Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19
we have: Gal 2:20; Joh 6:68, Joh 6:69, Joh 20:31; Act 4:12; Pe1 1:2, Pe1 1:8, Pe1 1:9, Pe1 1:18-21, Pe1 2:24, Pe1 3:18; Pe2 1:1; Jo1 1:7, Jo1 2:1, Jo1 2:2; Rev 7:9, Rev 7:14
for: Gal 3:11; Psa 143:2
Geneva 1599
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith (q) of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall (r) no flesh be justified.
(q) In Jesus Christ.
(r) No man, and in this word "flesh" there is a great force, by which is meant that the nature of man is utterly corrupt.
John Gill
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,.... That is, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and other believing Jews knew this, and that from the law itself, which requires perfect and sinless obedience, and accuses, holds guilty, and adjudges to condemnation and death for the least failure, both as to matter or manner of duty; and from the prophets, which declare that by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified in the sight of God, and who bear witness to the doctrines of remission of sin, and justification by the righteousness of Christ; and from the Gospel, in which this truth is most clearly revealed; and from the illumination of the blessed Spirit, who led them into all truth; and from the revelation of Jesus Christ they were favoured with; and from their own experience, being fully convinced of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the insufficiency of their own righteousness, and of the necessity, suitableness, and fulness of the righteousness of Christ. By "the works of the law" are meant, not only obedience to the ceremonial law, though this is included, but also to the moral law; for it can hardly be thought, that the men the apostle opposes could ever dream of justification by their compliance with the rituals of the ceremonial law if they believed there could be no justification by their obedience to the moral law; for if there is no justification by the latter, there can be none by the former: the words are therefore to be taken in the largest sense, as rejecting all works of the law, of whatsoever kind, from justification in the sight of God; and such works are designed, as are performed by sinful men in and of themselves, otherwise men are justified by the works of the law as performed by Christ in their room and stead, but not by any as performed by themselves, for at best they are very imperfect, and so cannot justify; they are opposed to the grace of God, to which the justification of a sinner is always ascribed, and therefore cannot be by works; such a scheme would disannul the death of Christ, and promote boasting in men, and indeed is impracticable and impossible:
but by the faith of Jesus Christ; not by that faith, which Christ, as man, had in God, who promised him help, succour, and assistance, and for which he, as man, trusted in him, and exercised faith upon him; but that faith of which he is the object, author, and finisher; and not by that as a cause, for faith has no causal influence on the justification of a sinner; it is not the efficient cause, for it is God that justifies; nor the moving cause, or which induces God to justify any, for that is his own free grace and good will; nor the meritorious or procuring cause, for that is the obedience and bloodshed of Christ; nor is faith the matter of justification; it is not a justifying righteousness; it is a part of sanctification; it is imperfect; as an act it is a man's own, and will not continue for ever in its present form, nature, and use; and is always distinguished from the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, which is perfect, is another's, and will last for ever. Men are not justified by faith, either as an habit, or an act; not by it as an habit or principle, this would be to confound justification and sanctification; nor as an act, for as such it is a man's own, and then justification would be by a man's works, contrary to the Scripture: but faith is to be taken either objectively, as it relates to Christ, the object of it, and his justifying righteousness; or as it is a means of receiving and apprehending Christ's righteousness; the discovery of it is made to faith; that grace discerns the excellency and suitableness of it, approves of it, rejects a man's own, lays hold on this, and rejoices in it:
even we have believed in Jesus Christ; we who are Jews by nature, being fully apprized that there is no justification by the works of the law, but by the righteousness of Christ, received by faith, have quited all confidence in our own works, and are come to Christ, and believe in him, not only as the Messiah, but as the Lord our righteousness:
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; not that faith, as before observed, has any causal influence on justification. These Jews did not believe in Christ, in order by their believing to procure their justification before God, and acceptance with him, but that they might receive, by faith, this blessing from the Lord in their own conscience, and enjoy the comfort of it, and all that spiritual peace which results from it, and which they could not find in the works of the law:
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified; reference seems to be had to Ps 143:2 and contains a reason why these believing Jews relinquished Moses in his law, in whom they formerly trusted, and looked to, and depended on for their justification, because that by obedience to the law of works no sinful mortal man can be justified in the sight of God,
John Wesley
2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law - Not even of the moral, much less the ceremonial, law. But by the faith of Jesus Christ - That is, by faith in him. The name Jesus was first known by the gentiles; the name Christ by the Jews. And they are not always placed promiscuously; but generally in a more solemn way of speaking, the Apostle says, Christ Jesus; in a more familiar, Jesus Christ. Even we - And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works! Have believed - Knowing there is no other way. Because - Considering the demands of the law, and the fate of human nature, it is evident, that by the works of the law - By such an obedience as it requires. Shall no flesh living - No human creature, Jew or Gentile, be justified. Hitherto St. Paul had been considering that single question, "Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law? But he here insensibly goes farther, and, by citing this scripture, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral, law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, Ps 143:2, the place here referred to, "In thy sight shall no man living be justified;" which the Apostle likewise explains, Rom 3:19-20, in such a manner as can agree to none but the moral law.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:16 not justified by the works of the law--as the GROUND of justification. "The works of the law" are those which have the law for their object--which are wrought to fulfil the law [ALFORD].
but by--Translate, "But only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus Christ," as the MEAN and instrument of justification.
Jesus Christ--In the second case, read with the oldest manuscripts, "Christ Jesus," the Messiahship coming into prominence in the case of Jewish believers, as "Jesus" does in the first case, referring to the general proposition.
justified by the faith of Christ--that is, by Christ, the object of faith, as the ground of our justification.
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified--He rests his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to Ps 143:2, "Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise; Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curse and the blessing--are represented as diametrically opposed" [BENGEL]. The moral law is, in respect to justification, more legal than the ceremonial, which was an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So "Sinai" (Gal 4:24), which is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is made pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification by the law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (Rom 3:20).
2:172:17: Իսկ եթէ մինչ խնդրիցեմք արդարանալ ՚ի Քրիստոս, եւ գտանիցիմք մեղաւորք. ապա ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղա՞ց պաշտօնեայ եղեւ. քա՛ւ լիցի[4205]։ [4205] Ոմանք. Իսկ արդ մինչ խնդ՛՛... եւ գտանիցիմք մեք մեղաւո՛՛։
17 Իսկ եթէ Քրիստոսով արդարանալ ուզելով՝ մեղաւոր գտնուեցինք, ապա ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղքի՞ն ծառայեց. քա՛ւ լիցի.
17 Իսկ եթէ մենք կ’ուզենք Քրիստոսով արդարանալ, մեղաւո՞ր գտնուինք, ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղքի պաշտօնեա՞յ եղաւ։ Քա՛ւ լիցի։
Իսկ եթէ մինչ խնդրիցեմք արդարանալ ի Քրիստոս, եւ գտանիցիմք մեղաւորք, ապա ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղա՞ց պաշտօնեայ եղեւ. քաւ լիցի:

2:17: Իսկ եթէ մինչ խնդրիցեմք արդարանալ ՚ի Քրիստոս, եւ գտանիցիմք մեղաւորք. ապա ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղա՞ց պաշտօնեայ եղեւ. քա՛ւ լիցի[4205]։
[4205] Ոմանք. Իսկ արդ մինչ խնդ՛՛... եւ գտանիցիմք մեք մեղաւո՛՛։
17 Իսկ եթէ Քրիստոսով արդարանալ ուզելով՝ մեղաւոր գտնուեցինք, ապա ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղքի՞ն ծառայեց. քա՛ւ լիցի.
17 Իսկ եթէ մենք կ’ուզենք Քրիստոսով արդարանալ, մեղաւո՞ր գտնուինք, ուրեմն Քրիստոս մեղքի պաշտօնեա՞յ եղաւ։ Քա՛ւ լիցի։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1717: Если же, ища оправдания во Христе, мы и сами оказались грешниками, то неужели Христос есть служитель греха? Никак.
