Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:4
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
4. and that, because ] Better, but only, because. The pressure would not have been put upon us, had it not been for false brethren, &c.
false brethren ] Rather, ‘pretended’. Venn.
unawares brought in ] Rather, ‘insidiously brought in’.
our freedom ] Liberty (not license) is the watchword of the Gospel. The truth alone the truth as it is in Jesus makes man free free alike from the bondage of the law and the slavery of sin.
bring us into bondage ] A strong expression = ‘utterly enslave us’. For the thought, ever uppermost in St Paul’s mind when writing this Epistle, comp. ch. Gal 4:21 to Gal 5:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And that because of false brethren – Who these false brethren were is not certainly known, nor is it known whether he refers to those who were at Jerusalem or to those who were at Antioch. It is probable that he refers to Judaizing Christians, or persons who claimed to be Christians and to have been converted from Judaism. Whether they were dissemblers and hypocrites, or whether they were so imperfectly acquainted with Christianity, and so obstinate, opinionated, and perverse, though really in some respects good men, that they were conscientious in this, it is not easy to determine. It is clear, however, that they opposed the apostle Paul; that they regarded him as teaching dangerous doctrines; that they perverted and misstated his views; and that they claimed to have clearer views of the nature of the true religion than he had. Paul met such adversaries everywhere 2Co 11:26; and it required all his tact and skill to meet their plausible representations.
It is evident here that Paul is assigning a reason for something which he had done, and that reason was to counteract the influence of the false brethren in the case. But what is the thing concerning which he assigns a reason? It is commonly supposed to have been on account of the fact that he did not submit to the circumcision of Titus, and that he means to say that he resisted that in order to counteract their influence and to defeat their designs. But I would submit whether Gal 2:3 is not to be regarded as a parenthesis, and whether the fact for which he assigns a reason is not that he sought a private interview with the leading men among the apostles? Gal 2:2. The reason of his doing that would be obvious. In this way he could more easily counteract the influence of the false brethren. He could make a full statement of his doctrines. He could meet their inquiries, and anticipate the objections of his enemies. He could thus secure the influence of the leading apostles in his favor, and effectually prevent all the efforts of the false brethren to impose the Jewish rites on Gentile converts.
Unawares brought in – The word rendered unawares ( pareisaktous) is derived from a verb meaning to lead in by the side of others, to introduce along with others; and then to lead or bring in by stealth, to smuggle in – Robinson, Lexicon. The verb occurs nowhere in the New Testament but in 2Pe 2:1, where it is applied to heresies, and is rendered Who privily shall bring in. Here it refers probably to men who had been artfully introduced into the ministry, who made pretensions to piety, but who were either strangers to it, or who were greatly ignorant of the true nature of the Christian system; and who were disposed to take every advantage, and to impose on others the observance of the special rites of the Mosaic economy. Into what they were brought, the apostle does not say. It may have been that they had been introduced into the ministry in this manner (Doddridge); or it may be that they were introduced into the assembly where the apostles were collected to deliberate on the subject – Chandler. I think it probable that Paul refers to the occurrences in Jerusalem, and that these false brethren had been introduced from Antioch or some other place where Paul had been preaching, or that they were persons whom his adversaries had introduced to demand that Titus should be circumcised, under the plausible pretence that the laws of Moses required it, but really in order that there might be such proof as they desired that this rite was to be imposed upon the Gentile converts. If Paul were compelled to submit to this; if they could carry this point, it would be just such an instance as they needed, and would settle the whole inquiry, and prove that the Mosaic laws were to be imposed upon the Gentile converts. This was the reason why Paul so strenuously opposed it.
To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus – In the practice of the Christian religion. The liberty referred to was, doubtless, the liberty from the painful, expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish religion; see Gal 5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which Paul and others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that they did not observe the special rites of the Mosaic system; to make report of it; to insist upon their complying with those customs, and thus to secure the imposition of those rites on the Gentile converts. Their first object was to satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not insist on the observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the authority of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his ministry should be required to comply with those laws.
That they might bring us into bondage – Into bondage to the laws of Moses; see the note at Act 15:10.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 2:4
And that because of false brethren.
False brethren
I. The Church of God when at its best has wicked men and hypocrites in it. In Adams family there was Cain; in Christs family, Judas; in the earliest Church, false brethren. The sheep may be sometimes without the fold; the wolves therein. A perfect Church is an impossible dream.
II. False brethren creep into the Church. Christ is the door of the Church, and His true sheep enter by Him-false brethren climb in another way. They creep in.
1. Hence they maintain a certain resemblance to the true.
2. Hence the precise origin of error cannot be detected. The time when the ship sinks we often observe, but the time when it first drew water we do not. (W. Perkins.)
Paul and the false brethren
I. A fierce opposition made by some erroneous Christians against a great apostle and a prime authority in the Church.
II. The cause of this opposition; the violent and unreasonable demands made to him to confirm the practice of a thing as necessary which in itself was not so.
III. The methods taken in this opposition: slandering Pauls doctrine, and detracting from his authority for withstanding their demands.
IV. The wholesome method of the apostle: not to give place in the least.
V. The end and design of the apostle: the preservation of the gospel in truth and purity. (R. South, D. D.)
The conference interrupted by false brethren:–
The interview took place, but not as Paul had desired and expected
He could not come to an understanding with the principal personages without the interference of others, whose presence could have been well dispensed with, and who came to spy out. They were suspicious; some plot was In process; they must be on their guard against novelties, and prevent any resolution being earned by which the Church might be compromised. The debate waxed warm, for these intruders made peremptory demands; the contest was protracted, tOT Paul hints that he had to withstand long and steadily; he boasts that he did not yield for an instant, which proves that the struggle was not over in a moment, and was not confined to an objection modestly made and easily removed. (E. Reuss, D. D.)
Spying
I. Hypocrites spy into the persons and lives of men that they may find some fault to disgrace them (Mat 7:4).
II. Sceptics pry into the Scriptures that they may discover discrepancies.
III. Hearers often spy out sermon and worship that they may find something to cavil at.
IV. Enemies spy out religion to find the easiest means of overthrowing it. Application: Devote the eye of your mind to a better use.
1. To your sins (Lam 3:40).
2. To your spiritual enemies. (W. Perkins.)
Moral Jesuits
I. Their character. False brethren.
II. Their methods.
1. Surreptitious invasion of privacy.
2. Indefatigable espionage.
III. Their objects.
1. To circumscribe Christian liberty.
2. To gain spiritual ascendency over the conscience.
3. To reduce to ritualistic bondage.
False brethren
I. Their character–they have the name and the form–but not the spirit of Christ–the spirit of liberty.
II. Their craft–they creep into the Church–by the wrong door–unawares, because disguised.
III. Their object–to spy out what they can–to do mischief. (J. Lyth.)
Liberty in Christ Jesus
Christianity is no provincialism; it is the worlds highway. (Jeremy Taylor.)
Christian liberty
Spiritual liberty consists in freedom from the curse of the moral law; from me servitude of the ritual; from the love, power, and guilt of sin; from the dominion of Satan; from the corruption of the world; from the fear of death and the wrath to come. (C. Buck.)
