Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:2 - 2:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:2. Δέ ] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repetition of the same word, as in Rom_3:22; 1Co_2:6; Php_2:8, et al. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 361; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97.
κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν ] in conformity with a revelation received. What an essential element for determining the bearing of the whole narrative! Hence ἀνέβ . δὲ κ . ἀπ . is not parenthetical (Matthias). But what kind of ἀποκάλυψις it was—whether it was imparted to the apostle by means of an ecstasy (Act_22:17; 2Co_12:1 ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance (Act_16:9; Act_18:19; Act_23:11; Act_27:23), or generally by a prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a communication from the Spirit (Act_16:6-7; Act_20:22-23), or in some other mode—remains uncertain. According to Act_15:2, he was deputed by the church of Antioch to Jerusalem; but with this statement our κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν does not conflict (as Baur and Zeller maintain): it simply specifies a circumstance having reference to Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before or after that resolution of the church, and was probably quite unknown to Luke. Luke narrates the outward cause, Paul the inward motive of the concurrent divine suggestion, which led to this his journey; the two accounts together give us its historical connection completely. Comp. Acts 10, in which also a revelation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining Peter to go to Caesarea. The state of the case would have to be conceived as similar, even if our journey were considered identical with that related Acts 11, 12., in which case κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν would apply not—possibly—to the prophesying of Agabus, but likewise to a divine revelation imparted to Paul himself. Hermann (de P. ep. ad Gal. trib. prim. capp. Lips. 1832, also in his Opusc. V. p. 118 ff.), as before him Schrader, and after him Dav. Schulz (de aliquot N.T. locor. lectione et interpr. 1833), have explained it: “explicationis causa, i.e. ut patefieret inter ipsos, quae vera esset Jesu doctrina.” No doubt κατά might express this relation: comp. Wesseling, ad Herod. ii. 151; Matthiae, p. 1359; Winer, p. 376 [E. T. 502]. But, on the one hand, the account of Acts as to the occasion of our journey does not at all require any explaining away of the revelation (see above); and, on the other hand, it would by no means be necessary, as Hermann considers that on our interpretation it would, that κατὰ τινα ἀποκάλυψιν should have been written, since Paul’s object is not to indicate some sort of revelation which was not to be more precisely defined by him, but to express the qualifying circumstance that he had gone up not of his own impulse, but at the divine command, not ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ , but κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν , conformably to revelation. Moreover, it is the only meaning consonant with the aim of the apostle, who from the beginning of the epistle has constantly in view his apostolic dignity, that here also, as in Gal_1:12; Gal_1:6, ἀποκάλ . should express a divine revelation (comp. Eph_3:3), as in fact the word is constantly used in the N.T. in this higher sense: comp. Gal_1:12.
ἀνεθέμην ] I laid before them, for cognisance and examination. Comp. Act_25:14; 2Ma_3:9, and Grimm thereon. Among Greek authors, in Plutarch, Polyb., Diog. L., etc.
αὐτοῖς ] that is, the Christians at Jerusalem, according to the well-known use of the pronoun for the inhabitants of a previously named city or province; Bernhardy, p. 288; Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 788]. The restriction of the reference to the apostles (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Calvin, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, and others), who are of course not excluded, is, after εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα , even still more arbitrary[54] than the view which confines it to the presbyterium of the church (Winer, Matthies). Reuss also (in the Revue théol. 1859, p. 62 ff.) wrongly denies the consultation of the church.
τὸ εὐαγγ . ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθν .] The main doctrine of which is that of justification by faith. Chrysostom aptly remarks, τὸ χωρὶς περιτομῆς . The present tense denotes the identity which was still continuing at the time the epistle was written (comp. Gal_1:16); ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι does not, however, mean among the nations (Usteri), but that it was his gospel to the Gentiles which Paul laid before the mother-church of Jewish Christianity. Comp. Rom_11:13.
κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι ] sc. ἀνεθέμην τὸ εὐαγγ . ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθν . But apart, that is, in one or more separate conferences, to those of repute. On κατʼ ἰδίαν , comp. Mat_17:19; Mar_4:34; Mar_9:28; Valckenaer, ad Eur. Phoen. p. 439. It is, like the ἰδίᾳ more usual in the classical authors (Thuc. i. 132. 2, ii. 44. 2; Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 4, Anab. v. 7. 13, vi. 2. 13; Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 88), the contrast to κοινῇ or ΔΗΜΟΣΊᾼ (comp. 1Ma_4:5). ΤΟῖς ΔΟΚΟῦΣΙ singles out the aestumatos from the body of Christians at Jerusalem. This, however, is not meant to apply to the esteemed members of the church generally (comp. ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς , Act_15:22), but (see on Gal_2:9) to James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. The other apostles who were still alive appear already to have ceased from personal connection with the church at Jerusalem. Gal_2:6-7; Gal_2:9 show, that it is not the anti-Pauline partisan adherents of those three who are referred to (Grotius); and, indeed, it would have been entirely opposed to his apostolic character to lay his gospel specially before the δοκοῦσι in this sense. Moreover, the designation of the three apostles as οἱ δοκοῦντες is not “an ironical side-glance” (Schwegler, I. p. 120), nor has it proceeded from the irritation of a bitter feeling against those who had habitually applied this expression to these apostles (Cameron, Rückert, Schott, comp. Olshausen); but it is used in a purely historical sense: for an ironical designation at this point, when Paul is about to relate his recognition on the part of the earlier apostles, would be utterly devoid of tact, and would not be at all consonant either to the point of view of a colleague, which he constantly maintains in respect to the other apostles, or to the humility with which he regards this collegiate relation (1Co_15:8 ff.). He has, however, purposely chosen this expression (“the authorities”), because the very matter at stake was his recognition. Homberg, Paulus, and Matthies wrongly assert that τοῖς δοκοῦσι means putantibus, and that the sequel belongs to it, “qui putabant, num forte in vanum currerem.” Gal_2:5-6; Gal_2:9 testify against this interpretation; and the introduction of φοβεῖσθαι into the notion of ΔΟΚΕῖΝ is arbitrary, and cannot be supported by such passages as Hom. Il. x. 97, 101 (see, on the contrary, Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 138 f.). Besides, it would have been inconsistent with apostolic dignity to give such a private account to those who were suspicious. In classical authors also οἱ δοκοῦντες , without anything added to define it, means those of repute, who are much esteemed, nobiles. See Eur. Hec. 295, and thereon Schaefer and Pflugk; Porphyr. de abstin. ii. 40, et al.; Kypke, II. p. 274; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xii. 56. Comp. also Clem. Cor. I. 57. Just so the Hebrew çÈùÑÇá . See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 531; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 839 f. Comp. ΔΌΚΙΜΟΙ , Plat. Pol. x. p. 618 A; Herod. i. 65; Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 109.
But why did Paul submit his gospel not merely to the Christians in Jerusalem generally, but also specially to the three apostles? By both means he desired to remove every suspicion which might anywhere exist in the minds of others (comp. Chrysostom), that he was labouring or had laboured in vain; but how easy it is to understand that, for this purpose, he had to address to the apostles a more thorough and comprehensive statement, and to bring forward proofs, experiences, explanations, deeper dialectic deductions, etc.,[55] which would have been unsuitable for the general body of Christians, among whom nothing but the simple and popular exposition was appropriate! Therefore Paul dealt with his colleagues ΚΑΤʼ ἸΔΊΑΝ . But we must not draw a distinction as to matter between the public and the private discussion, as Estius and others have done: “publice ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mosis … privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae legis … esse liberandos,” etc. In this way Paul would have set forth only the half of his gospel to the mass of the Christians there; and yet this half-measure, otherwise so opposed to his character, would not have satisfied the Jewish-Christian exclusiveness. Thiersch also (Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 128) wrongly holds (comp. Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 100) that the subject of the private discussion was Paul’s apostolic dignity; it was nothing else than τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κ . τ . λ . and only in so far his apostolic legitimacy. The object of the private discussion was, in Winer’s opinion: “ut ne, si his (the δοκοῦσι ) videretur P. castigandus, publica expostulatione ipsius auctoritas infringeretur.” But this also is not in accordance with the decided character of Paul; and if he had dreaded a public expostulation, he would not have ventured first to set forth his gospel publicly, because the apostles, in the event of disapproval, would not have been able to withhold public contradiction. The view that the private discussion with the δοκοῦσι preceded the general discussion with the church (so Neander, p. 277; Lekebusch, Apostelgesch. p. 295), runs counter to the account of our passage, which represents the course of events as the converse.
