Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:16
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
16. Am I therefore ] ‘So that I am become truth?’ The tone of the sentence is interrogative, rather than the form.
I tell you the truth ] The reference is probably to the second visit to Galatia, when the Judaizers had begun to sow seeds of error and discord among St Paul’s converts. He says ‘I tell’, not ‘I told’, because he has made no change in his teaching. Truth is ever one and the same.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Am I therefore become your enemy … – Is my telling you the truth in regard to the tendency of the doctrines which you have embraced, and the character of those who have led you astray, and your own error, a proof that I have ceased to be your friend? How apt are we to feel that the man who tells us of our faults is our enemy! How apt are we to treat him coldly, and to cut his acquaintance, and to regard him with dislike! The reason is, he gives us pain; and we cannot have pain given to us, even by the stone against which we stumble, or by any of the brute creation, without momentary indignation, or regarding them for a time as our enemies. Besides, we do not like to have another person acquainted with our faults and our follies; and we naturally avoid the society of those who are thus acquainted with us. Such is human nature; and it requires no little grace for us to overcome this. and to regard the man who tells us of our faults, or the faults of our families, as our friend.
We love to be flattered, and to have our friends flattered; and we shrink with pain from any exposure, or any necessity for repentance. Hence, we become alienated from him who is faithful in reproving us for our faults. Hence, people become offended with their ministers when they reprove them for their sins. Hence, they become offended at the truth. Hence, they resist the influences of the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to bring the truth to the heart, and to reprove men for their sins. There is nothing more difficult than to regard with steady and unwavering affection the man who faithfully tells us the truth at all times, when that truth is painful. Yet he is our best friend. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful, Pro 27:6. If I am in danger of falling down a precipice, he shows to me the purest friendship who tells me of it; if I am in danger of breathing the air of the pestilence, and it can be avoided, he shows to me pure kindness who tells me of it. So still more, if I am indulging in a course of conduct that may ruin me, or cherishing error that may endanger my salvation, he shows me the purest friendship who is most faithful in warning me, and apprising me of what must be the termination of my course.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. Am I therefore become your enemy] How is it that you are so much altered towards me, that you now treat me as an enemy, who formerly loved me with the most fervent affection? Is it because I tell you the truth; that very truth for which you at first so ardently loved me?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
What hath now altered your mind, or made you have a worse opinion of me? Wherein have I offended you or done you any harm? I have done nothing but revealed to you the truth of God; am I therefore become your enemy? Or do you account me your enemy on that account?
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. Translate, “Am I thenbecome your enemy (an enemy in your eyes) by telling you thetruth” (Gal 2:5; Gal 2:14)?He plainly did not incur their enmity at his first visit, andthe words here imply that he had since then, and beforehis now writing, incurred it: so that the occasion of his tellingthem the unwelcome truth, must have been at his second visit (Ac18:23, see my Introduction). Thefool and sinner hate a reprover. The righteous love faithful reproof(Psa 141:5; Pro 9:8).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Am I therefore become your enemy,…. Not that he was an enemy to them, he had the same cordial affection for them as ever; he had their true interest at heart, and was diligently pursuing it; but they, through the insinuations of the false teachers, had entertained an ill opinion of him, and an aversion to him, and treated him as if he had been an enemy to them, and as if they had a real hatred of him: and that for no other reason, as he observes, but
because I tell you the truth; the Gospel so called, because it comes from the God of truth, is concerned with Christ, who is truth itself, and is dictated, revealed, and blessed by the Spirit of truth; and is opposed unto, and is distinct from the law, which is only an image and shadow, and not truth itself: it chiefly respects the great truths of salvation alone by Christ, and justification by his righteousness; and may also regard what he had said concerning the abrogation of the law, blaming them for the observance of it, and calling its institutions weak and beggarly elements; all which he told or spoke publicly, plainly, honestly, fully, and faithfully, boldly, constantly, and with all assurance, consistently, and in pure love to their souls; and yet it brought on him their anger and resentment. Telling the truth in such a manner often brings many enemies to the ministers of Christ; not only the men of the world, profane sinners, but professors of religion, and sometimes such who once loved and admired them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Your enemy ( ). Active sense of , hater with objective genitive. They looked on Paul now as an enemy to them. So the Pharisees and Judaizers generally now regarded him.
Because I tell you the truth ( ). Present active participle of , old verb from , true. In N.T. only here and Eph 4:15. “Speaking the truth.” It is always a risky business to speak the truth, the whole truth. It may hit and hurt.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Therefore [] . Better, so then : seeing that your love for me has waned.
Your enemy [ ] . ‘Ecqrov enemy, in an active sense, as is shown by the next clause. Not passive, an object of hatred, which would have the pronoun in the dative.
Because I tell you the truth [ ] . ‘Alhqeuein, only here and Eph 4:15, means to speak the truth or to deal truly. The present participle refers to the same time as gegona I am become, the time of his second visit. The clause is usually construed as interrogative (A. V.). It is rather a direct statement with a slight interrogative suggestion. “So then, I am become your enemy, am I”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Am I therefore become your enemy,” (hoste echthros humon gegona) “So then have I become your enemy,” as one hostile toward you all, Gal 2:5; Gal 2:14. Paul was not Peter’s enemy nor was Nathan David’s enemy, when each of the former, reprimanded each of the latter for sin, 2Sa 12:1-14.
2) “Because I tell you the truth?” (aletheuon humin) “For speaking the truth to you ?” To flatter or hold back an unpalatable truth, is the mark of an enemy, not a friend, 2Th 3:14-15; Jas 4:4. True freedom from sin and slavery comes from friends, not enemies, Joh 8:32; Joh 8:36; Joh 14:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
16. Am I therefore become your enemy? He now returns to speak about himself. It was entirely their own fault, he says, that they had changed their minds. Though it is a common remark, that truth begets hatred, yet, except through the malice and wickedness of those who cannot endure to hear it, truth is never hateful. While he vindicates himself from any blame in the unhappy difference between them, he indirectly censures their ingratitude. Yet still his advice is friendly, not to reject, on rash or light grounds, the apostleship of one whom they had formerly considered to be worthy of their warmest love. What can be more unbecoming than that the hatred of truth should change enemies into friends? His aim then is, not so much to upbraid, as to move them to repentance.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
TEXT 4:1620
(16) So then am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth?
(17) They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them. (18) But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter at all times, and not only when I am present with you. (19) My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you(20) but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
PARAPHRASE 4:1620
16 So that, after all these expressions of affection and gratitude to me your spiritual father, ye think I am become your enemy now, when I inculcate the true doctrine of the gospel on you, and exhort you to adhere to it!
17 The teachers who have seduced you, pretend that they love you ardently; but they do not love you honourably; for they wish to exclude me, your spiritual father, from your affection, that ye may love them ardently, as the only faithful teachers of the gospel.
18 But ye should consider, that it is comely and commendable for you to be ardently in love with me, a good man, at all times, and not merely when I am present with you.
