Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:3 - 2:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:3. Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of his discussions with the δοκοῦσι until Gal_2:6, and consequently it is Gal_2:6 ff. which corresponds to the κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ δοκοῦσι in Gal_2:2; so that Gal_2:3-5 have reference to the result of the laying his gospel to the Gentiles before the Christians in Jerusalem generally, and correspond with the first part of Gal_2:2 ( ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγ . ὃ κηρ . ἐν τ . ἔθν .).
But so little had that exposition of my gospel to the church at Jerusalem a result counteracting it and implying the εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον , that, on the contrary, not even Titus, etc. Thus ἀλλʼ οὐδέ (comp. Luk_23:15; Act_19:2) introduces a fact which—in contrast to the idea of “running in vain,” which had just been brought forward as the point for inquiry in that exposition of his gospel—serves as the surest palpable proof how triumphantly the Gentile gospel of the apostle (which rejected the necessity of circumcision for the Hellenes) maintained its ground then before the church of Jerusalem, and how very far people were from ascribing to the apostle a running, or having run, in vain. For otherwise it would have been absurd, if the church had not pleaded for, and carried out, the circumcision at least of Titus.[61] “But not even this was done, to say nothing of its being a duty of the church to reject my gospel which was altogether opposed to the circumcision of Gentiles, and to decide that I εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον !” This line of argument involves a syllogism, of which ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ … περιτμηθῆναι is the minor.
Ἕλλην ὤν ] Although a Hellene, a Gentile.[62] We have no further details as to his descent.
ἠναγκάσθη ] From Gal_2:4-5 it follows that, on the part of certain Christians at Jerusalem (not of the apostles also, who are not referred to until Gal_2:6, where the κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκ . is resumed), the circumcision of Titus had been urged, but had not been complied with on the part of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and this resistance was respected by the church;[63] hence the οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι , there was not imposed on him the necessity of submitting to be circumcised. Most expositors, however, adopt the common opinion that οὐδὲ … ἠναγκάσθη περιτ . implies that the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, which is adduced by Paul as a proof of his agreement with the apostles. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many others, including Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Hofmann. This view is decisively set aside by the sequel (see on Gal_2:4), apart from the fact that here the relation to the apostles is not yet under discussion. Moreover, if the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, there would have been no occasion for the expression ἠναγκάσθη . Certain individuals in the church, no doubt instigated by the false brethren (Gal_2:4), had really come forward with the demand that Titus must submit to be circumcised. Comp. the subsequent case of Timothy, who under different circumstances was circumcised by Paul himself (Act_16:3). To look upon the false brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision of Titus (Bleek, Wieseler, and others) does not suit Gal_2:4, in which they appear only as the more remote cause of the demand; they kept in the background.[64]
[61] The latter, as associated with the apostle in teaching, must, in his uncircumcised Gentile condition, have been specially offensive to those who had Judaistic views.
[62] This “although a Hellene” refers to ὁ σὺν ἐμοί . Paul is conscious of the boldness, nay, of the defiance (comp. Jerome on ver. 1, “ausus sit”), which was involved in bringing the Hellene with him to the council at Jerusalem, the seat of Judaism. In the sense of my official colleague (Reiche, Wieseler), the simple ὁ σὺν ἐμοί is not in harmony with the context.
[63] For the ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι , if it had occurred, could only have occurred through the church—and indeed possibly even the apostolic college (as the Tübingen criticism asserts)—joining in the demand made on Titus, and adopting it as their own.
[64] Holsten wrongly reverses the relation, when he holds that behind the false brethren Paul saw the Christians of Jerusalem and the δοκοῦντες .
Note.
An inconsistency with Acts 15, in which the argument and decision are against the necessity of circumcision, would only emerge in Gal_2:3, if the matter in question here had been the principal transactions of the council itself, and if those who required the circumcision of Titus had been the apostles (or had at least included the apostles), as Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and others assume. But as neither of these is the case, and as, indeed, it does not even follow from our passage that the apostles had so much as merely advised the circumcision of Titus (Wieseler’s earlier opinion, which he has now rightly abandoned), this passage cannot furnish arguments either against the identity of the journey Galatians 2 with that of Acts 15 (Fritzsche, p. 224), or against the historical character of Acts 15 (Baur and his followers).