20<\/strong>. I desire<\/em> ] Rather, “But, speaking of being present, I could wish to be present with you now”. The ‘but’ which is not expressed in the A.V. connects this verse with Gal 4:18<\/em><\/span> in which he had referred to his presence in Galatia.<\/p>\n to change my voice<\/em> ] Most commentators understand this to mean either (1) to accommodate my speech to your requirements which I could do, were I on the spot; or (2) to change my tone from severity to gentleness. Mr Wood contends for a different explanation. He considers that St Paul’s intention in writing this Epistle, was that ‘by another’s voice he might speak to them without delay’. He understands the presence to be ‘a presence in spirit’ as in 1Co 5:3<\/span>. The choice lies between the 1st and 2nd interpretation, of which perhaps the first is preferable.<\/p>\n I stand in doubt of you<\/em> ] Rather, I am perplexed about you, as R.V.<\/p>\n I desire to be present with you now – <\/B>They had lost much by his absence; they had changed their views; they had in some measure become alienated from him; and he wishes that he might be again with them, as he was before. He would hope to accomplish much more by his personal presence than he could by letter.<\/P> And to change my voice – <\/B>That is, from complaint and censure, to tones of entire confidence.<\/P> For I stand in doubt of you – <\/B>Margin, I am perplexed for you. On the meaning of the word used here, see the note at 2Co 4:8<\/span>. The sense is plain. Paul had much reason to doubt the sincerity and the solidity of their Christian principles, and he was deeply anxious on that account.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 20. I desire to be present with you<\/B><\/I>] I wish to accommodate my doctrine to your state; I know not whether you need stronger reprehension, or to be dealt with more leniently.<\/P> <\/P> I stand in doubt of you.<\/B><\/I>] I have doubts concerning your state; the progress of error and conviction among you, which I cannot fully know without being among you, This appears to be the apostle’s meaning, and tends much to soften and render palatable the severity of his reproofs.<\/P> <\/p>\n I desire to be present with you now; <\/B>I wish circumstances so concurred that I could be present with you. <\/P> And to change my voice; <\/B>that I might use my tongue towards you as I saw occasion; either commending, or reproving, or exhorting, as I saw cause. <\/P> For I stand in doubt of you; <\/B>for I do not know what to think of you; I am afraid of your falling away from the profession of the gospel to Judaism. <\/P> <\/p>\n 20.<\/B> Translate as Greek,<\/I>“I could wish.” If circumstances permitted (which they donot), I would gladly be with you [M. STUART].<\/P> now<\/B>as I was twicealready. Speaking face to face is so much more effective towardsloving persuasion than writing (2Jn 1:12<\/span>;3Jn 1:13<\/span>; 3Jn 1:14<\/span>).<\/P> change my voice<\/B>as amother (Ga 4:19<\/span>): adapting mytone of voice to what I saw in person your case might need. This ispossible to one present, but not to one in writing [GROTIUSand ESTIUS]. <\/P> I stand in doubt ofyou<\/B>rather, “I am perplexed about you,” namely, howto deal with you, what kind of words to use, gentle or severe, tobring you back to the right path.<\/P><\/p>\n I desire to be present with you now<\/strong>,…. His meaning is, either that be wished he was personally present among them; that he had but an opportunity of seeing them face to face, and telling them all his mind, and in such a manner as he could not in a single epistle; or that they would consider him, when they read this epistle, as if he was really among them; and as if they saw the concern of his mind, the agonies of his soul, the looks of his countenance, and heard the different tone of his voice:<\/p>\n and to change my voice<\/strong>; when present with them, either by a different way of preaching; that whereas before he preached the Gospel of the grace of God unto them, and his voice was charming to them like that of an angel, and even of Jesus Christ himself; but they having turned their backs upon it, and slighted it, he would now thunder out the law to them they seemed to be so fond of; even that voice of words, which when, the Israelites on Mount Sinai heard, entreated they might hear no more; as these Galatians also must when they heard the true voice of it, which is no other than a declaration of wrath, curse, and damnation; or by using a different way of speaking to them, as necessity might require, either softly or roughly, beseeching or chiding them, which might more move and affect them than an epistle could:<\/p>\n for I stand in doubt of you<\/strong>, The Vulgate Latin reads it, “I am confounded in you”; and the Syriac, , “I am stupefied”; and to the same sense the Arabic. He was ashamed of them for their apostasy and degeneracy; he was amazed and astonished at their conduct; or, as the word may be rendered, be was “perplexed” on their account; he did not know what to think of them, and their state; sometimes he hoped well of them, at other times he was ready to despair; nor did he well know what course to take with them, whether to use them roughly or smoothly, and what arguments might be most proper and pertinent, in order to reclaim them.<\/p>\n I could with <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect active, I was wishing like Agrippa’s use of <\/SPAN><\/span> in Ac 25:22<\/span>, “I was just wishing. I was longing to be present with you just now (<\/SPAN><\/span>).”