Liberty in Christ Jesus
In those ill times when there were slaves across the Atlantic, a lady went down to one of the ships, accompanied by her negro servant. The lady remarked to the captain that if she were to go to England and take this black woman with her, she would be free as soon as she landed. The captain replied, Madam, she is free already. The moment she came on board a British vessel she was free. When the negro woman knew this, do you think she went on shore with her mistress? By no means. She chose to keep her liberty. She was free on board and a slave on land. How slight the change of place; but how great the difference involved; marvel not that faith involves such great things. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Christian liberty
I. Our liberty, which is in Christ Jesus, includes our freedom from the exactions and impositions of men in religion. Now observe, we say, in religion; because we do not here refer to civil things. No, my brethren, where religion is concerned, Jesus is the King in Zion. He is our Lawgiver.
II. We observe, Our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, includes a freedom from the bondage of corruption. I was thinking, in my retirement this morning, what a number of tyrants does every sinner serve! What a tyrant is Satan! What a tyrant is the world!–they who have faith indeed overcome the world; but all others are overcome by it. What a tyrant is sin! He that committeth sin, says the apostle, is the servant of sin. Is he free who is under the dominion of pride and revenge and envy and malice? We are upholden by His free Spirit, and we can say with David, We will walk at liberty, for we seek Thy precepts.
III. We said, Our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, includes a freedom from the condemnation of the law. The soul that sinneth it shall die.
IV. We said, Our liberty, which is in Christ Jesus, includes a freedom of access to God. He is the greatest and the best of Beings. In His presence is fulness of joy; at His right hand are pleasures for evermore.
V. We said, Our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, is a freedom to partake Of and enjoy the good things of nature and Providence. We have thus endeavoured to exemplify our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. How shall we improve it? The improvement will include four admonitions.
1. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage.
2. Do not abuse your liberty. There is nothing too good to he abused. Beware of the Antinomian scheme–Oh, he is freed from the law; therefore he has nothing to do with it. But Paul had to do with it. Paul said, I delight in the law of the Lord after the inward man. Though he turned away from it as a covenant of works, he viewed it as a rule of life. Remember, your liberty is not a liberty to sin. There is another abuse of this liberty, that is, of placing all who profess Christianity upon the same level in society, as if, because we are all one in Christ Jesus (for so we are), that the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, the ruler and the ruled, were all the same, in a civil condition. God Himself maintains the gradations and distinctions of life, and the duties and obligations resulting from them; and I never knew any violation of these distinctions but it was attended with injury, not only with regard to those above, but even to those below their level.
3. Improve this liberty. In one sense you cannot; its provisions surpass all expression and conception. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But we mean we should make use of it and improve it.
4. Recommend this liberty to others; only see that you exemplify yourselves what you recommend, otherwise you may be more injurious than beneficial, as some are by their talking on religious subjects–otherwise you may draw forth the proverb, Physician, heal thyself; or the retort, Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? (W. Jay.)
Courage in defiance of Christian liberty
I. The liberty assailed. It was a liberty in Christ. This liberty meant being exempt from the requirements of the ceremonial law.
II. This liberty was threatened by false brethren. They were traitors.
III. This attempt upon the liberty of the Church was firmly and courageously resisted.
1. Paul firmly adhered to the truth of the gospel. Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it.–Bengel.
2. The refusal to submit was absolute. He would not give way by subjection, no, not for an hour. In things indifferent we may well, out of love, yield something of our liberty to the good of the weak. But where men would press these upon us as necessary to salvation, and our yielding would have the appearance of bringing the truth of the gospel into jeopardy, we should never yield.–Starke.
We may renounce our liberty for loves sake, but we must not let ourselves be robbed of it for the truth of the gospels sake. We must cling to that which is abiding. The law is something transient, the gospel is permanent. Lessons:
1. In the best state of the Christian Church, false brethren may creep in.
2. False brethren are the most dangerous enemies to liberty. Weak brethren disturb it; false brethren undermine and destroy it.
3. To preserve the truth should be the first duty of Christians. (R. Nicholls.)
False brethren
A Scotch Churchman was once reproached by a member of a small sect with the blots in the lives of many of his brethren of past days. He answered, When your chimney has smoked as long as ours there will be some soot in it. (Anthony Bathe.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
He gives the reason why circumcision was not urged upon Titus, viz. because there were some got into that meeting, where Paul debated these things with the apostles that were at Jerusalem, who, though they had embraced the Christian religion, (and upon that account were brethren), yet were soured with the Jewish leaven, and were very zealous for all Christians to observe the Jewish rites of circumcision, &c.; upon which account it is that he calleth them
false brethren. These (he saith)
came in privily, to spy out that
liberty which all Christians had, and Paul had preached and used, as to these Jewish ceremonies; who, could they have obtained to have had Titus circumcised, they had had a great advantage to have defamed Paul, as teaching one thing to the Gentile churches, and practising the contrary when he came to Jerusalem to the apostles, and amongst the Jews. And this being a liberty which he and all Christians had, in and from Jesus Christ, he would not part with it, for they aimed at nothing but the bringing of Christians again under the bondage of the ceremonial law. Some may say: It being a thing wherein Christians had a liberty, why did not St. Paul yield to avoid their offence; becoming all things to all men to gain some?
Answer. In the use of our liberty, all circumstances are to be considered, as well as that of scandal and offence. The valuable opposite circumstance in this case, seems to be the validity and success of the apostles ministry, the efficacy of which would have been much weakened, if his enemies had from hence gained an advantage to represent him, as doing one thing in one place and the quite contrary in another. Besides, though at this time the use or not use of the ceremonial rites, by the Jews, was a matter of liberty, by reason of Gods indulgence to them for the prejudices of their education, yet whether they were at all so to the Gentile churches, may be doubted: see Gal 5:2,3. Further yet, these brethren urged the observation of these rites, as necessary to salvation, (as appears from Act 15:1), for they were of the sect of the Pharisees, Gal 2:5. And to use them under that notion, was no matter of liberty.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. And thatthat is, What Idid concerning Titus (namely, by not permitting him to becircumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but “onaccount of the false brethren” (Act 15:1;Act 15:24) who, had I yielded tothe demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the caseinto a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary.
unawares“in anunderhand manner brought in.”
privilystealthily.
to spy outas foes inthe guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of
our libertyfrom theyoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found that we circumcisedTitus through fear of the apostles, they would have made that aground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the Gentiles.
