Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:15
Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
15. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of] The last three words are not in the original. They are a paraphrase (and so an interpretation) of the genitive of the 2nd personal pronoun. Does this genitive express the object or the subject of the noun rendered ‘blessedness’? This noun occurs Rom 4:6. Here it may either mean ‘your blessedness’ (as A.V.), the blessedness which you experienced in embracing the Gospel of justification by faith apart from the works of the law. Or it may mean, your applause of me. On the whole the former is to be preferred, as bearing on the general argument of the Epistle. The latter is however in full accordance with the immediate context.
your own eyes ] Rather, your eyes. Some have inferred from the A.V. that St Paul was suffering from loss of eyesight. But the emphasis is not on ‘your’ but on ‘eyes’. ‘There is no sacrifice which you were not ready to make to shew your zeal and affection towards me’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Where is then the blessedness – Margin, What was – in accordance with the Greek. The words ye spake of are not in the Greek, and should have been printed in italics. But they obscure the sense at any rate. This is not to be regarded as a question, asking what had become of the blessedness, implying that it had departed; but it is rather to be regarded as an exclamation, referring to the happiness of that moment, and their affection and joy when they thus received him. What blessedness you had then! How happy was that moment! What tenderness of affection! What overflowing joy! It was a time full of joy, and love, and affectionate confidence. So Tyndale well renders it, How happy were ye then! In this interpretation, Doddridge, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, Koppe, Chandler, and others concur. Locke renders it, What benedictions did you then pour out on me!
For I bear you record – I testify.
Ye would have plucked out your own eyes … – No higher proof of attachment could have been given. They loved him so much, that they would have given to him anything, however dear; they would have done anything to contribute to his welfare. How changed, now that they had abandoned his doctrines, and yielded themselves to the guidance of those who taught a wholly different doctrine!
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 4:15
Where is then the blessedness ye spake of?
Instability
I. Their past religious experience was one of blessedness.
1. Blessedness is one of the earliest notes of religious life. Christs first miracle was at Cana: amongst His first words were the beatitudes. The earliest religious experience is that known as first love.
2. There is a danger of this being lost through the truth on which it is based losing its freshness. The vision of Christ crucified had faded, and the Galatians were now seeking perfection in another way than that by which they had attained blessedness.
3. Blessedness can only be maintained by the constant realization of Christ as Saviour.
II. Their present example is one of religious instability.
1. They were of a fickle and changeable temperament.
2. Religion had entered them chiefly through the emotions. They had not fairly grasped the doctrines of Christianity. Hence they became an easy prey to false teachers.
3. They regarded the teacher rather than the truth he taught.
4. Influences were at work calculated to draw them away from their faith.
(1) Learned teachers whom it was hard to refute.
(2) Gorgeous ceremonial for which they had a predilection.
(3) Old worldliness and heathenism so recently renounced.
III. The remedy.
1. Recognize the evil.
2. Return to Christ. (S. Pearson, M. A.)
A missing treasure
1. Nothing is easier than to show that blessedness is the privilege of every Christian.
2. But where is it in many an average Christian life?
3. If it be amissing, something must be wrong.
4. Its sole source is God, but it is dispensed at sundry places and by sundry channels.
I. The Cross of Christ. By this
(1) a curse is removed;
(2) a blessing conferred.
II. The throne of grace.
1. A reconciled God
2. A sympathetic High Priest.
III. The wells of salvation.
1. The Bible.
2. The Lords Supper.
IV. The ways of Christian good-doing (Act 20:35).
V. Mount Pisgah, with its views of the promised land. When all is gloomy elsewhere, all is bright there (Joh 14:1-3; Rom 8:18-21; Heb 12:22-24; Rev 22:1-5). In conclusion, where is this blessedness?
1. How strange not to have it!
2. Stranger still to have had it and lost it. (Norman Macleod, D. D.)
Happiness and duty
I. To make happiness the chief end of life is a mistake as well as a sin, for it must meet with failure.
II. The end of our being is holiness: and when this is attained, happiness is the certain result.
III. The blessedness of religion is the outward and visible sign of the inward and invisible grace, just as good health is a token that our physical employments are conducive to our well being,
1. Those forms of religion which induce melancholy bear no stamp of Divine origin.
2. Mans greatest miseries have been produced by such a religion.
3. Happiness shows the worth of true religion, for the fruit of the Spirit is joy. (S. Pearson, M. A.)
Blessedness
is not the foundation or warrant of Christian life, but its crown and glory, like the tuft of green that adorns the palm tree: like the rich capital that wreathes the Corinthian column; like the crown that sparkles on the brow of a king. Without it the Christian is like a king without a crown, a column without a capital, a palm tree with a headless stem, (N. Macleod, D. D.)
