Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:6 - 2:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:6. Paul having described in Gal_2:3-5 the momentous result of his relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem ( αὐτοῖς , Gal_2:2), now passes on (corresponding to the κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι , Gal_2:2) to his relations towards the apostles, explaining that the same result had then followed his discussions with them.
The construction is anacoluthic. For when the apostle wrote ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι , he had it in view subsequently to finish his sentence with οὐδὲν ἔλαβον , οὐδὲν ἐδιδάχθην , or something of that kind; but by the intervening remarks ὁποῖοί ποτε … λαμβάνει he was completely diverted from the plan which he had begun, so that now the thought which floated before his mind in ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι is no longer brought into connection with these words, but is annexed in the form of a ground ( γάρ ) to πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει ; and this altered chain of thought occasions ἐμοί to be now placed emphatically at the beginning. Properly speaking, therefore, we have here a parenthesis beginning with ὁποῖοι , which, without any formal conclusion, carries us back again by ἐμοὶ γὰρ κ . τ . λ . to the main thought, leaving the words ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι entirely unconnected, and merely pointing back by means of οἱ δοκοῦντες , as by a guide-post, to that abandoned commencement of the sentence. For it is only in substance, and not in form, that the parenthesis is concluded with λαμβάνει . Comp. Rom_5:12 ff.; Eph_2:1 ff. An anacoluthon is also assumed by Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, and others; so that—according to the usual view (Wieseler takes the correct one)—with ἐμοὶ γὰρ κ . τ . λ . Paul again takes up the thread of the discourse which had broken off with ἀπὸ δὲ δοκούντων εἶναί τι , and merely continues it actively instead of passively (Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711]). But this is opposed both by ἐμοί , which logically would not be in its proper place at the head of the resumed sentence, and also by γάρ , which does not correspond to the mere inquam ( οὖν , δέ ) after parentheses, but in the passages concerned (also Rom_15:27; 1Co_9:19) is to be taken as explaining or assigning a reason. Hermann makes out an aposiopesis, so that quid metuerem? has to be supplied after ἀπὸ … εἶναί τι .[72] But this is not suggested by the context, nor is it permitted by the tranquil flow of the discourse, in which no such emotion as warrants an aposiopesis is discoverable. Fritzsche supplies the very same thing which in Gal_2:4 was to be supplied after ψευδαδέλφους , making Paul say, “a viris autem (nempe), qui auctoritate valerent [circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit].” But however easy and natural this supplement was in Gal_2:4 after ψευδαδέλφους , because it was suggested as a matter of course by the words immediately preceding, in the present case it appears both harsh and involved, as the whole body of ideas in Gal_2:4-5 intervenes and hinders the reader from going back to that supplement. And how abrupt would be the position of the following ὁποῖοι κ . τ . λ .! Lastly, the (erroneous) idea, that the apostles had demanded the circumcision of Titus, is thus violently imported into the text. Holsten’s involved construction (z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 273 f.)—according to which ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκ . κ . τ . λ . is to be carried on to Gal_2:9 in conformity with the notion of δεξιὰς λαμβάνειν ἀπό —is shown by ἐμοὶ γὰρ κ . τ . λ ., where the δοκοῦντες already reappear, to be an impossible solution of the anacoluthon, which even thus is not avoided. The passage is explained without supposing either supplement or anacoluthon:—1. Most simply, and without violence to the language, by Burk, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 734 ff., making εἶναί τι belong to οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει : “That on the part of those in authority (by their recognition) I am something (namely, as respects my outward position), I reckon of no value.” But, in reality, Paul attached to his recognition by the original apostles the true and great value which it necessarily had for him in confronting his opponents; and hence he very carefully relates it in Gal_2:7. This interpretation therefore runs counter to the context. Comp. also, against it, Märcker in Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 532 ff. 2. Just as little allowable is it (with Märcker) to connect ἀπο δὲ τ . δοκ . ἐ . τ . with the words preceding, “but certainly (this enduring confirmation of Christian freedom was only possible) through the authority of the δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι .” But to the signification of ἀπό , from the side of, a sense would thus be arbitrarily ascribed, which is not justified by passages such as Mat_16:21, and must have been expressed by some such explanatory addition as in Act_2:22. It was impossible also for Paul—above all in this epistle—to conceive the maintenance of the truth of his Gentile gospel as conditional on the authority of the original apostles. Lastly, instead of the sentence which next follows asyndetically ( ὁποῖοι κ . τ . λ .), we should expect an emphasized antithesis (such as ἀλλʼ ὁποῖοι κ . τ . λ .). 3. The Greek Fathers, Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae, Bolten, Borger, and others, interpret the passage, “But as regards those of repute, it is one and the same thing to me,” etc., by which, however, ἀπό is quite in violation of language interchanged with περί . So also Rückert,[73] who at the same time wishes to preserve for ἀπό its due signification (“on the part of any one, it makes no difference to me; that is, what concerns him, is quite indifferent to me”), without authority, however, from any actual linguistic usage. 4. Following Homberg, Ewald understands it as if it stood τῶν δὲ δοκούντων … οὐδὲν διαφέρω , “But compared with those who etc., however high they once stood, I am in nothing inferior.” 5. Hofmann (comp. above, against Holsten) brings ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι ( ἀπό , from the side of) into regimen with Gal_2:9, and in such a manner that the three δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι in Gal_2:9 are supposed to form the subject of the period beginning with ἀπὸ κ . τ . λ . in Gal_2:6; but this mode of construction is decisively condemned by its very inherent monstrosity, with its parentheses inserted one within another; and besides this, the repetition of οἱ δοκοῦντες in Gal_2:6 would be entirely without aim and simply perplexing, if the continuation of the construction as regards ἀπὸ δ . τ . δ . ε . τ . were still to follow, as is supposed by Hofmann. Nevertheless, Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 29 f., has agreed with the latter, but has at the same time arbitrarily removed from the disjointed construction ὁποῖοι … τοὐναντίον as a marginal note of the apostle,—another makeshift, whereby ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον , so violently dealt with by Hofmann, finds the connection with ἰδόντες , which it evidently has (see below), dissevered.
