1. διὰ δεκατ. ἐτῶν] First, what does this διὰ imply? According to well-known usage, διὰ with a genitive of time or space signifies ‘through and beyond:’ thus, ὁ μὲν χρόνος δὴ διὰ χρόνου προὔβαινέ μοι, Soph. Philoct. 285,—διὰ δέκα ἐπάλξεων πύργοι ἦσαν μεγάλοι, Thuc. iii. 21, and then τῶν πύργων ὄντων διʼ ὀλίγου: see reff., and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 235. Winer, Gramm. edn. 6, § 51. (The instrumental usage, διὰ δακρύων, διὰ νυκτός, &c. is derived from this, the instrument being regarded as the means, passed through before the end is attained: but obviously has no place here, where a definite time is mentioned.) See more in Ellic. διὰ δεκ. ἐτ. then is after fourteen years, δεκατεσσάρων παρελθόντων ἐτῶν, Chrys. Next, from what time are we to reckon? Certainly at first sight it would appear,—from the journey last mentioned. And Meyer maintains that we are bound to accept this first impression without enquiring any further. But why? Is the prima facie view of a construction always right? Did we, or did he, judge thus in ch. 1:18? Are we not bound, in all such cases, should any reason ab extra exist for doing so, to reexamine the passage, and ascertain whether our prima facie impression may not have arisen from neglecting some indication furnished by the context? That this is the case here, I am persuaded. The ways of speaking, in ch. 1:18, and here, are very similar. The ἔπειτα in both cases may be well taken as referring back to the same terminus a quo, διὰ being used in this verse as applying to the larger interval, or even perhaps to prevent the fourteen years being counted from the event last mentioned, as they would more naturally be, had a second μετά been used. What would there be forced or unnatural in a statement of the following kind? “After my conversion (ὅτε δέ, &c. ch. 1:15) my occasions of communicating with the other Apostles were these: (1) after three years I went up, &c. (2) after fourteen years had elapsed, I again went up, &c.?” This view is much favoured, if not rendered decisive, by the change in position of ἐτῶν and the numeral, in this second instance. In ch. 1:18, it is μετὰ ἔτη τρία: ἔτη, in the first mention of the interval, having the emphatic place. But now, it is not διʼ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων, but διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν—ἐτῶν now passing into the shade, and the numeral having the emphasis—a clear indication to me that the ἔτη have the same reference as before, viz. to the time of his conversion. A list, and ample discussion, of the opinions on both sides, will be found in Anger, de ratione temporum, ch. 4.

This (cf. Chronol. Table in Prolegg. Vol. II.) would bring the visit here related to the year 50: see below.

πάλιν ἀνέβην] I again went up: but nothing is said, and there was no need to say any thing, of another visit during the interval. It was the object of the Apostle to specify, not all his visits to Jerusalem, but all his occasions of intercourse with the other Apostles: and it is mere trifling, when Meyer, in his love of creating discrepancies, maintains that in such a narration as this, St. Paul would be putting a weapon into the hands of his opponents by omitting his second journey. That journey was undertaken (Acts 11:30) in pursuance of a mission from the church at Antioch, to convey alms to the elders of the suffering church at Jerusalem. It was at a period of persecution, when James the son of Zebedee and Peter were under the power of Herod.—and in all probability the other Apostles were scattered. Probably Barnabas and Saul did not see any of them. They merely (Acts 12:25) fulfilled their errand, and brought back John Mark. If in that visit he had no intercourse with the Apostles, as his business was not with them, the mention of it here would be irrelevant: and to attempt, as Mey., to prove the Acts inaccurate, because that journey is not mentioned here, is simply absurd. That the visit here described is in all probability the third related in the Acts (a.d. 50) on occasion of the council of Apostles and elders (Act_15), I have shewn in a note to the chronological table, Prolegomena to Acts, Vol. II. The various separate circumstances of the visit will be noticed as we proceed.

συνπ. καὶ Τίτον] In Acts 15:2, ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Π. κ. Βαρν. καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν. Titus is here particularized by name, on account of the notice which follows, ver. 3: and the καί serves to take him out from among the others. On Titus, see Prolegg. to Ep. to Titus.

2.] δέ not only carries on the narrative, emphatically repeating the verb (Mey.), but carries on the refutation also—but I went up (not for any purpose of learning from or consulting others, but) &c.:—So II. ω. 484, ὣς Ἀχιλεὺς θάμβησεν ἰδὼν Πρίαμον θεοειδέα· θάμβησαν δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι,—and other examples in Hartung, i. p. 168. Of his undertaking the journey κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν, nothing is said in the Acts, all that is related there being, the appointment by the church of Paul and Barnabas and others to go. What divine intimation Paul may have received, inducing him to offer himself for the deputation, we cannot say: that some such occurred, he here assures us, and it was important for him to assert it, as shewing his dependence only on divine leading, and independence of any behests from the Jerusalem church. Meyer well remarks that the history itself of the Acts furnishes an instance of such a double prompting: Peter was induced by a vision, and at the same time by the messengers of Cornelius, to go to Cæsarea.

Schrader would give a singular meaning to κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν; that his visit was for the purpose of making known the Gospel which he preached, &c. Hermann (de ep. ad Gal. trib. prim, capp., cited by Meyer) agrees: “explicationis causa, i.e. ut patefieret inter ipsos quæ vera esset Jesu doctrina.” But it is against this sense, that (1) the N. T. usage of ἀποκάλυψις always has respect to revelation from above, and (2) this very phrase, κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν, is found in ref. Eph. used absolutely as here, undoubtedly there signifying by revelation. Hermann’s objection that for this meaning, κατά τινα ἀποκ. would be required, is nugatory: not the particular revelation (concrete) which occasioned the journey, but merely the fact that it was by (abstract) revelation, is specified.

ἀνεθέμην] (reff.): so Aristoph. Nub. 1436, ὑμῖν ἀναθεὶς ἅπαντα τἀμὰ πράγματα. See more examples in Wetst.