19 My beloved children in Christ, for whom I a second time travail in birth, till the knowledge, and temper, and virtues of Christ, be formed in you.
20 I could wish, indeed, to be present with you now, that I might suit my speech to your case; for I am altogether uncertain concerning you, how ye stand affected towards me; and feel the greatest anxiety on that account.
COMMENT 4:16
So then am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth
1.
Truth should make people friends, not enemies.
a.
Truth made you love me at the first.
b.
Will truth now do otherwise?
2.
False teachers always cause breaks in fellowship, yet denominationalism is honored in our religious society today.
COMMENT 4:17
They zealously seek you in no good way
(translatedthey zealously affect you, but not well)
1.
They had been soft-soaped.
a.
Satans methods are clever: by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent.
Rom. 16:18
b.
Zeal is not always backed with highest motives.
c.
Some of the cruelest acts in history were done by sincere, zealous people, so zeal is not a criterion of truth.
2.
It was a very selfish zeal.
they desire to shut you out that ye may seek them
1.
They would exclude you, that ye might affect them.
2.
They count youfor no good motive, but they would estrange you, that you may court them. Dovay
they
1.
Enemies of Paul and the Gospel are referred to.
2.
False teachers were at work and Paul wanted them designated.
shut you out
1.
They would estrange you, or separate you from the gospel and from Paul.
2.
When separated from Paul, the Galatians would then turn to the Judaizers for guidance.
3.
At Antioch the Jews shut the Gentiles out of their fellowship. Gal. 2:13
COMMENT 4:18
it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter
1.
Paul of course in his absence is seeking them in a good matter.
2.
The Catholic version differs here Court the good from a good motive.
COMMENT 4:19
My little Children of whom I am again in travail
1.
Paul expressed himself kindly here. Cf. 1Th. 2:7; 1Th. 2:11
a.
His childrenrefers to converts of his preaching.
b.
In Christ Jesus I begat you through the Gospel. 1Co. 4:15
2.
Travail seems to mean great anxiety.
till Christ be formed
1.
They had lost Christ, their spiritual standing, freedom, and inheritance.
a.
This sounds like fallen from grace not once in grace always in grace.
b.
Formedwrought into the image of Christ.
2.
Paul does not want to make merchandise of them; he is only concerned with their spiritual welfare.
COMMENT 4:20
but I could wish to be present with you now
1.
This would help to counteract the presence of the false teachers.
a.
He could travail in person.
b.
He could speak in a new way. Cf. 1Co. 14:10 and Heb. 12:26
2.
Would he speak in pleading tones, rebuking tones or would he speak with the tongue of an angel (1Co. 13:1) to persuade them of the truth?
and to change my tone
1.
Something is lacking in a written word.
a.
He could change his voice according to their attitude.
b.
He could speak more earnestly or tenderly, whatever the need might be.
2.
He would change if it would help to challenge their thinking.
for I am perplexed about you
1.
It is a marvel that they could be removed.
2.
Pauls faith in human nature was disturbed.
3.
Perplexed as a parent who knows not what to do with a wayward child.
STUDY QUESTIONS 4:1620
505.
Do we make enemies by telling the truth?
506.
What had truth done for them at first?
507.
Is Paul reminding them that they ought not to be his enemies if he points out error in their life?
508.
Can you be true and yet condemn error?
509.
Had the false teaching been given casually?
510.
Is zeal always the highest motive?
511.
Can we trust zeal as a criterion of truth?
512.
Explain shut you out.
513.
Of what would they be out?
514.
Who is referred to by the word they?
515.
Were they estranged from Paul? and therefore felt the need to turn to false teachers?
516.
Is Paul zealously seeking them?
517.
Does he mean that in his absence he is as zealous as when present?
518.
Could he mean that they should zealously seek the truth of his letter?
519.
How does Paul feel toward them in this verse?
520.
In what way was he justified in calling them his children?
521.
If Christ needed to be formed in them, were they in an extremely evil condition?
522.
What did Paul mean by changing his tone, has he outdone it already?
523.
Are there advantages in face to face discussions?
524.
Is he confessing that their awful condition is one that requires great wisdom to handle?
525.
Do we find human nature perplexing too?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(16) Your enemy.The enemy was the name by which St. Paul was commonly referred to by the party hostile to him in the next century. It is quite possible that the phrase your enemy ought to be placed, as it wore, in inverted commas, and attributed to the Judaising sectariesyour enemy, as these false teachers call me.
Because I tell you the truth.It would seem that something had happened upon St. Pauls second visit to Galatia (the visit recorded in Act. 18:23) which had caused a change in their feelings towards him. His plain speaking had given offence.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Therefore enemy Is it inferable from the immense change on your part?
The truth For telling them the truth is he who was once their angel now their enemy? The change was neither in the truth nor its apostle, but in themselves. So is it with backsliders and apostates; the truth and its minister they once loved they often now dread and hate.
When was it that he so spoke the truth as to incur this enmity? Not at his first visit, commentators reply, for then he was as an angel to them. Nor in this letter, for they have not as yet read it. Therefore, at his second visit.
Act 18:23, it is said. Nevertheless he told them no new truth at that second visit. The very reason why he is now deemed their enemy is, because he is the fixed representative of the same unchanging truth, at his first visit, his second, and in this epistle.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘So then am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?’
What then is their response now that he is speaking stern but true words in order to try to put them right. Will they treat him as an enemy? Or will they remember the reasons for their welcome, and the blessedness they enjoyed while he was there?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gal 4:16 . ] Accordingly; the actual state of things which, to judge from the cooling down which that painful question ( 😉 bewails in the self-sacrificing love depicted in Gal 4:14-15 , must have superseded this love, and must now subsist. [198] The words contain a profoundly melancholy exclamation: “Accordingly, that is my position; I am become your enemy!” etc. So great a change has the relation, previously so rich and happy in confidence and love, experienced by the fact that it is my business to speak the truth to you (mark the present participle ). This conduct which I pursue towards you, instead of confirming your inclination towards me and confidence in me, has taken them away; I have become your enemy! To place (with Matthias) a note of interrogation after , and then to take . as an exclamation (an enemy, who tells you the truth! ), breaks up the passage without adequate ground. Utterly groundless, illogical, and unprecedented (for the of an inferential sentence always follows the sentence which governs it) is the inversion forced upon the apostle by Hofmann, who makes out that . . . is dependent on : “ so that I am now your enemy, if I tell you truth, they court you; ” it is the result of these courtings, that, when the apostle agreeably to the truth tells his converts (as in Gal 1:8 f.) what is to be thought about the teaching of his opponents (?), he thereby comes to stand as their enemy. In this interpretation the special reference of is purely gratuitous. To explain the consecutivum with the indicative the simple rule is quite sufficient, that it is used de re facta ; and the emphasis of the relation which it introduces lies in its betokening the quality of the preceding, to which the consecutivum refers. Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph . II. p. 1012: “Rem qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit.” Hofmann increases the arbitrary character of his artificial exposition by subsequently, in Gal 4:17 , separating from , and looking upon these words as an opinion placed alongside of . . ., respecting this mode of courting. His interpretation thus presents at once a violent combination and a violent separation.
