13<\/strong>. dissembled likewise with him<\/em> ] Lit. practised like hypocrisy. They believed and professed that they might eat with the Gentiles, they acted<\/em> as if it were unlawful to do so.<\/p>\n Barnabas also<\/em> ] or, ‘even Barnabas’, who as Paul’s companion was familiar with his clear and unreserved teaching on the great doctrine of justification by faith even he was swept away with the rising tide of dissimulation. This may have been the commencement of the dissension which took place so soon after between Paul and Barnabas, resulting in their separation (Act 15:39<\/span>).<\/p>\n And the other Jews – <\/B>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.<\/P> Dissembled likewise with him – <\/B>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.<\/P> Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away … – <\/B>Concerning Barnabas, see the note at Act 4:36<\/span>. 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.<\/P> <\/p>\n Gal 2:13<\/span><\/p>\n And the other Jews dissembled.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Barnabas was carried away<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not difficult to trace here the characteristic temperament of Barnabas on its weak side. He was just that kind of disposition which makes it easy to become a partisan, to flow on with the general current, to take the complexion of surrounding opinion, and to sanction by acquiescence many things which ought to be resisted. It is not pleasant for a warm-hearted and generous man to tell his neighbours that they are all wrong. Where there is ready facility for giving and receiving confidence, and for securing co-operation, there must also be the danger of easy yielding, in order to please. But we may carry this trustful and inquiring acquiescence so far that it becomes unfaithfulness; and then harm results instead of good. The desire to make everything smooth with everybody is to be most resolutely resisted. If our end is to save souls we shall often find resistance a duty; and certainly the tolerating of erroneous human admixtures with revealed truth is not the way to save souls. (Dean<\/em> Howson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The influence of pernicious example<\/strong><\/p>\n As it sometimes happens on the snow slopes of the Alps that one mans slip will involve the overthrow and destruction of all his fellow-travellers, so it is in the spiritual life. Peter drags Barnabas and the rest of the Jews with him; and in our own day men too often exercise the same fatal spell on those within the region of their influence. (S. Pearson,<\/em> M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Dissimulation<\/strong><\/p>\n This is hypocrisy–not simply for a man to deceive others, knowing all the while that he is<\/em> deceiving them, but to deceive himself and others at the same time; to aim at their praise by a religious profession, without perceiving that he loves their praise more than the praise of God. (J. H. Newman,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The hypocrite sets his watch not by the sun, i.e.,<\/em> the Bible, but by the town clock; what most do he will do. (Gurnall.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Influence of unfaithful leaders<\/strong><\/p>\n When a number of ships are moored, or anchored, or buoyed in the river, all have an interest in the safety of each. If some of those that lie farther seaward break off from their moorings, and drift up with wind and tide, they <\/strong>will run foul of us as we lie secure in the channel farther up. The drifting ships may sink, but they will drag others down. (D. Guthrie.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Dissimulation is<\/strong><\/p>\n Verse 13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise<\/B><\/I>] That is: Those who were converted to Christianity from among the Jews<\/I>, and who had also been convinced that the obligation of the Jewish ritual had ceased, seeing Peter act this part, and also fearing<\/I> them that were of the circumcision<\/I>, they separated themselves from the converted Gentiles, and acted so as to convince the Jews that they<\/I> 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<\/I>, , with their hypocrisy<\/I>-feigning to be what they really were not.<\/P><\/p>\n The fact was the worse, because those Christians which were of the church of Antioch, having been native Jews, followed his example, and made a separate party with him. Nay, <\/P> Barnabas, <\/B>my fellow labourer, who was joined with me in bringing the decrees of the council in the case, <\/P> was carried away with their dissimulation.<\/B> So dangerous and exemplary are the warpings and miscarriages of those that are eminent teachers. <\/P> <\/p>\n 13. the other<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“the rest.” <\/P> Jews<\/B>Jewish Christians.