αὐτοῖς] to the Christians at Jerusalem, implied in Ἱεροσόλ. above: see reff. This wide assertion is limited by the next clause, κατʼ ἰδ. &c. Œc., Calv., Olsh., al. take αὐτοῖς to mean the Apostles: in which case, the stress by and by must be on κατʼ ἰδίαν,—I communicated it (indeed,—μέν would more naturally stand here on this interpretation) to them, but privately (i.e. more confidentially,—but how improbable, that St. Paul should have thus given an exoteric and esoteric exposition of his teaching) τοῖς δοκοῦσιν. Chrys. is quoted for this view by Mey., but not quite correctly; ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις πάντες ἐσκανδαλίζοντο, εἴ τις παραβαίη τὸν νόμον, εἴ τις κωλύσειε χρήσασθαι τῇ περιτομῇ … παῤῥησίᾳ μὲν παρελθεῖν κ. τὸ κήρυγμα ἀποκαλύψαι τὸ ἑαυτοῦ οὐκ ἠνείχετο, κατʼ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν ἀνέθετο ἐπὶ Βαρνάβα κ. Τίτου, ἵνα οὗτοι μάρτυρες ἀξιόπιστοι γένωνται πρὸς τοὺς ἐγκαλοῦντας, ὅτι οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἔδοξεν ἐναντίον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ βεβαιοῦσι τὸ κήρυγμα τὸ τοιοῦτον. Estius, characteristically enough, as a Romanist; ‘publice ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mosis,—privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit ipsos quoque Judæos ab observantia Mosaiæ legis … esse liberandos.’

κατ. ἰδ. δέ] but (limits the foregoing αὐτοῖς; q. d., “when I say ‘to them,’ I mean.” Ellic. Exo_2, questions this, and understands δέ to introduce another conference, more private than that just mentioned) in private (in a private conference: not to be conceived as separate from, but as specifying, the former ἀνεθέμην) to those that were eminent (more at length ver. 6, οἱ δοκοῦντες εἶναί τι. These were James, Cephas, and John, ver. 9,—who appear to have been the only Apostles then at Jerusalem. Olsh. supposes the words to imply blame, not in the mind of the Apostle himself, but as reflecting on the unworthy exaltation of these Apostles by the Judaizing teachers. He illustrates this by οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, 2Corinthians 11:5; but an expression of such feeling here seems out of place, and it is better to understand οἱ δοκοῦντες as describing mere matter of fact; see examples in Kypke and Elsner), lest by any means I should (seem to) be running, or (to) have run, in vain. οὐ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ τέθεικεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων· τουτέστιν, ἵνα μάθωσιν ἅπαντες τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος συμφωνίαν, κ. ὅτι κ. τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀρέσκει τὰ ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ κηρυττόμενα, Thdrt.: so also Chrys., Thl., Calv., al. The construction of two moods after the same conjunction is found elsewhere in Paul: cf. 1Thessalonians 3:5. The present subjunctive τρέχω implies continuance in the course; the 2 aorist indicative ἔδραμον, the course already run. It is quite out of the question, that this last clause should express a bonâ fide fear, lest his ministry should really be, or have been, in vain, without the recognition of the church at Jerusalem (De W., al.): such a sentiment would be unworthy of him, and, besides, at variance with the whole course of his argument here. The reference must be (as Thdrt. above) to the estimation in which his preaching would be held by those to whom he imparted it. When we consider the very strong prejudices of the Jerusalem church, this feeling of anxiety, leading him to take measures to prevent his work from being tumultuously disowned by them, is surely but natural. On εἰς κενόν and τρέχω, see reff. (The grammatical difficulty is well discussed in Ellicott’s note.)

3.] But (so far were they from regarding my course to have been in vain, that) neither (ἀλλʼ οὐδέ introduces a climax, see reff.) was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek (i.e. though he was a Gentile, and therefore liable to the demand that he should be circumcised), compelled to be circumcised (i.e. we did not allow him to be thus compelled: the facts being, as here implied, that the church at Jerusalem (and the Apostles? apparently not, from Acts 15:5) demanded his circumcision, but on account of the reason following, the demand was not complied with, but resisted by Paul and Barnabas. So Meyer, with Piscator and Bengel, and I am persuaded, rightly, from what follows. But usually it is understood, that the circumcision of Titus was not even demanded, and that Paul alleged this as shewing his agreement with the other Apostles. So Chrys.: ἀκρόβυστον ὄντα οὐκ ἠνάγκασαν περιτμηθῆναι οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ὅπερ ἀπόδειξις ἦν μεγίστη τοῦ μὴ καταγινώσκειν τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου λεγομένων ἢ πραττομένων: so also Thdrt., Thl., Œc., &c., and Winer and De W. Had this been so, besides that the following could not have stood as it does, not the strong word ἠναγκάσθη, but the weakest possible word would have been used—‘the circumcision of Titus was not even mentioned’):

