CHAPTER 2

Galatians 2:5. οἷς οὐδέ] is wanting in D* Clar.* Germ. codd. Lat. in Jerome and Sedul., Ir. Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pelag. (?) Primas. Claudius autissidor. Condemned by Seml., Griesb., Koppe, Dav. Schulz. But the omission is much too weakly attested, and arose simply from δέ in Galatians 2:4 being understood antithetically, and from the belief, induced by the remembrance of the apostle’s principle of accommodation, that it was necessary to find here an analogue to the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3); οὐδέ stood in the way of this, and with it, on account of the construction, οἷς was also omitted. This οἷς was wanting at most only in manuscripts of the It. (see Reiche, p. 12), and ought not to have been rejected by Grot., Morus, and Michael.

Galatians 2:8. καὶ ἐμοί] With Lachm. and Tisch., read, according to preponderating testimony, κἀμοί.

Galatians 2:9. Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς] D E F G, It., and several Fathers, have Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος. A transposition according to rank.

μέν, which is wanting in Elz. and Tisch. (bracketed by Lachm.), is to be deleted, according to B F G H K L א*, min. vss. and Fathers. Inserted on account of the δέ which follows.

Galatians 2:11. Here, and also in Galatians 2:14, Κηφᾶς and Κηφᾷ is the correct reading according to preponderating evidence. Comp. on Galatians 1:18. The very ancient fiction (see the exegetical note) that it is not the Apostle Peter who is here spoken of, testifies also to the originality of the Hebrew name.

Galatians 2:12. ἦλθον] B D* F G א, 45, 73, codd. It., read ἦλθεν. So Lachm.[40] Comp. Orig.: ἐλθόντος Ἰακώβου. An ancient clerical error after Galatians 2:11.

Galatians 2:14. The position of the words καὶ οὐκ (Lachm. and Tisch. οὐχ) Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς is to be adopted, with Lachm., following decisive testimony. No doubt καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς is wanting in Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Agapet.; but this evidence is much too weak to induce us (with Seml. and Schott) to pronounce the words a gloss, especially as their omission might very easily be occasioned by the similar terminations of the two adverbs.

πῶς] Elz. Tisch. read τί, in opposition to decisive testimony.

The evidence is also decisive against the omission of δέ, Galatians 2:16 (Elz.), which was caused by εἰδότες being understood as the definition of what precedes, with which view δέ was not compatible. The omission was facilitated by the fact of a lesson beginning with εἰδότες.

Galatians 2:18. Instead of συνίστημι read, with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., συνιστάνω.

Galatians 2:20. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ] Lachm. reads τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, according to B D* F G, It. But most probably this reading arose from the writer passing on immediately from the first τοῦ to the second, and thus writing τοῦ Θεοῦ only; and, as the sequel did not harmonize with this, καὶ Χριστοῦ was afterwards added. If, as Schott thinks, τοῦ Θεοῦ κ. Χριστοῦ was written because God and Christ are mentioned in Galatians 2:19-20, the original τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ would have been turned into τοῦ Θεοῦ κ. υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. If, however, τοῦ Θεοῦ κ. Χριστοῦ had been the original text, there would have been no reason whatever for altering this into τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. Θεοῦ.

[40] Who (Praef. p. xii.) conjectures as to this reading that τινί should be read instead of τινάς.

CONTENTS.

Paul continues the historical proof of his full apostolic independence. On his second visit to Jerusalem, fourteen years after, he had laid his gospel before those in repute, and had been, not instructed by them, but formally acknowledged as an apostle ordained by God to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-10). And when Peter had come to Antioch, so far was he, Paul, from giving up his apostolic independence, that, on the contrary, he withstood Peter openly on account of a hypocritical line of conduct, by which Christian freedom was imperilled (Galatians 2:11-21).

Galatians 2:1. On Galatians 2:1-10, see C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 158 ff.; Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 1–10, etc., 1852; Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 1 ff. On Galatians 2:1, see Stölting, Beiträge z. Exeg. d. Paul. Briefe, 1869, p. 155 ff.

ἔπειτα] thereafter, namely, after my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia; correlative to the ἔπειτα in Galatians 1:21, and also in Galatians 1:18. Ἔπειτα joins the statement to what is narrated immediately before. Therefore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, Galatians 1:18 (Wieseler).

διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν] interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an interval of fourteen years: comp. Polyb. xxii. 26. 22, διʼ ἐτῶν τριῶν; Acts 24:17. The length of this period quite accords with the systematic object of the apostle, inasmuch as he had already, up to the time of this journey, laboured for so many years entirely on his own footing and independently of the original apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end to any suspicion of his being a disciple of these apostles. As to the use of διά, which is based on the idea that the time intervening from the starting-point to the event in question is traversed [passed through] when the event arrives (comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally Bernhardy, p. 235; Krüger, § 68. 22. 3; Winer, p. 336 [E. T. 475]; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 50, and in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 162 f.; Herod. iv. 1, ἀποδημήσαντας ὀκτὼ κ. εἰκοσι ἔτεα καὶ διὰ χρόνου τοσούτου (after so long an interval) κατιόντας κ.τ.λ.; Deuteronomy 9:11, διὰ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν … ἔδωκε κύριος ἐμοὶ τὰς δύο πλάκας; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 12. Comp. the well-known διὰ χρόνου, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 8. 1; διʼ αἰῶνος, Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1003; διὰ μακροῦ, Thuc. iv. 15. 3; διʼ ἔτους, Lucian, Paras. 15; διʼ ἡμέρων, Mark 2:1, and the like; also 4Ma 8:20. Following Oeder (in Wolf) and Rambach, Theile (in Winer’s Neue krit. Jour. VIII. p. 175), Paulus and Schott have understood διά as within, “during the 14 years I have now been a Christian;” or, as Stölting, acceding to this explanation, gives to it the more definite sense, “during a space of time which has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and is now, at the time I am writing this epistle, finished.” But against this view may be urged the grammatical objection that διά is never used by Greek authors of duration of time, except when the action extends throughout the whole time (Valckenaer, ad Herod. iv. 12; Ast, ad Plat. de Leg. p. 399), either continuously, as Mark 14:53, or at recurring intervals, as Acts 1:3 (see Fritzschior. Opusc. l.c.). Even the passages which are appealed to, Acts 5:19; Acts 16:9; Acts 17:10; Acts 23:31, admit the rendering of διὰ τῆς νυκτός as throughout the night, without deviation from the common linguistic usage.[41] Moreover, how unintelligibly Paul would have expressed himself, if, without giving the slightest intimation of it (possibly by ἐξ οὗ ἐν Χριστῷ εἰμι, or in some other way), he had meant the present duration of his standing as a Christian! Lastly, how entirely idle and objectless in itself would be such a specification of time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys which he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident; but whether at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a Christian had lasted 14 years, or longer or shorter, was a point of no importance for the main object of the passage, and the whole statement as to the time would be without any motive in harmony with the context.

From what point has Paul reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the ascension of Christ (Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud. Cappellus, Paulus), must at once be excluded as quite opposed to the context. Usually, however, the conversion of the apostle is taken as the terminus a quo (so Olshausen, Anger, Matthies, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 55, Stölting), an appeal being made to the analogy of Galatians 1:18. Thus the three years of Galatians 1:18 would be again included in the fourteen years. But πάλιν and the διά, indicating the interval which in the meantime had elapsed, point rather to the first journey to Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The πάλιν points back to the first journey, and so διὰ δεκατεσσ. ἐτῶν presents itself most naturally as the period intervening between the first journey and this πάλιν. If Paul had again written μετά, as in Galatians 1:18, we might have inferred from the intentional identity of expression the identity also of the starting-point; but since he has here chosen the word διά not elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after an interval of fourteen years), the relation of this διά to πάλιν leads us to take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting-point of the reckoning. This is the reckoning adopted by Jerome, Chrysostom on Galatians 2:11, Luther,[42] Ussher, Clericus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth (in the Repert. für bibl. u. morgenl. Lit. IV. p. 41), Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger, Hug, Mynster, Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Rückert, Usteri, Zeller, Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, labours under an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the section beginning with Galatians 1:21 (see on Galatians 1:22).

δεκατεσσάρων] emphatically placed before ἐτῶν (differently in Galatians 1:18), in order to denote the long interval. Comp. Herod. l.c.

πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσ.] Paul can mean by this no other than his second[43] journey to Jerusalem, and he says that between his first and his renewed (ΠΆΛΙΝ) visit to it a period of 14 years had elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul had meant a third journey, and had kept silence as to the second, he would have furnished his opponents, to whom he desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the apostles, with weapons against himself; and the suspicion of intentionally incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, so far as his adversaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on occasion of a second visit to Jerusalem, here passed over, he had not come at all into close contact with the apostles (and how highly improbable this would be in itself!), he would have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very character of a journey which had had nothing to do with any sort of instruction by the apostles (comp. Galatians 1:18), it would have been of the greatest importance for his object, in opposition to the suspicions of his opponents.[44] To have kept silence as to this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole historically apologetic demonstration, which he had entered upon in Galatians 1:13 and still continues from Galatians 1:21 (though Hofmann thinks otherwise). Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 55. This purely exegetical ground is quite decisive in favour of the view that Paul here speaks of his second journey to Jerusalem;[45] and considered by itself, therefore, our passage presents no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we compare it with Acts. According to the latter, the second journey (Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25) is that which Paul made with Barnabas in the year 44 in order to convey pecuniary assistance to Judaea; hence many hold our journey as identical with that related in Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25. So Tertullian c. Marc. i. 20, Chron. Euseb., Calvin,[46] Keil (Opusc. p. 160, and in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 68), Gabler (neutest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 ff.), Rosenmüller, Süskind (in Bengel’s Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff.), Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.) Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149), Niemeyer (de temp. quo ep. ad Gal. conscr. sit, Gott. 1827), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff.), Küchler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 1828, p. 27 ff.), Flatt, Fritzsche, Böttger, Stölting. So also Caspari (geograph. chronol. Einl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But the chronology, through the 14 years, is decisively opposed to this view. For as the year 44 A.D. or 797 U.C. is the established date of the journey in question (see Introd. to Acts), these 14 years with the addition of the three years (Galatians 1:18) would carry us back to the year 27 A.D.! Among the defenders of this view, Böttger has indeed turned δεκατεσσάρων into ΤΕΣΣΆΡΩΝ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. Fritzsche, on the other hand, has endeavoured to bring out the 14 years, by supposing the reckoning of Luke 3:1 to begin from the year of the joint regency of Tiberius, that is, the year 765 U.C., as, following Ussher, has been done by Clericus, Lardner, and others (see on Luke 3:1), and now also by Wieseler in Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 547 ff., and especially in his Beitr. z. Würdigung d. Evang. 1869, p. 177 ff. It is assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His ministry in 779, and was crucified in 781; that Paul became a Christian at the beginning of 783, and that 14 years later, in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took place. But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be reckoned from Paul’s conversion, see above. Besides, the year of the conversion cannot, for other chronological reasons, be put back beyond the year 35 A.D., that is, 788 U.C. (see on Acts, Introd.). Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in Galatians 3:1 did not reckon from the actual commencement of the reign of Tiberius, is nothing but a forced expedient based on extraneous chronological combinations, and finding no support at all in the plain words of Luke himself (see further, in opposition to it, Anger, rat. temp. p. 14 f., and z. Chronol. d. Lehramtes Chr. I.). The opinion, therefore, that the journey Galatians 2:1 is identical with that mentioned in Acts 11, must be rejected; and we must, on the other hand, assume that in point of fact those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who consider it as the same which, according to Acts 15, was undertaken by Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference. So Irenaeus, adv. haer. iii. 13, Theodoret, Jerome, Baronius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pearson, and most of the older expositors, Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gabler’s Journ. für auserl. theol. Lit. I. 2, p. 249 ff.), Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Einl. I. p. 192 and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug, Winer, Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P. ep. ad Gal. tribus prim. capp., Lips. 1832), Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger, Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Lekebusch, Elwert, Lechler (apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 394 ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche, Ewald, Ritschl, Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann, Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel, and others.[47] This result is, however, to be based in the first instance not on a comparison of the historical references contained in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, but on διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν; and the historical references of Acts 15 afterwards serve merely as a partial, although very material, confirmation. For the point of view, from which the journey is brought forward in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it cannot present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative of Acts, whether we take it in connection with Acts 11 or Acts 15. By the search for points of agreement and of difference, with the view of thereby arriving at a decision, far too much room is left for argument pro and contra, and consequently for the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result.

[41] See on these passages the Commentary on Acts. There is no cause for accusing (with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper deviation from the Greek usus loquendi. Comp. on διὰ νυκτός, Thuc. ii. 4. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 22. On the Homeric διὰ νύκτα, during the night, see Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, ed. 3.

[42] In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena 1612, I. p. 336 B), “Post annos 14, quibus si annos tres, quos supra memoravit, adjunxeris, jam 17 aut 18 annos eum praedicasse invenies, antequam conferre voluerit.” Even with this reckoning, his conversion still remains “the great event by which Paul measures for himself all Christian time” (Ewald); for the whole reckoning begins at Galatians 1:18 from this event as its starting-point.

[43] Very correctly put in the Chron. Euseb., ὅ εἶπε πάλιν, δηλονότι ἑτέρα ἐστὶν ἀνάβασις αὕτη.

[44] Wieseler’s objection that Paul, according to our view of his historical argument, would also have left unmentioned the journey spoken of in Acts 18:22, where by the reasoning above would fall to the ground as nimium probans, is incorrect. For if he had shown that up to the apostolic council (see the sequel) he could not have received the instruction of the apostles, his task of proof was completely solved; because on occasion of his presence at that council he received formal acknowledgment and sanction as the apostle to the Gentiles. If up to that time he had not been a disciple of the apostles, now, when he had received in an official way the fullest acknowledgment as an independent apostle, there could no longer be any discussion as to his having at some subsequent date procured apostolic instruction in Jerusalem. It would therefore have been purely unmeaning, and even absurd, to have continued the history of his journeys to Jerusalem beyond the date of the apostolic council. But up to that date he could not omit any journey, without rendering his historical deduction nugatory as a proof.

[45] Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67 f., and Schott find two journeys mentioned in ver. 1 : the former obtains them from πάλιν (after 14 years I made the second journey to Jerusalem, undertaken with Barnabas); and the latter brings them out thus: “intra 14 annos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas, cum Barnaba quidem (Acts 11:30), posthac (Acts 15) assumto etiam Tito.” Both views are introduced into the passage inconsistently with the text. For according to Bloch’s explanation, Paul must have spoken previously of a journey made with Barnabas; and in Schott’s interpretation not only is διά wrongly understood (see above), but it would be necessary at least that instead of συμπαραλ. καὶ Τίτον the text should run, εἶτα δὲ συμπαραλ. κ. T. Nevertheless Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 99 f., has again resorted to the evasion that πάλιν is to be referred to μετὰ Βαρν. and presupposes an earlier journey already made with Barnabas (Acts 11).

[46] Among the older expositors, J. T. Major is also named as in favour of this view, whose Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are quoted by Gabler and Winer. But in the second edition of Major’s Annotata, which appeared after his death, Jena 1670, 4to, Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for the view which holds the journey mentioned in Galatians 2:1 to be identical with that in Acts 15.