Mere feeling: its worthlessness
Feeling, even when directed to heavenly objects, may be in its substance partly physical; and there is no necessary connection between feeling so originating and moral earnestness or right morality. Nay, it is very possible for those who feel warmly to imagine, mistakenly enough, that warm feeling is the same thing as, or an adequate substitute for, acting rightly. He who said, If ye love Me, keep My commandments, implied that there are forms of religious passion which may co-exist with disobedience, and may even appear to compensate for it. The Galatians had not been less willing to pluck out their own eyes out of devotion to St. Paul, at the time of their conversion, because they afterwards looked on him as a personal enemy for telling them the truth about the Judaizers. The apostle was not insincere who protested, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee; albeit a few hours later, at the crisis of danger, he could exclaim, I know not the man. Feeling is not necessarily moral purpose; and its possible deficiencies show that we cannot regard it as alone forming the material of Christian life. (Canon Liddon.)
Feeling: its place and power in religion
Feeling is of as much use in religion as steam is in an engine–if it drives the engine it is good; but if it does not it is no good for anything but to fizz and hiss and buzz. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Lost blessedness
At the Governors banquet in California State, where wine was flowing freely, one of the speakers, while making an excited speech, said: If there is any one present who was ever happier in his life than he is here to-night, I call upon him at once to arise and say so. A young man sprang to his feet and said: I was very much happier in one of Mr. Hammonds meetings than I am here. it produced a profound impression upon that gay audience.
The backsliders misery
A number of persons were once relating their misfortunes to each other. One told of his whole substance entrusted to one vessel, having perished in the ocean; another of an only and beloved daughter recently ]aid in the grave; another of a son breaking loose from restraint, and plunging like the prodigal into the wickedness of a great city. It was agreed that these were sore afflictions, and it was wondered whether any could produce sorer. One who had hitherto been silent now spoke. Yes, said he, I can tell of something sadder than all these, a believing heart has gone from me. There followed deep silence at thess words, and when the little group spoke again it was agreed that the last was the heaviest sorrow; that there was no calamity like it. (British Messenger.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 15. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of?] Ye spake of should be in italics, there being no corresponding word in the Greek text. Perhaps there is not a sentence in the New Testament more variously translated than this. I shall give the original: What was then your blessedness! Or, How great was your happiness at that time! Or, What blessings did ye then pour on me! It is worthy of remark, that, instead of , what, ABCFG, several others, the older Syriac, the later Syriac in the margin, the Armenian, Vulgate, one copy of the Itala, and some of the fathers, have , where; and , was, is omitted by ACD, several others, also the Vulgate, Itala, and the Latin fathers. According to these authorities the text should be read thus: Where then is your blessedness? Having renounced the Gospel, you have lost your happiness. What have your false teachers given you to compensate the loss of communion with God, or that Spirit of adoption, that Spirit of Christ, by which you cried Abba, Father! If, however, we understand the words as implying the benedictions they then heaped on the apostle, the sense will be sufficiently natural, and agree well with the concluding part of the verse; for I bear you record, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. You had then the strongest affection for me; you loved God, and you loved me for God’s sake, and were ready to give me the most unequivocal proof of your love.
Dearer than one’s eyes, or to profess to give one’s eyes for the sake of a person, appears to have been a proverbial expression, intimating the highest tokens of the strongest affection. We find a similar form of speech in Terence, Adelphi, act iv., scene 5, ver. 67.
————————Di me pater
Omnes oderint, ni magis te quam oculos nunc ego amo meos.
“O father,
may all the gods hate me, if I do not love you now more than
my own eyes.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Some understand the blessedness here spoken of in a passive sense; you were then a blessed and happy people, receiving the doctrine of the gospel in the truth and purity of it; what is now become of that blessedness? But both the preceding and the following words seem to rule the sense otherwise, viz. Where is that blessedness which you predicted of me? You called me then blessed, and showed me such a dear affection that you would, if it would have done me good, have parted with what was dearest to you.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. Where, c.Of what valuewas your congratulation (so the Greek for “blessedness”expresses) of yourselves, on account of your having among you me, themessenger of the Gospel, considering how entirely you have veeredabout since? Once you counted yourselves blessed in beingfavored with my ministry.
