Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:14 - 2:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:14. Ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσι ] ὀρθοποδεῖν (comp. ὀρθοβατεῖν , Anthol. ix. 11. 4), not preserved elsewhere in Biblical language, undoubtedly means to be straight-footed, that is, to walk with straight feet (comp. ὀρθόπους , Soph. Ant. 985; Nicand. Alexiph. 419, ὀρθόποδες βαίνοντες ). Here used in a figurative sense—as words expressive of walking are favourites with Paul in representing ethical ideas (comp. περιπατεῖν , στοιχεῖν κ . τ . λ .)—equivalent to acting rightly (with straightness), conducting oneself properly ( ὀρθοπραγεῖν , Aristot. Pol. i. 5. 8). Vulgate, “recte ambularent.”[90] It is the moral ὈΡΘΌΤΗς ΠΡΆΞΕΩς (Plat. Men. p. 97 B), the opposite of the moral σκολιόν (Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A), στρεβλόν (Sir_36:25), ΧΩΛΌΝ (Heb_12:13). According to the leaning of Greek authors towards the direct mode of expression, the present is quite regular. See Kühner, § 846.
πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθ . τοῦ εὐαγγέλ .] ΠΡΌς is understood as secundum (2Co_5:10; Luk_12:47; Bernhardy, p. 265) by most expositors (including Winer, Rückert, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler); by others in the sense of direction towards the mark (Flacius, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Morus, Hofmann), which would mean, “so as to maintain and promote the truth of the gospel.” The former interpretation is to be preferred, because it is the more simple and the first to suggest itself, and it yields a very suitable sense. Hence: corresponding to the truth, which is the contents of the gospel (Gal_2:5). Certainly Paul never in verbs of walking expresses the rule prepositionally by πρός , but by ΚΑΤΆ (Rom_8:4; Rom_14:15; 1Co_3:3, et al.); but in this passage πρὸς κ . τ . λ . is the epexegesis of ὈΡΘῶς , according to its ethical idea.
ἔμπροσθεν πάντων ] consequently, not under some four eyes merely, but in the sight of the whole church although not assembled expressly for this purpose (Thiersch); τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε , ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσι , 1Ti_5:20. “Non enim utile erat errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto emendare,” Augustine.
εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων κ . τ . λ .] that is, “If thou, although a born Jew, orderest thy mode of living in conformity with that of the born Gentiles, ΧΩΡῚς ἸΟΥΔΑΙΚῆς ΠΑΡΑΤΗΡΉΣΕΩς (Chrysostom), and not with that of the born Jews—a course of conduct, which thou hast just practically exemplified by eating in company with Gentile Christians—how comes it to pass that thou (by the example of the wholly opposite conduct which thou hast now adopted since the arrival of those ΤΙΝΈς ) urgest the born Gentiles to adopt the custom of the born Jews?” What a contradiction of conduct is it, thus in one breath to live ἘΘΝΙΚῶς and to urge the ἜΘΝΗ to the ἸΟΥΔΑΐΖΕΙΝ ! The present Ζῇς denotes that which was constant, accordant with principle, in Peter’s case (contrary to the view of Hilgenfeld and others). This is laid down by Paul, with the argumentative εἰ , as certain and settled, and that not merely by inference from his recent experience of Peter having eaten in company with Gentiles, but also on the ground of his knowledge otherwise of this apostle and of his practical principles on this point, with which the ἐθνικῶς ζῆν just before actually carried out by Peter was in accordance. Groundlessly and erroneously Rückert labours (since it does not run: ἘΠΕΙΔΉ … ἜΖΗΣΑς ) to extract an entirely different meaning, understanding ἸΟΥΔΑΪΚῶς Ζῇς in an ideal sense (Rom_2:28 f.; Joh_1:48), and ἐθνικῶς ζῇς as its opposite: “By thy present conduct thou showest thyself truly not as a genuine Jew, but as a Gentile (sinner); how art thou at liberty to ask that the Gentiles should adopt Jewish customs, which by thy behaviour thou thyself dost not honour?” But, in fact, the reader could only take the explanation of the ἘΘΝΙΚῶς Ζῇς from ΜΕΤᾺ ΤῶΝ ἘΘΝῶΝ ΣΥΝΉΣΘΙΕΝ (Gal_2:12), and of the ἸΟΥΔΑΪΚῶς Ζῇς from ὙΠΈΣΤΕΛΛΕ … ΠΕΡΙΤΟΜῆς (Gal_2:12). No one could light upon the alleged ideal view (reverting, in the apodosis, to the empirical!), the more especially as the breaking off from eating with the Gentiles would have to be regarded as a Gentile habit (in an ethical sense)! The ζῆν is not the moral living according to the Gentile or the Jewish fashion, but the shaping of the life with reference to the category of external social observances within the Christian communion, such as, in the individual case in question, the following ( Ἰουδαϊκῶς ) or non-following ( ἘΘΝΙΚῶς ) of the Jewish restrictions as to eating.
