OF PAUL TO THE _____________ Introduction: Address And Salutation (With Benediction) Galatians 1:1-51 Paul, an apostle, (not [apostle not] of men, neither by [through, διά] man, but by [through] Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2[omit parenthesis] And all the brethren which [who] are with me, unto the churches 3of Galatia: [.] Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from 5this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. AND Gal_1:1. Paul, an apostle not of men, neither through man, etc.—His office, Paul says, is not derived from men (ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων), so as to be in itself human, and therefore subservient only to human interests; nor has it even been committed to him through the medium of any man (δι’ ἀνθρώπου), in which case it might still be a divine function, although only not directly so. The change of number is only of secondary importance. The general sense: “of human derivation,” is better expressed by the indefinite plural; while on the other hand, in denying human mediation, the singular is used with more precision, by Paul, the rather, as having already in mind the definite antithesis “but by Jesus Christ.” This double negation is essentially only a setting forth of the definition of “Apostle.” He would be in no event an Apostle, if he had his office, ἀπʼ ? ἀνθρ.; nor yet, if he had it, δι’ ἀνθρ. He would then stand only on equal footing with a Timothy and others, in short with all laborers in the gospel, who are inducted into their office by men; he is an Apostle only because called and inducted into his office, through Jesus Christ, etc. He was therefore placed in his office immediately through Christ, not through a man; for the activity of Ananias in Damascus had been only secondary and subsequent, the beginnings were divine. But, furthermore he has received his office through Christ from God the Father, so that, as “through Jesus Christ” explains “not through man,” so God the Father explains “not of men.” Yet Paul does not place this θεοῦπατρ. in express antithesis to ἀπʼ ? ἀνθρ., inasmuch as he does not say ἀπὸθεοῦπ. There being on the positive side no occasion for so precise a discrimination, he here no longer distinguishes between author and medium: perhaps not without design, in order thus to set his apostleship in a like direct relation, as to Christ, so to God the Father, and thereby to place the dignity of the same so much the more strongly in view. What in the first place constitutes the apostolic office, is the immediate calling through Christ, who is the κύριοςἀποστέλλων (on which account διὰἸΧρ. is placed before καὶπατρο̇ς). Christ Himself, certainly, cannot be reduced to the same level with men, if “not of men,” etc., is to remain true. And every thought of it is precluded by this very comprehending of Christ with God the Father, as it were, in one conception, under one preposition. [Ellicott neatly paraphrases thus: “Not from men as an ultimate, nor through man as a mediate authority.” The second ἀπό which we should expect to find before θεοῦπατρός has not been omitted without good reason: while the preposition διά admits an extension of meaning that would cover both ideas (Meyer), the Apostle’s language, as it stands, is more forcible; the directness of his divine commission is emphasized (Lightfoot), and although an argument for the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, must not be forced from the passage, “there is something very noticeable in this use of a common preposition with both the first and second Persons of the Trinity, by a writer so cumulative, and yet for the most part so exact in his use of prepositions as St. Paul” (Ellicott). Schaff: “By includes here the instrumental and the more remote originating cause.—The immediate coφrdination of Christ with God the Father, and this in contrast with the preceding men and man, prove that the Apostle regarded the Saviour as a Divine being.”—R.] Paul here, probably, designates God the Father [i.e., “of Christ,”—R.] as who raised him from the dead, simply because through this divine act, namely, the resurrection of Christ, his own immediate vocation through Christ had been made possible (1 Corinthians 15:8). [While it is not necessary to insist on a polemic reference here, as an answer to the reproach that he had not seen Christ (Calvin), there seems to be an immediate reference to the fact that Paul was called by the exalted Christ, not that he claimed a preλminence on this account (Augustine, Erasmus, and others), but God having raised Christ from the dead, and Christ having immediately chosen him to be an Apostle, it was fitting that he should give prominence here to that act of God which enabled him also to be an Apostle, a witness of the resurrection.—R.] This laying claim so expressly to apostolic dignity in the very introduction, stands (as is shown by what follows) in connection with the vital questions of the Epistle, since his equal apostolic rank had been impugned by the Galatian false teachers. In Galatians 1:11-12 fin. there follows the detailed proof of this “not through man, but through Jesus Christ,” whereby the “not of men” is also indirectly proved. (In other Epistles, where he has not this definite purpose in mind, Paul designates himself more simply, but in substantially the same style as ἀπόστολος or κλητὸςἀπ. Ἰ. Χρ. διὰθελήματοςθεοῦ.) Galatians 1:2. And all the brethren who are with me.—Hardly his companions in travel at that time merely, especially helpers in his office (Meyer), but rather all the Christians of his place of residence at that time. This addition has, at all events, the special purpose of adding the authority of others to his own. He wishes the Galatians to understand, that he has on his side all the brethren in the midst of whom he writes, that these have the same opinion of their conduct, and thus indicates that the Galatians, unless they came to another mind, would sever themselves from the great communion of the brethren, who stand and abide upon the foundation of faith which Paul had laid. Of course the Apostle alone wrote the Epistle. He can, however, bring in the brethren as joint authors, so far as they may, after a previous communication of the leading thoughts, or, more probably, after hearing the Epistle itself read, have signified their agreement with it. [The more restricted meaning is allowable (see Philippians 4:21-22, where “the brethren which are with me” are distinguished from “all the saints.”) The idea of the patristic commentators, that thus additional authority would be given, is incorrect; “the Epistle, being the product of an infallible Apostle, required no such help” (Schaff). Calvin’s remark is just, however: “The concurrence of so many godly persons must have had some degree of influence in softening the minds of the Galatians, and preparing them to receive instruction.” Ellicott: “He adopts the inclusive term to show the unanimity that was felt on the subject of the Epistle; did it mean the whole Christian community we should certainly have expected ‘with whom I am’ rather than ‘who are with me.’ ”—R.] Unto the churches of Galatia.—The same title, 1 Corinthians 16:1. There existed there, it seems, therefore, different local congregations, of which each one constituted at least a relatively complete whole, and the Epistle was so far a circular letter. The omission of a phrase of commendation, such as is usually found in the other Epistles of the Apostle, has perhaps its ground in dissatisfaction with the Galatians. Perhaps, however, the omission is in part attributable to the external circumstance, that ἐκκλησίαι, whole congregations, are addressed, hence any such titles as κλητοί, ἅγιοι, would have been less suitable. [The dissatisfaction of the Apostle is so natural and evident a reason for the omission of any commendatory addition to the simple address, that any other explanation is farfetched. Alford quotes Meyer as saying that 1 and 2 Thess. present a similar instance, but in the 4th ed. Meyer expressly mentions these Epistles as no exceptions. Wordsworth: “a remarkable address in what it does not, as well as in what it does say.”—R.] Galatians 1:3. Grace be to you—and peace.—Respecting the Pauline form of salutation, χάριςκαὶεἰρήνη, consult remarks on the other Epistles.—From God the Father and our Lord, etc. As in Galatians 1:1. Christ and the Father were comprehended under the one preposition διά, without distinction of the Father through an ἀπό, so here the reverse takes place, an evident token how little Paul has in mind a severance of the Divine Persons. Christ is by no means, then, the merely instrumental medium of grace, but, as well as the Father Himself, the Bestower of grace (see Doctrinal and Ethical notes). Here, however, “God the Father” is placed first; in Galatians 1:1 the order was reversed. There is, moreover, a special reason here for placing “our Lord Jesus Christ” last, namely, that it receives in addition a predicate defining it more closely. Grace and peace, Paul wishes for the Galatians, especially in view of the path of error into which they had been led, and for this very reason with especial allusion to that, which alone secures this grace and this peace, namely, the atoning death of Christ. Who gave Himself for us.—In this clause the Apostle anticipates the other main point which he has to unfold. Instead of regarding the cross of Christ alone as the ground of salvation, the false teachers had influenced the Galatians to seek salvation again in observance of the law. In Galatians 1:1 Paul touches on the personal, here he touches on the doctrinal question, which he afterwards handles. Δόντοςἑαυτόν “gave Himself,” nothing less than His own person, which could be fully accomplished only in His death, Περί undefined: “in respect to our sins.” The sense, however, clearly appears not only from the following, “that He might deliver us,” but also in the very form of the expression, which sets forth an expiatory sacrifice that has been offered, in which Christ was the Offerer and the Offered, the Highpriest and the Sacrifice, in one person (comp. Wieseler’s careful investigation of the use of περί, ὑπέρ, ἀντί, in declarations respecting the death of Christ). [Ellicott: In its ethical sense, ὑπέρ retains some trace of its local meaning, “bending over to protect,” and thus points more immediately to the action, than to the object or circumstance from which the action is supposed to spring. The latter relation is more correctly defined by περί, which is thus more naturally used with the thing, “sins,” ὑπέρ with the persons, “sinners.” Often, however, in the N. T. the distinction is scarcely appreciable.—R.] Galatians 1:4. That He might deliver us.—Effect of the expiation accomplished through Christ.—Ἐξαιρεῖσθαι, to tear away from a power. The evil world is viewed as possessor by force, as a tyrant, who brings destruction, and in whose power we are by nature. This deliverance Paul doubtless understands in a double sense, as a making free from the moral corruption of the world, and also as a keeping from the destruction which it thereby brings upon its own at the judgment day. The immediate reference is to the latter, which, however, in view of the ethical character of Christianity, cannot take place without the former, as indeed there can be no doubt that the death of Christ has an ethical intent. It is false, however, to think only of this here.—“Present world” may mean, present or impending age. The latter signification is, however, hardly to be assumed here—contrary to Meyer, who would take it as meaning the evil times which, according to many passages of Scripture, are shortly to precede the second coming of Christ, and on this account are wont elsewhere to be called the last times. But “our phrase, on account of the union of ἐνεστώς with αἰών, is most naturally regarded as parallel with ὁαἰὼνοῦτος or ὁνῦναἰών. The expression ὁαἰών, since this appears to denote a period of time complete in itself, is nowhere used of the last times, preparatory only, as the pangs of travail, to the αἰὼνμέλλων. Nor, finally, is there in the connection the least reason why Paul should have confined the salutary workings of the redeeming death of Jesus to the last times.” (Wieseler). Therefore we must take it as, “the present period of time,” in sense the same as ὁκόσμος, so that the translation “present world,” is substantially correct.—“Evil” emphasizes the ethical character of “this world,” which is besides included in the very conception of “the present world.” It is equivalent to “ruined by sin,” and therefore a deliverance out of it was necessary in the twofold relation given above. [Schaff: “The words contain an allusion to the Jewish distinction between ‘this world,’ and ‘the world to come,’ or the period before, and the period after the appearance of the Messiah. But the sense of these terms is modified in the N. T., so as to make the second coming of Christ the dividing line between the two ζons.” Lightfoot: “The distinction of time between the two, which is the primary distinction, becomes lost in the moral and spiritual conception.” The second adjective πονηρός, emphatically placed, gives prominence to the ethical idea, especially if the better supported order of the Rec., ἐκτοῦἐνεστῶτοςαἰῶνοςπονηροῦ, be adopted.