ye would have plucked outyour own eyesone of the dearest members of the bodysohighly did you value me: a proverbial phrase for the greatestself-sacrifice (Mt 5:29).CONYBEARE and HOWSONthink that this particular form of proverb was used with reference toa weakness in Paul’s eyes, connected with a nervous frame, perhapsaffected by the brightness of the vision described, Act 22:112Co 12:1-7. “You wouldhave torn out your own eyes to supply the lack of mine.” Thedivine power of Paul’s words and works, contrasting with thefeebleness of his person (2Co10:10), powerfully at first impressed the Galatians, who had allthe impulsiveness of the Celtic race from which they sprang.Subsequently they soon changed with the fickleness which is equallycharacteristic of Celts.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Where is then the blessedness you spake of?…. Or, as some copies read, “what was then your blessedness?” what, and how great was it? meaning, when the Gospel was first preached to them by him; when Christ was revealed to them as God’s salvation; when the doctrines of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, and full pardon by his atonement and satisfaction by his sacrifice, were published among them; when the love of God was shed abroad in their hearts, and the Spirit of Christ was sent thither, crying “Abba”, Father: but, alas! where was this blessedness now, since they were turning to the weak and beggarly elements of the ceremonial law, and were inclined to observe its ordinances, and bring themselves hereby into a state of bondage? They were happy persons while under the ministry of the apostle; as a Gospel ministry is a great happiness to any that enjoy it; for this is the way to find eternal life, to have spiritual peace and pleasure, joy and comfort, light and liberty, whereas a contrary doctrine leads to all the reverse. The apostle hereby puts them in mind how they were looked upon as happy persons by himself at that time, whom they received with so much respect and reverence, and his ministry with so much readiness and cheerfulness, and to so much profit and advantage; and also by other churches who were sensible of the high favour they enjoyed, by having so great a preacher of the Gospel among them; and even at that time they thought themselves the happiest persons in the world, and that they could not have been more so, unless they had had Christ himself in person among them; so beautiful were the feet of this bringer of glad tidings to them:
for I bear you record, that if it had been possible ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me; so fully persuaded was the apostle of their strong and sincere affection for him at that time, that he was ready to attest the truth of this in any form to any persons; that were it a possible thing for them, and could it have been of any advantage to him, they would even have plucked out their eyes, than which nothing is dearer, or more useful to a man, and have parted with them to him, and for his sake; and doubtless persons so affected would cheerfully have laid down their lives for him; but things had taken another turn since.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
That gratulation of yourselves ( ). “Your felicitation.” Rare word from , to pronounce happy, in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch. See also Rom 4:6; Rom 4:9. You no longer felicitate yourselves on my presence with you.
Ye would have plucked out your eves and given them to me ( ). This is the conclusion of a condition of the second class without expressed which would have made it clearer. But see John 16:22; John 16:24; Rom 7:7 for similar examples where the context makes it plain without . It is strong language and is saved from hyperbole by “if possible” ( ). Did Paul not have at this time serious eye trouble?
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? [ ] . Makarismov, P o. Comp. Rom 4:6, 9. Not blessedness, but pronouncing blessed, felicitation. “What had become of your self gratulation on my presence and teaching?” Ye spake of is an attempt to render uJmwn. Better, “Where is then that gratulation of yours?” I bear you record [] . Better, witness. Bear record is common in A. V. for bear witness. Record is used both of a person, as God is my record, Phi 1:8; I call God for a record, 1Co 1:23, and in the sense of evidence or testimony. So Shaks. Richard 2 1 1 30 : “First, Heaven be the record to my speech.”
Plucked out [] . Lit. dug out. Only here, and Mr 2:4, of digging up the roof in order to let down the paralytic before Jesus. Your own eyes [ ] . Better, your eyes. Eyes, as most treasured possessions. Comp. Psa 17:8; Pro 7:2; Zec 2:8. Some have found here evidence that Paul was afflicted with disease of the eyes. See Dr. John Brown’s Horae Subsecivae. Accordingly they explain these words, “You would have given me your own eyes to replace mine.” But uJmwn is unemphatic, your. All attempts to connect the passage with Paul ‘s “thorn in the flesh” (2Co 7:7) are to be dismissed as fanciful.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
PAUL SHOCKED BY THEIR TURN AROUND V. 15-18
1) “Where is then the blessedness ye spake of?” (pou oun ho makarismos humon); “Where therefore (is) exists, the blessedness (felicitations) of You?” the ones you once expressed; the blessedness of new found joy they experienced and showed when they were first saved or new converts. It had grown cold and complacent, a condition that was displeasing to God, Rev 3:15-16; Act 1:8.
2) “For I bear you record,” (maturo gar humin) “For I witness to you all,” I go on the witness stand regarding you all, your earnestness, early Christian zeal and devotion, expressed when he left them as he boarded the ship in Ephesus, Act 20:37-38; Rom 4:6-7.
3) “That if it had been possible,” (hoti ei dunaton) “That if it had been in the realm of possibility,” to have helped remove his affliction.
