|« Prev||Chapter 2||Next »|
2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again [epeita dia dekatessarōn etōn palin anebēn] This use of [dia] for interval between is common enough. Paul is not giving a recital of his visits to Jerusalem, but of his points of contact with the apostles in Jerusalem. As already observed, he here refers to the Jerusalem Conference given by Luke in Ac 15 when Paul and Barnabas were endorsed by the apostles and elders and the church over the protest of the Judaizers who had attacked them in Antioch (Ac 15:1f.). But Paul passes by another visit to Jerusalem, that in Ac 11:30 when Barnabas and Saul brought alms from Antioch to Jerusalem and delivered them to “the elders” with no mention of the apostles who were probably out of the city since the events in Ac 12 apparently preceded that visit and Peter had left for another place (Ac 12:17). Paul here gives the inside view of this private conference in Jerusalem that came in between the two public meetings (Ac 15:4,6-29). With Barnabas [meta Barnabā]. As in Ac 15:2. Taking Titus also with me [sunparalabōn kai Titon]. Second aorist active participle of [sunparalambanō] the very verb used in Ac 15:37f. of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas about Mark. Titus is not mentioned in Acts 15 nor anywhere else in Acts for some reason, possibly because he was Luke’s own brother. But his very presence was a challenge to the Judaizers, since he was a Greek Christian.
2:2 By revelation [kata apokalupsin]. In Ac 15:2 the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here. I laid before them [anethemēn autois]. Second aorist middle indicative of old word [anatithēmi], to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the “them” [autois]? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, “but privately” [kat’ idian]. Just place Ac 15:4f. beside the first clause and it is clear: “I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,” precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Ac 15:5). Before them who were of repute [tois dokousin]. He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord’s brother, for the other James is now dead (Ac 12:1f.). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. So far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord’s brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Ac 11:1-18). James was considered a very loyal Jew. Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain [mē pōs eis kenon trechō ē edramon]. Negative purpose with the present subjunctive [trechō] and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative [edramon], as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 201; Robertson, Grammar, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also 1Th 3:5 for both together again.
2:3 Being a Greek [Hellēn ōn]. Concessive participle, though he was a Greek. Was compelled to be circumcised [ēnagkasthē peritmēthēnai]. First aorist passive indicative of [anagkazō] and first aorist passive infinitive of [peritemnō]. Curiously enough some scholars interpret this language to mean that Paul voluntarily had Titus circumcised, instead of being compelled to do it, an impossible view in my opinion in the light of verse 5 and wholly inconsistent with the whole context. Paul means that he stood his ground against compulsion and all force.
2:4 But because of the false brethren privately brought in [dia de tous pareisaktous pseudadelphous]. Late verbal adjective [pareisaktos] from the double compound verb [pareisagō], found in papyri in the sense of brought in by the side or on the sly as here. Evidently some of the Judaizers or sympathizers whom Paul had not invited had come in as often happens. Paul terms them “false brethren” like “the false apostles” in 2Co 11:13 of the Judaizers in Corinth. Who came in privily [hoitines pareisēlthon]. Repetition of the charge of their slipping in unwanted [pareiserchomai], late double compound, in Plutarch, in N.T. only here and Ro 5:20). To spy out [kataskopēsai]. First aorist active infinitive of [kataskopeō], old Greek verb from [kataskopos], a spy, to reconnoitre, to make a treacherous investigation. That they might bring us into bondage [hina hēmas katadoulōsousin]. Future active indicative of this old compound, to enslave completely [kata-] as in 2Co 11:20. Nowhere else in N.T. This was their purpose [hina] and future active indicative of this causative verb). It was as serious a conflict as this. Spiritual liberty or spiritual bondage, which?
2:5 No, not for an hour [oude pros hōran]. Pointed denial that he and Barnabas yielded at all “in the way of subjection” [tēi hupotagēi], in the subjection demanded of them). The compromisers pleaded for the circumcision of Titus “because of the false brethren” in order to have peace. The old verb [eikō], to yield, occurs here alone in the N.T. See 2Co 9:13 for [hupotagē]. The truth of the gospel [hē alētheia tou euaggeliou]. It was a grave crisis to call for such language. The whole problem of Gentile Christianity was involved in the case of Titus, whether Christianity was to be merely a modified brand of legalistic Judaism or a spiritual religion, the true Judaism (the children of Abraham by faith). The case of Timothy later was utterly different, for he had a Jewish mother and a Greek father. Titus was pure Greek.