4.] but (i.e. ‘and this:’—the construction of the sentence is (against Ellic.) precisely as ver. 2: this δέ restricts and qualifies the broader assertion which went before. ‘Titus was not compelled …: and that,’ &c. To connect this with ver. 2, supposing ver. 3 to be parenthetical, as Mr. Bagge, seems harsh, and unnecessary. A second δέ would hardly be found in the same sentence in this restrictive sense) on account of the false brethren who had been foisted in among us (the Judaizers in the church at Jerusalem, see Acts 15:1. The word παρείσακτος is not found elsewhere. It occurs in the title of the “prologus incerti auctoris” to Sirach: πρόλογος παρείσακτος ἀδήλου. It is found however in the lexicons of Hesych., Photius, and Suidas, and interpreted ἀλλότριος. The verb παρεισάγειν is common in Polybius, without any idea of surreptitious introduction: see Schweigh.’s Index: but such an idea certainly seems here to be attached to it, by the repetition of παρεις-, in παρεισῆλθον immediately after), men who (οἵτινες classifies) crept in to spy out (in a hostile sense: so Chrys.,—ὁρᾷς πῶς καὶ τῇ τῶν κατασκόπων προσηγορίᾳ ἐδήλωσε τὸν πόλεμον ἐκείνων,—reff., and Eur. Helen. 1607, ὅποι νοσοῖεν ξυμμάχων κατασκοπῶν) our freedom (from the ceremonial law: to see whether, or how far, we kept it) which we have in Christ Jesus, with intent to enslave us utterly (the future after ἵνα is found John 17:2; Revelation 3:9; Revelation 8:3; Revelation 22:14. Hermann, on Œd. Col. 156, says—“futuro non jungitur ἵνα, ut.” The construction of the future with ὅπως and ὅπως μή is common enough in the classics. Winer remarks, Gr. edn. 6, § 41. b. 1. b, that it denotes continuance, whereas the aorist subjunctive is used of something transitory: but qu.? I should rather say that it signifies the certain sequence, in the view of the agent, of that which follows, not merely that it is his intent,—and that it arises from the mingling of two constructions, beginning as if ἵνα with the subjunctive were about to be used, and then passing off to the direct indicative); to whom not even for one hour (reff.) did we (Barnabas, Titus, and myself) yield with the subjection required of us (dative of the manner: the article giving the sense, ‘with the subjection claimed.’ Fritzsche takes it, ‘yield by complying with the wish of the Apostles:’ but this is manifestly against the context: Hermann, and similarly Bretschneider, ‘quibus ne horæ quidem spatium Jesu obsequio segnior fui,’—absurdly enough, against the whole drift of the passage, and the Apostle’s usage of ὑποταγή abstractedly), that the truth of the Gospel (as contrasted with the perverted view which they would have introduced: but not to be confounded with τὸ ἀληθὲς εὐαγγέλιον. Had they been overborne in this point, the verity of the Gospel would have been endangered among them,—i.e. that doctrine of justification, on which the Gospel turns as the truth of God) might abide (reff.: and note on ch. 1:18) with you (‘you Galatians:’ not, ‘you Gentiles in general:’ the fact was so,—the Galatians, specially, not being in his mind at the time: it is only one of those cases where, especially if a rhetorical purpose is to be served, we apply home to the particular what, as matter of fact, it only shares as included in the general).

The omission of οἷς οὐδέ in this sentence (see var. readd.) has been an attempt to simplify the construction, and at the same time to reconcile Paul’s conduct with that in Acts 16:3, where he circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews. But the circumstances were then widely different: and the whole narrative in Act_15. makes it extremely improbable that the Apostle should have pursued such a course on this occasion.

6.] He returns to his sojourn in Jerusalem, and his intercourse with the δοκοῦντες. The construction is difficult, and has been very variously given. It seems best (and so most Commentators) to regard it as an anacoluthon. The Apostle begins with ἀπὸ δὲ ῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, having it in his mind to add οὐδὲν προσελαβόμην or the like: but then, going off into the parenthesis ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν &c., he entirely loses sight of the original construction, and proceeds with ἐμοὶ γάρ &c., which follows on the parenthesis, the γάρ rendering a reason (this is still my view, against Ellic. whose note see) for the οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει &c. De Wette and others think that the parenthesis ends at λαμβάνει, and the construction is resumed from ἀπὸ δέ &c. in an active instead of in a passive form: but it seems better, with Meyer, to regard the parenthesis as never formally closed, and the original construction not resumed. Other ways are; (1) most of the Greek Fathers (Chrys. hardly says enough for this to be inferred as his opinion), and others (e.g. Olsh., Rückert) take ἀπό as belonging to διαφέρει, as if it were περί: so Thl., οὐδεμία μοι φροντίς περὶ τῶν δοκούντων, &c. The preposition seems capable, if not exactly of this interpretation, of one very nearly akin to it, as in βλέπετε ἀπό and the like expressions: but the objection is, that it is unnatural to join διαφέρει with ἀπό which lies so far from it, when όποῖοί ποτε ἦσ. so completely fills up the construction. (2) Homberg (Parerg. p. 275: Meyer) renders,—‘ab illis vero, qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo.’ But as Meyer remarks, though διαφέρω ἀπό τινος may bear this meaning, certainly διαφέρει μοι ἀπό τινος cannot. (3) Hermann assumes an aposiopesis, and understands ‘what should I fear?’ but an aposiopesis seems out of place in a passage which does not rise above the fervour of narrative. See other interpretations in Meyer and De Wette.

οἱ δοκοῦντ. εἶναί τι may be either subjective (‘those who believe themselves to be something’), or objective (‘those who have the estimation of being something’). The latter is obviously the meaning here.

ποτε is understood by some to mean ‘once,’ ‘olim:’ ‘whatever they once were, when Christ was on earth:’ so vulg. (‘quales aliquando fuerint’), Pelag., Luth., Beza, al. But this is going out of the context, and unnecessary.

The emphasis is on μοι, and is again taken up by the ἐμοὶ γάρ below. Phrynichus (p. 384) condemns τίνι διαφέπει as not used by the best writers, but Lobeck (note, ibid.) has produced examples of it, as well as of the more approved construction τί διαφέρει, from Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle.

πρόσεπ … λαμβ.] q. d. ‘I wish to form all my judgments according to God’s rule—which is that of strict unbiassed justice.’ See Ephesians 6:9.

προσανέθεντο] as in ch. 1:16,—imparted. As I, at my first conversion, did not impart it to flesh and blood, so they now imparted nothing to me: we were independent the one of the other. The meaning ‘added’ (οὐκ ἐδίδαξαν, οὐ διώρθωσαν, οὐδὲν προσέθηκαν ὧν ᾔδειν, Chrys.; so Thdrt., and most Commentators, and E. V. ‘in conference added’) is not justified by the usage of the word: see note, as above. Rückert, Bretschneider, Olsh., al. explain it: ‘laid on no additional burden.’ But this is the active, not the middle, signification of the verb: see Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8, where προσαναθέσθαι is not ‘to impose on another additional duties,’ but ‘to take them on a man’s self.’

