Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:11 - 2:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:11. Paul now carries still further the historical proof of his apostolic independence; “ad summa venit argumentum,” Bengel. For not only has he not been, instructed by the apostles; not only has he been recognised by them, and received into alliance with them; but he has even asserted his apostolic authority against one of them, and indeed against Peter. There is no ground in the text for assuming (with Hofmann) any suspicion on the part of the apostle’s opponents, that in Antioch he had been defiant, and in Jerusalem submissive, towards Peter.
ὅτε δὲ ἦλθε Κηφᾶς κ . τ . λ .] After the apostolic conference, Paul and Barnabas travelled back to Antioch, Act_15:30. During their sojourn there (Act_15:33) Peter also came thither,—a journey, which indeed is not mentioned in Acts, but which, just because no date is given in our passage, must be considered as having taken place soon after the matters previously related (not so late as Act_18:23, as held by Neander, Baumgarten, Lange; and by Wieseler, in favour of his view that the journey Gal_2:1 coincides with that of Act_18:22).[83]
Κηφᾶς ] The opinion deduced from the unfavourable tenor of this narrative, as bearing upon Peter, by Clement of Alexandria ap. Euseb. i. 12, that the person meant is not the apostle, who certainly in this case is far from corresponding to his destination as “the rock” of the church, but a certain Cephas, one of the seventy disciples, has been already refuted by Jerome, and also by Gregory, Hom. 18 in Ez.
κατὰ πρόσωπον ] To his face I opposed him. See Act_3:13; often in Polybius. Comp. κατʼ ὀφθαλμούς , Herod. i. 120; Xen. Hiero, 1, 14: Gal_3:1; and κατʼ ὄμμα , Eur. Rhes. 421, Bacch. 469. Not coram omnibus (Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus), which is not expressed until Gal_2:14. The opinion of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and several Fathers, that the contention here related was nothing more than a contention in semblance ( κατὰ πρόσωπον = secundum speciem!), is only remarkable as a matter of history.[84]
ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν ] not “quia reprehensibilis or reprehendendus erat” (Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Elsner, Wolf, and others; also Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Matthies); for the Greek participle is never used, like the Hebrew, for the verbal adjective (Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 791; Ewald, p. 538), neither in Jud_1:12, Rev_21:8, nor in Hom. Il. i. 388, xiv. 196, xviii. 427; and what a feeble, unnecessary reason to assign would be ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν in this sense! Moreover, καταγιγνώσκειν τινα (not to be confounded with καταγ . τινός τι , as is done by Matthias), so far as its significations are relevant here, does not mean reprehendere at all, but either to accuse, which here would not go far enough, or condemnare (comp. 1Jn_3:20-21; Sir_14:2; Sir_19:5). Hence also it is not: quia reprehensus or accusatus erat (Ambrose, Luther, Estius, and others; also Winer, Schott, de Wette), but: quia condemnatus erat, whereby the notorious certainty of the offence occasioned is indicated, and the stringent ground for Paul’s coming forward against him is made evident. Peter, through his offensive behaviour, had become the object of condemnation on the part of the Christians of Antioch; the public judgment had turned against him; and so Paul could not keep silence, but was compelled to do what he certainly did with reluctance. The passive participle has not a vis reciproca (Bengel, comp. Rückert, “because he had an evil conscience”); the condemnation of Peter was the act of the Christian public in Antioch. The idea “convicted before God” (Ewald) would have been expressed, if it had been so meant. If the condemnation is understood as having ensued through his own mode of action (Bengel, Lechler, p. 423; comp. Windischmann and Hofmann), the question as to the persons from whom the condemnation proceeds is left unanswered.
[83] Grotius, although he considers the journey Gal_2:1 as identical with that in Acts 15, strangely remarks: “Videtur significare id tempus, de quo in Act_13:1.” Also Hug and Schneckenburger, Zweck d. Apostelg. p. 108 ff., place the occurrence at Antioch earlier than the apostolic council,—a view which, according to the chronological course of Gal_1:2, is simply an error; in which, however, Augustine, ep. 19 ad Hieron., had preceded them.—Whether, moreover, Peter then visited the church at Antioch for the first time (Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 432) must he left undecided; but looking at the length of time during which this church had already existed, it is not at all probable that it was his first visit.
[84] A contest arose on this point between Jerome and Augustine. The former characterized the reprehensio in our passage as dispensatoria, so contrived by Peter and Paul, in order to convince the Jewish Christians of the invalidity of the law, when they should see that Peter had the worst of it against Paul. Augustine, on the contrary, asserted the correct sense, and maintained that the interpretation of Jerome introduced untruth into the Scriptures. See Jerome, Ep. 86–97; Augustine, Ep. 8–19. Subsequently Jerome gave up his view and adopted the right one: c. Pelag. i. 8; Apol. adv. Rufin. iii. 1. See Möhler, gesammelte Schriften, I. p. 1 ff.