2:6 Somewhat [ti]. Something, not somebody. Paul refers to the Big Three (Cephas, James, and John). He seems a bit embarrassed in the reference. He means no disrespect, but he asserts his independence sharply in a tangled sentence with two parentheses (dashes in Westcott and Hort). Whatsoever they were [hopoioi pote ēsan]. Literally, “What sort they once were.” Hopoioi is a qualitative word (1Th 1:9; 1Co 3:13; Jas 1:24). Lightfoot thinks that these three leaders were the ones who suggested the compromise about Titus. That is a possible, but not the natural, interpretation of this involved sentence. The use of [de] (but) in verse 6 seems to make a contrast between the three leaders and the pleaders for compromise in verses 4f. They, I say, imparted nothing to me [emoi gar ouden prosanethento]. He starts over again after the two parentheses and drops the construction [apo tōn dokountōn] and changes the construction (anacoluthon) to [hoi dokountes] (nominative case), the men of reputation and influences whom he names in verses 8f. See the same verb in 1:16. They added nothing in the conference to me. The compromisers tried to win them, but they finally came over to my view. Paul won his point, when he persuaded Peter, James, and John to agree with him and Barnabas in their contention for freedom for the Gentile Christians from the bondage of the Mosaic ceremonial law.
2:7 But contrariwise [alla tounantion]. But on the contrary (accusative of general reference, [to enantion]. So far from the three championing the cause of the Judaizers as some hoped or even the position of the compromisers in verses 4f., they came boldly to Paul’s side after hearing the case argued in the private conference. This is the obvious interpretation rather than the view that Peter, James, and John first proposed the circumcision of Titus and afterwards surrendered to Paul’s bold stand. When they saw [idontes]. After seeing, after they heard our side of the matter. That I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision [hoti pepisteumai to euaggelion tēs akrobustias]. Perfect passive indicative of [pisteuō], to intrust, which retains the accusative of the thing [to euaggelion] in the passive voice. This clear-cut agreement between the leaders “denotes a distinction of sphere, and not a difference of type” (Lightfoot). Both divisions in the work preach the same “gospel” (not like 1:6f., the Judaizers). It seems hardly fair to the Three to suggest that they at first championed the cause of the Judaizers in the face of Paul’s strong language in verse 5.
2:8 He that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision [ho gar energēsas Petrōi eis apostolēn tēs peritomēs]. Paul here definitely recognizes Peter’s leadership (apostleship, [apostolēn], late word, already in Ac 1:25; 1Co 9:2) to the Jews and asserts that Peter acknowledges his apostleship to the Gentiles. This is a complete answer to the Judaizers who denied the genuineness of Paul’s apostleship because he was not one of the twelve.
2:9 They who were reputed to be pillars [hoi dokountes stuloi einai]. They had that reputation [dokountes] and Paul accepts them as such. [Stuloi], old word for pillars, columns, as of fire (Re 10:1). So of the church (1Ti 3:15). These were the Pillar Apostles. Gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship [dexias edōkan emoi kai Barnabāi koinōnias]. Dramatic and concluding act of the pact for cooperation and coordinate, independent spheres of activity. The compromisers and the Judaizers were brushed to one side when these five men shook hands as equals in the work of Christ’s Kingdom.
2:10 Only [monon]. One item was emphasized. We should remember [mnēmoneuōmen]. Present active subjunctive, “that we should keep on remembering.” Which very thing [ho—auto touto]. Repetition of relative and demonstrative, tautology, “which this very thing.” In fact Barnabas and Saul had done it before (Ac 11:30). It was complete victory for Paul and Barnabas. Paul passes by the second public meeting and the letters to Antioch (Ac 15:6-29) and passes on to Peter’s conduct in Antioch.
2:11 I resisted him to the face [kata prosōpon autōi antestēn]. Second aorist active indicative (intransitive) of [anthistēmi]. “I stood against him face to face.” In Jerusalem Paul faced Peter as his equal in rank and sphere of work. In Antioch he looked him in the eye as his superior in character and courage. Because he stood condemned [hoti kategnōsmenos ēn]. Periphrastic past perfect passive of [kataginoskō], old verb to know against, to find fault with. In N.T. only here and 1Jo 3:20f.