[47] Rückert does not come to a decision, but (in his Commentary and in the (exeget. Mag. I. 1, p. 118 ff.) denies the identity of our journey with that related in Acts 11, 12, and leaves it a matter of doubt whether the journey mentioned in Acts 15 or that in Acts 18:22 is the one intended.

I. Thus in support of the identity of the journey Galatians 2:1 with that of Acts 11, 12, it is argued (see Fritzsche, l.c. p. 227)—(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in Cilicia and Syria (Galatians 1:21, Galatians 2:1; comp. Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25 ff.). But why should not Paul, in the ἔπειτα, Galatians 2:1, have also mentally included his first missionary journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts 13, 14) as preceding, seeing that he made this journey from Antioch and after its completion again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing that his object made it important not so much to write a special history of his labours, as to show at what time he had first come into closer official connection with the apostles, in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them? (2.) That it is probable that Paul soon after the beginning of his labours as the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:23; Acts 11:25 f.; comp. Acts 15:23; Acts 9:30) expounded his system of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the apostles for their opinion. But this is an argumentum nimium probans, since it is evident from Galatians 1:16 that Paul commenced the exercise of his vocation as an apostle to the Gentiles immediately after his conversion; so that, even if the 14 years are reckoned from the conversion, there still remains this long period of 14 years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of Galatians 2:1, this period is increased from 14 to 17 years; but, if Paul had taught 14 years without the approbation of the apostles, he may just as well have done so for 17 years. (3.) That the sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned in Acts 11, 12, because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have set them apart (Acts 13:2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. But might not the ordination of the two to be teachers of the Gentiles (Acts 13:2) have taken place previously, and the formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the apostles in Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period? This latter view, indeed, is supported even by the analogy of αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν (Galatians 2:9), inasmuch as James, Peter, and John had been already for a long time before this apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destination formally in concert with Paul and Barnabas. (4.) That the stipulation respecting the poor (Galatians 2:10) was occasioned by the very fact of Paul and Barnabas having brought pecuniary assistance (Acts 11:30). But the care for the poor lay from the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and was so much an object of apostolic interest (Acts 2:44 f., Acts 4:34 ff., Galatians 6:1 ff.), that there was certainly no need of any special occasion for expressly making the remembrance of the poor one of the conditions in the concert, Galatians 2:9 f. (5.) That the apostles, according to Galatians 2:3, had insisted on the circumcision of Titus,—a non-emancipation from Mosaism, which might agree with the time of Acts 11, 12, when the conversion of the Gentiles was still in its infancy, but not with the later time of Acts 15. But see the note on Galatians 2:3. Even if we allow the (erroneous) idea that the apostles had required this circumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much later point (Acts 21:17 ff.) required Paul to observe a completely Jewish custom, from which it is evident how much, even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles accommodated themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented to it. (6.) That in Acts 15 there is no trace of the presence of John at Jerusalem. But although John is not mentioned by name, he may very well have been included in the general οἱ ἀπόστολοι (Acts 15). (7.) Lastly, Fritzsche remarks, “Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum esse (5. Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25; Galatians 1:18, cf. Galatians 2:1; Acts 11:30), quis tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria aboleverit … praefracte negare sustineat?” etc. Paul may certainly have been a long time in Syria and Cilicia, but how long, must remain entirely undetermined after what we have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments[48] it has been urged (see especially Süskind and Keil), that the conduct of Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11 ff.) is too contradictory to the apostolic decree of Acts 15 to permit our identifying the journey in question with that made to the conference; that in the whole of the epistle Paul makes no mention at all of the authority of the conference; and lastly, that after the conference Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of circumcision than he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on these arguments; since (a) even if our journey were that mentioned in Acts 11, 12, still the reproach of inconstancy (grounded on his natural temperament) would rest upon Peter, because he had in fact at an earlier period been already divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the Gentiles to Christianity (Acts 10:8 ff; Acts 11:2 ff.); (b) in the principle of his apostolic independence Paul had quite sufficient motive (comp. Introd. § 3) for not mentioning the apostolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians;[49] and lastly (c) the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity of circumcision in our letter was, in his characteristic manner, adapted altogether to the polemical interest of the moment: for that he should pass judgment on the same subject, according to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom and elasticity of his mind; hence the passages cited for the freer view (Acts 16:3; 1 Corinthians 9:20 ff.; Acts 21:20 ff.) cannot furnish any absolute standard.

II. To prove the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15, appeals have been made to the following arguments: (1) That Titus, whom Paul mentions in Galatians 2:1, is included in τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν, Acts 15:2; (2) That in Galatians 2:2, ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγ. ὃ κηρ. ἐν τοῖς ἔθν. is parallel to Acts 15:4; Acts 15:12; (3) That the Judaizers mentioned in Acts 15:5 are identical with the παρεισάκτοις ψευδαδέλφοις, Galatians 2:4; (4) That the result of the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts 15 quite corresponds with ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος … ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι, Galatians 2:3; (5) That in an historical point of view, Galatians 2:11 agrees exactly with Acts 15:30; (6) That in Acts 11 Barnabas still has precedence of Paul, which, however, is no longer the case throughout in Acts 15 (only in Acts 2:12; Acts 2:25); (7) That in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the important journey of Acts 15. But on the part of those who look upon our journey as that related in Acts 11, 12., or even in Acts 18:22 (Wieseler), such grounds for doubt are urged against all of these points (see especially, Fritzsche l.c. p. 224 ff.; Wieseler, p. 557 ff.), that they cannot be used at least for an independent and full demonstration of the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15, but merely furnish an important partial confirmation of the proof otherwise adduced; to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Galatians 2 and Acts 15 present also points of difference, from which attempts have been made with equal injustice to deny the whole historical parallel, and to abandon unduly the historical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Holsten).

The result of all the discussion is as follows:

As Paul, in accordance with his own clear words in Galatians 2:1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in the passage, can mean no other journey whatever except the second which he made as an apostle to Jerusalem; and as, moreover, the διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν forbids our thinking of that journey which is related in Acts 11, 12. as the second; the journey represented by him in Galatians 2:1 as his second journey must be held to be the same as that represented by Luke in Acts 15. as the third,—an identity which is also confirmed by the historical parallels to be found in Galatians 2. and Acts 15.[50] In this way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians conflicts with that of Acts;[51] but, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to decide on which side the historical truth lies. The account of Luke, as given in Acts 11:12., that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas to convey the moneys collected, must be described as in part unhistorical. Perhaps (for it is not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas (Acts 11:30), and then, probably even before reaching Judaea (see below), induced by circumstances unknown to us, allowed Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem; and thereafter the latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned to Antioch together (Acts 12:25), but Barnabas only visited Jerusalem in person. Schleiermacher (Einl. in’s N.T. p. 369 f.) assumes an error on the part of Luke as author; that, misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts 15, into two different journeys, Acts 11, 15. But the total dissimilarity of the historical connection, in which these journeys are placed by the narrative of Acts, makes us at once reject this supposition; as, indeed, it cannot possibly be entertained without unjustifiably giving up Luke’s competency for authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions of his book in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. Credner also (Einl. I. 1, p. 315) has pronounced himself inclined to the hypothesis of an error on the part of Luke. He, however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Acts 11:12.) as far as Judaea, only not as far as the capital; assuming that Paul remained among the churches of the country districts, and made the acquaintance with them presupposed in Galatians 1:22-24, Romans 15:19. But, on the one hand, looking at his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, after so long an absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat of the church, especially when he had come as deputy from Antioch; on the other hand, we should expect that, in order to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of misrepresenting him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence in Judaea (comp. Galatians 1:22), and mentioned it in fact with the express remark that at that time he had not entered Jerusalem itself. And, as regards the acquaintance with the churches in the country districts presupposed in Galatians 1:22-24, he may have made it sufficiently during his journey to the conference. The fact itself, that Paul during the journey recorded in Acts 11 was not at Jerusalem (which is admitted by Neander, ed. 4, p. 188, following Bleek, Beitr. p. 55, and has been turned to further account by Baur and his school against the historical character of the narrative of the Acts; see on Acts 11:30), remains independent of the possible modes of explaining the so far unhistorical account there given.

μετὰ Βαρνάβα] The following συμπαραλ. κ. Τίτον shows that Paul recognised himself as on this occasion the chief person, which agrees with Acts 15:2, but not with Acts 11:25; Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25.

συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον] having taken along with us (as travelling companion) also Titus. This καὶ finds its reference in μετὰ Βαρνάβα, to which the σύν in συμπαραλ. also refers; not among others also (Wieseler),—a meaning which is not suggested by the text. Whether, however, at Acts 15:2, Titus is meant to be included in καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν, must remain an open question. If he is meant to be included, then our passage serves to put the statement on the more exact historical footing, that Titus was not sent with the others by the church at Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof. The idea that he was sent on the part of the opposite party (Fritzsche), cannot, on a correct view of Acts l.c., be entertained at all.

[48] As a revelation afforded to Paul himself must certainly be intended, the assertion often brought forward, that κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν in Galatians 2:2 applies to the narrative about the prophet Agabus (Acts 11:28 ff.), is so evidently incorrect, that it does not merit notice. Also the special ground brought forward by Böttger, in order to confirm the identity of the journey Galatians 2:1 with that described in Acts 11, 12, carries with it its own refutation. See, on the contrary, Rückert, in the Magaz. f. Exeg. u. Theol. des N. T. I. 1, p. 118 ff.

[49] Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 149.

[50] Accordingly, the opinions that our passage relates to a journey still later than that reported in Acts 15 fall to the ground of themselves, for the journey Acts 15 can neither be historically disputed nor can it have been omitted by Paul. Following Jac. Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Köhler (Abfassungsz. p. 8) has found our journey in Acts 18:22,—a view more recently defended by Wieseler, Chronologie d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. art. Galaterbrief; but Schrader transfers it to the interval between vv. 20 and 21 of Acts 19—to the time of the composition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Against Köhler and Schrader, see especially Schott, Erörterung, p. 22 ff.; Wurm, in the Tübing. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 50 ff.; Anger, rat. temp. p. 153 ff. According to Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 4, even the journey of Acts 21:15-17 is the one intended! Against Wieseler, who is supported by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 460 ff.; Zeller, Apost. p. 218 f.; Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 144 ff.; Möller on De Wette (ed. 3), p. 35 ff. Comp. also Düsterdieck in Reuter’s Repert. Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Gesch. d. chr. K. I. p. 181 ff.; Holtzmann, in Schenkel’s kirchl. Zeitschr. 1860, 8, p. 55 ff.; Ebrard, and others. It is unnecessary for us here to go farther into Wieseler’s arguments from an exegetical point of view; for the supposition of some later journey than Acts 15 must at all events from Galatians 2:1 appear an exegetical impossibility, so long as we allow this much at least of truth to the Acts of the Apostles—that Paul was at the apostolic council. The journey to this council cannot have been passed over by Paul in his narrative given in our passage; and consequently the journey Acts 18:22—which, too, he cannot have taken in company with Barnabas (Acts 15:36 ff.)—cannot have been the one intended by him. This is completely sufficient to invalidate even the latest discussions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes (Comm. crit. p. 3): “Paulus aut non affuisse in apostolorum conventu Acts 15, aut male causae suae consuluisse, silentio id praeteriens, censendus esset.”

[51] Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees) still contents himself with the superficial current evasion, that Paul had no need to mention the journey related in Acts 11, because it did not afford his opponents any matter for suspicion. As if his opponents were to be reckoned so innocent and guileless in their judgment, and as if Paul would not have been shrewd enough to see the use that would be made of his passing over in silence one of the journeys made by him to the seat of the apostles!

Note.

Τεσσάρων, which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bertholdt, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, Rinck, Küchler, Böhl, Matthaei (Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), Schott (in his Isagoge, p. 196, not in his later writings), Wurm, Ulrich, and Böttger, wish to read instead of δεκατεσσάρων, is a mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, confirmed by no authority whatever, not even by the Chronic. Euseb., from the words of which it is, on the contrary, distinctly evident that the chronographer read δεκατεσσάρων,[52] but on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for that recorded in Acts 11, 12, suggested τεσσάρων.[53] See Anger, Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 160 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit., has again judged it necessary to read τεσσάρων, specially because the few matters related of Paul in Acts 10-15 cannot be held compatible with his having been seventeen years an apostle, and also because so early a conversion, as must be assumed from the reading δεκατεσσάρων, does not agree with Acts 1-9, several of the narratives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer, perhaps ten years’, interval between the ascension of Christ and the conversion of the apostle; as indeed the existence of churches already established in Judaea at the time of this conversion (Galatians 1:22) points to the same conclusion, and 2 Corinthians 12:2 ff., where the ἀποκάλυψις refers to the conversion, agrees with τεσσάρων, but not with δεκατεσσάρων in our passage. But when we consider the great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of Acts, the possibility of explaining the establishment of the Judaean churches even in a shorter period embracing some four years, and the groundlessness of the view that 2 Corinthians 12:2 (see on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for an unanimously attested reading.

[52] Τῷ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ ιδʹ ἐτῶν δοκεῖ μοι τοὺς χρόνους τῶν ἀποστόλων τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναλήψεως ἀριθμεῖν αὐτὸν.… Καὶ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο δῶμεν, εὑρεθήσεται ὁ χρόνος ἀφʼ οὗ ἐβαπτίσθη καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν, ὡς περιέχουσιν αἱ Πράξεις, ἐ ́τ η δʼ.

[53] It is therefore a pure error, when τεσσάρων is sometimes styled a varia lectio.

Galatians 2:2. Δέ] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repetition of the same word, as in Romans 3:22; 1 Corinthians 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 (Acts 22:17; 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance (Acts 16:9; Acts 18:19; Acts 23:11; Acts 27:23), or generally by a prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a communication from the Spirit (Acts 16:6-7; Acts 20:22-23), or in some other mode—remains uncertain. According to Acts 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 Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:6, ἀποκάλ. should express a divine revelation (comp. Ephesians 3:3), as in fact the word is constantly used in the N.T. in this higher sense: comp. Galatians 1:12.

ἀνεθέμην] I laid before them, for cognisance and examination. Comp. Acts 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. Galatians 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. Romans 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. Matthew 17:19; Mark 4:34; Mark 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, Acts 15:22), but (see on Galatians 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. Galatians 2:6-7; Galatians 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 (1 Corinthians 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.” Galatians 2:5-6; Galatians 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 חָשַׁב. 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 Galatians 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 Numbers 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. Acts 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 (Galatians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 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., Isaiah 65:23 et al.; from the N.T., 2 Corinthians 6:1, Php 2:16, 1 Thessalonians 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, 2 Timothy 4:7; in other passages, Christian activity in general, as 1 Corinthians 9:24 f., Galatians 5:7, Hebrews 12:1. Comp. Romans 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, 1 Corinthians 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.

Acts 15:4; Acts 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 Acts 15:4; Acts 15:12, and that expressed by ἀνεθέμην κ.τ.λ. in Galatians 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 Acts 15:19 f. As to the non-mention of the apostolic decree, see Introd. § 3.

