Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:10 - 2:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:10. After μόνον interpreters usually supply a verb such as αἰτοῦντες or παρακαλοῦντες , which in itself would be allowable (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 207 f.), but is nevertheless quite superfluous; for μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημ . appears dependent on δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρν . κοιν ., so that it is parallel with the preceding ἵνα and limits it. Comp. Matthies, Fritzsche, Hofmann. “They made with us a collegiate alliance, to the end that we should be apostles to the Gentiles; … only that we should not omit to remember the poor of the περιτομή (not merely of the mother-church) as to support.” In that alliance nothing further, in respect to our relation to the περιτομή , was designed or settled. On μνημονεύειν in the sense of beneficent care, comp. Psa_9:12; Hom. Od. xviii. 267.
μόνον , which belongs to the whole clause, and τῶν πτωχῶν stand before ἵνα on account of the emphasis laid upon them. Comp. on Eph_3:18; 1Co_7:29; 2Co_2:4; 2Th_2:7, et al. The poverty of the Christians of Palestine, which was the principal motive for this proviso being added, finds its explanation in the persecutions which they underwent, in the community of goods which they had at first, and perhaps also in the expectation of the Parousia as near which they most of all cherished. Moreover, the μόνον κ . τ . λ . by no means excludes the ordinances of the apostolic council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his recognition as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private discussions held with the latter. How Baur misuses μόνον κ . τ . λ ., as contrasted with the supposed irreconcilable diversity subsisting in doctrine, may be seen in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 470; Paulus, I. p. 142 ff. ed. 2; comp. also Holsten. In the face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles certainly would not have tendered Paul their hands; and had they desired to do so, Paul would have refused them his.[82]
ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι ] The aorist, not used instead of the pluperfect, relates to the time from that apostolic alliance to the composition of the epistle. Paul, however, continues in the singular; for soon afterwards he separated himself from Barnabas (Act_15:39). So, correctly, Estius, Winer, Usteri, Schott. Those who identify our journey with that related in Acts 11, 12 must conclude, with Fritzsche, that Paul desired to report concerning himself, and hence only mentioned Barnabas (and Titus) as well, where it was necessary. Nevertheless this joint-mention, although not necessary, would have been very natural in our passage; for ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν had just been said, and then in a single stroke of the representation, with ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κ . τ . λ ., is given the conclusion of the matter so referred to.
αὐτὸ τοῦτο ] is not superfluous (Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Morus), as neither αὐτό alone (Winer, p. 140) nor τοῦτο alone (see Matthiae, p. 1050; Kühner, II. p. 527) is used; it is the emphatic epexegesis of ὅ , hoc ipsum (see Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. LIII.), whereby Paul makes his readers feel the contrast between the Jewish Christian antagonism and his zeal of love thus shown. Studer and Usteri find in αὐτὸ τοῦτο the tacit antithesis, “but nothing further which the apostles had imposed on me.” Inappropriately, for the idea of any other matters imposed was already excluded by the previous account. Schott proposes to take ὅ as διʼ ὅ (see on Act_26:16), but the assumption of this poetical use cannot be justified except by a necessity such as is presented to us in the N.T. only at Act_26:16. Still more easily might αὐτὸ τοῦτο be explained (Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 21; Matthiae, p. 1041; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 204 A) as on that very account (2Pe_1:5; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 21). But in that case ὅ would so naturally take up what preceded, that there would be no reason why Paul should have brought on that very account so prominently forward. It would rather have the appearance of suggesting that, if it had not been for the agreement in question, Paul would not have cared for the poor.
We have no historical vouchers for the truth of ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κ . τ . λ .; for the conveyance of the contributions in Acts 11 took place earlier than our journey; and the collection mentioned 1 Corinthians 16., 2 Corinthians 8 f., Rom_15:27, comp. Act_21:17 f., Act_24:17, occurred after the composition of our epistle. But who would be inclined to doubt that assurance? Looking at the more or less fragmentary accounts in Acts and the Pauline epistles, who knows how often Paul may have sent pecuniary assistance to Palestine? as indeed he may have brought the like with him on occasion of his own journey, Act_18:20-22. It has, however, been wrongly asserted that, by means of this obligation in respect to the poor, a connection was intended to be maintained between the Gentile churches and the primitive church, and that at the bottom of it lay the wish to bring over the preliminarily converted Gentiles gradually more and more to the principles and the mode of life of the primitive church (Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 141). This is an insinuation derived from mere fancy.
[82] Tertullian (de praescr. 23) already gives the right view: “inter se distributionem officii ordinaverant, non separationem evangelii, nec ut aliud alter, sed ut aliis alter praedicarent.”