—R.] According to the will of God and our Father.—It is best to connect this with the whole of Gal 1:4. It refers the redeeming work as a whole to the gracious will of the Father, and thus cuts off every ground of objection against this work from the legal point of view. The thought of this redemptive counsel of the Father moves him very naturally, then, to the concluding doxology.—In τοῦθεοῦκαὶπατρὸςἡμῶν, ἡμῶν belongs probably only to πατρός. By θεός God is meant to be designated as the God of all alike; by πατήρ, according to His special relation to the Christian. By the prefixed article two predicates are ascribed to the same person. The same who is God is also our Father. [Lightfoot argues from the absence of the article before πατρός, that ἡμῶν belongs to both nouns, but as Ellicott well remarks, “πατήρ is anarthrous according to rule.” Calvin, Meyer and most, restrict the pronoun to Father, giving the last words somewhat of a predicative force: “God, who is our Father.” It is to be remarked that in Galatians 1:1-3 Paul speaks of “God the Father,” i.e., the Father of Christ—but having in this verse spoken of the redemptive act of Christ, and its redeeming design for us he calls God, who has purposed this “our Father.”—Wordsworth: “Specially our Father by the redemption of us His children by the blood of His Son.”—R.] Galatians 1:5. To whom be glory.—To be taken as optative; for δόξα means Honor, Praise—not Essential Glory, although it is true that the δόξα which should be given to God, rests upon the δόξα which He has. [Schaff: “The doxology in this place is likewise an indirect reproof of the Galatians for dividing the glory of our salvation between God and man.” It is an affirmation rather than a wish. There can be no reasonable doubt that τοὺςαἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων here is an expression for eternity.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The Apostolate. a. An essential characteristic of the apostolate was the immediate “call” through Christ, as whose “delegates” the apostles went out into the world with that proclamation of the Gospel, which should lay the foundation of all that followed. Hence the express assertion here (and afterwards the detailed proof) of this immediate calling. For this, if for no other reason, the office of the Apostles was specifically distinct from all others. In the office of preacher in these days, there always occurs a “call” διʼ ? ἀνθρώπου. The office, however, is not on this account ἀπʼ ? ἀνθρώπων, nor should any bearer of it thus regard it. It is on the contrary “from” “Jesus Christ and God the Father,” is divina institutio. b. In the decision and certainty with which Paul insists upon his apostolic rank, there is implied, on the one hand, a justifiable sense of personal dignity in opposition to all who would question it, and especially to false teachers: “I am an Apostle and nothing less.” This personal feeling, however, was certainly counterpoised at once, by the feeling of humility in view of the momentous duties involved, for the discharge of which grace alone could give strength. But, above all, the Apostle lays stress on this his dignity, not in his personal interest, but in the interest of his Lord, and the gospel of his Lord; in order to shield this against the “perverting” (Galatians 1:7) of the false teachers, he is forced to lay this emphasis on the fact that he is really an Apostle of Christ, and therefore was such in his preaching of the gospel. c. The care with which he proves his fundamental authority and capacity for preaching the gospel, is a pledge to us of the soundness of this preaching. The Christian church has, therefore, in this foundation laid by the Apostle, a standard for all time by which to prove doctrine. d. That Christ has been raised, and now lives, is the fundamental truth, which to the Apostle stands immovably firm, and on which rests, for Paul, the certainty of his calling, and for him and the other Apostles the vigor and joyfulness of their labor in their vocation. For the Apostles were in a special sense to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, and to be persuaded of it by a personal beholding of the Risen One. It was only because the risen Jesus had appeared to him, that Paul was an Apostle. 2. The brethren. This strong emphasizing of his particular vocation (or office) does not imply the least prejudice to his brotherly relation toward other Christians, who have no such vocation. Far from it. Paul not only mentions them in immediate connection with himself, including himself and them in the same salutation, but even treats them as fellow-writers, hence as those who, together with him, impart instruction and admonition, thus strengthening the weight of his own words by their concurrence. He is only called to preach what, as the substance of his faith, is the substance of theirs also; and he wishes to bring back his erring readers to the same faith in which these, his companions, stand and have remained firm. [Their concurrence could add nothing to the real authority of his apostolic teaching, but might aid in establishing that authority among the Galatians. Yet the Apostle seems fond of thus associating others of lower rank with himself in his Epistles.—R.] Here is a hint for the behavior of office-bearers towards other Christians now as well; in personal conduct, to regard and treat them as “brethren,” standing on precisely the same footing; to lay claim to no precedence; and in official activity also, while maintaining full consciousness of their own special vocation, and of the authority inherent in it, never to ignore the might which dwells in the personal faith and believing life of the members of the Church, when there is an opportunity of joining them with one’s self in exhortation and rebuke. 3. “Churches” still. Paul, it is true, gives to the Galatian Christians no especial title of honor, “yet he still counts them worthy to be called churches, because, though they were indeed for the most part fallen from the truth in some main points, they had, notwithstanding this, retained many parts of the pure Christian doctrine; he cherishes then the hope that they would still suffer themselves to be brought right again” (Starke). Hence important doctrinal and ethical defects of a church do not of themselves warrant us in withholding or withdrawing from it the predicate ἐκκλησία. A judgment, whether in any place there is the Church of Christ or not, depends, although largely, yet not in the chief degree, upon subjective character, but in the chief degree stand the objective factors, namely, that verbum divinum recte docetur, and sacramenta recte administrantur. This, as is well known, is one of Luther’s prime principles. In the objective factors, there certainly resides the power (even if latent) to work subjectively.—Yet it cannot therefore be denied that there may be, notwithstanding, a subjective character of the congregation as respects doctrine and morals, where the predicate ἐκκλησία ceases to be applicable; we cannot, however, pronounce a judgment thereon, but must leave this to the searcher of hearts, so far as it is not a question of scandalous offences in the case of individuals. 4. God and Christ. Both in Galatians 1:1 and in Galatians 1:3, Christ is placed in the closest connection with God the Father; and in Galatians 1:3 in such a way that Grace and Peace are invoked in the same manner from God the Father, and from Christ. From this appears, in immediate certainty, the eminent, godlike position of Christ. For the highest and best things, those which are needful for all men, proceed from Him, as much as from the Father. As respects grace, as much depends on His dispositions towards us, as on those of the Father. As Christ is thus placed with the Father on one Divine level, so is the Father, on the other side, placed on the same level with the Son, who, through His Incarnation, has drawn so near to us. Luther: “Therefore Paul, in wishing grace and peace not only from God the Father, but also from Jesus Christ, teacheth, first, that we should abstain from the curious searching of the Divine Majesty (for God no man knoweth), and hear Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father, and uttereth to us His will.” 5. Christ’s giving Himself. The expression for the death of Christ is here (Galatians 1:4) so chosen, that it appears as His own free act, while, as is known, there runs parallel to the series of passages which apprehend it thus, another representing it as something decreed by God concerning Christ, representing Christ as burdened with the Father’s curse (comp. Galatians 3:13). This designation is here chosen, in order to render prominent and bring home to the hearts of the Galatians the great love of Christ, displayed in His “giving Himself for us.” “The giving of Himself consisted of many actions, from the incarnation on, but it applies especially to his atoning death.” This “giving Himself”—this morally great act was occasioned by our sins, our moral perversion; a cutting contrast, and yet a necessary nexus between cause and effect!—For its intent was to procure a remedy for our sins, and their ruinous results. 6. This present evil world. Through our sins we belong to this present evil world, bear its character, and are in its power, that is, through it and with it are going to destruction. From this destroying might Christ would rescue us, and has rescued us, by His giving Himself for our sins, that is, through the reconciliation thus accomplished for our sins; because we, when reconciled, lie no longer under the judgment of God upon the sinful world, and therefore do not go with it to ruin. Undoubtedly Christ had in view besides, an inward, moral deliverance from the corrupt course of the world; yet this is the secondary aim; the primary is the deliverance from judgment and perdition.—God’s acts of grace, according to the Biblical view, are throughout directed, first of all, toward a deliverance from destruction, and consequently to the impartation of a good, of a definite happy destiny, not chiefly to the rehabilitation of certain ethical qualities, of a particular direction of life and will. They are directed thus, in a certain measure, towards an outward end, with which however an inward one is inseparably connected, as the economy of the Spirit, whose work it is to bring forth the corresponding ethical quality, is, although inseparable from that of the Father and the Son, yet distinct from it, presupposing it. The deliverance from the evil world, is, so far as concerns its being won, already accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ. Of course a participation in this is only gained through faith (this is implied in ἡμᾶς, which refers to believers), and is actually perfected only on the coming in of the αἰὼνμέλλων. A certain pledge and a joyful foretaste of it, however, the believer has already in justification, because this is an assurance of the divine grace. As to the rest, the apostolical expectation of the αἰὼνμέλλων as near lies at the foundation of this passage. [Whatever indications there may be elsewhere of “this apostolical expectation,” neither the words nor context show any trace of it here, except on the view of Meyer, which refers “present evil world” to the times of danger immediately preceding the second coming of Christ, a view which is not adopted by Schmoller himself, nor by any other commentator of note.—R.] 7. Redemption according to God’s will. The work of redemption was accomplished “according to the will” of the Father. This indicates the other side in the redeeming work, alluded to under 6, namely, that the death of Christ was also decreed to Him, by God for an expiation, and that Christ’s “giving Himself” was accordingly, at the same time an act of obedience to the Father’s will, a suffering Himself to be given up. Love to man and obedience to the Father, all in one, was the source of His sacrifice of Himself. This view is in full harmony with the declarations of Christ Himself, especially in John, with the emphasis which He lays on His having been sent, on His doing the will of the Father. There was nothing whatever self-elected in the redeeming work of Christ; it was a God-appointed work.—In this it first finds its firm, immovable foundation, and all scruples as to the availing worth of this self-sacrifice of Christ before God are taken away from the troubled conscience. At the same time, all clinging to such scruples is also condemned, as a striving against the will of God. We may, but we also ought to believe in the atoning death of Christ; hence especially, we ought not to lessen its significance by a righteousness of works. This will of God is the will that we should be saved, according to which, He willed both the way that should lead to our salvation, Christ’s dying on account of our sins, and also the result, our redemption. It was a loving will, but also a will of holy love, condemning sin and forgiving it; the latter only on the foundation of the former, but the former also for the sake of the latter. Because aiming at our salvation it was in any case the will of God our Father. 