bring us into bondageTheGreek future implies the certainty and continuanceof the bondage as the result.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And that because of false brethren,…. This is the reason why the elders did not insist upon the circumcision of Titus, why he did not submit to it, and why the apostle would not admit of it: had it been left as a thing indifferent, or had it been moved for in order to satisfy some weak minds, it might have been complied with, as in the case of Timothy; but these men insisted upon it as necessary to salvation; they were sly, artful, designing men; could they have gained their point in such an instance; could they have got such a precedent at such a time, when this matter was canvassing, they would have made great use of it in the Gentile churches, for which reason it was by no means judged proper and expedient. These men are described as “false brethren”: they had the name, but not the grace, which entitles to the character of “brethren”; they called themselves Christians, but were in reality Jews: at the head of these, Cerinthus, that arch-heretic, is said b to be. They are further described as such,
who were unawares brought in, who came in privily; into the churches, and into the ministry, into private houses, where the apostles were; or rather into the public synod, where they were convened together about this article of the necessity of circumcision to salvation. Their views, aims, and ends were,
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus; by which is meant, not a liberty to sin, which is no Christian liberty, is contrary to Christ, to the Spirit of Christ, to the principle of grace in believers, and to the doctrines of the Gospel; but a liberty from sin; not the being of it, but the dominion and damning power of it: that branch of Christian liberty the apostle here chiefly designs is a freedom from the law, both the moral law, as in the hands of Moses, and as a covenant of works, though not from obedience to it as in the hands of Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation; but from obeying it, in order to obtain life, righteousness, and salvation by it, and from the curse and condemnation of it; and chiefly the ceremonial law, circumcision, and all the other rituals of it, and the free use of all things indifferent, provided the glory of God, and the peace of weak believers, are secured. This liberty is said to be had “in Christ”, because Christ is the author of it; it is that with which Christ makes his people free; and such as are made free by him, are free indeed; and is what they come to enjoy by being in him; for by having union to him, they come to partake of all the blessings of grace which come by him, and this among the rest. Now the design of these false teachers getting in privily among the apostles, elders, and brethren, was to make their remarks upon this liberty, to object to it, and, if possible, to break in upon it, and destroy it, and so gain another point, which follows:
that they might bring us into bondage; to the moral law, by directing souls to seek for justification and salvation by the works of it, which necessarily induces a spirit of bondage, genders to a state of bondage and involves in it; and to the ceremonial law, by engaging to an observance of circumcision, that yoke of bondage, and of day, months, times, and years, and other beggarly elements, which naturally lead on to such a state.
b Epiphan. contr. Haeres. l. 1. Tom. 2. Haeres. 28.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But because of the false brethren privately brought in ( ). Late verbal adjective from the double compound verb , found in papyri in the sense of brought in by the side or on the sly as here. Evidently some of the Judaizers or sympathizers whom Paul had not invited had come in as often happens. Paul terms them “false brethren” like “the false apostles” in 2Co 11:13 of the Judaizers in Corinth.
Who came in privily ( ). Repetition of the charge of their slipping in unwanted (, late double compound, in Plutarch, in N.T. only here and Ro 5:20).
To spy out (). First aorist active infinitive of , old Greek verb from , a spy, to reconnoitre, to make a treacherous investigation.
That they might bring us into bondage ( ). Future active indicative of this old compound, to enslave completely (–) as in 2Co 11:20. Nowhere else in N.T. This was their purpose ( and future active indicative of this causative verb). It was as serious a conflict as this. Spiritual liberty or spiritual bondage, which?
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The false brethren [ ] . Only here and 2Co 11:26. Christians in name only; Judaisers; anti – Paulinists. The article marks them as a well known class.
Unawares brought in [] . N. T. o. Lit. brought in by the side, and so insidiously, illegally. Vulg. subintroductos. o 70 Strabo (xvii. 1) uses it as an epithet of Ptolemy, “the sneak.” Comp. pareisaxousin shall privily bring in, 2Pe 2:1; and pareiseduhsan crept in privily, Jude 1:4. Brought in, not from Jerusalem into the church at Antioch, nor into the Pauline churches generally, but into the Christian brotherhood to which they did not rightfully belong.
Who [] . The double relative introduces the explanation of the two preceding epithets : false brethren, privily brought in, since they came in privily to spy out our liberty.
Came in privily [] . Lit. came in beside. Only here and Rom 5:20, where it implies nothing evil or secret, but merely something subsidiary. The aorist has a pluperfect sense, indication the earlier intrusion of these persons into the Christian community.
To spy out [] . N. T. o. In LXX, of spying out a territory, 2Sa 10:3; 1Ch 19:3.
Liberty [] . Freedom from Mosaism through justification by faith.
Bring us into bondage [] . Only here and 2Co 11:20. Bring us into subjection to Jewish ordinances. The compound verb indicates abject subjection.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in “ (dia de tous pareisaktous pseudaelphous) “but on account of the false (traitoros) brethren brought in secretly;” Act 15:11; Act 15:24. These false brethren who infiltrated the Antioch church, from Jerusalem, had gone up there on their own, without church sanction or sponsorship, it was discovered and disclosed at the Jerusalem council.
2) “Who came in privily to spy out our liberty,” (oitines parliselthon kataskopesai ten eleutherian hemon) “who sneaked or stole in to spy on our freedom,” as self-appointed missionaries, “free-lances,” “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” against which our Lord warned, Mat 7:15-16; Act 20:29-30; Jud 1:4: 1Jn 2:19.
3) “Which we have in Christ Jesus,” (hen echomen en Christo lesou) “which we have, hold, or contain in Christ Jesus,” liberty from ceremonialism of the Law, Gal 3:25; Gal 5:1; Gal 5:13.
4) “That they might bring us into bondage,” (hina hemos katadoulosousin) “In order that they might enslave us,” or with the ulterior motive of enslaving us,” back under Mosaic bonds, Gal 4:3; Gal 4:9-11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. And that because of false brethren. This may mean either that false brethren made it the subject of wicked accusation, and endeavored to compel him; or that Paul purposely did not circumcise him, because he saw that they would immediately make it an occasion of slander. They had insinuated themselves into Paul’s company with the hope of gaining one of two objects. Either he would treat with open scorn the ceremonial law, and then they would rouse the indignation of the Jews against him; or he would refrain entirely from the exercise of his liberty, and in that case they would exult over him among the Gentiles as one who, overwhelmed with shame, had retracted his doctrine.
I prefer the second interpretation, that Paul, having discovered the snares laid for him, determined not to circumcise Titus. When he says that he was not “compelled,” the reader is led to understand that circumcision is not condemned as a bad thing in itself, but that the obligation to observe it was the subject of dispute. As if he had said, “I would have been prepared to circumcise Titus if higher matters had not been involved.” Their intention was to lay down a law; and to such compulsion he would not yield.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) And that because of . . .The sense is here, in any case, broken and imperfect. It seems, on the whole, best to supply the missing clause thus: But (or, though) on account of false brethren . . . [I was urged to have him circumcised]. The leaders of the Church at Jerusalem took the ground, not of insisting upon circumcision as a necessity, but rather advising it as a matter of policy, to allay the ill feeling excited against St. Paul by designing men, traitors in the camp, who, though Christians in name, were Jews at heart. Many commentators, however, adopt the rendering of the Authorised version: And that because of false (or rather, the false) brethren, understanding that he was not compelled to be circumcised. The reason why Titus was not circumcised was the evidently interested and treacherous motives of the Judaising partisans who clamoured for it.
Unawares brought in, who came in privily.These two words correspond to each other in the Greek, and bring out in a graphic and forcible way the insidious and designing character of the party most violently opposed to St. Paul. Professing to be Christians, they were really Jews of the narrowest sort, who only entered into the Church to spy into and restrict its liberties.
