Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:9 - 2:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:9. Καὶ γνόντες ] is connected, after the parenthesis, with ἰδόντες κ . τ . λ . in Gal_2:7.[79]
τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ] is not arbitrarily to be limited either to the apostolic office (Piscator, Estius, and others; also Hofmann), or to the prosperos successus of the same (Morus, Koppe, Winer, Fritzsche; de Wette, both); but is to be left quite general: the grace which had been given me. They recognised that Paul was highly gifted with grace, and was—by the fact that God had so distinguished him by means of His grace and thereby legitimized him as His apostle—fully fitted and worthy to enter into the bond of collegiate fellowship with them. His apostolic mission, his apostolic endowments, the blessed results of his labour, are all included in the χάρις which they recognised,—a general term which embraces everything that presented itself in him as divinely-bestowed grace and working on behalf of his office.
ἸΆΚΩΒΟς ] the same as in Gal_1:19; not the brother of John (Augustine), who at that time had been long dead (Act_12:2); also not the son of Alphaeus (Wieseler on Gal_1:19, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 95 f.); but the brother of the Lord, as is obvious of itself after what has been remarked on Gal_1:19. Comp. on Act_12:17. See also Hilgenfeld, p. 158 ff.; and Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeit. p. 221 ff. The mention of his name here before the other two is not in compliance with the view of the false teachers (Windischmann), but is quite in due form, as the apostle is relating an official act done in Jerusalem, where James stood at the head of the church (comp. Credner, Einl. I. 2, p. 571 ff). There is a certain decorum in this—the tact of a respectful consideration towards the mother-church and its highly-esteemed representative, who, as the Lord’s actual brother, sustained a more peculiar and unique relation to Him than any of the twelve. The higher rank possessed by Peter and the apostles proper generally as such, is surely enough established by Gal_1:18 f. But James, just as the brother of the Lord, had already attained a certain archiepiscopal position in the Jewish-Christian mother-church, and consequently for Jewish Christianity generally, agreeably to the monarchic principle which was involved in the latter. If James had been precisely one of the twelve, Paul would not (comp. Gal_1:18) have given him precedence over Peter; for, as mouthpiece of the twelve, Peter was the first for Jerusalem also and for the whole of the Jewish Christians (Gal_2:7). The precedence, however, finds its explanation and its justification solely in the unique personal relation to Christ,—which belonged to none of the apostles. James, as the eldest of the brethren of the Lord (Mat_13:55; Mar_6:3), was, as it were, his legitimate hereditary successor κατὰ σάρκα in Israel.
ΟἹ ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΣΤῦΛΟΙ ΕἾΝΑΙ ] who pass (not passed, see Gal_2:2; Gal_2:6) as pillars, namely, of the Christian body, the continued existence of which, so far as it was conditioned by human agency (for Christ is the foundation), depended chiefly on them. The metaphor (comp. 1Ti_3:15; Rev_3:12; Clem. Cor. I. 5) is current in all languages. Pind. Ol. ii. 146, Ἕκτορʼ ἔσφαλε Τροίας ἄμαχον ἀστραβῆ κίονα ; Eur. Iph. T. 50. 67 (Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 120); Hor. Od. i. 35. 13, and Mitscherlich in loc. Comp. Maimonides, in More Nevoch. ii. 23, “accipe a prophetis, qui sunt columna generis humani;” also the passages in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 728 f.; and the Fathers in Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1045 f. Looking at the frequent use of the figure, it cannot be maintained that Paul here thought of the body of Christians exactly as a temple (1Co_3:16; Eph_2:21), although he certainly regarded it as οἰκοδομή , 1Co_3:9. These ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΣΤῦΛΟΙ [80] εἶναι , according to their high repute now, when the decisive final result is brought forward, designated with solemn precision and mentioned by name, are the very same who were characterized in Gal_2:2 as οἱ δοκοῦντες , and in Gal_2:6 as δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι , as is evident from the uniform term οἱ δοκοῦντες being used three times. Hofmann nevertheless understands the expression in Gal_2:2; Gal_2:6 more generally, so that what the three δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι did is supposed to be designated as that which was done for the sake of the false brethren on the part of those standing in special repute; but this view is based on the misinterpretation, by which an awkward grammatical connection with Gal_2:9 is forced upon the anacoluthic ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκοῦντων in Gal_2:6, and at the same time—in the interest of harmonizing (with Acts 15.)—a position in relation to the older apostles, unwarranted by the text, is invented to explain the notice διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτ . ψευδαδέλφ . in Gal_2:4.