7.] Not only did they impart nothing to me, but, on the contrary, they gave in their adhesion to the course which I and Barnabas had been (independently) pursuing. “In what does this opposition (ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον) consist? Apparently in this, that instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left him to fight his own battle (practically: but they added the weight of their approval: see Ellic.). They said, ‘Take your own course: preach the Gospel of the uncircumcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the Gospel of the circumcision to Jews.’ ” Jowett.

ἰδόντες, viz. by the communication mentioned ver. 2, coupled with the now manifest results of his preaching among the Gentiles. Compare Acts 15:12.

πεπίστ. (for construction see reff. Acts and 1 Cor. and other examples in Winer, Gram., § 39. 1. a) has the emphasis: they saw that I was (lit. am: the state being one still abiding) entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision; therefore they had only to accede to the appointment of God.

τῆς ἀκροβ.] i.e. belonging to, addressed to, the uncircumcised (οὐ τὰ πράγματα λέγων αὐτά, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τούτων γνωριζόμενα ἔθνη, Chrys.). Peter was not the Apostle of the circumcision only, for he had opened the door to the Gentiles (Act_10, to which he refers, ib. 15:7), but in the ultimate assignment of the apostolic work, he wrought less among the Gentiles and more among the Jews than Paul: see 1Peter 1:1, and note. But his own Epistles are sufficient testimonies that, in his hands at least, the Gospel of the circumcision did not differ in any essential point from that of the uncircumcision. Cf., as an interesting trait on the other side, Colossians 4:11.

8.] Parenthetic explanation of πεπίστευμαι κ.τ.λ.

Πέτρῳ and ἐμοί are datives commodi, not governed by the ἐν in ἐνεργ., the meaning of this preposition being already expressed in the word ἐνεργεῖν, and having therefore no force to pass on: cf. ref. Prov.

ἐνήργ. applies to the ἀπακολουθοῦντα σημεῖα with which the Lord accompanied His word spoken by them, and to the power with which they spoke that word. The agent in ἐνεργ. is God,—the Father: see 1Corinthians 12:6; Philippians 2:13; Romans 15:15, Romans 15:16.

εἰς ἀποστ.] towards, with a view to, the Apostleship,—reff.

εἰς τὰ ἔθνη] The fuller construction would be, εἰς ἀποστολὴν τ. ἐθνῶν: so τάων οὔτις ὁμοῖα νοήματα Πηνελοπείῃ " ᾔδη, Od. β. 120: and frequently.

9.] resumes the narrative after the parenthesis.

Ἰάκωβος] placed first, as being at the head of the church at Jerusalem, and presiding (apparently) at the conference in Act_15.

δοκοῦντες alludes to vv. 2 and 6; see there.

στύλοι] pillars, i.e. principal supporters of the church, men of distinction and weight; see reff., and examples in Wetst.: and Suicer, sub voce. Clem.-rom. ad Cor. i. 5, p. 217, uses the word directly, without metaphor: οἱ δικαιότατοι στύλοι ἐδιώχθησαν.

δεξ. ἔδωκ. κοιν.] On the separation of the genitive from its governing noun, see Winer, § 30. 3, remark 2. It is made here, because what follows respects rather κοινωνίας than ἔδωκαν.

ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] There is an ellipsis of some verb; πορευθῶμεν and -θῶσιν, or perhaps εὐαγγελιζώμεθα, -ζωνται which might connect with εἰς (see 1Thessalonians 2:9; 1Peter 1:25. But Meyer objects that it is not found with εἰς in St. Paul): or as Beza, ἀπόστολοι γενώμεθα. Similar ellipses occur Romans 4:16; ch. 5:13. This division of labour was not, and could not be, strictly observed. Every where in the Acts we find St. Paul preaching ‘to the Jews first,’ and every where the Judaizers followed on his track; see Jowett’s note.

10. μόν. τ. πτ. ἵνα μν.] The genitive is put before the conjunction for emphasis: see reff., and 2Thessalonians 2:7, and John 13:29, where remarkably enough it is the same word which precedes ἵνα, … τοῖς πτωχοῖς ἵνα τὶ δῷ. The construction is complete without supplying any participle (αἰτοῦντες or παρακαλοῦντες), depending upon ἔδωκαν.

ὃ καὶ ἐσπ. αὐτὸ τ. ποι.] which was the very thing that I also was anxious to do,—viz., then and always: it was my habit. So that ἐσπούδασα has not a pluperfect sense. He uses the singular, because the plural could not correctly be predicated of the whole time to which the verb refers: for he parted from Barnabas shortly after the council in Act_15. Meyer understands ἐσπούδ. of the time subsequent to the council only: but this does not seem necessary. The proofs of this σπουδή on his part may be found, Romans 15:25-27; 1Corinthians 16:1-4; 2Corinthians 8:9; Acts 24:17: which, though they probably happened after the date of our Epistle, yet shewed the bent of his habitual wishes on this point.

αὐτὸ τοῦτο is not merely redundant, as in ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, Mark 7:25,—but is an emphatic repetition of that to which ὅ refers, as in the version above. So that ὃ ἐσπ. αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποι. = καὶ ἐσπ. τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποι. Cf. Thuc. i. 10,—Ἀθηναίων δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο παθόντων. Cf. Ellicott’s note.

11-17.] He further proves his independence, by relating how he rebuked Peter for temporizing at Antioch. This proof goes further than any before: not only was he not taught originally by the Apostles,—not only did they impart nothing to him, rather tolerating his view and recognizing his mission,—but he on one occasion stood aloof from and reprimanded the chief of them for conduct unworthy the Gospel: thus setting his own Apostleship in opposition to Peter, for the time.

11. ὅτε δὲ ἦλθ.] This visit of Peter to Antioch, not related in the Acts, will fall most naturally (for our narrative follows the order of time) in the period described, Acts 15:35, seeing that (ver. 13) Barnabas also was there. See below.

