Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 1:20 - 1:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_1:20. Not a parenthesis, but, at the conclusion of what Paul has just related of that first sojourn of his at Jerusalem after his conversion (namely, that he had travelled thither to make the acquaintance of Cephas, had remained with him fifteen days, and had seen none of the other apostles besides, only James the brother of the Lord), an affirmation by oath that in this he had spoken the pure truth. The importance of the facts he had just related for his object—to prove his apostolic independence—induced him to make this sacred assurance. For if Paul had ever been a disciple of the apostles, he must have become so then, when he was with the apostles at Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion; but not only had he been there with another object in view, and for so few days, but he had also met with James only, besides Peter. The reference to all that had been said from Gal_1:12 (Calvin, Koppe, Winer, Matthies), or at least to Gal_1:15-19 (Hofmann), is precluded by the fact that ἔπειτα in Gal_1:18 begins a fresh section of the report (comp. Gal_1:21; Gal_2:1), beyond which there is no reason to go back.
The sentence is so constructed that ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν stands emphatically by itself as an anacoluthon; and before ὅτι , that, we have again to supply γράφω , But what I write to you—behold in the sight of God I write, that I lie not; that is, in respect to what I write to you, I write, I assure you before the face of God ( ìÄôÀðÅé éÀäÉåÈä , so that I have God present as witness), that I lie not. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 338. Schott takes ὅτι as since, “coram Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior,” whereby ἃ δὲ γρ . ὑμ . does not appear as an anacoluthon. But this siquidem non mentior would be very flat; whereas the anacoluthon of the prefixed relative sentence is precisely in keeping with the fervency of the language (comp. Mat_10:14; Luk_21:6, and the note thereon). The completely parallel protestation also, ὁ Θεὸς … οἶδεν … ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι (2Co_11:31; comp. Rom_1:9; 2Co_1:23), is quite unfavourable to the explanation of ὅτι as siquidem. To supply with Bengel, Paulus, and Rückert (comp. Jerome), an ἐστί after Θεοῦ ( ὅτι , that), does not make the construction easier (Rückert); on the contrary, it is arbitrary, and yields an unprecedented mode of expression.