Rom 13:2, Gal 2:11 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth , etc. That is, they who rise up against government itself ; who seek anarchy and confusion; and who oppose the regular execution of the laws. It is implied, however, that those laws shah not be such as to violate the rights of conscience, or oppose the laws of God. Resisteth the ordinance of God . What God has ordained, or appointed. This means, clearly, that we are to regard government as instituted by God, and as agreeable to his will. When established, we are not to be agitated about the titles of the rulers; not to enter into angry contentions, or to refuse to submit to them, because we are apprehensive of a defect in their title , or because they may have obtained it by oppression. If the government is established, and if its decisions are not a manifest violation of the laws of God, we are to submit to them. Shall receive to themselves damnation . The word damnation we apply now exclusively to the punishment of hell; to future torments. But this is not necessarily the meaning of the word which is here used, (κριμα). It often simply denotes punishment , ; . In this place the word implies guilt or criminality in resisting the ordinance of God, and affirms that the man that does it shall be punished. Whether the apostle means that he shall be punished by God , or by the magistrate , is not quite clear. Probably the latter , however, is intended. Comp. . It is also true, that such resistance shall be attended with the displeasure of God, and be punished by him.

Romans 13:2

Verse 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth, etc. That is, they who rise up against government itself; who seek anarchy and confusion; and who oppose the regular execution of the laws. It is implied, however, that those laws shah not be such as to violate the rights of conscience, or oppose the laws of God.

Resisteth the ordinance of God. What God has ordained, or appointed. This means, clearly, that we are to regard government as instituted by God, and as agreeable to his will. When established, we are not to be agitated about the titles of the rulers; not to enter into angry contentions, or to refuse to submit to them, because we are apprehensive of a defect in their title, or because they may have obtained it by oppression. If the government is established, and if its decisions are not a manifest violation of the laws of God, we are to submit to them.

Shall receive to themselves damnation. The word damnation we apply now exclusively to the punishment of hell; to future torments. But this is not necessarily the meaning of the word which is here used, (κριμα). It often simply denotes punishment, Rom 3:8; 1Cor 11:29, Gal 5:10. In this place the word implies guilt or criminality in resisting the ordinance of God, and affirms that the man that does it shall be punished. Whether the apostle means that he shall be punished by God, or by the magistrate, is not quite clear. Probably the latter, however, is intended. Comp. Rom 13:4. It is also true, that such resistance shall be attended with the displeasure of God, and be punished by him.

Galatians 2:11

Verse 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch. On the situation of Antioch, Acts 11:19. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the eldest, and probably the most honoured of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Gal 2:14-21 to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.

I withstood him to the face. I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candour. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him, and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views, and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known, that Paul made his remarks before the church, Gal 2:14, because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.

Because he was to be blamed. The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.

(d) "Antioch" Acts 15:35