14<\/strong>. This was not a case for private remonstrance. The conduct of Peter and the rest was a practical denial of the truth of the Gospel, and, as such, could not but do widespread mischief. St Paul therefore took occasion to rebuke him in the presence of the whole company of believers (comp. ‘I withstood him to the face’, Gal 2:11<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n according to the truth<\/em> ] Lit. ‘towards the truth,’ i.e. with a view to its maintenance and propagation.<\/p>\n If thou, being a Jew Jews<\/em> ] Various opinions have been held with regard to the limit of the address to Peter. Some suppose it to terminate in this verse; others with Gal 2:15<\/em><\/span> or 18; most, at the end of the chapter. But a comparison of the abruptness of the opening words with the more calm argumentative style of what follows, seems to confirm the view that the actual words addressed to Peter are contained in Gal 2:14<\/span>, and that Paul passes imperceptibly into a discussion of the great principle which he felt to be at stake. It is possible that the later verses contain the substance<\/em> of the Apostle’s remonstrance with Peter, as they certainly contain the ground of the expostulation in Gal 2:14<\/em><\/span>. This is confirmed by the expression “We, Jews by nature”; but the whole passage has direct reference to the state and dangers of the Galatians.<\/p>\n being a Jew<\/em> ] a Jew by birth and education, not a Gentile proselyte.<\/p>\n livest after Gentiles<\/em> ] Ever since his visit to Cornelius, Peter had associated freely and eaten with the Gentiles.<\/p>\n why compellest thou<\/em> ] How is it that now by your example you are forcing the Gentile converts to conform to the Jewish ceremonial? It is of course moral<\/em> compulsion that is meant, that kind of influence to which new converts would be specially prone to yield.<\/p>\n to live as do the Jews<\/em> ] Lit. to Judaize, to observe the ceremonial law, as necessary to salvation. That no less is intended appears from Gal 2:21<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n But when I saw that they walked not uprightly – <\/B>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.<\/P> According to the truth of the gospel – <\/B>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.<\/P> I said unto Peter before them all – <\/B>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:<\/P> (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.<\/P> (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 1Ti 5:20<\/span>, Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.<\/P> (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.<\/P> (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.<\/P> If thou, being a Jew – <\/B>A Jew by birth.<\/P> Livest after the manner of the Gentiles – <\/B>In eating, etc., as he had done before the Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Gal 2:12<\/span>.<\/P> And not as do the Jews – <\/B>Observing their special customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.<\/P> Why compellest thou the Gentiles … – <\/B>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<\/span>; Luk 14:23<\/span>; Act 28:19<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Gal 2:14-15<\/span><\/p>\n But when I saw that they walked not uprightly.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Moral shuffling<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Literally–not to walk on straight feet, i.e.,<\/em> erect, or straightforwardly.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Morally.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Thinking rightly and acting wrongly.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Orthodoxy in creed, heterodoxy in conduct.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> All compromises when conscience is concerned.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>In the letter.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>In the spirit.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Aversion to unpleasantness.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Desire to be agreeable all round.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Hope by its means to get over a temporary difficulty.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It deceives the very elect, even Barnabas.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It involves others in deplorable inconsistencies.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Knowledge and experience are against it.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Spiritual privileges render it unnecessary.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Gods Word has condemned the doing of evil that good may come.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The most eminent.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The most esteemed.<\/p>\n Straightforwardness<\/strong><\/p>\n has been defined as a mixture of sincerity and simplicity, and is well illustrated by an anecdote of Bishop Atterbury. On one occasion he was asked why he would not suffer his servants to deny him when he did not care to see company. It is not a lie for them to say that you are not at home, for it deceives no one; every one knows that it only means that your lordship is busy. He replied, If it is (which I doubt) consistent with sincerity, yet I am sure it is not consistent with that simplicity which becomes a bishop. But the fine nervous Saxon word aptly explains the virtue for which it stands. It is rectitude in motion, movement in a right direction in spite of all inducements to swerve, movement on that straight line which in morals as in mathematics is the shortest distance between two points.