<\/P> To change my voice <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Paul could put his heart into his voice. The pen stands between them. He knew the power of his voice on their hearts. He had tried it before.<\/P> I am perplexed <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). I am at a loss and know not what to do. <\/SPAN><\/span> is from <\/SPAN><\/span> privative and <\/SPAN><\/span>, way. I am lost at this distance from you.<\/P> About you <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). In your cases. For this use of <\/SPAN><\/span> see 2Cor 7:16<\/span>; Gal 1:24<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n I desire [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Better, I could wish, the imperfect tense referring to a suppressed conditional clause, as if it were possible. Comp. Act 25:22<\/span>; Rom 9:3<\/span>. <\/P> To change my voice [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. To address you, not with my former severity, so as to make you think me your enemy, but affectionately, as a mother speaks to her children, yet still telling them the truth [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. <\/P> I stand in doubt of you [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit. I am perplexed in you. For this use of ejn, comp. 2Co 7:16<\/span>; Gal 1:24<\/span>. Paul ‘s perplexity is conceived as taking place in the readers. For the verb, see on Mr 6:20<\/span>; 2Co 4:8<\/span>. Paul means : ” I am puzzled how to deal with you; how to find entrance to your hearts. <\/P> 21 – 31. Paul now defends the principle of Christian freedom from the law by means of an allegorical interpretation of the history of Abraham ‘s two sons. He meets the Jusaisers on their own Old Testament ground, going back to the statement of chapter Gal 3:7<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “I desire to be present with you now,”<\/strong> (ethelon de pareinai pros humas arti) “I even wished very strongly to be with you all, at this very moment,” 1Co 4:21<\/span>; 2Co 13:1-2<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And to change my voice-,”<\/strong> (kai allaksai ten phonen mou) “And to change (the tone of) my voice,” to reprove and rebuke, to turn them from wrong to truth, 2Co 13:5<\/span>; 2Ti 4:2-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “For I stand in doubt of you,”<\/strong> (hoti aporoumai en humin) “Because I am perplexed in you all,” or about your attitude toward the law. Their fickle turn to lend an ear, to even give seeming credence to the law-teaching, gospel perverting doctrine of Phariseeism disturbed Paul, even as it did our Lord. Mat 23:13-29<\/span>; Mar 7:1-9<\/span>; Gal 4:11<\/span>; Gal 5:7-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 20. I would wish to be present with you now. This is a most serious expostulation, the complaint of a father so perplexed by the misconduct of his sons, that he looks around him for advice, and knows not to what hand to turn. (70) He wishes to have an opportunity of personally addressing them, because we thus obtain a better idea of what is adapted to present circumstances; because, according as the hearer is affected, according as he is submissive or obstinate, we are enabled to regulate our discourse. But something more than this was meant by the desire to change the voice (71) He was prepared most cheerfully to assume a variety of forms, and even, if the case required it, to frame a new language. This is a course which pastors ought most carefully to follow. They must not be entirely guided by their own inclinations, or by the bent of their own genius, but must accommodate themselves, as far as the case will allow, to the capacity of the people, — with this reservation, however, that they are to proceed no farther than conscience shall dictate, (72) and that no departure from integrity shall be made, in order to gain the favor of the people. <\/p>\n (70) ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν. “By these words the apostle undoubtedly expresses more than that he was ‘in doubt about’ the Galatians, and was at a loss what he should say about them; for in the preceding verse he had given utterance to the vehement emotion of his mind. With very nearly the same kind of emphasis does this word occur in the Septuagint, at Gen 32:7<\/span>, where it is said, ‘And Jacob was greatly afraid, and was in deep anxiety.’ The concluding words are translated καὶ ἠπορεῖτο ” — Keuchenius. <\/p>\n (71) “To speak sometimes gently, and sometimes harshly, as the case might demand.” — Luther. Φωνή signifies not only a voice, but the thing that is spoken, (AElian, V. H., p. 347,) whether it be by word of mouth, or by letter. And therefore, when the apostle says that he ‘desired to change his voice,’ he means, that he should be glad to be present and converse with them personally, instead of writing to them at a distance; because then he could be more fully informed of their true state, and better able to know how to order his discourse to them.” — Chandler. <\/p>\n (72) “ Seulement qu’ils regardent de ne faire chose contre l’honneur de Dieu et leur conscience.” “Only let them beware of doing anything against the honour of God and their own conscience.” <\/p>\n (20) I desire.<\/strong>The Greek is not quite so definite: I could indeed wish.<\/p>\n Change my voice.