Which we have in Christ Jesus.The Christian Church is the Messianic kingdom, which derives all its attributes directly from its Head. If it is free, Christ has won for it its freedom, by relieving it from the burden of the Law, by abolishing race distinctions, and offering all the Messianic privileges to those who through faith are united to Him.
Bring us into bondage.The bondage is, in the first instance, that of the Mosaic law, and through it the personal domination of the Jewish partisans.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. And that The refusal to circumcise him.
False brethren The different sections of the Council we have classified into four, (Act 15:6,) and the false brethren are the fourth. We are able to put our finger upon them. They tried to make the trouble at Antioch, (Act 15:1,) and they are succeeding in making this trouble at Galatia. Renan, in his Life of Paul, (following Baur,) identifies class four with three, and insists that this faction are the true primitive Christians. Paul, then, was really an innovator the fabricator of a new Christianity which was, in fact, a better than the original. All which is elaborate nonsense. Not only have we Luke’s gospel and Acts, but we have the epistles of these very pillars Peter, James, and John to show us that the Christianity of all three is identical with that of Paul.
Unawares brought in Luke says, that they, so far from being the real primitive disciples, were certain of the sect of the Pharisees. They belonged to the zealot class of Hebrews described in our note on Act 6:1, who became the Ebionites of later Church history. The quarrel, in fact, began at the murmuring of the Hellenistic widows. We have noted at Act 15:7 that these Pharisees properly formed no part of the assembly, but were unawares brought in. They were wholly overridden by the decision of the Council.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And that because of false brothers surreptitiously introduced, who came in surreptitiously to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they may bring us into bondage.’
The pressure on Titus resulted not from the doubts of the leadership but from the sudden and unexpected introduction into the situation of leading Judaisers who had not been expected and were not strictly invited, but who had clearly been hurriedly called in by some who had learned of the proposed discussions. These Judaisers presumably demanded that Titus be circumcised. They wanted him to become a recognised proselyte. Thus circumcision had now become a crunch point. The question that was at stake was whether every Gentile Christian needed to be circumcised, or whether they could be true Christians without being circumcised.
However, that does also raise the question as to why the Judaisers wanted them to be circumcised, and why it was seen as so important. And there could only be one answer to that, and that is that it was because they saw the church and Israel as being equivalents. They considered that in order to become true Christians all who believed had to become Jewish proselytes. It is therefore significant that Paul never argues that there was no intention of such people becoming members of Israel. For he also recognises that to become a Christian is to become a part of Israel. His argument is rather that circumcision is unnecessary because in Christ all that is necessary for salvation can be found. And this includes whatever circumcision signifies. For all who believe in Jesus Christ have already been circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11). Thus circumcision is no more required than the continual offering of sacrifices. They can be members of the covenant of Israel without it. In his eyes therefore the church is the new Israel but does not require circumcision for entry into it, because it is united with Christ, and therefore with His circumcision.
‘False brothers.’ They were false because they were seeking to use pressure to enforce something contrary to the Gospel of free grace as Paul knew it. He saw clearly the issues involved. By demanding circumcision as necessary for salvation they were making salvation depend on some form of ritual. But Paul’s reply is that salvation is by faith alone. No form of ritual can therefore be demanded in order for a person to be saved. Salvation is by faith alone (Gal 2:16). (We must recognise here that some of his opponents may well later have accepted that they had been wrong, for they were all at this stage still seeking to lay down the foundations of belief, and the questions to be sorted out were not simple ones. Compare the problems that Peter had in Acts 10-11).
‘To spy out.’ Together with ‘surreptitiously’ this sums up their behaviour. They were coming with improper motives among those who were gathered there, in order to sow doubt and dissension and in order to try to bring division.
‘Our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that they may bring us into bondage.’ This was the question at issue, whether trusting in Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, had freed them from the necessity to compulsorily observe the legalistic ceremonies and requirements, together with the ethical requirements, laid down by leading Jewish teachers. The question was not whether Jews should be circumcised, even Christian Jews, but whether it was absolutely necessary for Gentiles. In other words, was following Jewish ritual requirements an essential for salvation?
Paul, who had been delivered from the burden of such requirements when he put his trust in Christ, recognised at once that once circumcision was accepted as necessary, it would bring the person involved under the whole Jewish legal system. By being circumcised they would be acknowledging that they must keep the whole Law of Moses, and all the emphasis was being placed on the ritual ones. And he firmly believed that the demand for such a fulfilment of Jewish ordinances on those not brought up to it would be a burden too heavy to bear for those to whom they were totally foreign, and that they were not a necessary part of the Gospel. He recognised that they simply brought men into unnecessary bondage. It was fine for Christian Jews, if they wished, to continue with these practises, as long as they did not make them necessary for salvation. But as an essential for salvation they must not be required of anyone.
Some churches would later invent further burdens to lay on Christians, in the form of other ceremonies and requirements, and declare them essential for salvation, and even today we have particular forms of baptisms and particular approaches to the Sabbath which are stressed by some as being such. These too come under Paul’s condemnation where they are claimed to be essential to salvation. For his argument is that the only requirement for salvation is the free response by faith through His Spirit to God’s gracious offer of salvation through Christ, resulting from the preaching of the cross (compare 1Co 1:17). He is saying that while ceremonies may be helpful, and may have their place, they must remain in that place. They must never be seen as necessary for salvation.
In fact we know from Acts that the Apostles were quite firm in their support of Paul’s position. Peter stated, “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they,’ and at the Assembly in Jerusalem rejected the need to burden the Christians who were not Jews with Jewish ceremonial and ritual requirements (Act 15:7-11). James, the Lord’s brother, concurred. Minimal conditions were then laid down at that meeting concerning what would be required of Gentile Christians, and it was agreed that all Christians should refrain from ‘the pollutions of idols (eating things sacrificed to idols – Act 15:29), and from fornications, and from things strangled and from blood’ (Act 15:20). The former were necessary as being directly against God and as giving a false witness to outsiders, the latter necessary if they were to eat and consort with Christian Jews. For there could be no fellowship over meals without it, and in those days meal fellowship was central.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gal 2:4. Into bondage: What this bondage was, see Act 15:1; Act 15:5; Act 15:10.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
f
Gal 2:4 f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made as to Titus was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (comp. , Gal 2:5 ). It was refused on account of the false brethren , to whom concession would otherwise have been made in a way conducive to their designs against Christian freedom.