Galatians 2:3. Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of his discussions with the δοκοῦσι until Galatians 2:6, and consequently it is Galatians 2:6 ff. which corresponds to the κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ δοκοῦσι in Galatians 2:2; so that Galatians 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 Galatians 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. Luke 23:15; Acts 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 (Galatians 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 (Acts 16:3). To look upon the false brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision of Titus (Bleek, Wieseler, and others) does not suit Galatians 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 Galatians 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).

f

Galatians 2:4 f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made as to Titus was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (comp. εἴξαμεν, Galatians 2:5). It was refused on account of the false brethren, to whom concession would otherwise have been made in a way conducive to their designs against Christian freedom.

διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους] sc. οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι.[65] These words, however, are not, properly speaking, to be supplied; in διὰ δὲ τ. π. ψ. they receive their more precise definition, made specially prominent by ΔΈ, autem: on account, however, of the false brethren. Though Paul might have subjoined this immediately without δέ, he inserts the ΔΈ not superfluously (Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact), but on account of the important bearing of the matter on his argument. The case is similar when a more precise definition is made prominent by ΔΈ, the same word being repeated, as in Galatians 2:2. So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Camerarius, Erasmus, Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and others; more recently, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ellicott, Reithmayr; also Matthies, who, however, so explains the passage that we should rather expect it to run, ΔΙᾺ ΔῈ ΤῶΝ ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΚΤΩΝ ΨΕΥΔΑΔΈΛΦΩΝ. On ΔΈ Bengel justly remarks, “declarat et intendit,” as in fact ΔΈ is often used by classical authors for giving prominence to an explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course again understood (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 359). As to the matter itself, observe how Paul under other circumstances, where there was no dogmatic requirement of opponents brought into play, could bring himself to allow circumcision; see Acts 16:3. Consequently after Galatians 2:3 a comma only is to be placed, not a full stop, or even a colon (Lachmann, Tischendorf). Others, as Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Hermann, Matthias, supply ἀνέβην, which, however, after Galatians 2:3, could not possibly occur to the mind of a reader.[66] Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 170 f. (so previously Grotius, and recently Wieseler), assumes an anacoluthon,—that οὐκ εἴξαμεν was intended to follow on ΔΙᾺ ΔῈ ΤΟῪς ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΚΤ. ΨΕΥΔΑΔΈΛΦ., but that Paul had been led off by the long parenthesis and had then added ΟἿς. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 329 f., leaves the choice to be made between this view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write, on account of the false brethren we have not yielded, he would not in doing so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he had not yielded; by using οἷς he would thus have altered[67] the sense of what he had begun to say, and would simply have occasioned perplexity by the mixture of on account of and to whom. But there is no need to resort at all to an anacoluthon when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to complete the sense. This remark holds good also against Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711], who (comp. Hilgenfeld) assumes that Paul mixed up the two thoughts: “We did not have Titus circumcised on account of the false brethren;” and, “I might nowise yield to the false brethren.” Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 46) also produces an unnecessary anacoluthic derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a new sentence begins with διὰ δὲ παρεισάκτ. ψευδ., but that the relative definition ΟἽΤΙΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ. does not allow it to be completed; that, in fact, this completion does not take place at all, but with Galatians 2:6 a new period is begun, attached to what immediately precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 8, Ambrose, Pelagius, and Primasius (opposed by Jerome), Rückert, who is followed by Elwert, supplements the passage as follows: “But on account of the false brethren I withal allowed Titus to be circumcised” (consequently περιετμήθη). According to his view, this is the course of thought in the passage: “Even Titus was at that time not forced to be circumcised; there was not, and could not be, any question of compulsion; but because I saw that there were false brethren, whose sole endeavour was to discover a vulnerable point in us, I considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and had Titus circumcised. Nevertheless, to yield out of obedience to them, and to acknowledge a necessity in respect to all Gentiles, never occurred to me for a moment,” etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged, first, that in Galatians 2:3 the emphasis is laid on Τίτος and not on ἨΝΑΓΚΆΣΘΗ, and in Galatians 2:5 on ΠΡῸς ὭΡΑΝ and not on Τῇ ὙΠΟΤΑΓῇ; secondly, that the idea of “acknowledging a necessity in respect to all Gentile Christians” is not even hinted at by any word of Paul; and thirdly, the general consideration that a point so important and so debateable as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus would have been, would have needed, especially before the Galatians (comp. Galatians 5:2), a very different elucidation and vindication from one so enigmatically involved, in which the chief ideas could only be read between the lines. But such a compliance itself shown towards false brethren,—not for the sake, possibly, of some weak brethren, who are imported into the case by Elwert, nor on account of the Jews, as in the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3),—would have been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the interpretation of Rückert comes that of Reiche, who places the (supposed) circumcision of Titus not at the time then being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier period, at which it took place either in Antioch or elsewhere: “At vero … ut rem aliam hic interponam, Galatians 2:3-6 (nam Galatians 2:6 oratio ad apostolos redit), Titi nimirum circumcisionem, quam quis forte modo dictis Galatians 2:2 opponat, quasi apostolorum aliorumve auctoritate vel jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem legisque observationem necessariam duxerim 6 f. parum mihi constans, sufficiat monuisse:—nec Titus ille comes meus et adjutor, Graecus natus, minime est coactus circumcidi a me vel a quocunque; propter falsos autem fratres, qui tum nos speculabantur, quomodo immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis parta uteremur, eo consilio, ut denuo nos sub legis servitium redigerent … propter hos dico Titus ritum hunc externum … suscepit volens, ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa et materies praeripiatur,” etc. But against this view may be urged partly the arguments already used against Rückert, and in addition the arbitrary procedure involved in shifting Galatians 2:3-6 to an earlier time; although Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἑμοί, evidently referring back to ΣΥΜΠΑΡΑΛΑΒῺΝ ΚΑῚ ΤΊΤΟΝ in Galatians 2:1, precludes our taking this event out of the course of the narrative begun in Galatians 2:1. Moreover, ΠΕΡΙΕΤΜΉΘΗ as supplied by Reiche cannot be invested with the sense “liber et volens circumcisionem suscepit,”—a sense which, for the very sake of the contrast, since the emphasis lies on liber et volens, would need to be expressed (by ἐθελοντὴν περιετμήθη or the like). Lastly, an un-Pauline compliance[68] would be the result of the sense which would follow from the omission of οἷς οὐδέ in Galatians 2:5 (see the critical notes): “But on account of the false brethren … I gave way momentarily and caused Titus to be circumcised,” to which also the sentence of purpose which follows, ἽΝΑ Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ Κ.Τ.Λ., would be utterly unsuitable; for, according to the point of view of our epistle, the “truth of the gospel” could only continue with the Galatians if such a compliance did not take place.

παρεισάκτους] subintroductos (Vulgate), brought in by the side, that is, privily and illegitimately,—namely, into the association of Christian brotherhood, of which they are not at all true members. See the note after Galatians 2:5. The word does not occur elsewhere in ancient authors (Prol. Sir. in Biel, III. p. 43, and Schleusner, IV. p. 228, πρόλογος παρείσακτος ἀδήλου); but it must have been employed on several occasions, as ΠΑΡΕΊΣΑΚΤΟΝ is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, and ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΚΤΟΥς by Zonaras, being explained by ἈΛΛΌΤΡΙΟΝ and ἈΛΛΟΤΡΊΟΥς. The word has also been preserved as a name (by-name) in Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, Παρείσακτος ἐπικληθεὶς Πτολεμαῖος. The verb ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΓΩ is very current in later authors (Plut. Mor. p. 328 D; Polyb. ii. 7. 8, vi. 56. 12; Diod. xii. 41; 2 Peter 2:1). Comp. παρεισέδυσαν, Judges 1:4.

ΨΕΥΔΑΔΈΛΦΟΥς] as in 2 Corinthians 11:26, persons who were Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature of Christianity—from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, Judaizing reactionaries against Christian freedom. The article points out that these people were historically known to the readers, Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5.

οἵτινες κ.τ.λ.] quippe qui, contains the explanation as to the dangerous character of these persons, by which the διὰ δὲ τ. π. ψ. is justified.

ΠΑΡΕΙΣῆΛΘΟΝ] Comp. Lucian, Asin. 15, εἰ λύκος παρεισέλθοι; Polyb. ii. 55. 3. The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by Hofmann) is here accordant with the context, and indicated purposely by the twice-repeated παρεις. Comp. generally on Romans 5:20, and see Chrysostom on our passage.

ΚΑΤΑΣΚΟΠῆΣΑΙ] in order to spy out, hostilely to reconnoitre, to watch. Comp. Joshua 2:2-3; 2 Samuel 10:3; 1 Chronicles 19:3; Eur. Hel. 1623; Polyb. 10:2; also κατάσκοπος, a spy.

ἥν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησ.] a more precise definition of the preceding ἩΜῶΝ. Comp. Ephesians 2:4 et al. This freedom is, as may be gathered from the entire context, nothing else than the freedom from Mosaism (Romans 10:4) through justification by faith. Comp. Galatians 3:13, Galatians 5:1. Matthies introduces also the Christian life, but without warrant; the spying of the pseudo-Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what extent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of the Mosaic law. Ἐν Χριστῷ implies as its basis the solemn idea of the ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ΕἾΝΑΙ (Galatians 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 3:6, et al. Comp. Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 3:12). Hence: in Christ, as our element of life by means of faith (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:17), as Christians.

ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν[69]] is the dangerous design which they had in view in their κατασκοπῆσαι. Ἡμᾶς applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely to Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile Christians (Baur); for it must be the wider category of those to whom, as the genus, the ὑμεῖς in Galatians 2:5 belong as the species. We must also notice ΔΙΑΜΕΊΝῌ in Galatians 2:5, which is correlative to the ἜΧΟΜΕΝ in Galatians 2:4. The future after ἵνα indicates, that the false brethren expected their success to be certain and enduring. See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 683; Rost, ad Duncan. Lex. p. 870. In classical authors we find only ὅπως, ὄφρα, and μή thus construed, and not ἵνα, as Brunck, ad Eur. Bacch. 1380, supposed (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629), but in the Hellenists and Fathers ἵνα also. Comp. Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 202. ΚΑΤΆ strengthens the idea of the simple verb: to make us wholly slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave us. Comp. 2 Corinthians 11:20; Plat. Pol. i. p. 315 B, δουλοῦσθαι ἀδίκως καὶ καταδεδουλῶσθαι: Thuc. iii. 70. 2, and Duker in loc. The mode in which the apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with the intention (de Wette); it represents the latter correctly according to the fact (they desire to bind the Christians to the law), but in the form which it assumed from the Pauline point of view. Comp. Galatians 6:12 f.

[65] To supply merely ἠναγκάσθη περιτμ. without οὐκ (Koppe), so that ἠναγκάσθη is to be understood in the altered sense, “But on account of the false brethren, it was insisted on in his case,” is entirely inadmissible, both on account of this very diversity of sense, and also because in ver. 3 the negation is essential and indeed the chief point.

[66] Olshausen takes a similar but still more harsh and arbitrary view, that the idea in Paul’s mind was, “I went indeed up to Jerusalem, in order to lay my gospel before the apostles (?) for examination; on account of these, however, it was really not at all necessary … but, on account of the false brethren, I found myself induced to take steps.” In the ardour of his language, Paul had allowed himself to be diverted from the construction he had begun; and described instead the nature of the false teachers.

[67] Wieseler seeks to avoid this by taking διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισ. ψευδαδ. as equivalent to τῶν δὲ ψευδαδέλφων κελευόντων τοῦτο: with their demand Paul had not exhibited compliance. But διά means nothing else than on account of, that is, according to the context, with reference to them (comp. Acts 16:3), namely, because they lurked in the background in the matter, and it was inexpedient to take account of their designs or to give them any free scope. Also in Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 6:7, John 6:57, διά with the accus. is simply on account of, and has to receive its more precise meaning from the context. In the passages quoted by Wieseler (Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 35, and Plut. Cam. 35), διά, according to the well-known Greek usage, is “for the sake of,” that is, through merit or through fault of any one.

[68] Reiche seeks to evade this by thus explaining ver. 5 : “quibus, quanquam prudentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumcidere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad fidem libertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne paulisper quidem cessimus iis obtemperantes.” We should thus have in ver. 5 a saving clause, the most essential point of which (“ceterum, in rebus,” etc.) would have to be mentally supplied.

[69] The Recepta, defended by Reiche, is καταδουλώσωνται. But B** F G, 17, Dam., have καταδουλώσωσιν; and A B* C D E א, min., καταδουλώσουσιν (so Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf). The middle (to which, moreover, Lucian, Soloec. 12, assigns an unfounded difference from the active) is accordingly abandoned unanimously by the best MSS., and is the more readily to be given up, because in this case the versions cannot come into consideration, and consequently the importance of the MSS. is all the greater. The middle being most familiar from the LXX. (Genesis 47:21; Exodus 1:14; Exodus 6:5; Leviticus 25:46; Ezekiel 29:18; the active, only in Jeremiah 15:14; Jeremiah 17:4; the Apocrypha has the middle only), intruded itself unsought. This much in opposition to Reiche, who derives the active from 2 Corinthians 11:20. Further, as καταδουλώσουσιν has the great preponderance of testimony, and was very easily liable to the alteration into the subjunctive usual after ἵνα, it is to be adopted (with Usteri, Schott, Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to be considered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of the subjunctive. The Recepta καταδουλώσωνται, which K and most of the later MSS. have, shows that the change into the subjunctive must have been very prevalent at an early date. Nevertheless L and one min. have καταδουλώσονται, which must have sprung from the original καταδουλώσουσιν.

Galatians 2:5. Connection:—“On account of the false brethren, however, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised; to these we did not yield even for an hour. Had we consented to the suggestion, which was made to us by Christians at Jerusalem (see on Galatians 2:3), at least to circumcise Titus, we should have thereby yielded to the false brethren standing in the background, who declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be necessary; but this did not at all take place.”[70]

οἷς] in the sense of τούτοις γάρ. See Stallbaum, ad Phil. p. 195 f.; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 64; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 371.

πρὸς ὥραν] not even for an hour, indicating a very short duration of time. Comp. 2 Corinthians 7:8; Philemon 1:15; John 5:35; 1 Thessalonians 2:17; also πρὸς μίαν ῥοπήν, Wis 18:12; πρὸς ὀλίγον, πρὸς βραχύ, and the like.

εἴξαμεν] namely, I and Barnabas and Titus.