4) “Ye would have plucked out your own eyes,” (tous ophthalmous humon eksoruksantes) “You all -would once have been gouging out your own eyes;” their eyes of good vision, in contrast with his that were perhaps afflicted with an incurable malady, perhaps his “thorn in the flesh,” 2Co 12:6-10.
5) “And have given them to me,” (edokate moi) “And given them over to me,” Gal 6:1; Rom 14:1; Act 20:35.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. Where is there your blessedness? Paul had made them happy, and he intimates that the pious affection with which they formerly regarded him was an expression of their happiness. But now, by allowing themselves to be deprived of the services of him to whom they ought to have attributed whatever knowledge they possessed of Christ, they gave evidence that they were unhappy. This hint was intended to produce keen reflection. “What? Shall all this be lost? Will you forfeit all the advantage of having once heard Christ speaking by my lips? Shall the foundation in the faith which you received from me be to no purpose? Shall your falling away now destroy the glory of your obedience in the presence of God?” In short, by despising the pure doctrine which they had embraced, they throw away, of their own accord, the blessedness which they had obtained, and draw down upon themselves the destruction in which their unhappy career must terminate.
For I bear you record. It is not enough that pastors be respected, if they are not also loved; for both are necessary to make the doctrine they preach be fully relished; and both, the apostle declares, had existed among the Galatians. He had already spoken of their respect for him, and he now speaks of their love. To be willing to pluck out their own eyes, if it had been necessary, was an evidence of very extraordinary love, stronger than the willingness to part with life.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) Where.The reading of the Received text is What, which, however, must be taken as if it were equivalent to where, the reading which has the strongest attestation.
The blessedness ye spake of.The Greek is a single word: your felicitation of yourselves; your boast of blessedness; or (as we should say) your boasted blessedness. What has become of all those loud assertions in which you were once heard declaring yourselves blest in the presence of the Apostle?
For.You did declare yourselves blest; for, &c.
Ye would have plucked out your own eyes.The word own should be struck out, and the emphasis laid on eyes. The inference which has been drawn from this passage, that St. Paul suffered from an affection of the eyes, hardly seems to hold good. The eyes may be mentioned only as something peculiarly dear and precious. Comp. the Old Testament phrase, to keep as the apple of an eye (Deu. 32:10; Psa. 17:8; Pro. 7:2).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. Where blessedness The blessedness is the self-felicitation expressed by the Galatians in their first joy in the gospel. They have grown cold, and St. Paul now demands what has become of that first joy and love.
For In illustration of the original glow of that blessedness. If
possible
Eyes We see not the slightest reason to infer from this expression, with Alford, that St. Paul had himself weak eyes. The passage is the hyperbole of passionate affection.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Where then is that experience of blessing (makarismos – blessedness) that you spoke of? For I bear you witness that if possible you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.’
And they had then spoken of the wonderful blessedness that had become theirs. So he is seeking to bring back to them their past experience, the blessing of the Spirit that they had enjoyed. Can they not remember what blessings they spoke of? Yes, they were so grateful that they would even have given him their own eyes. This may well hint at the fact that his infirmity was to do with his eyes, but it is not necessarily so. It may have been just a popular saying, speaking of their most precious possession.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gal 4:15. Where is then the blessedness, &c. What benedictions did you then pour out upon me! Locke; who observes, that the context makes this sense of the words so necessary and visible, that it is to be wondered how any one could overlook it. Several commentators, however, do not agree with Mr. Locke; but think that by blessedness here we are to understand the sense which they had of their own happiness, in being enlightened by St. Paul in the knowledge of the gospel. See Rom 4:6; Rom 4:9.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 4:15 . Of what nature, then, was your self-congratulation? A sorrowful question! for the earnestness with which the Galatians had then congratulated themselves on the apostle’s account, contrasting so sadly with their present circumstances, compelled him to infer that that congratulation was nothing but an effervescent, fleeting, and fickle excitement. Hence the reading (see the critical notes) is a gloss in substance correct; comp. Rom 3:27 . Others explain it: On what was your self-congratulation grounded? Why did you pronounce yourselves so happy? So Bengel, Koppe, Winer, Matthias, and Schott. [196] In this case qualis would have to be taken in the peculiar sense: how caused , which, however, would require to be distinctly suggested by the context. Others still, as Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, and including Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Reiche, Wieseler, interpret: “ How great (comp. Eph 1:14 ) therefore was your congratulation! how very happy you pronounced yourselves!” But then the in Gal 4:16 would be deprived of its logical reference, which, according to our interpretation, is contained in . . And the words would, in fact, contain merely a superfluous and feeble exclamation.
