2 Messages to Galatians. Bible online. And what now live in the flesh, then I live in faith in the Son of God

2:1,2 Then, fourteen years later, I went again to Jerusalem with the Varnavoy, taking with him and Tita.
2 walked on revelation, and suggested there, and especially famous, the bunds preached by me
Judging by the fact that the purpose of this visit to Jerusalem was associated with the revelation of Pavel on the pagans - we are talking about a visit related to solving the problem on circumcision, what did the NEUTHE pagans encouraged in Antioch and because of which they have disagreements with Pavloma in gospel (Acts 15).

Pavel God immediately discovered that in the era of the New Testament, it is necessary for anyone, the pagans fell into a new era, so Paul and the adoption of Christ's adoption without the need to crawl.

whether I am not in vain I will simultane or sat down.
Paul did not doubt whether he properly preachs to the pagans or not. But I went to Jerusalem and outlined the apostles this doctrine so that they themselves could make sure Paul (attackers of Jews from Ahai believed that he was not right and in vain spending time)
This revelation was not given to the primoapostol, so they had to study the Scriptures and words of the prophets to conclude that Paul was right and that he was not in vain conducts such preaching activities among the pagans, not forcing them to trough (Acts.15: 14-19)

2:3 But they and the Titus, formerly with me, although Erlin, did not force cut off,
Here Paul does not accidentally emphasize the attention on the fact that none of the primoapostas made even Tita cut off, although he was a pagan, which means that the primoaposts were completely agreed with Paul in this matter.
Well, we would try to disagree with the fact that Pavlu opened God. What would be?
Peter tried to rest in the refusal to God is unclean, and after all, he received an order from God "Eat !!". So what? It still painted correctly that the pagans should be taken as their brothers in faith, for it is difficult to go against the root.
Why does Paul say to the Galatians about the problem of circumcision?
Because one of the distortions of gospel in Galatia was the requirement of new "teachers" to ensure that pagans for salvation committed circumcision rite (6:12)
These confusion-teachers clarified the pagans from Galatia that for salvation - not enough faith in Christ, without circumcision, not to see the salvation. Paul, naturally, intends to expose this heresy Liabratyev.

2:4 and on the liabra who
Paul did not consider the members of the Church of Christ and Christians of those who taught in foreign gospel, forcing the Galatians to circuit. He called such "Christians" lie.

hiddenly coming off for our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus to enslave us,
Apparently, these loaf appeared in the Galatia meeting not overnight: for some time they watched the actions of Paul and Prioeapostolov: as I remember, the first-apostles did not forbid the Jews to cut their children and continue to fulfill the Moses Act until I was committed to Jerusalem Temple service, taking into account their spiritual impact and the impossibility of a sharp change in beliefs, although the apostles themselves also understood that the end of the law is Christ and Faith in his redemption (Acts21: 20-24).

Paul preached his freedom from the execution of Moiseeva of the law thanks to the faith in Jesus Christ, so I looked like a reason to accusing Paul in violation of allegedly commands of the firstacostol, to try to make him fulfill Moiseev law. And not only. They also found a reason to distort the galants in terms of the need for the Galatians.

Note, the question of circumcision at that time could be attributed to the category of "little things" and minimized the circumcision to compromise, not counting these mentors of circumcision - they certainly lie: after all, the Jews continued to cut down and did not sin in it.
However, Paul was categorical in the assessment of "Inno." Lzhebratyev, only because what they were taught - contradicted what they wanted to teach God all the participants of the New Testament. So, these "teachers" did not have the Holy Spirit of God and therefore did not have the right to learn on behalf of God in his meetings, although they themselves considered the followers of Christ.

2:5 we did not give any per hour and did not submit, in order to have a truth of gospel. These loafers seem to have tried Paul and his like-minded people in Christ - to confront, but Paul is assumed by the meeting that the true gospel remains, which was originally transferred to the Apostle Pavel: the end of Moses is the law - Christ and there is no need for the flesh of their flesh.

Note, did not even become "for the sake of peace and unity" in Galatia meetings to agree on the need for circumcision. I did not think that if it was when it came from God, then let the pagans cut up, because the "porridge does not spoil". If God said that now it is no need to trim the flesh, then by giving way to the opinion of the majority, Paul would not defend the point of view, and people would treat people. What Pavel could not allow.

2:6 And in the famous anything, whatever they ever, there is nothing special for me: God does not look at the person of a person.
Here, Paul is not talking about false apostas, but about 12 of the Apostles of Christ.
Paul did not create an idol for himself from the poles of the Christian Assembly for himself. He saw in them the same Christians seeking to God as he himself. And I understood the simple thing: God helps those who sincerely seek him, so the help of God is not the status is acquired, and the desire for excellence and efforts to work as much as possible for God as much as possible.
For Paul, no human "regalia" and statuses - the values \u200b\u200bdid not have: "Either you teach in Christ and then you are my brother in Christ and honor you and praise from God, or you are a false teacher."
Paul everything was just precisely because he had a communication with God and the Holy Spirit stuck in him, without ousting God's understanding - his own.

And the famous did not entrust nothing more on me.
The apostles have not added anything to the evangelism of Paul. Paul preached everything right and did not miss anything important

2:7-9 On the contrary, seeing that I was entrusted to the evangelism for uncircumcised, like Peter for Cropped -
8 For Peter promoted in the apostlement from the circumcised contributed to me from the pagans -
9 and, having learned about the grace given to me, Jacob and Kifa and John, revered by pillars, served to me and Varnava's hand to communicate to us [go] to the pagans, and they are cut off,
The pillars of the Christian meeting, seeing that God helps Paul from the pagans, filed the hand of communication as equal, and not as dominant over him. After all, they were engaged in the same thing, just Paul with the Varnava preached from the pagans, and the rest of the apostles in the Israelites, because they had to lead an educational work on the abolition of the action of Moiseeva law - very delicately.
If anyone of the Jews wants to proverb - there is no sin, for the establishment of this from God, let him cut their flesh. But if someone from the Jews or pagan wants save from sin and death - it is necessary to take Christ and his redemption, and the circumcision of the flesh will not affect this.

2:10 only that we remember the beggars that I tried to do accuracy.
So, in terms of circumcision and non-abreparation - Pavlu with the pillars of the Christian meeting and the first apostles of disagreements are not. It is important that a Christian attachment to the right gospel and the love of neighbor, and the compassion for the restraint - that Paul tried to fulfill immaculately, for the salvation would come not from learning the right theory of the redemption of Christ, but from the use of the right theory - in practice: Faith without deeds is dead, as known. Without imitation of Christ in the affairs of God - the Christian is not saved.

And since in the Jerusalem Church there were more needy - the apostles asked Paul to remember the beggars and organize assistance from the funds collected by him from the richest churches in the pagan territory.

2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him, because he was subjected to
In this case, Paul does not seek to drop the authority of Peter, he just showed that the apostles are also people that they can also be mistaken.
In addition, being in the medium of Jews - Jealous of the law, the apostles in order to preach and not fall out from the environment - were forced to comply with the ceremonial part and not stand out where it was possible not to stand out. Therefore, the Judaism environment imposed a print on the primoapostol. And on the weakness of human, they sometimes went on the legs.

What does Paul want to achieve, told the Galatians about the case with Peter?
Only the fact that his point of sight to circumcision is true and if someone will put in the example of the apostles, that they say, something keeps Moiseeva law, he, Paul, could show what they do it is not because So correct, but by the weakness of human.
What is the apostle Peter turned out to be weak?