δεξιὰς … κοινωνίας ] On the separation of the genitive from its governing noun (in this case, because the following clause of purpose, ἵνα ἡμεῖς κ . τ . λ ., gives the explanation of κοινωνίας ), see Winer, p. 179 f. [E. T. 238]; Kühner, § 865. 1; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 330 f. Both words are without the article, because δεξιάς did not require it (1Ma_6:58; 1Ma_11:62, et al.; Krüger, § 50. 2. 13); and in κοινωνίας the qualitative element is to be made prominent: right hands of fellowship. For the giving of the right hand is the symbol of alliance (Dougt. Anal. p. 123), 1Ma_6:58, and Grimm in loc. In opposition to the idea of an alliance being concluded, the objection must not be made (with Hofmann, who finds merely a promise of fellowship) that the act took place on the part of the apostles only; for, as a matter of course, Paul and Barnabas clasped the proffered hands.
ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη κ . τ . λ .] The verb to be supplied must be furnished by the context, and must correspond with εἱς ; see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 338. Therefore either πορευθῶμεν and πορευθῶσι (Bengel, Fritzsche, Wieseler), or apostolatu fungeremur, Gal_2:8 (Erasmus, Schott, and many others), or εὐαγγελισώμεθα (Winer, Usteri, de Wette). The latter, in no way unsuitable to εἰς (see on 2Co_10:16), is to be preferred, because it is suggested immediately by the protasis in Gal_2:7, from which, at the same time, it is evident that the recognition was not merely that of a συνεργός , but really amounted to an acknowledgment of apostolic equality (in opposition to Holsten). Moreover, as regards the partition here settled, the ethnographical bearing of which coincided on the whole with the local division of territory, we must not supply any such qualification as praecipue (Bengel, Schott, and others). On the contrary, the agreement was, “Ye shall be apostles to the Gentiles, and we to the Jews;” and nothing beyond this, except the appended clause in behalf of the poor, was thereby settled: so that the state of things hitherto existing in respect to the field of labour on both sides remained undisturbed. The modifications of this arrangement obviously and necessarily connected with its practical working, primarily occasioned by the existence of the Jewish διασπορά —in accordance with which the principle of the division of the spheres of labour could in fact be carried out merely relatively, and without exclusive geographical. or ethnographical limitation (comp. Lechler, p. 415)—were left an open question, and not discussed. The idea that the recognition of Paul on the part of the apostles was merely external—simply an outward concordat—and that they themselves would have wished to know nothing of the ministry among the Gentiles (Baur, Zeller), is not conveyed in the text, but is, on the contrary, inconsistent with the representation given Gal_2:7-9. According to this, the apostles recognised the twofold divine call to apostleship, by which two nationally different spheres of labour were to be provided with the one gospel; but a merely external and forced agreement, without any acknowledgment or ratification of the principles and modes of procedure which had long regulated the action of Paul and Barnabas, would have been as little compatible with such a recognition as with the apostolic character generally. If, however, we take the κοινωνία in our passage to be true and heartfelt,[81] then the doubts thrown by Baur and his followers upon the truth of the account of the apostolic council in Acts fall in substance to the ground. How little Paul especially considered his apostolic call to the Gentiles as excluding the conversion of the Jews from his operations, may be gathered, even laying Acts out of view, from passages such as 1Co_9:20, Rom_1:16; Rom_9:1 ff; Rom_11:14.
[79] While ἰδόντες denotes the immediate impression of the phenomenon, γνόντες represents the knowledge of reflection. A further step in the description. Hofmann wrongly remarks, “It signifies nothing further than that they had heard of the occurrence of his calling.” But this they must have already known years before (Gal_1:18 f.).
[80] The accentuation usual before Lachmann, στύλοι , is incorrect. See Lipsius, gramm. Unters. p. 43.
[81] Thiersch (Kirche im apost. Zeit. p. 129) well remarks: “When they bade farewell, it was not a parting like that when Luther in the castle at Marburg rejected the hand of Zwingli, or when Jacob Andreae at Montbeliard refused that of Theodore Beza.”