8. God’s honor its end. As and because the will of God is the origin of the work of redemption, so the honor of God is its aim. That He, His name, be honored, is the purpose and result of redemption. To Him belongeth honor—and that honor forever—for redemption, and such honor will be rendered Him by the Redeemed. The phrase εἰςτοὺςαἰω̈ν. τ. αἰών. no doubt looks forward to the αἰὼνμέλλων. The expression is, however, thus indefinitely framed, in order, far as the language admits, to express an eternal duration. There is nothing in this, of course, against the division found elsewhere, into simply two ζons, present and future. AND Gal_1:1. Starke:—To all peculiarly spiritual offices belongs a divine vocation. Every man may take comfort in the consciousness of his office and calling, and also appeal to it when there is need. Let no one deem this pride or boasting.—Spener:—Christ is the founder of the preacher’s office. He is the King in His Kingdom, and so sends whom He will. He is the Chief Shepherd, and therefore all under shepherds must be appointed by Him. He has obtained by His merits the spiritual power needed for the ministry, and has received the Holy Ghost to that end for our sakes. It is He, therefore, who speaks through His servants.—Luther:—Wert thou wiser than Solomon and Daniel, yet until thou art called, flee the sacred ministry, as thou wouldst hell and the devil, then wilt thou not spill the word of God to no purpose. If God needs thee, He will know how to call thee.—Lange:—To be sure of one’s divine, although only mediate vocation, is a weighty matter, and gives to the conscience rest, in the office blessing, and to vindication of the same and of the pure doctrine, much joyfulness.—Wόrt. Summ.:—There is a twofold vocation to the ministry; both are of God, who will have the gospel preached to the end of the world; but some are called of God without means, of which sort are the patriarchs, prophets, apostles; and some through men, although according to God’s commandment and ordinance.—Rieger:—As certainly as every believer shall be taught of God, so that what he has apprehended from human instruction is confirmed in his heart with divine impressions and powerful workings, just so certainly must every teacher have in his conscience a divine seal upon his vocation, although derived through men, and on this account a joyfulness which his hearers cannot impeach. The apostolate in its high significance; 1. for the founding, 2. for the continuance of the Christian church which must perpetually rest upon the foundation of the apostolic doctrine.—The divine vocation to office: 1. To have it, is under all circumstances needful; 2.To be certain of it, is often important; 3. To appeal to it, may often be right and proper.—How independent (of men), and yet at the same time, how dependent (on God), the preacher of the gospel is and knows himself (may and should know himself) to be!—Even so the Christian generally: he is what he is, not from men (although through men), for not natural descent nor outward fellowship makes him such—but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.—Christian sense of personal worth: 1. its justification, 2. its limits.—All through Jesus Christ! a) humbling truth—not through us; b) exalting truth—through no less a one than Christ, and thereby through the Highest, God.—[Calvin:—In the church we ought to listen to God alone, and to Jesus Christ, whom He has appointed to be our teacher. Whoever assumes a right to instruct us, must speak in the name of God or of Christ.—Burkitt:—Behold the peculiar prerogative of St. Paul above the rest of the Apostles; they were called by Christ in the day of His humiliation; but he was called by Christ when sitting at His Father’s right hand in heaven. As his call was thus very extraordinary, so his gifts were answerable to his call.—R.] Galatians 1:2. Wόrt. Summ.:—Although the truth of a doctrine does not rest upon the multitude of people, but alone upon God’s word, yet, when many support a doctrine founded in God’s word, the weak in the faith are noticeably strengthened thereby, because they see that not merely one or two, but many, confess such a doctrine.—Spener:—Christians are “brethren” to each other; for they have one Heavenly Father, one first-born brother, Christ; one mother‚ the Christian church; one seed of regeneration, the divine word; one inheritance of eternal life. That is a more intimate and strict brotherhood than the common one among all men.—Starke:—In names and titles we must give good heed not willingly to commit falsehood, nor attribute to any one, praise that does not belong to him; yet common and authorized titles must be understood not in absolute strictness, but according to common use.—spener:—There remains even in a loose crowd a Christian church, even though grave errors, which remove the ground of faith are found there, so long as God’s word and the holy sacraments are there and are maintained. On Galatians 1:1-2. Let us hear, when we begin to waver in the truth: 1. Apostolic doctrine; 2. The testimony of brethren!—Apostolic doctrine and the voice of brethren; an admonition to every church to abide in the evangelical truth. Ver.3. Rieger:—Paul flees in this perplexity to the riches of God in Christ Jesus, and entrusts to the grace and the peace from thence, the restoration of the Galatians also; with this greeting, as with a cordial, he not only refreshes their hearts but quickens himself also to a confidence towards God in Christ.—Wόrt. Summ. We see here where we must begin, when after sin committed we will come to God for grace; namely, not with ourselves, not with our piety! for if we had kept this, we should be already in favor with God, nor even with God Himself out of Christ, for He is to sinners a consuming fire, but alone with Christ, and His bitter passion and death for our sins.—Luther:—Paul wishes the Galatians grace and peace, not from the emperor or kings and princes; for these are wont ofttimes to persecute the godly: nor does he wish them grace and peace from the world, for in the world they shall have tribulation; but from God our Father, that is, he wishes them a godly and heavenly peace.—Lange:—True peace can never exist without grace, for grace is the ground and source of peace; on the other hand there is grace sometimes without peace, especially with the tempted, who may, for awhile fall into great disquietness of soul, and yet remain in God’s grace. Galatians 1:4. starke—If Christ has for our sakes given His all, ah! should not we surrender ourselves, with all that in us is, to Him? Man! keep thyself from sin, on account of which Christ hath endured so much, lest thou thyself bring to nought for Him this great work, for which He came.—Luther—mark diligently the word: “for our.” For therein lies all the virtue, namely, that all which is said concerning us in the Holy Scriptures, in such passages as “for me,” “for us,” “for our sin,” and the like, we should know how to take well in mind, and apply particularly to ourselves, and hold fast thereto by faith.—For thou hast, no doubt, easily brought thyself to believe that Christ, God’s Son, was given for St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, and other saints’ sins, who were worthy of such grace; but, contrariwise it is especially and thoroughly hard, that thou, for thine own person, a poor, unworthy, condemned sinner, shouldst from thine heart certainly believe, hold, and say, that Christ, God’s Son was given for thy so many and so great sins, who yet nevertheless hast never yet been worthy of such grace.—Therefore should we well train and prepare our hearts with this utterance and the like utterances of St. Paul, that when the devil hereafter comes and accuses us and says: “See, you are a sinner, therefore you must be damned!” we may meet him and answer, “yea, good devil, for the very reason that you accuse me and will be condemning me for a sinner, for that reason will I be righteous and holy, be not damned, but saved the rather. For in this very thing, that you tell me how I am a poor sinner, and a great one, you give me a sword and weapon in hand wherewith I can mightily overcome you, yea, slay you and put you under my feet with your own arms. For if you can tell me that I am a poor sinner, I can say to you again, that Christ died for sinners.”—Count these words of St. Paul as said in earnest, and to be true, and not as a dream, when he says that the world is evil, although many people therein have many noble, beautiful, virtues; and although in outward guise and appearance there is much holiness and brilliant excellence.—To this evil world belongs also all art, wisdom, righteousness, &c., of a godless man. Thy wisdom, which thou hast out of Christ, is a double folly, thy righteousness is a double sin and godlessness, since it knows nothing of the wisdom and righteousness of Christ, and since, over and above this, it darkens, hinders, reviles and persecutes you; wherefore St. Paul may well name the world an evil world; for it is the worst when it will be at the best and most pious. In the religious, wise and learned men, it will be at its most pious and best, and yet it is twice as wicked. Berlenb. Bible:—Of this present evil world, ordinances of religion form no small part, of which much is instituted whereby men will take one another captive to the spirit of the world. Without religion nevertheless will the world not be; so it dresses up such things as may be congruous with flesh and blood; but true religion burdens and depresses it. Thus the deliverance takes place especially from the Pharisaic leaven. Starke:—See how availing and certain is our redemption and salvation, because it proceeds from the will of the Father: how can that be unavailing, which has come to pass according to His will. [Schaff:—God is our Father because He is the Father (not simply of Jesus Christ which would place him on a par with us, but) of our Lord Jesus Christ.—R.] Galatians 1:5. As often as we think on the great work of redemption, we should heartily praise God; and therefore should we often think thereon; that we may be powerfully excited to praise.—To praise God is the best divine service; it is that which must endure unto eternity. Happy he who begins it here, and prepares himself thereby for a blessed eternity. It is a proof that he knows God aright, and has become partaker of His grace, and that he will one day come to the heavenly choirs of angels who praise God. Jesus’ giving Himself to death: 1. Its occasion (our sins); 2. Its purpose (our deliverance therefrom); or: 1. the strongest testimony against us (our sin); 2. the mightiest consolation for us; or: 1. Its great effect (to deliver us from this evil world); 2. Whence it has this effect (as being a satisfying and bearing and thereby a taking away of the divine wrath; 3. in whom it is thus effectual (only in those who are His in faith).—What defends us from being lost with this evil world? 1. Not our own righteousness whereby we only entangle ourselves in this evil world the more, but 2. Christ’s sacrificial death alone.—The appropriation of the merits of Christ: 1. Every one needs it on account of his sins; 2. The sinner needs it precisely as sinner.—Jesus Christ the Deliverer out of the power of this present evil world: 1. The world the tyrant in whose power we are; 2. Christ the Deliverer that has appeared.—Evil—the character of this world: 1. Therefore the Christian in this world longs for the world to come; 2. He must how-over be delivered from this present world, in order to enter the world to come.—Redemption through Christ rests upon the will of God: 1. A rich consolation (against all doubts); 2. An earnest admonition: Whoever lightly esteems the redemption accomplished through Christ, sins thereby against the will of God Himself.—The honor which is due to God for the redemption in Christ.—The praise of God: 1. a fruit of the redeemed state; 2. a proof of the same.—The praise which the redeemed bring to God: 1. begins in time; 2. continues into eternity. Galatians 1:3-5. Lisco:—The Apostle’s invocation of blessings for his churches: 1. What does it contain? The greatest benefits which are bestowed by God on man. 2. On what is this invocation grounded? a. On the free will offering of Christ. b. On the gracious counsel of God, to redeem us by such offering.—The benediction of the Apostle: 1. A proof his hearty love: even to the unthankful, who through their apostasy have so troubled him, he wishes the best things; 2. A proof of his standing fast in the truth: in direct opposition to them he held fast so much the more definitely the evangelical truth, of redemption through Christ’s death alone, and points them to that in contrast with their erroneous opinions.