2:17  εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν χριστῶ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο.
2:17. εἰ (If) δὲ (moreover) ζητοῦντες ( seeking-unto ) δικαιωθῆναι (to-have-been-en-course-belonged,"ἐν (in) Χριστῷ (unto-Anointed) εὑρέθημεν (we-were-found) καὶ (and) αὐτοὶ (them) ἁμαρτωλοί , ( un-adjusted-along ,"ἆρα (thus) Χριστὸς (Anointed) ἁμαρτίας (of-an-un-adjusting-along-unto) διάκονος; (a-raiser-through) μὴ (lest) γένοιτο : ( it-may-have-had-became )
2:17. quod si quaerentes iustificari in Christo inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores numquid Christus peccati minister est absitBut if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid!
17. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid.
2:17. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, would then Christ be the minister of sin? Let it not be so!
2:17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid:

17: Если же, ища оправдания во Христе, мы и сами оказались грешниками, то неужели Христос есть служитель греха? Никак.
2:17  εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν χριστῶ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο.
2:17. quod si quaerentes iustificari in Christo inventi sumus et ipsi peccatores numquid Christus peccati minister est absit
But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ then the minister of sin? God forbid!
2:17. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, would then Christ be the minister of sin? Let it not be so!
2:17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
17-18. Поведение Ап. Петра и других христиан из Иудеев, бывших в то время в Антиохии, идет вразрез с этим общецерковным убеждением и даже оскорбляет Христа. В самом деле, если мы, Иудеи, ищем оправдания во Христе и не находим, а чувствуем себя и в христианском состоянии такими же грешниками, как и язычники, потому будто бы, что не исполняем при этом требований закона Моисеева, то выходит, что будто бы Христос привел нас к такому состоянию, что будто бы все Его служение человечеству было в самом деле вредным для людей, - в данном случае для Иудеев, - что будто бы Он - служитель греха! Но можно ли допустить подобное предположение? Ни в каком случае. Рассуждения сторонников соблюдения закона и в христианстве - совершенно нелогичны. Не Христос является в данном случае преступником, а тот, кто им же разрушенное снова восстанавливает, как бы жалея о случившемся и признавая, что он поступил неправильно.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:17: But if while we seek to be justified - If, while we acknowledge that we must be justified by faith in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, enjoining the necessity of observing the rites and ceremonies of the law, which never could and never can justify, and yet, by submitting to circumcision, we lay ourselves under the necessity of fulfilling the law, which is impossible, we thus constitute ourselves sinners; is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? Christ, who has taught us to renounce the law, and expect justification through his death? God forbid! that we should either act so, or think so.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:17: But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ - The connection here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure. Rosenmuller supposes that this is an objection of a Jew, supposing that where the Law of Moses is not observed there is no rule of life, and that therefore there must be sin; and that since the doctrine of justification by faith taught that there was no necessity of obeying the ceremonial law of Moses, therefore Christ, who had introduced that system, must be regarded as the author and encourager of sin. To me it seems probable that Paul here has reference to an objection which has in all ages been brought against the doctrine of justification by faith, and which seems to have existed in his time, that the doctrine leads to licentiousness. The objections are that it does not teach the necessity of the observance of the Law in order to acceptance with God. That it pronounces a man justified and accepted who is a violator of the Law. That his acceptance does not depend on moral character.
That it releases him from the obligation of law, and that it teaches that a man may be saved though he does not conform to law. These objections existed early, and have been found everywhere where the doctrine of justification by faith has been preached. I regard this verse, therefore, as referring to these objections, and not as being especially the objection of a Jew. The idea is, "You seek to be justified by faith without obeying the Law. You professedly reject that, and do not hold that it is necessary to yield obedience to it. If now it shall turn out that you are sinners; that your lives are not holy; that you are free from the wholesome restraint of the Law, and are given up to lives of sin, will it not follow that Christ is the cause of it; that he taught it; and that the system which he introduced is responsible for it? And is not the gospel therefore responsible for introducing a system that frees from the restraint of the Law, and introduces universal licentiousness?" To this Paul replies by stating distinctly that the gospel has no such tendency, and particularly by referring in the following verses to his own case, and to the effect of the doctrine of justification on his own heart and life.
We ourselves are found sinners - If it turns out that we are sinners, or if others discover by undoubted demonstration that we lead lives of sin; if they see us given up to a lawless life, and find us practicing all kinds of evil; if it shall be seen not only that we are not pardoned and made better by the gospel, but are actually made worse, and are freed from all moral restraint.
Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? - Is it to be traced to him? Is it a fair and legitimate conclusion that this is the tendency of the gospel? Is it to be charged on him, and on the plan of justification through him, that a lax morality pRev_ails, and that people are freed from the wholesome restraints of law?
God forbid - It is not so. This is not the proper effect of the gospel of Christ, and of the doctrine of justification by faith. The system is not suited to produce such a freedom from restraint, and if such a freedom exists, it is to be traced to something else than the gospel.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:17: while: Rom 9:30-33, Rom 11:7
are found: Gal 2:11; Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2; Jo1 3:8-10
is: Mat 1:21; Rom 15:8; Co2 3:7-9; Heb 7:24-28, Heb 8:2; Jo1 3:5
God: Rom 3:4, Rom 3:6
Geneva 1599
2:17 (4) But if, while (s) we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
(4) Before he goes any further, he meets with the objection which abhorred this doctrine of free justification by faith, because, they say, men are by this means withdrawn from the performing of good works. And in this sort is the objection: if sinners should be justified through Christ by faith without the Law, Christ would approve sinners, and should as it were exhort them to sin by his ministry. Paul answers that this conclusion is false, because Christ destroys sin in the believers: for so, he says, do men flee to Christ through the terror and fear of the Law, that being acquitted from the curse of the Law and justified they may be saved by him. And in addition he together begins in them by little and little that strength and power of his which destroys sin: to the end that this old man being abolished by the power of Christ crucified, Christ may live in them, and they may consecrate themselves to God. Therefore if any man give himself to sin after he has received the Gospel, let him not accuse Christ nor the Gospel, but himself, for he destroys the work of God in himself.
(s) He goes from justification to sanctification, which is another benefit we receive from Christ, if we lay hold of him by faith.
John Gill
2:17 But if while we seek to be justified by Christ,.... As they did, and not only sought for, but obtained what they sought for, because they sought for it at the hands of Christ, and not as it were by works, but by faith, even a justifying righteousness in him.
We ourselves also are found sinners; that is, either we should be so, were we not to rest here, but seek to join our own works with Christ's righteousness for our justification, and so make Christ the minister of sin, of an imperfect righteousness, which cannot justify, which God forbid should ever be done by us; or we are reckoned sinners by you, judaizing Christians, for leaving the law, and going to Christ for righteousness; and if so, Christ must be the minister of sin, for he has directed and taught us so to do; but God forbid that any such thing should be said of him: or if we are still sinners, and unjustified persons, notwithstanding we seek to Christ to be justified by him, but need the law, and the works of it to justify us, then Christ, instead of being a minister of righteousness, is a minister of the law, the strength of sin, which accuses for it, and is the ministration of condemnation and death on account of it, which God forbid should ever be: or this is an objection of the adversary to the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, as if it made void the law, discouraged the performance of good works, opened a door to licentiousness that men might continue sinners, and live as they wish, being under no restraints of the law, or under obligation to obedience it, and by such doctrine make
Christ the minister of sin; who hereby teaches men to live in sin, and in the neglect of duty; to which the apostle answers,
God forbid; as holding such consequences in the utmost abhorrence and detestation; see Rom 6:1.
John Wesley
2:17 But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are still found sinners - If we continue in sin, will it therefore follow, that Christ is the minister or countenancer of sin?
