Комментарии к Библии

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!