2:12 For, before the arrival of some of Jacob, ate with the pagans; And when they came, began to fade and eliminate, fearing circumcised.
Before the authoritative Christians from Jews arrived in Antioch, Peter communicated with converted Christians from the pagans. But with the appearance of Jews, Petr sharply began to avoid brothers from the pagans, as if never knew (hypocritical: he felt one thing - friendship to brothers from the pagans, and did another - actively portrayed a stranger).

How did it happen? After all, Petr loved justice very much and tried to imitate Christ with all their might. And everything turned out to be simply: Peter was frightened that they would think about the cropped Christians from the Jews who served in the Jerusalem Meeting (Gal 2: 11-14, because still Jews did not communicate with the pagans, Acts 10: 28, and about the vocation of Jehovah Pagan These Jews could not know). There may be a lot of fear of people to make a lot of desire to come correctly and push the wrong behavior, I did not escape it and Peter (Prover. 29:25).

2:13 Together with him was hypocritical and other Jews, so even Varnaba was passionate about their hypocrisy.
L. and beerie is "an act on the contrary": if we believe that someone is wrong, but we are doing with him, no matter what happens on it (inside it is indigestion, and you smile outside) - this is a hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is bad quality, it is necessary to get rid of it (or find out the relationship on MTF.18: 15 and get rid of discontent, or do not smile: a Christian has a complete agreement between mind and feelings, it eliminates breaking the personality, Rome.14: 22 23)

Other Christians from the Jews followed the poor example of Peter. Among them was even Varnaba. Why?

Peter was an anointed anointed, elder and member of the Governing Council of Jerusalem: Peter's bustling authority lit up his associates by faith, and they forgot that the hypocritor is as bad as hypocrisy.

And imagine that they felt brothers from the pagans, seeing how Peter avoids them - in the presence of Jews? Surely they were discouraged and deeply disappointed, because Peter was very offended. As a result, the Gentiles of Antioch were in the sad position: everything was instantly turned away from them who had just shared me with a meal at one table and preached by God's unlucky love.
Their barely revived faith was under the threat of breaking and, of course, Paul could not allow, because of some authorities of Judaism, God's business was injured to attract pagans to Christ, and broke in faith Christian from the pagans.

2:14 But when I saw that they were not directly entering the truth of the Gospel, he said to Peter at all:
Paul did not look at the face and, above all, appreciated God's principles, justice, including.

What did he do to correct the situation? Apostle Paul openly - with all !! - Dytra inflicted in hypocrisy. Why he did not do on the principle of MTF.18: 15 - in this case? Because in this situation, Peter was sinned not against Paul or his relatives: the interests of Jehovah could suffer, because Christians - pagans could boil and escape from Jehovah. They had to see Jehovah - does not approve of Peter's behavior that Peter is wrong towards them.
For elders, the behavior of which the entire assembly is focused on the beacon - a separate command:
Sinners will sue everyone so that other fear had (1Tim.5: 20).
So came the apostle Paul.
Paul has also helped the brothers from the pagans to see that in the meeting Christians justice does not dare - unlike the world of this, and that the credibility of the brothers is not an argument if someone wants to cover the misdemeanor of the elder.
And if Paul did not intervene and succumbed to a general hypocrisy - Christians from the pagans could be stupid and disappointed even in Jehovah if his servants came so unfair.

if you, being Jews, live in a papanish, and not in Jewish, then why are the pagans forcing to live in Jewish?
This statement sounded very offensive. Paul said about the following:
"What are you, Peter? Before the arrival of the delegation of the circumcised, you lived freely in pagan, as the most real uncircumcised. And they arrived - so you scared that they blame you in impurity? What did you go to the side now and began to live like cut? And, most importantly - what to think now to give the pagans? What do they live wrong and what and they need to live, how to crumbled Jews? "

That is, Peter, taking the side of the Jews, noarily gave to understand the pagans that Jews for Peter - a more appropriate meeting that for the full "enrollment" in God's people - the pagans would not hurt to accept Judaism.

However, Paul, exposing Peter, thought not only about help to pagans, but also for help Peter. After all, Peter himself did not consider him a sin with the pagans, Christ had long shown him on the example of the Kornilius and his households, that there was neither Judea, nor Ellin, but every fearful God was pleasing to him.
Paul showed him that if Peter was all about the adoption by the Gagan God, then why - all these manipulations on trying to combine Christianity with Judaism, which he tried to offer pagans just because they wanted Christians from Jews?
Peter was supposed to see what he should grasp: in the confrontation of person-friendly.

2:15,16 Further, Paul helps Peter and instead of him in the presence of pagans clarifies with his faith, which became the truth that the pagans should not be conflicted due to the fact that they were not cut off. If the Jew will not accept Christ, then the circumcision will not save a single Judea from sin and death - despite the fact that they consider themselves God's people in nature.

15 We are by the nature of Jews, and not from the rapids sinners;
That is, in contrast to the pagans - Jews are considered to be God's people, and not sinners - more from antiquity, and it is right, for it is.

16 However, learning that the person is not justified by the affairs of the law, but only faith in Jesus Christ, and we believed in Christ Jesus to justify faith in Christ, and not the affairs of the law

However, the truth in Christ, which gave new knowledge to the Jews is, this is that for salvation - it is not necessary to fulfill the rites and affairs of Moiseeva law, including the circumcision.
Why?

for the laws of the law will not justify any flesh
Because the excuse (the acquisition of the reputation is not guilty of sins justified by God), as it turned out to be from the new knowledge gained - it is achieved by not the fulfillment of the affairs of Moses of the law, as the Yutodoks say so far. And solely by the adoption of the sacrifice of Christ and faith in its redemptive force.
That is why Paul and the rest of his like-minded people - Jews and believed in Christ, and accepted a different religion, Christ, in which the fulfillment of the affairs of Moiseeva law is abolished, but it matters only the belief that Jesus is a Messiah.

2:17 If, looking for an excuse in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then really Christ is a servant of sin? In no way.
Cropped Jews and Peter would have to understand a simple thing: if the adoption of Christ is not enough to justify God and he does not remove the state of sinfulness from the believer, then what's the point then to take it?
And if those who have accepted - are sinners (uncircumcised pagans, adopting continuing according to Jews to remain sinners), then Christ himself, it comes out, a sinner, for cancels Moses law.
But after all, to declare that Jesus Christ is a sinner - absurd

2:18 For if I reveal again, I destroyed, I do myself with a criminal. If a person who destroyed something, for example, his home - begins to restore it again, then he admits that he was wrong, destroying the house (it was impossible to destroy the house)

So and Christ: If he, by canceling the Old Law of the last victim, his own and claiming a new one, after that he would again demand the law from his followers to restore the ministry to Moses, then this would recognize what was wrong, opening the page of the New Testament through his death.
The bill is not the one who, looking for an excuse in Christ, leaves Moses law and goes to Christ, and the one who from Christ leaves again to the fulfillment of Moiseeva law.

2:19 The law I died for the law to live for God. I agreed to Christ
But if the Christian agrees Christ - that is, together with Christ, as a sinner condemned to death in Moses and executed on the same law - then the law itself can no longer act on a Christian who deceased to crucify.
Therefore, those who took the path of Christ of God and died with him - free from Moiseeva law.

2:20 and I don't live, but Christ lives in me.
Since the conscious "crucifix" with Christ for sinful life and "Resurrection" for righteousness, Paul, like every Christian, belongs to the Resurrection Christ, accepting him as his Savior from sin and death.
For a reborn faith in Christ, the human guide in life from the date of revival is not Moses law, but the resurrected Jesus Christ and his traces left as an example to imitate Christians.