] The context permits either the passive sense: hated by you (de Wette, Windischmann, and older expositors), or the active: your enemy (Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, and many others; also Rckert, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann); the latter, however, so taken that . is said in accordance with the (altered) opinion of the readers . This active interpretation is to be preferred, because the usage among Greek authors (and throughout in the N.T. also) in respect to the substantive with the genitive is decisive in its favour (Dem. 439. 19. 1121. 12; Xen. Anab . iii. 2. 5, de venat . 13. 12; Soph. Aj . 554). From the time of Homer, means hated only with the dative (Xen. Cyrop . v. 4. 50; Dem. 241. 12. 245. 16; Lucian, Sacrif . 1; Herodian. iii. 10. 6), which either stands beside it or is to be mentally supplied (Rom 5:10 ; Rom 11:28 ; Col 1:21 ).
] To what time does this change ( having become ), which by the perfect is marked as continuing , refer? It did not occur in consequence of the present epistle (Jerome, Luther, Koppe, Flatt, and others), for the Galatians had not as yet read it; nor at the first visit , for he had then experienced nothing but abundant love. It must therefore have taken place at the second visit (Act 18:23 ), when Paul found the Galatian churches already inclined to Judaism, and in conformity with the truth could no longer praise them (for only , Plat. Pol . ix. p. 589 C), but was compelled to blame their aberrations.
] For “ veritas odium parit ” (Terent. Andr . i. 1. 40), and (Lucian, Abdic . 7). As to , to speak the truth , see on Eph 4:15 .
[198] cannot specify a reason , as Wieseler thinks, who, anticipating ver. 17, explains: “For no other reason than because ye pronounced yourselves so happy on my account , am I ( according to the representation of the false teachers ) become your enemy,” etc. Wieseler therefore takes , as if it had been .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Ver. 16. Am I therefore become, &c. ] Truth breeds hatred, as the fair nymphs did the ugly fauns a and satyrs. The hearing of truth galls, as they write of some creatures, that they have fel in aure, gall in their ears. It was not for nothing therefore that the orator called upon his countrymen to get their ears healed before they came any more to hear him. To preach, saith Luther, is nothing else but to derive upon a man’s self the rage of all the country. And therefore when one defined the ministerial function to be Artem artium et scientiam scientiarum, the art of arts and science of sciences, Melancthon said, If he had defined it to be miseriam miseriatom, the misery of miseries, he had hit it.
Because I tell you the truth? ] He that prizeth truth (saith Sir Walter Raleigh) shall never prosper by the possession or profession thereof. An expectus, ut Quintilianus ametur? When we seek to fetch men out of their sins, they are apt to fret and snarl; like men when wakened out of their sleep, they are unquiet, ready to brawl with their best friend.
a One of a class of rural deities; at first represented like men with horns and the tail of a goat, afterwards with goats’ legs like the Satyrs, to whom they were assimilated in lustful character. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16 .] So that (as things now stand; an inference derived from the contrast between their former love and their present dislike of him. See Klotz, Devar. ii. 776) have I become your enemy (‘hated by you;’ . in passive sense: or perhaps it may be active, as Ellic.) by speaking the truth (see Eph 4:15 note) to you? When did he thus incur their enmity by speaking the truth? Not at his first visit , from the whole tenor of this passage: nor in this letter , as some think (Jer., Luther, al.), which they had not yet read ; but at his second visit , see Act 18:23 , when he probably found the mischief beginning, and spoke plainly against it. Cf. similar expressions in Wetst.: especially ‘obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit,’ Ter. Andr. i. 1. 40: , Lucian, Abdic. 7.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 4:16 . is often used in the sense of therefore to introduce an imperative or an affirmative conclusion in the Epistles of Paul, but not an interrogation. I can see no reason here for making the clause interrogative: the rendering I am therefore become an enemy to you is quite in harmony with the context, which assumes the existence of some actual estrangement. This estrangement is attributed to plain speaking which had given offence to the disciples. As he had seen no trace of coldness at the time of his recent visit, he must be referring to some language which he had used on that occasion. Circumstances forced him to take up strong ground at that time on the subject of circumcision and to denounce the opposition and intrigues which he had encountered from the Pharisaic party.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
because, &c. = dealing truly with. Greek. aletheuv, Here and Eph 4:15. Compare App-175.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] So that (as things now stand; an inference derived from the contrast between their former love and their present dislike of him. See Klotz, Devar. ii. 776) have I become your enemy (hated by you;-. in passive sense: or perhaps it may be active, as Ellic.) by speaking the truth (see Eph 4:15 note) to you? When did he thus incur their enmity by speaking the truth? Not at his first visit, from the whole tenor of this passage: nor in this letter, as some think (Jer., Luther, al.), which they had not yet read; but at his second visit, see Act 18:23, when he probably found the mischief beginning, and spoke plainly against it. Cf. similar expressions in Wetst.: especially obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit, Ter. Andr. i. 1. 40: , Lucian, Abdic. 7.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 4:16. , an enemy) He, who speaks the truth, is a friend, and truth ought not to produce hatred against him in your minds.-, speaking the truth) preaching the pure [unmixed] truth, even apart from my former temptation.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 4:16
Gal 4:16
So then am I become your enemy,-He had told them the truth in reference to their determination to turn to the Jewish law, and they had become offended, and had manifested feeling against him.