—Right wishing: 1. wishes true benefits; 2. points to the true source of such benefits.—The right behavior toward those who are disposed to depart from the truth: to open the heart fully to them in expressions of desire, full of divine blessing, before closing with and combatting their errors. Galatians 1:1-5. The appearance of the Apostle against the Galatians: 1. in the full dignity of his office, at the same time, however, associating the brethren with himself; 2. with the full love of his heart, at the same time conceding nothing of the truth. Footnotes: [Title: Rec. ἡπρὸςΓαλάταςἐπιστολὴΠαύλου. Elz. ΠαύλουτοῦἀποστόλουἡπρὸςΓαλάταςἐπιστολή. ΰ. A. B. K., Lachmann, Tischendorf and most editors, πρὸςΓαλάτας.—R.] Galatians 1:1.—[The comma after “apostle” and the parenthesis are better omitted, since the clauses immediately following “Apostle” are most closely connected with it, and the idea so far from being parenthetical is one of the most prominent in the whole Epistle. “Of” is changed to “from” by Ellicott, while he retains “by” as a sufficiently exact translation of διά—R.] Galatians 1:3.—ΰ. inserts ἡμῶν after πατρός, omitting it after κυρίου. [This reading is an alteration to conform with other salutations (Meyer). That of Rec. is undoubtedly correct. So all modern editors.—R.] Galatians 1:4.—Περί (instead of Rec.) is found in most MSS. and in the best MSS. ΰ also, though ΰ3., reads ὑπέρ. [The external authorities are decisive against the reading of the Rec; περί is adopted by modern editors almost universally.—R.] It is one of the anti-scriptural fancies of the Irvingites to believe, notwithstanding this, in the reappearance of Apostles proper in their churches. Wieseler. [In Lightfoot, p. 92 sq., there is an interesting discussion on “the name and office of an Apostle.” He, however, objects to the restriction of the office to the twelve, with only the exception of St. Paul, adducing the apostleship of Barnabas, and implying that “James, the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19) was an Apostle, even, though not the same as James, the son of Alpheus. This position is not safe, nor is it accordant with the argument of Paul in this Epistle, where he lays so much stress upon the “immediate call.” Lightfoot is forced, therefore, to deny the necessity for a call from an outward personal communication with our Lord, though his admission that the having seen Christ was a necessary qualification, is a denial of the perpetuation of the office. It is better to hold that there were but Twelve Apostles, to whom was added, by direct call, Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles—Barnabas and others were “apostolic men.” On the relation of Paul to the original college of apostles, see Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church, p. 512 sq., p. 233 sq. His note p. 234 is appropriate here: “The strict hierarchical view, which always looks for an outward, palpable succession, admits no satisfactory explanation of the fact, that the Apostles had no share whatever in the ordination of Paul after his conversion (Acts 9:17), and in his being sent to the Gentiles by the Church of Antioch (Acts 13:3). The divine irregularity of his call, and the subsequent independence of his labors, make Paul, so to speak, a prototype of evangelical Protestantism, which has always looked to him as its main authority, as Romanism to Peter.”—R.] Occasion of the Epistle: OF THE FROM THE GOSPEL, WHICH PAUL HAD TO THEM, TO THE FALSE OF CERTAIN , AGAINST WHOM HE UTTERS THE Galatians 1:6-10.6I marvel that ye are so soon removed [changing over] from him that called you into [in or by] the grace of Christ unto another [a different] gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be [except that there are] some that trouble you, and would 8[θέλοντες, wish to] pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach [should preach] any other gospel unto you than [or contrary to] that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [anathema]. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than 10 [or contrary to] that ye have received, let him be accursed [anathema]. For do I now persuade [am I now conciliating] men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for [omit for] if I yet pleased men, I should not be the [a] servant of Christ. AND Without any thanksgiving for the readers’ gifts of grace, as in other Epistles, the Apostle passes immediately from the invocation of a blessing to sharp rebuke which, however, strikes not so much the Galatians themselves as their seducing teaches. Galatians 1:6-9. Galatians 1:6. I marvel that ye are so soon changing over.—He finds it strange, since he has expected, and had reason to expect, something different. “So soon” refers rather to the entrance of the apostasy than to its course, as having so rapidly developed itself from its commencement. The latter view suits the connection the less, inasmuch as μετατίθεσθε designates the apostasy as yet in process of development; οὕτωταχέως, is therefore, we may say, equivalent to—so soon after the last visit of the Apostle. [“So soon” either 1) after conversion, or 2) after his visit, or 3) after the false teachers came; all three may be included, and are true; which is the primary reference cannot be certainly determined. In any case in view of the middle force of μετατίθεσθε (“turning renegades,” Lightfoot), it is a charge that the change was sudden and one for which they were to blame. Schaff: “The Greek implies first that the apostasy was voluntary, hence their own guilt; secondly, that it was not yet completed, and hence might be averted. The passive rendering would transfer the guilt to the false teachers.”—R.] From him that called you: most probably from God, who called you on the ground of the grace of Christ, which He has shown in His surrender of Himself to death; not=from Christ, who out of grace has called you. It is true that with the first explanation ἐνχάρ. Χρ. is difficult to render, but in any case it is not to be understood of the state of grace, as if=called you to the possession and enjoyment of grace.—[By the grace of Christ.—The E. V. renders ἐνχά-ριτι, “into the grace,” following the Vulgate, but ἐν is here used in its instrumental sense. Alford: “Christ’s grace is the elementary medium of our ‘calling of God;’ the sum of all that He has suffered and done for us to bring us to God;—whereby we come to the Father,—in which, as its element, the Father’s calling of us has place.” Ellicott: “The dogmatical consideration that the grace of Christ, in the sense it here appears used by St. Paul, denotes an active and energizing influence rather than a passive element, seems distinctly to suggest the instrumental sense.” Comp. his notes in loco.—R.] But it is God Himself who “calls.” The reference of καλέσαντος; to the Apostle has some support in the fact that he afterwards opposes so expressly his own preaching to that of others, yet must be rejected, as καλεῖν too constantly expresses an activity of God for this interpretation. The apostasy is described, doubtless not undesignedly, as an apostasy from a person, not from a doctrine, that it may appear as ingratitude.—To a different gospel.—More exactly: to another kind of gospel = εὐαγγ. παρ’ ο͂παρελ. (Galatians 1:9). A gospel, either because the Galatians naturally took the doctrine which the false teachers brought them for the Gospel, or primarily in the general sense of Doctrine of Salvation, which the legal doctrine also claimed to be. Galatians 1:7. Yet Paul as it were at once corrects himself, and respecting that which he has just named “gospel,” denies again that this predicate in fact belongs to it, this false teaching is no gospel, but a subversion of the gospel. This is at all events the sense, if ο͂ ?—the most obvious construction—is referred to the immediately preceding εὐαγγ. = “which other sort of gospel is no other, by the side of that preached by me, except that there are,” etc. [The more correct reference is to ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον. So Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, and Schmoller himself. See Alford’s notes in loco for a full discussion and objections to the reference below.—R.] The reference however to the whole sentence is possible=which is nothing else (that is, this turning to another gospel) than that you have let yourselves be seduced by such as wish to subvert the gospel. There be some that trouble you.—“Paul is fond of calling his opposers: τινές i.e., certain well known people, whom one for any reason whatever, in this case out of disparagement, will not designate more nearly.” Wieseler.—[Wordsworth suggests and defends an ironical meaning: “unless they who are troubling you, are somebody,” but this seems forced. Lightfoot paraphrases well: “only in this sense is it another gospel, in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true gospel.”—R. ]—Ταρασσεῖν = to disturb the conscience and thereby the feelings by exciting doubts whether the gospel preached to them were the true teaching or not.—Wish to pervert = to have the will, to labor for; as the sequel plainly shows, it has not yet come to an actual perversion; μεταστρέφειν=δָ ?λַּ ?κְ, funditus evertere.—The gospel of Christ, probably=gospel respecting Christ, inasmuch as in the first place the gospel treats of Christ generally; especially, however, because the merit of Christ is the chief theme of the true gospel in distinction from the legal teaching. The gospel, of course, could not, in itself, be destroyed, but the evangelical preaching among the Galatians might be, if they received another teaching. Galatians 1:8. But though we—let him be anathema.—Certain persons wish to destroy the gospel of Christ among you, and bring you another, but (ἀλλά) rather let every one who does that be ἀνάθεμα, instead of passing for an evangelist.—Ἡμεῖς: first and chiefly the Apostle himself, then, however, also the “brethren who are with me,” in whose name he likewise writes.—Angel from heaven, to be taken together=angel descended from heaven. “If Paul repudiates his own and even angelic authority in the case assumed, as accursed, then every one, without exception (comp. ὅστιςἄνἦ, Galatians 5:10), is subject to the same curse in the same case.” Meyer.—Παρ’ ο͂εὐηγγ. ὑμῖν=literally: beyond that, etc., maybe equivalent to praterquam, or to contra. “Formerly dogmatic interest came here into play, the Lutherans, in opposition to tradition, contending for praterquam, and the Catholics in defence of it, for contra. Contra, or more exactly the sense of specific difference, is according to the context the right sense. (See Galatians 1:6. ἕτερον.)” Meyer. [This sense of παρά, “contrary to,” is now generally conceded by Protestant commentators. Wordsworth and Lightfoot give it the sense of “besides;” the latter arguing from the context that Paul means, his gospel will brook no rival, will suffer no foreign admixture, but, as Ellicott remarks: “the Apostle implies throughout the Epistle that the Judaical gospel was in the strict sense of the words an ἕτερονεὐαγγ., and in its very essence opposed to the true gospel.” Both ideas may properly be included (Alford, Schaff).—R.]—Εὐηγγελισάμεθαὑμῖν: namely, I and my companions at the time of your conversion. Comp. παρελάβ. Galatians 1:9. Let him be anathema.—A translation of ηֵ ?ψֶ ?ν= Dedicated to God without ransom=given over to annihilation, to death, in the Old Testament to bodily, in the New Testament to θάνατος in opposition to ζωή, to eternal death. See in Wieseler a detailed elucidation and refutation of the explanation, “excommunicated.” [Ἀνά-θεμα is the common Hellenistic form of the classical and Attic word ἀνάθημα, which in both forms originally meant “devoted to God.” When the two forms were desynonymized, the Hellenistic word naturally took a meaning from the Hebrew (through the LXX.) in malam partem, while the Attic form was used in a good sense. Comp. Luke 21:5, where only it is found in N. T. This distinction was general, but not universal. Afterwards the common patristic sense of our word undoubtedly was “excommunicated,” though sometimes accompanied with distinct execration. It cannot have this meaning here, for “an angel from heaven” is not open to excommunication, nor does N. T. usage favor such a signification. Comp. Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 12:3. See also Trench, Syn. N. T. § 5, Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot.—This passage affords no warrant for ecclesiastical anathemas. Such a practice presupposes the milder meaning, which is incorrect, and as milder, in itself forbids such anathematizing. It is obviously unfair to find in St. Paul’s language first, a reason for ecclesiastical “excommunication,” and then a warrant for “anathematizing.”—R.] Galatians 1:9. As we said before.—Referring probably to his last visit, not to Galatians 1:8.—The Apostle repeats the curse, which he has pronounced Galatians 1:8, in order to show that he “speaks deliberately.” Bengel.