Κηφᾶς] ἡ ἱστορία παρὰ Κλήμεντι κατὰ τὴν πέμπτην τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων, ἐν ᾗ καὶ Κηφᾶν, περὶ οὗ φησὶν ὁ Παῦλος Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθ. Κ. εἰς Ἀντ. κατ. πρ. αὐτ. ἀντέστην, ἕνα φησὶ γεγονέναι τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν, ὁμώνυμον Πέτρῳ τυγχάνοντα τῷ ἀποστόλῳ. Eus. H. E. i. 12. This story was manifestly invented to save the credit of St. Peter. See below.

κατὰ πρόσωπον] to the face,—see reff.: not ‘before all,’ which is asserted by and by, ver. 14. One of the most curious instances of ecclesiastical ingenuity on record has been afforded in the interpretation of this passage by the fathers. They try to make it appear that the reproof was only an apparent one—that ὁ θεῖος Πέτρος was entirely in the right, and Paul withstood him, κατὰ πρόσωπον, ‘in appearance merely,’ because he had been blamed by others. So Chrys.: so Thdrt. also: and Jerome,—“Paulus … nova usus est arte pugnandi, ut dispensationem Petri, qua Judæos salvari cupiebat, nova ipse contradictionis dispensatione corrigeret, et resisteret ei in facie, non arguens propositum, sed quasi in publico contradicens, ut ex eo quod Paulus eum arguens resistebat, hi qui crediderant e gentibus servarentur.” In Ep. ad Gal, ad loc. This view of his met with strong opposition from Augustine, who writes to him, nobly and worthily, Ep. 40. 3, vol. ii. p. 155, ed. Migne: “In exposition quoque Ep. Pauli ad Gal., invenimus aliquid, quod nos multum moveat. Si enim ad Scripturas sanctas admissa fuerint velut officiosa mendacia, quid in eis remanebit auctoritatis? Quæ tandem de Scripturis illis sententia proferetur, cujus pondere contentiosæ falsitatis obteratur improbitas? Statim enim ut protuleris: si aliter sapit qui contra nititur, dicet illud quod prolatum erit honesto aliquo officio scriptorum fuisse mentitum. Ubi enim hoc non poterit, si potuit in ea narratione, quam exorsus Apostolus ait, Quæ autem scribo vobis, ecce coram Deo quia non mentior, credi affirmarique mentitus, eo loco ubi dixit de Petro et Barnaba, cum viderem, quia non recte ingrediuntur ad veritatem Evangelii? Si enim recte illi ingrediebantur, iste mentitus est: si autem ibi mentitus est, ubi verum dixit? Cur ibi verum dixisse videbitur, ubi hoc dixerit quod lector sapit; cum vero contra sensum lectoris aliquid occurrerit, officioso mendacio deputabitur?… Quare arripe, obsecro te, ingenuam et vere Christianam cum caritate severitatem, ad illud opus corrigendum et emendandum, et παλινῳδίαν, ut dicitur, cane. Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est veritas Christianorum, quam Helena Græcorum.…” (Similarly in several other Epistles in vol. ii. ed. Migne, where also Jerome’s replies may be seen.) Afterwards, Jerome abandoned his view for the right one: ‘Nonne idem Paulus in faciem Cephæ restitit, quod non recto pede incederet in Evangelio?’ Apol. adv. Ruf. iii. 2, vol. ii. p. 532: see also cont. Pelag. i. 22, p. 718. Aug. Ep. 180. 5, vol. ii. p. 779.

ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν] (not, as vulgate, quia reprehensibilis erat (‘because he was to be blamed,’ E. V.: similarly Calv., Beza, al.): no such meaning can be extracted from the perfect participle passive; nor can Hebrew usage be alleged for such a meaning in Greek. The instance commonly cited from Lucian de saltat., p. 952, ἀληθῶς, ἐπὶ μανίᾳ κατεγνωσμένος, is none whatever; nor is Iliad, α. 388, ὃ δὴ τετελεσμένος ἐστί: the perfect participle having in both its proper sense. Nor again is ψηλαφωμένῳ (ὄρει), Hebrews 12:18, at all to the purpose: see note there) because he was condemned (‘a condemned man,’ as we say: by whom, does not appear: possibly, by his own act: or, by the Christians in Antioch: but St. Paul would hardly have waited for the prompting of others to pronounce his condemnation of him. I therefore prefer the former: he was (self) convicted: convicted of inconsistency by his conduct).

12.] These τινες ἀπὸ Ἰακώβον have been softened by some Commentators into persons who merely gave themselves out as from James (Winer, &c. and even Ellicott, edn. 2), or who merely came from Jerusalem where James presided (Beza, Grot., Olsh., &c.). But the candid reader will I think at once recognize in the words a mission from James (so Thl., Œc., Estius (doubtfully), Rückert, Meyer, De W.): and will find no difficulty in believing that that Apostle, even after the decision of the council regarding the Gentile converts, may have retained (characteristically, see his recommendatior to St. Paul, in Acts 21:18 ff.) his strict view of the duties of Jewish converts,—for that is perhaps all that the present passage requires. And this mission may have been for the very purpose of admonishing the Jewish converts of their obligations, from which the Gentiles were free. Thus we have no occasion to assume (with De W.) that James had in the council been over-persuaded by the earnestness and eloquence of Paul, and had afterwards undergone a reaction: for his course will be consistent throughout. And my view seems to me to be confirmed by his own words, Acts 15:19, where the emphatic τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐπιστρέφουσιν tacitly implies, that the Jews would be bound as before.

συνήσθιεν] As he had done, Act_10, on the prompting of a heavenly vision; and himself defended it, Act_11. See below.

ὑπέστελλεν] as well as ἀφώριζεν, governs ἑαυτόν: withdrew himself. So Polyb. i. 16. 10, ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς Ἱέρων, ὑποστείλας ἑαυτὸν ὑπὸ τὴν Ῥωμαίων σκέπην, and al. freq. The imperfects express that there were more cases than one where he did this—it was the course he took.