τῇ ὑποταγῇ] belongs not to διαμείνῃ (Matthias), an inverted arrangement which would be without motive, but to εἴξαμεν, beside which it stands: “through the obedience claimed by the false brethren,” that is, by rendering to them the obedience which they desired. On the matter itself, see Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5. Matthies regards τῇ ὑποταγῇ as an appositional explanation of οἷς (as to this usage, see Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 135 f.). But the yielding takes place not to the obedience, but to the demand (τῇ ἐντολῇ). Fritzsche correctly takes it in an ablative sense, but explains, “eo obsequio praestito, quod apostoli postularent.” But in combination with οἷς … εἴξαμεν, and with ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλ. preceding, it would not occur to the reader to think of anything else than the obedience claimed by the ψευδάδελφοι. Besides, it was not the apostles at all who demanded the circumcision of Titus, but (see on Galatians 2:3) Christians at Jerusalem, acting on the instigation of the ψευδάδελφοι, so that these latter would have been obeyed by the circumcision in question. Comp. the state of matters at Acts 21:21. Holsten, without any indication of support in the context, interprets: “by the subordination to the δοκοῦντες, which had been demanded by the false brethren.” Lastly, Hermann (who is followed by Bretschneider), entirely in opposition to the context, explains it, “quibus ne horae quidem spatium Jesu obsequio segnior fui.”

ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια κ.τ.λ.] Object of this non-compliance at that time, which, although in the nature of the case it concerned Pauline Christians generally, is represented concretely as referring to the Galatians: “in order that the truth of the gospel may abide with you; in order that by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should not be shaken, and ye should not be induced to deviate from the truth, which forms the subject-matter of the gospel (Galatians 2:14; Colossians 1:5), by mixing it up with Mosaism” (comp. ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, Galatians 1:6). A purpose, therefore—and this the readers were intended to feel—to which their present apostasy entirely ran counter!

πρὸς ὑμᾶς] as πρὸς αὐτόν, Galatians 1:18, comp. 1 Corinthians 16:7; here also it is not the with of simple rest, but expresses the relation of an active bearing on life; Bernhardy, p. 265. Besides, Paul might justly say πρὸς ὑμᾶς, as the Galatians were for the most part Gentile Christians, and in that opposition to the false brethren it was the freedom of the Gentile Christians which he sought to maintain. The ὑμᾶς individualizes the readers of the letter (Galatians 3:26, Galatians 4:6; Colossians 1:25; Ephesians 3:2, and frequently). The reference to the yet unconverted Gentiles, whom the truth of the gospel had still to reach (πρὸς ὑμᾶς), as suggested by Hofmann,[71] is in complete opposition to the text.

διαμείνη] permaneret; denoting the abiding continuance. The truth which they have received was not again to be lost. Hebrews 1:11; 2 Peter 3:4; Luke 22:8; and frequently in Greek authors.

[70] Paul was therefore by no means “nearly compelled to have Titus circumcised” (Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 121).

[71] Comp. Windischmann.

Note.

As by the ψευδάδελφοι (Galatians 2:4-5) cannot be meant the Judaizers at work among the Galatians (which is assumed by Fritzsche entirely in opposition to the connection), but only the same persons mentioned in Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5; they cannot be described as false brethren in relation to any one particular church (e.g. to the church of Antioch, into which they had crept from Jerusalem, as Baur and Reiche think). On the contrary, the general form of their antagonism, Galatians 2:4-5, as well as the further account in Galatians 2:7-10, and the whole argument of the epistle, admit only of one point of view,—that the apostle, out of the certainty of the ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, styles them false brethren in relation to Christianity generally, of which they had, as regards their Judaizing character and action looked at from a Pauline standpoint, falsely pretended to be professors. This does not in itself exclude the fact that they had come from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 15:1). The inflexible opposition offered to them by the apostle in Jerusalem doubtless contributed much to the bringing about of the apostolic decree. Comp. Märcker, l.c. p. 539.

Galatians 2:6. Paul having described in Galatians 2:3-5 the momentous result of his relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem (αὐτοῖς, Galatians 2:2), now passes on (corresponding to the κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι, Galatians 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. Romans 5:12 ff.; Ephesians 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 Romans 15:27; 1 Corinthians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Matthew 16:21, and must have been expressed by some such explanatory addition as in Acts 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 Galatians 2:9, and in such a manner that the three δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι in Galatians 2:9 are supposed to form the subject of the period beginning with ἀπὸ κ.τ.λ. in Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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] פְּנֵי אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים לֹא נֹשֵׂא, an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, statement of the reason for ΟὐΔΈΝ ΜΟΙ ΔΙΑΦΈΡΕΙ. “Dei judicium sequebatur Paulus,” Bengel. נָשָׂא פָּנִים, 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, Genesis 19:21; Genesis 32:21, et al.) and in a bad sense, implying a favour and respect which is partial, determined by personal considerations (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 10:17, et al.; Sir 4:27; 3 Esr. 4:39). In the N.T. it is used solely in this bad sense (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21; Judges 1:16. Comp. Acts 10:34; Jam 2:9; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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. Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 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. 1 Corinthians 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. Galatians 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).

Galatians 2:7. Ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον] to be separated merely by a comma from the preceding, being still connected with γάρ. “To me they made no kind of communication; but, on the contrary, when they had seen etc., the three pillar-apostles concluded with me and Barnabas the apostolic alliance,” etc. (Galatians 2:9). Hofmann, with a view to extort a regimen for ἀπὸ τῶν δοκούντων in Galatians 2:6, very arbitrarily tears asunder the clear and simple connection which the words obviously present, taking ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον by itself and dissevered from what follows, and supplementing the sense by the insertion, “They have not proposed anything to me, but conversely, I to them.” Comp. on τοὐναντίον, 2 Corinthians 2:7, 1 Peter 3:9; very frequently (also τἀναντία) occurring in Greek authors (Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. 297). But this strange ellipsis is a device utterly unprecedented.[77]

ἰδόντες] after they had seen, namely, from the way in which I to them κατʼ ἰδίαν ἀνεθέμην τὸ εὐαγγ. ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι (Galatians 2:2). Usteri, “from the blessed result of my preaching.” So also Rosenmüller, Winer, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Hofmann; Rückert, Schott, de Wette, Wieseler, mix the two views; and Fritzsche includes the previous labours of the apostle among the Gentiles, e.g. in Tarsus and Antioch, among the grounds of knowledge. But nothing beyond what we have just given can be gathered from the context. Erasmus appropriately paraphrases, “ubi communicato cum illis evangelio meo perspexissent.”

ὅτι πεπίστ. τ. εὐαγγ. τ. ἀκροβ. κ.τ.λ.] The emphasis is laid on καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτ., as Galatians 2:8 shows. They saw that my having been divinely entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles was just such (just as undoubted, true, direct, etc.), as was Peter’s divine trust with the gospel for the Jews; consequently there could be no question of any προσαναθεῖναι, and nothing could follow but complete recognition (Galatians 2:9). The construction (comp. Romans 3:2; 1 Corinthians 9:17) in the sense of πεπίστευταί μοι τὸ εὐαγγ. (as F G, 19*, 46** actually read) is regular; as to the perfect, used of the enduring subsistence of the act, see Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 339].

τῆς ἀκροβυστίας] that is, τῶν ἀκροβύστων (Romans 2:26; Romans 3:30; Ephesians 2:11), the gospel which belonged to the uncircumcised, and was to be preached to them.

καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομ.] Thus Peter appears as the representative of the Jewish apostles, in accordance with his superiority among them (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2, 3, 4, 5 et al.). The destination of Peter as an apostle to the Gentiles also (Acts 15:7; 1 Peter 1:1) is not negatived, but a potiori fit denominatio.

That this passage relates not to two different gospels, but to the same gospel for two different circles of recipients, to whose peculiarities respectively the nature and mode of preaching required special adaptation, is obvious of itself, and is clear from Galatians 2:8-9. But the passage cannot be worse misunderstood than it has been by Baur, according to whom there was a special gospel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, differing in this respect, that the one maintained the necessity of circumcision, while the other allowed it to drop. Comp. Holsten, who discovers the distinctive feature of the Gentile gospel in the “gnosis of the death of the cross,” in spite of 1 Corinthians 1:23 f. In opposition to such a separation, see also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 127 f.

[77] Certainly the ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον was, for Hofmann at least, the most refractory part of the sentence, which had in some sort of way to be forcibly torn from its natural connection with ἰδόντες,—a connection justly unassailed by expositors. And he has managed it by the device of the above mentioned ellipsis!

Galatians 2:8. A parenthetic historical substantiation of the preceding πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγ. τῆς ἀκροβ., καθῶς Πετρ. τῆς περιτ.: for He who has been efficacious for Peter as regards the apostleship to the circumcision, has also been efficacious for me as regards the Gentiles; that is, “for God, who has wrought effectually[78] in order to make Peter the apostle to the Jews, has also wrought effectually for me, to make me an apostle to the Gentiles.” The stress lies on ἐνεργήσας and ἘΝΉΡΓΗΣΕ: God has been not inactive, but efficacious, etc. But that in Ὁ ἘΝΕΡΓΉΣΑς Paul did not refer to Christ (Paulus, comp. Chrysostom), is evident not only from passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:6, Php 2:13, Colossians 1:29, but also from the fact that he constantly considers his apostleship to be the gift of God’s grace, bestowed upon him through the mediation of Christ (Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:15; Romans 1:5; Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 3:7, et al.).

Πέτρῳ is the dativus commodi; comp. Proverbs 29:12 (Proverbs 31:12), according to the usual reading, ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ τῷ ἀνδρὶ εἰς ἀγαθά.

ΕἸς ΤᾺ ἜΘΝΗ] in reference to the Gentiles. The precise sense follows from the first half of the verse, namely, εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῶν ἐθνῶν. The well-known comparatio compendiaria. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 4; Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 778]; Fritzschiorum Opusc. p. 217 f. There is therefore the less reason for assuming that Paul desired to avoid the expression εἰς ἀποστ. τ. ἔθνων (Holsten). Observe, however, how Paul places himself on a par with Peter; “perfecta auctoritas in praedicatione gentium,” Ambrosiaster.

[78] Namely, by communicating the requisite endowments, enlightenment, strengthening, and generally the whole equipment belonging thereto. It is not the divine action towards the attainment of the ἀποστολή (Vatablus, Schott, Fritzsche) that is meant, but the making fit for it; the attainment was indicated in ver. 7, and is substantiated in ver. 8 by the further divine action which had taken place. But neither are the results of the office, brought about by God’s helpful operation, referred to (Winer, Usteri, Baur, de Wette, Hofmann), which would anticipate the sequel.

Galatians 2:9. Καὶ γνόντες] is connected, after the parenthesis, with ἰδόντες κ.τ.λ. in Galatians 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 Galatians 1:19; not the brother of John (Augustine), who at that time had been long dead (Acts 12:2); also not the son of Alphaeus (Wieseler on Galatians 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 Galatians 1:19. Comp. on Acts 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 Galatians 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. Galatians 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 (Galatians 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 (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), was, as it were, his legitimate hereditary successor κατὰ σάρκα in Israel.

ΟἹ ΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς ΣΤῦΛΟΙ ΕἾΝΑΙ] who pass (not passed, see Galatians 2:2; Galatians 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. 1 Timothy 3:15; Revelation 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 (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21), although he certainly regarded it as οἰκοδομή, 1 Corinthians 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 Galatians 2:2 as οἱ δοκοῦντες, and in Galatians 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 Galatians 2:2; Galatians 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 Galatians 2:9 is forced upon the anacoluthic ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκοῦντων in Galatians 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 Galatians 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, Galatians 2:8 (Erasmus, Schott, and many others), or εὐαγγελισώμεθα (Winer, Usteri, de Wette). The latter, in no way unsuitable to εἰς (see on 2 Corinthians 10:16), is to be preferred, because it is suggested immediately by the protasis in Galatians 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 Galatians 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 1 Corinthians 9:20, Romans 1:16; Romans 9:1 ff; Romans 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 (Galatians 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.”

Galatians 2:10. After μόνον interpreters usually supply a verb such as αἰτοῦντες or παρακαλοῦντες, which in itself would be allowable (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 207 f.), but is nevertheless quite superfluous; for μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημ. appears dependent on δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρν. κοιν., so that it is parallel with the preceding ἵνα and limits it. Comp. Matthies, Fritzsche, Hofmann. “They made with us a collegiate alliance, to the end that we should be apostles to the Gentiles; … only that we should not omit to remember the poor of the περιτομή (not merely of the mother-church) as to support.” In that alliance nothing further, in respect to our relation to the περιτομή, was designed or settled. On μνημονεύειν in the sense of beneficent care, comp. Psalm 9:12; Hom. Od. xviii. 267.

μόνον, which belongs to the whole clause, and τῶν πτωχῶν stand before ἵνα on account of the emphasis laid upon them. Comp. on Ephesians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 7:29; 2 Corinthians 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:7, et al. The poverty of the Christians of Palestine, which was the principal motive for this proviso being added, finds its explanation in the persecutions which they underwent, in the community of goods which they had at first, and perhaps also in the expectation of the Parousia as near which they most of all cherished. Moreover, the μόνον κ.τ.λ. by no means excludes the ordinances of the apostolic council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his recognition as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private discussions held with the latter. How Baur misuses μόνον κ.τ.λ., as contrasted with the supposed irreconcilable diversity subsisting in doctrine, may be seen in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 470; Paulus, I. p. 142 ff. ed. 2; comp. also Holsten. In the face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles certainly would not have tendered Paul their hands; and had they desired to do so, Paul would have refused them his.[82]

ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι] The aorist, not used instead of the pluperfect, relates to the time from that apostolic alliance to the composition of the epistle. Paul, however, continues in the singular; for soon afterwards he separated himself from Barnabas (Acts 15:39). So, correctly, Estius, Winer, Usteri, Schott. Those who identify our journey with that related in Acts 11, 12 must conclude, with Fritzsche, that Paul desired to report concerning himself, and hence only mentioned Barnabas (and Titus) as well, where it was necessary. Nevertheless this joint-mention, although not necessary, would have been very natural in our passage; for ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν had just been said, and then in a single stroke of the representation, with ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κ.τ.λ., is given the conclusion of the matter so referred to.

αὐτὸ τοῦτο] is not superfluous (Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Morus), as neither αὐτό alone (Winer, p. 140) nor τοῦτο alone (see Matthiae, p. 1050; Kühner, II. p. 527) is used; it is the emphatic epexegesis of ὅ, hoc ipsum (see Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. LIII.), whereby Paul makes his readers feel the contrast between the Jewish Christian antagonism and his zeal of love thus shown. Studer and Usteri find in αὐτὸ τοῦτο the tacit antithesis, “but nothing further which the apostles had imposed on me.” Inappropriately, for the idea of any other matters imposed was already excluded by the previous account. Schott proposes to take ὅ as διʼ ὅ (see on Acts 26:16), but the assumption of this poetical use cannot be justified except by a necessity such as is presented to us in the N.T. only at Acts 26:16. Still more easily might αὐτὸ τοῦτο be explained (Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. iv. 1. 21; Matthiae, p. 1041; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 204 A) as on that very account (2 Peter 1:5; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 21). But in that case ὅ would so naturally take up what preceded, that there would be no reason why Paul should have brought on that very account so prominently forward. It would rather have the appearance of suggesting that, if it had not been for the agreement in question, Paul would not have cared for the poor.