by telling you the truth?-Truth alone can help man. It is sometimes disagreeable, contrary to his feelings and wishes. It is nonetheless good for him because disagreeable, but he is very prone to regard him who tells him disagreeable truths as any enemy. He who tells one the truth ought to do it in a kind manner, but we should regard him who tells us the truth as a friend because truth alone can benefit man.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
become: Gal 3:1-4, 1Ki 18:17, 1Ki 18:18, 1Ki 21:20, 1Ki 22:8, 1Ki 22:27, 2Ch 24:20-22, 2Ch 25:16, Psa 141:5, Pro 9:8, Joh 7:7, Joh 8:45
because: Gal 2:5, Gal 2:14, Gal 5:7
Reciprocal: Num 12:1 – Miriam 1Sa 19:17 – mine enemy 2Ch 18:7 – I hate him Isa 30:10 – speak Jer 37:18 – General Luk 19:35 – they cast Joh 5:35 – and ye Joh 8:40 – now Act 20:27 – I have 2Ti 4:3 – they will
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 4:16. ;-So then, have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? By an interrogative inference is made-so then, or as matters now are. Ergo is so used in the Latin versions. Plato, Phaedrus, 231, B; Klotz-Devarius, vol. 2.776. Meyer connects directly with , but the connection is better taken with the entire verse or paragraph-not a direct conclusion, as the result of the previous statement. The term is taken in a passive sense by Estius, Koppe, Rosenmller, Trana, and Meyer in his second edition. The context agrees with such a sense. Their feeling toward him had been that of extreme kindness and indulgence, and he might ask, Have I, who once was the object of your intense affection, become the object of your hatred? the two states being brought into distinct contrast. The genitive is probably used because is a virtual substantive-Am I become the hated of you? But we prefer the active sense, with many of the ancient versions, and with Bengel, Beza, Grotius, Rckert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, and Ellicott. Such is the prevailing meaning of the word, adjective and substantive, in the New Testament; and it is followed here, as usually, by the genitive of person (Sophocles, Ajax, 500; Demosthenes, de Legat. 439, 19, p. 279, vol. i. Opera, ed. Schaefer), whereas in the passive sense it takes the dative. The perfect expresses the change as over, and as resulting in a permanent state-Am I become your enemy? Nor is this meaning out of harmony with the context. There had been mutual ascriptions of blessedness because they enjoyed the labours of such a benefactor. Have I then, from being esteemed and welcomed as your best benefactor, come to be regarded as your enemy? There is no ground for Olshausen’s supplement, and can those be your friends? as there is no expressed. At a later period, as we have seen, the Judaizers called him . Clement. Hom. p. 4, ed. Dressel. The participle has a causal force-because I tell the truth to you; the use of the present not confining it to the moment of writing; nor is it because I have told you the truth, though the idea of the past is not excluded. The state is expressed in its whole duration. Winer, 40, 2, c, 45, 1; Schmalfeld, pp. 91, 92, 405; Act 19:24; 1Pe 3:5. The participle probably means simply speaking the truth-referring to oral address, and not to upright conduct. Matthias, as his wont is, would alter the punctuation, and connect with the next verse.
To what period, then, does the apostle refer? Not (1) to the letter he is writing, as he could not know of its result, though this is the view of Jerome, Luther, Koppe, and others;-nor (2) to his first visit, for they received him then as an angel, nay, as Christ Jesus Himself; nor then could the Judaizing teachers have had any scope for labour. Some time had elapsed before they made their appearance, as is implied in Gal 3:2-5, and expressly stated in Gal 5:7 : Ye did run well. So that (3) the probability is that he refers to what took place on his second visit, when the evil was fermenting which speedily developed into such pernicious results. That the speaking of unwelcome truth creates enmity has passed into a proverb. Terent. Andr. 1.1, 40. While the apostle could go far in the way of accommodation to prejudice, and in matters indifferent, he would on no account sacrifice any element of truth. Whatever on any pretence or to any degree endangered truth met at once from him with vehement and persistent opposition, no matter what hostility, misapprehension, or prejudice his fidelity might create against himself. The truth was Christ’s, and he dares not compromise it; himself was Christ’s, and in Christ’s spirit he endures all things for the elect’s sake. And as the truth endangered in Galatia was truth alike precious and prominent in the gospel-truth resting on the perfection of Christ’s work, and involving the freeness of His salvation-it must be upheld at all hazards. Still the apostle must have keenly felt this revulsion of sentiment toward himself; for his was not an impassible nature, with nerves that never tingled and a surface that no weapon could pierce. On the contrary, with a woman’s tenderness, his sympathies were acute, profound, and ever active: Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? Had the change of feeling toward him been only characteristic caprice, he would have cared less; but it involved a departure from the gospel which he had proclaimed, and which was divine alike in origin, substance, and results.
Note on Pauls Infirmity in the Flesh-The Thorn in the Flesh.
Gal 4:13-15. , , . ; -Ye know how, on account of infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And your temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor loathed; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. What then was the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to me.
2Co 12:7. , , , -And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
According to one probable hypothesis, the Epistle to the Galatians and the second Epistle to the Corinthians were written about the same period, and it is a natural conclusion that the reference in the two preceding paragraphs is to the same sharp distressing visitation. But surmises as to the nature of the malady so referred to in both epistles in these strong and significant terms, have been numerous and conflicting. Plainly it was no merely inner disease, the effects or concomitants of which were either not visible, or, if perceptible, affected no one with disgust-. But it was an infirmity which could not be concealed, which obtruded itself on all with whom the apostle came into contact, and was so revolting in its nature as to excite nausea in spectators, and tempt them to reject his preaching. The apostle does not disguise its tendency, though he does not unfold its nature or give it any specific name. The Galatians knew it so well that the merest allusion was sufficient for them. Their perfect knowledge of it is thus the cause of our ignorance of it. But there are allusions to some sickness or other peculiar malady in other portions of the second Epistle to the Corinthians so striking and peculiar, that there is every probability of their identity with this . Thus 2Co 1:8-10 -For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead; who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we trust that He will yet deliver us. These remarkable words have been referred by many, as Neander and Wieseler, to the tumult at Ephesus, as told in Acts 19. The objection, that Paul would have written in Ephesus, and not vaguely in Asia, if he had alluded to that city, is without real force, though he generally so names it, as in the first epistle, 1Co 15:32; 1Co 16:8. But the life of the apostle does not seem to have been in peril at Ephesus; the tumult was stupid and aimless, and did not last long; and if he had been martyred, it would have been in the sudden confusion and excitement. Hours of dreadful anticipation would in that case have been spared him. Nay, so far as the record tells, it could not be said of him, that during the riot he was in anguish or felt himself in danger. But in the verses quoted he speaks of being weighed down beyond strength, so that we despaired even of life. These terms certainly are inapplicable to such a sudden or momentary terror as the swift gathering of a mob might produce; they rather describe the result of sore personal sickness, so long, heavy, oppressive, and continuous, that we utterly despaired even of life. That sickness was in itself grievous, and on this account , beyond our power of endurance. The visitation so characterized must have a load of unwonted pressure, for the apostle is of all men least prone to exaggerate in personal matters. To despair even of life, implies a period of suffering so tedious and heavy that it gradually extinguished all hope of recovery. The expression, to have the sentence of death in ourselves, inclines us again to the same view: the malady was felt to be a deadly one; the prospect of restoration to health was so wholly gone, that his trust was not in God for it, but for a blessed resurrection – in God which raiseth the dead; and his unexpected recovery was signally due to Him who rescued us from so great a death. Such is a probable meaning of the paragraph. In Gal 4:4 the apostle speaks generally of tribulations, and, viewed in a special aspect, they are called the sufferings of Christ, as He still endures them in His members. But in Gal 4:8 he passes from the general reference to a specific instance, which indeed might be aggravated by surrounding persecution, and by his deepening anxiety for the welfare of the churches-affliction, anguish of heart, and many tears, 2Co 2:4. In 2Co 10:10 the apostle quotes a bitter criticism of his opponents on himself and his writings, in which occurs the phrase, -a sentence referring not to stature or physical constitution, but to the impressions of frailty and sickness which his appearance indicated. Nay, he had said to the same church, 1Co 2:3, I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling: the weakness was probably physical weakness, nervous susceptibility increased by his intense anxiety as to the results of his preaching. He could not indeed be what Jowett calls him, a poor decrepid being afflicted with palsy; for surely in such a case he could not have done the work which so few could have done, or borne the trials which so few could have faced. One may remark, too, the specialty of emphasis in the phrase, Luke the beloved physician, as if he had endeared himself to the apostle, who stood in need so often of his medical sympathy and skill. He might not be unlike what Luther calls him, ein armes drres Mannlein wie Magister Philippus (Melancthon); for there is throughout his epistles a deep current of allusion to weakness, to mental depression, to nervous apprehension, to hindrances in his labours which distressed him, and a consequent sense of humiliation which always chastened him. These were mortifying drawbacks to his eagerness and success.