φοβούμενος] being afraid of. Chrys., to bear out his interpretation of the whole incident, says, οὐ τοῦτο φοβούμενος, μὴ κινδυνεύσῃ· ὁ γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ μὴ φοβηθείς (witness his denial of his Lord), πολλῷ μᾶλλον τότε· ἀλλʼ ἵνα μὴ ἀποστῶσιν. ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς λέγει Γαλάταις, φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς μή πως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα κ.τ.λ. And so Piscator, Grot., Estius, al. The whole incident is remarkably characteristic of Peter—ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from, great principles and truths: see this very ably enlarged on in Jowett’s note on ver. 11.

13. συνυπεκρ.] were guilty of like hypocrisy. The word is not (as De W.) too strong a one to describe their conduct. They were aware of the liberty in Christ which allowed them to eat with Gentiles, and had practised it: and now, being still aware of it, and not convinced to the contrary, from mere fear of man they adopted a contrary course. The case bore but very little likeness to that discussed in 1 Cor. 8-10; Rom_14. There, it was a mere matter of licence which was in question: here, the very foundation itself. It was not now a question of using a liberty, but of asserting a truth, that of justification by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.

ὥστε … συναπήχθη] The indicative usually follows ὥστε, when the result is matter of fact: the infinitive usually, when it is matter of course as well. So Herod. vi. 83,—Ἄργος δὲ ἀνδρῶν ἐχηρώθη οὕτω, ὥστε οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτέων ἔσχον πάντα τὰ πρήγματα, where it was not a necessary consequence of the depopulation, but a result which followed as matter of fact (so also John 3:16, where the sending the Son to be the Saviour of the world was not a necessary consequence of the Father’s love, but followed it as its result in fact: so that it is (against Ellic. edn. 1) an instance in point): Plato, Apol. 37 c,—οὕτως ἀλόγιστός εἰμι, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι λογίζεσθαι, where the degree of ἀλογία supposed involves the result of not being able to reason at all. See Krüger, Gram. § 65, 3. 1; Kühner, ii. p. 563. But the distinction does not seem always to be accurately observed.

On συναπ., see ref. Rom., and note. Understand αὐτοῖς after συναπ., and take τῇ ὑπ. as the instrumental dative: ‘was carried away (with them) by their hypocrisy:’ or possibly the dative of the state into which &c.: see 2Peter 3:17: but this construction seems questionable: see Ellic. edn. 2. Fritz. cites Zosimus, Hist. v. 6, καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ Σπάρτη συναπήγετο τῇ κοινῇ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἁλώσει: add Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 368 P., τῇ ἡδονῇ συναπαγόμενος (Ellicott). “Besides the antagonism in which this passage represents the two great Apostles, it throws an important light on the history of the apostolic church in the following respects:—1] As exhibiting Peter’s relation to James, and his fear of those who were of the circumcision, whose leader we should have naturally supposed him to have been. 2] Also, as pourtraying the state of indecision in which all, except St. Paul, even including Barnabas, were in reference to the observance of the Jewish law.” Jowett.

14.] ὀρθοποδεῖν apparently not occurring elsewhere, its meaning must be got from cognate words. We have ἀτραπὸν ὀρθοβατεῖν, Anthol. ix. 11, ὀρθοπραγεῖν, Arist. Eth. Eud. iii. 2, and ὀρθοτομέω, ὀρθοδρομέω, &c.: to walk straight is therefore undoubtedly its import, and metaphorically (cf. περιπατεῖν, στοιχεῖν frequently in Paul), to behave uprightly.

πρός] It is best, with Meyer, to take ἀλήθεια as in ver. 5, and render, connecting πρός with ὀρθοποδοῦσιν, towards (with a view to) maintaining and propagating the truth (objectively, the unadulterated character) of the Gospel. Others (De W., al.) render πρός ‘with reference to,’ (‘according to,’ E.V.,) and take τ. ἀλήθ. τ. εὐ to mean ‘the truth (-fulness of character) required by the Gospel.’ Mey. remarks, that St. Paul does not express nouns after verbs of motion by πρός, but by κατά, cf. Romans 8:4; Romans 14:15; 1Corinthians 3:3. Ellic. however answers, that in all these instances, περιπατέω, St. Paul’s favourite verb of moral motion, is used, and that ὀρθοποδέω does not so plainly express motion as περιπατέω. Still, I prefer the former meaning, as better suiting the expression ἡ ἀλήθεια τ. εὐαγγ.: cf. ver. 5.

ἔμπρ. πάντ.] ‘before the church assembled.’ The words require this, and the reproof would otherwise have fallen short of its desired effect on the Jewish converts.

The speech which follows, and which I believe to extend to the end of the chapter, must be regarded as a compendium of what was said, and a free report of it, as we find in the narratives by St. Paul himself of his conversion. See below. If thou, being (by birth, originally, cf. Acts 16:20 and note) a Jew, livest (as thy usual habit. As Neander (Pfl. u. Leit., p. 114) remarks, these words shew that Peter had long been himself convinced of the truth on this matter, and lived according to it: see further on ver. 18) as a Gentile (how, is shewn by μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν above) and not as a Jew, how (is it that (reff.)) thou art compelling the Gentiles (i.e. virtually and ultimately; for the high authority of Peter and Barnabas would make the Gentile converts view their course as necessary to all Christians. There is no need, with De W. and Wieseler, to suppose that the τινες ἀπὸ Ἰακ. actually compelled the Gentile converts to Judaize, as necessary to salvation, and Peter upheld them: nor is there any difficulty in the expression: the present may mean, as it often does, ‘art compelling to the best of thy power,’ ‘doing thy part to compel,’—for such certainly would be the ultimate result, if Jews and Gentiles might not company together in social life—“his principle logically involved this, or his influence and example would be likely to effect it.” Jowett) to Judaize (observe the ceremonial law)?

15.] Some (Calv., Beza, Grot., Hermann, al.) think that the speech ends with ver. 14: Calov., al., with ver. 15: Luther, al., with ver. 16: Flatt, Neander, al., with ver. 18: Jowett, that the conversation gradually passes off into the general subject of the Epistle. “Ver. 14,” he says, “is the answer of St. Paul to St. Peter: what follows, is more like the Apostle musing or arguing with himself, with an indirect reference to the Galatians.” But it seems very unnatural to place any break before the end of the chapter. The Apostle recurs to the Galatians again with ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, ch. 3:1: and it is harsh in the extreme to suppose him to pass from his speech to Peter into an address to them with so little indication of the transition. I therefore regard the speech (which doubtless is freely reported, and gives rather the bearing of what was said, than the words themselves, as in Act_22 and 26) as continuing to the end of the chapter, as do Chr., Thdrt., Jer., Est., Beng., Rosenm., Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Olsh., B.-Crus., Meyer, De W.