We have no historical vouchers for the truth of ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κ.τ.λ.; for the conveyance of the contributions in Acts 11 took place earlier than our journey; and the collection mentioned 1 Corinthians 16., 2 Corinthians 8 f., Romans 15:27, comp. Acts 21:17 f., Acts 24:17, occurred after the composition of our epistle. But who would be inclined to doubt that assurance? Looking at the more or less fragmentary accounts in Acts and the Pauline epistles, who knows how often Paul may have sent pecuniary assistance to Palestine? as indeed he may have brought the like with him on occasion of his own journey, Acts 18:20-22. It has, however, been wrongly asserted that, by means of this obligation in respect to the poor, a connection was intended to be maintained between the Gentile churches and the primitive church, and that at the bottom of it lay the wish to bring over the preliminarily converted Gentiles gradually more and more to the principles and the mode of life of the primitive church (Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 141). This is an insinuation derived from mere fancy.

[82] Tertullian (de praescr. 23) already gives the right view: “inter se distributionem officii ordinaverant, non separationem evangelii, nec ut aliud alter, sed ut aliis alter praedicarent.”

Galatians 2:11. Paul now carries still further the historical proof of his apostolic independence; “ad summa venit argumentum,” Bengel. For not only has he not been, instructed by the apostles; not only has he been recognised by them, and received into alliance with them; but he has even asserted his apostolic authority against one of them, and indeed against Peter. There is no ground in the text for assuming (with Hofmann) any suspicion on the part of the apostle’s opponents, that in Antioch he had been defiant, and in Jerusalem submissive, towards Peter.

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθε Κηφᾶς κ.τ.λ.] After the apostolic conference, Paul and Barnabas travelled back to Antioch, Acts 15:30. During their sojourn there (Acts 15:33) Peter also came thither,—a journey, which indeed is not mentioned in Acts, but which, just because no date is given in our passage, must be considered as having taken place soon after the matters previously related (not so late as Acts 18:23, as held by Neander, Baumgarten, Lange; and by Wieseler, in favour of his view that the journey Galatians 2:1 coincides with that of Acts 18:22).[83]

Κηφᾶς] The opinion deduced from the unfavourable tenor of this narrative, as bearing upon Peter, by Clement of Alexandria ap. Euseb. i. 12, that the person meant is not the apostle, who certainly in this case is far from corresponding to his destination as “the rock” of the church, but a certain Cephas, one of the seventy disciples, has been already refuted by Jerome, and also by Gregory, Hom. 18 in Ez.

κατὰ πρόσωπον] To his face I opposed him. See Acts 3:13; often in Polybius. Comp. κατʼ ὀφθαλμούς, Herod. i. 120; Xen. Hiero, 1, 14: Galatians 3:1; and κατʼ ὄμμα, Eur. Rhes. 421, Bacch. 469. Not coram omnibus (Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus), which is not expressed until Galatians 2:14. The opinion of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and several Fathers, that the contention here related was nothing more than a contention in semblance (κατὰ πρόσωπον = secundum speciem!), is only remarkable as a matter of history.[84]

ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν] not “quia reprehensibilis or reprehendendus erat” (Vulgate, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Elsner, Wolf, and others; also Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Matthies); for the Greek participle is never used, like the Hebrew, for the verbal adjective (Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 791; Ewald, p. 538), neither in Judges 1:12, Revelation 21:8, nor in Hom. Il. i. 388, xiv. 196, xviii. 427; and what a feeble, unnecessary reason to assign would be ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν in this sense! Moreover, καταγιγνώσκειν τινα (not to be confounded with καταγ. τινός τι, as is done by Matthias), so far as its significations are relevant here, does not mean reprehendere at all, but either to accuse, which here would not go far enough, or condemnare (comp. 1 John 3:20-21; Sir 14:2; Sir 19:5). Hence also it is not: quia reprehensus or accusatus erat (Ambrose, Luther, Estius, and others; also Winer, Schott, de Wette), but: quia condemnatus erat, whereby the notorious certainty of the offence occasioned is indicated, and the stringent ground for Paul’s coming forward against him is made evident. Peter, through his offensive behaviour, had become the object of condemnation on the part of the Christians of Antioch; the public judgment had turned against him; and so Paul could not keep silence, but was compelled to do what he certainly did with reluctance. The passive participle has not a vis reciproca (Bengel, comp. Rückert, “because he had an evil conscience”); the condemnation of Peter was the act of the Christian public in Antioch. The idea “convicted before God” (Ewald) would have been expressed, if it had been so meant. If the condemnation is understood as having ensued through his own mode of action (Bengel, Lechler, p. 423; comp. Windischmann and Hofmann), the question as to the persons from whom the condemnation proceeds is left unanswered.

[83] Grotius, although he considers the journey Galatians 2:1 as identical with that in Acts 15, strangely remarks: “Videtur significare id tempus, de quo in Acts 13:1.” Also Hug and Schneckenburger, Zweck d. Apostelg. p. 108 ff., place the occurrence at Antioch earlier than the apostolic council,—a view which, according to the chronological course of Galatians 1:2, is simply an error; in which, however, Augustine, ep. 19 ad Hieron., had preceded them.—Whether, moreover, Peter then visited the church at Antioch for the first time (Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 432) must he left undecided; but looking at the length of time during which this church had already existed, it is not at all probable that it was his first visit.

[84] A contest arose on this point between Jerome and Augustine. The former characterized the reprehensio in our passage as dispensatoria, so contrived by Peter and Paul, in order to convince the Jewish Christians of the invalidity of the law, when they should see that Peter had the worst of it against Paul. Augustine, on the contrary, asserted the correct sense, and maintained that the interpretation of Jerome introduced untruth into the Scriptures. See Jerome, Ep. 86–97; Augustine, Ep. 8–19. Subsequently Jerome gave up his view and adopted the right one: c. Pelag. i. 8; Apol. adv. Rufin. iii. 1. See Möhler, gesammelte Schriften, I. p. 1 ff.

ff

Galatians 2:12 ff. Paul now relates the particulars of the occurrence.

ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου] sent by James. It belongs to ἐλθεῖν. Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 309 B, ἀπʼ ἐκείνου ἔρχομαι: Matthew 26:47; Mark 5:35; 1 Thessalonians 3:6. Why they—and, to judge from the impression made upon Peter, they were certainly men of importance, strict in their Jewish-Christian observances—were sent to Antioch by James, we know not, any more than why Peter journeyed thither.[85] But the conjecture that they belonged to the ψευδάδελφοι of Galatians 2:4 (Winer, Schott), conflicts directly with the fact, that they were sent by James: for at the apostolic conference the latter had nowise made common cause with the ψευδάδελφοι; and therefore in sending any of them to Antioch he would have acted very unwisely, or would, with reactionary intent (so de Wette, whereby, however, the character of James is placed in a very awkward position, which is not to be supported by Acts 21:18), have simply supplied new fuel to the scarcely settled controversy. Others (as Studer, Usteri, Zeller[86]), connecting the words with τινάς, understand adherents of James (comp. οἱ ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος and the like; Schaefer, Melet. p. 26 ff.; Bernhardy, p. 222), or, as Winer (comp. Wolf) says, “qui Jacobi auctoritate sive jure seu secus utebantur;” but this brings upon James the designation of a party-chief (some Jacobites!), which would be neither necessarily nor wisely introduced here, even supposing Winer’s modification to be mentally supplied. Lastly, the explanation of Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius (following Chrysostom), that ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου means nothing more than from Jerusalem, because James was the president of the church there (comp. Koppe), is an unauthorized setting aside of the person, who is named expressly and not without due reason.

μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν] he joined in meals with the Gentile Christians. Comp. on συνεσθίειν in this sense, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 881 D; Luke 15:2; 1 Corinthians 5:11. Notice the imperfect. The Jew might not eat with Gentiles without incurring Levitical defilement (Acts 11:3); but Peter, who previously by special revelation (Acts 10 f.), had been instructed as to the invalidity of this separation in Christianity, had in the apostolic conference defended Christian freedom (Acts 15:7 ff.), and taken part in passing the decree that, as regards food, the Gentile brethren should only have to abstain from meat offered to idols, things strangled, and blood (Acts 15:29). This decree was received and accepted with joy by the church at Antioch (Acts 15:30 f.). It would therefore have been all the easier for Peter in Antioch to follow his divinely attained conviction,[87] and to take part without hesitation in the more familiar intercourse of meals with the Gentile Christians there—free from any scruple that he should defile himself by Gentile food, which no legal enactments restricted except as to those three points. But to this free and correct standpoint the stricter Jewish Christians, who were still entangled in the observances of the Levitical precepts as to purity (comp. Acts 21:20), had not been able to rise; and to this class belonged the ΤΙΝΈς (Galatians 2:12). When, therefore, these peopled arrived from Jerusalem and from James, Peter unhappily no longer continued his previous liberal-minded conduct in Antioch, but drew back and separated himself from intercourse at meals with the Gentile Christians, whereby he gave a practical denial to his better conviction. How similar to his conduct in his former denial of the Lord! Calovius, however, justly, in conformity with the temperament of Peter, remarks, “una haec fuit Petri actio, non habitus.”

φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτ.] By this are meant the Jewish Christians generally, as a class, so far as they were represented by those τινές, who belonged to the stricter school. Peter feared the Jewish-Christian strictness, displeasure, disapprobation, etc. The explanatory gloss of Chrysostom (Οὐ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΦΟΒΟΎΜΕΝΟς ΜῊ ΚΙΝΔΥΝΕΎΣῌ, ἈΛΛʼ ἽΝΑ ΜῊ ἈΠΟΣΤῶΣΙΝ; comp. Theophylact, ΜῊ ΣΚΑΝΔΑΛΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς ἈΠΟΣΚΙΡΤΉΣΩΣΙ Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς), which is followed by Piscator, Grotius, Estius, and others, favours Peter quite against the literal sense of the words (Matthew 10:26; Matthew 14:5; Mark 9:18; Luke 12:5; Acts 5:26; Romans 13:3).

Observe also, on the one hand, the graphic force of the imperfects ὑπέστ. and ἈΦΏΡ., and, on the other hand, the expression of his own bad precedent, ἙΑΥΤΌΝ, which belongs not merely to ἈΦΏΡ., but also to ὙΠΈΣΤ. (Polyb. vii. 17. 1, xi. 15. 2, i. 16. 10); he withdrew himself, etc., and thereby induced his Jewish-Christian associates also to enter on a like course (Galatians 2:13). It is not, according to the context, correct that these imperfects express an enduring separation (Wieseler); the behaviour begins when the τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. have come; it excites the unfavourable judgment of the church, and Paul immediately places himself in decided opposition to Peter. The imperfects are therefore the usual adumbrativa; they place the withdrawal and separation of Peter, as it were, before the eyes of the readers. On the other hand, the συνυπεκρίθ. which follows is the wider action which took place and served further to challenge Paul; hence the aorist.

[85] The book of Acts is silent both on this point and also as to the whole scene between Peter and Paul,—a silence indeed, which, according to Baur and Zeller, is supposed to be maintained intentionally, and in consistency with the false representation of the transactions in Jerusalem. According to Ritschl (altkath. Kirche, p. 145), they were deputed by James to bring the relation between the Jewish and Gentile Christians back to the rule of the apostolic decree, as James understood it, that is, according to Ritschl, in the sense of a retractation of the Jewish-Christian defection from the law, and on behalf of restoring the separation between the two parties as respected their customs of eating. This assumed task of the τινές is neither in any way intimated in the text, nor is there a trace of it in Acts (comp., on the contrary, Acts 15:30 ff.). Just as little can it be proved that, as Ewald thinks, a decree had been passed in the church at Jerusalem that the Jewish Christian should refrain from eating in company with Gentile Christians (because he did not know whether blood or something strangled might be among their food), and that those τινές had come to Antioch to make known this new decree. Hilgenfeld also assumes that those sent by James had some charge relating to withdrawal from the Gentile Christians. Comp. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 357, in whose opinion they were sent after Peter, because his intercourse with the Gentiles had been notified at Jerusalem.

[86] So also Vömel, Br. a. d. Gal. mit deutsch. Uebers. u. krit. Anm., Frankf. 1865, p. 29.

[87] That the Christian fellowship in meals included also the joint observance of the agapae (which Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, and others take to be meant), is obvious. It is not, however, expressly denoted by συνήσθιεν.

Galatians 2:13. And the rest of the Jewish Christians also played the hypocrite jointly with him—those, namely, living in Antioch, who previously, in harmony with the liberal standpoint which they had already attained to, had held fellowship at meals with the Gentile Christians of the place, but now, misled by the influential example of Peter, had likewise drawn back. This was hypocrisy on their part and on Peter’s, because, although at the bottom of their hearts convinced of Christian freedom, they, from fear of men (Galatians 2:12), concealed the more liberal conviction of which they were conscious, and behaved just as if they entertained the opposite view. It is true that the apostolic council had not decided anything as to the conduct of the Jewish Christians among Gentile Christians; but the immorality consisted in the inwardly untrue duplicity of their behaviour, which was more than a mere inconsistency (Baur) of reformed Judaism, conceived by Paul as being hypocrisy (Hilgenfeld). The view of Holsten, z. Ev. des Paul. u. Petr. p. 357 ff., is similar.

On συνυπεκρίθ., comp. Polyb. iii. 92. 5, v. 49. 7; Plut. Mark 14:17; Joseph. Bell. xv. 7. 5.

καὶ Βαρνάβ.] even Barnabas, who was my associate withal in the apostleship to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9), and should consequently least of all have ventured insincerely to deny the principle of Christian freedom, to the disparagement of the Gentile Christians! So injurious was the effect of Peter’s example!

συναπήχθη] was jointly led away (led astray), namely, from his own standpoint. Comp. 2 Peter 3:17 (Romans 12:16, and Wetstein in loc.). ὥστε with a finite verb, in the secondary sentence (comp. John 3:16), denotes the consequence simply as a fact which has occurred. See Tittmann, Synon. II. p. 70; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1012 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 772. The infinitive would make the representation subjective (the seduction being conceived as a necessary result).

αὐτῶν] that is, αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν Ἰουδ. It is emphatically prefixed. The dative is instrumental: by their hypocrisy, not to their hypocrisy (Luther and others). No one can, without wronging Paul in respect to the choice of his strongly inculpating expression,[88] either call in question the fact that the conduct of Peter is here expressly designated as hypocrisy (Schwegler, I. p. 129), or reduce it to a mere supposition; although Ritschl, p. 145, is of opinion that the reproach thus used does not quite evince a clear and thorough conviction of the rightness of the non-Jewish practice. The purposely chosen expression in our passage shows, on the contrary, that Peter’s conviction, which was well known to Paul, agreed with the conviction of Paul himself, although it was hypocritically denied by the former. Peter’s ὑπόκρισις, according to the text, consisted in the Ἰουδαΐζειν, to which he had drawn back after his intercourse with the Gentile Christians, not in his previous fellowship with them, which is alleged to have been “a momentary unfaithfulness to his real conviction” (Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 476; Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). And the censure which Paul—certainly unwillingly, and with a complete realizing and appreciating of the moral situation to which it has reference—has directed against Peter expressly on the ground of hypocrisy,[89] exhibits plainly the agreement in principle of the personal convictions of the two apostles (comp. Wiesinger, de consensu, locor. Gal. ii. et Act. xv. p. 36; Lechler, p. 426).