2:12 For before that certain came from James [pro tou gar elthein tinas apo Iakōbou]. The reason [gar] for Paul’s condemnation of Peter. Articular infinitive in the genitive after [pro] with the accusative of general reference [tinas], “for before the coming as to some from James.” Does Paul mean to say that these “certain” ones had been sent by James to Antioch to inspect the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish brethren? Some scholars think so. No doubt these brethren let the idea get out that they were emissaries “from James.” But that idea is inconsistent with the position of James as president of the conference and the author of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians. No doubt these brethren threatened Peter to tell James and the church about his conduct and they reminded Peter of his previous arraignment before the Jerusalem Church on this very charge (Ac 11:1-18). As a matter of fact the Jerusalem Conference did not discuss the matter of social relations between Jews and Gentiles though that was the charge made against Peter (Ac 11:1ff.). He did eat with the Gentiles [meta tōn ethnōn sunēsthien]. It was his habit (imperfect tense). He drew back [hupestellen]. Imperfect tense, inchoative action, “he began to draw himself [heauton] back.” Old word [hupostellō]. See middle voice to dissemble (Ac 20:20,27), to shrink (Heb 10:38). Separated himself [aphōrizen heauton]. Inchoative imperfect again, “began to separate himself” just like a Pharisee (see on 1:15) and as if afraid of the Judaizers in the Jerusalem Church, perhaps half afraid that James might not endorse what he had been doing. Fearing them that were of the circumcision [phoboumenos tous ek peritomēs]. This was the real reason for Peter’s cowardice. See Ac 11:2 for “ [hoi ek peritomēs]” (they of the circumcision), the very phrase here. It was not that Peter had changed his views from the Jerusalem resolutions. It was pure fear of trouble to himself as in the denials at the trial of Christ.
2:13 Dissembled likewise with him [sunupekrithēsan autōi kai]. First aorist passive indicative of the double compound verb [sunupokrinomai], a late word often in Polybius, only here in N.T. One example in Polybius means to pretend to act a part with. That idea here would help the case of the rest of the Jews, but does not accord with Paul’s presentation. Insomuch that even Barnabas [hōste kai Barnabas]. Actual result expressed by [hōste] and the indicative and [kai] clearly means “even.” Was carried away with their dissimulation [sunapēchthē autōn tēi hupokrisei]. First aorist passive indicative of [sunapagō], old verb, in N.T. only here and 2Pe 3:17. [Hupokrisei] is in the instrumental case and can only mean hypocrisy in the bad sense (Mt 23:28), not merely acting a part. It was a solemn moment when Paul saw the Jerusalem victory vanish and even Barnabas desert him as they followed the timid cowardice of Peter. It was Paulus contra mundum in the cause of spiritual freedom in Christ.
2:14 But when I saw [All’ hote eidon]. Paul did see and saw it in time to speak. That they walked not uprightly [hoti orthopodousin]. Present active indicative retained in indirect discourse, “they are not walking straight.” [Orthopodeō] [orthos], straight, [pous], foot). Found only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, though [orthopodes bainontes] does occur. According to the truth of the gospel [pros tēn alētheian tou euaggeliou]. Just as in 2:5. Paul brought them to face [pros] that. I said unto Cephas before them all [eipon tōi Kēphāi emprosthen pantōn]. Being a Jew [Ioudaios huparchōn], though being a Jew). Condition of first class, assumed as true. It was not a private quarrel, but a matter of public policy. One is a bit curious to know what those who consider Peter the first pope will do with this open rebuke by Paul, who was in no sense afraid of Peter or of all the rest. As do the Gentiles [ethnikōs]. Late adverb, here only in N.T. Like Gentiles. As do the Jews [Ioudaikōs]. Only here in N.T., but in Josephus. To live as do the Jews [Iouda‹zein]. Late verb, only here in the N.T. From [Ioudaios], Jew. Really Paul charges Peter with trying to compel (conative present, [anagkazeis] the Gentiles to live all like Jews, to Judaize the Gentile Christians, the very point at issue in the Jerusalem Conference when Peter so loyally supported Paul. It was a bold thrust that allowed no reply. But Paul won Peter back and Barnabas also. If II Peter is genuine, as is still possible, he shows it in 2Pe 3:15. Paul and Barnabas remained friends (Ac 15:39f.; 1Co 9:6), though they soon separated over John Mark.
2:15 Not sinners of the Gentiles [ouk ex ethnōn hamartōloi]. The Jews regarded all Gentiles as “sinners” in contrast with themselves (cf. Mt 26:45 “sinners” and Lu 18:32 “Gentiles”). It is not clear whether verses 15-21 were spoken by Paul to Peter or whether Paul is now simply addressing the Galatians in the light of the controversy with Peter. Burton thinks that he is “mentally addressing Peter, if not quoting from what he said to him.”