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:17 Greek, "But if, seeking to be justified IN (that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in the Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves also were found (in your and my former communion with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that now we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law, thus having put ourselves in the same category as the Gentiles, who, being without the law, are, in the Jewish view, "sinners," Gal 2:15), is therefore Christ, the minister of sin?" (Are we to admit the conclusion, in this case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position of "sinners," as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make us, along with all others who are "without the law," Rom 2:14; 1Cor 9:21; and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?) The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so, from the theory which would result in it. The whole sin lies, not with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemous inference. But his false theory, though "seeking" from Christ, we have not "found" salvation (in contradiction to Christ's own words, Mt 7:7), but "have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found" to be "sinners," by having entered into communion with Gentiles (Gal 2:12).
2:182:18: Զի եթէ զոր քակեցին, զնոյն միւսանգամ շինիցեմ. ապա յանցաւո՛ր զանձն իմ ես ինձէ՛ն երեւեցուցանեմ[4206]։ [4206] Ոսկան. Զոր քակեցի։ Ոմանք. Զանձն ես ինձէն։
18 որովհետեւ, եթէ ինչ որ ես քանդեցի, նոյնը վերստին շինեմ, ապա ինքս ապացուցած կը լինեմ, որ մեղաւոր եմ.
18 Քանզի եթէ իմ քակած բաներս նորէն կը շինեմ, իմ անձս յանցաւոր կը ցուցնեմ։
Զի եթէ զոր քակեցին` զնոյն միւսանգամ շինիցեմ, ապա յանցաւոր զանձն իմ ես ինձէն երեւեցուցանեմ:

2:18: Զի եթէ զոր քակեցին, զնոյն միւսանգամ շինիցեմ. ապա յանցաւո՛ր զանձն իմ ես ինձէ՛ն երեւեցուցանեմ[4206]։
[4206] Ոսկան. Զոր քակեցի։ Ոմանք. Զանձն ես ինձէն։
18 որովհետեւ, եթէ ինչ որ ես քանդեցի, նոյնը վերստին շինեմ, ապա ինքս ապացուցած կը լինեմ, որ մեղաւոր եմ.
18 Քանզի եթէ իմ քակած բաներս նորէն կը շինեմ, իմ անձս յանցաւոր կը ցուցնեմ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1818: Ибо если я снова созидаю, что разрушил, то сам себя делаю преступником.
2:18  εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω.
2:18. εἰ (if) γὰρ (therefeore) ἃ ( to-which ) κατέλυσα (I-loosed-down) ταῦτα (to-the-ones-these) πάλιν (unto-furthered) οἰκοδομῶ, (I-house-build-unto,"παραβάτην (to-a-stepper-beside) ἐμαυτὸν (to-myself) συνιστάνω. (I-stand-together)
2:18. si enim quae destruxi haec iterum aedifico praevaricatorem me constituoFor if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.
18. For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.
2:18. For if I rebuild the things that I have destroyed, I establish myself as a prevaricator.
2:18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor:

18: Ибо если я снова созидаю, что разрушил, то сам себя делаю преступником.
2:18  εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω.
2:18. si enim quae destruxi haec iterum aedifico praevaricatorem me constituo
For if I build up again the things which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.
2:18. For if I rebuild the things that I have destroyed, I establish myself as a prevaricator.
2:18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:18: For if I build again the things which I destroyed - If I act like a Jew, and enjoin the observance of the law on the Gentiles, which I have repeatedly asserted and proved to be abolished by the death of Christ, then I build up what I destroyed, and thus make myself a transgressor, by not observing the law in that way in which I appear to enjoin the observance of it upon others.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:18: For if I build again the things which I destroyed - Paul here uses the first person; but he evidently intends it as a general proposition, and means that if anyone does it he becomes a transgressor. The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which was evil, again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is a transgressor of the Law of God. The particular application here, as it seems to me, is to the subject of circumcision and the other rites of the Mosaic law. They had been virtually abolished by the coming of the Redeemer, and by the doctrine of justification by faith. It had been seen that there was no necessity for their observance, and of that Peter and the others had been fully aware. Yet they were lending their influence again to establish them or to build them up again. They complied with them, and they insisted on the necessity of their observance. Their conduct, therefore, was that of building up again that which had once been destroyed, destroyed by the ministry, and toils, and death of the Lord Jesus, and by the fair influence of his gospel. To rebuild that again; to re-establish those customs, was wrong, and now involved the guilt of a transgression of the Law of God. Doddridge supposes that this is an address to the Galatians, and that the address to Peter closed at the pRev_ious verse. But it is impossible to determine this; and it seems to me more probable that this is all a part of the address to Peter; or rather perhaps to the assembly when Peter was present; see the note at Gal 2:15.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:18: Gal 2:4, Gal 2:5, Gal 2:12-16, Gal 2:21, Gal 4:9-12, Gal 5:11; Rom 14:15; Co1 8:11, Co1 8:12
John Gill
2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed,.... Which must be understood not of good things, for formerly he destroyed the faith of the Gospel, at least as much as in him lay, and now he built it up, established, and defended it; in doing which he did no evil, or made himself a transgressor, but the reverse; he showed himself a faithful minister of Christ: but of things not lawful, such as the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses, which were now abrogated, and he had declared to be so all over the Gentile world; and therefore should he go about to establish these things as necessary to salvation, or teach men to join the observance of them with Christ's righteousness for justification, then, says he,
I make myself a transgressor: for he could not be otherwise, be the case how it would with respect to the abrogation, or non-abrogation of the law; for if the law was not abolished, then he made himself a transgressor of it; by neglecting it himself, and teaching others to do so; and if it was abolished, then it must be criminal in him to enforce the observance of it as necessary to a sinner's justification before God. Now though the apostle transfers this to himself, and spoke in his own person to decline all invidious reflections and characters; yet he tacitly regards Peter, and his conduct, who had been taught by the vision the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and acted accordingly by conversing and eating with the Gentiles, and had declared that law to be an insupportable yoke of bondage, which the Gentiles were not obliged to come under; and yet now, by his practice and example, built up and established those very things he had before destroyed, and therefore could not exculpate himself, from being a transgressor: or these things may regard sins and immoralities in life and conversation; and the apostle's sense be, that should he, or any other, take encouragement to sin from the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, as if he was the author and minister of sin, and allowed persons in it; this would be to establish sin, which the righteousness of Christ justifies from, and engage in a living in sin, to which, by Christ's righteousness, they are dead unto; than which, nothing can be, a greater contradiction, and which must unavoidably make them not only transgressors of the law, by sinning against it, but apostates, as the word here used signifies, from the Gospel; such must act quite contrary to the nature, use, and design of the Gospel in general, and this doctrine in particular, which teaches men to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and that being dead to sin, they should live unto righteousness.
John Wesley
2:18 By no means. For if I build again - By my sinful practice. The things which I destroyed - By my preaching, I only make myself - Or show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin. But it does not. Therefore if any who profess the gospel do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified, and so the gospel is clear.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:18 Greek, "For if the things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), those very things I build up again (namely, legal righteousness, by subjecting myself to the law), I prove myself (literally, 'I commend myself') a transgressor." Instead of commending yourself as you sought to do (Gal 2:12, end), you merely commend yourself as a transgressor. The "I" is intended by Paul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case, not Paul's own, that is described. A "transgressor" is another word for "sinner" (in Gal 2:17), for "sin is the transgression of the law." You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are proving yourself a "sinner," or "transgressor," in your having set it aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thus you are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, and you debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theory He becomes a minister of sin.
2:192:19: Զի ես օրինօ՛ք օրինացն մեռայ, զի Աստուծոյ կեցից, եւ ընդ Քրիստոսի ՚ի խա՛չ ելից[4207]. [4207] Ոմանք. Զի Աստուծով կեցից։
19 քանի որ ես օրէնքի տակ մեռայ օրէնքի համար, որպէսզի ապրեմ Աստծու համար:
19 Վասն զի ես օրէնքով մեռայ օրէնքին, որպէս զի Աստուծոյ կենդանի ըլլամ։
Զի ես օրինօք օրինացն մեռայ, զի Աստուծոյ կեցից:

2:19: Զի ես օրինօ՛ք օրինացն մեռայ, զի Աստուծոյ կեցից, եւ ընդ Քրիստոսի ՚ի խա՛չ ելից[4207].