μήπως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον ] Taken by itself, ΜΉΠΩς may signify either lest possibly, ne forte, and thus express directly the design of the ἀνεθέμην (so, following the Vulgate and the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Luther, and most expositors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rückert, Schott), or whether … not possibly, num forte (Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Wieseler), thus indirectly interrogative. The former interpretation is decidedly to be rejected, because the indicative aorist ἔδραμον does not suit it; for, according to the Greek use of the particles of design with the indicative aorist or imperfect (see on Gal_4:17), the ἈΝΕΘΈΜΗΝ would not actually have taken place; and besides this, we should have to assume—without any ground for doing so in the context—that ΤΡΈΧΩ and ἜΔΡΑΜΟΝ are said ex aliorum judicio,[56] and that τρέχω is subjunctive, although by its connection with ἜΔΡΑΜΟΝ it evidently proclaims itself indicative. Hence ΜΉΠΩς must be rendered num forte, and the reference of the num is supplied by the idea, “for consideration, for examination,” included in ἀνεθέμην (Hartung, Partikell. II. pp. 137, 140). The passage is therefore to be explained: “I laid before them my gospel to the Gentiles, with a view to their instituting an investigation of the question whether I am not possibly running or have run in vain.” The apostle himself, on his own part, was in no uncertainty about this question, for he had obtained his gospel from revelation, and had already such rich experience to support him, that he certainly did not fear the downfall of his previous ministry (Holsten[57]); hence μήπως is by no means to be understood, with Usteri and Hilgenfeld, also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 303, and Holsten, as implying any uncertainty or apprehension of his own (in order to see, in order to be certain, whether). But he wanted to obtain the judgment and declaration of the church and the apostles (so, correctly, Wieseler); comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 44 f., who, however, heil. Schr. N.T. I. p. 86, supplies only ἀνεθέμην (without τὸ εὐαγγ . κ . τ . λ .) after Τ . ΔΟΚΟῦΣΙ , thus making ΜΉΠΩς Κ . Τ . Λ . the matter itself laid before them; but this would be at variance with the essential idea of laying before them the gospel, of which Paul is speaking, for he does not repeat ἀνεθέμην , and that alone. According to Hofmann, the state of the case would amount to this, that Paul desired to have the answer to the question μήπως κ . τ . λ . from the ΔΟΚΟῦΣΙ only, and not also from the church,—a view which would neither harmonize with the position of the latter (comp. Act_15:22 f.), nor would leave apparent in the text any object for his submitting his gospel to the church at all. Observe, moreover, that the apostle does not say εἴπως (whether possibly); but, with the delicate tact of one who modestly and confidently submits himself to the judgment of the church and the apostles, while hostile doubts as to the salutary character of his labours are by no means unknown to him, he writes μήπως , whether … not possibly (Gal_4:11; 1Th_3:5), that is, in the positive sense, whether perhaps.[58] In no case has the apostle in μήπως κ . τ . λ . expressed the intention of procuring for himself a conviction of the correctness of his teaching.[59]
ΕἸς ΚΕΝΌΝ ] in cassum. See Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 328. Comp. the passages from Josephus in Kypke; from the LXX., Isa_65:23 et al.; from the N.T., 2Co_6:1, Php_2:16, 1Th_3:5. Comp. also the use of εἰς κοινόν , ΕἸς ΚΑΙΡΌΝ , ΕἸς ΚΑΛΌΝ , and the like, in Bernhardy, p. 221. Paul conceives his running as vain, that is, not attaining the saving result aimed at,[60] if his gospel is not the right and true one.