] sc . . [65] These words, however, are not, properly speaking, to be supplied; in . . . they receive their more precise definition, made specially prominent by , autem: on account, however, of the false brethren . Though Paul might have subjoined this immediately without , he inserts the not superfluously (Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact), but on account of the important bearing of the matter on his argument. The case is similar when a more precise definition is made prominent by , the same word being repeated, as in Gal 2:2 . So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Camerarius, Erasmus, Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and others; more recently, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ellicott, Reithmayr; also Matthies, who, however, so explains the passage that we should rather expect it to run, . On Bengel justly remarks, “declarat et intendit,” as in fact is often used by classical authors for giving prominence to an explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course again understood (Klotz, ad Devar . p. 359). As to the matter itself, observe how Paul under other circumstances, where there was no dogmatic requirement of opponents brought into play, could bring himself to allow circumcision; see Act 16:3 . Consequently after Gal 2:3 a comma only is to be placed, not a full stop, or even a colon (Lachmann, Tischendorf). Others, as Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Hermann, Matthias, supply , which, however, after Gal 2:3 , could not possibly occur to the mind of a reader. [66] Rinck, Lucubr. crit . p. 170 f. (so previously Grotius, and recently Wieseler), assumes an anacoluthon , that was intended to follow on . ., but that Paul had been led off by the long parenthesis and had then added . Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 329 f., leaves the choice to be made between this view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write, on account of the false brethren we have not yielded , he would not in doing so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he had not yielded; by using he would thus have altered [67] the sense of what he had begun to say, and would simply have occasioned perplexity by the mixture of on account of and to whom . But there is no need to resort at all to an anacoluthon when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to complete the sense. This remark holds good also against Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711], who (comp. Hilgenfeld) assumes that Paul mixed up the two thoughts: “We did not have Titus circumcised on account of the false brethren;” and, “I might nowise yield to the false brethren.” Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 46) also produces an unnecessary anacoluthic derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a new sentence begins with . ., but that the relative definition . . . does not allow it to be completed; that, in fact, this completion does not take place at all , but with Gal 2:6 a new period is begun, attached to what immediately precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, c. Marc . v. 8, Ambrose, Pelagius, and Primasius (opposed by Jerome), Rckert, who is followed by Elwert, supplements the passage as follows: “But on account of the false brethren I withal allowed Titus to be circumcised ” (consequently ). According to his view, this is the course of thought in the passage: “Even Titus was at that time not forced to be circumcised; there was not, and could not be, any question of compulsion; but because I saw that there were false brethren, whose sole endeavour was to discover a vulnerable point in us, I considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and had Titus circumcised. Nevertheless, to yield out of obedience to them, and to acknowledge a necessity in respect to all Gentiles, never occurred to me for a moment,” etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged, first, that in Gal 2:3 the emphasis is laid on and not on , and in Gal 2:5 on and not on ; secondly, that the idea of “acknowledging a necessity in respect to all Gentile Christians” is not even hinted at by any word of Paul; and thirdly, the general consideration that a point so important and so debateable as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus would have been, would have needed, especially before the Galatians (comp. Gal 5:2 ), a very different elucidation and vindication from one so enigmatically involved, in which the chief ideas could only be read between the lines. But such a compliance itself shown towards false brethren, not for the sake, possibly, of some weak brethren, who are imported into the case by Elwert, nor on account of the Jews , as in the circumcision of Timothy (Act 16:3 ), would have been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the interpretation of Rckert comes that of Reiche, who places the (supposed) circumcision of Titus not at the time then being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier period, at which it took place either in Antioch or elsewhere: “ At vero ut rem aliam hic interponam, Gal 2:3-6 (nam Gal 2:6 oratio ad apostolos redit), Titi nimirum circumcisionem, quam quis forte modo dictis Gal 2:2 opponat, quasi apostolorum aliorumve auctoritate vel jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem legisque observationem necessariam duxerim 6 f. parum mihi constans, sufficiat monuisse: nec Titus ille comes meus et adjutor, Graecus natus, minime est coactus circumcidi a me vel a quocunque; propter falsos autem fratres, qui tum nos speculabantur , quomodo immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis parta uteremur, eo consilio, ut denuo nos sub legis servitium redigerent propter hos dico Titus ritum hunc externum suscepit volens , ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa et materies praeripiatur,” etc. But against this view may be urged partly the arguments already used against Rckert, and in addition the arbitrary procedure involved in shifting Gal 2:3-6 to an earlier time; although , evidently referring back to in Gal 2:1 , precludes our taking this event out of the course of the narrative begun in Gal 2:1 . Moreover, as supplied by Reiche cannot be invested with the sense “ liber et volens circumcisionem suscepit,” a sense which, for the very sake of the contrast, since the emphasis lies on liber et volens , would need to be expressed (by or the like). Lastly, an un-Pauline compliance [68] would be the result of the sense which would follow from the omission of in Gal 2:5 (see the critical notes): “But on account of the false brethren I gave way momentarily and caused Titus to be circumcised,” to which also the sentence of purpose which follows, . . . , would be utterly unsuitable; for, according to the point of view of our epistle , the “truth of the gospel” could only continue with the Galatians if such a compliance did not take place.
] subintroductos (Vulgate), brought in by the side , that is, privily and illegitimately , namely, into the association of Christian brotherhood, of which they are not at all true members. See the note after Gal 2:5 . The word does not occur elsewhere in ancient authors ( Prol. Sir . in Biel, III. p. 43, and Schleusner, IV. p. 228, ); but it must have been employed on several occasions, as is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, and by Zonaras, being explained by and . The word has also been preserved as a name (by-name) in Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, . The verb is very current in later authors (Plut. Mor . p. 328 D; Polyb. ii. 7. 8, vi. 56. 12; Diod. xii. 41; 2Pe 2:1 ). Comp. , Jud 1:4 .
] as in 2Co 11:26 , persons who were Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature of Christianity from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, Judaizing reactionaries against Christian freedom. The article points out that these people were historically known to the readers, Act 15:1 ; Act 15:5 .
. . .] quippe qui , contains the explanation as to the dangerous character of these persons, by which the . . . is justified.
] Comp. Lucian, Asin . 15, ; Polyb. ii. 55. 3. The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by Hofmann) is here accordant with the context, and indicated purposely by the twice-repeated . Comp. generally on Rom 5:20 , and see Chrysostom on our passage.
] in order to spy out , hostilely to reconnoitre , to watch. Comp. Jos 2:2-3 ; 2Sa 10:3 ; 1Ch 19:3 ; Eur. Hel . 1623; Polyb. 10:2; also , a spy .
.] a more precise definition of the preceding . Comp. Eph 2:4 et al . This freedom is, as may be gathered from the entire context, nothing else than the freedom from Mosaism (Rom 10:4 ) through justification by faith. Comp. Gal 3:13 , Gal 5:1 . Matthies introduces also the Christian life , but without warrant; the spying of the pseudo-Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what extent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of the Mosaic law. implies as its basis the solemn idea of the ( Gal 5:6 ; 2Co 5:21 ; Eph 3:6 , et al . Comp. Eph 1:7 ; Eph 3:12 ). Hence: in Christ , as our element of life by means of faith (comp. 2Co 3:17 ), as Christians .
[69] ] is the dangerous design which they had in view in their . applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely to Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile Christians (Baur); for it must be the wider category of those to whom, as the genus , the in Gal 2:5 belong as the species . We must also notice in Gal 2:5 , which is correlative to the in Gal 2:4 . The future after indicates, that the false brethren expected their success to be certain and enduring. See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad Devar . p. 683; Rost, ad Duncan. Lex . p. 870. In classical authors we find only , , and thus construed, and not , as Brunck, ad Eur. Bacch . 1380, supposed (Klotz, ad Devar . p. 629), but in the Hellenists and Fathers also. Comp. Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361]; Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 202. strengthens the idea of the simple verb: to make us wholly slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave us . Comp. 2Co 11:20 ; Plat. Pol . i. p. 315 B, : Thuc. iii. 70. 2, and Duker in loc . The mode in which the apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with the intention (de Wette); it represents the latter correctly according to the fact (they desire to bind the Christians to the law), but in the form which it assumed from the Pauline point of view . Comp. Gal 6:12 f.