<\/P> dissembled likewise<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“joined in hypocrisy,” namely, in living as though the lawwere necessary to justification, through fear of man, though theyknew from God their Christian liberty of eating with Gentiles, andhad availed themselves of it already (Ac11:2-17<\/span>). The case was distinct from that in 1Co 8:1-10<\/span>;Rom 14:1-23<\/span>. It was not aquestion of liberty, and of bearing with others’ infirmities, but oneaffecting the essence of the Gospel, whether the Gentiles are to bevirtually “compelled to live as do the Jews,” in order tobe justified (Ga 2:14<\/span>). <\/P> Barnabas also<\/B>“EvenBarnabas”: one least likely to be led into such an error, beingwith Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles: showing thepower of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of GentileChristianity and the central point of Christian missions, thecontroversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke outafresh; and here Paul had first to encounter the party thatafterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labors (Ac15:30-35<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him<\/strong>,…. 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<\/p>\n Ac 15:35<\/span> 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:<\/p>\n insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation<\/strong>; 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.<\/p>\n Dissembled likewise with him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist passive indicative of the double compound verb <\/SPAN><\/span>, a late word often in Polybius, only here in N.T. One example in Polybius means to pretend to act a part with. That idea here would help the case of the rest of the Jews, but does not accord with Paul’s presentation.<\/P> Insomuch that even Barnabas <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Actual result expressed by <\/SPAN><\/span> and the indicative and <\/SPAN><\/span> clearly means “even.”<\/P> Was carried away with their dissimulation <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist passive indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb, in N.T. only here and 2Pe 3:17<\/span>. H<\/SPAN><\/span> is in the instrumental case and can only mean hypocrisy in the bad sense (Mt 23:28<\/span>), not merely acting a part. It was a solemn moment when Paul saw the Jerusalem victory vanish and even Barnabas desert him as they followed the timid cowardice of Peter. It was Paulus contra mundum<\/I> in the cause of spiritual freedom in Christ. <\/P> <\/p>\n Dissembled with him [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. N. T. o. Peter’s course influenced the other Jewish Christians as Antioch, who had previously followed his example in eating with Gentiles. <\/P> Was carried away [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit. was carried away with them (sun). In Paul only here and Rom 12:16<\/span>, on which see note. In LXX once, Exo 14:6<\/span>. <\/P> With their dissimulation [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Not to or over to their dissimulation. Paul uses a strong word, which is employed only in 1Ti 4:2<\/span>. The kindred verb uJpokrinesqai to play a part, and the noun uJpokrithv hypocrisy do not occur in his letters. Their act was hypocrisy, because it was a concealment of their own more liberal conviction, and an open profession of still adhering to the narrow Pharisaic view. It was “a practical denial of their better spiritual insight” (Wieseler).<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And the other Jews,”<\/strong> (kai) hois loipoi loudaioi)<\/p>\n also the other Jews,” the Jewish members of the Antioch church.<\/p>\n 2) “Dissembled likewise with him,”<\/strong> (kai sunepekrithesan auto) “even dissembled in close colleague with him,” Not only did these purported “certain ones” from James and Jerusalem mislead Peter and other Jews of the Antioch church but Barnabas was also seriously turned to their compromising apostasy.<\/p>\n 3) “Insomuch that Barnabas also,”<\/strong> (hoste kai Barnabas) “So much as or to the extent that even Barnabas,” Paul’s missionary companion in travel to the Gentile nations, on his first journey, turned back to a mixed-gospel, a perversion of truth concerning salvation and the Divine order of Worship, Act 15:37-39<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Was carried away with their dissimulation,” <\/strong>(sunapechthe auton te hupokrise) “Was led away of them in the dissembling.” This wavering instability of Barnabas, in joining in consorting with the Salvation by Works and by Law Jewish philosophy, led Paul to reject him as a missionary companion on his later missionary journeys. An unstable, compromising person can not be trusted by the Lord or by men in times of crisis, Jas 1:8<\/span>, Pro 3:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n (13) The other Jews . . .<\/strong>i.e.<\/em> converts from Judaism, as distinct from Gentile converts, in the Church at Antioch.<\/p>\n Dissembled.<\/strong>The dissimulation, or hypocrisy (the literal sense of the Greek word), consisted in suppressing their real convictions, and acting as if from a set of convictions different from their real ones.<\/p>\n Barnabas also.<\/strong>Rather, even Barnabas,<\/em> my own familiar friend, and so recently my ally in pleading the cause of the Gentiles. The beginning of the breach which soon afterwards led to the definite separation of the two Apostles would seem to be traceable here.