Still farther, there is a very strong probability that in the apostle’s malady there was some prominent characteristic, to which passing allusions are thus made, and of which a more formal account is given by himself in 2Co 12:1. Even there the result is dwelt upon, but the nature of the infliction is not clearly described. He had been describing many of his outer sufferings, and the last of them, referred to so solemnly and under an adjuration, must have made an indelible impression on him-the kind of ignominy and humiliation attaching to his undignified mode of escape from Damascus-through a window, in a basket was I let down by the wall. He almost shrinks from telling the adventure: such is its nature that he is afraid that his sober statement may not be credited, and therefore it is prefaced, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. Perhaps, however, these words belong to the previous catalogue of sufferings, or they form a preface to some other statements, which after all have been withheld. He then comes at length to his inner experiences, connected with his highest glory and with his deepest and most trying weaknesses. In these infirmities would he glory, as they were either coincident with or resulted from the noblest privilege which he had enjoyed. He proposes to give them-for he was forced to it-a specimen of his glories and his infirmities, his enjoyments of visions and revelations-those states of spiritual ecstasy in which, with a partial or total cessation of self-consciousness, he was brought into immediate communing with the Master, beheld His glory, and listened to His voice; in which truth in its beauty and power was flashed upon him, and glimpses into the glories and mysteries of the spiritual world were suddenly vouchsafed to him. Both forms of ecstasy combined (for the vision included the revelation) had already been enjoyed by him. The person of Christ was usually the object of the vision, and the disclosure of His will the theme of the revelation. And the amazing incident is told by him as of a third person while he unfolds the exalted and perilous honour, but he resumes the first person when he comes to speak of the resulting infirmity. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years before, whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not, God knoweth,-(I know) such an one snatched up as far as the third heaven. And I know such a man, whether in the body or without the body I cannot tell, God knoweth, that was caught up to paradise, and heard unutterable utterances, which it is not lawful for a man to speak. This repetition with a difference refers apparently to two raptures; and we may almost infer from the construction, broken and resumed, asserted and repeated, that the remembrance of the indescribable glory, and his untraceable translation into it, produced a momentary maze or mental bewilderment like that which preceded or followed the mysterious ascensions. The third heaven is evidently the highest heaven-it was no common honour; and paradise may not be a distinct, loftier, or remoter region, but perhaps a portion of the same glorious abode. Probably, as this name was given to the garden of Eden, the scene of original innocence, it was transferred to that peculiar sphere of the third heaven where human spirits are gathered together in restored purity and felicity, in the immediate presence of God on His throne-that paradise where the Saviour unveils His glory, and admission into which He promised to the penitent thief on the cross. That the apostle saw the divine essence is maintained by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas; but what he saw he tells not, what he heard could not be disclosed. If we were even allowed to repeat the songs and voices, still language would be wholly inadequate as a vehicle, for words want power to bear on them a description of the far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. But how he reached the third heaven he knew not, only it was under a swift and sudden spell-he was snatched away, and by no self-analysis could he unravel the psychological mystery. So contrary was it to all experience, so little was he under the guidance of ordinary consciousness, and of the common influences of space and time, that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body. Yet he speaks of himself as a man caught up, of passing from one region to another, and of hearing words. His whole inner nature was under the influence of the divine charm, in whatever way it was effected, though hearing in the ordinary sense implies organs of sensation. Of such a one will I glory-one so strangely honoured as to be for a season among the blessed in their exalted sphere,-of such an one so singled out would he glory, but he would not glory of himself; not denying the identity of such an one with himself, but drawing probably this distinction, that in enjoying the translation he was not himself, but in some way beyond himself. Still he would boast of his infirmities, for these were himself, elements of continuous consciousness, struggle, and depression. Nay more, if he did glory, he should not be a fool; for in referring to visions and revelations he was only speaking the truth without exaggeration; but he forbears, for this reason, that he does not wish to be judged by such an abnormal standard-this enjoyment of ecstasies which they could not comprehend. He would not be the object of any idolatrous veneration because access had been given to the light inaccessible; but he would be judged by the common criterion-what they saw him to be, what they heard of him, that is, by their own experience of him, in his daily life, and by his work which was ever patent and palpable to them. He would glory in his infirmities; and he adds, And for this purpose, that through the excessive abundance of the revelations I might not be unduly exalted, there was given unto me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, that he may buffet me, that I might not be unduly exalted. The language implies that the was produced by the excess of the revelations, or it was so connected with them in time and circumstance that it was felt to have resulted from their excess- ,-they were so many and so grand, that while the spirit might enjoy them, the flesh was so weak that it was worn out by them. This conscious link between the thorn and the revelation was the appointed means of keeping the apostle humble: what he had enjoyed might have elated him, but it had a sting left behind it which ever abased and tortured him. That the visitation had wrought out its purpose is apparent from many allusions, and from this late record of his unprecedented honours, for he does not seem to have told them before. The words imply that there might have been undue elation, but that it was most surely prevented. It may be added that Lucian sneers at the apostle’s rapture, calling him , , , Philopat. 12, p. 249, Opera, vol. ix. Bipont. The visions are also mocked in the Clementines, 17.19.