And what now live in the flesh, I live in faith in the Son of God, who loved me and betrayed me for me.
Someone who perceives Paul's words literally, may not believe him and not understand him: after all, he speaks of stepping and death with Christ, and himself remains alive in the flesh.
Therefore, Paul explained that although he lives in the body, but lives according to faith, otherwise than lived before the crucifixion with Christ. Death for sin took place in a spiritual sense - in the form of an internal transformation and updating the personality of a Christian, who believes in the fact that he can become before God only thanks to Christ, the deceased for the sake of justifying every sinner before God.

2:21 I do not reject the grace of God; And if the law of justification, then Christ died in vain. The grace of God is and lies that the sinner makes the righteous before God - only the sacrificial death of Christ, and not the ministry of Moses. For if it was possible to become righteous, by performing Moses law, it would not be necessary to take flour to the deaths of Christ for sinners.
Paul is therefore rejecting the Moses law, so that the law does not reject the grace of God (sacrifice of Christ).

It's like if you were driving a new car and you moved to her (accepted Christ), but then I got out of it and got to the old again (I returned to Moisev's law) This means that in vain for you a new one was customized (Christ died in vain).

That she was pleased with the Apostles.

and offered there, and especially famous, gospel preached by me,

"And the most famous". Due to the fact that a lot of people were seduced, Paul talks "especially", alone with Peter's disciples, so that it did not arise to spread and prevent greater temptation. For they were very seduced, and if they heard that Paul openly rejects circumcision, it would have happened, and everything would have come into confusion. Therefore, it is talking alone, having witnesses of Tita and Varnava, who could declare all people that the apostles did not find anything nasty in his preaching. And calling them "FAMABLE", does not reject their meanings, but next to its own and the general recognition, just as he said: "I think I have the Spirit of God" (), without rejecting the existence of this gift in itself, but indicating a common opinion. So, "Family"That is, great, glorious.

whether I am not in vain I will simultane or sat down.

That is, to teach the seductive relative to me, that I will not care in vain, and not to learn yourself, for how to learn to me when I got the revelation of my son and his gospel from his father?

. But they and the Titus, formerly with me, although Erlin, did not force cut off,

The uncircumcised tit, he says, was not forced to cut off. And this serves as the most important evidence that the apostles admitted circumcision not as a law, but for some kind of house-building, that is, as a temporary measure of prudent condescension to the weak, for the sake of believers from circumcision, - and the fact that they could not reinteen the preaching of Paul, whose student was uncured.

. and on the liabra who were hidden to wonder for our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus to enslave us,

The order of speech is as follows: even for the sake of the false Laterbracy, Tit was not forced to cut off, that is, although my opponents were present, but the apostles did not even forced the title to cut off. How does he call falsely insisting on circumcision, if the apostles accepted it? Because the apostles allowed circumcision from connecting to believers from circumcision, as a preacher to the Jews; and those as subcontractors of circumcision on the principle and as if the defenders of the law; Therefore, he calls them Liabra. And expression "Hiddenly concerned" Indicates their cunning ideas, and the word "spill" gives to intelligence that they are enemies. After all, there is no one for anything else come, how to led everything and make it easier for yourself to destruction and enslavement. This is the most they did. For they observed who are uncircumcised, having freedom in Christ, that is, not subject to the law to attack them and force to cut off, and again subjected us to the slavery of the law from which Christ liberated us. So, it is clear from here that the apostles allowed the sub-banner to make little to get free from this slavery, and they acted so as to consolidate this slavery.

. we did not give any per hour and did not submit, in order to have a truth of gospel.

Did not say "not lost". Word, but did not submit, because it was not to learn something they did it, but for subordination and enslavement. Therefore, we obey the apostles, and they do not. To, speak, was solid and true that we were preached. What exactly? What anciently passed, the law is abolished and the circumcised Christ does not accept, and circumcision does not bring any benefit. So, in contrasts, we showed that we were truly announced about the abolition of the law. Therefore, do not retreat from this truth.

. And in the famous anything, whatever they were, for me there is nothing special: does not look at the person of a person.

Since it was natural to objeed to him and say: how did the apostles commanded cutting? - He eliminates this objection, although it does not indicate the true reason that they acted so on a special order and from the condescension, fearing, as if believers from the Jews, having heard that the apostles were not in the types of truth, and in the types of improvement allowed circumcision retreated from them, as from the destroyers of the law; For they have decorated because they kept them that they protected the law. Therefore, Pavel hides this cause, but heavily pulls on the apostles, saying: "For me there is nothing special", that is, I have no need to famous, to the great, obviously, the apostles - whether they are preached to circumcision, or not, as they themselves will give a response to God, and although they are great and parable, will not look at their faces, for unlitheenten. And notice: not said: what are they, but "What were they ever"showing that later and they stopped preaching when served everywhere excused. He says, this Paul is not in the ukrorizna holy, and wanting to benefit the listeners.

And the famous did not entrust nothing more on me.

What would, say, they were, it is - the matter of God, but then I know that they did not oppose anything to me and did not add anything to my sermon and did not fix it.

. On the contrary, seeing that I was entrusted to me in favor of uncircumcised as Peter for cropped:

. (for Peter promoted in the apostlement from the circumcised contributed to me from the pagans) ,

. and, having learned about the grace given to me, Jacob and Kifa and John, revered by pillars, served me and Varnava's hand to communicate to us to go to the pagans, and they are cut off

Some interpreted in this way: not only did not fix anything in my case, but on the contrary, they even corrected. But it is incorrect. And what could they be fixed? After all, each of them is perfect. So, he says the following: "But on the contrary, they filed a hand of communication," then in the middle: "Seeing that I am entrusted to the evangelism for uncut", and further in order. And not only that they did not recalculate me, they even praised and agreed that me and Varnava walked with evangelism to uncircumciated, that is, to the pagans, and they - to the cropped, that is, to the Jews. Here he shows himself equal to Peter. For the fact that he had given the earliest Jews and I had the same to the pagans. And notice how he showed that his sermon not only liked the Apostles, but also was God. After all about the apostles says they "Find out about grace". Did not say: "heard", but from the most affairs "found out." For, how would God give me this gift if he was unpleasant for such a preaching? And again he mentions three times with praise. For "Removed by pillars", that is, the great, whom everyone is pronounced everywhere and are famous - they testify to me that my preaching of Christ is pleasing. Therefore I. "Used the hand of communication", that is, agreed, recognized us accomplices and showed that they are satisfied with mine sermia, as not at all differ from their words.

. only that we remember the beggars that I tried to do accuracy.

Dividing among themselves, he says, the case is preaching, we remembered the poor. For and in Jerusalem, many of those who believed were deprived of their property with unbelievers and were in difficulty regarding the necessary feed. Ellity was not so heavily against believers from them, like Jews with Christians from the Jews. Therefore, Paul shows a special jealousy in care of them, as he himself testifies that "I tried to do accuracy". For collecting the sound everywhere from their students, he himself delivered him him.