The (comp. Rom 4:6 ; Rom 4:9 ), with which stands as the genitive of the subject (comp. Plat. Rep . p. 590 D), and not as the genitive of the object (Matthias), for the object is obvious of itself, refers to the circumstance that they had congratulated themselves , not that they had been congratulated by Paul and others (Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius), or even that they (the Galatians) had congratulated the apostle (Estius, Locke, Michaelis). See the sequel. The word, synonymous with , is never equivalent to (Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Homberg, Calovius, comp. Olsh.).
. . .] justification of the expression just used, .
. . .] A description of the overwhelming love, which was ready for any sacrifice. Such proverbial modes of expression, based upon the high value and indispensableness of the eyes (Pro 7:2 ; Psa 17:8 ; Zec 2:8 ; Mat 18:9 ; and comp. Vulpius and Doering, ad Catull . i. 3. 5), are current in all languages. Nevertheless, Lomler (in the Annal. d. gesammt. theol. Lit . 1831, p. 276), Rckert, and Schott have explained the passage quite literally : that Paul had some malady of the eyes , and here states that, if it had been possible, the Galatians would have given him their own sound eyes. But considering the currency of the proverbial sense, how arbitrarily is this view hazarded, seeing that nowhere else do we find a trace of any malady of the eyes in the apostle! [197] Rckert and Schott, indeed, found specially on , and maintain that, to express the meaning of the ordinary view, Paul must have written: “if it had been necessary .” But in any case the idea was a purely imaginary one, and as a matter of fact practically impossible ( ); if Paul, therefore, had said: “if it had been necessary ,” he would at any rate have expressed himself unsuitably . Besides, expresses the self-sacrificing love in a yet far stronger degree. And, if Paul had not spoken proverbially , the whole assurance would have been so hyperbolical , that he certainly could not have stood sponsor for it with the earnest .
.] the standing word for the extirpation of the eyes. See Jdg 16:21 ; 1Sa 11:2 ; Herod. viii. 116; Joseph. Antt . vi. 5. 1; Wetstein, in loc .
] namely, as property , as a love-pledge of the most joyful self-sacrificing devotedness, not for use (Hofmann, following older expositors), a view which, if we do not explain it of a disease of the eyes in the apostle’s case, leads to a monstrous idea. Without (see the critical notes) the matter is expressed as more indubitable, the condition contained in the protasis being rhetorically disregarded. See Hermann, ad Soph. El . 902; de part , , p. 70 ff.; Bremi, ad Lys. Exc . IV. p. 439 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp . p. 198 C; Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit . 1858, p. 490. But Ellendt ( Lex. Soph . I. p. 125) well remarks, “Sed cavendum, ne in discrimine utriusque generis, quod pertenue est, constituendo argutemur.”
[196] Schott, in opposition to the context, and all the more strangely seeing that he does not even read , but merely supplies it, lays stress upon this : “ illo tempore, nunc non item; ” comp. Oecumenius.
[197] Lomler and Schott trace back the alleged disease of the eyes to the blindness at Damascus, and identify it with the (2Co 12:7 ). The latter idea is just as mistaken as the former. For the was, in the apostle’s view, an operation of Satan , whereas the blindness at Damascus arose from the effulgence of the celestial Christ . And this blindness, as it had arisen supernaturally, was also supernaturally removed (Act 9:17-18 ). That a chronic malady of the eyes should have been left behind, would be entirely opposed to the analogy of the N.T. miracles of healing, of which a complete cure was always the characteristic.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Ver. 15. Where is then the blessedness ] q.d. There was a time when ye held yourselves happy in me, and blessed the time that ever ye saw and heard me. a Is the change now in me or in yourselves? Thus the Jews rejoiced in John for a season, but he soon grew stale to them, Joh 5:35 . See the note there. Neutrum modo, mas modo vulgus.
a
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15 .] Where then (i.e. where in estimation, holding what place) ( was ) your congratulation (of yourselves)? i.e. considering your fickle behaviour since. ‘Qu causa fuit gratulationis, si vos nunc pnitet mei?’ Bengel. Various explanations have been given: ‘ qu (reading ) erat beatitudo vestra ,’ neglecting the , and making into beatitudo , which it will not bear: so (c., Luth., Beza, &c. All making the words into an exclamation (even if be read) is inconsistent with the context, and with the logical precision of , and below. ‘ Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? ’ (E. V.) is perhaps as good a rendering as the words will bear.