[88] This expression is all the more strictly to be understood as it stands, since Paul has not anywhere else in his epistles or speeches used either the word ὑποκρίνεσθαι, or ὑποκριτής, or (with the exception of 1 Timothy 4:2) ὑπόκρισις. He would be the less likely to have omitted to weigh the gravity of the reproach conveyed in this very word otherwise strange to him, especially seeing that it was used after so long a time and was directed against Peter. This remark also applies in opposition to Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 554 f., and to Möller on de Wette.

[89] Not merely (comp. de Wette) on account of an easily excusable want of firmness and clearness in conviction (Bisping), or of a momentary throwing of the same into the background under pressure of circumstances (Reithmayr). Even Erasmus exerts himself to come at length to the result, that “Pauli objurgatio nihil aliud fuit quam confirmatio parum adhuc sibi constantium.”

Galatians 2:14. Ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσι] ὀρθοποδεῖν (comp. ὀρθοβατεῖν, Anthol. ix. 11. 4), not preserved elsewhere in Biblical language, undoubtedly means to be straight-footed, that is, to walk with straight feet (comp. ὀρθόπους, Soph. Ant. 985; Nicand. Alexiph. 419, ὀρθόποδες βαίνοντες). Here used in a figurative sense—as words expressive of walking are favourites with Paul in representing ethical ideas (comp. περιπατεῖν, στοιχεῖν κ.τ.λ.)—equivalent to acting rightly (with straightness), conducting oneself properly (ὀρθοπραγεῖν, Aristot. Pol. i. 5. 8). Vulgate, “recte ambularent.”[90] It is the moral ὈΡΘΌΤΗς ΠΡΆΞΕΩς (Plat. Men. p. 97 B), the opposite of the moral σκολιόν (Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A), στρεβλόν (Sir 36:25), ΧΩΛΌΝ (Hebrews 12:13). According to the leaning of Greek authors towards the direct mode of expression, the present is quite regular. See Kühner, § 846.

πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθ. τοῦ εὐαγγέλ.] ΠΡΌς is understood as secundum (2 Corinthians 5:10; Luke 12:47; Bernhardy, p. 265) by most expositors (including Winer, Rückert, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler); by others in the sense of direction towards the mark (Flacius, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, Morus, Hofmann), which would mean, “so as to maintain and promote the truth of the gospel.” The former interpretation is to be preferred, because it is the more simple and the first to suggest itself, and it yields a very suitable sense. Hence: corresponding to the truth, which is the contents of the gospel (Galatians 2:5). Certainly Paul never in verbs of walking expresses the rule prepositionally by πρός, but by ΚΑΤΆ (Romans 8:4; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 3:3, et al.); but in this passage πρὸς κ.τ.λ. is the epexegesis of ὈΡΘῶς, according to its ethical idea.

ἔμπροσθεν πάντων] consequently, not under some four eyes merely, but in the sight of the whole church although not assembled expressly for this purpose (Thiersch); τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε, ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσι, 1 Timothy 5:20. “Non enim utile erat errorem, qui palam noceret, in secreto emendare,” Augustine.

εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων κ.τ.λ.] that is, “If thou, although a born Jew, orderest thy mode of living in conformity with that of the born Gentiles, ΧΩΡῚς ἸΟΥΔΑΙΚῆς ΠΑΡΑΤΗΡΉΣΕΩς (Chrysostom), and not with that of the born Jews—a course of conduct, which thou hast just practically exemplified by eating in company with Gentile Christians—how comes it to pass that thou (by the example of the wholly opposite conduct which thou hast now adopted since the arrival of those ΤΙΝΈς) urgest the born Gentiles to adopt the custom of the born Jews?” What a contradiction of conduct is it, thus in one breath to live ἘΘΝΙΚῶς and to urge the ἜΘΝΗ to the ἸΟΥΔΑΐΖΕΙΝ! The present Ζῇς denotes that which was constant, accordant with principle, in Peter’s case (contrary to the view of Hilgenfeld and others). This is laid down by Paul, with the argumentative εἰ, as certain and settled, and that not merely by inference from his recent experience of Peter having eaten in company with Gentiles, but also on the ground of his knowledge otherwise of this apostle and of his practical principles on this point, with which the ἐθνικῶς ζῆν just before actually carried out by Peter was in accordance. Groundlessly and erroneously Rückert labours (since it does not run: ἘΠΕΙΔΉ … ἜΖΗΣΑς) to extract an entirely different meaning, understanding ἸΟΥΔΑΪΚῶς Ζῇς in an ideal sense (Romans 2:28 f.; John 1:48), and ἐθνικῶς ζῇς as its opposite: “By thy present conduct thou showest thyself truly not as a genuine Jew, but as a Gentile (sinner); how art thou at liberty to ask that the Gentiles should adopt Jewish customs, which by thy behaviour thou thyself dost not honour?” But, in fact, the reader could only take the explanation of the ἘΘΝΙΚῶς Ζῇς from ΜΕΤᾺ ΤῶΝ ἘΘΝῶΝ ΣΥΝΉΣΘΙΕΝ (Galatians 2:12), and of the ἸΟΥΔΑΪΚῶς Ζῇς from ὙΠΈΣΤΕΛΛΕ … ΠΕΡΙΤΟΜῆς (Galatians 2:12). No one could light upon the alleged ideal view (reverting, in the apodosis, to the empirical!), the more especially as the breaking off from eating with the Gentiles would have to be regarded as a Gentile habit (in an ethical sense)! The ζῆν is not the moral living according to the Gentile or the Jewish fashion, but the shaping of the life with reference to the category of external social observances within the Christian communion, such as, in the individual case in question, the following (Ἰουδαϊκῶς) or non-following (ἘΘΝΙΚῶς) of the Jewish restrictions as to eating.

Πῶς] qui fit, ut (Romans 3:6; Romans 6:2; Romans 10:14, and frequently), indicating the incomprehensibleness of this morally contradictory behaviour.

τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν] indirect compulsion. For the Gentile Christians in Antioch must very naturally have felt themselves constrained by the imposing example of the highly-esteemed Peter to look upon the Jewish habit of living—the observance of the special peculiarities of the outward legal Judaism (the Ἰουδαΐζειν: comp. Esther 8:17; Plut. Cic. 7[91])—as something belonging to Christianity, and necessary for partaking in Christian fellowship and for attaining the Messianic salvation; and they would shape their conduct in practice in accordance with this view (comp. Usteri, p. 66 f.). De Wette (comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198 f., Komment. p. 168) assumes, that the emissaries of James preached the principle of the necessity of observing the law, and that Peter gave his support, at least tacitly, to this preaching. This is not at all intimated in the text, and is not rendered necessary by the literal sense of ἀναγκάζειν, which is sufficiently explained by the moral constraint of the inducement of so influential an example, as it is often used in classical authors, “de varia necessitate quam praesens rerum conditio efficit” (Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. 18. 6). The view which understands the word here not at all of indirect constraint, but of definite demands (Ritschl, p. 146), by which Peter sought to turn them back into the path of Jewish Christianity, is opposed to the divine instruction imparted to this apostle, to his utterances at the council, and to our context, according to which the ἀναγκάζειν can have consisted in nothing more than the οὐκ ὀρθοποδεῖν as it is represented in Galatians 2:12 f., and consequently must have been merely a practical, indirect compulsion, not conveyed in any express demands. Wieseler obscures the intelligibility of the whole passage by understanding the Ἰουδαΐζειν of the observance of the restrictions as to food enacted by the apostolic council. In decisive opposition to this view it may be urged, that in the whole context this council is left entirely unmentioned; further, that these restrictions as to food had nothing to do with the Jewish proselytes (on whose account, possibly, their observance might have been called an Ἰουδαΐζειν); lastly, that the compliance with the same on the part of the church at Antioch, especially so soon after the council (see on Galatians 2:11), cannot, according to Acts 15:30, at all be a matter of doubt. Moreover, how could Paul, who had himself together with Peter so essentially co-operated towards this decree of the council, have—in the presence of Peter, of the Christians of Antioch, and even of those who were sent by James—characterized the obedience given to the restrictions in question by the inapplicable and ill-sounding name Ἰουδαΐζειν? It would have shown at least great want of tact.

[90] Hofmann, “to stand with straight foot.” But comp. ὀξυποδεῖν, ὠκυποδεῖν, to be swift-footed, that is, swift in running. The standing would probably have been expressed, as perhaps by ὀρθοστατεῖν. The ὀρθοποδῶν is not lame (χωλεύει), but makes τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς τοῖς ποσίν, Hebrews 12:13.

[91] Where a freedman is spoken of, who was ἔνοχος τῷ Ἰουδαΐζειν, and in reference to whom Cicero says, τί Ἰουδαίῳ πρὸς χοίρον; comp. also Ignat. ad Magnes. 10, ἄτοπόν ἐστιν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν λαλεῖν καὶ Ἰουδαΐζειν.

Galatians 2:15. A continuation of the address to Peter down to Galatians 2:21. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Tittmann (Opusc. p. 365), Knapp (Scr. var. arg. II. p. 452 f.), Flatt, Winer, Rückert, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette and Möller, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten. Others have looked upon Galatians 2:15-21 as addressed to the Galatians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler, Reithmayr); but to this view it may be objected, that Paul himself does not indicate the return to his readers until Galatians 3:1, and that the bare, brief reproach in Galatians 2:14 would neither correspond to the historical character of so important an event, nor stand in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it (see on Galatians 2:11); as indeed he himself has in Galatians 2:11; Galatians 2:14 so earnestly prepared the way for, and announced, his opposition, that the reader could not but expect something more than that mere question—so hurriedly thrown out—of indignant surprise.[92] And how could he have written to his (for the most part) Gentile-Christian readers ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι κ.τ.λ., without telling them whom he meant thereby? Just as little can we assume that Paul again turns to the Galatians with καὶ ἡμεῖς in Galatians 2:16 (Calovius, Paulus), or in Galatians 2:17 (Luther, Calvin), or in Galatians 2:18 (Cajetanus, Neander); or that he (Erasmus and Estius by way of suggestion, Usteri) has been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs to the speech at Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse (Galatians 2:15-21)—thoroughly unfolding the truth from principles, and yet so vivid, and in fact annihilating his opponent—harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in view in relating this occurrence to the Galatians especially (among whom indeed these very principles, against which Peter offended, were in great danger), that, up to its grave conclusion ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν (Galatians 2:21), it must be regarded as an unity—as the effusion directed against Peter at Antioch; but, at the same time, it cannot be maintained that Paul spoke the words quite literally thus, as he here, after so long a lapse of time, quotes from lively recollection of the scene which he could not forget.

ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι, καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτ.] Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to the reproach expressed in Galatians 2:14 with a concession: “We are Jews by birth, (in this Paul feels the whole advantage of belonging to the ancient holy people of God, Romans 3:1 f., Romans 9:1 ff.), and not sinners of the Gentiles (by Gentile descent).” Gentiles as such, because they are ἄνομοι and ἄθεοι (Romans 2:12; 1 Corinthians 9:21; Ephesians 2:12), are to the Israelite consciousness ἁμαρτωλοί and ἄδικοι (1 Samuel 15:18; Tob 13:6; Wis 10:20 : comp. Luke 18:32; Luke 24:7; 1 Corinthians 6:1); and from this—the theocratical—point of view Paul says ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, born Gentiles, and as such sinners, as all Gentiles are. Not as if he would look upon the Ἰουδαίους as not sinners; according to the sequel, indeed, they needed justification equally with the Gentiles (see Romans 2:3; Romans 2:22 f., Galatians 5:12; Ephesians 2:2 f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews—as the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient theocratic υἱοθεσία and the promises (Romans 9:4), and as belonging to the holy ἀπαρχή and root-stock of the theocracy (Romans 11:16)—possessed as their own a religious consecration of life, whereby they stood on a certain stage of righteousness in virtue of which, although it was not that of the true δικαιοσύνη, they were nevertheless exalted far above the Gentiles in their natural state of sinfulness (Ephesians 2:12; Titus 3:5). Luther well says: “Nos natura Judaei in legali justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui peccatores sunt, si nobis conferantur, ut qui nec legem nec opera ejus habent; verum non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, externa est ilia justitia nostra.” If ἁμαρτωλοί had not been unduly understood according to the purely ethical idea (the opposite of sinlessness), the discourse would not have been so broken up as by Elsher, Er. Schmidt, and others: “Nos natura Judaei, licet non ex gentibus, peccatores;” comp. Paulus. Hofmann’s view is also similar: “that the apostle excluded from himself that sinfulness only, which was implied in Gentile descent—characteristic of those not belonging naturally to the Jewish nationality;” comp. his Schriftbew. I. p. 564, 610 (“our sinfulness does not bear the characteristic Gentile shape”). Paul wishes, not to affirm the different nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles respectively, but to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews over the sinners of Gentile descent; in spite of which advantage, however, etc. (Galatians 2:16). The contrast lies in the idea of a theocratic sanctitas, peculiar to the born Jew, on the one hand;[93] and on the other, of a profane vitiositas, wherewith the Gentile descent is burdened.

ἡμεῖς] has the emphasis: We on our part (I and thou), μέν is not to be supplied here (Rückert, Schott); but the concession in Galatians 2:15 stands by itself, and the contrast is added without preparation in Galatians 2:16. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 423; Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. 105, “quando altera pars per δέ sit evehenda.” The contrast thus strikes one more vividly, and hence the absence of the μέν can afford no ground for calling in question (with Hofmann) the sense of a concession. Comp. also Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 3. 15. On the difference between Ἰουδαῖοι (theocratic bond of union) and Ἑβραῖοι (nationality), see Wieseler, über d. Hebräerbrief 1861, II. p. 28.

[92] Indeed the practical renunciation (not mere denial) of the principle of Christian freedom required a renewed apology for, and vindication of, the latter; especially as Paul had called Peter to account before the assembled church, whereby the act assumed a solemnity to which the brief question in ver. 14 alone could in no way seem adequate, and least of all could it suffice to procure a duly proportionate satisfaction for the offence given to the church (ver. 11). He does not, however, “demonstrate” his explanation to Peter (Wieseler’s difficulty), but presents it in the most vivid and striking dialectic, compressing everything which would have afforded matter for a very copious demonstration sharply and sternly, towards the defeat of the great opponent who had been unfaithful to himself. Hofmann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul after the concession ἐθνικῶς ζῇς κ. οὐκ Ἰουδαΐκως had thus explained himself in a detailed statement to Peter, he would have acted absurdly. It would have been absurd, if Paul, in order to say the two or three words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had brought the whole act of the κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην before the assembled church.

