Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:4 - 2:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
f
Gal_2:4 f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made as to Titus was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and Titus (comp. εἴξαμεν , Gal_2:5). It was refused on account of the false brethren, to whom concession would otherwise have been made in a way conducive to their designs against Christian freedom.
διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους ] sc. οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι .[65] These words, however, are not, properly speaking, to be supplied; in διὰ δὲ τ . π . ψ . they receive their more precise definition, made specially prominent by ΔΈ , autem: on account, however, of the false brethren. Though Paul might have subjoined this immediately without δέ , he inserts the ΔΈ not superfluously (Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact), but on account of the important bearing of the matter on his argument. The case is similar when a more precise definition is made prominent by ΔΈ , the same word being repeated, as in Gal_2:2. So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Camerarius, Erasmus, Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, and others; more recently, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ellicott, Reithmayr; also Matthies, who, however, so explains the passage that we should rather expect it to run, ΔΙᾺ ΔῈ ΤῶΝ ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΚΤΩΝ ΨΕΥΔΑΔΈΛΦΩΝ . On ΔΈ Bengel justly remarks, “declarat et intendit,” as in fact ΔΈ is often used by classical authors for giving prominence to an explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course again understood (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 359). As to the matter itself, observe how Paul under other circumstances, where there was no dogmatic requirement of opponents brought into play, could bring himself to allow circumcision; see Act_16:3. Consequently after Gal_2:3 a comma only is to be placed, not a full stop, or even a colon (Lachmann, Tischendorf). Others, as Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Hermann, Matthias, supply ἀνέβην , which, however, after Gal_2:3, could not possibly occur to the mind of a reader.[66] Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 170 f. (so previously Grotius, and recently Wieseler), assumes an anacoluthon,—that οὐκ εἴξαμεν was intended to follow on ΔΙᾺ ΔῈ ΤΟῪς ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΚΤ . ΨΕΥΔΑΔΈΛΦ ., but that Paul had been led off by the long parenthesis and had then added ΟἿς . Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 329 f., leaves the choice to be made between this view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write, on account of the false brethren we have not yielded, he would not in doing so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he had not yielded; by using οἷς he would thus have altered[67] the sense of what he had begun to say, and would simply have occasioned perplexity by the mixture of on account of and to whom. But there is no need to resort at all to an anacoluthon when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to complete the sense. This remark holds good also against Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711], who (comp. Hilgenfeld) assumes that Paul mixed up the two thoughts: “We did not have Titus circumcised on account of the false brethren;” and, “I might nowise yield to the false brethren.” Hofmann (comp. his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 46) also produces an unnecessary anacoluthic derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a new sentence begins with διὰ δὲ παρεισάκτ . ψευδ ., but that the relative definition ΟἽΤΙΝΕς Κ . Τ . Λ . does not allow it to be completed; that, in fact, this completion does not take place at all, but with Gal_2:6 a new period is begun, attached to what immediately precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, c. Marc. v. 8, Ambrose, Pelagius, and Primasius (opposed by Jerome), Rückert, who is followed by Elwert, supplements the passage as follows: “But on account of the false brethren I withal allowed Titus to be circumcised” (consequently περιετμήθη ). According to his view, this is the course of thought in the passage: “Even Titus was at that time not forced to be circumcised; there was not, and could not be, any question of compulsion; but because I saw that there were false brethren, whose sole endeavour was to discover a vulnerable point in us, I considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and had Titus circumcised. Nevertheless, to yield out of obedience to them, and to acknowledge a necessity in respect to all Gentiles, never occurred to me for a moment,” etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged, first, that in Gal_2:3 the emphasis is laid on Τίτος and not on ἨΝΑΓΚΆΣΘΗ , and in Gal_2:5 on ΠΡῸς ὭΡΑΝ and not on Τῇ ὙΠΟΤΑΓῇ ; secondly, that the idea of “acknowledging a necessity in respect to all Gentile Christians” is not even hinted at by any word of Paul; and thirdly, the general consideration that a point so important and so debateable as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus would have been, would have needed, especially before the Galatians (comp. Gal_5:2), a