<\/p>\n The grave question at issue<\/strong><\/p>\n There was no question of charity here, but a question of principle. To eat with the Gentiles was either right or <\/strong>wrong. In the light of the gospel it was right; but to shilly-shally on the matter and to let it depend on the presence or absence of certain people was clearly wrong. It was monstrous that a Gentile convert should at one time be treated as a brother, and at another shunned as though he were a Pariah. (F. H. Farrar.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Eating with the Gentiles<\/strong><\/p>\n This involved concessions of the nature of which it is almost impossible for us at this distance to conceive. It was to the Jew what the breaking of caste is to the Hindoo, as startling, in some respects, as though in our own country peers and working men were found to be working daily on the most friendly terms, (S. Pearson,<\/em> M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Law versus gospel<\/strong><\/p>\n Many have the gospel, but not the truth of the gospel. So Paul saith here, that Peter, Barnabas, and other of the <\/strong>Jews, had the gospel, but walked not uprightly according to the gospel. For, albeit they preached the gospel, yet, through their dissimulation (which could not stand with the truth of the gospel) they established the law; but the establishing of the law is the abolishing of the gospel. Whoso then can rightly judge between the law and the gospel, let him thank God, and know that he is a right divine. Now the way to discern the one from the other, is to place the gospel in heaven, and the law on earth; to call the righteousness of the gospel heavenly, and that of the law earthly; and to put as great difference between the righteousness of the gospel and of the law as God hath made between heaven and earth, light and darkness, day and night. Wherefore, if the question be concerning the matter of faith or conscience, let us utterly exclude the law, and leave it on the earth; but, if we have to do with works, then let us lighten the lantern of works and of the righteousness of the law. Wherefore, if thy conscience be terrified with the sense and feeling of sin, think thus with thyself: Thou art now remaining upon earth; <\/strong>there let the ass labour and travail; there let him serve and carry the burden that is laid upon him; that is to say, let the body with his members be subject to the law. But when thou mountest up into heaven, then leave the ass with his burden on the earth; for the conscience hath nothing to do with the law, or works, or with the earthly righteousness. So doth the ass remain in the valley, but the conscience ascendeth with Isaac into the mountain, knowing nothing at all of the law or works thereof, but only looking to the remission of sins and pure righteousness offered and freely given unto us in Christ. (Luther.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Unswerving integrity<\/strong><\/p>\n Bishop Hooper was condemned to be burned at Gloucester, in Queen Marys reign. A gentleman, with the view of inducing him to recant, said to him, Life is sweet, and death is bitter. Hooper replied, The death to come is more bitter, and the life to come more sweet. I am come hither to end this life, and suffer death, because I will not gainsay the truth I have here formerly taught you. When brought to the stake, a box, with a pardon from the queen in it, was set before him. The determined martyr cried out, If you love my soul, away with it! if you love my soul, away with it! (Foster.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Fidelity<\/strong><\/p>\n A man gave his two infant children in charge of a negro slave, to be by him cared for, and taken to a distant port. The ship was wrecked, and had to be abandoned. The boats were nearly full. The slave had his choice to leave the children, or himself be left. He kissed them; bade the sailors take good care of them, and tell his master of his faithfulness; and soon went bravely down with the foundering ship. (Foster.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Swerving from the truth<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The multitude of those who swerve from truth should not make truth seem less lovely to others, or damp their ardour in defending it against error. Though truth should be deserted by all except one only, yet is it worthy to be owned, stood to, and defended by that one, against all who oppose it.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It is the duty of all professors to walk so, both in the matter of opinion and practice, as is suitable to, and well agreeing with, the sincere truth of God held out in the gospel; holding nothing which is even indirectly contrary to it, and practising nothing which may reflect upon it. When they halt, or walk not with a straight foot in either of those, they are blameworthy.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>When many are guilty of one and the same sin, the minister of Jesus Christ ought to reprove wisely and without respect of persons; making the weight of the reproof light upon them, as they have been more or less accessory to the sin.