And because of false brethren brought in unawares, who came in secretly to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Read Chapter 2
Ambrosiaster
AD 400
By “secretly” he means that they had entered by deception, passing themselves off as brothers when they were enemies. By “slipped in” he means that they came in a humble manner, feigning friendship…. To “spy out” is to enter in such a way as to invent one thing and discover another, whereby they may challenge our liberty…. “Liberty in Jesus Christ” means not being subject to the law. “That they might bring us into bondage” means … to subject us to the law of circumcision. –.
And that. I.e, not even though the false brethren of the Jews urged it was Titus circumcised (Chrysostom, Œcumenius). S. Jerome takes away the adversative but, and makes the verse follow immediately on the construction of the preceding. But it is better to take the Greek διὰ δὲ, which our version renders sed propter, in the sense of δὴ or δη̃τα, i.e, "nempe," in spite of it all, he was not circumcised.
The interpretation of Primasius and some others, who take the δὲ, sed, in its strictly adversative sense, as meaning that Titus was not indeed compelled by the Apostles to be circumcised, but yet was circumcised because of the importunity of the false brethren, is clearly inconsistent with the following words, To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, and also with a sound faith. For circumcision having been already done away, and having given place to baptism under the Gospel, it was forbidden to Gentiles to be circumcised. But Titus was a Gentile...
For up to the present time both the Gentiles and the Jews of the circumcision watch and busy themselves with the dealings of the Church, desiring to suborn false witnesses against us, as the apostle says: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus."
No small thing is at stake here. The question is, if the apostles at this point consented to circumcision, why did Paul apply the term “false brothers” to those who also imposed circumcision in accordance with the sentiment of the apostles? First of all, it is one thing actively to impose an act and another passively to consent to it once done. For the one who zealously imposes it makes it necessary and paramount. But the one who, without imposing it, does not prevent the one who wants it, does not consent to it as a necessity but rather through passive consent seeks to accomplish other purposes. … Second, the apostles did this only in Judea, but the false apostles had gone about everywhere. They had all the Galatians in their grip.
And that because of the false brethren, privily brought in.
Here arises a very important question, Who were these false brethren? If the Apostles permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are those who enjoined it, in accordance with the Apostolic sentence, to be called false brethren? First; because there is a difference between commanding an act to be done, and allowing it after it is done. He who enjoins an act, does it with zeal as necessary, and of primary importance; but he who, without himself commanding it, allows another to do it who wishes yields not from a sense of its being necessary but in order to subserve some purpose. We have a similar instance, in Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, in his command to husbands and wives to come together again. To which, that he might not be thought to be legislating for them, he subjoins, But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment. 1 Corinthians 7:5 For this was not a judgment authoritatively given but an indulgence to the...
Who came in privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.
He points out their hostility by calling them spies; for the sole object of a spy is to obtain for himself facilities of devastation and destruction, by becoming acquainted with his adversary's position. And this is what those did, who wished to bring the disciples back to their old servitude. Hence too appears how very contrary their purpose was to that of the Apostles; the latter made concessions that they might gradually extricate them from their servitude, but the former plotted to subject them to one more severe. Therefore they looked round and observed accurately and made themselves busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised; as Paul says, they came in privily to spy out our liberty, thus pointing out their machinations not only by the term spies, but by this expression of a furtive entrance and creeping in.
The preposition ‘because of’ (dia) was put here instead of ‘according to’ (kata). But the sense is this. The Apostles, he says, did not force Titus, who was uncircumcised, to be circumcised, although this was pointed out by the brethren who were brought in secretly and pressed for circumcision. Indeed he put them in the place of spies because of what is foreign to the truth.
That they might introduce us again, he says, into the slavery of the law. This is why elsewhere he says, Christ purchased us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13).
Of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in.".
Therefore he says: "Because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection not even for an hour."