[4207] Ոմանք. Զի Աստուծով կեցից։
19 քանի որ ես օրէնքի տակ մեռայ օրէնքի համար, որպէսզի ապրեմ Աստծու համար:
19 Վասն զի ես օրէնքով մեռայ օրէնքին, որպէս զի Աստուծոյ կենդանի ըլլամ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:1919: Законом я умер для закона, чтобы жить для Бога. Я сораспялся Христу,
2:19  ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον ἵνα θεῶ ζήσω. χριστῶ συνεσταύρωμαι·
2:19. ἐγὼ (I) γὰρ (therefore) διὰ (through) νόμου (of-a-parcelee) νόμῳ (unto-a-parcelee) ἀπέθανον (I-had-died-off,"ἵνα (so) θεῷ (unto-a-Deity) ζήσω: (I-might-have-lifed-unto)
2:19. ego enim per legem legi mortuus sum ut Deo vivam Christo confixus sum cruciFor I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God; with Christ I am nailed to the cross.
19. For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.
2:19. For through the law, I have become dead to the law, so that I may live for God. I have been nailed to the cross with Christ.
2:19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God:

19: Законом я умер для закона, чтобы жить для Бога. Я сораспялся Христу,
2:19  ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον ἵνα θεῶ ζήσω. χριστῶ συνεσταύρωμαι·
2:19. ego enim per legem legi mortuus sum ut Deo vivam Christo confixus sum cruci
For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God; with Christ I am nailed to the cross.
2:19. For through the law, I have become dead to the law, so that I may live for God. I have been nailed to the cross with Christ.
2:19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
19-20. В противоположность такому непоследовательному образу действий иудействующих и отчасти даже самого Ап. Петра, который временно склонился на их сторону, сам Ап. Павел считает себя умершим для закона, т. е. не обязанным его исполнять. При этом он говорит, что сам закон довел его до такого разрыва с ним (подробнее об этом см. в посл. к Рим гл. VII, ст. 4, 6, 9, 10). Теперь Ап. живет уже для Бога, т. е. как прежде он посвящал всю жизнь свою закону, надеясь через исполнение его оправдаться, так теперь он живет прямо для Бога, от Которого закон только отдалял человека (ср. III:10). Ап. сораспялся Христу (ср. Рим VI:6), и прежнего преобладания своего человеческого "я" Ап. уже не чувствует. Напротив, в нем живет Христос. - Христос стал в нем единственною движущею, руководящею мыслями, чувствами и волею Павла силою или принципом. Но, конечно, Ап. еще живет в плоти, жизнь его и после обращения ко Христу не стала во всех отношениях жизнью Христовой, не уподобилась вполне жизни Христа. Однако, это не смущает Апостола. Все же он знает, что это - жизнь в вере во Христа как в Сына Божия, Который предал Себя, по любви к Павлу или к человеку вообще, на смерть. Отсюда следует, что в дальнейшем, благодаря помощи Христа, жизнь Апостола вполне уподобится жизни Христа, Который будет постоянно прибавлять ему силы для достижения возможного совершенства.
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:19: For I through the law am dead to the law - In consequence of properly considering the nature and requisitions of the law, I am dead to all hope and expectation of help or salvation from the law, and have been obliged to take refuge in the Gospel of Christ. Or, probably the word νομος, Law, is here put for a system of doctrine; as if he had said, I through the Gospel am dead to the law. The law itself is consigned to death, and another, the Gospel of Christ, is substituted in its stead. The law condemns to death, and I have embraced the Gospel that I might be saved from death, and live unto God.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:19: For I through the law - On this passage the commentators are by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase "am dead to the law," the Law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is, that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification. He acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him. A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In this sense Paul was dead to the Law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as a ground of justification. It ceased to be the grand aim and purpose of his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes than that, and truly lived to God; see the note at Rom 6:2. But on the meaning of the phrase "through the law" (διὰ νόμου dia nomou) there has been a great variety of opinion.
Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, and some others suppose that he means the Christian religion, and that the meaning is, "by one law, or doctrine, I am dead to another;" that is, the Christian doctrine has caused me to cast aside the Mosaic religion. Doddridge, Clarke, Chandler, and most others, however, suppose that he here refers to the Law of Moses, and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true character of the Law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and design; by understanding the extent of its requisitions, he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all expectations of being justified by it. This seems to me to be the correct interpretation. Paul had formerly expected to be justified by the Law. He had endeavored to obey it. It had been the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions in order to be saved by it; Phi 3:4-6. But all this while he had not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his hopes of justification by it died, and he became dead to it; see this sentiment more fully explained in the note at Rom 7:9.
That I might live unto God - That I might be truly alive, and might be found engaged in his service. He was dead to the Law, but not to every thing. He had not become literally inactive and insensible to all things, like a dead man, but he had become truly sensible to the commands and appeals of God, and had consecrated himself to his service; see the note at Rom 6:11.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:19: through: Gal 3:10, Gal 3:24; Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:20, Rom 7:7-11, Rom 7:14, Rom 7:22, Rom 7:23, Rom 8:2, Rom 10:4, Rom 10:5
dead: Rom 6:2, Rom 6:11, Rom 6:14, Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6, Rom 7:9; Col 2:20, Col 3:3; Pe1 2:24
that: Gal 2:20; Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8; Co1 10:31; Co2 5:15; Th1 5:10; Tit 2:14; Heb 9:14; Pe1 4:1, Pe1 4:2, Pe1 4:6
Geneva 1599
2:19 For I through the law am dead to the (t) law, that I might live unto God.
(t) The Law that terrifies the conscience brings us to Christ, and he alone causes us to indeed die to the Law, because by making us righteous, he takes away from us the terror of conscience. And by sanctifying us, he causes the mortifying of lust in us, so that it cannot take such occasion to sin by the restraint which the Law makes, as it did before; (Rom 7:10-11).
John Gill
2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law,.... The apostle further replies to the objection against the doctrine of justification, being a licentious one, from the end of his, and other believers, being dead to the law: he owns he was dead unto it, not in such sense as not to regard it as a rule of walk and conversation, but so as not to seek for life and righteousness by it, nor to fear its accusations, charges, menaces, curses, and condemnation: he was dead to the moral law as in the hands of Moses, but not as in the hands of Christ; and he was dead to it as a covenant of works, though not as a rule of action, and to the ceremonial law, even as to the observance of it, and much more as necessary to justification and salvation: and so he became "through the law"; that is, either through the law or doctrine of Christ; for the Hebrew word to which answers, signifies properly doctrine, and sometimes evangelical doctrine, the Gospel of Christ; see Is 2:3 and then the sense is, that the apostle by the doctrine of grace was taught not to seek for pardon, righteousness, acceptance, life, and salvation, by the works of the law, but in Christ; by the doctrine of the Gospel, which says, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved; he became dead to the law, which says, do this and live: or through the books of the law, and the prophets, the writings of the Old Testament, which are sometimes called the law, he learnt that righteousness and forgiveness of sins were only to be expected from Christ, and not the works of the law; things, though manifested without the law, yet are witnessed to by the law and prophets: or through the law of his mind, the principle of grace formed in his soul, he became dead to the power and influence of the law of works, he being no longer under the bondage of that, but under grace, as a governing principle in his soul: or the word law, here twice used, may signify one and the same law of works; and the meaning be, either that through Christ's fulfilling the law in his room and stead, assuming an holy human nature the law required, and yielding perfect obedience to it, and submitting to the penalty of it, he became dead to it; that is, through the body of Christ, see Rom 7:4 and through what he did and suffered in his body to fulfil it; or through the use, experience, and knowledge of the law, when being convinced of sin by it, and seeing the spirituality of it, all his hopes of life were struck dead, and he entirely despaired of ever being justified by it. Now the end of his being dead unto it, delivered from it, and being directed to Christ for righteousness, was, says he,
that I might live unto God; not in sin, in the violation of the law, in neglect and defiance of it, or to himself, or to the lusts of men, but to the will of God revealed in his word, and to his honour and glory; whence it most clearly follows, that though believers are dead to the law, and seek to be justified by Christ alone, yet they do not continue, nor do they desire to continue in sin, or indulge themselves in a vicious course of living, but look upon themselves as under the greater obligation to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.
