The Pulpit Commentary — Galatians — Section 108

no doubt, includes at least Titus. The simulating fo.ith in Christ; outwardly" ba.p- question, however, arises-Who were they tized into Christ," but not inwardly, and that for a while endeavoured to force cir- therefore not really. Tho loud dem1md cumcision upon Titus P 'rbe converts from whioh those folsc brethren were ma.king, the sect of the Pharisees, mentioned by St. that all Gentile converts should be oiroum- Luke (Acts xv. 5), are naturally the first to cised, was distinctly rested by them upon occur to our minds. But the moulding of the principle that otherwise those converts the sentence in the neJ.t verse discoun- were not qualified for eonsbip in God'e tenances this solution. We cannot help family or for admission to Church fellowship identifying the "false brethren" there with, o.t any rate, the believing circum- spoken of with just those very Pharisean cision. This demaml of theirs, mo.de upon converts-men who had simply thrown the this pernicious principle, it was tho.t ho.d cloak of professed Christian discipleship raised the present controversy, and had over the old Pharisean legalism still brought Paul e.nd hie fellow-deputies to wholly clung to. But if we suppose this, Jerusalem. If, under such circumstances, we cannot imagine that the writer would Titus, with St. Paul's concurrence, he.d con- have said that Titus was not compelled to sented to be circumcised, then, whatever be cil'cumcised " by reason of those false the motive of hie consenting, it would have brethren," if these had been the very seemed to those fa.lee brethren, and not to persons alluded to as having tried to compel them only, but indeed to the Church at him. It is more probable that the persons large, that a.ll ha.d agreed in recognizing alluded to were certain influential members the soundness of that principle of theirs of the Jewish Church, with a strong body, that circumcision was indispensable for per. perhaps, of the elders of that Church, having feet Divine acceptance. This consideration, possibly the concurrence even of James e.nd we may believe, Titus aud St. Paul now of Cephas. James and the elders, on a urged upon those who, not themselves later occasion (Acts ni. 18-26), urged Paul alleging tbe.t principle, nor even allowing it himself to undertake tbr, performance of to be true, yet, nn other grounds, were certain Mosaical observances, with the view recommending and pressing for Titus's cir- of conciliating the believers of J ernsalem. cumcision. A.nd the argument prevailed It is, therefore, quite supposable, at this with them. They withdrew that pressure earlier and as yet immature stage in the of theirs, a.nd consented to leave Titus development of the practical application of to stand there before the Church and the the evangelical doctrine, that Titus was world, a claimant of full admission to all now being dealt with in a somewhat similar Christian fellowship while still in uncir- manner. But whoever they were that were cumcision. It was those fa.lee brethren doing it, it is plain that, in effect, they were themselves, then, that made it impoeeible at -working towards the same practical result the present juncture that those who held 11.S the most eager of the Mosaist legalists, fast to the truth of the gospel should accept only by a different mode of approach. counsels of compromise or conciliation. In Titus in particular was fastened upon for matters of indifference (a.o,c!.,i,opa.) there is this e.s~ault, apparently because St. Paul a time for conciliation-this no one could had brought him with him as a crucial ever be more ready to see and act upon than instance whereupon i;o try the general St. Paul ; but there is also a time for question. the unbending assertion of truth, and Ver. 4.-And that beoause of false bre- the clamours of the false brethren made the thren llll&wares brought in (5,a 5e Toh present to be one of the latter kind. In ..-a.p ..11'd.lC'Tovs ,i,,.,5,.5,!>,,4>011s); and that because that particular juncture of Church develop- of the fa'lse brethren without warrant brought ment, the doctrine itself of the absolute in. The conjunction oE often is not adver- justification of men through faitl1 in Christ eative, but only introduces a fresh thought was at stake. If Titus was not qualified of a qualifying or explanatory character for Christian fellowship by simply bis faith (comp. a.vefl11v oE and Ka.T' 15Ca.v o, of ver. 2). in Christ, then neither was he qunlified for The rendering of our English Version repre- accept.a.nee with God by simply his faith. sents the connection with the preced.ing Without warrant brought in. In the com- sentence quite correctly. The designation, pound verbal ..-a.p .. 11"J.1<.,.011s, the preposition " false brethren,'' after the analogy of " false 1rapa appears to point, not so much to the apostles," " false prophets " ( ,j,e11oa...-011'To}l.o,, manner· in which they ho.d been brought 1f•1100..-po</>'qTa.,, 2 Cor. xi. 13 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1), in, as e.g. stealthily, craftily, o.e _to the cir- were those who were not really brethren in cumstance that they hacl no busrness to be Christ, but had superinduced the profes- brought in at all; they were an alien brood. sion of such over a trtate of mind radically The Greek glossologists, Hesychius, Photius, i11cc,rnpa.lil,le witL it; not "children of God and Suidas, render it aM&.,.pwr, i.e. alien. tLrougli faith in CLrist Jesus,'' but only In i Pet. i. I, ..-a.pwrcl.!uv11"1V aiplu<1s 1...-w"-<ias, en. n. 1-21.J THE EPIS'l'LE TO THE GALATIANS. 73