On δοκεῖν εἶναί τι , which may mean either to reckon oneself to be something great, or to be esteemed great by others (so here), see Wetstein. Comp. Plat. Euthyd. p. 303 C, τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν σεμνῶν δὴ καὶ δοκούντων τι εἶναι οὐδὲν ὑμῖν μέλει . The same persons are meant who are referred to in Gal_2:2 by τοῖς δοκοῦσι . But the addition of τι εἶναι , and the ὁποῖοι κ . τ . λ . which follows, betray here a certain irritation in reference to the opponents, who would not concede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original apostles, as if εἶναί τι belonged pre-eminently to the latter.
ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν ] Now come the parenthetical remarks, on account of which Paul leaves his ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκ . εἶναί τι standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the high estimation of those apostles—which in itself, according to the real (and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by no means calls in question—should lead to the inference that he had needed instruction from them. Comp. the subsequent ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκ . οὐδὲν προσανέθ ., and the thought already floating before the apostle’s mind in the anacoluthic ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (see above). Wieseler affirms too generally, that “Paul desired to check the overvaluing of the older apostles.” The real state of the case is this: Paul, with all decision, by way of countervailing that δοκεῖν εἶναί τι of those men of high standing which he does not dispute, throws into the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of this countervailing lies precisely in ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν , so far as the latter belongs to οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει , and is not, as Hofmann will have it, an appendage to τῶν δοκοῦντων εἶναί τι .
The ποτέ , with a direct or indirect interrogative, is the strengthening cunque or tandem which occurs constantly in Greek authors (Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1), although not elsewhere in the N.T. (comp. 2Ma_14:32); see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 615 f. Whosoever they were, in whatsoever high repute they stood[74] while I was then with them, it is all the same to me. Rückert makes ὁποῖοι mean, “whether high or low, apostles or what else;” holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an indefinite way of these men in high repute, as if he did not exactly know that they were apostles (?), in order to give the less offence in what he said. How strange this would be! for every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuitable to his purpose! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he received from the apostles. Many refer ὁποῖοι ποτε ἦσαν back to the lifetime of Jesus, when those apostles had been His trusted disciples: some taking ποτέ as olim (Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, Luther, Beza, and others, including Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Ewald); and others, with us, as cunque (“quiqui illi fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso Jesu instituti, perinde est,” Hermann; comp. Winer). But in the case of James (see on Gal_2:9) this reference would not be even historically applicable, or it would need at least to be applied to a different kind of relation (that of kinship); see Hilgenfeld. And besides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retrospective reference to that remote past; the context points merely to the time of Paul’s sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must not, with others still, be referred to—what was quite foreign to the apostle’s aim—the pre-Christian condition of the apostles, in which they had been sinners (Estius; comp. Augustine), or ἰδιῶται and fishermen (Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cornelius a Lapide, and others), ποτέ being likewise understood as olim.[75]
οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει ] matters to me nothing. See Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. p. 294; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394.
πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει ] ôÌÀðÅé àÄéùÑ àÁìÉäÄéí ìÉà ðÉùÒÅà , an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, statement of the reason for ΟὐΔΈΝ ΜΟΙ ΔΙΑΦΈΡΕΙ . “Dei judicium sequebatur Paulus,” Bengel. ðÈùÒÈà ôÌÈðÄéí , πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν , properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), is used in the O.T. both in a good sense (to be inclined, or gracious, to any one, Gen_19:21; Gen_32:21, et al.) and in a bad sense, implying a favour and respect which is partial, determined by personal considerations (Lev_19:15; Deu_10:17, et al.; Sir_4:27; 3 Esr. 4:39). In the N.T. it is used solely in this bad sense (Mat_22:16; Mar_12:14; Luk_20:21; Jud_1:16. Comp. Act_10:34; Jam_2:9; Rom_2:11; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25; Jam_2:1). The transposed arrangement of the words lays the chief emphasis upon ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ , and then by ΘΕῸς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ makes us sensible of the contrast between the manner and dignity of the divine procedure and such partiality for human authority. Comp. Hom. Od. xix. 363 f., Ἦ ΣΕ ΠΕΡῚ ΖΕῪς ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ ἬΧΘΗΡΕ ΘΕΟΥΔΈΑ ΘΥΜῸΝ ἜΧΟΝΤΑ .
ἘΜΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΟἹ ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΟὐΔῈΝ ΠΡΟΣΑΝΈΘΕΝΤΟ ] Proof, not of his independence of the apostles generally, but specially for what he had just said, πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνθρ . οὐ λαμβάνει , from personal experience. Hence ἘΜΟΊ is emphatically placed first: “for to me for my part—although others may have received instruction from them, to me—they have communicated nothing.” Paul’s idea therefore is, that if God had been partial, He would not have placed him on such parity with the δοκοῦσι , that to him, etc. Rückert, wrongly anticipating, says that the prefixed ἘΜΟΊ finds its antithesis in Gal_2:11 : “to me they have communicated nothing, etc.; but indeed, when Peter came to Antioch, I was compelled to admonish him.” But in this case, at least Gal_2:11 must have begun with ἐγὼ δὲ or ἀλλʼ ἐγώ . According to Wieseler, Paul in ἐμοί is thinking of “to me, the former persecutor,” an idea gratuitously introduced. In Hofmann’s view the antithesis is intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything submitted, but the converse. Comp. ΤΙΝΈς in Chrysostom, and the paraphrase of Erasmus. But if this were so, Paul must have written Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ἘΜΟῚ Κ . Τ . Λ ., just as afterwards ἈΛΛᾺ ΤΟὐΝΑΝΤΊΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῚ Κ . Τ . Λ ., in order to have given at least a bare indication of this alleged antithesis.
ΟὐΔῈΝ ΠΡΟΣΑΝΈΘΕΝΤΟ ] quite as in Gal_1:16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no communications (“nihil contulerunt,” Vulgate) to me, namely, in order to instruct and advise me,—a sense which is here also demanded by the context; see the sequel, and comp. Gal_1:12. It is usually understood: ΟὐΔῈΝ ΠΡΟΣΈΘΗΚΑΝ , ΟὐΔῈΝ ΔΙΏΡΘΩΣΑΝ (Chrysostom), “nihil illi praesumserunt iis adjicere, quae prius a Christo accepta docueram inter gentes,” Beza; as also Valla, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott,[76] and others. Comp. Wieseler, Märcker, and Hilgenfeld: “They submitted nothing in addition to that which had been submitted by me; they approved the gospel, which I am preaching among the Gentiles.” But πρός expresses merely the direction, and not insuper (see on Gal_1:16). Should ἀνατίθημι , however, be understood as to impose, πρός would certainly express the idea novum, opus imponere (Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8); as Rückert (so also Bretschneider and Lechler, p. 412) explains it, “they imposed on me no further obligations,” the observance of the law being the point principally alluded to. Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 235. But in opposition to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite needless departure from the signification of the same word in Gal_1:16, the circumstance is decisive, that προσανατίθημι in the middle would necessarily mean “suscipere novum opus,” as Xen. Mem. l.c., and not “imponere novum opus,” even though the comparison of the apostle’s obligation to a burden (comp. 1Co_9:16 f.) should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature of the matters imposed.
οὐδέν ] either the accusative of the object, or more strongly (comp. Gal_1:16), in no point, in no respect whateGalatians Galatians 2 :The idea that a revelation is intended as the contents of προσαν . (Holsten), must be sought for in the context: it is not conveyed by the words per se.
[72] Comp. Dav. Schulz, who believes that quidnam tandem, adversus me actum est? is suppressed.
[73] Comp. Olshausen, who, however, assumes that in using ἀπό Paul had at first some other phrase in his mind, but that he afterwards inexactly followed it up with οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει . In all essential points Matthias agrees with Rückert, as does also Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 4.
[74] Not: how friendly and brotherly they were towards me (Matthias), to which meaning οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει is far from suited.
[75] It was entirely in opposition to the context, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Jerome referred it to the earlier teaching of the apostles; taking Paul to say, that whether at an earlier date they had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of indifference.
[76] Baur arbitrarily (I. p. 141, ed. 2) brings in the thought, “They have brought forward nothing against me, wherein I should have had to acknowledge them in the right.” Οὐδέν is made to mean, nothing conclusive and convincing—nothing whereby they would have confuted him and brought him over to their side (comp. Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 463). There is not the most remote allusion in the passage to any conflict between Paul and the original apostles; on the contrary, it implies the complete understanding on both sides, which was the result of the discussion. The conflict affected the members of the church who were stirred up by the ψευδάδελφοι and the false brethren themselves (vv. 3–5).