John Wesley
2:19 For I through the law - Applied by the Spirit to my heart, and deeply convincing me of my utter sinfulness and helplessness. Am dead to the law - To all hope of justification from it. That I may live to God - Not continue in sin. For this very end am I, in this sense, freed from the law, that I may be freed from sin.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:19 Here Paul seems to pass from his exact words to Peter, to the general purport of his argument on the question. However, his direct address to the Galatians seems not to be resumed till Gal 3:1, "O foolish Galatians," &c.
For--But I am not a "transgressor" by forsaking the law. "For," &c. Proving his indignant denial of the consequence that "Christ is the minister of sin" (Gal 2:17), and of the premises from which it would follow. Christ, so far from being the minister of sin and death, is the establisher of righteousness and life. I am entirely in Him [BENGEL].
I--here emphatical. Paul himself, not Peter, as in the "I" (Gal 2:18).
through the law--which was my "schoolmaster to bring me to Christ" (Gal 3:24); both by its terrors (Gal 3:13; Rom 3:20) driving me to Christ, as the refuge from God's wrath against sin, and, when spiritually understood, teaching that itself is not permanent, but must give place to Christ, whom it prefigures as its scope and end (Rom 10:4); and drawing me to Him by its promises (in the prophecies which form part of the Old Testament law) of a better righteousness, and of God's law written in the heart (Deut 18:15-19; Jer 31:33; Acts 10:43).
am dead to the law--literally, "I died to the law," and so am dead to it, that is, am passed from under its power, in respect to non-justification or condemnation (Col 2:20; Rom 6:14; Rom 7:4, Rom 7:6); just as a woman, once married and bound to a husband, ceases to be so bound to him when death interposes, and may be lawfully married to another husband. So by believing union to Christ in His death, we, being considered dead with Him, are severed from the law's past power over us (compare Gal 6:14; 1Cor 7:39; Rom 6:6-11; 1Pet 2:24).
live unto God-- (Rom 6:11; 2Cor 5:15; 1Pet 4:1-2).
2:202:20: եւ կենդանի եմ այսուհետեւ, ոչ ես՝ այլ կենդանի է յիս Քրիստոս։ եզ Այլ որ այժմս կեամ մարմնով, հաւատո՛վք Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ կեամ, որ սիրեացն զիս, եւ մատնեաց զանձն վասն իմ[4208]։ [4208] Ոմանք. Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ կամ... զանձն իւր վասն մեր։
20 Քրիստոսի հետ խաչը ելայ. կենդանի եմ այսուհետեւ. բայց ոչ թէ ես, այլ իմ մէջ ապրում է Քրիստոս: Իսկ հիմա որ կենդանի եմ մարմնով, Աստծու Որդու հաւատո՛վ եմ ապրում, որ սիրեց ինձ եւ իրեն մահուան մատնեց ինձ համար:
20 Քրիստոսին հետ խաչը ելայ եւ ալ կենդանի եմ ո՛չ թէ ես, հապա Քրիստոս կենդանի է իմ մէջս. բայց ես որ հիմա մարմնովս կ’ապրիմ՝ Աստուծոյ Որդիին հաւատքովը կ’ապրիմ, որ զիս սիրեց ու իր անձը ինծի համար մատնեց։
[6]եւ ընդ Քրիստոսի ի խաչ [7]ելից. եւ կենդանի եմ այսուհետեւ, ոչ ես` այլ կենդանի է յիս Քրիստոս: Այլ որ այժմս կեամ մարմնով, հաւատովք Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ կեամ, որ սիրեացն զիս, եւ մատնեաց զանձն վասն իմ:

2:20: եւ կենդանի եմ այսուհետեւ, ոչ ես՝ այլ կենդանի է յիս Քրիստոս։ եզ Այլ որ այժմս կեամ մարմնով, հաւատո՛վք Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ կեամ, որ սիրեացն զիս, եւ մատնեաց զանձն վասն իմ[4208]։
[4208] Ոմանք. Որդւոյն Աստուծոյ կամ... զանձն իւր վասն մեր։
20 Քրիստոսի հետ խաչը ելայ. կենդանի եմ այսուհետեւ. բայց ոչ թէ ես, այլ իմ մէջ ապրում է Քրիստոս: Իսկ հիմա որ կենդանի եմ մարմնով, Աստծու Որդու հաւատո՛վ եմ ապրում, որ սիրեց ինձ եւ իրեն մահուան մատնեց ինձ համար:
20 Քրիստոսին հետ խաչը ելայ եւ ալ կենդանի եմ ո՛չ թէ ես, հապա Քրիստոս կենդանի է իմ մէջս. բայց ես որ հիմա մարմնովս կ’ապրիմ՝ Աստուծոյ Որդիին հաւատքովը կ’ապրիմ, որ զիս սիրեց ու իր անձը ինծի համար մատնեց։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:2020: и уже не я живу, но живет во мне Христос. А что ныне живу во плоти, то живу верою в Сына Божия, возлюбившего меня и предавшего Себя за меня.
2:20  ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.
2:20. Χριστῷ (unto-Anointed) συνεσταύρωμαι: (I-had-come-to-be-en-staked-together) ζῶ (I-life-unto) δὲ (moreover) οὐκέτι (not-if-to-a-one) ἐγώ, (I,"ζῇ (it-lifeth-unto) δὲ (moreover) ἐν (in) ἐμοὶ (unto-ME,"Χριστός: (Anointed) ὃ (to-which) δὲ (moreover) νῦν (now) ζῶ (I-life-unto) ἐν (in) σαρκί, (unto-a-flesh,"ἐν (in) πίστει (unto-a-trust) ζῶ (I-life-unto) τῇ (unto-the-one) τοῦ (of-the-one) υἱοῦ (of-a-Son) τοῦ (of-the-one) θεοῦ (of-a-Deity) τοῦ (of-the-one) ἀγαπήσαντός (of-having-excessed-off-unto) με (to-me) καὶ (and) παραδόντος (of-having-had-given) ἑαυτὸν (to-self) ὑπὲρ (over) ἐμοῦ. (of-ME)
2:20. vivo autem iam non ego vivit vero in me Christus quod autem nunc vivo in carne in fide vivo Filii Dei qui dilexit me et tradidit se ipsum pro meAnd I live, now not I: but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me.
20. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live; no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
2:20. I live; yet now, it is not I, but truly Christ, who lives in me. And though I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and who delivered himself for me.
2:20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me:

20: и уже не я живу, но живет во мне Христос. А что ныне живу во плоти, то живу верою в Сына Божия, возлюбившего меня и предавшего Себя за меня.
2:20  ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.
2:20. vivo autem iam non ego vivit vero in me Christus quod autem nunc vivo in carne in fide vivo Filii Dei qui dilexit me et tradidit se ipsum pro me
And I live, now not I: but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself for me.
2:20. I live; yet now, it is not I, but truly Christ, who lives in me. And though I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and who delivered himself for me.
2:20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ all ▾
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:20: I am crucified with Christ - The death of Christ on the cross has showed me that there is no hope of salvation by the law; I am therefore as truly dead to all expectation of justification by the law, as Christ was dead when he gave up the ghost upon the cross. Through him alone I live - enjoy a present life, and have a prospect of future glory.
Yet not I - It is not of my natural life I speak, nor of any spiritual things which I myself have procured; but Christ liveth in me. God made man to be a habitation of his own Spirit: the law cannot live in me so as to give me a Divine life; it does not animate, but kill; but Christ lives in me; he is the soul of my soul; so that I now live to God. But this life I have by the faith of the Son of God - by believing on Christ as a sacrifice for sin; for he loved me, and because he did so he gave himself for me - made himself a sacrifice unto death, that I might be saved from the bitter pains of death eternal.