. When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him

Many people think that Paul accuses Peter in hypocrisy, but it is unfair. For that seemingly says against Peter, made and expressed with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, allowed circumcision, - Yes, it was impossible to suddenly distract them from the law, and came to Antioch, he ate with the pagans. When some of the Jerusalemlians came to Antioch, he began to avoid pagans, so as not to seduce Jerusalemlians and together to give Paul a false case to induction. Therefore, Paul rents, and Peter suffers. For in this way, it was easier to change their image of thoughts of the disciples when the teacher is reproached and silent. So, that's "Personally opposed" It was only visibility, since if the struggle was valid, they would not blame each other with students, because they would subjected to their big temptation. And now, apparently, the external confrontation served as a correction of students. For and Peter does not contradict at all, it is clear that he agreed with this objection of Paul.

because he was subjected to complaints.

Did not say: from me, but simply, from others who did not know what was done with the good intention, and considered the hypocrisy that in the absence of Jerusalemlians he ate with the pagans, and when they came, dotted, and some understood: Peter Still before "Submitted", says Paul, because he ate with the rootilie, so it was now evolved, fearing to undergo new complaints, and when he donated, "I contacted him".

. For, before the arrival of some of Jacob, ate with the pagans; And when they came, began to fade and eliminate, fearing circumcised.

Indicates the reason for this chief. Jacob was the brother of the Lord who taught in Jerusalem as their bishop. So I sent some of the Jews who have already assured, but still adhered to the law, and they went to Antioch. Seeing them and fearlessly for their safety, and for the ensuring that they, seduced, did not disappear from faith, Peter began to shy away from the henates. Some, not knowing this reason, began to condemn it.

. Together with him was hypocritical and other Jews, so even Varnaba was passionate about their hypocrisy.

Calls this case by hypocrisy, because it does not want to discover the intentions of Peter, as well as for the sake of strongly committed to the law so that they keep their addiction to the law with the root. And by other Jews, he calls those who believed from the Jews in the Antioch, which themselves were kept uncircum.

. But when I saw that they were not directly entering the truth of the Gospel, he said to Peter at all ::

But do not be confused by these words, "he says not to the condemnation of Peter, and for the sake of those who could benefit, hearing that Peter was subjected to indemnity for commitment to the law. Why do you keep it? For, with the goal, he was reigned, then before everyone, so that they were frightened, hearing that such a great man was subjected to censure and could not argue. Eusevia says that he was submitted by Paul not great Peter, but another kifa, one of the seventy, and in confirmation indicates that it is impossible that the one who has previously defended himself about the temptation produced by him by the separation of meal with rootilium , I could again be subjected to such chosen. But we do not say that Peter was subjected to the censure from Paul for ignorance of his duty, and that he voluntarily obeyed the condemnation, so that others were corrected.

if you, being Jews, live in a papanish, and not in Jewish, then why are the pagans forcing to live in Jewish?

Just does not come to everyone Paul: "Imitate the teacher to your teacher - that's why he is a Jew, but knocked meat together with the pagans." And notice, - he does not blame him: "You do bad, observing the law," but refuses your own students from the pagans that he forces them to cut and live in Jousi. For in this form, the word could be more convenient to be accepted.

. We are by the nature of Judea, and not from the pagans sinners;:

"By nature", that is, not prose, and those born from fathers-Jews and educated in the law, but we left the usual way of life and resorted to faith in Christ.

. however, learning that a person is not justified by the affairs of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ, and we believed in Christ Jesus to justify faith in Christ, and not the affairs of the law; For the affairs of the law will not be justified any flesh.

Look how just everyone says. We left the law not because he is not unhappy, but because he is dismissed and not able to justify. For no one could fulfill his affairs, difficult and inconvenient, not because of their greatness, but rather due to petty things; Or otherwise, because he did not sanctify the soul, but only a bodily clearer removed. So circumcision is unnecessary. And ahead will say that it is even dangerous, because it alienates from Christ.

. If, looking for an excuse in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then really Christ is a servant of sin?

We tried to find, he says, justification in Christ, leaving the law. What do you say that it is sin to leave the law: after all, it turns out that Christ introduced us to us, since for the sake of it we left everything legitimate. Thus, Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became the culprit of more condemnation for us by convinced us to retreat from the law.

In no way.

By bringing it to absurdity, he had no need for confirmation, but he was pleased with one denial that he ordinantly he did in the subjects at all controversial.

. For if I reveal again, I destroyed, I do myself with a criminal.

Note his wisdom: they said that there is a criminal violating law, and he, on the contrary, shows that observing it is a criminal coming only against faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to faith and convinced to leave him. He will indicate ahead, and now he says that the law is pressed, and we will testify that we destroyed it, retreating from him. So, if we were to strengthen it to restore it, they would be criminals, restoring what was destroyed by God.

. I am dead for the law,

Explains how he left the law, and says: through the law of grace and the Gospel, I died for the law of Moiseeva, or he died, he says, for the law through the law; That is, the law itself led me to the more not to abide by him, bring me to Christ through Moiseeva and a prophetic word. Therefore, if I get it again, - again I break it. Or in this way: the law commanded not performing his prescriptions to punish and kill. And since he could not be completed, then I was death at least. Therefore, he does not command him, as he already deceased and mentally, because he sinned, without being able to fulfill the affairs of the law, and physically, since it depended on the condemnation by law. How will I still hold on to the one who killed me?

to live for God. I agreed to Christ

To anyone did not say: how do you live when died? "He says that although the law killed me alive, but Christ, who has gotten dead, revived me, who mentally complied with him and the deceased with him. A daughty miracle: revived the dead, and revived through death.

. and I don't live, but Christ lives in me.

In words "I agreed to Christ" I pointed to baptism, and the words "I'm not already living" - for life after this, through which our body dies. "But Christ lives in me", that is, there is nothing in us, which is not pleasing to Christ, but he does everything in us, managing and dominant. And our will died, and lives him and manages our lives. So, if I live for God with life other than life in law, and died for the law, I can't respect anything from the law.

And what now live in the flesh, I live in faith in the Son of God,

What I said, told about spiritual life, but also a sensory life you will find in me, soutically from Christ. For the law and the law violated all subjected to sin and punishment, and nothing obstructed how in the time of the Flood, everyone to perish as criminals; But the appeared Christ delighted us from condemnation, justified his. So this is the most sensual and carnal life - we have through faith in Christ, the faith that justifies us and delivering from condemnation.

having loved me and betrayed me for me.

Although he betrayed himself and loved himself, but Paul, the thought, from which Christ freed us and what was given, and it was boring with love, the general attributes to himself, as the prophets say: "God, my God." And at the same time, and shows that everyone should have such gratitude to Christ, as if he died for one. But only those who believed in it took advantage of these benefits. So the holding law shows that Christ did not die for him. How are you not afraid of this, but again come back to the law, which is useless for you by the Lord. And notice the expression "Potted" - For the sake of Arian.

. I do not reject the grace of God;:

After these reasoning, he finally declares: I do not reject the gift of Christ, to whom he encouraged me, justifying me without any affairs, and I do not resort to the law.

and if the law of justification, then Christ died in vain.

For, if, he says, the law is able to save and justify, then Christ died completely in vain. But he, no doubt, died in order to save us, which law is unable to do. And if the law saves, unnecessary death of Christ. Do you see what such hula leads?

Then, fourteen years later, I went again to Jerusalem with the Varnavoy, taking with him and Tita. I walked on revelation.

The reason for the first journey was Peter, and the second is revelation. And Tita and Barnava brought his sermon as witnesses, that she was pleased with the apostles.

And he suggested there, and especially famous, gospel preached by me.