<\/p>\n 13<\/strong>. <\/strong> Other Jews<\/strong> All the converted Jews at Antioch. The whole Judaic Church! <\/p>\n Barnabas also was carried away<\/strong> The apostle’s fellow-leader in building up this fortress of freedom! Young Paul alone is left, of all the Jews, to champion Gentile rights. It was the very Thermopylae of the contest. <\/p>\n Dissimulation<\/strong> In acting from fear contrary to their own sense of duty; perhaps even trying to conceal their previous freedom with Gentiles.<\/p>\n Gal 2:13<\/span> . And the rest of the Jewish Christians also played the hypocrite jointly with him<\/em> those, namely, living in Antioch, who previously, in harmony with the liberal standpoint which they had already attained to, had held fellowship at meals with the Gentile Christians of the place, but now, misled by the influential example of Peter, had likewise drawn back. This was hypocrisy<\/em> on their part and on Peter’s, because, although at the bottom of their hearts convinced of Christian freedom, they, from fear of men (Gal 2:12<\/span> ), concealed the more liberal conviction of which they were conscious, and behaved just as if they entertained the opposite view. It is true that the apostolic council had not decided anything as to the conduct of the Jewish Christians among Gentile Christians; but the immorality consisted in the inwardly untrue duplicity<\/em> of their behaviour, which was more than a mere inconsistency<\/em> (Baur) of reformed Judaism, conceived<\/em> by Paul as being hypocrisy (Hilgenfeld). The view of Holsten, z. Ev. des Paul. u. Petr<\/em> . p. 357 ff., is similar.<\/p>\n On ., comp. Polyb. iii. 92. 5, v. 49. 7; Plut. Mar 14:17<\/span> ; Joseph. Bell<\/em> . xv. 7. 5.<\/p>\n .] even Barnabas<\/em> , who was my associate withal in the apostleship to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9<\/span> ), and should consequently least of all have ventured insincerely to deny the principle of Christian freedom, to the disparagement of the Gentile Christians! So injurious was the effect of Peter’s example!<\/p>\n ] was jointly led away<\/em> (led astray), namely, from his own standpoint. Comp. 2Pe 3:17<\/span> (Rom 12:16<\/span> , and Wetstein in loc<\/em> .). with a finite verb<\/em> , in the secondary sentence (comp. Joh 3:16<\/span> ), denotes the consequence simply as a fact which has occurred. See Tittmann, Synon<\/em> . II. p. 70; Ellendt, Lex. Soph<\/em> . II. p. 1012 f.; Klotz, ad Devar<\/em> . p. 772. The infinitive<\/em> would make the representation subjective (the seduction being conceived as a necessary result).<\/p>\n ] that is, . It is emphatically prefixed. The dative is instrumental: by<\/em> their hypocrisy, not to<\/em> their hypocrisy (Luther and others). No one can, without wronging Paul in respect to the choice of his strongly inculpating expression, [88] either call in question<\/em> the fact that the conduct of Peter<\/em> is here expressly designated as hypocrisy<\/em> (Schwegler, I. p. 129), or reduce it to a mere supposition;<\/em> although Ritschl, p. 145, is of opinion that the reproach thus used does not quite evince a clear and thorough conviction of the rightness of the non-Jewish practice. The purposely chosen expression in our passage shows, on the contrary, that Peter’s conviction, which was well known to Paul<\/em> , agreed with the conviction of Paul himself, although it was hypocritically denied<\/em> by the former. Peter’s , according to the text, consisted in the , to which he had drawn back after his intercourse with the Gentile Christians, not in his previous fellowship with them, which is alleged to have been “a momentary unfaithfulness to his real conviction” (Baur, in the theol. Jahrb<\/em> . 1849, p. 476; Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). And the censure which Paul certainly unwillingly, and with a complete realizing and appreciating of the moral situation to which it has reference has directed against Peter expressly on the ground of hypocrisy<\/em> , [89] exhibits plainly the agreement in principle of the personal convictions of the two apostles (comp. Wiesinger, de consensu, locor. Gal<\/em> . ii. et Act<\/em> . xv. p. 36; Lechler, p. 426).<\/p>\n [88] This expression is all the more strictly to be understood as it stands, since Paul has not anywhere else in his epistles or speeches used either the word , or , or (with the exception of 1Ti 4:2<\/span> ) . He would be the less likely to have omitted to weigh the gravity of the reproach conveyed in this very word otherwise strange to him, especially seeing that it was used after so long<\/em> a time and was directed against Peter<\/em> . This remark also applies in opposition to Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit<\/em> . 1855, p. 554 f., and to Mller on de Wette.<\/p>\n [89] Not merely (comp. de Wette) on account of an easily excusable want of firmness and clearness in conviction (Bisping), or of a momentary throwing of the same into the background under pressure of circumstances<\/em> (Reithmayr). Even Erasmus exerts himself to come at length to the result, that “Pauli objurgatio nihil aliud fuit quam confirmatio parum adhuc sibi constantium<\/em> .”