The term occurs only here in the New Testament, and originally signifies a pointed stake, defined by Hesychius , for fixing heads on; as in Homer, Il. 18.177, . . . ,-or for impaling a person, Eurip. Bacchae, 983; , Iph. in Taur. 1431. Lucian calls Jesus , De Morte Peregrini, 12, p. 279, vol. viii. Bipont. In the Septuagint it seems to be employed to denote a sharp-pointed stake, but one not so large as that a head could be set on it or a body impaled on it-a stake in miniature, virtually a thorn: , thorns in your eyes, Num 33:55; similarly Eze 28:24, and in Hos 2:6, where it represents the Hebrew , spina. , Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 3.33, p. 280, vol. i. Opera, ed. Reiff. The Syriac renders by , a thorn in my flesh. It is therefore extreme in Dean Stanley to take the image as that of impaling or crucifying, or at all analogous to the phrase, I am crucified with Christ. Impalement would scarcely be a congruous image for physical suffering in one who travelled and laboured like the apostle. The references to crucifixion and its agonies are of a different nature. But he might bear about a sharp-pointed stake in his flesh which no power could extract, and which was producing a rankling festering wound and torture. Now the here appears to be parallel to the of Gal 4:13 -something which had its origin in those superabundant revelations, which vexed and humiliated the apostle, and was of a nature so visibly painful, and withal so offensive, that it became a trial to spectators and listeners. The thorn was given him by God, and was also an angel of Satan that he may buffet me-the last clause describing the action not of the thorn, but of the angel of Satan. It is a superficial and unbiblical supposition of Turner, that this clause may have no more real meaning in it than the popular expressions, St. Vitus’ dance or St. Anthony’s fire, in which there is not the least idea of supernatural agency. Scripture does not so sport with the awful names and agencies of the fallen spirit-world. The devil and his angels is a phrase found in Mat 25:41. The thorn was employed by this evil spirit as a means of buffeting him. That he might be humble was God’s purpose; that he might be humiliated was the purpose of Satan’s angel,-that is, brought into contempt, and restrained in his work, his influence lessened, and himself harassed and agonized. May not this help to explain the allusion in 1Th 2:18, We would have come unto you, but Satan hindered us? This buffeting might produce nervous tremors, apprehensions, and a chronic lowness of spirits. Amid all his enthusiasm and chivalry, he needed frequent comfort and assurance; so that we find the voice saying to him at Corinth, Be not afraid; in his confinement in Jerusalem, Be of good cheer; and during the voyage to Rome, Fear not. Act 18:9; Act 23:11; Act 27:24. Another result in such circumstances might be, that strong craving for human sympathy which is often manifested by him. See Howson, Lectures on St. Paul, p. 72, 2d edition.
It is difficult to say at what period these revelations were given. It was fourteen years before he wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians. The period could not therefore be that of his conversion, as is thought by Damasus, Thomas Aquinas, OEder, Keil, and Reiche, for considerably more than fourteen years must have elapsed since that turning-point in his life. Others identify the rapture with the trance in the temple, and the vision and commission connected with it, which himself describes in Act 22:17-20, as Spanheim, Lightfoot, Rinck, Schrader, Osiander, Wieseler. If this vision took place at his first visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, the dates are more in harmony, though the chronology of the apostle’s life is very uncertain. The year of his conversion cannot be definitely fixed, opinions varying from the years 33 to 42 A.D. But if it happened, as there is strong probability for believing, in the end of 37 or in 38, and the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians was written in 57 or 58, then the three years after of Gal 1:18, the date of his first visit to Jerusalem, would be in 40 or 41-more than fourteen years before this allusion in 2Co 12:2. There are other ways, however, of manipulating these dates: Wieseler, for example, places the conversion in the year 40. Still, though on such a computation the dates might thus be brought to correspond, the two accounts are by no means in unison; for the apostle utters what he saw in the temple, and recounts also what he heard. Wieseler argues, indeed, that as the description of the rapture follows close on the reference to the escape from Damascus, its date must naturally be assigned to the first visit to Jerusalem: Gal 1:18. But, as Meyer remarks, the apostle in the beginning of 2 Corinthians 12 goes on to tell something distinctly new, and quite different from the incidents of previous rehearsal. Wieseler also labours hard to prove against Ebrard and Meyer, that the are not things impossible, but only unlawful for a man to utter: die nicht gesagt werden drfen,-quae non licet homini loqui. But is a phrase not to be identified with , Rom 8:26, for those groanings are often inarticulate suspiria de profundis. Nor does this interpretation much help him; for certainly the apostle felt at liberty to record what was said to him in the temple ecstasy, though it is possible that some other portion of that revelation may come under the category of unutterable utterances. At all events, the two accounts do not present any palpable data for their identification; so that the period and place of the visions and revelations are unmarked as an epoch in the history of the Acts of the Apostles. He did not so glory in the honour as to be often alluding to it; it had left him a broken and shattered man.
We can only form an inferential judgment as to the nature of this stake in the flesh, and can more easily assert what it was not than define what it really was. But-
I. The reference in Galatians cannot be to the carnal style of his preaching, the first of four interpretations given by Jerome-Quasi parvulis vobis atque lactentibus per infirmitatem carnis vestrae jam pridem evangelizavi . . . apud vos pene balbutiens. This notion is wholly unwarranted by the pointed words.
II. Nor can the thorn be anything external to him, such as persecution, or any form of fierce and malignant opposition on the part of enemies, or of one singled out as , like Alexander the coppersmith, or Hymenaeus, or Philetus, who are instanced by Chrysostom. Thus Chrysostom explains my temptation in the flesh: While I preached unto you, I was driven about, I was scourged, I suffered a thousand deaths, yet ye thought no scorn of me. Similarly Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, OEcumenius, Theophylact, Ambrosiast.; and also Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche, Schrader, Hammond, Reiche. Augustine, on the verse in Galatians, says, Neque respuistis, ut non susciperetis communionem periculi mei. It was very natural in those days, when the gospel everywhere encountered fanatical opposition and numbered its martyrs by hundreds, to suppose that the eager apostle, so often thwarted and maligned, so often suffering and maltreated, summed up all elements of antagonism into the figure of a thorn in the flesh, and personified them as a messenger of Satan buffeting him. The Canaanites, the ancient and irritating enemies of the chosen, are called thorns. But this opinion is baseless. For, 1. His weakness is identified with himself: it clung to him, and he could not part with it; it was a stake in his flesh. But he might occasionally avoid persecution, as when he escaped from Damascus and when he left Ephesus. 2. Such persecution could not load him with a sense of humiliation in presence of others, or produce that loathing to which he refers. 3. These persecutions, whether from Judaizers or other foes, were so bound up with his work, that he could scarcely seek in this special and conclusive form to be delivered from them, Gal 4:8-10.
III. A third theory refers the thorn to some inner temptation which fretted and distracted him. And,
1. Some describe those trials as temptations to unbelief, the stirring up of remaining sin, or as pangs of sorrow on account of his own past persecuting life. So generally Gerson, Luther, Calvin, Osiander, Calovius. Gerson describes it as consisting de horrendis cogitationibus per solam suggestionem inimici phantasiam turbantis obtingentibus. Luther supposed them to be blasphemous suggestions of the devil, as if they had been a parallel to his past experience and conflicts. Calvin says, more distinctly, Ego sub hoc vocabulo comprehendi arbitror omne genus tentationis quo Paulus exercebatur. Nam caro hic, meo judicio, non corpus, sed partem animae nondum regeneratam significat. Now no statement of such a nature occurs in any other part of the apostle’s letters; and though the second descriptive clause, a messenger of Satan, may correspond so far with the hypothesis, the first phrase, thorn in the flesh, indicates something not in his mind, but acting from without or from his physical organism upon it. And it is called – .