That is, gospel without circumcision. Why, after so many years, he suggested him when it was necessary to do at the beginning and find out if he did it well or not? For it is unreasonable that the one that hurt so many years, after that he had needed in the instruction, if only he sat down. But if he came to get instructions regarding his own ministry, it would really be unreasonable. And since he saw that many were seduced by the fact that Peter admits circumcision, and he does not cut down and through it is suspected of a violation of the law, he came to Jerusalem on Revelation, according to the suggestion of the Holy Spirit to convince the sessions that there is no disagreement in the sermons, and that allowing circumcision is prudently detecting as preaching circumcised; What is unreasonable here? For to correct other Holy Spirit hung it to go, and he naturally obeyed. And especially famous. Due to the fact that a lot was seduced, Paul talks especially, alone with Peter's disciples, so that it does not arise to spread and prevent greater temptation. For they were very seduced, and if they heard that Paul openly rejects circumcision, it would have happened, and everything would have come into confusion. Therefore, it is talking alone, having witnesses of Tita and Varnava, who could declare all people that the apostles did not find anything nasty in his preaching. And calling them famous, does not reject their meanings, but next to its own and the general recognition, just as he said: i think I have the Spirit of God (1 Cor.7: 40), without rejecting the existence of this gift in itself, but indicating a general opinion. So, famousThat is, great, glorious.

Whether I am not in vain I will simultane or sat down.

That is, to teach the seductive relative to me, that I will not care in vain, and not to learn yourself, for how to learn to me when I got the revelation of my son and his gospel from his father?

But they and the Titus, formerly with me, although Erlin, did not force cut off.

And on the liabra who were hidden to wonder for our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus to enslave us.

The order of speech is as follows: even for the sake of the false Laterbracy, Tit was not forced to cut off, that is, although my opponents were present, but the apostles did not even forced the title to cut off. How does he call falsely insisting on circumcision, if the apostles accepted it? Because the apostles allowed circumcision from connecting to believers from circumcision, as a preacher to the Jews; and those as subcontractors of circumcision on the principle and as if the defenders of the law; Therefore, he calls them Liabra. And expression hidden concerned Indicates their cunning ideas, and the word hurry up gives to intelligence that they are enemies. After all, there is no one for anything else come, how to led everything and make it easier for yourself to destruction and enslavement. This is the most they did. For they observed who are uncircumcised, having freedom in Christ, that is, not subject to the law to attack them and force to cut off, and again subjected us to the slavery of the law from which Christ liberated us. So, it is clear from here that the apostles allowed the sub-banner to make little to get free from this slavery, and they acted so as to consolidate this slavery.

We did not give any per hour and did not submit, in order to have a truth of gospel.

Did not say did not give way Word, No. have not conqueredbecause not to learn something they did it, but for submission and enslavement. Therefore, we obey the apostles, and they do not. To, speak, was solid and true that we were preached. What exactly? What anciently passed, the law is abolished and the circumcised Christ does not accept, and circumcision does not bring any benefit. So, in contrasts, we showed that we were truly announced about the abolition of the law. Therefore, do not retreat from this truth.

And in the famous anything, whatever they ever, there is nothing special for me: God does not look at the person of a person.

Since it was natural to objeed to him and say: how did the apostles commanded cutting? - He eliminates this objection, although it does not indicate the true reason that they acted so on a special order and from the condescension, fearing, as if believers from the Jews, having heard that the apostles were not in the types of truth, and in the types of improvement allowed circumcision retreated from them, as from the destroyers of the law; For they have decorated because they kept them that they protected the law. Therefore, Pavel hides this cause, but heavily pulls on the apostles, saying: for me there is nothing special, that is, I have no need to the famous, to the great, obviously, the apostles - whether they are preached by circumcision, or not, since they themselves will give a response to God, and although they are great and parable, God will not look at their faces, For nonlicenenten. And notice: not said: what are they, but what were they evershowing that later and they stopped preaching when served everywhere excused. He says, this Paul is not in the ukrorizna holy, and wanting to benefit the listeners.

And the famous did not entrust nothing more on me.

What would, say, they were, it is - the matter of God, but then I know that they did not oppose anything to me and did not add anything to my sermon and did not fix it.

On the contrary, seeing that I was entrusted to appeal for the uncircumcised, as Peter for the cropped, - for Peter promoted in the Apostolism to the circumcised and to me from the pagans - and, having learned about the grace, this, Jacob and Kifa and John, revered by pillars, To serve me and Varnava's hand to communicate to us to go to the pagans, and they are cut.

Some interpreted in this way: not only did not fix anything in my case, but on the contrary, they even corrected. But it is incorrect. And what could they be fixed? After all, each of them is perfect. So, he says the following: "But on the contrary, they filed the hand of communication," then in the middle: seeing that I am entrusted to evaluate for uncut, and further in order. And not only that they did not recalculate me, they even praised and agreed that me and Varnava walked with evangelism to uncircumciated, that is, to the pagans, and they - to the cropped, that is, to the Jews. Here he shows himself equal to Peter. For the fact that he had given the earliest Jews and I had the same to the pagans. And notice how he showed that his sermon not only liked the Apostles, but also was God. After all about the apostles says they found out about grace. Did not say: "heard", but from the most affairs learned. For, how would God give me this gift if he was unpleasant for such a preaching? And again he mentions three times with praise. For removed by pillars, that is, the great, whom everyone is pronounced everywhere and are famous - they testify to me that my preaching of Christ is pleasing. Therefore I. used the hand of communication, that is, agreed, recognized us accomplices and showed that they are satisfied with mine sermia, as not at all differ from their words.

Only that we remember the beggars that I tried to do accuracy.

Dividing among themselves, he says, the case is preaching, we remembered the poor. For and in Jerusalem, many of those who believed were deprived of their property with unbelievers and were in difficulty regarding the necessary feed. Ellity was not so heavily against believers from them, like Jews with Christians from the Jews. Therefore, Paul shows a special jealousy in care of them, as he himself testifies that i tried to execute exactly. For collecting the sound everywhere from their students, he himself delivered him him.

When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him.

Many people think that Paul accuses Peter in hypocrisy, but it is unfair. For that seemingly says against Peter, made and expressed with a special purpose. For Peter, being in Jerusalem, allowed circumcision, - Yes, it was impossible to suddenly distract them from the law, and came to Antioch, he ate with the pagans. When some of the Jerusalemlians came to Antioch, he began to avoid pagans, so as not to seduce Jerusalemlians and together to give Paul a false case to induction. Therefore, Paul rents, and Peter suffers. For in this way, it was easier to change their image of thoughts of the disciples when the teacher is reproached and silent. So, that's personally opposition It was only visibility, since if the struggle was valid, they would not blame each other with students, because they would subjected to their big temptation. And now, apparently, the external confrontation served as a correction of students. For and Peter does not contradict at all, it is clear that he agreed with this objection of Paul.

Because he was subjected to complaints.

Did not say: from me, but simply, from others who did not know what was done with the good intention, and considered the hypocrisy that in the absence of Jerusalemlians he ate with the pagans, and when they came, dotted, and some understood: Peter Still before subjected to complaint, says Paul, because he ate with the rootilie, so it was now evolved, fearing to undergo new complaints, and when he donated, i contacted him.

For, before the arrival of some of Jacob, ate with the pagans; And when they came, began to fade and eliminate, fearing circumcised.

Together with him was hypocritical and other Jews, so even Varnaba was passionate about their hypocrisy.

But when I saw that they were not directly entering the truth of Gospel, he said to Peter at all.

If you, being Jews, live in a papanish, and not in Jewish, then why are the pagans forcing to live in Jewish?