<\/strong>Rather, change my tone;<\/em> speak in terms less severe.<\/p>\n I stand in doubt of you.<\/strong>Rather, as in the margin, I am perplexed about you<\/em>i.e.,<\/em> I do not know what to say to youhow I ought to deal with you so as to win you back from this defection. If the Apostle had been present, so as to see what effect his words were having, he would know what line to take. As it is, in writing to them he is at a loss, and fears to make matters worse instead of better.<\/p>\n 20<\/strong>. <\/strong> Desire be present<\/strong> The mention of being present <\/strong> in Gal 4:18<\/span> now recurs to him in the form of a most affectionate wish. <\/p>\n Change my voice<\/strong> From doubt <\/strong> and rebuke to confidence and commendation. <\/p>\n For<\/strong> With my present view of you at this distance. <\/p>\n I stand doubt<\/strong> My sad position is, that your Christian perseverance is a dubious matter.<\/p>\n ‘Yes, I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice. For I am perplexed about you.’<\/p>\n He wishes that he could be with them again, and then they would hear a change of voice. Probably he means that he hopes that he would then be able to change his tone to a gentler one, but perhaps he is thinking of a sterner voice, for he is perplexed at them and their behaviour.<\/p>\n In these words then he reveals the yearning and compassion of the under-shepherd who loves his sheep. How he longs to restore them to the fullness of blessing and to the freedom that is in Christ.<\/p>\n Gal 4:20<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And to change my voice;<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This seems to signify the speaking higher, or lower, changing the tone of the voice suitably to the matter delivered, whether it be advice, commendation, or reproof; for each of these have their distinct voices. <\/em>St. Paul wishes himself with them, that he might accommodate himself to their present condition and circumstances. Dr. Heylin, however, understands it differently, and translates, that I might address you in another manner, <\/em>(viva voce) for I am in great perplexity upon your account.<\/em> <\/p>\n Gal 4:20<\/span> . As to the connection of thought of the with Gal 4:18<\/span> , see on Gal 4:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] namely, if the thing were possible. Comp. Rom 9:3<\/span> ; Act 25:22<\/span> . See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg<\/em> . p. 235; Khner, II. p. 68; Fritzsche, ad<\/em> Rom<\/em> . II. p. 245.<\/p>\n ] just now, presently<\/em> (see on Gal 1:9<\/span> ), has the emphasis.<\/p>\n ] The emphasis is on . But in harmony with the context (see Gal 4:16<\/span> ; Gal 4:18<\/span> , and the foregoing ), this changing<\/em> can only refer to the second visit<\/em> of the apostle to the Galatians, not to the language now employed in his letter, as many expositors think. [208] Erroneously, therefore and how sharply in opposition to the previous affectionate address!<\/p>\n Ambrosius, Pelagius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Rosenmller, Rckert, Baumgarten-Crusius, take the sense to be: to assume a stern language of reproof<\/em> . Hofmann also erroneously holds that Paul means the (in oral expression) more chastened tone<\/em> of a didactic statement<\/em> aiming at the bringing the readers back from their error after the strongly excited style in which, since the word in Gal 1:6<\/span> , he had urged his readers, as one who had already been almost deprived of the fruit of his labours. As if Paul had not previously, and especially from Gal 3:6<\/span> to Gal 4:7<\/span> , written didactically enough; and as if he had not also in the sequel (see immediately, Gal 4:21<\/span> , and chap. 5 and 4 down to the abrupt dismissal at the end) urged his readers with excitement enough! The supposition, however, which Hofmann entertains, that Paul has hitherto been answering a letter<\/em> of the Galatians, and has just at this point come to the end of it<\/em> , is nothing but a groundless hypothesis, for there is no trace of such a letter to be found in the epistle. No; when Paul was for the second time in Galatia, he had spoken sharply and sternly, and this had made his readers suspect him, as if he had become their enemy (Gal 4:16<\/span> ): hence he wishes to be now with them, and to speak to them with a voice different from what he had then used<\/em> , that is, to speak to them in a soft and gentle tone<\/em> . [209] By this, of course, he means not any deviation in the substance of his teaching from the (Gal 4:16<\/span> ), but a manner of language betokening tender, mother-like love. A wish of self-denying affection, which is ready and willing, in the service of the cause and for the salvation of the persons concerned, to change form and tone, although retaining (Pind. Ol<\/em> . vi. 112). The latter was a matter of course in the case of a Paul, willingly though he became all things to all men; comp. on 1Co 9:22<\/span> . Many other expositors, as Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, understand it as: to speak according to the circumstances of each case, with tenderness and affection to one, with severity and censure to another<\/em> . Comp. Corn. a Lapide: “ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc obsecrarem, nunc objurgarem vos.” But this cannot be expressed by the mere<\/em> . ., which without addition means nothing more than to change<\/em> the voice (comp. , Plat. Parm<\/em> . p. 139 A; , Eur. Bacch<\/em> . 