Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 1:12 - 1:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_1:12. Proof of the statement, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ ἄνθρωπον .
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγώ ] for neither I, any more than the other apostles. On οὐδὲ γάρ , for neither, which corresponds with the positive καὶ γάρ , comp. Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. p. 200; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 211. The earlier expositors (also Morus, Koppe, and others) neglect both the signification of οὐδέ and the emphasis on ἐγώ , which is also overlooked by de Wette, “for also I have not,” etc.; and Ewald, “I obtained it not at all.” Comp., on the contrary, Mat_21:27; Luk_20:8; Joh_8:11. Rückert, Matthies, and Schott understand οὐδέ only as if it were οὔ , assuming it to be used on account of the previous negation; and see in ἐγώ a contrast to those, quibus ipse tradiderit evangelium, in which case there must have been αὐτός instead of ἐγώ . This remark also applies to Hofmann’s view, “that he himself has not received what he preached through human instruction.” Besides, the supposed reference of ἐγώ would be quite unsuitable, for the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his disciples; a comparison with the other apostles was the point agitating his mind. Lastly, Winer finds too much in οὐδέ , “nam ne ego quidem.” This is objectionable, not because, as Schott and Olshausen, following Rückert, assume, οὐδʼ ἐγὼ γάρ or καὶ γὰρ οὐδʼ ἐγώ must in that case have been written, for in fact γάρ would have its perfectly regular position (Gal_6:13; Rom_8:7; Joh_5:22; Joh_7:5; Joh_8:42, et al.); but because ne ego quidem would imply the concession of a certain higher position for the other apostles (comp. 1Co_15:8-9), which would not be in harmony with the apostle’s present train of thought, where his argument turned rather on his equality with them (comp. 1Co_9:1).
παρὰ ἀνθρώπου ] from a man, who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπου (see on 1Co_11:23, and Hermann, ad Soph. El. 65). Here also, as in Gal_1:1, we have the contrast between ἄνθρωπος and Ἰησ . Χριστός .
αὐτό ] viz. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ .
οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ] As οὔτε refers only to the οὐκ contained in the preceding οὐδέ , and δέ and τέ do not correspond, οὔτε is here by no means inappropriate (as Rückert alleges). See Hand, De part. τέ diss. II. p. 13; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 101 f.; Buttmann, neutest. Gr. p. 315. Comp. on Act_23:8. For neither have I received it from a man, nor learned it. Παρέλαβον denotes the receiving through communication in general (comp. Gal_1:9), ἐδιδάχθην the receiving specially through instruction duly used.
ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀποκαλύψ . Ἰ . Χ .] The contrast to παρὰ ἀνθρώπου ; Ἰησοῦ Χ . is therefore the genitive, not of the object (Theodoret, Matthies, Schott), but of the subject (comp. 2Co_12:1; Rev_1:1), by Jesus Christ giving to me revelation. Paul alludes to the revelations[25] received soon after the event at Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which enabled him to comply with it and to come forward as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. Gal_1:15-16; Eph_3:3. The revelation referred to in 2Co_12:1 ff. (Thomas, Cornelius a Lapide, Balduin, and others) cannot be meant; because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul had for a long time been preaching the gospel. Nor must we (with Koppe, Flatt, and Schott) refer it to the revelations which were imparted to him generally, including those of the later period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by which he received and learned the gospel.
How the ἀποκάλυψις took place (according to Calovius, through the Holy Spirit; comp. Act_9:17), must be left undecided. It may have taken place with or without vision, in different stages, partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned Act_9:6; Act_9:9, partly at and immediately after it, but not through instruction on the part of Ananias. The ἘΝ ἘΜΟΊ in Gal_1:16 is consistent with either supposition.
[25] Of which, however, the book of Acts gives us no account; for in Act_22:17, Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him the gospel, but for the purpose of giving a special instruction. Hence they are not to be referred to the event at Damascus itself, as, following Jerome and Theodoret, many earlier and more recent expositors (Rückert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Wieseler) assume. The calling of the apostle, by which he was converted at Damascus, is expressly distinguished in ver. 16 from the divine ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν ἐν ἐμοί , so that this inward ἀποκάλυψις followed the calling; the calling was the fact which laid the foundation for the ἀποκάλυψις (comp. Möller on de Wette)—the historical preliminary to it. In identifying the ἀποκάλυψις of our passage with the phenomenon at Damascus, it would be necessary to assume that Paul, to whom at Damascus the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had come to add to this fundamental fact of his preaching the remaining contents of the doctrine of salvation, partly by means of argument, partly by further revelation, and partly by information derived from others (see especially Wieseler). This idea is, however, inconsistent with the assurance of our passage, which relates without restriction to the whole gospel preached by the apostle, consequently to the whole of its essential contents. The same objection may be specially urged against the view, with which Hofmann contents himself, that the wonderful phenomenon at Damascus certified to Paul’s mind the truth of the Christian faith, which had not been unknown to him before. Such a conception of the matter falls far short of the idea of the ἀποκάλυψις of the gospel through Christ, especially as the apostle refers specifically to his gospel.