—[Notice that in Galatians 1:8 the Apostle uses ἐάν with the subjunctive: “though we, or an angel, should preach,” in Galatians 1:9, εἰ with the indicative: “if any man preach,” appending the anathema in both cases. “In the former, a pure hypothesis is put forward, in itself highly improbable; in the latter a fact which had actually occurred and was occurring” (Lightfoot). There is additional force in the change of subject: even Paul or an angel from heaven-did they do so—would be anathema, much more—any man, neither Apostle nor angel—is anathema, having done so.—R.] Galatians 1:10. For am I now conciliating men?—Explanation (γάρ) of the severity with which he demeans himself towards the false teachers by this repeated ἀνάθεμα. He does it, because he is concerned only for the favor of God, not that of men. It would be natural to understand “now” like Galatians 1:9 of the time of the composition of the epistle. Yet on the other hand this limitation is not quite congruous to the general contents of the verse, it is therefore better to understand it more generally of the time of the Apostle’s conversion. [It seems more natural to regard “now” as an emphatic taking up of “now” in Galatians 1:9—“now in what I have said.” Paul had not been a man-pleaser before conversion. If he had been charged with it among the Galatians, he was not so sow in what he had been writing.—R.]—Πείθειν=to win over, to draw to one’s side by persuasion, whether directly by words or otherwise; here, in view of the reference to God=to gain for one’s self, to win for one’s self as a friend.—Ἀρέσκειν: sometimes to please, sometimes to be disposed to please, to live according to the pleasure of; the latter here. “Yet” goes back to the same time with “now.” [“Yet,” i.e., after my call to the apostleship, and all that has happened to me (Schaff). “It is equivalent to ‘at tins stage, at this late date’ ” (Lightfoot).—R.]—I should not be a servant of Christ=could make no claim to this title. As a true servant of Christ, who dares not act to please men, I must, even though it should not please men, judge with all sharpness and severity respecting those who subvert the gospel. “Servant of Christ” is here doubtless to be taken in its official sense=could make no claim to the name of a teacher. With how much right Paul could say so of himself is shown, e.g., by 2 Corinthians 11:23 sq. AND ETHICAL1. Apostasy even in the early church. The glimpse of such scenes of the first Christian Church as our Epistle speaks of, and as are mentioned by anticipation in our section, is instructive. Even in such as had been brought to the faith by a Paul himself, a speedy lapse was possible, and yet he certainly fulfilled his office among them in the right way, and his activity was blessed. Even the best preaching cannot overcome the sinful nature of the human heart. This preserving and making steadfast in the truth, is a work of the Holy Ghost, and it goes on, just as growth is wont to do: through advances and fallings back on account of the opposing might of the flesh, according to the account of the Apostle himself. Galatians 5:17. 2. The false teachers. Deflections from evangelical truth, however, are not on this account to be taken lightly; but on the contrary, very gravely, as the language of the Apostle in this passage shows. Paul had full justification in uttering a curse against the false teachers, and thus giving them over to everlasting destruction, in the wickedness they committed with their false teaching; which was a double one—1) against persons: they perplexed their consciences and brought them in danger of losing the salvation of their souls; 2) against the cause: they went about to subvert the gospel of Christ. They made an attack on the sacred rights of believers, and their conduct was therefore worthy of a curse. That this curse does not flow from personal mortification, because they had rejected his teaching, Paul shows plainly by placing himself under the curse, in case he should teach differently. Besides, the anathema is, of course, aimed at this conduct of the false teachers in itself, and this sharp opposition by no means excluded the wish that they might themselves see the error of their way, and themselves come to the knowledge of the evangelical truth. But this was not the place for saying this. He expresses himself with thorough earnestness against the false teachers, only to open the eyes of the Galatians, and to release them from the snares in which they had allowed themselves to be taken. Although in this earnestness he comes in conflict with men, he must do what beseems a servant of Christ: be zealous for Christ and the salvation of His people. 3. Pleasing men. What Paul says, Galatians 1:10, appears to be opposite to 1 Corinthians 10:33; but in 1 Cor. Paul speaks of things indifferent, in which a man may yield somewhat without wounding his conscience (comp. Romans 15:2). Here, however, he means sinful complaisance, where one fashions his doctrine and preaching according to the sense of men, in order thus to gain their favor. He only then is a servant of Christ, who subordinates unconditionally the favor of men to the favor of God, who in His official activity does not seek to make Himself pleasing to men, does not make this his object. When, however, from time to time—for uninterrupted it can never be—the favor of men falls to his lot, he is to receive it from God’s hand with thankfulness and humility, as a kind indulgence, which in his manifold conflicts may be of value. That the servant of Christ must be on his guard, not to draw upon himself deservedly the ill-will of the world through pride and self-will; that he is not in carnal temper to fly in the face of men, and hence that he must always examine well whether his zeal is a spiritual one, or is not becoming a carnal one, if it were not such from the beginning, is indeed self-evident, but cannot be carefully enough considered; as in general the theory of the relation of human and divine favor is tolerably simple, but the practice is very difficult. [4. Wordsworth:—Not to please men, be they never so many or great, out of flatness of spirit, so as, for the pleasing of them, either 1) To neglect any part of our duty towards God and Christ; or, 2) To go against our own consciences, by doing any dishonest or unlawful thing; or, 3) To do them harm whom we would please, by confirming them in their errors, flattering them in their sins, humoring them in their peevishness, or but even cherishing their weakness; for weakness, though it may be borne with, yet it must not be cherished. But then, by yielding to their infirmities for a time, in hope to win them, by patiently expecting their conversion or strengthening, by restoring them with the spirit of meekness, with meekness instructing them that oppose themselves, should we seek to please all men.—R.] AND Gal_1:1. “I marvel:”—is a word of apostolic wisdom.—Luther:—St. Paul does not set upon the Galatians with vehement and terrifying words, but speaks in quite fatherly and friendly wise with them; and does not only soften down their fall and error, but excuses them also in a manner, yet so that he nevertheless also punishes them. Therefore, of all sweet and mild words, he could hardly have chosen one more fit than when he says, “I marvel.”—Rieger:—In itself the preservation and perseverance of a man in good is more to be wondered at than when there is a stumbling or falling. But the Apostle says, “I marvel,” in order to express to them thereby the confidence of something better, which he has retained on their behalf, and to let them discover something of the hope, in which he stands, of begetting them again through the gospel unto their first faith. Wόrt. Summ.:—We are here reminded of our human weakness. We should endeavor to be so assured of divine truth in our own heart, as to be able to persevere therein, though even an angel would persuade us of something else, and the whole world would believe otherwise. Such perseverance is not in our power, however, but must be obtained from God through prayer and through diligent use of the divine word, which alone can make our walk steadfast. “From him that called you by the grace of Christ unto another gospel.”—Rieger:—A tender description of the good work begun in them. A feeling contrast with the yoke which some would now lay upon their necks.—Spener:—Whosoever will no longer be saved simply through the grace of God in Christ falls away from the Father and the grace of Christ to another gospel, even though he holds the other articles of faith. For so soon as merit is mixed therewith, it is no more grace. Apostasy from the truth: 1. how far not to be wondered at; 2. how far to be wondered at.—So soon alienated! 1. a word of grief, true of so many; 2. a warning word, in relation to all.—An apostatizing tendency, or inconstancy a radical fault of the human heart: 1. sluggish and immovable, where it is of moment that it should move and apply itself; 2. so movable and unsteady where it should abide firm.—To turn ourselves from Him who hath called us: 1. so lightly done; 2. weighs yet so heavily.—Another Gospel! is the world’s cry; no other! must forever remain our answering testimony. Galatians 1:7. Spener.:—The gospel of Christ will not let itself be mixed with the doctrine of works, as if these were necessary to salvation; but as soon as this is done, the gospel is perverted.—Hedinger:—More taught than God has thought, is to the gospel quite athwart. The false teachers will have Christ’s grace, to be sure, but something of their own works therewith. Gross error! Adding more destroys the store.—Starke:—Where Satan cannot persuade men to open sins, he seeks to perplex their consciences, and pervert the gospel, which is the only means of salvation; in this too he very easily succeeds, because the doctrine of works appears quite agreeable to the reason. Galatians 1:8. Luther:—It is not in vain that St. Paul sets himself first, and will, first of all, be accursed, if he shows himself herein worthy of it. For all excellent workmen are wont also thus to do, namely, to reprehend their own faults first, for then can they so much the more freely chide and censure the faults of others.—Spener:—No creature has authority to change anything in the gospel, or to add thereto, of however eminent rank, office, enlightenment, holiness, and miraculous power he may be. Not even the whole Church, nor her teachers, nor her councils and the like. If the change is made, no inquiry is needed; but it is to be reprobated, because it is new and another.—Lange:—As the blessing coming out of the gospel is the most weighty and noble of all, so is the curse which rests upon the hindering of the blessing through falsifying the gospel, the greatest of all, one which remains forever upon soul and body. Galatians 1:10. Luther:—We cannot more hotly and bitterly anger the world than by attacking and condemning her wisdom, righteousness, ability, and powers. If we now reject and condemn these highest gifts of the world, that is truly not to behave feigningly to the world, but to strive after hate and ill luck, and, moreover, to get both our hands full of the same. For if we condemn men with all their doings, it can never fail but that we must soon take our chance and bring upon ourselves such scorn and envy that we shall be persecuted, hunted, banished, condemned, and, very likely, even murdered.—Spener:—The sincerity of a teacher, when men see that his concern is alone to please God, and not men, is a strong ground for believing that his teaching is sound and pure.—Hedinger:—Just so! Whoever in the church, in the state, in the family, serves men, fears and cowers before men, and, for their sake, bends the right, flatters and fawns, has trifled away his best title—Christ’s servant and disciple. A thunderstroke! Whose ears tingle not, when he hears it?—Rieger:—O God! preserve all thy servants, that no one, through pride and self-will, may draw persecution upon himself, and fly in the faces of men; but grant also that we may not count persecution, mocking, and contempt as tokens of our having betrayed the truth, but may view them and bear them as the marks in the foreheads of thine approved servants! The earnestness with which Paul opposes the false teachers: 1. well founded, 2. very significant for us: should (a) withhold us from the reception of any unevangelical doctrine; (b) strengthen us in the certainty that the gospel, which we have, is the true one.—A curse upon him who preaches a false doctrine! 1. A fearfully earnest utterance; 2. yet pressingly needful; 3. instructive for all that are wavering.—Let not every man undertake to be a teacher, but whoever is, let him take heed what he teaches.—The curse which Paul pronounces upon himself, if he should preach another gospel, is a token: 1. how high the gospel stands in his view; 2. how humbly he thinks of himself (viewing himself only as a mere instrument, as a servant, who has to accomplish what his Master has commanded him).