53; , Eur. Phoen<\/em> . 1252; , Gen 35:2<\/span> ), that is, to assume another<\/em> voice, to let oneself be heard otherwise<\/em> , not differently<\/em> . See Artem. ii. 20, iv. 56; Dio Chrysostom, lix. p. 575, in Wetstein. Comp. Rom 1:23<\/span> ; Wis 4:11 ; Wis 12:10 ; frequently in the LXX. Paul must have added either a more precise definition, such as , (Lucian, Vit. Auct<\/em> . 5), or at least some such expression as (Act 28:10<\/span> ), (1Co 12:7<\/span> ), (Heb 5:14<\/span> ). Fritzsche incorrectly interprets it: to adopt some other voice, so that ye may believe that ye are listening to some other teacher, and not to the hated Paul<\/em> . What a strange, unseemly idea, not at all in keeping with the thoughtful manner of the apostle! According to Wieseler, the sense intended is: to exchange my speaking with you;<\/em> that is, to enter into mutual discourse<\/em> with you, in order most surely to learn and to obviate your counter-arguments. But in this view “ with you<\/em> ” is a pure interpolation, although it would be essentially requisite to the definition of the sense; and , to say nothing of . , is never so used. What Wieseler means is expressed by (Hom. Od<\/em> . iii. 148, et al<\/em> .), (Plat. Theaet<\/em> . p. 161 B), , or (Act 6:9<\/span> ; Luk 22:23<\/span> ), (Luk 24:17<\/span> ), (Plat. Rep<\/em> . p. 531 E).<\/p>\n ] justifies the wish of . . The usual interpretation is the correct one: I am perplexed about you<\/em> ; is to be taken as in the phrase , 2Co 7:16<\/span> , so that the perplexity is conceived as inherent in the readers, dependent on their condition as its cause (comp. also Gal 1:24<\/span> ). The perplexity consists in this, that he at the time knows no certain ways and means by which he shall effect their re-conversion (Gal 4:19<\/span> ); and this instils the wish ( ) that he could now be present with them, and, in place of the severe tone which at the preceding visit had had no good effect (Gal 4:16<\/span> ), could try the experiment of an altered and milder tone. The form is, moreover (comp. , Dem. 830. 2, and , Sir 18:7 ), to be taken passively<\/em> (as a middle form with a passive signification), so that the state of the is conceived of as produced on the subject, passively (Schoemann, ad Isaeum<\/em> , p. 192). Fritzsche, l.c<\/em> . p. 257, holds the sense to be: “ Nam haeretis, quo me loco habeatis, nam sum vobis suspectus<\/em> .” Thus would be among you<\/em> , and : I am an object of perplexity<\/em> , according to the well-known Greek use of the personal passive of intransitive verbs (Bernhardy, p. 341; Khner, II. p. 34 f.). Comp. Xen. de rep. Lac<\/em> . xiii. 7: , Plat. Soph<\/em> . p. 243 B, Legg<\/em> . vii. p. 799 C. But the sense: “sum vobis suspectus<\/em> ” is interpolated<\/em> , and there is no ground for deviating from the use of throughout the N.T. (2Co 4:8<\/span> ; Luk 24:4<\/span> ; Act 25:20<\/span> ; Joh 13:22<\/span> ); as, indeed, the idea “ sum vobis suspectus<\/em> ” cannot give any suitable motive for the wish of the , unless we adopt Fritzsche’s erroneous interpretation of . To disconnect (with Hofmann) from , and attach it to . . , would yield an addition entirely superfluous after , and leave without any more precise definition of its bearing. And the proposal to attach . as protasis to the following (Matthias) would have the effect of giving to the . , which stands forth sternly and peremptorily, an enfeebling background.<\/p>\n [208] So also Zachariae (who is followed by Flatt): “to lay aside my present mournful language, and to adopt that of tenderness and contentment.” In this case Paul must have used ; for unless his readers had improved in their conduct, it would have been impossible<\/em> for him to speak contentedly. Bengel, in opposition to the idea of : “molliter scribit, sed mollius loqui vellet.” Jerome explained the passage as referring to the exchange of the vox epistolica<\/em> for the vivus sermo<\/em> of actual presence, which might have more effect in bringing them back ad veritatem<\/em> .<\/p>\n [209] Not exactly weeping<\/em> , as Chrysostom thinks: .<\/p>\n (20) I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. (21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? (22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. (23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. (24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. (25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. (26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. (28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. (30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I have often admired, the very striking manner, in which the Apostle hath introduced the sweet subject, contained in the close of this Chapter. He calls the Church to the contemplation of the awful scene at Mount Sinai, in order to show them the terrors of the law, and to allure them the more affectionately, to the freedom of the Gospel. Tell me, (saith he,) ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? Do ye not see, how universally the law condemns every son and daughter of Adam? When you read the law, or when you hear it read, is not your very soul convulsed, in the apprehension of the tremendous consequences, which, out of Christ, must follow every breach of it? And can you, under such plain, and palpable convictions, be looking to it for justification, in any part of your conduct before God? Did Moses himself, who was present at the giving of it, say: I exceedingly fear and quake! Heb 12:21<\/span> . And will you feel confident? The Apostle’s manner, and appeal, is very striking!