[65] To supply merely . without (Koppe), so that is to be understood in the altered sense, “But on account of the false brethren, it was insisted on in his case ,” is entirely inadmissible, both on account of this very diversity of sense, and also because in ver. 3 the negation is essential and indeed the chief point.
[66] Olshausen takes a similar but still more harsh and arbitrary view, that the idea in Paul’s mind was, “I went indeed up to Jerusalem, in order to lay my gospel before the apostles (?) for examination; on account of these, however, it was really not at all necessary but, on account of the false brethren, I found myself induced to take steps.” In the ardour of his language, Paul had allowed himself to be diverted from the construction he had begun; and described instead the nature of the false teachers.
[67] Wieseler seeks to avoid this by taking . . as equivalent to : with their demand Paul had not exhibited compliance. But means nothing else than on account of , that is, according to the context, with reference to them (comp. Act 16:3 ), namely, because they lurked in the background in the matter, and it was inexpedient to take account of their designs or to give them any free scope. Also in Heb 2:10 ; Heb 6:7 , Joh 6:57 , with the accus. is simply on account of , and has to receive its more precise meaning from the context. In the passages quoted by Wieseler (Xen. Cyr . v. 2. 35, and Plut. Cam . 35), , according to the well-known Greek usage, is “ for the sake of ,” that is, through merit or through fault of any one.
[68] Reiche seeks to evade this by thus explaining ver. 5 : “ quibus , quanquam prudentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumcidere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad fidem libertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne paulisper quidem cessimus iis obtemperantes .” We should thus have in ver. 5 a saving clause, the most essential point of which (“ ceterum, in rebus ,” etc.) would have to be mentally supplied .
[69] The Recepta , defended by Reiche, is . But B** F G, 17, Dam., have ; and A B* C D E , min., (so Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf). The middle (to which, moreover, Lucian, Soloec. 12, assigns an unfounded difference from the active) is accordingly abandoned unanimously by the best MSS., and is the more readily to be given up, because in this case the versions cannot come into consideration, and consequently the importance of the MSS. is all the greater. The middle being most familiar from the LXX. (Gen 47:21 ; Exo 1:14 ; Exo 6:5 ; Lev 25:46 ; Eze 29:18 ; the active, only in Jer 15:14 ; Jer 17:4 ; the Apocrypha has the middle only), intruded itself unsought. This much in opposition to Reiche, who derives the active from 2Co 11:20 . Further, as has the great preponderance of testimony, and was very easily liable to the alteration into the subjunctive usual after , it is to be adopted (with Usteri, Schott, Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to be considered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of the subjunctive. The Recepta , which K and most of the later MSS. have, shows that the change into the subjunctive must have been very prevalent at an early date. Nevertheless L and one min. have , which must have sprung from the original .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Ver. 4. Unawares brought in ] , or privily slipped in, pretending piety to their worldly or wicked respects. With such ill instruments the Church hath ever been pestered,2Pe 2:12Pe 2:1 . These hell-scouts are skulking in every corner.
To spy out our liberty ] viz. Of circumcising or not circumcising Titus, that they might pick a quarrel with us.
That they might bring us into bondage ] sc. To the ceremonial law. Carolostadius attempted some such thing in Luther’s days, and by him was opposed. (Bucholcer.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] but (i.e. ‘ and this :’ the construction of the sentence is (against Ellic.) precisely as Gal 2:2 ; this restricts and qualifies the broader assertion which went before. ‘ Titus was not compelled : and that ,’ &c. To connect this with Gal 2:2 , supposing Gal 2:3 to be parenthetical, as Mr. Bagge, seems harsh, and unnecessary. A second 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 Act 15:1 . The word is not found elsewhere. It occurs in the title of the “prologus incerti auctoris” to Sirach: . It is found however in the lexicons of Hesych., Photius, and Suidas, and interpreted . The verb 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 -, in immediately after), men who ( classifies) crept in to spy out (in a hostile sense: so Chrys., , reff., and Eur. Helen. 1607, ) 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 is found Joh 17:2 ; Rev 3:9 ; Rev 8:3 ; Rev 22:14 . Hermann, on d. Col. 156, says “futuro non jungitur , ut .” The construction of the future with and 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 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 hor quidem spatium Jesu obsequio segnior fui ,’ absurdly enough, against the whole drift of the passage, and the Apostle’s usage of abstractedly), that the truth of the Gospel (as contrasted with the perverted view which they would have introduced: but not to be confounded with . 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. Gal 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 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 Act 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 2:4 . The narrative returns here, after the parenthetical reference to Titus, to the subject of Gal 2:1-2 , and the verb , already repeated in Gal 2:2 , must here also be supplied to complete the sense: But it was because of the false brethren privily brought in that I went up, men who came in . The addition of the article, rightly inserted by the Revised Version before false brethren , shows that they were a particular body of convicted offenders against Christ, of whose guilt the Galatians had been already informed. The force of is well illustrated by Strabo. xvii., p. 794, where it denotes the treacherous introduction of foreign enemies into a city by a faction within the walls. In the next clause describes the stealthy entrance of these secret foes; marks their hostile intent, and likens them to spies who are bent on discovering to an enemy the weak points in a military position: the freedom of the Greek Churches in Christ is further declared to be the object of their hostility. This description brings the Epistle into close touch with the Acts: for it is there stated that Paul and Barnabas were driven to go up to Jerusalem by the factious opposition of certain foreign emissaries from Juda who attacked the freedom of the Greek converts from circumcision and disturbed the peace of the Church; also that these men were altogether repudiated and condemned at Jerusalem by the Apostles and brethren, and finally that the document embracing this sentence of condemnation had been placed by Paul himself in the hands of the Galatians. There can be no doubt, in view of this close correspondence, that the false brethren whom the Epistle denounces are identical with the Pharisaic emissaries who stirred up strife at Antioch. . All the best MSS. agree in reading this future indicative instead of the subjunctive after ; possibly the author meant to express thereby the assured hope of success, and not merely the intention of the conspirators.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
because of. Greek. dia. App-104. Gal 2:2.
false brethren. Greek. pseudadelphos. See 2Co 11:26.
unawares, &c. = brought in stealthily. Greek. pareiskatos. Only here.
came in privily. Greek. pareiserchomai, See Rom 5:20.
spy out. Greek. kutaskopeo. Only here.
in. Greek. ein. App-101,
Christ Jesus. App-98.
that = in order that. Greek. hina.