very different elucidation and vindication from one so enigmatically involved, in which the chief ideas could only be read between the lines. But such a compliance itself shown towards false brethren,—not for the sake, possibly, of some weak brethren, who are imported into the case by Elwert, nor on account of the Jews, as in the circumcision of Timothy (Act_16:3),—would have been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the interpretation of Rückert comes that of Reiche, who places the (supposed) circumcision of Titus not at the time then being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier period, at which it took place either in Antioch or elsewhere: “At vero … ut rem aliam hic interponam, Gal_2:3-6 (nam Gal_2:6 oratio ad apostolos redit), Titi nimirum circumcisionem, quam quis forte modo dictis Gal_2:2 opponat, quasi apostolorum aliorumve auctoritate vel jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem legisque observationem necessariam duxerim 6 f. parum mihi constans, sufficiat monuisse:—nec Titus ille comes meus et adjutor, Graecus natus, minime est coactus circumcidi a me vel a quocunque; propter falsos autem fratres, qui tum nos speculabantur, quomodo immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis parta uteremur, eo consilio, ut denuo nos sub legis servitium redigerent … propter hos dico Titus ritum hunc externum … suscepit volens, ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa et materies praeripiatur,” etc. But against this view may be urged partly the arguments already used against Rückert, and in addition the arbitrary procedure involved in shifting Gal_2:3-6 to an earlier time; although Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἑμοί , evidently referring back to ΣΥΜΠΑΡΑΛΑΒῺΝ ΚΑῚ ΤΊΤΟΝ in Gal_2:1, precludes our taking this event out of the course of the narrative begun in Gal_2:1. Moreover, ΠΕΡΙΕΤΜΉΘΗ as supplied by Reiche cannot be invested with the sense “liber et volens circumcisionem suscepit,”—a sense which, for the very sake of the contrast, since the emphasis lies on liber et volens, would need to be expressed (by ἐθελοντὴν περιετμήθη or the like). Lastly, an un-Pauline compliance[68] would be the result of the sense which would follow from the omission of οἷς οὐδέ in Gal_2:5 (see the critical notes): “But on account of the false brethren … I gave way momentarily and caused Titus to be circumcised,” to which also the sentence of purpose which follows, ἽΝΑ Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ Κ . Τ . Λ ., would be utterly unsuitable; for, according to the point of view of our epistle, the “truth of the gospel” could only continue with the Galatians if such a compliance did not take place.
παρεισάκτους ] subintroductos (Vulgate), brought in by the side, that is, privily and illegitimately,—namely, into the association of Christian brotherhood, of which they are not at all true members. See the note after Gal_2:5. The word does not occur elsewhere in ancient authors (Prol. Sir. in Biel, III. p. 43, and Schleusner, IV. p. 228, πρόλογος παρείσακτος ἀδήλου ); but it must have been employed on several occasions, as ΠΑΡΕΊΣΑΚΤΟΝ is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, and ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΚΤΟΥς by Zonaras, being explained by ἈΛΛΌΤΡΙΟΝ and ἈΛΛΟΤΡΊΟΥς . The word has also been preserved as a name (by-name) in Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, Παρείσακτος ἐπικληθεὶς Πτολεμαῖος . The verb ΠΑΡΕΙΣΆΓΩ is very current in later authors (Plut. Mor. p. 328 D; Polyb. ii. 7. 8, vi. 56. 12; Diod. xii. 41; 2Pe_2:1). Comp. παρεισέδυσαν , Jud_1:4.
ΨΕΥΔΑΔΈΛΦΟΥς ] as in 2Co_11:26, persons who were Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature of Christianity—from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, Judaizing reactionaries against Christian freedom. The article points out that these people were historically known to the readers, Act_15:1; Act_15:5.
οἵτινες κ . τ . λ .] quippe qui, contains the explanation as to the dangerous character of these persons, by which the διὰ δὲ τ . π . ψ . is justified.
ΠΑΡΕΙΣῆΛΘΟΝ ] Comp. Lucian, Asin. 15, εἰ λύκος παρεισέλθοι ; Polyb. ii. 55. 3. The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by Hofmann) is here accordant with the context, and indicated purposely by the twice-repeated παρεις . Comp. generally on Rom_5:20, and see Chrysostom on our passage.
ΚΑΤΑΣΚΟΠῆΣΑΙ ] in order to spy out, hostilely to reconnoitre, to watch. Comp. Jos_2:2-3; 2Sa_10:3; 1Ch_19:3; Eur. Hel. 1623; Polyb. 10:2; also κατάσκοπος , a spy.
ἥν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησ .] a more precise definition of the preceding ἩΜῶΝ . Comp. Eph_2:4 et al. This freedom is, as may be gathered from the entire context, nothing else than the freedom from Mosaism (Rom_10:4) through justification by faith. Comp. Gal_3:13, Gal_5:1. Matthies introduces also the Christian life, but without warrant; the spying of the pseudo-Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what extent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of the Mosaic law. Ἐν Χριστῷ implies as its basis the solemn idea of the ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ΕἾΝΑΙ (Gal_5:6; 2Co_5:21; Eph_3:6, et al. Comp. Eph_1:7; Eph_3:12). Hence: in Christ, as our element of life by means of faith (comp. 2Co_3:17), as Christians.
ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν [69]] is the dangerous design which they had in view in their κατασκοπῆσαι . Ἡμᾶς applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely to Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile Christians (Baur); for it must be the wider category of those to whom, as the genus, the ὑμεῖς in Gal_2:5 belong as the species. We must also notice ΔΙΑΜΕΊΝῌ in Gal_2:5, which is correlative to the ἜΧΟΜΕΝ in Gal_2:4. The future after ἵνα indicates, that the false brethren expected their success to be certain and enduring. See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 683; Rost, ad Duncan. Lex. p. 870. In classical authors we find only ὅπως , ὄφρα , and μή thus construed, and not ἵνα , as Brunck, ad Eur. Bacch. 1380, supposed (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 629), but in the Hellenists and Fathers ἵνα also. Comp. Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 202. ΚΑΤΆ strengthens the idea of the simple verb: to make us wholly slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave us. Comp. 2Co_11:20; Plat. Pol. i. p. 315 B, δουλοῦσθαι ἀδίκως καὶ καταδεδουλῶσθαι : Thuc. iii. 70. 2, and Duker in loc. The mode in which the apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with the intention (de Wette); it represents the latter correctly according to the fact (they desire to bind the Christians to the law), but in the form which it assumed from the Pauline point of view. Comp. Gal_6:12 f.
[65] To supply merely ἠναγκάσθη περιτμ . without οὐκ (Koppe), so that ἠναγκάσθη is to be understood in the altered sense, “But on account of the false brethren, it was insisted on in his case,” is entirely inadmissible, both on account of this very diversity of sense, and also because in ver. 3 the negation is essential and indeed the chief point.
[66] Olshausen takes a similar but still more harsh and arbitrary view, that the idea in Paul’s mind was, “I went indeed up to Jerusalem, in order to lay my gospel before the apostles (?) for examination; on account of these, however, it was really not at all necessary … but, on account of the false brethren, I found myself induced to take steps.” In the ardour of his language, Paul had allowed himself to be diverted from the construction he had begun; and described instead the nature of the false teachers.
[67] Wieseler seeks to avoid this by taking διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισ . ψευδαδ . as equivalent to τῶν δὲ ψευδαδέλφων κελευόντων τοῦτο : with their demand Paul had not exhibited compliance. But διά means nothing else than on account of, that is, according to the context, with reference to them (comp. Act_16:3), namely, because they lurked in the background in the matter, and it was inexpedient to take account of their designs or to give them any free scope. Also in Heb_2:10; Heb_6:7, Joh_6:57, διά with the accus. is simply on account of, and has to receive its more precise meaning from the context. In the passages quoted by Wieseler (Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 35, and Plut. Cam. 35), διά , according to the well-known Greek usage, is “for the sake of,” that is, through merit or through fault of any one.
[68] Reiche seeks to evade this by thus explaining ver. 5 : “quibus, quanquam prudentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumcidere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad fidem libertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne paulisper quidem cessimus iis obtemperantes.” We should thus have in ver. 5 a saving clause, the most essential point of which (“ceterum, in rebus,” etc.) would have to be mentally supplied.
[69] The Recepta, defended by Reiche, is καταδουλώσωνται . But B** F G, 17, Dam., have καταδουλώσωσιν ; and A B* C D E à , min., καταδουλώσουσιν (so Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf). The middle (to which, moreover, Lucian, Soloec. 12, assigns an unfounded difference from the active) is accordingly abandoned unanimously by the best MSS., and is the more readily to be given up, because in this case the versions cannot come into consideration, and consequently the importance of the MSS. is all the greater. The middle being most familiar from the LXX. (Gen_47:21; Exo_1:14; Exo_6:5; Lev_25:46; Eze_29:18; the active, only in Jer_15:14; Jer_17:4; the Apocrypha has the middle only), intruded itself unsought. This much in opposition to Reiche, who derives the active from 2Co_11:20. Further, as καταδουλώσουσιν has the great preponderance of testimony, and was very easily liable to the alteration into the subjunctive usual after ἵνα , it is to be adopted (with Usteri, Schott, Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to be considered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of the subjunctive. The Recepta καταδουλώσωνται , which K and most of the later MSS. have, shows that the change into the subjunctive must have been very prevalent at an early date. Nevertheless L and one min. have καταδουλώσονται , which must have sprung from the original καταδουλώσουσιν .