] a proof to what lengths this , and consequently their high value for St. Paul ran, at his first visit. In seeking for a reference for this expression, . . . . , the right course will be, not at once to adopt the conclusion, that they point to ocular weakness on the part of the Apostle, nor because they form a trite proverb in many languages, therefore to set down (as Meyer, De W., Windischmann, al., have done) at once that no such allusion can have been intended, but to judge from the words themselves and our information from other sources whether such an allusion is likely. And in doing so, I may observe that a proverbial expression so harsh in its nature, and so little prepared by the context, would perhaps hardly have been introduced without some particle of climax. Would not the Apostle have more naturally written, , . .? Had the been inserted, it would have deprived the words of all reference to a matter of fact, and made them purely proverbial. At the same time it is fair to say that the order . rather favours the purely proverbial reference. Had the Apostle’s eyes been affected, and had he wished to express “You would, if possible, have pulled out your own eyes, and have given them to me ,” he would certainly have written ., not . . In other words, the more emphatic is, the more likely is the expression to be proverbial merely: the less emphatic . . is, the more likely to refer to some fact, in which the eyes were as matter of notoriety concerned. The inference then of any ocular disease from these words themselves seems to me precarious. Certainly Act 23:1 ff. receives light from such a supposition; but with our very small knowledge on the subject, many conjectures may be hazarded with some shew of support from Scripture, while none of them has enough foundation to make it probable on the whole. The proverb is abundantly illustrated by Wetst. is the regular classic word: cf. Herod. viii. 116: this however is doubted by Ellic. See on the whole passage, Jowett’s most interesting “fragment on the character of St. Paul,” Epp. &c. vol. i. pp. 290 303.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 4:15 . The MSS. are decisive in favour of , which makes excellent sense. “You congratulated yourselves,” it is urged, “on my coming among you, you welcomed me as an angel, as Christ Himself: what has become of that feeling now? where is your satisfaction at your lot?” . Some MSS. insert before this verb: the addition would be necessary in Attic Greek to express the conditional force of the clause, but is not needed in Hellenistic Greek . The full force of may be given in English by the rendering your own eyes : for it lays stress on the contrast between their eyes and those of Paul. The addition is significant, and strongly confirms the view that his eyes were the organ specially affected by his malady.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
the blessedness, &c. = your blessedness. Greek. makarismos. See Rom 4:6.
plucked out. Literally dug out. Greek. exorusso Here and Mar 2:4,
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15.] Where then (i.e. where in estimation, holding what place) (was) your congratulation (of yourselves)? i.e. considering your fickle behaviour since. Qu causa fuit gratulationis, si vos nunc pnitet mei? Bengel. Various explanations have been given: qu (reading ) erat beatitudo vestra, neglecting the , and making into beatitudo, which it will not bear: so (c., Luth., Beza, &c. All making the words into an exclamation (even if be read) is inconsistent with the context, and with the logical precision of , and below. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? (E. V.) is perhaps as good a rendering as the words will bear.
] a proof to what lengths this , and consequently their high value for St. Paul ran, at his first visit. In seeking for a reference for this expression, . . . . , the right course will be, not at once to adopt the conclusion, that they point to ocular weakness on the part of the Apostle, nor because they form a trite proverb in many languages, therefore to set down (as Meyer, De W., Windischmann, al., have done) at once that no such allusion can have been intended, but to judge from the words themselves and our information from other sources whether such an allusion is likely. And in doing so, I may observe that a proverbial expression so harsh in its nature, and so little prepared by the context, would perhaps hardly have been introduced without some particle of climax. Would not the Apostle have more naturally written, , . .? Had the been inserted, it would have deprived the words of all reference to a matter of fact, and made them purely proverbial. At the same time it is fair to say that the order . rather favours the purely proverbial reference. Had the Apostles eyes been affected, and had he wished to express You would, if possible, have pulled out your own eyes, and have given them to me, he would certainly have written ., not . . In other words, the more emphatic is, the more likely is the expression to be proverbial merely: the less emphatic . . is, the more likely to refer to some fact, in which the eyes were as matter of notoriety concerned. The inference then of any ocular disease from these words themselves seems to me precarious. Certainly Act 23:1 ff. receives light from such a supposition; but with our very small knowledge on the subject, many conjectures may be hazarded with some shew of support from Scripture, while none of them has enough foundation to make it probable on the whole. The proverb is abundantly illustrated by Wetst. is the regular classic word: cf. Herod. viii. 116: this however is doubted by Ellic. See on the whole passage, Jowetts most interesting fragment on the character of St. Paul, Epp. &c. vol. i. pp. 290-303.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 4:15. ) is an expression derived from [I congratulate]. You were thankful for [You congratulated yourselves on account of] the Gospel, and for me its messenger: what cause was there for this thankfulness [congratulation of yourselves], if you now treat me with disdain?[38]-, eyes) very dear.