—Not the Church above the word, but the word above the Church!—Two earnest questions: 1. Which seekest thou most, man’s favor or God’s favor? 2. Which is weightier, man’s favor or God’s favor?—Man’s favor or God’s favor? Choose: there is no third.—The right union of unsparingness and forbearance in our intercourse with men: an art of difficult attainment.—To be entirely unsparing, and entirely forbearing, each in the right way, is the Christian’s duty in dealing with men.—Man’s disfavor, compared with God’s favor, as insignificant as wholesome, perfects us in humility, and impels us the more to assure ourselves of the favor of God. On the whole section.—Lisco:—The curse of the Apostle against the false apostles: I. Whom it strikes: 1. Necessarily every one, without exception, who changes the blessing of the gospel into mischief, and so out of good prepares for himself death; 2. those also who have deep insight, or other high qualities for serving the kingdom of God, and yet do not preach it purely; 3. even an angel himself, if he could preach another gospel. II. Why must it be uttered? 1. He who preaches the gospel must have a will thereby to serve, not men, but God; 2. through a false gospel men may, indeed, be attracted, but God views it as blasphemy; 3. therefore, he is placed under the curse, who will serve the gospel, and yet doing so as a man-pleaser, is found an unfruitful servant of Christ. The apostasy of believers: 1. is, alas, sometimes a fact; 2. from what does it proceed? 3. how is it to be remedied?—The Apostle’s demeanor: 1. towards the misled: he makes a complaint and charge; but through it all the full tones of compassion and love are heard; 2. towards the misleaders: unsparingly stern even to denouncing a curse.—To fall away from the gospel is bad, but to subvert the gospel is worse. Footnotes: Galatians 1:6.—[Μετατίθεσθε, middle, not passive, see exeg. notes.—R.] Galatians 1:6.—[Ἐν cannot mean “into,” especially after καλέω.—R.] Galatians 1:6.—[The many variations, such as the omission of Χρ., the insertion of Ἰησοῦ, the substitution of θεοῦ, all probably sprang from mistaken exegesis, joining Χρ. with καλέσαντος. The reading Χριστοῦ is very well supported and now universally retained.—R.] Galatians 1:6.—[Ἐτερον, “different in kind,” not “another of the same kind” (ἄλλο, Galatians 1:7). So Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot.—R.] Galatians 1:8.—[The periphrasis of the E. V. is necessary to bring out the force of εὐαγγελίζηται, in its reference to εὐαγγέλιον, Galatians 1:6-7; but the subjunctive must not be overlooked, as marking the different conditional propositions of Gal 1:8-9.—R.] Galatians 1:8.—ΰ. omits ὑμῖν, ΰ3. first adds it. Galatians 1:8.—[On the meaning of παρά, here and Galatians 1:9. See Exeg. Notes.—R.] Galatians 1:9.—ΰ1.: προείρηκα. Galatians 1:10.—[“Persuade” is obviously inapplicable to God. Πείθω here means “to conciliate,” “to make friends of.” So modern English commentators. The form: “am I,” etc., is required by the emphatic ἄρτι (Ellicott).—R.] Galatians 1:10.—Rec. εἰγὰρἔτι; but γάρ is best omitted. [Rejected on preponderant MSS. authority by all modern editors.—R.] I TO DESTROY THE WHICH THE FALSE HAD GAINED IN THE , PAUL REFUTES THEIR ATTACKS UPON HIS DIGNITY, AND PROVES THEREBY THE FULL OF HIS Galatians 1:11 to Galatians 2:211. To this end the appeals to the fact that he received his commission to declare the Gospel from God and Christ Himself through immediate revelation, not from the senior Apostles (Galatians 1:11-24)11But I certify you [Now I declare unto you], brethren, that the gospel which was preached of [ὑπʼ ?, by] me is not after man. 12For I neither received [For neither did I receive] it of [from] man, neither was I taught it, but by [through] the [omit the] revelation of [from] Jesus Christ. 13For ye have [omit have] heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion [Judaism], how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted [was destroying] it: 14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals [And surpassed in Judaism many of my age] in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers [or my ancestral traditions]. 15But when it pleased God, who separated me 16[set me apart] from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in [within] me, that I might preach him among the heathen [Gentiles]; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17Neither went I up [away] to Jerusalem to them which [who] were apostles before me; but I went [went away] into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [to make the acquaintance of Cephas], and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none [I did not see], save James the Lord’s brother. 20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not. 21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22And [but] was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: 23But they had heard only [only they were hearing], That he which persecuted us in times past [who once persecuted us] now preacheth [is now preaching] the faith which once he destroyed [was destroying]. 24And they glorified God in me. AND Gal_1:11. Now I declare unto you—not after man.—[Literally: “I make known unto you as respects the gospel, the one preached by me, that it is not according to man.”—R.] To the warm burst of feeling succeeds the composed statement of reasons. Accordingly we have the formal γνωρίζω, and the address “brethren,” which also shows that Paul, although in the introduction he gives no peculiar title of honor to the Galatian Christians, feels himself to be still standing in the fraternal relation to them. He takes this as his starting point with them, because his aim in what follows is to bring them back and win them again from their error. He first justifies his preceding rebuke by the distinct and formal assurance that his teaching is not of man. Of course this was not something entirely new to the church, yet it had, doubtless, been at first a merely tacit presupposition in connection with the Apostle’s preaching, without having been expressly emphasized: hence the γνωρίζω; after it had been called in question, it must be definitely affirmed. The gospel which was preached by me is most naturally referred to the preaching of the gospel among the Galatians, although self-evidently the same declaration was of general validity.—Οὐκατὰἄνθρωπον literally: “not according to man,” not after the fashion of man, not man’s work. This applies not immediately to its origin, but to its character, which however is especially and primarily conditioned by its origin (Galatians 1:12). The sequel shows the phrase to be nearly equivalent in sense to “scholastic” [schulmδssig]. Galatians 1:12. For neither did I receive it of man, neither was I taught it.—“Neither did I”=any more than the Twelve. By the denial of any human origin of his gospel he asserts his equal rank with the other Apostles. The sentence receives a simple exposition when compared with Galatians 1:1, which it more closely explains. The first and negative part: “neither did I receive it from man, neither was I taught it,” is an explanation of “not of men, neither through man,” while the second part, “but through revelation from Jesus Christ,” is an explanation of “through Jesus Christ and God the Father,” which is afterwards made yet more definite (Galatians 1:15-16).—[Lightfoot: The idea of the preposition (παρά) is sufficiently wide to include both the ἀπό and διά of Galatians 1:1—R.] Through revelation from Jesus Christ.—This is commonly explained as merely a giving of instruction respecting the contents of the gospel, and there is then a difficulty as to when Christ gave to Paul this ἀπο-κάλνψις, discovery. Here ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ is taken as gen. Subj. = the revelation which Jesus Christ gave. Meyer explains it of revelations received soon after the event near Damascus, of which, however, there is no mention in the Acts. Others, with reason, refuse to assume any such revelations, but explain the “revelation” as identical with the actual appearance of Christ on the way to Damascus, through which Paul received certainty of that which is precisely the essence of the gospel, namely, “Jesus the Son of God.” They are led to this, moreover, by a just instinct, that it is not the developed contents of that which Paul taught, that is here in question. This explanation, therefore, is quite correct, and Paul’s reference here is solely to the fact of that appearance on the way. Yet he has in view chiefly, not a receiving of instruction thereby, but his call to the apostleship itself, for this was a call “to preach the gospel” (see also Galatians 1:18), and therefore a “receiving the gospel.” The expression, that he had received the gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ, has primarily the simple meaning, that through this he had been called and appointed to preach. In the phrase “through revelation,” etc., ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ is at all events the subjective genitive, for Christ is in any case to be regarded as active in the installation of the Apostle (Galatians 1:1), and hence in his call to preach. As the object of this “revelation” we are to understand not the contents of the gospel, but more simply Christ Himself, hence it is=by Christ’s revealing Himself to me.—This view is, it is true, in apparent contradiction to the “taught” immediately preceding, which seems to point to a definitely developed doctrine, but only in apparent contradiction. It is only in the negative that he speaks of “being taught;” in order to deny most entirely the human calling to preach, Paul denies also the “being taught;” he did not, he says, first receive in a course of school instruction, his equipment, authorization and capacity to preach, hence not in a secondary, derived manner, as a scholar (of the Apostles). Over against this human origin, Paul now simply asserts his “revelation from Jesus Christ” which need not be complemented by “taught”—an expression in itself awkward too—but merely by “received.”—In what immediately follows it is not “through revelation from Jesus Christ,” so much as the negative “neither was I taught it,” that is proven. For in Galatians 1:15-16, where “through revelation” has to be touched, it is mentioned properly only as a historical notice, in order to mark the transition from the first period of his life to the second, hence only in the subordinate clause. From this, however, the conclusion cannot of course be drawn; “I was taught through revelation from Jesus Christ;” for this reason first, that then we should expect a detailed statement of this positive side. But all that was to be said on the positive side, had been said already in the short διʼ ? ἀπο-καλύψεωςἸησοῦΧριστοῦ because here a simple fact only was in question; on the other hand the “received from man” and “taught” could have taken place in many ways and at different times, might have been of long continuance; and on this account the demonstration was needed that there had been no point of time whatever, when such instruction from the senior Apostles (whom he has in mind throughout in “from man”), could have taken place, since at first he has been hostile to Christianity, and after his calling had never lived in intercourse with the senior Apostles, though at the same time he had already preached the gospel. And, he proceeds to say in chap. 2, when afterwards, he was once somewhat longer with them, he then appeared as a fully equal Apostle, and was so acknowledged; hence there could no longer be any talk of his occupying the place of a pupil. [Since the design of the Apostle in what follows is to prove that his doctrine as well as his apostleship was God-given, that He was “taught of God,” it seems more natural to refer “revelation from Jesus Christ,” to instruction as well as to calling to the apostleship. Wordsworth calls attention to the force of ἀλλά, which he considers to be here “except” “save”—“nor was I taught it except by revelation,” He was θεοδίδακτος. And this view is further sustained by the omission of the article before the noun, which is not rendered definite either by the genitive following or by the fact that there was but one revelation (Paul undoubtedly had many). To what instructive revelation does he refer? Undoubtedly to that on the way to Damascus, but not to that exclusively. Nor to any particular revelation soon after his conversion (Aquinas, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, who suggest the sojourn in Arabia, Galatians 1:17, as the probable time), but to the revelation on the way to Damascus as “the fundamental and central illumination,” “followed by special revelation” at different periods of his life. Comp. Acts 22:17; Acts 23:11; 1 Corinthians 11:13; 2 Corinthians 12:1 sq.; Galatians 2:2. Schaff. Schmoller’s view on this point colors his notes on the entire section.—R.] Galatians 1:13. For ye heard of my conversation in time past, etc.