<\/p>\n 13<\/strong> . <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] were guilty of like hypocrisy<\/strong> . The word is not (as De W.) too strong a one to describe their conduct. They were aware of the liberty in Christ which allowed them to eat with Gentiles, and had practised it: and now, being still aware of it, and not convinced<\/em> to the contrary, from mere fear of man they adopted a contrary course. The case bore but very little likeness to that discussed in 1 Corinthians 8-10; Rom 14<\/span> . There, it was a mere matter of licence<\/em> which was in question: here, the very foundation itself. It was not now a question of using a liberty, but of asserting a truth, that of justification by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.<\/p>\n <\/strong> <\/strong> <\/strong> ] The indicative usually follows , when the result is matter of fact: the infinitive usually, when it is matter of course as well. So Herod. vi. 83, , , where it was not a necessary consequence of the depopulation, but a result which followed as matter of fact (so also Joh 3:16<\/span> , where the sending the Son to be the Saviour of the world was not a necessary consequence of the Father’s love, but followed it as its result in fact: so that it is (against Ellic. edn. 1) an instance in point): Plato, Apol. 37 c, , , where the degree of supposed involves the result of not being able to reason at all. See Krger, Gram. 65, 3. 1; Khner, ii. p. 563. But the distinction does not seem always to be accurately observed.<\/p>\n On <\/strong> .<\/strong> , see ref. Rom., and note. Understand after ., and take . as the instrumental dative: ‘ was carried away<\/em> ( with them<\/em> ) by their hypocrisy<\/em> :’ or possibly the dative of the state into<\/em> which &c.: see 2Pe 3:17<\/span> ; but this construction seems questionable: see Ellic. edn. 2. Fritz. cites Zosimus, Hist. Gal 2:6<\/span> , : add Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 368 P., (Ellicott). “Besides the antagonism in which this passage represents the two great Apostles, it throws an important light on the history of the apostolic church in the following respects: 1] As exhibiting Peter’s relation to James, and his fear of those who were of the circumcision, whose leader we should have naturally supposed him to have been. 2] Also, as pourtraying the state of indecision in which all, except St. Paul, even including Barnabas, were in reference to the observance of the Jewish law.” Jowett.<\/p>\n Gal 2:13<\/span> . The verb is often used of playing a part as an actor in a play without any invidious meaning; but corresponds throughout the N.T. to its English equivalent hypocrisy<\/em> , and fidelity to the Greek text almost demands that rendering here. The men who had hitherto eaten with the uncircumcised and now withdrew because they shrank from giving offence were, in fact, affecting religious scruples which they did not feel, and the Apostle does not hesitate to denounce such insincerity by its true name hypocrisy<\/em> . : even Barnabas<\/em> . The defection of Barnabas was a heavier blow to the cause of Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter. With the single exception of Paul himself, Barnabas had been the most effective minister of Christ for the conversion of Greeks; he had been of late deputed to appear with Paul as their representative in Jerusalem, and his withdrawal from social communion with Greek Christians fell upon them with the force of a betrayal. Yet Paul, who had been for many years his most intimate companion, and knew his heart, writes more in sorrow than in anger of his lamentable weakness in being led away by evil example. For he saw that he was the victim of stronger wills than his own. Jerusalem had been his early home and the place of his earliest ministry. The Twelve had been his first teachers in Christ: his cousin John Mark, who was even then in Antioch, was so dear to him that Barnabas, when driven to choose between him and Paul, chose Mark for the companion of his future ministry. What wonder then that he was tempted on this occasion for a moment to yield to the influence of Peter and the brethren from Jerusalem!<\/p>\n the other = the rest of. Greek. loipos. App-124.<\/p>\n dissembled. with. Greek. sunupokrinomai. Only here. Compare App-122. <\/p>\n likewise = also. <\/p>\n carried away. Greek. sunapagomai. See Rom 12:16. <\/p>\n with = by. <\/p>\n dissimulation. Greek. hupokrisis. <\/p>\n 13. .] were guilty of like hypocrisy. The word is not (as De W.) too strong a one to describe their conduct. They were aware of the liberty in Christ which allowed them to eat with Gentiles, and had practised it: and now, being still aware of it, and not convinced to the contrary, from mere fear of man they adopted a contrary course. The case bore but very little likeness to that discussed in 1 Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14. There, it was a mere matter of licence which was in question: here, the very foundation itself. It was not now a question of using a liberty, but of asserting a truth, that of justification by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.