Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:21 - 2:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:21. Negative side—opposed to an antagonistic Judaism—of the life which Paul (from Gal_2:19) has described as his own. By this negative, with the grave reason assigned for it, εἰ γάρ κ . τ . λ ., the perverse conduct of Peter is completely condemned.
I do not annul (as is done by again asserting the validity of the law) the grace of God (which has manifested itself through the atoning death of Christ).
ἀθετῶ ] as in Gal_3:15, Luk_7:30, 1Co_1:19, 1Ti_5:12, Heb_10:28 : make of none effect; see the sequel. It is here the annulling—practically involved in the Judaistic courses—of the grace of God in Christ, which is in fact rendered inoperative and cannot make righteous, if righteousness is furnished by the law. The rejection of grace (Vulgate and others, abjicio) which is involved in this, is a practical rejection.[110] As to ἀθετεῖν generally, which does not occur until after Polybius, see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 12.
εἰ γάρ κ . τ . λ .] justifies what has just been said, οὐκ ἀθετῶ .
διὰ νόμου ] through the law, namely, as the institute which brings about justification by virtue of the works done in harmony with it (comp. on Gal_3:11). This is emphatically prefixed, so that Χριστός corresponds in the apodosis.
δωρεάν ] not: without result (Erasmus, Paraphr., Piscator), a meaning which it never has either in classical authors (in whom it occurs in the sense of gratis only) or in the LXX., but: without reason, without cause, as 1Sa_19:5, Psa_34:8 (not Job_1:9): comp. Joh_15:25; Sir_20:21; Sir_29:6 f.; Ignat. Trall. 10, δωρεὰν οὖν ἀποθνήσκω . Chrysostom justly says: περιττὸς ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θάνατος , which was the very act of the grace which desired to justify men. This death would have taken place unnecessarily; it would have been, as it were, an act of superfluity (comp. Holsten), if that which it was intended to effect were attainable by way of the law. Erasmus aptly remarks, “est autem ratiocinatio ab impossibili.” Observe the exclusive expression of the clause assigning the reason of οὐκ ἀθετῶ , which allows of no half-and-half division of justification between law and grace.
[110] So that ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις , Rom_11:6.
Note.
Paul is discreet enough to say nothing as to the impression which his speech made on Peter. Its candour, resolution, and striking force of argument would, however, be the less likely to miss their aim in the case of Peter, seeing that the latter was himself convinced of Christian freedom (Act_15:7 ff.), and had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by connivance from fear of men (Gal_2:13). But as, according to this view, an opposition of principle between the two apostles cannot be conceded (contrary to the view of Baur and his followers), we must abstain from assuming that this occurrence at Antioch had any lasting and far-reaching consequences; for it simply had reference to a moral false step taken in opposition to Peter’s own better judgment, and the scandal arising therefrom. It was therefore so essentially of a personal nature, that, if known at all by Luke, it might well have remained unmentioned in Acts—considering the more comprehensive historical destination of that work—without suggesting any suspicion that the absence of mention arose from any intentional concealment (comp. on Acts 15). Such a concealment is but one of the numberless dishonest artifices of which the author of· Acts has been accused, ever since certain persons have thought that they recognised in our epistle “the mutely eloquent accuser of the Book of Acts” (Schwegler), which is alleged to throw “a veil of concealment” over the occurrences at Jerusalem and Antioch (Baur, Paulus, I. p. 148, ed. 2).