2:16 Is not justified [ou dikaioutai]. Present passive indicative of [dikaioō], an old causative verb from [dikaios], righteous (from [dike], right), to make righteous, to declare righteous. It is made like [axioō], to deem worthy, and [koinoō], to consider common. It is one of the great Pauline words along with [dikaiosunē], righteousness. The two ways of getting right with God are here set forth: by faith in Christ Jesus (objective genitive), by the works of the law (by keeping all the law in the most minute fashion, the way of the Pharisees). Paul knew them both (see Ro 7). In his first recorded sermon the same contrast is made that we have here (Ac 13:39) with the same word [dikaioō], employed. It is the heart of his message in all his Epistles. The terms faith [pistis], righteousness [dikaiosunē], law [nomos], works [erga] occur more frequently in Galatians and Romans because Paul is dealing directly with the problem in opposition to the Judaizers who contended that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. The whole issue is here in an acute form. Save [ean mē]. Except. Even we [kai hēmeis]. We Jews believed, had to believe, were not saved or justified till we did believe. This very point Peter had made at the Jerusalem Conference (Ac 15:10f.). He quotes Ps 143:2. Paul uses [dikaiosunē] in two senses (1) Justification, on the basis of what Christ has done and obtained by faith. Thus we are set right with God. Ro 1-5. (2) Sanctification. Actual goodness as the result of living with and for Christ. Ro 6-8. The same plan exists for Jew and Gentile.
2:17 We ourselves were found sinners [heurethēmen kai autoi hamartōloi]. Like the Gentiles, Jews who thought they were not sinners, when brought close to Christ, found that they were. Paul felt like the chief of sinners. A minister of sin [hamartias diakonos]. Objective genitive, a minister to sin. An illogical inference. We were sinners already in spite of being Jews. Christ simply revealed to us our sin. God forbid [mē genoito]. Literally, “May it not happen.” Wish about the future [mē] and the optative).
2:18 A transgressor [parabatēn]. Peter, by his shifts had contradicted himself helplessly as Paul shows by this condition. When he lived like a Gentile, he tore down the ceremonial law. When he lived like a Jew, he tore down salvation by grace.
2:19 I through the law died to the law [egō dia nomou nomōi apethanon]. Paradoxical, but true. See Rom 7:4,6 for picture of how the law waked Paul up to his real death to the law through Christ.
2:20 I have been crucified with Christ [Christōi sunestaurōmai]. One of Paul’s greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of [sustauroō] with the associative instrumental case [Christōi]. Paul uses the same word in Ro 6:6 for the same idea. In the Gospels it occurs of literal crucifixion about the robbers and Christ (Mt 27:44; Mr 15:32; Joh 19:32). Paul died to the law and was crucified with Christ. He uses often the idea of dying with Christ (Ga 5:24; 6:14; Ro 6:8; Col 2:20) and burial with Christ also (Ro 6:4; Col 2:12). No longer I [ouketi egō]. So complete has become Paul’s identification with Christ that his separate personality is merged into that of Christ. This language helps one to understand the victorious cry in Ro 7:25. It is the union of the vine and the branch (Joh 15:1-6). Which is in the Son of God [tēi tou huiou tou theou]. The objective genitive, not the faith of the Son of God. For me [huper emou]. Paul has the closest personal feeling toward Christ. “He appropriates to himself, as Chrysostom observes, the love which belongs equally to the whole world. For Christ is indeed the personal friend of each man individually” (Lightfoot).
2:21 I do not make void the grace of God [ouk athetō tēn charin tou theou]. Common word in LXX and Polybius and on, to make ineffective [a] privative and [tithēmi], to place or put). Some critic would charge him with that after his claim to such a close mystic union with Christ. Then Christ died for nought [ara Christos dōrean apethanen]. Condition of first class, assumed as true. If one man apart from grace can win his own righteousness, any man can and should. Hence [ara], accordingly) Christ died gratuitously [dōrean], unnecessarily. Adverbial accusative of [dōrea], a gift. This verse is a complete answer to those who say that the heathen (or any mere moralist) are saved by doing the best that they know and can. No one, apart from Jesus, ever did the best that he knew or could. To be saved by law [dia nomou] one has to keep all the law that he knows. That no one ever did.
|« Prev||Chapter 2||Next »|
►Proofing disabled for this book
► Printer-friendly version