[93] Calvin appropriately says: “Quia autem promissio haereditariam benedictionem faciebat, ideo naturale vocatur hoc bonum.”

is usually construed so that εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with ἡμεῖς in Galatians 2:15, and this ἡμεῖς is again taken up by the subsequent καὶ ἡμεῖς (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus is supplied after ἁμαρτωλοί, a new sentence is commenced by εἰδότες, and καὶ ἡμεῖς κ

Galatians 2:16 is usually construed so that εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with ἡμεῖς in Galatians 2:15, and this ἡμεῖς is again taken up by the subsequent καὶ ἡμεῖς (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus is supplied after ἁμαρτωλοί, a new sentence is commenced by εἰδότες, and καὶ ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ. is taken as apodosis (Beza and others; also Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, de conform. N.T. Lachm. p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Matthias, Möller). Both forms of construction would give εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ as the motive for the ἐπιστεύσαμεν. But in this way the statement, how Paul and Peter (for these are the subject; see on Galatians 2:15) attained to faith, would not tally with history, for the conversion of these two apostles did not at all take place by means of logical process in the argumentative way of εἰδότες … ἐπιστεύσαμεν. Both of them were in fact miraculously and suddenly laid hold of by Christ; and thereby, on their becoming believers, the light of the statement of purpose in the sequel dawned upon them. We must therefore consider as correct the punctuation of Lachmann,[94] who is followed by Wieseler: a comma only before εἰδότες, and a period after Χριστοῦ, “We are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however” (εἰδότες still belonging to the ἐσμέν, which has to be supplied), that is, since we nevertheless know, that a man is not justified, etc.; so that what thou, Peter, doest (Galatians 2:15), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have notwithstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence.

οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος] The emphatically prefixed δικαιοῦται is negatived: a man is not justified. As to the idea of δικαιοῦσθαι, see on Romans 1:17. Here also it appears clearly as an actus forensis, and as incompatible with the perversion of the idea by the Catholics and the followers of Osiander. See especially Wieseler in loc. From works of the law, which would be the determining ground of God’s acquittal; by means of faith, which is imputed by God as righteousness (Romans 5:5; Romans 5:21 f.),—these are the contrasted points, while the idea of δικαιοῦσθαι is the same. Comp. on Romans 3:25 f.

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου] νόμου is not subjective (works, which the law by its precepts calls forth), but objective: works, which relate to the law, that is, works by which the precepts of the law are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the ἁμαρτήματα νόμου, Wis 2:12. See on Romans 2:15. Our passage testifies also in favour of this view by the contrast of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, inasmuch as the one relation (ἔργων) to the one object (νόμου) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation (πίστεως) to the other object (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Schott, following the older expositors (including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus), quite erroneously limits νόμος to the ceremonial law,—a limitation which never occurs in the N.T.[95] (see on Romans 3:20, and Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 336), and, especially where justification is the matter in question, would be quite unsuitable; for the impossibility of justification by the law has reference to the whole law, viewed in its requirements jointly and severally, which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man can fulfil. Comp. Galatians 3:10; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 259.

ἐὰν μή] not a compromise between justification by works and justification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness (Holsten, in spite of the apodosis), but a transition to another mode of conception: A man is not justified by the works of the law; he is not justified, except by etc. Comp. Hymn. Cer. 77 f., οὐδέ τις ἄλλος αἴτιος ἀθανάτων, εἰ μὴ νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς. Comp. on Matthew 12:4; Romans 14:14. See also on Galatians 1:7. Consequently we have here neither justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the Catholic view), nor Christ’s fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended by faith.[96] The former is not Pauline,[97] and the latter has only its indirect truth (for the N.T. nowhere teaches the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law), in so far as the atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily presupposes His active, sinless obedience (2 Corinthians 5:21), of which, however, nothing is here said. But here in ἐὰν μή we have the “sola fide” of Luther and his Church. Comp. on Romans 3:28. It is only the man justified solely by faith, who thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the requirements of the law; see on Romans 8:4. This is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] object: on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mark 11:22; see on Romans 3:22, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 112.

ἐξ and διά denote the same idea (of causality) under two forms (that of origin and that of mediate agency), as Paul in general is fond of varying his prepositions (see on Romans 3:30; 2 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 1:7). In διά (comp. Galatians 3:26) faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justification—the presence of which is the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately into the state of justification; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing to do with this relation, any more than ἐξ postpones the being righteous, as the result of action, until the very end of life, whereas it may be conceived at any moment of life, as a result for the time being.

καὶ ἡμεῖς] begins a new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a point on which both were convinced,

ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστ. Ἰ. Χ.,—he now confirms by reminding him of the righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become believers (ἐπιστεύσαμεν); so that καὶ ἡμεῖς, even we both, supplies the special application of the foregoing general ἄνθρωπος. The order Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν lays a greater stress on the Messianic character of the historical person who is the object of faith, than is the case in the usual order (comp. Galatians 2:4; Galatians 3:26).

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ] Comp. Romans 3:20. These words, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, take up again what had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory ὅτι, since indeed. Πᾶσα σάρξ conveys the idea of “all men” (comp. above, ἄνθρωπος), with the accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility by means of works in the sight of the justifying God. Comp. on Acts 2:17. Looking at the difference in the terms used and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to be assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof (from Psalm 143:2), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language may have occurred, while the idea was more precisely defined. The negation is here also not to be separated from the verb; for it is not πᾶσα σάρξ which is negatived, but δικαιωθήσεται in reference to πᾶσα σάρξ. Fritzsche (Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 26) aptly says: “non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis.” Lastly, the future denotes that which never will occur. The reference to the judgment (Romans 5:19), which is discovered here by Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place. Comp. Galatians 2:21. It is otherwise, Galatians 5:5; 2 Timothy 4:8.

[94] In the small edition; in the larger one the usual punctuation is followed.

[95] Although, according to the context, at one time the ethical, and at another the ritual, aspect of the law preponderates. Comp. on Romans 3:20.

[96] So also Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 18 f.

[97] See the constantly repeated attacks on the part of the Catholics against the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, in Möhler, Symbol. p. 132, ed. 4; Reithmayr, p. 179 ff. More unprejudiced is Döllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and elsewhere. On the other hand, Romang (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made too much concession to the Catholic justification by works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erroneously assumed a gradual progress of justification.

Galatians 2:17. The δέ dialectically carries on the refutation of Peter; but the protasis beginning with εἰ cannot have its apodosis in εὑρέθημεν κ. ἀ. ἁμ. (Hofmann[98]); on the contrary, it runs on as far as ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛΟΊ, which is then followed by the interrogatory apodosis. Consequently: But if we (in order to show thee, from what has been just said, how opposed to Christ thy conduct was), although we sought to he justified in Christ, were found even on our part sinners. This protasis supposes that which must have been the case, if Peter’s Judaizing conduct had been in the right; namely, that the result would then have been that faith does not lead to, or does not suffice for, justification, but that it is requisite to combine with it the observance of the Jewish law. If faith does not render the Ἰουδαΐζειν superfluous, as was naturally to be concluded from the course of conduct pursued by Peter, then this seeking after justification in Christ has shown itself so ineffectual, that the believer just stands on an equality with the Gentiles, because he has ceased to be a Jew and yet has not attained to righteousness in Christ: he is therefore now nothing else than an ἁμαρτωλός, just as the Gentile is. But if this is the case, the apodosis now asks, Is Christ, therefore, minister of sin (and not of righteousness)?—seeing that our faith in Him, which seeks for righteousness by Him, has the sad result that we have been found like the Gentiles in a state of sin. The answer to this question is, Far be it! It is a result to be abhorred, that Christ, instead of bringing about the righteousness sought in Him, should be the promoter of sin. Consequently the state of things supposed in the protasis is an anti-Christian absurdity.

The subject of ζητοῦντες and ΕὙΡΈΘΗΜΕΝ is, as before, Peter and Paul.

ΖΗΤΟῦΝΤΕς] emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding sentence of purpose, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν κ.τ.λ.; so that this ΖΗΤΕῖΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘ. is not in reality different from the ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ ΕἸς ΧΡΙΣΤ., but denotes the same thing as respects its tendency. To the ζητοῦντες then corresponds the ΕὙΡΈΘΗΜΕΝ, which introduces an entirely different result: if we have been found, if it has turned out as a matter of fact, that, etc. (Romans 7:10; 1 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Corinthians 15:15; 2 Corinthians 11:12). As to εὑρέθημεν we must, however, notice that—as in the apodosis ἈΡᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς Κ.Τ.Λ. we cannot without proceeding arbitrarily supply anything but the simple ἘΣΤΊΝ, and not ἌΝ ἮΝ (Galatians 3:21)—the aorist requires the explanation: inventi sumus (Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, and many others[99]), and therefore neither reperimur (Erasmus, Castalio) nor inventi essemus (de Wette and many others), nor should be found (Luther), nor were to be found (Schott). Observe, moreover, that in εὑρέθ., in contrast to ζητοῦντες κ.τ.λ., the accessory idea of something unexpected suggests itself (comp. on Matthew 1:20).

ἐν Χριστῷ] nothing else than what was previously put as ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, but expressed according to the notion that in Christ, whose person and work form the object of faith, justification has its causal basis (2 Corinthians 5:21; Acts 13:39; Romans 3:24). Its opposite: ἐν νόμῳ, Galatians 3:11, and the ἰδία δικαιοσύνη, Romans 10:3.

καὶ αὐτοί] et ipsi, also on our part, includes Peter and Paul in the class of ἁμαρτωλοί previously referred to in Galatians 2:15.

ἆρα Χ. ἁμαρτ. διάκ] is, at any rate, a question (Vulgate, numquid), for with Paul μὴ γένοιτο is always preceded by a question (Romans 3:4; Romans 6:2; Galatians 3:21, et al.). “With this, however, either mode of writing, ἄρα (Lachmann) or ἆρα (Tischendorf), may stand. Both express igitur, rebus sic se habentibus; but ἆρα (Luke 18:8; Acts 8:30), although Paul does not elsewhere use it (but just as little does he use an interrogative ἄρα[100]), is the livelier and stronger. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 180; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 39 f. To take ἆρα for ἆρʼ οὔ, nonne (Olshausen, Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to apprehend the subtlety of the passage, the question in which (not ἆρα in itself, as held by Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical suspicion of doubtfulness (comp. Buttmann, ad Plat. Charmid. 14, ed. Heind.). Besides, ἆρα is never really used for ἆρʼ οὔ, although it sometimes seems so (Herm. ad Viger. p. 823; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. p. 476; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 216). See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 1. Rückert has mistaken the sense of the whole passage: “If we, although we seek grace with God through Christ, nevertheless continue to sin, etc., do ye think that Christ will then take pleasure in us, greater pleasure than in the Gentiles, and thus strengthen and further us in our sin?” Against this it may be urged, that Paul has not written εὑρισκόμεθα; that the comparison with the Gentiles implied in καὶ αὐτοί would be unsuitable, for the sin here reproved would be hypocritical Judaizing; and that Galatians 2:18 would not, as is most arbitrarily assumed, give the reason for the μὴ γένοιτο, but, passing over the μὴ γένοιτο and the apodosis, would carry us back to the protasis and prove this latter. The nearest to this erroneous interpretation is that of Beza and Wieseler, who (so also essentially Reithmayr) find expressed here the necessity of the union of sanctification with justification.[101] But the right sense of the passage, as given above, is found in substance, although with several modifications, and in some cases with an incorrect apprehension of the aorist εὑρέθημεν (see above), in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others; also Semler, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Matthias; several of whom, however, such as the Greek Fathers, Luther, Calovius, Koppe, Usteri, Lachmann, taking the accentuation ἄρα, do not assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, but does not correspond with the μὴ γένοιτο which follows; while Hilgenfeld unnecessarily supposes a breviloquence: “then I ask, Is then Christ,” etc.?

Χριστός] “in quo tamen quaerimus justificari,” Bengel.

ἁμαρτ. διάκ.] ἁμαρτ. emphatically prefixed, in contrast to the δικαιωθῆναι: one, through whom sin receives service rendered, sin is upheld and promoted.[102] The opposite, διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης, 2 Corinthians 11:15.

[98] Hofmann explains it, as if Paul had written εἰ δὲ ἐζητοῦμεν (if we, when we became believers, sought, etc.) δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ, εὑρέθημεν κ.τ.λ. (we thereby exhibit ourselves at the same time as sinners). According to Hofmann, the εὑρέθημεν is intended to apply to both members of the sentence,—a forced, artificial view for which the context affords neither right nor reason.

[99] So correctly also Lipsius in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1861, p. 73 ff. He, however, improving on Holsten’s similar interpretation, thus explains the whole passage: “If we, being born Jews, have, by our seeking after the salvation in Christ, confessed our sinfulness (and consequently, at the same time, the impotence of the law to make us righteous), does it thence follow that Christ, by inviting also us Jews to seek righteousness in Him and not in the law, has led us astray to a life in Gentile impurity? “But this inference does not stand in logical consistency with the protasis, and could not even suggest itself as a false conclusion; for ἁμαρτίας is assumed to be taken in a different sense from ἁμαρτωλοί,—the latter in the sense of defectus justitiae, the former as vitiositas ethnica. Holsten also understands ἁμαρτίας as the unfettering of sin in the moral life (comp. Galatians 5:13; Romans 1:6 f., et al.),—an idea which is here foreign to the context.

[100] Which is assumed by Wieseler, Buttmann, Hofmann.

[101] They take the essential sense to be: “If the man who is justified in Christ has sinned, Christ is not to blame for this; for (ver. 18) the man himself is to blame for the transgression, because he builds again the dominion of sin which He had destroyed.” So Wieseler. This interpretation is utterly unsuitable, if ver. 15 ff. is still addressed to Peter. It may be urged also against it, that Paul, by using εὑρέθημεν (instead of εὑρισκόμεθα), would have written in a way both obscure and misleading; further, that the relapse of the justified man into sin did not at all suggest or presume as probable the conclusion that Christ was to blame for it; moreover, that the expression ἁμαρτίας διάκονος must assert something of a far stronger and more positive character (namely, sin-producer); lastly, that ver. 18, taken in Wieseler’s sense, would, notwithstanding its carefully-chosen expressions, contain nothing more than an almost meaningless and self-evident thought, in which, moreover, the destruction of the dominion of sin, which has been accomplished by Christ or by the justifying grace of God (Romans 8:3), would be attributed to man (κατέλυσα).

[102] Luther’s gloss: “Whoever desires to become pious by means of works, acts just as if Christ by His ministry, office, preaching, and sufferings, made us first of all to be sinners who must become pious through the law; thus is Christ denied, crucified again, slandered, and sin is built up again, which had previously been done away by the preaching of faith.”

Galatians 2:18. Ground assigned for the μὴ γένοιτο: No! Christ is not a minister of sin; for—and such is the result, Peter, of the course of conduct censured in thee—if I again build up that which I have pulled down, I show myself as transgressor; so that Christ thus by no means appears, according to the state of the case supposed in Galatians 2:17, as the promoter of sin, but the reproach—and that a reproach of transgression—falls upon myself alone, as I exhibit myself by my own action.

Remark the emphasis—energetically exposing the great personal guilt—which is laid first on παραβάτην (in contrast to ἁμαρτίας διάκονος), then on ἐμαυτόν (in contrast to Χριστός), and jointly on the juxtaposition of the two words.