bring, &c. Greek. katadouloo. See 2Co 11:20. Compare App-190.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] but (i.e. and this:-the construction of the sentence is (against Ellic.) precisely as Gal 2:2; this restricts and qualifies the broader assertion which went before. Titus was not compelled : and that, &c. To connect this with Gal 2:2, supposing Gal 2:3 to be parenthetical, as Mr. Bagge, seems harsh, and unnecessary. A second 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 Act 15:1. The word is not found elsewhere. It occurs in the title of the prologus incerti auctoris to Sirach: . It is found however in the lexicons of Hesych., Photius, and Suidas, and interpreted . The verb 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 -, in immediately after), men who ( classifies) crept in to spy out (in a hostile sense: so Chrys.,- ,-reff., and Eur. Helen. 1607, ) 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 is found Joh 17:2; Rev 3:9; Rev 8:3; Rev 22:14. Hermann, on d. Col. 156, says-futuro non jungitur , ut. The construction of the future with and 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 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 hor quidem spatium Jesu obsequio segnior fui,-absurdly enough, against the whole drift of the passage, and the Apostles usage of abstractedly), that the truth of the Gospel (as contrasted with the perverted view which they would have introduced: but not to be confounded with . 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. Gal 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 in this sentence (see var. readd.) has been an attempt to simplify the construction, and at the same time to reconcile Pauls conduct with that in Act 16:3, where he circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews. But the circumstances were then widely different: and the whole narrative in Acts 15. makes it extremely improbable that the Apostle should have pursued such a course on this occasion.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 2:4. ) But this matter concerning Titus happened on account of, etc.-, but [Engl. Vers. And that] is here a particle explanatory and intensive.-) here and in , denotes by the way, stealthily, underhand.-, false brethren) He had shown greater respect to those, who were professed Jews, as in the case of Timothy, Act 16:3.-, who) Comp. Act 15:1; Act 15:24.-) to spy out, and destroy.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 2:4
Gal 2:4
and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,-The freedom of which the apostle speaks is, of course, the freedom of the Christian from the bondage to the law, which would have been surrendered in principle and practice if the Gentile Christians had been compelled to be circumcised. (Gal 4:8-31; Gal 5:1-3; Gal 5:13). [That he calls it our liberty shows that, although the obligation of the Gentiles to be circumcised was the particular question at issue, this was in Pauls mind only a part of a larger question, which concerned both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Antioch incident (verses 11-21) shows how closely the question of freedom of the Jews was connected with that of the liberty of the Gentile Christians.]
that they might bring us into bondage:-That is, to the law, implying an already possessed freedom. This language refers to Christians in general, not to the Gentiles exclusively. Paul distinctly charges that these men entered the church for a propagandist purpose, in order to make a legalistic body of it.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
because: Gal 5:10, Gal 5:12, Act 15:1, Act 15:24, Act 20:30, 2Co 11:13, 2Co 11:17, 2Co 11:26, 1Jo 4:1
unawares: 2Ti 3:6, 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:2, Jud 1:4
liberty: Gal 3:23-26, Gal 5:1, Gal 5:13, Psa 51:12, Psa 119:45, Joh 8:31-36, 2Co 3:17, 1Pe 2:16, 2Pe 2:19
bring: Gal 4:3, Gal 4:9, Gal 4:10, Gal 4:25, Isa 51:23, 2Co 11:20
Reciprocal: Deu 13:6 – entice Ezr 4:2 – Let us Pro 28:10 – causeth Eze 13:4 – like Dan 11:34 – cleave Mat 7:15 – which Mat 13:25 – men Mat 13:47 – and gathered Luk 5:38 – General Act 9:26 – but Act 15:19 – that Act 15:31 – they rejoiced Rom 16:17 – cause 1Co 7:23 – be 1Co 9:21 – them 2Co 11:3 – so 2Co 11:29 – and I burn Gal 1:7 – but Gal 2:18 – General Phi 1:15 – even Phi 3:2 – the Col 2:4 – lest 2Ti 3:8 – resist Tit 1:10 – specially
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 2:4. -now it was because of the false brethren stealthily introduced. The difficulty of this connection lies in the , and the Greek fathers, expounding their own language, were puzzled with it: (Theodoret). The statement is repeated by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theophylact transforms it into . Jerome says, Sciendum vero quod autem superflua sit, et si legatur non habeat quod ei respondeat. But gives an explanation which virtually contains a reason. Klotz-Devarius, 2.362. Rom 3:22 (Alford, in loc.), Php 2:8, are similar, but somewhat different. The connection is not, Titus was not forced to be circumcised, which, if it had happened, would have happened on account of the false brethren; but rather, Titus was not forced to be circumcised, and the reason was, because of the false brethren,-either they pressed it, or would have made a handle of it, and divided the council on that point and others allied to it. Nor is adversative, and to be supplied-but he was circumcised on account of false brethren (Pelagius, Rckert, Elwert, Schmoller),-nor is to be simply repeated. The construction is probably of a more general nature, and apparently refers to some unexpressed connection between the expected and the actual result of the conference with the apostles, the difference being caused by the efforts of the false brethren. The clause has also a sort of double connection,-one suggested by with the verse before it, and one carried on by with the verse after it. The connection is thus peculiar. The suppositions of an anakolouthon- . . . . . , Gal 2:5 -or of a blending of two constructions, the of Gal 2:5 being redundant or resumptive (Winer, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Windischmann, Rinck, and Hofmann), need not be detailed. The apostle’s words, though loose in connection, may be otherwise unravelled, though not perhaps to one’s complete satisfaction. There is, as Lightfoot says, some shipwreck of grammar. He must maintain his own independence, and not compromise the position of the twelve. There is need of plain speaking, and there is need of reserve. Yet one may say with Luther, Condonandum est Spiritui Sancto in Paulo loquenti si peccet aliquando in grammaticam. Ipse magno ardore loquitur. Qui vero ardet, non potest exacte in dicendo observare regulas grammaticas et praecepta rhetorica.
It is an unnatural and far-fetched connection given by Storr, Borger, Rosenmller, Stroth, Olshausen, Hermann, and Gwynne, to connect this verse with , or with (Turner). Nor was it necessary to write, Titus was not allowed to be circumcised, yea not; on account of false brethren. The preposition assigns the reason-propter. Mat 24:22; Act 16:3; Rom 8:20. The more abstruse meaning assigned by Wieseler is not in point, at least is not necessary. The gives the ground for the preceding statement as a whole, but specially for the non-circumcision of Titus.