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But how blessedly he follows up his appeal, with the illustration of the doctrine, from the history of Sarah and Hagar? And how conclusive and satisfactory, is the whole subject made, by the illustration? Reader! I detain you at our entrance upon it, to remark, how gracious it was in God the Holy Ghost, thus by his servant the Apostle, to give us so very beautiful an Allegory, for explaining the doctrine. No man upon earth, but for the Lord’s thus instructing him, would have conceived, that the subject of Abraham’s wife, and hand-maid, was allegorical. We should have read the history of Sarah and her Isaac, and Hagar and her Ishmael, forever, without the smallest apprehension of such a thing. We should have thought it an interesting record, of the manners, and customs of the Patriarch; but for supposing it an Allegory, in allusion to the two Covenants, never would the human mind, untaught of God, have had the least conception. But as it is, through grace, we now behold in it, a most striking resemblance of what it was intended to prefigure. And, although it is possible, that Abraham himself, might not see it to the extent in which it really is; yet nothing, to an enlightened eye, can be more clear, than that it sets forth, the two distinct, and never-to-be-reconciled branches, of the carnal, and spiritual seed, of Abraham.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n I will net detain the Reader with a long Commentary upon it, but only in a few of the more prominent parts. Abraham had two sons. Yes! he had many sons, beside those two: Gen 25:1-2<\/span> . but those only typical in the subject here represented. And, to make the matter yet more striking, in allusion to those two sons, there was this difference between them: The son of the bond-woman was born according to the ordinary course of nature. But the son of the free – woman, was altogether by promise. For although the birth of Isaac was not miraculous; yet was it unusual. Abraham, and Sarah, speaking after the manner of men, were both passed the time of life, according to the established law of nature, to produce children. And from hence, the Apostle takes occasion to show, how allegorical this was, of the Covenants: the Law of Works, like that of nature; and the Gospel of grace which was altogether a free gift. And the whole race of these different stocks, manifest the origin, from whence they spring. Hagar, the bond-woman’s children, are said to gender unto bondage. They are everlastingly under the terror of a broken law; and yet, still look to good works to save them. Sarah the free-woman’s children, are declared to be of the Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of the whole Church; and are therefore looking for justification only in Christ. Such are the different features, which this beautiful allegory describes, of the law of works, and the law of faith.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n One point, and that an immense point, in respect to its importance, remains to be considered; namely, to which family do we belong? I have often thought, when looking over a large congregation, what a solemn consideration it is, that all these, I have said to myself, and if they were multiplied by as many millions more, must ultimately be divided under two classes only; namely, the children of the bond-woman, and the children of the free. Under one or other all of these must every soul be classed. But, oh! the vast difference! To which do I belong? Reader! to which do you? Who can answer? The question is easily answered, by regeneration. A soul new born in Christ, is thereby manifested to be the child of the free woman, the heir of the promise. Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise! And hence, because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your heart, crying, Abba, Father! This is the infallible testimony. All short of this, is short of all. We read in Scripture, of some falling away who are said to be once enlightened, and had tasted the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Ghost. Heb 6:4<\/span> . But all these are were outward things. Enlightened, in head-knowledge, not heart-renewing. They tasted, but not relished, the doctrines of salvation alone in Christ. Were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, in the ministry of the word, and ordinances; but no saving work on the soul. In all these things, there’s not a word of being born again; and this is the grand discriminating feature, to mark the family-feature of the children of promise. Reader! Let nothing short of this, satisfy your mind, in ascertaining the family to which you belong. Oh! the sweet testimony, which Paul elsewhere gives, to this assured estate of safety. Not by works of righteousness (saith he) which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly, through JESUS Christ our Savior: that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Tit 3:5-7<\/span> .