We (thou and I) by nature (birth) Jews and not sinners from among the Gentiles (he is speaking to Peter from the common ground of their Judaism, and using (ironically?) Judaistic language, in which the Gentiles were ἄθεοι, ἄνομοι, ἄδικοι, ἁμαρτωλοί (reff.). The putting a comma after ἐθνῶν, and taking ἁμαρτωλοί with ἡμ. φύσ. Ἰουδ. (Prim. in Est., Elsner, Er.-Schmid, al.), ‘We, by birth Jews, and, though not from the Gentiles, yet sinners,’ is absurd), knowing nevertheless (this seems, against Ellic. Exo_2, the proper force of δέ here, and is the same in sense as his “but as we know,” but clearer) that a man is not justified by (as the ground of justification: see Ellic.’s note on the sense of ἐκ) the works of the law (not ‘by works of law,’ or ‘on the score of duty done’ (Peile): this, though following as an inference, and a generalization of the axiom, was not in question here. ‘The works of the law,’ just as ‘the faith of Jesus Christ;’ the genitives in both cases being objective—the works which have the law (ceremonial and moral) for their object,—which are wrought to fulfil the law: Meyer compares ἁμαρτήματα νόμου, Wisd. 2:12,—faith which has Jesus Christ for its object,—which is reposed in or on Him. On δικαιόω, see note, Romans 1:17),—(supply, nor is any man justified, and see reff.) except by (as the medium of justification. Ellic. observes that two constructions seem to be mixed—οὐ δικ. ἄνθ. ἐξ ἔργ. ν., and οὐ δικ. ἄνθ. ἐὰν μὴ διὰ π. Ἰ. χ. ἐὰν μή in this elliptical construction is not elsewhere found: but εἰ μή repeatedly (reff.). The ἐάν seems to remove further off the hypothesis, which arises in the mind, of the two being united) the faith of (see above) Jesus Christ,—we also (as well as the Gentile sinners, q. d., casting aside our legal trust) believed (reff.) on Christ Jesus (notice Ἰησ. χρ. above, χρ. Ἰησ. here. This is not arbitrary. In the general proposition above, Ἰησ. χρ., as the name of Him on whom faith is to be exercised: here, when Jews receive Him as their Messiah, χρ. Ἰησ., as bringing that Messiahship into prominence. Perhaps, however, such considerations are but precarious. For example, in this case, the readings are in some confusion. It may be remarked, that the Codex Sinaiticus agrees throughout with our text) that we might be justified by (this time, faith is the ground) the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because (it is an axiom in our theology that) by the works of the law shall all flesh find no justification (Angl.: ‘shall no flesh be justified:’ our language not admitting of the logical form of the Greek: but by this transposition of the negative, the sense is not accurately rendered).

There is a difference between Commentators in the arrangement of the foregoing sentence. Meyer follows Lachmann in placing a period after χριστοῦ, and understanding ἐσμέν at Ἰουδ. or ἁμαρτωλοί. Beza, Hermann, Rückert, Usteri, Ellicott, al., begin a new sentence at εἰδότες δέ, also understanding ἐσμέν. But it seems much better, as above (with De W., al.), to carry on the sentence throughout. Meyer’s objection, that thus it would not represent the matter of fact, for Peter and Paul were not converted as εἰδότες κ.τ.λ., would apply equally to his own arrangement, for they were not converted ἵνα δικαιωθῶσιν κ.τ.λ.

17.] Continues the argument. But if, seeking (put first for emphasis—in the course of our earnest endeavour) to be justified in Christ (as the element—the Body, comprehending us the members. This is lost sight of by rendering ‘through Christ’), we ourselves also (you and I, addressed to Peter) were found to be sinners (as we should be, if we regarded the keeping of the law as necessary; for we should be just in the situation of those Gentiles who in the Judaistic view are ἁμαρτωλοί, faith having failed in obtaining righteousness for us, and we having cast aside the law which we were bound to keep) is therefore Christ the minister of sin (i.e. are we to admit the consequence which would in that case be inevitable, that Christ, having failed to obtain for his own the righteousness which is by faith, has left them sinners, and so has done all His work only to minister to a state of sin)?

Whether we read ἄρα or ἆρα matters little; either will express the meaning, but the latter more pungently than the former. The clause must be interrogative, as μὴ γένοιτο always follows a question in St. Paul; see reff.

Those who would take ἆρα for ἆρʼ οὐ (qu. can it ever be so taken, in spite of Matthiæ (Gr. Gr. § 641), Winer (comm. h. l., but not in Gr. Exo_6, § 57. 2, where he allows the translation given above), Monk (on Eur. Alcest. 353), and Porson (pref. to Hec. p. x)?) seem to me to miss altogether the fine irony of the question, which, as it stands, presupposes the ἆρʼ οὐ question already asked, the inevitable answer given, and now puts the result, ‘Can we believe, are we to hold henceforth, such a consequence?’ The same might be said of all the passages alleged by the above scholars in support of their view. Theodoret expresses well the argument: εἰ δὲ ὅτι τὸν νόμον καταλιπόντες τῷ χριστῷ προσεληλύθαμεν, διὰ τῆς ἐπʼ αὐτὸν πίστεως τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἀπολαύσασθαι προσδοκήσαντες, παράβασις τοῦτο νενόμισται, εἰς αὐτὸν ἡ αἰτία χωρήσει τὸν δεσπότην χριστόν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ἡμῖν τὴν καινὴν ὑπέδειξε διαθήκην· ἀλλὰ μὴ γένοιτο ταύτην ἡμᾶς τολμῆσαι τὴν βλασφημίαν.