Just does not appeal to all Paul: "Imitate the teacher to your teacher," because he is a Jew, but knocked out with the pagans. " And notice, - he does not blame him: "You do bad, observing the law," but refuses your own disciples from the pagans that he forces them to cut and live in Jousi. For in this form, the word could be more convenient to be accepted.

We are by the nature of the Jews, and not from the rapids sinners.

By nature, that is, not prose, and those born from fathers-Jews and educated in law, but we left the usual way of life and resorted to faith in Christ.

However, learning that a person is not justified by the affairs of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ, and we believed in Christ Jesus to justify the faith in Christ, in the affairs of the law; For the affairs of the law will not be justified any flesh.

If, looking for an excuse in Christ, we ourselves turned out to be sinners, then really Christ is a servant of sin?

We tried to find, he says, justification in Christ, leaving the law. What do you say that it is sin to leave the law: it turns out that Christ entered us in such a sin, since for the sake of it we left everything legitimate. Thus, Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became the culprit of more condemnation for us by convinced us to retreat from the law.

In no way.

By bringing it to absurdity, he had no need for confirmation, but he was pleased with one denial that he ordinantly he did in the subjects at all controversial.

For if I reveal again, I destroyed, I do myself with a criminal.

I have died by law.

To live for God. I agreed to Christ.

And I don't live, but Christ lives in me.

In words i agreed Christ pointed to baptism and words no longer i live - For life after this, through which our body dies. But Christ lives in me, that is, there is nothing in us, which is not pleasing to Christ, but he does everything in us, managing and dominant. And our will died, and lives him and manages our lives. So, if I live for God with life other than life in law, and died for the law, I can't respect anything from the law.

And what now live in the flesh, I live in faith in the Son of God.

What I said, told about spiritual life, but also a sensory life you will find in me, soutically from Christ. For the law and the law violated all subjected to sin and punishment, and nothing obstructed how in the time of the Flood, everyone to perish as criminals; But the appeared Christ delighted us from condemnation, justifying his death. So this is the most sensual and carnal life - we have through faith in Christ, the faith that justifies us and delivering from condemnation.

Having loved me and betrayed me for me.

Although he betrayed himself and loved himself, but Paul, the sacrifice, from which Christ freed us and what was given, and borrowed by love, the general attributes to herself, as the prophets say: "God, my God." And at the same time, and shows that everyone should have such gratitude to Christ, as if he died for one. But only those who believed in it took advantage of these benefits. So the holding law shows that Christ did not die for him. How are you not afraid of this, but again come back to the law, which is useless for you the death of the Lord. And notice the expression betrayed - For the sake of Arian.

I do not reject the grace of God.

After these reasoning, he finally declares: I do not reject the gift of Christ, with whom he encouraged me, justifying me without any deeds, and I do not resign into the law.

And if the law of justification, then Christ died in vain.

For, if, he says, the law is able to save and justify, then Christ died completely in vain. But he, no doubt, died in order to save us his death, which the law is unable to do. And if the law saves, unnecessary death of Christ. Do you see what such hula leads?

2:1‑10 Listing the details of the most significant journey in Jerusalem after his appeal, Paul gives convincing evidence that he preaches exactly the same good news as the other 12 apostles.

2: 1 through fourteen years, again ... in Jerusalem So much time passed between his first visit to Jerusalem (1:18) and the visit about which Paul mentions here. Perhaps this was a visit to the Jerusalem Cathedral (Acts 15: 1-22), convened to solve the issue of rescue pagans. Under the word "again" can be implied not only the next visit, but also "again", regardless of how many visits were between them. And Paul really visited Jerusalem for those 14 years to help starving among believers of that church (Acts 11: 27-30; 12:24, 25), but he does not speak here about the visit, since it had a relationship to his apostle. Varnavoy See the explanation for the Acts. 4:36. He was the first ally of Paul, steadily for him in front of the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27) and accompany him during the first missionary journey (Acts 13: 2, 3). Tita This is a spiritual son and an employee of Paul (Tit 1: 4, 5). Being the uncircumcised pagan, Tit was a living proof of the effectiveness of Paul's ministry. See in the introduction to the message to the title: the author and time of writing.

2: 2 on revelation This revelation from God was the voice of the Holy Spirit (see Explanations to Act. 13: 2-4). Paul has in mind that the highest goal of his visit was to exclude any assumption that he was sent to Jerusalem Jews to correct his teaching. gallennia See Explanation to 1: 7. especially famous Those. Three main chiefs of the Jerusalem Church: Peter, Jacob (Lord's brother, 1:19) and John (cf. Art. 9). This expression usually belonged to the authorities and the honorable position. Paul is still twice talking about them in this way (Art. 6, 9), resorting to light irony against the Jews, who claimed that they had the apostolic approval of their teachings, and Paul was not. Perhaps they used to exalt these 3 leaders in opposition to Paul. will I prevent anything in vain Paul hoped that the Jerusalem leaders would support his ministry among the pagans and firmly revolve against the laws. He did not want his ministry to become vain because of the conflict with other apostles.

2: 3 Erina See the explanation for Rome. 1:14. did not force cut off The core of the legal system was Moiseevo on circumcision (see Explanations to Gen. 17: 9-14; Rome. 4: 9-12). Jews taught that salvation cannot be without circumcision (Acts 15: 1, 5, 24). Paul and the apostles denied it and at the Council in Jerusalem adopted the appropriate decision (Acts 15: 1-22). See explanations to 5: 2-12; 6:15; Rome. 4: 10-12; 1 Cor. 7:19. As a true believer, Titis was a living proof that Moses prescriptions are not prerequisites or necessary components of salvation. The refusal of the apostles to demand the circumcision in Titus became evidence of the refusal of the church from the Jewish doctrine (CP. Tim., Dean 16: 1-3).

2: 4 Likes Those. Supporters of the Jewish religion who tried to seem genuine Christians. Their doctrine that announced the commitment to Christ was in opposition to traditional Judaism, but since it demanded circumcision and obedience to Moses law as a premise of salvation, it was both opposition to Christianity. hurry up Translated so from the Greek word describes spies or traitors who are thrown into an enemy camp. Supporters of Judaism were hidden devil agents sent to the church to undermine the true Gospel. freedom Christians are free from the law as a means of salvation, from his external rituals and decisions as a lifestyle and from a curse for disobedience, the curses that Christ suffered for all believers (3:13). This freedom is not an alleviation for sin (5:13; Rome. 6:18; 1Pet. 2:16). enslaveHere it is understood by the complete enslavement of an impracticable excuse rate.

2: 5 We ... did not give way Paul and Tit (Art. 3) never went from the standpoint that salvation is given only by grace and only through faith. truth of gospel This is the true gospel in opposition to another (1: 6-8) and the false, which distributed supporters of the Jewish religion (see Explanation to Rome. 1: 1).

2: 6 whatever they are Another reference to Peter, James and John (see explanation to Art. 2). does not look like a person's face The exceptional privilege of the twelve did not make their apostlement more representative than Pavlovo - Christ chose them all (Wed Rome 2:11). Paul never considered his apostle in something lower (see 2 Cor. 12:11, 12).

2:7 Supporters of the Jewish religion argued that Paul preaches a distorted gospel, but the apostles confirmed that he preaches the true good news. The same gospel preached Peter, only another audience. for uncircumcised It is better to translate "uncircum." Pavel missed, mainly to the pagans (as well as the Jews in the pagan lands, and, as a rule, at first he walked into the synagogue; Wed. Dean. 13: 5). Peter for circumcised Peter was intended mainly for the Jews.