<\/p>\n ] The indicative usually follows , when the result is matter of fact: the infinitive usually, when it is matter of course as well. So Herod. vi. 83,- , , where it was not a necessary consequence of the depopulation, but a result which followed as matter of fact (so also Joh 3:16, where the sending the Son to be the Saviour of the world was not a necessary consequence of the Fathers love, but followed it as its result in fact: so that it is (against Ellic. edn. 1) an instance in point): Plato, Apol. 37 c,- , , where the degree of supposed involves the result of not being able to reason at all. See Krger, Gram. 65, 3. 1; Khner, ii. p. 563. But the distinction does not seem always to be accurately observed.<\/p>\n On ., see ref. Rom., and note. Understand after ., and take . as the instrumental dative: was carried away (with them) by their hypocrisy: or possibly the dative of the state into which &c.: see 2Pe 3:17; but this construction seems questionable: see Ellic. edn. 2. Fritz. cites Zosimus, Hist. Gal 2:6, : add Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 368 P., (Ellicott). Besides the antagonism in which this passage represents the two great Apostles, it throws an important light on the history of the apostolic church in the following respects:-1] As exhibiting Peters relation to James, and his fear of those who were of the circumcision, whose leader we should have naturally supposed him to have been. 2] Also, as pourtraying the state of indecision in which all, except St. Paul, even including Barnabas, were in reference to the observance of the Jewish law. Jowett.<\/p>\n Gal 2:13. ) The others, believers.-) even Barnabas, whom you would by no means think likely to do such a thing.-, was led away) The power of frequent example.<\/p>\n Gal 2:13<\/p>\n Gal 2:13<\/p>\n And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him;-The other Jews dissembled and acted the hypocrite with Peter. [The men who had hitherto eaten with the uncircumcised and now withdrew because they shrank from giving offense were, in fact, affecting religious scruples which they did not feel, and Paul does not hesitate to denounce such insincerity by saying they acted hypocritically.]<\/p>\n insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.-The current became so strong that Barnabas, who had been reared in Cyprus among Gentiles, and had labored among the Gentiles, was swept into the current of dissimulation, and withdrew with the others from association with them.<\/p>\n the other: Gen 12:11-13, Gen 26:6, Gen 26:7, Gen 27:24, Ecc 7:20, Ecc 10:1, 1Co 5:6, 1Co 8:9, 1Co 15:33 <\/p>\n carried: Job 15:12, 1Co 12:2, Eph 4:14, Heb 13:9 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 12:13 – thou 2Sa 16:19 – should I not serve 2Ki 10:29 – made Israel Pro 10:9 – that walketh Isa 57:11 – of whom Joh 7:13 – spake Act 4:36 – Barnabas Act 9:27 – Barnabas Act 10:15 – What Act 13:1 – Barnabas Act 15:1 – certain Gal 2:1 – Barnabas Gal 2:14 – If thou Col 2:16 – judge Heb 12:15 – and thereby<\/p>\n Gal 2:13. -and the other Jews also dissembled with him. The compound verb-the aorist passive with a deponent sense (Polyb. 3.31, 7)-means to act a part along with, to play the hypocrite in company with. The rest of the believing Jews in Antioch acted as Peter did-withdrew themselves, and shunned all social intercourse, of the kind at least referred to, with their fellow-believers of the Gentiles. Now this secession was hypocrisy, for Peter and these other Jewish converts transgressed against their better convictions. They concealed their real views, or acted as if they thought that it was really wrong to eat with Gentiles. Probably they felt as if they had gone beyond the understood compact, in enjoying such familiar intercourse with their Gentile brethren; and on account of the party which came from James, they suddenly and decisively asserted their rigid Judaism, and acted as if they had been convinced that their salvation depended on complete ritual conformity. This hypocrisy involved a denial of one of the primary truths of the gospel, for it had a tendency to lead the Gentiles to believe that they too must observe the law in order to justification and life. It is added, in fine, to show the marvellous strength of the current- <\/p>\n -so that even Barnabas was carried along with them by their dissimulation. The is ascensive-even. Winer, 53, 3, e. The verb is used only tropically in the New Testament, but not always in malam partem: Rom 12:16 with the dative of thing. The particle is usually joined with the infinitive, that mood, according to grammarians, being used when the result is a matter of necessity; but the indicative, as here, is employed when the result is represented as a matter of fact. Klotz-Devarius, 2.772; Khner, 2.563; Winer, 41, 5, 1. The vacillation of Barnabas was the direct but not the necessary result of their dissimulation. The dative may be that of instrument, or it may be governed by in composition, as our version gives it. 2Pe 3:17; , Zosimus, Hist. 5.6, p. 409, ed. Reitemeier,-in which places also both forms of construction are possible. The first, said to be so harsh, is probably the true one. They were swept along with others by their hypocrisy, and of