Who the in Jerusalem, not Antioch (Fritzsche), precisely were-and the article gives them a known prominence-we know not. 2Co 11:26. The apostles certainly did not coincide with them; and they must have been Judaizers, though all Judaizers might not be called false brethren, for many were no doubt sincere Christians, though zealous of the law. But this faction who clamoured for circumcision were Christians only by profession,-owning the Messiahship so far as to secure admission to the church, but still Jews in their slavish attachment to the old economy and its ritual, and in their belief of its permanent and universal obligation. Epiphanius affirms that they were Cerinthus and his party: Haeres. 28.4. Their mode of introduction showed what they were- . The word occurs only here; the verb is used in 2Pe 2:1, and the term is also found in the prologue to the son of Sirach. It appears to be sometimes used simply for a stranger, and is rendered by Hesychius and Suidas , and it is found with the same meaning in Polybius more than once; but the additional sense of surreptitious (subintroductitios, Tertullian) was in course of time attached to it, as its verb here implies. Or may not the term mean that their falsehood lay in their surreptitious introduction to the company of the apostles, not their admission into the church,-that they were false in professing to be brethren, while yet they were only spies, not from curiosity, but from an earnest and insidious longing to enslave the Gentile converts? Further are they characterized:
-who came in stealthily. , as being a class of men who. Jelf, 816; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. sub voce-significatio non tam causalis, quam explicativa; Bornemann, Scholia in Luc. p. 135, comp. Jud 1:4. The verb is applied to Simon Magus in the Clementine Homilies, 2.23. Their first object was-
-to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. Jos 2:2-3; 2Sa 10:3, 1Ch 19:3, where it stands for the Hebrew ; Xen. Mem. 2.1, 22; Polybius, 5.20, 2; Eurip. Hel. 1607. Their work was that of spies-inspection for a sinister purpose. The aorist may refer to the act as done before they were detected; or they had no sooner done with spying out our liberty, than their design became apparent. The liberty referred to in the clause is not spiritual liberty in general, nor independence of human authority (Khler), but freedom in the sphere where it was menaced and threatened to be curtailed. It was freedom from the Mosaic ritual, but not in and by itself; for that freedom contained in it at the same time justification by faith without deeds of law. This liberty is precious-
-which we have in Christ Jesus. It is ours, , for we are having it in Christ Jesus. It is our present, our asserted possession. See Eph 1:7. Its element of being is in Christ Jesus,-not by Him (Fritzsche, Brown), though He did secure it, but in Him through living faith, and in Him by fellowship with Him. By Him it was secured to us, but in Him we possess it. Their purpose was-
-in order that they might bring us into utter bondage. The are not all Christians, or the apostle and the heathen Christians (Usteri, Meyer, Wieseler, Hofmann), but as in contrast with it is more distinctive, and is restricted at the moment to the apostle, Titus, and Barnabas, with perhaps the deputation from Antioch representing the freer party in the church. Still, what was true of the at that moment as a representative party holds true of all believers. F, G read . The Textus Receptus has , vindicated by Reiche, with K and the Greek fathers who virtually use the middle; but the other reading has in its favour A, B1, C, D, , and it is received by Lachmann and Tischendorf. B2, F, G have the subjunctive . The future is the most probable as the rarest form of construction, for the future indicative is very uncommon after , though found in Joh 17:2 (Lect. Var.), Rev 3:9; Rev 8:3; Rev 22:14. Winer, 41. The change to the subjunctive is thus easily accounted for. There is no reason whatever for Bloomfield’s assertion, that the received reading was altered on account of ignorance of the proper force of the middle voice, for the middle voice would be inappropriate here, since the subjection is not to themselves, but to the law; or for Fritzsche’s opinion, that the future is only the subjunctive aorist-depravatum. The term points to the final cause, and the in composition deepens the meaning of the verb. The connection with the future is rare, though is so employed. Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 169, says that it is used sensu improprio finem spectante. Hom. Il. 7.353, 21.314. In connection with , see Schaefer, Annot. in Demosth. Ol. III. vol. i. p. 277. According to Winer, 41, the future expresses duration, or a continued state; according to others, confident anticipations of the result; or, as Alford gives it, certain sequence in the view of the agent; or as Meyer puts it, they expected the result as certain and enduring-als gewiss und fortdauernd. Schmalfeld, 142; Klotz-Devarius, p. 683. It probably indicates purpose realized in the view of the false teachers.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 2:4. Why was Paul’s plan put to the specific test in the case of Titus? This verse answers the question by saying that false brethren had been brought in unawares. The purpose of this movement was to spy out (“plot against”–Thayer) the liberty that all Christians haye in Christ. Even Jewish Christians are not required to be circumcised in order to be saved, but these Judaizers intended to bring them into the bondage of the law of circumcision.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 2:4. And that (happened, or, was done) on account of the false brethren. The words and that (=nempe) are explanatory, and assign the reason why Titus was not compelled by the chief Apostles to be circumcised. It explains and qualifies the general assertion (Gal 2:3), and intimates that under other circumstances, if no principles had been involved, and if the false brethren had not made it a party issue, the Jewish Apostles might have demanded or at least recommended circumcision, as an act of prudence, or for peace sake. Paul would have respected the scruples of weak brethren (comp. Romans 14, 15); while he was inflexible in resisting the demands of false brethren. He himself, after the apostolic council, circumcised Timothy (Act 16:3) without any inconsistency (comp. 1Co 7:18). For he did this from his own impulse, and for the purpose of making Timothy more useful, without compromising the principle of justification by faith. It must be remembered, also, that Timothy was a Jew from his mothers side, and that therefore the Jews had a certain right to claim him, while Titus was a pure Gentile by birth.
Others take Gal 2:4 as an independent, though grammatically irregular sentence, and supplement it in this way: But ( in the adversative sense) on account of the false brethren (i.e., to appease the Judaizers) the leading Apostles RECOMMENDED the circumcision of Titus as a charitable concession to their prejudicesto whom, however (i.e., the false brethren), we (Paul and Barnabas) did not yield for a single hour. This would imply a slight censure of the weakness of the other Apostles, Paul was, we must suppose in this case, distracted between the duty of frankness and the duty of reserve; he wished to maintain his independence without compromising his colleagues. Hence the broken and obscure character of the sentence.
Foisted in, brought in by unfair means, like traitors and spies. These Judaizers were formerly Pharisees (Act 15:5), and were so still in spirit, although they professed Christianity by the mouth and were baptized. From these false brethren who were intolerant Judaizers of the malignant type and bitter haters of freedom, we should carefully distinguish the weak brethren whom Paul treats with great indulgence (Rom 14:1; Rom 15:1-3).
To spy out, or to act as spies on our freedom from the bondage of the law, and to find out how far we observed the Mosaic ordinances or violated them.
In Christ Jesus, in living union with him who is the end and fulfilment of the law (Rom 10:4). This is the positive side of freedom. Out of Christ there is no true freedom, but slavery of sin (comp. Gal 5:1-12; Joh 8:32-36).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 4
Into bondage: to the Jewish law.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:4 And that because of {b} false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
(b) Who by deceit and counterfeit holiness crept in among the faithful.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Gal 2:4 introduces another reason Paul went up to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1). Evidently representatives of the false teachers (counterfeit Christians) had entered Paul’s arena of ministry representing themselves as true Christians. But they had opposed what Paul had taught. Their intent was to bring Paul and all other preachers and hearers of the true gospel into bondage by imposing circumcision as a condition for salvation. They were not successful. The truth of the gospel means "the gospel in its integrity . . . the doctrine of grace." [Note: Lightfoot, p. 107.] The liberty to which Paul referred is not freedom in the abstract, but a liberty that believers have in Christ Jesus. [Note: Morris, p. 69.]
"It thus emerges that the interlopers were sham-Christians precisely because they had not really grasped the fundamental principle of the gospel-justification by faith apart from works of the law." [Note: Fung, p. 94.]