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:20: I am crucified with Christ - In the pRev_ious verse, Paul had said that he was dead. In this verse he states what he meant by it, and shows that he did not wish to be understood as saying that he was inactive, or that he was literally insensible to the appeals made to him by other beings and objects. In respect to one thing he was dead; to all that was truly great and noble he was alive. To understand the remarkable phrase, "I am crucified with Christ," we may remark:
(1) That this was the way in which Christ was put to death. He suffered on a cross, and thus became literally dead.
(2) in a sense similar to this, Paul became dead to the Law, to the world, and to sin. The Redeemer by the death of the cross became insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are. He ceased to see, and hear, and was as though they were not. He was laid in the cold grave, and they did not affect or influence him. So Paul says that he became insensible to the Law as a means of justification; to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and pomp of life, and to the dominion of evil and hateful passions. They lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.
(3) this was with Christ, or by Christ. It cannot mean literally that he was put to death with him, for that is not true. But it means that the effect of the death of Christ on the cross was to make him dead to these things, in like manner as he, when he died, became insensible to the things of this busy world. This may include the following things:
(a) There was an intimate union between Christ and his people, so that what affected him, affected them; see Joh 15:5-6.
(b) The death of the Redeemer on the cross involved as a consequence the death of his people to the world and to sin; see Gal 5:24; Gal 6:14. It was like a blow at the root of a vine or a tree, which would affect every branch and tendril or like a blow at the head which affects every member of the body.
(c) Paul felt identified with the Lord Jesus; and he was willing to share in all the ignominy and contempt which was connected with the idea of the crucifixion. He was willing to regard himself as one with the Redeemer. If there was disgrace attached to the manner in which he died, he was willing to share it with him. He regarded it as a matter to be greatly desired to be made just like Christ in all things, and even in the manner of his death. This idea he has more fully expressed in Phi 3:10, "That I may know him, (that is, I desire earnestly to know him,) and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;" see also Col 1:24; compare Pe1 4:13.
Nevertheless I live - This expression is added, as in Gal 2:19, to pRev_ent the possibility of mistake. Paul, though he was crucified with Christ, did not wish to be understood that he felt himself to be dead. He was not inactive; not insensible, as the dead are, to the appeals which are made from God, or to the great objects which ought to interest an immortal mind. He was still actively employed, and the more so from the fact that he was crucified with Christ. The object of all such expressions as this is, to show that it was no design of the gospel to make people inactive, or to annihilate their energies. It was not to cause people to do nothing. It was not to paralyze their powers, or stifle their own efforts. Paul, therefore, says, "I am not dead. I am truly alive; and I live a better life than I did before." Paul was as active after conversion as he was before. Before, he was engaged in persecution; now, he devoted his great talents with as much energy, and with as untiring zeal, to the cause of the great Redeemer. Indeed, the whole narrative would lead us to suppose that he was more active and zealous after his conversion than he was before. The effect of religion is not to make one dead in regard to the putting forth of the energies of the soul. True religion never made one lazy man; it has converted many a man of indolence, and effeminacy and self-indulgence to a man actively engaged in doing good. If a professor of religion is less active in the service at God than he was in the service of the world; less laborious, and zealous. and ardent than he was before his supposed conversion, he ought to set it down as full proof that he is an utter stranger to true religion.
Yet not I - This is also designed to pRev_ent misapprehension. In the pRev_ious clause he had said that he lived, or was actively engaged. But lest this should he misunderstood, and it should be inferred that he meant to say it was by his own energy or powers, he guards it, and says it was not at all from himself. It was by no native tendency; no power of his own; nothing that could be traced to himself. He assumed no credit for any zeal which he had shown in the true life. He was disposed to trace it all to another. He had ample proof in his past experience that there was no tendency in himself to a life of true religion, and he therefore traced it all to another.
Christ liveth in me - Christ was the source of all the life that he had. Of course this cannot be taken literally that Christ had a residence in the apostle, but it must mean that his grace resided in him; that his principles actuated him: and that he derived all his energy, and zeal, and life from his grace. The union between the Lord Jesus and the disciple was so close that it might be said the one lived in the other. So the juices of the vine are in each branch, and leaf, and tendril, and live in them and animate them; the vital energy of the brain is in each delicate nerve - no matter how small - that is found in any part of the human frame. Christ was in him as it were the vital principle. All his life and energy were derived from him.
And the life which I now live in the flesh - As I now live on the earth surrounded by the cares and anxieties of this life. I carry the life-giving principles of my religion to all my duties and all my trials.
I live by the faith of the Son of God - By confidence in the Son of God, looking to him for strength, and trusting in his promises, and in his grace. Who loved me, etc. He felt under the highest obligation to him from the fact that he had loved him, and given himself to the death of the cross in his behalf. The conviction of obligation on this account Paul often expresses; see the Rom 6:8-11; 8:35-39 notes; Co2 5:15 note. There is no higher sense of obligation than that which is felt toward the Saviour; and Paul felt himself bound, as we should, to live entirely to him who had redeemed him by his blood.
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:20: crucified: Gal 5:24, Gal 6:14; Rom 6:4-6, Rom 8:3, Rom 8:4; Col 2:11-14
nevertheless: Rom 6:8, Rom 6:13, Rom 8:2; Eph 2:4, Eph 2:5; Col 2:13, Col 3:3, Col 3:4
but: Joh 14:19, Joh 14:20, Joh 17:21; Co2 4:10, Co2 4:11, Co2 13:3, Co2 13:5; Eph 3:17; Col 1:27; Th1 5:10; Pe1 4:2; Rev 3:20
the life: Co2 4:11, Co2 10:3; Pe1 4:1, Pe1 4:2
I now: Gal 2:16, Gal 3:11; Joh 6:57; Rom 1:17, Rom 5:2; Co2 1:24, Co2 5:7, Co2 5:15; Phi 4:13; Th1 5:10; Pe1 1:8, Pe1 4:2
the Son: Joh 1:49, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:35, Joh 6:69, Joh 9:35-38; Act 8:37, Act 9:20; Th1 1:10; Jo1 1:7; Jo1 4:9, Jo1 4:10, Jo1 4:14, Jo1 5:10-13, Jo1 5:20
who: Gal 1:4; Mat 20:28; Joh 10:11, Joh 15:13; Rom 8:37; Eph 5:2, Eph 5:25; Tit 2:14; Rev 1:5
Geneva 1599
2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not (u) I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the (x) flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
(u) The same that I was before.
(x) In this mortal body.
John Gill
2:20 I am crucified with Christ,.... Not literally, for so only the two thieves were crucified with him, but mystically; Christ was crucified for him in his room and stead, and so he was crucified with him, and in him, as his head and representative. Christ sustained the persons of all his people, and what he did and suffered was in their name, and on their account, and so they were crucified and suffered with him, as they are said to be buried with him, and to be risen with him, and to sit together in heavenly places in him. Moreover, their old man was crucified with him; when he was crucified, all their sins, the whole body of them, were laid upon him, and he bore them, and bore them away, destroyed and made an end of them; they received their mortal wound by his crucifixion and death, so as never to be able to have any damning power over them; and in consequence of this the affections and lusts are crucified, and the deeds of the body of sin mortified by the Spirit and grace of God, in regeneration and sanctification, so as not to have the dominion over them; the world is crucified to them, and they to the world; and this is another reason proving that justification by Christ is no licentious doctrine. This clause is, in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, put at the end of the preceding verse.
Nevertheless I live; which is to be understood, not of his natural, but of his spiritual life; the life of justification he lived, by faith, on the righteousness of Christ; and the life of sanctification which he had from Christ, by the quickening influences of his Spirit, by virtue of which he walked in newness of life. The believer is a mere paradox, he is dead to the law, and "yet lives" to God; he is crucified with Christ, and yet lives by him; yea, a crucified Christ lives in him.