2: 8 promoted Peter ... and me The Holy Spirit, who has only one gospel, authorized to serve both Peter and Paul.

2: 9 about grace given to me These pillars of the church could make the only conclusion: the efforts of Paul, for having the power for gospel and for the creation of the Church, was God's grace. Jacob and Kifa and John This Jacob was Brother Jesus on the flesh (1:19), he ranked high in the Jerusalem Church (see Introduction to the Epistle of Jacob). Kifa (Peter) and John (Brother Apostle James, his martyrdom is described in Dean. 12: 2) were two closest comrades of Christ and became the main apostles in the Jerusalem Church (see Dean 2-12). pillar The role of James, Peter and John in the establishment and support of the Church is emphasized. VarnavaSee explanations to Art. one; Dean. 4:36. hand communicationIn the Middle East, it was a solemn oath friendship and a partnership sign. This act showed that the apostles recognized Paul as a preacher of the True Gospel and their employee in the ministry. to go to the pagans This phrase is another confirmation of God's vocation of Paul to ministry and strike on supporters of the Jewish religion, since the apostles sent him to continue his fruitful ministry for pagans. cropped See Explanation to Art. 7.

2:10 remembered the nurses A specific reminder for Paul and the growing rows of Christians from the pagans. At first, the number of Christians in Jerusalem increased sharply (Wed. Dean. 2: 41-45; 6: 1) and many who came to the city for the feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 1, 5), remained there forever. Although the first believers were shared by their estate (Acts 2:45; 4: 32-37), many of them had little money. For many years, the Jerusalem Church was in a difficult material situation. See explanations for Acts. 11:29, 30.

2:11‑13 A brief description of the most difficult days in the history of evangelism. Turning from the believers from the pagans to communicate with the supporters of the Jewish religion, which (and he knew it) stood on erroneous positions, Peter externally supported their teachings and humiliated the Teaching of Paul, given to that, in particular, the position of salvation only by grace only through faith . See Explanations to 2 Cor. 6: 14-18; 2in. 10, 11.

2:11 Antioch See the explanation for the Acts. 11:19. Those. In place of finding the first church from the pagans. subjected to complaint It is better to translate "in condemnation." Peter made a sin, reporting with people who - he knew it - they did not stand in truth, and hurt the brothers from the pagans, Say among them embarrassment.

2:12 Some of Jacob Peter, knowing about the decision made by the Cathedral in Jerusalem (Acts 15: 17-29) and while somewhat in Antioch, ate along with the pagans. When they came there who had believed from Jews, they pretended to be sent by Jacob, and stated that they allegedly support the apostles themselves. Peter has already abandoned all Moise rites (Acts 10: 9-22), and Jacob sometimes performed only some of them (Acts 21: 18-26). became buried Translated with Greek. The expression means a military term to designate the retreat and may imply that the departure of Peter was gradual and deceptive. The fact that he ate with the Jews and refused the meal with pagans, although the earlier did it, meant that Peter observed those the most restrictions on the dietary property, which he knew, God canceled (Acts 10:15). It applied a blow to the good news about grace. fearing circumcised Here is the true cause of this behavior of Peter. He was afraid to lose his popularity among supporters of Jewish perpetrators in the church, which hypocritically and boreally dispelled the heretical teaching.

2:13. hypocrisier Translated so word in Greek. Relevates to the actor who put on the mask, transmitting a mood or some image. In the spiritual sense, there is a person hiding his true character here (Wed. Matt. 6: 1-6). They were betrayed by the Gospel of Grace, but did the view that they take the Jewish following the law. other Jews Those. Believers from Jews in Antioch

2:14 right Letters Go "straight" or "straightening". Eluming from Christians from the pagans, Peter and other believers from Jews did not fulfill the Word of God. the truth of Evangelskaya See Explanation to Art. five. we live in pagan Previously, Peter regularly communicated and eaten with the pagans, which is the ideal of Christian love and freedom between Judea and the pagan. pagans forcing to live in Judean Agreeing with Jews, he stated the correctness of their path.

2:15, 16 Pavlov reproach Peter is one of the strongest places of the new covenant about the absoluteness and the immutability of the exercise on excuses to grace through faith (see Explanation to Rome. 3:24). The obvious repentance of Peter approved the Apostlement of Paul and his own submission of truth (Wed 2pete. 3:15, 16).

2:15 From the Gentiles Sinners This is true because the pagans were sinners by nature; They were not opened by God's law in order to bring them to salvation or righteous life.

2:16 Affairs ... Faith In this verse, Paul announces three times that salvation is given only through faith in Christ, and not through the law. For the first time, this is said in the general sense: "A person is not justified by affairs"; The second time in the personal sense: "We believed ... to justify"; The third time in a universal sense: "No flesh will not be justified." justifiedTranslated so with Greek. The legal term was used by the judge, who declared the accused innocent before the law. All Scripture speaks of God who declares the sinner innocent and fully righteous to him, having transferred the highest righteousness of Christ and landing on the sinless Savior's sentence for the sin of man (see Explanations to Rome. 3:24; FLP. 3: 8, 9) . affairs of the law Compliance with the law is completely unsuitable for the rescue means, because the root of sinfulness lies in the spoilness of the human heart, and not in his actions. The law served as a mirror to detect sin, not a medicine from it (see Explanations to 3: 22-24; Rome. 7: 7-13; 1: 1: 8-11).

2:17 We ... turned out to be sinners If the Jewish teaching was correct, then Paul, Peter, Varnava and other believers from Jews fell under the category of sinners, because they talked and ate with the pagans, who were considered unclean on Jewish law. minister of sin If the Jews were right, then Christ would be wrong and would teach people to sin, because he said that the food could not desecrate the person (MK. 7:19; Wed. Dean 10: 13-15). He also said that all belonging to him there is one with him, and, therefore, with each other (John 17: 21-23). The impeccable logic of Paul was impulsed by Peter, because he seemed to show his actions that Christ was telling a lie. This thought is completely unfounded and forces Paul to use the strongest in Greek. denial translated "in no way!" (Wed 3:21; Rome. 6: 1, 2; 7:13).

2:18 What destroyed Those. The false system of salvation through the law (see Explanation by 1:13), which abolished the sermon that the salvation is given only by grace and only by faith.

2:19 I died for the law After the death sentence over the criminal is carried out, the law no longer brings over it. The same is the case with a Christian who died in Christ (who fully paid the punishment for his sins) and rebel to a new life in it - justice is restored and it is completely free from any further punishment. See explanations to Rome. 7: 1-6. I agreed Christ See explanations to Rome. 6: 2-6. When a person trusts Christ as the Savior, he spiritually participates in the crucifixions of the Lord and his victory over sin and death.

2:20 And I do not live, but Christ lives in me The old "I" of the believer is dying (see Explanation to Eph. 4:22), sharply with Christ (Rom. 6: 3-5). A new person in the believer is awarded that honor that Christ lives in it (see Explanations to Rome. 8: 9, 10). gone for me Christ's love for the believer manifested itself through his sacrificial death on the cross (John 10:17, 18; Rome. 5: 6-8; Eph. 5: 25-30).

2:21 Paul concluded that Peter, having joined the Jews and, thus, going away from Christ, thus rejected the need for God's grace and brought to "no" the meaning of Christ death. justification See the explanation for Rome. 1:17. Christ died in vain It is better to translate "the death of Christ was useless." People who believe that they can earn save their own efforts, undermine the basis of Christianity and make a senseless death of Christ.