—How far this statement is meant to confirm the previous proposition (γάρ), has just been indicated. Perhaps, however, he also emphasizes his former Jewish zeal, with particular reference to his Judaistic opposers. He wishes thereby to call attention to the fact that his present anti-Judaistic position does not result from any want of acquaintance with Judaism, but that, on the contrary, it rests upon only too intimate an acquaintance with it. Ἰουδαϊσμός: the word in itself, it is true, signifies nothing more than the Jewish religion; yet Paul, in this connection, evidently throws more meaning into it, joining with it the additional idea: Jewish zealotism. Only thus is a proper meaning given to “surpassed in Judaism” (Galatians 1:14). This again finds its explanation in how that beyond measure I persecuted, etc. “He was really engaged in the work of destruction, not merely in that of disturbance.” Meyer. Galatians 1:14. In mine own nation.—Literally “race,” the people are regarded as a single race, descending from the same ancestor.—My ancestral traditions:—not the Pharisaic traditions or the Mosaic law, together with those traditions, but teachings which the fathers of the collective people held (see Wieseler). The phrase: “the traditions of my fathers,” in itself, describes only the doctrinal and ritual definitions respecting the Jewish worship which then obtained, though, of course, resting on the Mosaic law as their foundation. But Paul, in calling himself a zealot, who surpassed many of his contemporaries, has undoubtedly in view chiefly his observance of these usages according to the peculiarly strict rule of Pharisaism. [Schaff: “The word παράδοσις, ‘tradition,’ which figures so prominently in the Roman Catholic controversy, in the general sense, embraces everything which is taught and handed down, either orally or in writing, or in both ways, from generation to generation; in the particular sense it may be used favorably of the divine doctrine, and even of Christianity itself, as is the case 1 Corinthians 11:2 (E. V. ‘ordinances instead of ‘traditions’); 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, or unfavorably of the human additions to, and perversions of the religion of the Old or New Testament, in which case it is generally more clearly defined as the traditions ‘of the elders’ or of men,’ as Matthew 25:2; Mark 7:3; Mark 7:5; Mark 7:8; Colossians 2:8. In our passage it means the whole Jewish religion, or mode of worship, divine and human; but in the Pharisaic sense, as opposed to Christianity.” Light-foot’s paraphrase is excellent: “My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God.”—R.] Galatians 1:15-16. But when it pleased God.—In the interest of his demonstration of the independence of his apostolate, as respects men, he here studiously emphasizes the activity of God in conferring it, going back even to the divine ordination thereto at his very conception. [Lightfoot: “Observe how words are accumulated to tell upon the one point on which he is insisting—the sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts.”—R.]—From my mother’s womb=when he was yet in his mother’s womb, he was already set apart as an Apostle. [Schaff: “Comp. Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49:1. The decree of redemption is eternal as God’s love and omniscience, but its temporal realization begins in each individual case with the natural birth, and more properly with the gospel call and the spiritual birth. He refers, however, here more particularly to his call to the apostleship, for which he was ‘set apart’ or destined, elected and dedicated by a Divine act. Comp. the same term, Romans 1:1; Acts 13:2.”—R.]—His calling followed afterwards near Damascus. In the Acts, Christ’s appearance only is mentioned; here Paul takes up the event with a more doctrinal reference, and hence refers this appearance to its first cause, God. This, of course, implies no discrepancy with the narrative of the Acts.—Although appearances favor such a view, “called” does not denote an earlier act, preceding the revelation (Galatians 1:16) which, therefore, refers to subsequent revelations (Meyer) [The aorist participle, καλέσας, in this connection, at first sight, seems to refer to an act prior to the “revelation,” not, however, necessarily long before. It does not mean a “calling” in the Divine mind, as some infer from its connection with “set apart;” but most probably the Divine act which, “by means of His grace,” resulted immediately in his conversion, when the revelation was made. Ellicott: “The moving cause of the call was the Divine pleasure; the mediating cause, the boundless grace of God; the instrument, the heavensent voice” or revelation; the purpose of the setting apart, the call and the revelation alike was, “that I might preach him among the Gentiles.” “To reveal” depends on “pleased,” not on “called.”—R.] So then “reveal” is only the explanation of the “calling;” more precisely: there is thereby indicated what took place at the calling, namely, the enlightenment and conviction then effected. For this reason also, because the calling comes into mention only as respects its result, he speaks only of revealing “His Son within me.” Accordingly Paul, in this passage, indeed, says nothing of having had an outward appearance of Christ. But, that Paul, in the expression, to reveal his Son within me, was thinking of a definite, individual fact, which was connected with a definite locality, the city or the neighborhood of the city of Damascus, and not of a purely internal event, appears most clearly from what follows Galatians 1:17, “returned again.” “Had the event of his conversion been a purely inward one, his recollection of the locality where it occurred would not, more than twenty years after, have still forced itself so strongly into the foreground that, in describing only the general inner result of that revolution, he would have been constrained at once to think of Damascus.” Paret, Jahrbόcher fόr deutsche Theologie, 1858. H. 1. Furthermore and principally, the whole proof which Paul here brings for his apostolic parity rests upon the fact that he had really and truly had an appearance of the Risen One. “I have not been called by men, but just as truly as the older Apostles, by Christ Himself to be an Apostle,” is his fundamental thought: how could he be thinking on a mere internal event, a vocation by Christ only in spirit? With that, instead of his equality, his difference from the others would have been established. Therefore, if any conclusion is justified, it is this: Paul has here in his eye the event related in the Acts; presupposing, however, the outward occurrence as well known, he avails himself only of that element of it which has pertinence here, namely, that he was inwardly enlightened concerning Christ, that Christ was revealed to his inner eye, to faith. Of his conversion in itself, Paul does not speak here, or only so far as it was a condition of his capacity for the apostleship, as through it the “calling” to be an Apostle became a reality. He dates his calling, therefore, from the moment of his conversion. Therefore, he continues: that I might preach him among the Gentiles.—Him whom God has revealed to him as His Son, he was, and is still (therefore the present), to declare as such; this is the gospel which he received “through revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12), this “the gospel which was preached by me” (Galatians 1:11).—Ἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν: among the Gentile nations, therefore ἐν, not the dative. For Paul preached not merely to the Gentiles, but among the Gentile nations, first to the Jews dwelling among them, and only then to the heathen themselves. Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood—Εὐθέως, of course, belongs strictly not to the negative sentence immediately following, but to the affirmative sentence: “went away into Arabia,” it does not, however, exclude a brief previous activity in Damascus, since the Apostle was only concerned to prove that he did not go out from Damascus in any other direction than Arabia, and particularly that he did not go to Jerusalem.—“I conferred not,” I addressed no communication to flesh and blood, in order to receive instruction and direction—“flesh and blood;” here merely—one clothed with a mortal body, therefore in sense equivalent simply to—Man. The conception is thus strongly expressed, because Man appears here in antithesis with God. Galatians 1:17. Neither went I away to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me.—This is the only distinction which he concedes between himself and them.—Into Arabia. “This Arabian journey is to be regarded as his first essay of foreign labor, and it is, by εὐθέως, put in connection with the purpose of the divine revelation, that he should preach the gospel among the heathen.”—(Meyer). Yet I would not on this account wholly reject the other conjectures that have been offered as to the purpose of this journey, such as seeking protection from the Jews, “severing himself from pressure of the national spirit,” and partially also, perhaps to prepare himself in stillness for his work.—This journey into Arabia is not mentioned in the Acts, probably because it was of short duration and therefore perhaps not known to Luke; it is, with most probability, placed in the time of the “many days,” Acts 9:23; the flight from Damascus must therefore be placed at the end of this second visit there. [Two questions arise: 1. as to the place; 2. the object of this sojourn. 1. Although “the desert region about Damascus” may have been the place (since Justin includes Damascus in Arabia, and Xenophon applies the name to the region beyond the Euphrates, Anab. I. 5), yet Paul is always more definite in his geographical statements than most ancient authors, and as in the only other place where Arabia is mentioned in the N. T. (Galatians 4:25), it must mean the Sinaitic peninsula, it seems decidedly preferable to refer it to that locality in this case. Besides, as Lightfoot well remarks, any other view “deprives this visit of a significance which, on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of St. Paul’s life.” If Galatians 4:25 refers to “Hagar” as the Arabic name of Sinai, the argument is conclusive, for he was not likely to have heard this name anywhere but on the spot. If it be a mere geographical remark, then it is a very indefinite one, granting that Paul here uses “Arabia” with so extended a signification. 2. “Paul’s object in this residence in Arabia, as seems most probable from the context, was not to preach the gospel—but to enjoy a season of undisturbed preparation for his high and holy calling. This period, therefore, belongs more properly to the history of the Apostle’s inward life; and this affords the simplest explanation of the silence of the book of Acts respecting it. It was for him a sort of substitute for the three years’ personal intercourse with the Lord, enjoyed by the other Apostles” (Schaff, Apostolic Church, p. 236). This view of the object confirms the opinion that the Sinaitic peninsula was the locality. Where Moses and Elijah had been before him, Paul went. “Thus in the wilderness of Sinai, as on the mount of transfiguration, the three dispensations met in one;” Law, Prophecy and Gospel; Moses, Elijah and Paul. Comp. Lightfoot, p. 87 sq.; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 50.—R.] Galatians 1:18.Then after three years.—To be reckoned probably from his calling to the apostleship; for he means: I did not go up at once to Jerusalem, but only three years after. This is the first journey of Paul to Jerusalem, Acts 9:26.—ἹστορῆοαιΚ.=in order to become personally acquainted with Cephas, not: in order to obtain instruction from him. The more precise expression is therefore designedly chosen.—Fifteen days.—Had it been in itself possible that Paul at this time received instruction, still a course of instruction strictly so called, a schooling under the senior Apostles would not have been possible in so short a time. Hence the length of his stay is expressly mentioned. [Nor does the singling out of Peter prove anything more than his prominence among the Twelve; Paul puts himself on a par with all the Apostles, including Peter.—R.] Galatians 1:19. But other of the apostles I did not see.