Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:15 - 2:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:15. A continuation of the address to Peter down to Gal_2:21. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Tittmann (Opusc. p. 365), Knapp (Scr. var. arg. II. p. 452 f.), Flatt, Winer, Rückert, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette and Möller, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten. Others have looked upon Gal_2:15-21 as addressed to the Galatians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler, Reithmayr); but to this view it may be objected, that Paul himself does not indicate the return to his readers until Gal_3:1, and that the bare, brief reproach in Gal_2:14 would neither correspond to the historical character of so important an event, nor stand in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it (see on Gal_2:11); as indeed he himself has in Gal_2:11; Gal_2:14 so earnestly prepared the way for, and announced, his opposition, that the reader could not but expect something more than that mere question—so hurriedly thrown out—of indignant surprise.[92] And how could he have written to his (for the most part) Gentile-Christian readers ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι κ . τ . λ ., without telling them whom he meant thereby? Just as little can we assume that Paul again turns to the Galatians with καὶ ἡμεῖς in Gal_2:16 (Calovius, Paulus), or in Gal_2:17 (Luther, Calvin), or in Gal_2:18 (Cajetanus, Neander); or that he (Erasmus and Estius by way of suggestion, Usteri) has been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs to the speech at Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse (Gal_2:15-21)—thoroughly unfolding the truth from principles, and yet so vivid, and in fact annihilating his opponent—harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in view in relating this occurrence to the Galatians especially (among whom indeed these very principles, against which Peter offended, were in great danger), that, up to its grave conclusion ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν (Gal_2:21), it must be regarded as an unity—as the effusion directed against Peter at Antioch; but, at the same time, it cannot be maintained that Paul spoke the words quite literally thus, as he here, after so long a lapse of time, quotes from lively recollection of the scene which he could not forget.
ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι , καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτ .] Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to the reproach expressed in Gal_2:14 with a concession: “We are Jews by birth, (in this Paul feels the whole advantage of belonging to the ancient holy people of God, Rom_3:1 f., Rom_9:1 ff.), and not sinners of the Gentiles (by Gentile descent).” Gentiles as such, because they are ἄνομοι and ἄθεοι (Rom_2:12; 1Co_9:21; Eph_2:12), are to the Israelite consciousness ἁμαρτωλοί and ἄδικοι (1Sa_15:18; Tob_13:6; Wis_10:20 : comp. Luk_18:32; Luk_24:7; 1Co_6:1); and from this—the theocratical—point of view Paul says ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί , born Gentiles, and as such sinners, as all Gentiles are. Not as if he would look upon the Ἰουδαίους as not sinners; according to the sequel, indeed, they needed justification equally with the Gentiles (see Rom_2:3; Rom_2:22 f., Gal_5:12; Eph_2:2 f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews—as the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient theocratic υἱοθεσία and the promises (Rom_9:4), and as belonging to the holy ἀπαρχή and root-stock of the theocracy (Rom_11:16)—possessed as their own a religious consecration of life, whereby they stood on a certain stage of righteousness in virtue of which, although it was not that of the true δικαιοσύνη , they were nevertheless exalted far above the Gentiles in their natural state of sinfulness (Eph_2:12; Tit_3:5). Luther well says: “Nos natura Judaei in legali justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui peccatores sunt, si nobis conferantur, ut qui nec legem nec opera ejus habent; verum non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, externa est ilia justitia nostra.” If ἁμαρτωλοί had not been unduly understood according to the purely ethical idea (the opposite of sinlessness), the discourse would not have been so broken up as by Elsher, Er. Schmidt, and others: “Nos natura Judaei, licet non ex gentibus, peccatores;” comp. Paulus. Hofmann’s view is also similar: “that the apostle excluded from himself that sinfulness only, which was implied in Gentile descent—characteristic of those not belonging naturally to the Jewish nationality;” comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 564, 610 (“our sinfulness does not bear the characteristic Gentile shape”). Paul wishes, not to affirm the different nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles respectively, but to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews over the sinners of Gentile descent; in spite of which advantage, however, etc. (Gal_2:16). The contrast lies in the idea of a theocratic sanctitas, peculiar to the born Jew, on the one hand;[93] and on the other, of a profane vitiositas, wherewith the Gentile descent is burdened.
ἡμεῖς ] has the emphasis: We on our part (I and thou), μέν is not to be supplied here (Rückert, Schott); but the concession in Gal_2:15 stands by itself, and the contrast is added without preparation in Gal_2:16. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 423; Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. 105, “quando altera pars per δέ sit evehenda.” The contrast thus strikes one more vividly, and hence the absence of the μέν can afford no ground for calling in question (with Hofmann) the sense of a concession. Comp. also Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 15. On the difference between Ἰουδαῖοι (theocratic bond of union) and Ἑβραῖοι (nationality), see Wieseler, über d. Hebräerbrief 1861, II. p. 28.
[92] Indeed the practical renunciation (not mere denial) of the principle of Christian freedom required a renewed apology for, and vindication of, the latter; especially as Paul had called Peter to account before the assembled church, whereby the act assumed a solemnity to which the brief question in ver. 14 alone could in no way seem adequate, and least of all could it suffice to procure a duly proportionate satisfaction for the offence given to the church (ver. 11). He does not, however, “demonstrate” his explanation to Peter (Wieseler’s difficulty), but presents it in the most vivid and striking dialectic, compressing everything which would have afforded matter for a very copious demonstration sharply and sternly, towards the defeat of the great opponent who had been unfaithful to himself. Hofmann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul after the concession ἐθνικῶς ζῇς κ . οὐκ Ἰουδαΐκως had thus explained himself in a detailed statement to Peter, he would have acted absurdly. It would have been absurd, if Paul, in order to say the two or three words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had brought the whole act of the κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην before the assembled church.
[93] Calvin appropriately says: “Quia autem promissio haereditariam benedictionem faciebat, ideo naturale vocatur hoc bonum.”