Yet not I; not the same I as before, but quite another man, a new creature: he did not now live as in his state of unregeneracy, and whilst in Judaism; he was not now Saul the blasphemer, the persecutor, and injurious person; nor did he now live Saul the Pharisee: or the life he had was not of his own obtaining and procuring; his life of righteousness was not of himself, but Christ; his being quickened, or having principles of life and holiness implanted in him, was not by himself, but by the Spirit; and the holy life and conversation he lived was not owing to himself, to his power and strength, but to the grace of God; or it was not properly himself, or so much he that lived,
but Christ liveth in me: who was not only the author and maintainer of his spiritual life, but the life itself; he was formed in his soul, dwelt in his heart, was united to him, was one with him, whence all vital principles and vital actions sprung, and all the communion and comforts of a spiritual life flowed.
And the life which I now live in the flesh; in the body, whilst in this mortal state, whereby he distinguishes that spiritual life he had from Christ, and through Christ's living in him, both from the natural life of his body, and from that eternal life he expected to live in another world; and which, he says,
I live by the faith of the Son of God; meaning, not that faith which Christ, as man, had, but that of which he is the author and object, by which the just man lives; not upon it, for the believer does not live upon any of his graces, no, not upon faith, but by faith on Christ, the object; looking to him for pardon, righteousness, peace, joy, comfort, every supply of grace, and eternal salvation: which object is described as "the Son of God"; who is truly God, equal with his Father; so that he did not live upon a creature, or forsake the fountain of living waters, but upon the only begotten Son of God, who is full of grace and truth: of whom he further says,
who loved me; before the foundation of the world, from everlasting, prior to his love to him; and freely, without any regard to worth or merit, and though he was a blasphemer and a persecutor; and him personally, and particularly, in a distinguishing manner, of which he had a special knowledge and application by the Spirit of God; and was a reason and argument constraining him, and prevailing on him to live to him who loved him, and died for him, or, as he adds,
and gave himself for me; his whole self, his soul and body, as in union with his divine person, into the hands of justice, and unto death, in his room and stead, as an offering and sacrifice for sin, and which he did freely and voluntarily; and is a strong and full proof of his love to him. Now though Christ gave his life a ransom for many, and himself for his whole church, and all the members of his mystical body, yet the apostle speaks of this matter as singularly respecting himself, as if almost he was the only person Christ loved and died for; which shows that faith deals with Christ not in a general way, as the Saviour of the world, but with a special regard to a man's self: this is the life of faith; and these considerations of the person, love, and grace of Christ, animate and encourage faith in its exercises on him.
John Wesley
2:20 The Apostle goes on to describe how he is freed from sin; how far he is from continuing therein. I am crucified with Christ - Made conformable to his death; "the body of sin is destroyed." Rom 6:6. And I - As to my corrupt nature. Live no longer - Being dead to sin. But Christ liveth in me - Is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow. And the life that I now live in the flesh - Even in this mortal body, I live by faith in the Son of God - I derive every moment from that supernatural principle; from a divine evidence and conviction, that "he loved me, and delivered up himself for me."
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:20 I am crucified--literally, "I have been crucified with Christ." This more particularizes the foregoing. "I am dead" (Gal 2:19; Phil 3:10).
nevertheless I live; yet not I--Greek, "nevertheless I live, no longer (indeed) I." Though crucified I live; (and this) no longer that old man such as I once was (compare Rom 7:17). No longer Saul the Jew (Gal 5:24; Col 3:11, but "another man"; compare 1Kings 10:6). ELLICOTT and others translate, "And it is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me." But the plain antithesis between "crucified" and "live," requires the translation, "nevertheless."
the life which I now live--as contrasted with my life before conversion.
in the flesh--My life seems to be a mere animal life "in the flesh," but this is not my true life; "it is but the mask of life under which lives another, namely, Christ, who is my true life" [LUTHER].
I live by the faith, &c.--Greek, "IN faith (namely), that of (that is, which rests on) the Son of God." "In faith," answers by contrast to "in the flesh." Faith, not the flesh, is the real element in which I live. The phrase, "the Son of God," reminds us that His Divine Sonship is the source of His life-giving power.
loved me--His eternal gratuitous love is the link that unites me to the Son of God, and His "giving Himself for me," is the strongest proof of that love.
2:212:21: Եւ ես ո՛չ անարգեմ զշնորհսն Աստուծոյ. զի եթէ յօրինաց անտի՛ էր արդարութիւն, ապա Քրիստոս զո՛ւր մեռաւ[4209]։[4209] Ոմանք. Անտի է արդարութիւն։
21 Եւ ես Աստծու շնորհը չեմ անարգում, քանի որ, եթէ արդարութիւնը օրէնքից է, ապա Քրիստոս ի զուր մեռաւ:
21 Ես Աստուծոյ շնորհքը չեմ խափաներ. վասն զի եթէ արդարութիւնը օրէնքէն էր, ուրեմն Քրիստոս պարապ տեղ մեռաւ։
Եւ ես ոչ անարգեմ զշնորհսն Աստուծոյ. զի եթէ յօրինաց անտի էր արդարութիւն, ապա Քրիստոս զուր մեռաւ:

2:21: Եւ ես ո՛չ անարգեմ զշնորհսն Աստուծոյ. զի եթէ յօրինաց անտի՛ էր արդարութիւն, ապա Քրիստոս զո՛ւր մեռաւ[4209]։
[4209] Ոմանք. Անտի է արդարութիւն։
21 Եւ ես Աստծու շնորհը չեմ անարգում, քանի որ, եթէ արդարութիւնը օրէնքից է, ապա Քրիստոս ի զուր մեռաւ:
21 Ես Աստուծոյ շնորհքը չեմ խափաներ. վասն զի եթէ արդարութիւնը օրէնքէն էր, ուրեմն Քրիստոս պարապ տեղ մեռաւ։
zohrab-1805▾ eastern-1994▾ western am▾
2:2121: Не отвергаю благодати Божией; а если законом оправдание, то Христос напрасно умер.
2:21  οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.
2:21. Οὐκ (Not) ἀθετῶ (I-un-place-unto) τὴν (to-the-one) χάριν (to-a-granting) τοῦ (of-the-one) θεοῦ: (of-a-Deity) εἰ (if) γὰρ (therefore) διὰ (through) νόμου (of-a-parcelee) δικαιοσύνη, (a-course-belongedness,"ἄρα (thus) Χριστὸς (Anointed) δωρεὰν (to-a-gift) ἀπέθανεν. (it-had-died-off)
2:21. non abicio gratiam Dei si enim per legem iustitia ergo Christus gratis mortuus estI cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.
21. I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought.
2:21. I do not reject the grace of God. For if justice is through the law, then Christ died in vain.
2:21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain:

21: Не отвергаю благодати Божией; а если законом оправдание, то Христос напрасно умер.
2:21  οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.
2:21. non abicio gratiam Dei si enim per legem iustitia ergo Christus gratis mortuus est
I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain.
2:21. I do not reject the grace of God. For if justice is through the law, then Christ died in vain.
2:21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
ru▾ el▾ el-en-gloss▾ vulgate▾ erva_1895▾ catholic_pdv▾ kjv_1900▾
jfb▾ jw▾ jg▾ gnv▾ tr▾ ab▾ ac▾ tb▾ all ▾
А. П. Лопухин: Tолковая Библия или комментарий на все книги Св.Писания Ветхого и Нового Заветов - 1903-1914
21. Да, Апостол не отвергает благодати Божией, явленной во Христе, - он хочет ее использовать до конца для собственного усовершенствования. Он не хочет подражать тем, которые, как бы считая эту благодать недостаточной, обращаются снова к исполнению дел закона. Ведь если искать еще способов оправдания в законе, то это значит допускать мысль, что Христос пострадал и умер напрасно, что Он не может доставить оправдания... Вот к какому нелепому заключению приводят рассуждения тех, которые считают необходимым соблюдение требований закона Моисеева и в христианстве. - Ап. Павел не говорит, какие последствия имело это его выступление против Петра. Но из того, что он не приводит ни одного возражения Петра, можно заключать, что Петр вполне сознал нетактичность своего поступка. Не имеет ни малейшего основания предположение рационалистов, будто бы это столкновение послужило поводом к разъединению между Петром и Павлом. Уже то, что Петр был на стороне Ап. Павла на Апостольском соборе (ст. 9), говорит против такого предположения, а затем против этого свидетельствует и отзыв Петра о Павле во 2-м посл. Петра (III:15).