course swept into it, though the translation cannot be that of the Vulgate, in illam simulationem. That, however, is the undoubted inference, as implies it. Fritzsche on Rom 12:16. The contagion of such an example infected Barnabas, a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith, who had shared in Paul’s labours among the Gentiles, and must have possessed no little of his free and elevated spirit. Even the apostle’s colleague was swept away from his side by the influence of Peter, and perhaps by a similar awe of the . If Peter and Barnabas had changed their views, hypocrisy could not have been laid to their charge. But with their opinions unchanged, they acted as if they had been changed; therefore are they accused of dissimulation. It was not indecision of opinion, as Jowett affirms, but indecision certainly in acting up to their unaltered convictions. Nor was it error or inconsistency, induced by want of clear apprehension, that is laid to their charge (Hilgenfeld, Bisping); but downright hypocrisy, and that is the proper term to describe their conduct. What Peter could say in his genuine state may be read in his first Epistle, Gal 1:22-23. This dissimulation, so wide and powerful, was compromising the freedom of the gospel, for it was subverting the doctrine of justification by faith; and therefore the apostle, who could on fitting occasions to the Jews become a Jew, was obliged to visit it with immediate and stern rebuke. <\/p>\n Gal 2:13. Dissembled . . . with are from the Greek word SUNUPOKRINOMAI, which Thayer defines, “to dissemble with.” Robinson defines it, “to play the hypocrite with any one, to dissemble with.” Dissimulation has the same meaning, but being a noun it is from HUPOKRISIS, defined by Thayer at this place, “dissimulation, hypocrisy,” and Robinson defines it in the same way. Hence we have the sad information that Peter acted the part of a hypocrite; also that his example caused Barnabas and the other Jews to be carried away (over influenced) with the unscriptural procedure. But the reader should again see the comments at verse 11 on the difference between Peter’s authority as an inspired apostle, and the correctness or incorrectness of his personal conduct.<\/p>\n Gal 2:13. The other Jews, i.e., Jewish Christians of Antioch, who very naturally suffered themselves to be carried away by the example and the high authority of Peter.<\/p>\n Dissembled likewise with him, were guilty of the same hypocrisy. A very strong, yet truthful expression. For we have here no mere accommodation to weak brethren for the sake of charity and peace, such as Paul himself taught and practised (1Co 9:20; Rom 14:1; Rom 15:3; Act 16:3), but a duplicity and self-contradiction at the expense of truth, a denial of the better conviction to the detriment of the Gentile Christians whom Peter acknowledged as brethren in theory, and whom he now disowned in practice. The logical tendency of this conduct was evidently to break up the communion of the two branches of the church, although he himself would no doubt have deplored such a result.<\/p>\n Even Barnabas, my friend and co-laborer in the work of heathen missions, and fellow champion of the liberty of the Gentile brethren. This shows the gravity of the crisis and the power of old Jewish habits even upon more liberal minds. The word even implies sadness arising from respect and affection. Comp. Csars Et tu, Brute! The two friends separated on this occasion, and each pursued an independent path (Act 15:39), thus dividing and doubling the work of mission, but Paul afterwards respectfully alludes to Barnabas (1Co 9:6), and to Mark, his cousin (Col 4:16).<\/p>\n And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. [These Jews from Jerusalem appear to have swept in like an invading army, and were joined by Peter, and then by the rest of the Jewish Christians in Antioch, and lastly by even Barnabas, who had hitherto been Paul’s colleague in defending the gospel liberties. Truly the situation was critical. Either the surrender of the Gentiles, or a division of the church, was sure to follow if these conditions continued. Paul calls the conduct of these men “dissimulation.” They were pretending that they believed one principle, when, in reality, they believed the very opposite. Bishop Lightfoot suggests that the action of Barnabas at this time may have paved the way for the quarrel which soon after separated him from Paul.] <\/p>\n 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was {k} carried away with their dissimulation.<\/p>\n (k) By example rather than by judgment.<\/p>\n And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 13. dissembled likewise with him ] Lit. practised like hypocrisy. They believed and professed that they might eat with the Gentiles, they acted as if it were unlawful to do so. Barnabas also ] or, ‘even Barnabas’, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:13”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>Sinful.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Infectious.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Totally inconsistent with Christian character, (J. Lyth.<\/em>)<\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"