2. Not a few, perhaps led by the stimulus carnis of the Vulgate, take the phrase to mean temptation to incontinence. It is not to be wondered at that such should be the opinion of celibates and of monks who fled from the world and from duty, but felt to their vexation that they could not flee from themselves. There seems to have been an early impulse to this view. Augustine’s words tend in that direction-accepit stimulum carnis. Quis nostrum hoc dicere auderet, nisi ille confiteri non erubesceret?-Enarrat. in Psalms 58 p. 816, vol. v. Opera, Gaume. Jerome, too, says: Si apostolus . . . ob carnis aculeos et incentiva vitiorum reprimit corpus suum.-Epist. ad Eustoch. p. 91, vol. i. Opera, ed. Vallars. Primasius gives it as an alternative, alii dicunt titillatione carnis stimulatum. Gregory the Great describes the apostle after his rapture thus: Ad semetipsum rediens contra carnis bellum laborat.-Moral. lib. viii. c. 29, p. 832, vol. i. Opera, ed. Migne. In mediaeval times this was the current opinion, as of Salvian, Thomas Aquinas, Bede, Lyra, Bellarmine, and the Catholic Estius, a Lapide, and Bisping. Cardinal Hugo condescended to the time of the temptation, viz. after the apostle’s intercourse with the charming Thecla, as related in the legendary Acts. Zeschius de stimulo carnis, in the Sylloge Dissertationum of Hasaeus and Ikenius, vol. 2.895. See Acta Apost. Apocrypha, Tischendorf’s edition, p. 40. Thecla’s heathen mother complains of her as wholly absorbed in Paul’s preaching, and waiting on it like a cobweb fastened to the window in which she sat; and it is in this legend, so old that Tertullian refers to it, that the apostle’s appearance is described- , , , , , , .-Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, p. 41, ed. Tischendorf. The words of Estius are: Apostolum per carnis stimulum indicare voluisse incentivum libidinis quod in carne patiebatur, adducing in proof 1Co 9:27 and Rom 7:23, neither of which places refers to sensuality. And a Lapide claims something like infallibility for this opinion, insisting on it as an instance of the vox populi, vox Dei.
The objections to this view are many and convincing. For,
(1.) Such a stimulus could not be said to be given him by God as a special means of humbling him, and in coincidence with superabundant visions and revelations.
(2.) Nor could the apostle have gloried in this temptation, Gal 4:9.
(3.) Nor would it have exposed him to scorn or aversion; the struggle would have been within, and could not have been described as in this passage of Galatians.
(4.) And lastly, the apostle declares his perfect freedom from all such temptations. I would, he affirms, referring to incontinency and to marriage,-I would that all men were even as I. 1Co 7:7. Ah! no, dear Paul, Luther says, it was no such trial that afflicted thee.
IV. The trial and the thorn in the flesh seem to be rightly referred to some painful and acute corporeal malady which could not be concealed, but had a tendency to induce loathing in those with whom he had intercourse, which he felt to be humbling and mortifying to him as a minister of Christ, and which seems to have been connected with the many visions and revelations having a tendency to elate him. Generally, that is the view of Flatt, Billroth, Emmerling, Rckert, Meyer, De Wette, Professor Lightfoot, Alford, Howson, Chandler. Bttger, who regards Galatia as comprising Lystra and Derbe, thinks that the illness was caused by the stoning in the former of those places. But from that stoning there was an immediate recovery, and it could scarcely be the thorn in the flesh. See Introduction.
One hypothesis on this point, viz. that feeble or defective utterance is meant, has been suggested by the statement of the apostle, when he says that, in the judgment of his opponents, his speech was contemptible. This adverse criticism, however, does not refer to articulation, but to argument; for he came not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom. Still the words may imply that his oratory had some drawbacks, which made it inferior in power to his epistolary compositions.
Others, again, take the malady to be defective vision, and the opinion is based to a large extent on what he says in the verses prefixed to this Essay: I bear you record, that if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and have given them to me. The theory is plausible, but it wholly wants proof, unless some unauthorized additions be made to the inspired statements. For-
1. The translation of the verse on which such stress is laid is wrong: it is not your own eyes, but simply your eyes, unemphatic. See on the verse.
2. The mere defect of vision could not of itself induce that contempt and loathing which his trial implies, as in Gal 4:14.
3. The thorn in the flesh was given him fourteen years before he wrote his second Epistle to the Corinthians; but his conversion, accompanied by the blinding glory of Christ’s appearance, to which his ophthalmic weakness has been traced, happened at a considerably earlier period.
4. The arguments adduced to prove that the apostle’s eyesight was permanently injured by the light which shone from heaven above the brightness of the sun at mid-day are not trustworthy. That he was blinded at the moment is true, but he recovered his sight when there fell from his eyes as it were scales. All miracles appear to be perfect healings, and restorations of vision are surely no exceptions. The verb , which is referred to in proof, will not bear out this conjecture. For in Act 23:1 characterizes the apostle’s act before he began his address, and describes naturally a sweeping and attentive scrutiny, but with no implied defect of vision. In Luk 4:20 the same verb describes the eager gaze of the synagogue of Nazareth upon Jesus about to address them- . In Luk 22:56 it depicts the searching survey of the damsel in the act of detecting Peter as one of the twelve- . In Act 1:10 it paints the long and wondering look of the eleven after their ascending Lord- . In Act 3:4 it marks the fixed vision of Peter on the man whom he was about to heal; in Act 6:15 it represents the rapt stare of the audience on Stephen, when his face shone as the face of an angel; in Act 7:55, the intense vision of Stephen himself, when he looked up and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and in Act 10:4, the awestruck look of Cornelius at the angel. See also Act 14:9. In these examples from Luke-and twice the reference is to Paul, Luk 13:9, Luk 23:1 -the look is one of earnest and strong vision, and therefore the occurrence of the same verb in Luk 23:1 cannot form any ground for the opinion which we are controverting; for in making a virtual apology the apostle does not say, Pardon me, I did not see, but I wist not-perhaps = I forgot at the moment-that he was the high priest. The allusion also to the large letters in which he wrote the Galatian Epistle, and to the marks of the Lord Jesus which he bore, admit of a different and satisfactory interpretation.
5. Nor can the interpretation of in the paper referred to be sustained. The writer gives it this sense: By the infirmity of my flesh I proclaimed to you the good news; that is, his defective vision was a lasting proof of his conversion and of the truth of Christ’s resurrection and glory, and such evidence so adduced they did not despise nor reject. But reject is not the rendering of the last verb, and can only mean on account of-certainly not by means of. See on the verse.
6. Lastly, if the thorn in the flesh be identified with defective vision produced by the light which blinded him at his conversion, then, as we have said, the proposed identification is contradicted by the apostle’s own chronology in 2Co 12:2.
The hypothesis of some severe physical malady was among the earliest started on the subject. The language of Irenaeus is vague indeed, yet it seems to refer to corporeal ailment; for in illustrating the infirmities of the apostle, he adds, as given in the Latin version, homo, quoniam ipse infirmus et natura mortalis, 5.3,1.