<\/p>\n 20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 20. And to change my vaice<\/strong> ] To speak to your necessity; for now being absent I shoot at rovers, and am at some uncertainty ( ) how to frame my discourse to you. <\/p>\n 20<\/strong> .] yea, I could wish<\/strong> (see note on Rom 9:3<\/span> . There is a contrast in the between his present anxiety in absence from them and his former Gal 4:18<\/span> ; similar constructions with are frequent, especially after vocatives, when some particular is adduced more or less inconsistent with the address<\/em> which has preceded: thus Hom. Il. . 244, , , | ; Eur. Hec. 372, , al. freq.) to be present with you now, and to change my voice<\/strong> (from what, to what? Some say, from mildness to severity. But surely such a change would be altogether beside the tone of this deeply affectionate address. I should rather hold, with Meyer, from my former severity, when I became your enemy by , to the softness and mildness of a mother, still , but in another tone. The great majority of Commentators understand as Corn.-a-lap. (Mey.): ‘ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc obsecrarem, nunc objurgarem vos.’ But so much can hardly be contained in the mere word without some addition, such as , ( 1Co 12:7 ), or the like): for I am perplexed about you<\/strong> (not ‘ I am suspected among you<\/em> ,’ but as in 2Co 7:16<\/span> , , the element in which: the other is irrelevant, and inconsistent with the N. T. usage of : see reff. The verb is passive: Meyer quotes Demosth. p. 830. 2, . , and Sir 18:7 , , ).<\/p>\n Gal 4:20<\/span> . . This imperfect expresses a modified wish, qualified by implied conditions, like in Rom 9:3<\/span> and in Act 25:22<\/span> . He would fain be with them now ( ) instead of waiting for some future opportunity, were it not that he was unavoidably detained by other claims. . This is interpreted by some as a threat of increased severity, by others as a craving for the use of gentler words; but neither interpretation agrees with the regular Greek usage of the word. The natural meaning of the Greek expression is to exchange the voice for some other means of persuasion, in this case for the pen, and this sense is clearly indicated by the context. Paul longs to come and speak to them instead of writing, and is confident of his power to clear away doubts and errors by personal intercourse. . This middle voice denotes the inward distress of a mind tossed to and fro by conflicting doubts and fears.<\/p>\n change, Greek. allassv. See Act 6:14. <\/p>\n voice = tone, <\/p>\n for = because. <\/p>\n stand in doubt. Greek. aporeomai. See Act 25:20. <\/p>\n of. Greek. en. App-104. <\/p>\n 20.] yea, I could wish (see note on Rom 9:3. There is a contrast in the between his present anxiety in absence from them and his former Gal 4:18; similar constructions with are frequent, especially after vocatives, when some particular is adduced more or less inconsistent with the address which has preceded: thus Hom. Il. . 244, , , | ; Eur. Hec. 372, , al. freq.) to be present with you now, and to change my voice (from what, to what? Some say, from mildness to severity. But surely such a change would be altogether beside the tone of this deeply affectionate address. I should rather hold, with Meyer,-from my former severity, when I became your enemy by , to the softness and mildness of a mother, still , but in another tone. The great majority of Commentators understand as Corn.-a-lap. (Mey.): ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc obsecrarem, nunc objurgarem vos. But so much can hardly be contained in the mere word without some addition, such as , (1Co 12:7), or the like): for I am perplexed about you (not I am suspected among you, but as in 2Co 7:16, ,-the element in which: the other is irrelevant, and inconsistent with the N. T. usage of : see reff. The verb is passive: Meyer quotes Demosth. p. 830. 2, . , and Sir 18:7, , ).<\/p>\n Gal 4:20. , but [indeed]) although my presence is not the one and only cause which ought to kindle your zeal.-, to be present) Gal 4:18.-) Now it would be more necessary than formerly; comp. again, Gal 4:19.-) [to change] to accommodate the varying tones of the voice to the various feelings. They usually do so, who have zeal [are zealously affectionate in entreaties] whilst striving to recover the affections, that have been alienated from them. He writes mildly, Gal 4:12; Gal 4:19, but he would wish to speak still more mildly.- , my voice) The voice may be rendered more flexible than writing, according as the case demands. The art of speaking occupies the first place, that of writing is only vicarious and subsidiary; 2 John Gal 4:12; 3 John Gal 4:13-14.-, I stand in doubt) I do not find the way of coming in and going out among you. Paul aimed at the greatest ease in speaking to the Galatians. He accommodated his discourse as much as possible to the dulness of the Galatians, with a view to convince them. The doctrine of inspiration is not endangered by this fact; see 1Co 7:25, note.<\/p>\n Gal 4:20<\/p>\n Gal 4:20<\/p>\n but I could wish to be present with you now,-[To adapt his speech more fully to their present condition and wants, in this critical juncture in their spiritual history when the future of the work of the gospel in Galatia hangs in the balance, to use severity or gentle persuasion as may be best. (1Co 4:21).]<\/p>\n and to change my tone; – [He longed to speak to them with confidence in their fidelity to the true gospel of Christ instead of with the mingled apprehension, expostulation, and appeal of this letter. This he could do only if they should turn from the Judaizing teachers. He longed to be able to say to them as he was able to say to those at Corinth: I rejoice that in everything I am of good courage concerning you. (2Co 7:16).]