In the building up of that which had been pulled down Paul depicts the behaviour of Peter, in so far as the latter previously, and even still in Antioch (Galatians 2:12), had pronounced the Mosaic law not to be obligatory in respect of justification on the Christian who has his righteousness in Christ and not in the law, and had thus pulled it down as a building thenceforth useless, but subsequently by his Judaizing behaviour again represented the law as obligatory for righteousness, and thus, as it were, built up anew the house which had been pulled down.[103] Paul is fond of the figure of building and pulling down. See Romans 15:20; 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 10:23; Ephesians 2:20 f.; Romans 14:20; 2 Corinthians 5:1, et al. Comp. Talmud, Berach. 63. 1, in Wetstein: “jam aedificasti, an destruis? jam sepem fecisti, an perrumpes?”

The first person veils that, which had happened with Peter in concreto, under the milder form of a general proposition, the subject of which (= one, any one) is individualized by I (comp. Romans 7:7).

ταῦτα] with emphasis: this, not anything else or more complete in its place.

παραβάτην] not sinner generally, as Wieseler, according to his interpretation of the whole passage, is forced to explain it (see on Galatians 2:17), but transgressor of the law (Romans 4:15; Romans 2:25); so that, in conformity with the significance of the figure used, νόμου is obviously supplied from the context (Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:19),—and that as the Mosaic law, not as the νόμος τῆς πίστεως, the gospel (Koppe, Matthies). But how far does he, who reasserts the validity of that law which he had previously as respects justification declared invalid, present himself as a transgressor of the same? Not in so far as he proves that he had wrongly declared it invalid and abandoned it (Ambrosius, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vorstius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Rosenmüller, Borger, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald), or as he has in the pulling down sinned against that which is to him right, as Hofmann interprets it,[104] but, as Galatians 2:19 shows, because the law itself has brought about the freedom of the Christian from the law, in order that he may live to God; consequently he that builds it up again acts in opposition to the law, and thus stands forth as transgressor, namely, of the law in its real sense, which cannot desire, but on the contrary rejects, the re-exchanging of the new righteousness for the old. Comp. Romans 3:31. See the fuller statement at Galatians 2:19. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact (αὐτὸς γὰρ … ὁ νόμος … με ὡδήγησε πρὸς τὴν πίστιν καὶ ἔπεισεν ἀφεῖναι αὐτόν). Bengel, moreover, well says: “Vocabulum horribile, legis studiosioribus.” The word is purposely chosen, and stands in a climactic relation to ἁμαρτωλοί (Galatians 2:17),—the category which includes also the Gentiles without law.

ΣΥΝΙΣΤΆΝΩ] I show. See Wetstein and Fritzsche, ad Rom. iii. 5; Munthe, Obss. p. 358; Loesner, p. 248. But Schott explains it as commendo, laudo (2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 2 Corinthians 10:12), making it convey an ironical reference to the Judaists, who had boasted of their Judaizing behaviour. This idea is not in any way indicated;[105] and the ironical reference must have rather pointed at Peter, who, however, had not made a boast of his Judaizing, but had consented to it in a timid and conniving fashion. Hence Bengel’s explanation is more subtle: “Petrus voluit commendare se Galatians 2:12 fin.; ejus commendationis tristem Paulus fructum hic mimesi ostendit.” But according to the connection, as exhibited above, between Galatians 2:18 and Galatians 2:17, the idea of commendation is so entirely foreign to the passage, that, in fact, ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω expresses essentially nothing more than the idea of εὑρέθημεν in Galatians 2:17; bringing into prominence, however, the self-presentation, the self-proof, which the person concerned practically furnishes in his own case: he establishes himself as a transgressor.

[103] Comp. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 283.

[104] The application to be made of the general proposition is said to be this: “Whosoever desires and seeks to become righteous in Christ would not do so, unless he recognised the matter in which he sinned as a breach of the law, which he has again to make good, and that which he does to make it good is self-confession as a transgressor.” This forced perversion should have been precluded by the very consideration that καταλύειν in reference to the law cannot be understood in the sense of breaking it, like λύειν τὸ σάββατον, John 5:18 (comp. John 7:26), but only in the sense of Matthew 5:17, according to which, of course, the building up again is no making good again. Comp. on καταλύειν τοὺς νόμους, Polyb. iii. 8. 2.

[105] Schott should not have appealed to the form συνιστάνω. Both forms have the same signification. Hesychius: συνιστάνειν, ἐπαινεῖν, φανεροῦν, βεβαιοῦν, παρατιθέναι. Only the form συνιστάνω is less frequent and later, Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 17. 6, xxxii. 15. 8; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 5:12.

f

Galatians 2:19 f., containing the “summa ac medulla Christianismi” (Bengel), furnishes the confirmation of Galatians 2:18; for which purpose Paul makes use of his own experience (not—as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius hold, contrary to the context—designating himself as representative of believers generally) with sublime self-assurance and in a way sufficient to shame Peter: For I for my own part (to give utterance here to the consciousness of my own experience, apart from the experience of others) am through the law dead to the law, in order to live to God. In this view the contrast to Χριστός is not expressed already by this ἐγώ (Hofmann); but only by the ἐγώ of Galatians 2:20. The point confirmatory of Galatians 2:18 lies in διὰ νόμου; for he, who through the law has passed out of the relation to the law which regulated his life, in order to stand in a higher relation, and yet reverts to his legally-framed life, acts against the law, παραβάτην ἑαυτὸν συνιστάνει. The νόμος in both cases must be the Mosaic law, because otherwise the probative force and the whole point of the passage would be lost; and because, if Paul had intended νόμου to refer to the gospel (Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, Vorstius, Bengel, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmüller, Borger, Vater), he must have added some distinguishing definition (Romans 3:27; Romans 8:2; Romans 9:31; comp. 1 Corinthians 9:21). The immediate context, that is, the Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι κ.τ.λ. which closely follows (and not Galatians 2:16), supplies precise information how Paul intended the διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον to be understood. By the crucifixion the curse of the law was fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 3:13); and so far Christ died through the law, which demanded, and in Christ’s death received, the accomplishment of its curse. In one, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, the curse of the law is likewise fulfilled, so that in virtue of his ethical fellowship in the death of Jesus he knows himself to be dead διὰ νόμου[106] and consequently at the same time dead to the law (comp. Romans 7:4); because, now that the law has accomplished in his case its rights, the bond of union which joined him to the law is broken; for κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νομοῦ, ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα, Romans 7:6. So, in all essential points, Chrysostom[107] and others, Zachariae, Usteri (Schott wavers in his view, Rückert still more so): comp. Lipsius, l.c. p. 81 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 363; Möller on de Wette, p. 50. This is the only interpretation which keeps closely to the context, and is therefore to be preferred to the views of others, who understand διὰ νόμου to refer to the Messianic contents of the law and the prophets, by which Paul had been induced to abandon the law (Theodoret, Corn. a Lapide, Hammond, Grotius, and others; also Baumgarten-Crusius), and of others still, who find the insufficiency of the law for salvation expressed, as Winer (“lex legem sustulit; ipsa lex, cum non posset mihi salutem impertire, mei me juris fecit atque a suo imperio liberavit”), Olshausen, Matthias, and likewise Hofmann, who understands it to refer to the knowledge acquired through the law, that it was impossible to attain righteousness in the way of the law,—which righteousness, therefore, could only be attained by means of faith; comp. Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, also Ewald, whose interpretation would seem to call for διὰ τὸν νόμον. Neither is there suggested in the context the reference to the pedagogic functions of the law, Galatians 3:24, which is found by Beza (“lex enim terrens conscientiam ad Christum adducit, qui unus vere efficit, ut moriamur legi, quoniam nos justificando tollit conscientiae terrores”), Calvin, Wolf, and others; also by Matthies, who, however, understands διά as quite through (“having passed quite through the law, I have it behind me, and am no longer bound to it”). De Wette thus explains the pedagogic thought which he supposes to be intended: “By my having thoroughly lived in the law and experienced its character in my own case, I have become conscious of the need of a higher moral life, the life in the Spirit; and through the regeneration of my inner man I have made my way from the former to the latter.” So also, in all essential points, Wieseler, although the usus paedagogicus of the law does not produce regeneration and thereby moral liberation from its yoke (which, however, διὰ νόμου must affirm), but only awakens the longing after it (Romans 7:21 ff.), and prepares the ground for justification and sanctification. The inner deliverance from the yoke of the law takes place διὰ πνεύματος (Galatians 5:18; Romans 8:2). A clear commentary on our passage is Romans 7:4-6.

ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω] that I might live to God, that my life (brought about by that ἀπέθανον) might be dedicated to God, and should not therefore again serve the νόμος,[108]—which is the case with him who Ἃ ΚΑΤΈΛΥΣΕ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΠΆΛΙΝ ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΕῖ (Galatians 2:18). Comp., moreover, Romans 6:11.

ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ΣΥΝΕΣΤΑΎΡΩΜΑΙ] Situation in which he finds himself through that ΔΙᾺ ΝΌΜΟΥ ΝΌΜῼ ἈΠΈΘΑΝΟΝ, and accompanying information how this event took place in him. Corresponding with this, afterwards in Galatians 2:20, Ζῶ … ΧΡΙΣΤΌς contains information as to the way in which ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω was realized in him. With Christ I am crucified, thus expressing the consciousness of moral fellowship, brought about by faith, in the atoning death of Christ,—a subjective fellowship, in which the believer knows that the curse of the law is accomplished on himself because it is accomplished on Christ (comp. Galatians 3:13) (διὰ νόμου ἀπέθανον), and at the same time that his pre-Christian ethical state of life, which was subject to the law, is put an end to (ΝΟΜῷ ἈΠΈΘΑΝΟΝ). Comp. Romans 6:6; Romans 7:4, and on Colossians 2:20. Observe also how in this very passage it is evident from the whole context, that ΣΎΝ in ΣΥΝΕΣΤΑΎΡ. and in the corresponding expressions (Romans 6:8; Colossians 2:12; Colossians 2:20, et al.) denotes not the mere typical character of Christ or the resemblance to Him (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the actual fellowship, which, as accomplished and existing in the consciousness of faith, is matter of real experience. On the perfect, which expresses the blessed feeling of the continuance of what had taken place, comp. Galatians 6:14. Here it is the continuance of the liberation of the moral personal life from the law, which was begun by the crucifixion with Christ.

[106] Not, therefore, as Hermann interprets, διὰ νόμον ὅν κατέλυσα, through the law rejected by myself.

[107] He indeed also specifies the interpretation, by which νόμου is understood of the gospel, as well as the view, which takes νόμου of the Mosaic law, but elucidates the relation of διά by Deuteronomy 18:18. He nevertheless evidently gives the preference to the interpretation given above.

[108] ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω is therefore not (with Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Calvin, and others) to be joined to Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι; for it essentially belongs to the completeness of the thought introduced by γάρ.

Galatians 2:20. Ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός] The comma which is usually placed after ζῶ δὲ is correctly expunged by Lachmann, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Hofmann; for, if ζῶ … ἐγώ were not to be conjoined, ἀλλά must have stood before οὐκέτι. The second δὲ is our but indeed after a negative (Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171), and ζῶ and ζῇ are on both occasions emphatically prefixed: alive however no longer am I, but alive indeed is Christ in me; whereby the new relation of life is forcibly contrasted to the previously expressed relation of death (Χριστῷ συνεστ.). After the crucifixion of Christ followed His new life; he, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, thenceforth lives also with Him; his whole pre-Christian moral personality is, in virtue of that fellowship of death, no longer in life (ὁ παλαιὸς αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, Romans 6:6), and Christ is the principle of life in him. This change is brought about by faith (see the sequel), inasmuch as in the believer, according to the representation here given of Paul’s own experience, it is no longer the individual personality that is the agent of life (“mortuus est Saulus,” Erasmus), but Christ, who is present in him (through the Spirit, Romans 8:9 f.; Ephesians 3:16 f.), and works, determines, and rules everything in him, ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός: the mind of Christ is in him (1 Corinthians 2:16), the heart of Christ beats in him (Php 1:8), and His power is effectual in him. Thereby is the proof of the words ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω rightly given; see on Romans 6:10.

ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκὶ κ.τ.λ.] Explanation of what has just been said, ζῶ … Χριστός: but that which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith on, etc. This explanation is placed by δέ in formal contradistinction to the preceding apparent paradox. The emphasis, however, lies on νῦν, now, namely, since the beginning of my Christian condition of life, so that a glance is thrown back to the time before the Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι, and νῦν corresponds with οὐκέτι. Νῦν is often understood—as by Erasmus, Grotius (adhuc), Rückert, Usteri, Schott, following Augustine and Theodoret—in contrast not with the pre-Christian life, but with the future life after death (rather: after the παρουσία). A reference of this kind is, however, entirely foreign to the context, does not harmonize with the emphasis which is laid on νῦν by its position, and is by no means required by ἐν σαρκί; for this addition to ζῶ is made by Paul simply with a view to indicate that after his conversion the material form of his life remained the same, although its ethical nature had become something entirely different.

ἐν σαρκί] denotes life in the natural human phenomenal form of the body consisting of flesh. The context does not convey any reference to the ethical character of the σάρξ (as sedes peccati). Comp. Php 1:22; 2 Corinthians 10:3.

ἐν πίστει] not per fidem (Chrysostom, Beza, and others), but, corresponding to ἐν σαρκί, in faith; so that faith—and indeed (comp. Galatians 1:16) the faith in the great sum and substance of the revelation received, in the Son of God (notice the anarthrous πίστει, and then the article affixed to the more precise definition)—is the specific element in which my life moves and acts and is developed. It is prefixed emphatically, in contrast to the entirely different pre-Christian sphere of life, which was the νόμος.

τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με κ.τ.λ.] points out the special historical fact of salvation, which is the subject-matter of the faith in the Son of God, giving impulse to this new life. Comp. Romans 8:37; Ephesians 5:2. Καί is explanatory, adding the practical proof of the love. Observe also the μέ and ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ (see on Galatians 1:4) as expressive of the conscious and assured fiducia in the fides.[109]

Lastly, the construction is such, that ὅ is the accusative of the object to Ζῶ, and the whole runs on in connection: the life which I live, I live, etc. See Bernhardy, p. 106; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 393 f.; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 302. The interpretation: quod vero attinet, quod, etc. (Winer), is indeed grammatically admissible (see on Romans 6:10), in so far as ὅ is likewise retained as the accusative of the object; but it needlessly injures the flow of the discourse.

[109] Luther well says, “Hae voces: dilexit me, plenissimae sunt fidei, et qui hoc breve pronomen me illa fide dicere et sibi applicare posset, qua Paulus, etiam futurus esset optimus disputator una cum Paulo contra legem.” But this faith is not the fides formata (Catholics, including Bisping and Reithmayr), although it is the source of Christian love and Christian life.

Galatians 2:21. Negative side—opposed to an antagonistic Judaism—of the life which Paul (from Galatians 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 Galatians 3:15, Luke 7:30, 1 Corinthians 1:19, 1 Timothy 5:12, Hebrews 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 Galatians 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 1 Samuel 19:5, Psalm 34:8 (not Job 1:9): comp. John 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 Acts 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, Romans 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 (Acts 15:7 ff.), and had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by connivance from fear of men (Galatians 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).