[38] , you would have given me) You would thus testify a grateful mind, on the ground that you obtained so great blessedness through me. That spontaneous affection is not to be looked for on the part of any mere mercenary.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 4:15
Gal 4:15
Where then is that gratulation of yourselves?-If they received him even as Christ Jesus, they rejoiced greatly in his presence and spoke of it. [What had become of that spirit which animated them not so long ago? (Gal 1:6).]
for I bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.-The manifestation of feeling toward him was such that he testified, if it had been in their power, they would have plucked out their eyes and given them to him. The Galatians were of the same nation as the French, noted for their excitability and intensity of feeling. Such people are liable to run from one extreme to another. So they had run to the extreme of denying that Paul was an apostle sent by Jesus.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Where is: or, What was
the blessedness: Gal 3:14, Gal 5:22, Gal 6:4, Luk 8:13, Rom 4:6-9, Rom 5:2, Rom 15:13
I bear: Rom 10:2, 2Co 8:3, Col 4:13
if: Gal 4:19, Rom 9:3, 1Th 2:8, 1Th 5:13, 1Jo 3:16-18
Reciprocal: Mat 13:20 – anon Mat 24:24 – if Mar 9:47 – thine Luk 19:35 – they cast Joh 5:35 – and ye Act 2:41 – gladly
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 4:15. Mournfully but sharply does he now turn round and ask-
; This reading has D, K, L in its favour, with the majority of MSS. and fathers. Another reading- -is found in A, B, C, F, G, , and in the Vulgate and Syriac versions. The Greek fathers refer to the various reading. Theodoret says, , and he and Theodore Mops. and Severianus explain by . The particle , though well supported, has the aspect of an emendation in that it appears to simplify the question-Where has it all gone to? Where is the blessedness ye spake of? With , must be supplied, as it is written in D, E, K; F (G having ): Of what sort or nature was your boasted blessedness? The adjective refers to quality, as it usually does, not to quantity, though this last sense is given to it by Luther, Beza, Borger, Hilgenfeld, Reiche, Wieseler, and Brown. The question has more point if bear its common significance. The is simply retrospective, implying here no logical inference. Donaldson, 548, 31. The noun -not , blessedness-means pronouncing blessed, as does the allied verb . Rom 4:6; Rom 4:9; Luk 1:48; Jam 5:11; Sept. Gen 30:13; Ast, Lexicon Platon. sub voce. Bengel gives another meaning to : quae causa-what was the ground of this gratulation?-and he is followed by Jatho, Matthies, Schott, and to some extent Alford-worth what? of what weight or value? That the was by Paul on the Galatians, is on the one hand the opinion of Jerome, who says, vos eo tempore quo evangelium juxta carnem susceperatis- beatos dicerem,-of Theodoret and the Greek fathers. On the other hand, Estius, Locke, and Wordsworth understand that the apostle himself is the object of the congratulation on the part of the Galatians. Locke’s paraphrase is, What benedictions did you then pour out upon me! and his note is, The context makes this sense of the words so necessary and visible, that it is to be wondered how any one could overlook it. If the apostle had meant felicitation upon himself, he would have stated it in some distinct way, but stands without any addition. They had felicitated themselves on the apostle’s ministry among them, even though they knew that it was what might be called an accident of illness which kept him so long in their province, apparently in opposition to his original plan of travel. Amidst their earnest self-congratulations, they forgot not the instrument of the blessedness which they boasted of. They pronounced themselves happy in enjoying such a ministry, and they vied with one another in kindness to the minister; for in proof he says-
-for I bear you record, that if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and have given them to me. The verb is here followed by the dative of person in favour of whom the is given, and also, as frequently, by the demonstrative , equivalent to an accusative with the infinitive.
The participle is often employed in this idiom-perhaps more frequently than other terms. The imperative is used in Mat 5:29, and in Mar 9:47. Compare Jdg 16:21; 1Sa 11:2; Joseph. Antiq. 6.5, 1; Herod. 8.116. The phrase is not your own eyes, as Ellicott remarks, but simply your eyes. No emphasis is intended. Compare Joh 4:35. Ye would have given them to me. The before in the Received Text is rejected on the authority of A, B, C, D1, F, G, . The use of would have indicated hypothetical reality, but without it is more rhetorically emphatic, and means that the act would have been done if the restriction in had not intervened. Joh 9:33; Joh 15:22. Hermann, de Particula , Opuscula, vol. iv. cap. xi. p. 57; Jelf, 858, 1. The phrase is not to be pressed as meaning an absolute impossibility, but in a popular sense that such a token of love was impracticable-pro evangelico lumine sua lumina tradidissent. What higher expression of self-denied and ardent attachment to himself could the apostle describe? As Alford remarks, The position of the words strongly supports the idea that the apostle uses the clause proverbially. And the expression is a common one based on nature, and found in a great variety of authors. Compare Deu 32:10, Psa 17:8, Pro 7:2, Zec 2:8; Callim. in Dian. p. 21, ed. Blomfield; in Latin, Horace, Sat. 2.5, 33; Terence, Adelph. 5.7-5; Catullus, iii. xiv. See Wetstein in loc. The meaning then is, that they would have parted with anything, even the most precious-have endured no common self-torment-in the depth of their professed attachment to him.