Πῶς ] qui fit, ut (Rom_3:6; Rom_6:2; Rom_10:14, and frequently), indicating the incomprehensibleness of this morally contradictory behaviour.
τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν ] indirect compulsion. For the Gentile Christians in Antioch must very naturally have felt themselves constrained by the imposing example of the highly-esteemed Peter to look upon the Jewish habit of living—the observance of the special peculiarities of the outward legal Judaism (the Ἰουδαΐζειν : comp. Est_8:17; Plut. Cic. 7[91])—as something belonging to Christianity, and necessary for partaking in Christian fellowship and for attaining the Messianic salvation; and they would shape their conduct in practice in accordance with this view (comp. Usteri, p. 66 f.). De Wette (comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198 f., Komment. p. 168) assumes, that the emissaries of James preached the principle of the necessity of observing the law, and that Peter gave his support, at least tacitly, to this preaching. This is not at all intimated in the text, and is not rendered necessary by the literal sense of ἀναγκάζειν , which is sufficiently explained by the moral constraint of the inducement of so influential an example, as it is often used in classical authors, “de varia necessitate quam praesens rerum conditio efficit” (Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. 18. 6). The view which understands the word here not at all of indirect constraint, but of definite demands (Ritschl, p. 146), by which Peter sought to turn them back into the path of Jewish Christianity, is opposed to the divine instruction imparted to this apostle, to his utterances at the council, and to our context, according to which the ἀναγκάζειν can have consisted in nothing more than the οὐκ ὀρθοποδεῖν as it is represented in Gal_2:12 f., and consequently must have been merely a practical, indirect compulsion, not conveyed in any express demands. Wieseler obscures the intelligibility of the whole passage by understanding the Ἰουδαΐζειν of the observance of the restrictions as to food enacted by the apostolic council. In decisive opposition to this view it may be urged, that in the whole context this council is left entirely unmentioned; further, that these restrictions as to food had nothing to do with the Jewish proselytes (on whose account, possibly, their observance might have been called an Ἰουδαΐζειν ); lastly, that the compliance with the same on the part of the church at Antioch, especially so soon after the council (see on Gal_2:11), cannot, according to Act_15:30, at all be a matter of doubt. Moreover, how could Paul, who had himself together with Peter so essentially co-operated towards this decree of the council, have—in the presence of Peter, of the Christians of Antioch, and even of those who were sent by James—characterized the obedience given to the restrictions in question by the inapplicable and ill-sounding name Ἰουδαΐζειν ? It would have shown at least great want of tact.
[90] Hofmann, “to stand with straight foot.” But comp. ὀξυποδεῖν , ὠκυποδεῖν , to be swift-footed, that is, swift in running. The standing would probably have been expressed, as perhaps by ὀρθοστατεῖν . The ὀρθοποδῶν is not lame ( χωλεύει ), but makes τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς τοῖς ποσίν , Heb_12:13.
[91] Where a freedman is spoken of, who was ἔνοχος τῷ Ἰουδαΐζειν , and in reference to whom Cicero says, τί Ἰουδαίῳ πρὸς χοίρον ; comp. also Ignat. ad Magnes. 10, ἄτοπόν ἐστιν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν λαλεῖν καὶ Ἰουδαΐζειν .