Adam Clarke: Commentary on the Bible - 1831
2:21: I do not frustrate - Ουκ αθετω· I do not contemn, despise, or render useless, the grace of God - the doctrine of Christ crucified; which I must do if I preach the necessity of observing the law.
For if righteousness - If justification and salvation come by an observance of the law, then Christ is dead in vain; his death is useless if an observance of the law can save us; but no observance of the law can save us, and therefore there was an absolute necessity for the death of Christ.
1. The account of the prevarication of Peter in the preceding chapter teaches us a most useful lesson. Let him who assuredly standeth take heed lest he fall. No person in a state of probation is infallible; a man may fall into sin every moment; and he will, if he do not walk with God. Worldly prudence and fleshly wisdom would have concealed this account of the prevarication of Peter; but God tells truth. This the fountain of it; and from him we are to expect not only nothing but the truth, but also the whole truth. If the Gospel were not of God we had never heard of the denial and prevarication of Peter, nor of the contention between Paul and Barnabas. And these accounts are recorded, not that men may justify or excuse their own delinquencies by them, but that they may avoid them; for he must be inexcusable who, with these histories before his eyes, ever denies his Master, or acts the part of a hypocrite. Had the apostles acted in concert to impose a forgery on the world as a Divine revelation, the imposture would have now come out. The falling out of the parties would have led to a discovery of the cheat. This relation, therefore, is an additional evidence of the truth of the Gospel.
2. On, I through the law am dead to the law, etc., pious Quesnel makes the following useful reflections:
"The ceremonial law, which is no more than a type and shadow of him, destroys itself by showing us Jesus Christ, who is the truth and the substance. The moral law, by leaving us under our own inability under sin and the curse, makes us perceive the necessity of the law of the heart, and of a Savior to give it. The law is for the old man, as to its terrible and servile part; and it was crucified and died with Christ upon the cross as well as the old man. The new man, and the new law, require a new sacrifice. What need has he of other sacrifices who has Jesus Christ? They in whom this sacrifice lives, do themselves live to God alone; but none can live to him except by faith; and this life of faith consists in dying with Christ to the things of the present world, and in expecting, as co-heirs with him, the blessings of the eternal world. And who can work all this in us but only he who lives in us? That man has arrived to a high degree of mortification, who can say Christ liveth in me, and I am crucified to the world. Such a one must have renounced not only earthly things, but his own self also."
3. Is there, or can there be, any well grounded hope of eternal life but what comes through the Gospel? In vain has the ingenuity of man tortured itself for more than 5000 years, to find out some method of mending the human heart: none has been discovered that even promised any thing likely to be effectual. The Gospel of Christ not only mends but completely cures and new makes infected nature. Who is duly apprised of the infinite excellency and importance of the Gospel? What was the world before its appearance? What would it be were this light extinguished? Blessed Lord! let neither infidelity nor false doctrine rise up to obscure this heavenly splendor!
Albert Barnes: Notes on the Bible - 1834
2:21: I do not frustrate the grace of God - The word rendered "frustrate" (ἀθετῶ athetō) means properly to displace, abrogate, abolish; then to make void, to render null; Mar 7:9; Luk 7:30; Co1 1:19. The phrase "the grace of God," here refers to the favor of God manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another name for the gospel. The sense is, that Paul would not take any measures or pursue any course that would render that vain or inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything to render that inefficacious. The design is to show that he regarded it as a great principle that the gospel was efficacious in renewing and saving man, and he would do nothing that would tend to pRev_ent that impression on mankind. A life of sin, of open depravity and licentiousness, would do that. And in like manner a conformity to the rites of Moses as a ground of justification would tend to frustrate the grace of God, or to render the method of salvation solely by the Redeemer nugatory. This is to be regarded, therefore as at the same time a reproof of Peter for complying with customs which tended to frustrate the plan of the gospel, and a declaration that he intended that his own course of life should be such as to confirm the plan, and show its efficacy in pardoning the sinner and rendering him alive in the service of God.
For if righteousness come by the law - If justification can be secured by the observance of any law - ceremonial or moral - then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement. This is plain. If man by conformity to any law could be justified before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would then have been wholly in his own power, and the merit would have been his. It follows from this, that man cannot be justified by his own morality, or his alms-deeds, or his forms of religion, or his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no Saviour; he can save himself. It follows also that when people depend on their own amiableness, and morality, and good works, they would feel no need of a Saviour; and this is the true reason why the mass of people reject the Lord Jesus. They suppose they do not deserve to be sent to hell. They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own integrity, and feel that God ought to save them. Hence, they feel no need of a Saviour; for why should a person in health employ a physician? And confiding in their own righteousness, they reject the grace of God, and despise the plan of justification through the Redeemer. To feel the need of a Saviour it is necessary to feel that we are lost and ruined sinners; that we have no merit upon which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the mercy of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the salvation of the gospel with thankfulness and joy, and show that in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain."
R. A. Torrey - Treasury: Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge - 1880
2:21: do not: Gal 2:18; Psa 33:10; Mar 7:9 *marg. Rom 8:31
righteousness: Gal 2:16, Gal 3:21, Gal 5:2-4; Rom 10:3, Rom 11:6; Heb 7:11
Christ: Isa 49:4; Jer 8:8; Co1 15:2, Co1 15:14, Co1 15:17
Geneva 1599
2:21 (5) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead (e) in vain.
(5) The second argument taken from an absurdity: if men may be justified by the Law, then it was not necessary for Christ to die.
(e) For there was no reason why he should do so.
John Gill
2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God,.... Or "cast it away", as the Vulgate Latin version reads it; or "deny it", as the Syriac and Arabic; or "despise, reject, and make it void", as other versions; meaning either the grace of the Son of God in giving himself for him, just mentioned by him; or the particular doctrine of grace, justification, he is speaking of, as proceeding from the grace of God, upon the foot of the righteousness of Christ; or the whole Gospel, all and each of which would be denied, despised, rejected, made null and void, be in vain, fallen and departed from, should justification be sought for by the works of the law: but this the apostle did not do, and therefore did not frustrate the grace of God: which to do would be to act the most ungenerous and ungrateful part to God, and Christ, and to that love and grace which are so largely displayed in the free justification of a sinner.
For if righteousness come by the law; if a justifying righteousness is to be attained unto by the works of the law, or men can be justified by their obedience to it,
then Christ is dead in vain; there was no necessity for his dying: he died without any true reason, or just cause; he died to bring in a righteousness which might have been brought in without his death, and so his blood and life might have been spared, his sufferings and death being entirely unnecessary; which to say is to cast contempt upon the wisdom, love, and grace of God in this matter, and to offer the greatest indignity to the person, character, sufferings, and death of Christ. Wherefore it may be strongly concluded, that there is no righteousness by the law of works, nor to be attained that way, otherwise Christ had never died; and that justification is solely and alone by his righteousness.
John Wesley
2:21 Meantime I do not make void - In seeking to be justified by my own works. The grace of God - The free love of God in Christ Jesus. But they do, who seek justification by the law. For if righteousness is by the law - If men might be justified by their obedience to the law, moral or ceremonial. Then Christ died in vain - Without any necessity for it, since men might have been saved without his death; might by their own obedience have been both discharged from condemnation, and entitled to eternal life.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God--I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by Judaizing.
for--justifying the strong expression "frustrate," or "make void."
is dead in vain--Greek, "Christ died needlessly," or "without just cause." Christ's having died, shows that the law has no power to justify us; for if the law can justify or make us righteous, the death of Christ is superfluous [CHRYSOSTOM].