<\/p>\n for I am perplexed about you.-He is absent from them; and he is perplexed as to what he ought to think of them, and what he ought to say to them.<\/p>\n to be: 1Co 4:19-21, 1Th 2:17, 1Th 2:18, 1Th 3:9 <\/p>\n stand in doubt of you: or, am perplexed for you, Gal 4:11 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Co 7:5 – fears Gal 4:18 – I am Gal 5:10 – confidence<\/p>\n Gal 4:20. -I could wish indeed to be present with you now. The is not redundant (Scholefield), but is used after an address, as often after questions, and after a vocative with a personal pronoun. Bernhardy; A. Buttmann, p. 331. There is a subadversative idea in the transition. He had spoken of his being present with them; in his memory a chord is struck; it vibrates for a moment while he calls them little children, for whom he is suffering birth-pangs; and then he gives expression to his feeling, I could wish, yea, to be present with you. Hilgenfeld’s separation of this verse from the one before it, as if it began a new sentence, is unnatural. His absence stands out in contrast to his ideal presence. The imperfect is rightly rendered I could wish,-a wish imperfectly realized, but still felt; for there underlies the idea, if it were possible, si possim, or wenn die Sache thunlich wre. Act 25:22; Rom 9:3. It is the true sense of the imperfect, the act being unfinished, some obstacle having interposed. Bernhardy, p. 373; Khner, 438, 3; Hermann, Sophocles, Ajax, p. 140, Lipsiae 1851. The particle is not understood (Jowett); for the use of , as Hermann remarks, would have brought in a different thought altogether-but I will not. Opuscula, iv. p. 56. See Fritzsche on Rom 9:3. For , see under Gal 4:18, and for , see under Gal 1:9. <\/p>\n -and to change my voice. The tense of the verb is altered, and such an alteration is not infrequent. Winer, 40, 2. Could we lay any stress upon the alteration here, it might point out that the change of voice was the effect of the realized wish to be present with them. may refer more to the tone than the contents of speech, for it would still be . But of what nature is the change expressed by the verb? <\/p>\n 1. The change seems to be in oral address-, and not in allusion to anything which he was writing, for he could easily change the tone of the epistle. He supposes himself present, and may allude to strong and indignant declarations and warnings made during his second visit. 2. The change is not from milder to sterner words, as is wrongly held by Wetstein, Michaelis, Rosenmller, Rckert, Baumgarten-Crusius, Webster and Wilkinson, for hard words are not written by him now, but his soul is filled with love and longing- . 3. According to Hahn, the change is from argument to accommodation and the allegory of the following paragraph. Biblical Repository, vol. i. p. 133. But such an explanation is artificial and unnatural, 4. The change, as Meyer and others think, is to a milder tone than that which he had just been employing. Such appears to be the dictate of his present mood of mind as he pens this sentence. His soul is softened toward them-molliter scribit, sed mollius loqui vellet (Bengel). 5. A variety of changes are supposed to lurk in the word by many expositors, for they imagine the change to be suited to changing circumstances. Such is the view of Theodoret, Luther, Winer, De Wette, Schott, Brown, Estius, and Bisping. Thus Luther: That he might temper and change his voice, as he saw it needful. Thus, too, a Lapide: Ut quasi mater nunc blandirer nunc gemerem nunc obsecrarem nunc objurgarem vos. But the simple verb will not bear such a variety of implied meanings, and, as Meyer suggests, such a clause would have been added as , Act 28:10. Fritzsche’s notion is untenable in its extravagant emphasis: Vel severius, vel lenius cum iis agere, prout eorum indoles poposcerit. In the two examples of the phrase cited by Wetstein, the first, referring to the croak of the raven, has qualifying the verb, and the second is precise and simple in meaning. Artemidorus, Oneiro. 2.20, p. 173, vol. i. ed. Reiff; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 59, p. 662, vol. ii., Opera, ed. Emperius, 1854. Lastly, the meaning assigned by Wieseler to the verb cannot be sustained; for, according to him, means austauschen, to exchange, not simply to change, as if the apostle longed to exchange words or to converse freely with them. It is true that and , both followed by , are used in Rom 1:23; Rom 1:25 in senses not very different, save that the compound is the more emphatic, and the latter in Gal 4:26 is followed more distinctly by , though is a common classical usage, or a genitive-, . In order to bear out the sense given by Wieseler, some supplementary clause with a preposition is therefore indispensable. The passages quoted from the Septuagint will not bear him out, as there is only the accusative here; in Lev 27:3; Lev 27:33 there is also a dative, ; in Psa 105:20 the preposition follows the verb as in Romans; and in Exo 13:13 there occurs the simple dative. Comp. Jer 2:11; Jer 13:23; Gen 31:7; Ezr 6:11, etc. <\/p>\n The apostle adds the reason- <\/p>\n -for I am perplexed in you. Hofmann unnaturally connects with the previous clause, and Matthias, with as little reason, joins the whole clause to the following verse, as the ground of the