τρέχω ] a figurative expression, derived from the running in the stadium, for earnestly striving activity—in this case, official activity, as in Php_2:16, 2Ti_4:7; in other passages, Christian activity in general, as 1Co_9:24 f., Gal_5:7, Heb_12:1. Comp. Rom_9:16. The present indicative transfers us into the present time of the ἀνεθέμην , from which ἔδραμον then looks back into the past. A clear and vivid representation. As to the indicative generally with the indirect interrogative μή , whether not, see Bernhardy, p. 397; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 810; also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 104.
[54] If αὐτοῖς applied to the apostles, there was no need for regarding (with Chrysostom and others) κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι as a more precise definition of ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς ; for if so, Paul would have expressed himself in a way very illogical and liable to misunderstanding, because κατʼ ἰδίαν δέ would be without meaning, if it was not intended to denote some act different from the general ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς . Paul must have written simply ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς κ . τ . λ ., ἀνεθέμην δὲ τοῖς δοκ . This remark applies also against the view of Baur and Zeller, who, although they allow that the language warrants our view, take the sense to be, “I set it forth to them, but only to those of highest repute in particular.” On the contrary, if αὐτοῖς applied to the apostles, the meaning, as the passage runs, would have to be taken as Schott (comp. Olshausen) gives it: “doctrinam … apostolis omnibus exposui, privatim vero (uberius ac diligentius) iis, qui magni aestumantur, apostolis auctoritate insignibus, Petro, Johanni, Jacobo.” But how improbable it is in itself, that Paul should have held such a separate conference with a select few of the apostles, and should not have vouchsafed an equally circumstantial and accurate exposition of his teaching to the whole of the apostles as such! Apart, however, from this, the three δοκοῦντες appear to have been the only apostles present in Jerusalem at that time.
[55] This was a case in which the principle beyond doubt applied, σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελειοῖς , 1Co_2:6.
[56] Those who do not agree with this, fall into forced interpretations, as Fritzsche, Opusc, p. 175: “ne forte frustra etiam tum, quum epistolam ad Galatas scriberet, apostolus laboraret, aut … ante iter jam laboravisset.”
[57] Against Holsten’s exaggeration Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 117 f.) has justly declared himself. The counter remarks of Holsten, z. Ev. d. Petr. u. Paul. p. 277, are immaterial.
[58] In μήπως κ . τ . λ ., let us conceive to ourselves the moment when the apostle has laid his gospel before those assembled, and then says as it were, “Here you have my gospel to the Gentiles; by it you may now judge whether I am perhaps labouring in vain, or—if from the present I look back upon the past—have so laboured!” The supposition of irony (Märcker in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 537) is not warrantable amidst the gravity of the whole surrounding circumstances.
[59] Winer (p. 470) justly lays stress upon this in opposition to Fritzsche, but is of opinion (with de Wette) that Paul desired to obviate the frustration involved in μήπως κ . τ . λ ., by inducing the assent of the apostles to his gospel, “because without this assent and recognition the Christians who had been converted by him would have remained out of communion with the others” (de Wette). But this latter idea is unnecessarily introduced; and even in the event of non-recognition, Paul, looking to his direct calling and the revelation he had received, could not have regarded it as involving the result of his labour being in vain.
[60] Comp. the classical ἀνόνητα πονεῖν , Plat. Rep. p. 486 C.
Note.
Act_15:4; Act_15:12 must not be adduced as proof either for or against (Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others) the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15. The two facts—that related in Act_15:4; Act_15:12, and that expressed by ἀνεθέμην κ . τ . λ . in Gal_2:2—are two different actions, both of which took place at that visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, although what is stated in our passage was foreign to the historical connection in Acts 15, and therefore is not recorded there. The book of Acts relates only the transactions conducive to his object, in which Paul took part as deputy from the church at Antioch. What he did besides in the personal interest of his apostolic validity and ministry,—namely, his laying his gospel as well before the church (not to be identified with the assembly of the council) as before the δοκοῦντες also separately,—forms the subject of his narrative in Galatians 2, which is related to that in the Acts, not as excluding it and thereby impugning its historical character, but as supplementing it (contrary to the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). Comp. on Act_15:19 f. As to the non-mention of the apostolic decree, see Introd. § 3.