But some give the phrase a more literal significance, or rather suppose a more literal reason for the use of the figure. They suppose that the was some kind of ophthalmic disorder. The meaning in that case is, the Galatians would have parted with their eyes to him, could the gift have relieved the apostle. Lomler, Rckert, Schott, and others advocate this view, which is favoured also by Conybeare. We would not, however, call it with Schmoller abgeschmackt, nor say with Bisping fast lcherlich ist es; for some form of it may have been mixed up with his malady. But, as has been remarked, the emphasis is neither on nor . Nor is there any distinct proof in the apostle’s language at any time, or in the record of his life, that he was vexed with any eye-illness. See Essay at end of this section.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Verse 15. Blessedness means some great favor or good fortune, and the Galatians had congratulated themselves on having Paul in their midst. Their appreciation of him was apparently so great, that had it been possible they would have given him their eyes. This is an illustration drawn from the great value that anyone would place upon his eyes. Now the Galatians had become so changed in their attitude, Paul asks where their good estimate of him had gone.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 4:15. Where[1] is now your self-congratulation (or, your felicitation of yourselves)? What has become of the boasting of your blessedness, of your rejoicing in my teaching, since you turned away from the freedom of the gospel to the slavery of the law? Have you the same reason now to congratulate yourselves and enjoy that beatitude, which you felt at the time of your first love, when you were ready to make the greatest sacrifices for me in return for the benefit of the gospel? The Apostle asks this Question with painful affection to make the readers feel ashamed. Other explanations: (1.) What[2] then [was] your self-congratulation! i.e., How hollow and unmeaning was your boast of happiness in view of your speedy apostasy! (2.) why, then, did you think yourselves so happy? Answer: On account of the free grace of the gospel. (3.) How great was your happiness! (Ungrammatical on account of the particle and the meaning of the noun.)
[1] according to the reading of the oldest and best MSS.
[2] According to the received text which reads for , and inserts after .
You would have plucked out your eyes and given (them) to me. (Literally, without the , Having plucked out your eves you gave (them) to me. The Greek more vividly indicates the certainty of the deed if it had been possible and profitable to Paul.) You were ready to make the greatest sacrifice to relieve my sufferings. The eyes are universally regarded as the most precious member of the body. Comp. Psa 17:8 : Keep me as the apple of the eye; Deu 32:10; Pro 7:2. Hence the expression, dear as the apple of the eye. The emphasis lies on eyes, not on your (your awn is an interpolation of the E. V.). No inference can be drawn from this passage that Pauls infirmity consisted in disease of the eyes (acute ophthalmia), as if to say: Ye would have replaced my diseased eyes with your healthy eyes, if it had been possible. Such a sacrifice would have been morally impossible, because barbarous, absurd, and useless, and not permissible by Paul.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Gal 4:15-16. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of On which ye so congratulated one another? Since ye once thought yourselves so happy in my presence with, and my preaching among you, how happens it that you are now so alienated from me? For if it had been possible If it had been a thing allowable, and I could have received any benefit by it; ye would have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to me As a convincing proof of your affection for me. Am I become your enemy Or have you any reason to account me such; because I tell you the truth? And bear a faithful testimony to the uncorrupted gospel, which I desire to maintain among you in all the purity in which I planted it? The apostles address, in thus putting the Galatians in mind of their former affection and gratitude to him, as their spiritual father, and his contrasting it in this verse with their present temper of mind, is admirable.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Where then is that gratulation of yourselves? for I bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
He continues on that they would have done anything for him when he was there the first time. Now, he asks them where that feeling was. They have lost that blessedness of salvation – they had taken on the law to their own unhappiness.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
4:15 {p} Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
(p) What a talk was there abroad in the world among men, how happy you were when you received the gospel?
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Galatians were losing their good attitude toward Paul and its accompanying sense of blessing. They had appreciated Paul so much that they would have given him their most precious possessions. "Plucked out your eyes" is probably a figurative expression similar to "given your eye teeth." Now the Galatians were regarding Paul suspiciously as an enemy. The Judaizers were seeking to shut the Galatians out of the sphere of Paul’s influence and gospel so his readers would be dependent on them. Paul sought his readers for the right reason, namely, their need to grow in grace, not only while he was with them but always.