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Though private sins, which have not broken forth to a public scandal of many, are to be rebuked in private (Mat 18:15<\/span>), yet public sins are to receive public rebukes, that hereby the public scandal may be removed, and others may be scared from taking encouragement to do the like (1Ti 5:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>Though the binding power of the ceremonial law was abrogated at Christs death, and the practice thereof, in some things at least, left as a thing lawful and in itself indifferent unto all for a time after that, yet the observance thereof, even for that time, was dispensed with more for the Jews sake, and was more tolerable in them who were born and educated under the binding power of that yoke, than in the Gentiles, to whom that law was never given, and so were to observe it, or any part of it, only in ease of scandalising the weak Jews by their neglect of it (Rom 14:20-21<\/span>).<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>A minister must not take liberty of practice to himself in things which he condemns in others.<\/p>\n 7. <\/strong>It is no small sin for superiors to bind where the Lord has left free, by urging upon their inferiors the observing of a thing, in its own nature indifferent, as necessary; except it be in those cases wherein the Lord, by those circumstances which accompany it, points it out as necessary; e.g.,<\/em> cases of scandal (Act 15:28-29<\/span>), and contempt (1Co 14:40<\/span>).<\/p>\n 8. <\/strong>In the primitive times of the Christian Church, the people of God did wonderfully subject themselves to the ministry of the Word in the head of His servants, and much more than people now do; for if the actions of the apostles compelled men to do this or that, as Peters action did compel the Gentiles, what then did their doctrine and heavenly exhortations? (James<\/em> Fergusson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Inconsistency reproved<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>That reproofs are sometimes necessary. An earthly life is ever an imperfect one, and the best men may in unguarded moments fall into grievous errors.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>They should be given with faithfulness, yet in love. No ties of private friendship should prevent sin being reproved, and where the sin has been committed openly, it should be reproved openly–Burkitt<\/em>. Yet there should be no personal reproaches, but the manifestations of brotherly love. (R. Nicholls.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 14. That they walked not uprightly<\/B><\/I>] . They did not walk with a straight step<\/I>-they did not maintain a firm footing.<\/P> <\/P> According to the truth of the Gospel<\/B><\/I>] According to that true<\/I> doctrine<\/I>, which states that Christ is the end of the law for<\/I> justification to every one that believes<\/I>; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites<\/I> and ceremonies of the law.<\/P> <\/P> If thou, being a Jew, livest<\/B><\/I>] 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<\/I>, he withdrew from this fellowship.<\/P> <\/P> Why compellest thou the Gentiles<\/B><\/I>] Thou didst once consider that they<\/I> were not under such an obligation, and now<\/I> 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<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Uprightly, <\/B>here, is opposed to halting. Peter halted between two opinions, (as Elijah sometime told the Israelites), when he was with the Gentiles alone, he did as they did, using the liberty of the gospel; but when the Jews came from Jerusalem, he left the Gentile church, and joined with the Jews; this was not according to that plainness and sincerity which the gospel required; he did not (according to the precept he held, Heb 12:13<\/span>) make straight paths<\/I> to his feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way.<\/I> Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: nor doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was public, and such a plaster would not have fitted the sore; but he speaketh <\/P> unto Peter before them all, <\/B>rebuking him openly, because he sinned openly; and by this action had not offended a private person, but the church in the place where he was, who were all eyewitnesses of his halting and prevarication, 1Ti 5:20<\/span>. <\/P> If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews; <\/B>if thou, who art a Jew, not by religion only, but by birth and education, hast formerly lived, eat, and drank, and had communion with the Gentiles, in the omission of the observance of circumcision, and other Jewish rites, generally observed by those of their synagogues; (as Peter had done before the Jews came from from Jerusalem to Antioch); <\/P> why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?<\/B> Why dost thou, by thy example, compel the members of a Gentile church to observe the Jewish rites? For compelling here doth not signify any act of violence, (Peter used none such), but the example of leaders in the church, who are persons of reputation and authority, is a kind of compulsion to those that are inferiors, and who have a great veneration for such leaders. So the word here used, <\/span>, is used in 2Co 12:2<\/span>, as also to express the force of exhortations and arguments. Of such a compulsion the word is used, Luk 14:23<\/span>. Peter, by his example, and possibly by some words and arguments he used, potently moved those proselyted Jews, who were in communion with the churches of Galatia, to observe the Jewish rites: so that by this fact he did not only contradict himself, who by his former walking with the Gentile church had practically asserted the gospel liberty; but he also scandalized those Christians in these churches who stood fast in the liberty which Christ had purchased for them, and Paul had taught them; and also drew others away from the truth they had owned and practised. This was the cause of Pauls so open and public reproof of him. <\/P> <\/p>\n 14. walked not uprightly<\/B>literally,”straight”: “were not walking with straightforwardsteps.” Compare Ga 6:16<\/span>. <\/P> truth of the gospel<\/B>whichteaches that justification by legal works and observances isinconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintainedthe truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (2Ti 4:16<\/span>;2Ti 4:17<\/span>). <\/P> Peter<\/B>“Cephas”in the oldest manuscripts <\/P> before . . . all<\/B> (1Ti5:20<\/span>). <\/P> If thou,<\/B> c.”Ifthou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to bemore bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, withoutscruple and from conviction, Act 15:10<\/span>Act 15:11<\/span>) as a Gentile (freelyeating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legalordinances in no way justify, Ga2:12<\/span>), and not as a Jew, how<\/I> (so the oldest manuscriptsread, for ‘why’) is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thineexample) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (literally, toJudaize,<\/I> that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews:What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism<\/I>).The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians toregard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians couldnot consort with Gentile converts in communion without it.<\/P><\/p>\n But when I saw that they walked not uprightly<\/strong>,…. 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:<\/p>\n nor according to the truth of the Gospel<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n I said unto Peter before them all<\/strong>. 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<\/span> 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,<\/p>\n if thou being a Jew<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews<\/strong>? 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.<\/p>\n But when I saw <\/B> (‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). Paul did see and saw it in time to speak.<\/P> That they walked not uprightly <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, “they are not walking straight.” <\/SPAN><\/span> (<\/SPAN><\/span>, straight, <\/SPAN><\/span>, foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though <\/SPAN><\/span> does occur.<\/P> According to the truth of the gospel <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Just as in 2:5<\/span>. Paul brought them to face (<\/SPAN><\/span>) that.<\/P> I said unto Cephas before them all <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>).<\/P> Being a Jew <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>, though being a Jew). Condition of first class, assumed as true. It was not a private quarrel, but a matter of public policy. One is a bit curious to know what those who consider Peter the first pope will do with this open rebuke by Paul, who was in no sense afraid of Peter or of all the rest.<\/P> As do the Gentiles <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles.<\/P> As do the Jews <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Only here in N.T., but in Josephus.<\/P> To live as do the Jews <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Late verb, only here in the N.T. From <\/SPAN><\/span>, Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, <\/SPAN><\/span>) the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in 2Pe 3:15<\/span>. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Acts 15:39<\/span>; 1Cor 9:6<\/span>), though they soon separated over John Mark. <\/P> <\/p>\n See additional note at the end of this chapter. Walked not uprightly (ojrqopodousin). Lit. are not walking. N. T. o. o LXX o Class. Lit. to be straight – footed. <\/P> Being a Jew [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The verb means originally to begin; thence to come forth, be at hand, be in existence. It is sometimes claimed that uJparcein as distinguished from einai implies an antecedent condition – being originally. That is true in some cases. 52 But, on the other hand, it sometimes denotes a present as related to a future condition. 53 The most that can be said is that it often is found simply in the sense of to be. Livest after the manner of Gentiles [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Eqnikwv, N. T. o. The force of the present livest must not be pressed. The reference is not strictly temporal, either as referring to Peter’s former intercourse with the Gentile Christians, or as indicating that he was now associating with them at table. It is rather the statement of a general principle. If you, at whatever time, act on the principle of living according to Gentile usage. At the time of Paul ‘s address to Peter, Peter was living after the manner of Jews [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. <\/P> Compellest [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>Its nature.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>Its <\/strong>relation to the gospel. It is not according to its truth.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Its motives.<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>Its consequences.<\/p>\n
V. <\/strong>Its inexcusableness (Gal 2:15-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n
VI. <\/strong>The duty of the truth-lover with reference to it. To rebuke it in–<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>That the gospel supplies the rule of life.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>To depart from the rule of gospel truth is to become inconsistent in the Christian life.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>Such inconsistency calls for reproof.<\/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