question which it contains. The verb (, impassable, as applied to hills or rivers) signifies to be without means, to be in difficulty or in perplexity. In the New Testament it is construed with , referring to a thing, Act 25:20, and also with , Luk 24:4, as well as . The verb is here passive with a deponent sense. Grammatically, in the purely passive sense it might mean, I am the object of perplexity, as the passive of an intransitive verb. Bernhardy, p. 341; Jelf, 367. The meaning would then be that assigned by Fritzsche, Nam haeretis quo me loco habeatis, nam sum vobis suspectus; and this meaning coalesces with his interpretation of the previous clause. But the usage of the New Testament is different, as may be seen in Joh 13:22, Act 25:20, 2Co 4:8. Gen 32:7; Sir 18:7; also, Thucydides, Gal 2:20; Xen. Anab. 7.3, 29; Schoemann, Isaeus, p. 192. The phrase points to the sphere of his perplexity. Winer, 48, a; 2Co 7:16. The doubts of the apostle were not merely what to think of them or of their condition, but how to reclaim them. How to win them back he was at a loss; and therefore he desired if possible to be present with them, and if possible to adopt a milder tone, if so be they could be recovered from incipient apostasy. The is not propter (Bagge), but has its usual meaning, denoting the sphere in which the emotion of the verb takes place. Such is apparently the spirit of the verse. <\/p>\n Verse 20. Desire to be present. Since the Galatians seemed to be better inclined toward Paul when he was in their midst personally, he wished to be with them again. Voice is from a word that means speech, either written or spoken. The apostle believed that if he were with these brethren personally, this better attitude would permit him to be milder in his spoken words than he was in his written words. Stand in doubt of you corresponds with “I am afraid of you” in verse 11. (See the comments at that place.)<\/p>\n Gal 4:20. But (or, yea) I could with to be present with you now, and to change my voice, to adapt my speech more fully to your present condition and wants, to use severity or gentle persuasion as may be best (comp. 1Co 4:21). Others: to change my present tone from severity to gentleness, to mitigate the effect of my written rebuke (comp. 2Co 2:5 ff.). But the former interpretation better suits the following clause. His wish to visit the Galatians again, was never gratified as far as we know.<\/p>\n For I am perplexed about you. I am at a loss how to address you, I know not what to think of you, I cannot understand your conduct. He fears the worst, yet hopes for the best.<\/p>\n Our apostle, as a farther testimony of his endeared affections towards the Galatians, declares here his earnest desire to have been with them, and see them face to face, that so being more fully acquainted with their case, he might know how to suit his discourse to them, and might have more cause of rejoicing with, than complaining of them. <\/p>\n Learn hence, 1. That though a minister may sometimes necessarily withdraw himself from his flock, yet he ought always to have a fervent desire to be present with them, without neglecting any opportunity, when occasion offereth, of returning to them: I desire to be present with you.<\/p>\n Learn, 2. That it is a minister’s duty to get, as much as may be, the exact knowledge of his people’s inclinations and dispositions, of their state and condition, that he may know how to make a fit application to all of them, admonishing and reproving some, threatening and correcting others.<\/p>\n Thus the apostle here wished to be present with them, that he might change his voice; that is, know the better how to speak most suitably and seasonably to their condition. I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice.<\/p>\n but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you. [My little children, for whom I endured spiritual travail to give you birth at the time of your conversion, and for whom I a second time endure travail, that the Christ life may be formed in you, so that you may live, and think, and glory in nothing but Christ.–Here the apostle breaks suddenly off and at once explains why he did so. If the Galatians had come to look upon him as an enemy, how ridiculous such affectionate language would sound to them! He did not, as he viewed them at a distance, and as they were pictured to him by report, feel free to use such tender speech; but still, trusting that matters were better than reported, he wished that he might be present, and, finding them indeed loyal, lay aside the perplexity which was now hampering him, and change his tone from rebuke and reserve to the accents of loving persuasion. No language could be devised that would more fully reveal the apostle’s heart in all its contending emotions.] <\/p>\n Verse 20 <\/p>\n To change my voice; that is, to administer admonition and reproof to them, which it had not been necessary to do when he was with them before.<\/p>\n 4:20 I desire to be present with you now, and to {t} change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.<\/p>\n (t) Use other words among you.<\/p>\n I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. 20. I desire ] Rather, “But, speaking of being present, I could wish to be present with you now”. The ‘but’ which is not expressed in the A.V. connects this verse with Gal 4:18 in … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:20”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"