2: 1 fourteen years. It is unclear after its appeal or after the first visit to Jerusalem.

i went to Jerusalem again. This may relate to either the second visit to Jerusalem after the appeal (Acts. 11.27-30), or by the third, referred to in Dean. 15.2. The purpose of the visit mentioned here corresponds to the goal of the visit, which Dean says. 15, but then it is difficult to explain why Paul lowers a visit referred to in Dean from his story. 11. If, according to some scientists, the message to the Galatians was written after the first missionary journey of the Apostle Paul (Acts, Ch. 13; 14), but earlier the Cathedral in Jerusalem (Acts, 15), then the journey mentioned here in Acts, ch. 11, and traveling from Dean., Ch. 15 has not yet taken place.

with Varnavoy. A native of Cyprus, one of the first Christians (Acts 4.36). The name of Varnaba in Arameski means the "son of consolation", and the book of Acts testifies that he lived with a worthy of his name (see Dean. 4,36.37; 11.22-24.30).

Title. One of the trusted companions and the messengers of Paul.

2: 2 on revelation. If this is a visit mentioned in Dean. 11, then the revelation could be the prophecy of Agava (11.28).

it is not in vain. Although the primoaposts were not a source of powers of the Apostle Paul, their approval once again witnessed that Paul really understood the vocation (1,15.16) and correctly performed it.

2: 3 were not forced to cut off. See 5.12 and Acts. 15.1. Circumcision - the sign of the covenant (life. 17.10) - was a sign of the Judea and the last step when dealing with the male pagan in the Jewish faith. Some Christians from Jews believed that before joining the chosen people of God, pagans should take circumcision and become Jews. Paul sharply objects to this and throughout the message to the Galatians defends the idea that one faith is enough to save.

2: 4 Likes. Paul considered the doctrine of rescue faith with the fundamental and did not recognize those who belong to the Church who did not adhere to it (1.8.9; 5.2-4).

freedom. For believers, freedom is not permission to sin, but exemption from the curse imposed by law on sin (3.10-14; 5,1.13).

enslave. Probably sin (Rome 6,15-23; 7.25) and a curse that imposes a law on those who sin (3.10).

2: 5 truth of gospel. See 1.8.9; 2.14 and com. You can only belong to the people of the Testament of God only through faith, which, in turn, is the gracious gift of God to the believer (1.6.15). Any attempt to introduce additional requirements (like circumcision) is the denial of the sufficiency of faith for salvation, and therefore the distortion of evangelism.

2: 6 on the face of a person. As an external circumcision sign does not determine the affiliations to the people of God, so external signs of significance are not important for God (1 Tsar. 16.7; Rome. 2.25-29).

2: 7 Like Peter for Cropped. Apparently, Peter was the main preacher of the early Jerusalem Church (Acts., Ch. 1-12). He was very reluctant to respond to God's command to communicate with the pagan rootilius and preach to him the Gospel (Acts, Ch. 10). Recognizing the need to include pagans among the people of God (Acts 10.34.35; 11.17; 15.7-11), Peter, apparently, believed that it was called by the god to the gossi of the Jews.

2: 9 About grace given to me. See 1.15 and com.

Jacob and Kif and John. See com. to 1,18.19; 2.7. They used special authority in the early Jerusalem Church. Kifa, t. Peter, and John are often mentioned together in the Book of Acts (ch. 3; 4), and Acts. 12.17; 15,13; 21.18 indicate that Jacob occupied a prominent position in the Jerusalem Church. The word "pillar" has a metaphorical value ("Support").

to go to the pagans. Varnava, like Paul, preached, mainly to the pagans (Acts, Ch. 13; 14; 15.36-41).

2:11 in Antioch. Capital and the largest city of the Roman province of Syria. The church in Antioch, according to the information that had reached us was not only the first, where Christians from Jews and pagans were united in prayer and fraternity, but for the first time, preachers were sent to the gate (Acts 13.1-3).

2:12 Eliminate. Many Juda-Christians insisted that Christians from the pagans follow the prescriptions of the law of Moiseeva (Acts 10.28; 11.2.3.19; 15,1), and preliminary circumcision, i.e. The adoption of Jews, considered mandatory. Communication with "non-corrupted" (fabricated by the pagans) was considered by them as an unacceptable.

2:14 The truth of Evangelskaya. See com. to 2.5.

we live in pagan. Before the arrival of the "Cropped Group" Peter publicly communicated with the pagans (Art. 12). Now he behaves as if it believes that the pagans should take the Jews to become a full member of the people of God.

2:15-16 These verses are central in the message. Paul points out that every person (both observing the law of Jews and the uncircumcised pagan) enters a proper relationship with God only through faith in Jesus Christ.

justified. In Greek, as in Russian, language, the noun "righteousness" (Greek: "Dietosini"), adjective "righteous" (Greek: "Diceos") and verb "justify" (Greek: "Diceo") - derivatives one root.

2:16 In the Old Testament, God is righteous (Sof. 3.5). He rules, judges and puts his verdict with perfect justice (1 King. 26.23). "Justify" means to recognize the rightness, innocence (second. 25,1). But if none of those who live is not righteous before God (Ps. 142.2), "How does a person justify before God" (Job 9,2)? God -Sudia, whose decision is immutable and fair, but he is - the Savior, which is mightble on the basis of the victim of the Atonement, cancel his own sentence (ion 3.9). The righteousness of God is manifested not only as the property of God, but also as its gift (Is. 45.24.25; 54.14-17), acquired through the Messiah (Is. 53.8; Ier. 23,5.6; 33.14-16) . Paul announces the execution of the Old Testament Provision (Rome. 3,21-26). The gift of the righteousness of Christ, as well as his atoning victim, are accepted by faith.

affairs of the law. Paul has in mind those "cases", which are distinguished by the Jews from the heathen: circumcision, prescriptions regarding food and observance of Saturday (Art. 15,16). This expression, however, is the volume and all the efforts of fallen humanity to abide by God's law to earn an exclusive sentence.

no flesh will be justified. Cf. PS. 142.2. No one can fulfill the entire law, and compliance with certain prescriptions of the law, such as circumcision, cannot lead to a coherent attitude with God. For this requires God-given justification by Christ and the redemption of his blood. Not faith deserves God's approval; She only accepts the merits of Christ before God (FLP. 3.9).

2:17 We ourselves were sinners. Embiled Galatov False and Some of Jacob (2.12) considered Paul "sinner" (as well as pagans, Art. 15) Due to the violation of the Jewish prescriptions about food. They probably also accused Paul in that he encourages his preaching sin (Rom. 3.8).

2:18 What destroyed. Perhaps Paul has in mind the attempt to Peter to restore the barrier between the Jews and the pagans destroyed by the Gospel (Art. 14; Eph. 2,14). The law is not the one who, looking for justification, turns from the law to Christ, and the one who from Christ leaves again to the law.

2:19 Paul died for the law through the death of Christ; He agreed on Christ because he connected with Christ who was dead for him (Art. 20; 3.13; Rome. 4.25; 5,6). He, also risen with Christ and now lives in unity with God (count. 2,12; 3.1). The deadlines in relation to the law is not a violation of the law, because Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law. Consequently, all believers themselves are exempt from its bonds and condemnation.

2:20 Life in unity with Christ means that he imagined us in his death and resurrection. Moreover, it is a living unity. Christ lives in the believer; The Lord in the Spirit lives in the inner alliance with the spirit of the believer. Paul, however, does not mean that his personality is suppressed or absorbed: he lives "in the body", but "faith." This union is the closest and deepest spiritual relationship.