18.] For (substantiates the μὴ γένοιτο, and otherwise deduces the ὑρέθημεν ἁμαρτωλοί) if the things which I pulled down, those very things (and no others) I again build up (which thou art doing, who in Cæsarea didst so plainly announce freedom from the law, and again here in Antioch didst practise it thyself. The first person is chosen clementiæ causa; the second would have placed Peter, where the first means that he should place himself), I am proving (reff.) myself a transgressor (παραβάτης is the species, bringing me under the genus ἁμαρτωλός. So that παραβ. ἐμ. συνιστ. is the explanation of ἁμαρτωλοὶ εὑρέθημεν). The force of the verse is,—‘You, by now reasserting the obligation of the law, are proving (quoad te) that your former step of setting aside the law was in fact a transgression of it:’ viz. in that you neglected and set it aside,—not, as Chrys., Thl., and Meyer (from ver. 19), because the law itself was leading you on to faith in Christ: for (1) that point is not yet raised, not belonging to this portion of the argument, and (2) by the hypothesis of this verse the ἐγώ has given up the faith in Christ, and so cannot be regarded as acknowledging it as the end of the law. See against this view, but to me not convincingly, Ellicott, Exo_2.

19.] For (the γάρ (agst Ellic.) retains, on our view of παραβάτης, its full exemplifying force) I (ἐγώ, for the first time expressed, is marked and emphatic. The first person of the last verse, serves as the transition point to treating, as he now does, of his own state and course. And this ἐγώ, as that in Rom_7, is purely and bona fide ‘I Paul;’ not ‘I and all believers’) by means of the law died to the law (Christ was the end of the law for righteousness: the law itself, properly apprehended by me, was my παιδαγωγός to Christ: and in Christ, who fulfilled the law, I died to the law: i.e. satisfied the law’s requirements, and passed out of its pale: the dative, as Ellic. remarks, is a sort of dativus commodi, as also in ζῆν θεῷ) that I should live to God (the end of Christ’s work, life unto God. ζήσω Isa_1 aor. subj. in subordination to the aor. preceding: not fut., as stated in former edd. [before 1865]. See Ellic.). Many of the Fathers (some as an alternative), Luther, Bengel, al., take the first νόμος here to mean the Gospel (the νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς of Romans 8:2); but it will be manifest to any who follow the argument, that this cannot be so. This διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον is in fact a compendium of his expanded experience in Rom_7: and also of his argument in ch. 3:4 below.

I am (‘and have been,’ perf.) crucified with Christ (specification of the foregoing ἀπέθανον: the way in which I died to the law was, by being united to, and involved in the death of, that Body of Christ which was crucified): but it is no longer I that live, but (it is) Christ that liveth in me (the punctuation—χρ. συνεσταύρωμαι, ζῶ δέ· οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμ. χρ.,—as in E. V., &c.—is altogether wrong, and would require ἀλλά before οὐκέτι. The construction is one not without example, where the emphatic word is repeated in two parallel clauses, each time with δέ. Thus Eur. Iph. Taur. 1367, φιλεῖς δὲ καὶ σὺ τὸν κασίγνητον, θεά· φιλεῖν δὲ κἀμὲ τοὺς ὁμαίμονας δόκει: Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 22, ἔνθα πολὺς μὲν οἶνος, πολλὰ δὲ σῦκα, πολὺ δὲ ἔλαιον, θάλαττα δὲ προσκλύζει. So that our second δέ is not sondern,—‘not I, but,’—but aber, as the first—q. d. ‘but the life is not mine,—but the life is Christ’s within me.’ Notice, not ὁ ἐν ἐμοὶ χρ.: Christ is the vine, we the branches: He lives, He, the same Christ, through and in every one of His believing people)—but (taken up again, parallel with ζῶ δὲ … ζῇ δέ) that which (i.e. ‘the life which,’ as E. V.) I now (since my conversion, as contrasted with the time before: not, as Rück., al., the present life contrasted with the future) live in the flesh (in the fleshly body;—which, though it appear to be a mere animal life, is not. So Luth.: “in carne quidem vivo, sed ego hanc vitam quantulacunque est, quæ in me agitur, non habeo pro vita. Non enim est vere vita, sed tantum larva vitæ, sub qua vivit alius, nempe Christus, qui est vere vita mea”) I live in (not ‘by,’ as E. V., Chr. (διὰ τὴν πίστιν), Œc., Thl., Thdrt. (διὰ τῆς πίστεως): ἐν π. corresponds to ἐν σαρκί: faith, and not the flesh, is the real element in which I live) faith, viz. that (the article particularizes, what sort of faith) of (having for its object, see on ver. 16) the Son of God (so named for solemnity, and because His eternal Sonship is the source of His life-giving power, cf. John 5:25, John 5:26) who loved me (the link, which binds the eternal Son of God to me) and (proved that love. in that He) gave Himself up (to death) for me (on my behalf).

21.] I do not (as thou (Peter) art doing, and the Judaizers) frustrate (reff.: not merely ‘despise,’ as Erasm., al.) the grace of God: for (justification of the strong expression ἀθετῶ) if by the law (comes) righteousness (not justification—but the result of justification), then Christ died without cause (not ‘in vain,’ with reference to the result of His death (for which meaning Lidd. and Scott’s Lex. refers to LXX: but it does not appear to occur in that sense), but gratuitously, causelessly (reff.);—‘Christ need not have died.’ εἰ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν ὁ χριστός, εὔδηλον ὅτι διὰ τὸ μὴ ἰσχύειν τὸν νόμον ἡμᾶς δικαιοῦν· εἰ δὲ ὁ νόμος δικαιοῖ, περιττὸς ὁ τοῦ χριστοῦ θάνατος. Chr.). οὕτω ταῦτα διεξελθὼν ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὸν τρισμακάριον (truly so in this case, in having found such a faithful reprover) Πέτρον διαλέξεως, πρὸς αὐτοὺς λοιπὸν ἀποτείνεται, κ. βαρυθυμῶν ἀποφθέγγεται. Thdrt.