But of the precise form of the malady there are very various opinions. Hypochondriacal melancholy is supposed by some (Bartholinus, Wedel). Haemorrhoids is the conjecture of Bertholdt. Thomas Aquinas gives as one opinion, not his own, morbus Iliacus, seu viscerum dolor.Basil held the opinion that the thorn was some disease; for, treating of the use of medicine, he speaks of it in connection with, or under the same category as, the healing of the impotent man at Bethesda, Job’s affliction, and the ulcered beggar Lazarus. Regulae Fusius Tractatae, Opera, vol. 2.564, Gaume, Paris 1839. Gregory of Nazianzus, at the end of his twentieth Oration, solemnly appeals to his departed brother- -to arrest some malady in him which he calls by Paul’s words, . His annotator Nicetas describes it as a disease of the kidneys or of the joints-, adding that some explained Paul’s thorn in the same way. Greg. Naz. Opera, ii. p. 785, ed. Paris 1630. Baxter thought the disease may have been stone-his own torment; his tormentor is preserved in the British Museum. An old and prevailing opinion refers it to some affection of the head. This opinion is alluded to by Chrysostom- . Primasius gives as an alternative: Quidam enim dicunt eum frequenti dolore capitis laborasse: ad 2 Corinthians 12 Patrolog. vol. lxxviii. p. 581, Migne. Tertullian says: Sed et ipse datum sibi ait sudem . . . per dolorem, ut aiunt, auriculae vel capitis (De Pud. cap. v.), and his editor Rigalt wonders at the opinion. In another allusion, in a passage where he is discussing the power of Satan, he simply says: In sanctos humiliandos per carnis vexationem. De Fuga in Persecutione, cap. ii. Pelagius, while recording the opinion that persecutions are meant-persecutiones aut dolores-adds: Quidam enim dicunt eum frequenter dolore capitis laborasse: ad 2 Corinthians 12 Jerome, too, in giving other conjectures, speaks in general terms: Aut certe suspicari possumus, apostolum eo tempore quo primum venit ad Galatas aegrotasse . . . nam tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem saepe perpessum. This ancient and traditionary notion of some physical ailment is the correct one, though of its special character we are necessarily ignorant. But mere headache, grievous and overpowering, could scarcely have produced such an effect as is implied in the verbs despised not nor loathed. Its accompaniments or results might, however, have this tendency. Ewald makes it fallende Sucht, or something similar, and also Ziegler, Holsten, and Professor Lightfoot. This opinion has several points in its favour. If mental excitement, intense or prolonged, produces instant and overpowering effect on the body, how much more the ecstasy which accompanies visions and revelations! An horror of great darkness fell upon Abraham when a vision was disclosed to him (Gen 15:13). The prophet Daniel fainted, and was sick many days, after a revelation from the angel Gabriel; and after a great vision, he says, There remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength-straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me. Dan 8:27; Dan 10:8; Dan 10:17. The beloved disciple who had lain in His bosom says, When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. Rev 1:17. If communications of the more common kind, like those vouchsafed to Daniel, produced such debility and reaction, what would be the result of such a bewildering rapture into paradise, and the visions which followed it? If his nervous system had been weakened by previous manifestations, might not this last and grandest honour bring on cerebral exhaustion, paralysis, or epileptic seizure, with all those results on eye, feature, tongue, and limb which are so often and so shockingly associated with it? And the infliction was a chronic one, as may be inferred; it was a stake in his flesh, hindering his work as directly as Satan might wish, exposing him to the contemptuous taunts of Jews and Judaists, and to loathing on the part of his friends. This theory appears to suit all the conditions of this mysterious malady. Its paroxysms seem to have recurred at intervals, the first attack being fourteen years before the writing of the second Epistle to the Corinthians-that is, perhaps, about the year 44; another at his first visit to Galatia, probably in 52; and then when he was writing the second Epistle to the Corinthians and this to the Galatians, perhaps about 58, according to the view we have given in the commencement of this paper.
One is amazed at the work which men with a strong will can brace themselves up to do in the midst of extreme suffering and weakness. Chrysostom, King Alfred, William the Third, Pascal, Richard Baxter, Robert Hall, and Robertson of Brighton are examples of strength made perfect in weakness.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Verse 16. Therefore indicates a conclusion drawn from certain truths or facts. The conclusion, however, is named (in the form of a question) before the basis, which is that Paul had told them the truth. The time when he told it to them evidently was when he was with them in person. Yet his becoming their enemy did not occur then, for we have just seen (verses 14, 15) that all was agreeable while he was in their midst. The change in their feeling for Paul came afterwards, and it was brought about by the meddlesome Judaizers, which is clearly shown by the next verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 4:16. So then have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? He puts the conclusion politely and delicately in the form of a question instead of direct assertion. Others translate: Therefore (because ye loved me so much) I have become (in the opinion of the Judaizing teachers) your enemyby telling you the truth. In the Judaizing pseudo-Clementine writings Paul is called an enemy, and lawless or antinomian Some substitute hateful to you for jour enemy (taking the Greek word in the passive sense, as Rom 5:10; Rom 11:18). By telling you the truth, refers to the second visit of Paul (Act 18:23), when the Judaizers had probably already done much mischief.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
As if the apostle had said, “How comes your affections, which were so warm at first, to be so cold now? Whence is it that I, who was formerly so precious in your esteem, am now looked upon as an enemy, and only because I declare the truth of God unto you? Can any reason be given on my part, for the sudden change of affection on your part? I trow not, unless you count my candour and ingenuity in telling the truth, a crime: Am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”
Learn hence, that notwithstanding the faithful ministers of Christ, in reproving sin, and vindicating the truths of God, are sometimes counted and treated as enemies, yet will they persist, and finally persevere in their duty, whatever the event may be; though the world account them their enemy, yet they will tell them the truth.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
So then am I become your enemy, by telling you the truth? [I beseech you, brethren, become as I am, and be not Jews; for I forsook Judaism and became simply a Christian, which made me, in the eyes of my brethren, a Gentile like you. Though I have spoken severely to you, it is for no personal reasons. Ye have done me no wrong. On the contrary, your actions have been very gracious, for you will remember (and here the apostle refers to facts that are nowhere recorded, but which we presume to run thus:) that my journeying was providentially delayed as I was passing through your land, by my sickness; and so it came about that I preached the gospel unto you; and though my sickness was of so revolting a nature that ye might well have yielded to the temptation to ridicule or despise me, and reject me because of it, ye did not; for, conversely, ye received me as if I had been an angel of light, or the Lord himself. What, then, has become of your self-gratulation that you felt at having a real apostle among you? for I bear you witness that you so honored me that you would have plucked out your very eyes for my sake. Am I then showing myself to be your enemy by telling you truly how foolishly you are conducting yourselves? This plucking out of the eyes for another was a proverbial expression, indicating extreme attachment, and we have so rendered it in the paraphrase. Many take this as an indication that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was ophthalmia; see 2Co 12:7 and note; and this is not improbable, for, though the expression is proverbial, Paul does not here state it in proverbial form. The words “given them to me” suggest that he needed eyes, and these words are not essential to the proverb.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
He calls for their acceptance of his rebuke for their turning from God to the law. He has not turned against them as they have turned against God, he is only trying to help them understand how damaging the Judaizers teaching was to them.