—“Apostle” must be taken in the strict sense of the Twelve, since it is precisely his parity with these that Paul wishes to make out. Therefore James the Lord’s brother is either to be reckoned among the Apostles and identified with James, the son of Alpheus, and so “brother” to be taken in the sense of “cousin;” or “save” (εἰμή) is to be referred only to “I did not see”=another one of the apostles I did not see, but I saw only James. Grammatically the former is decidedly the less difficult; but the identification with James, the son of Alpheus, is attended with great difficulties. Comp. Wieseler in loco. Besides this impression is evidently conveyed, that Paul by the special addition he appends to the name, wishes to distinguish this James from the Apostles, not to include him in their number. For this reason the second interpretation is to be preferred. Although not an Apostle, this James could still be mentioned by Paul, as is done here, along with the Twelve, because he had a standing well-nigh apostolic. Respecting the question how the James mentioned Galatians 2:9, is related to this James, see remarks on that passage. “The notice that at that time Paul only saw Peter and James in Jerusalem, does not conflict with the indefinite τοὺςἀποστόλους, Acts 9:27, but authentically defines it.” Meyer. [The interpretation turns upon the much discussed question what is meant by “the brethren of the Lord,” for unless this James can be identified with James, the son of Alpheus, he is not an Apostle. The view of Lightfoot, Alford and others that he might be an Apostle, and yet not of the Twelve, seems altogether untenable. Only one point is undisputed: This James is the one who was frequently called by the church fathers “bishop of Jerusalem,” and also “the Just.” Whether he were an Apostle, whether he wrote the general Epistle, whether referred to again in this Epistle, are open questions. Without entering into an extended discussion, it will suffice to mention the leading views and their bearing on this passage, referring the reader to special dissertations. There are three principal theories. That the brethren of the Lord were 1. the sons of Joseph and Mary; 2. the sons of Joseph by a former wife; 3. the cousins of our Lord, either the sons of the Virgin’s sister, or the sons of Joseph’s brother, etc. 1 and 2 are the older views; 3 originated with Jerome.—On this latter theory alone can we identify James, the brother of our Lord, with James, the son of Alpheus, for the other theories imply that Joseph, not Alpheus, was his father. But this theory is with difficulty supported, for not only did it originate in an attempt to justify and thus enjoin virginity in man as well as woman, but it has always been forced to call to its aid mere conjectures. Hence, if it be rejected, our verse means that Paul saw none other of the Apostles, but he did see the Lord’s brother. To which view we are in a measure forced also by the statement of John (John 7:5 : “neither did his brethren believe in him”) after the twelve were chosen. Comp. John 6:67, where “the twelve” are spoken of. That his brethren were afterwards believers is stated (Acts 1:14, where they are mentioned in distinction from the Apostles); the reason of the so speedy conversion may be found in 1 Corinthians 15:7, if “James,” of whom “he was seen,” be distinguished from “the twelve” (Galatians 1:5) and “all the Apostles” in the same verse. As between 1 and 2, it may be remarked, that it seems more natural to consider the brethren of our Lord the sons of Mary, were it not for two reasons, first, the instinctive repugnance (Jos. Add. Alexander) to such a view, and secondly, the fact that the dying Saviour committed His mother to another than these brethren, a strange fact, were they her own sons. Still these are not insuperable objections. The whole question is an open one, and it was only necessary to discuss it here so far as to decide upon the meaning of this particular passage. The reader is referred to Lange’s Commentary, Matthew, p. 255 sq., where Lange defends the modified cousintheory, and Schaff advocates at length the first view stated above. Also to Lange’s Commentary, James, p. 9 sq.; Schaff, Monograph on James, Berlin, 1842; Alford, Prolegomena, Epistle of James. Comp. the authorities quoted by these writers. The best classification and history of opinions will be found in Lightfoot, Dissertat. II., p. 247 sq., which has been freely used in the above remarks. He, however, defends the second theory. As regards this passage, it seems on the whole best to consider this James—1. as not identical with the son of Alpheus; 2. as not an Apostle. Both points are involved in the exegesis of the passage, but as εἰμή is susceptible of either interpretation, these results must be reached on other than grammatical grounds. The grounds for the above opinions cannot be stated at length, but may be found in the more extended discussions.—R.] [Wordsworth: “Paul’s meeting with Peter ana James. Peter cordially received him.—‘Fifteen days;’ ample time for Peter to have seen what I was, and to have proclaimed me to the world as a deceiver, if the Gospel which I preached was not consistent with his own. Therefore they who cavil at me involve Peter also in the charge of conniving at error and delusion.” But thus indicating his respect for Peter and James,“he wisely guards himself against any imputations on the part of his Judaizing adversaries, that he, a new Apostle, was liable to the charge of disparaging the original Apostles of Christ. And he prepares the way for what he is about to say in the next chapter concerning his resistance to St. Peter.”—R.] Galatians 1:20. Now the things which I write unto you. Galatians 1:20 contains a solemn asseveration, which has its ground in the importance of the account just given for the Apostle’s purpose, namely, to prove his own apostolic dignity. [Galatians 1:21. Into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;—No mention is made of his going into Syria in the narrative in the Acts, but he is said to have been brought down to Cesarea, and sent forth to Tarsus (in Cilicia), where Barnabas afterwards went to seek him (Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25). There is no discrepancy. Paul may have gone to Antioch on his way to Cilicia, or returned that way in his labors before Barnabas came for him; or the expression here may be indefinite, since “Syria and Cilicia” appears in history almost as a generic geographical term, the more important district being mentioned first. Comp. Cony. and Howson. I. pp. 104, 105. Lange’s Comm., Acts, p. 182.—R.] Galatians 1:22. And I was unknown.—This remark also belongs to the proof that he bad not been a disciple of the Apostles, for had he stood in near connection with them, he could not but have become known to the churches of Judea.—The churches of Judea, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [The phrase which are in Christ Jesus, doubtless means “which are incorporated with Him who is the head” (Ellicott), yet it is also used to distinguish the bodies of believers from other bodies, of Jews, for example. Alford: “By thus showing the spirit with which the churches of Judea were actuated toward him, he marks more strongly the contrast between them and the Galatian Judaizers.”—R.] Galatians 1:23. Is now preaching the faith.—Πίστις here also not=Christian doctrine [it being very doubtful, as Ellicott remarks, whether πίστις ever has in the N. T., this more distinctly objective sense, so frequent in ecclesiastical writers. See also the valuable note of Lightfoot, p. 152, sq. on the word “faith.”—R.], but=Faith; he preached that men should believe, as well as, of course, what they should believe. Formerly he sought by persecution to hinder men from believing in Christ, that is, he was destroying it; i.e., Faith. Galatians 1:24. In me.—Paul is not only regarded as the occasion of the praise, but as the foundation on which their faith rested. “With this impression which Paul then made upon the congregations in Judea, the hateful plotting of the Judaizers in Galatia against him stood in striking contrast. Therefore the added clause.” Meyer. [Ellicott: “The preposition in such cases as the present, points to the object as being, as it were, the sphere in which, or the substratum on which the action takes place.”—R.] AND ETHICAL1. How Paul was taught. A right understanding of Gal 1:12, according to which Paul here denies only that his calling and preparation to be an Apostle (a preacher of the gospel) was through men, is by no means inconsistent with assuming, as in any case is necessary, that Paul learned the historical particulars of the life of Jesus not by immediate intuition, but through the testimony of men, as indeed the Apostle in other passages unhesitatingly expresses the traditional character of his historical knowledge, as in 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Corinthians 7:25; also 1co l 9:23. Comp. on this the instructive article of Paret, “Paul and Jesus.” Jahrbόcher fόr deutsche Theologie B. 3, H. 1,1858. “The passage in the Galatians,” remarks Paret, “becomes, in fact, first fairly intelligible by assuming as above. Just because Paul was remitted, in respect to particulars, to the testimony of others, could his opposers make the attempt to represent his whole knowledge and teaching, and ultimately his faith in Jesus itself, as something merely derivative, to construct the whole man, as it were, out of purely external Christian influences, human in immediate origin, and thereby to depress him in the esteem of his churches below the Apostolic elevation, to place him on one level with common Christians, and to dispute his right to make valid decisions in the domain of doctrine and discipline. If his antagonists thus made this one side prominent, in a one-sided, unintelligent way, Paul was constrained, accordingly, to bring the other side forward in the strongest light: to show that it was not from men or through any man that he from a persecutor had become an Apostle, but through Jesus Christ Himself, whom he had seen alive; that his gospel was not a school task got by heart, but rested upon a revelation of Jesus.” But according to the representation of the course of events in our chapter, according to which Paul for three years did not come at all, and then came only for a very short time, into contact with the senior Apostles, we must assume that he did not derive even his knowledge of the historical particulars of the life of Jesus from these, but from other Christians; possibly from Ananias. In view of the attack which his apostolic rank suffered, compared with that of the senior Apostles, even this circumstance is of moment to him, although it was not from the beginning precisely the result of design. [It will appear from the exegetical notes on Galatians 1:12, how labored an effort is required to support the view, that Paul does not intend to assert here that he had learned his gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ. Of course on any theory of inspiration, save that mechanical one, which ignores the human element, it will be admitted that Paul learned the facts of the life and death of Christ from human lips; but that must be a narrow view of the gospel as Paul preached it, which could limit his “being taught it” to such human statements.“Paul does not mean here the outward historical information concerning the life of Christ, but the internal exhibition of Christ to his spiritual sense as the Messiah, and the only and all-sufficient Saviour of the world, and the unfolding of the true import of His death and resurrection; in other words the spiritual communication of the gospel system of saving truth as taught by him in his sermons and Epistles” (Schaff). It is more in accordance both with Paul’s argument here, and with the actual phenomena of his history to believe that after the revelation on the way to Damascus there were “subsequent special disclosures of the Spirit, respecting single points of Christian doctrine and practice; for we are to conceive the inspiration of the Apostles in general as not merely an act, done once for all, but a permanent influence and state, varying in strength as occasion required” (Schaff). Ellicott very judiciously remarks: “On the one hand we may reverently presume that all the fundamental truths of the Gospel would be fully revealed to St. Paul before he commenced preaching; so, on the other, it might have been ordained, that (in accordance with the laws of our spiritual nature) its deeper mysteries and profounder harmonies should be seen and felt through the practical experiences of his apostolical labors.”—R.] 2. The Revelation from Jesus Christ. Paul has been called by the Lord Himself to the apostleship, as well as the other Apostles, with the single exception that they were called by the Lord in His state of humiliation, he by the Lord in His state of exaltation; this is the fundamental truth, which stands to the Apostle immovably firm, and on which he founded the whole proof of his apostolic parity. There can therefore be no doubt that he was conscious of an objective appearance of Christ, in the well known occurrence on the way to Damascus, and we have in the decision with which Paul himself in this doctrinal treatise, in opposition to hostilely disposed antagonists, asserts this immediateness of his calling through Christ, the simplest and surest proof for the historical character of the narrative respecting the conversion of Paul contained in the Acts. For, as has been already remarked in the exegesis, we are of course not to think of a merely internal vocation—a calling in spirit. Such a notion would take away from the proof which Paul is setting forth its very ground and foundation. It is true that in it a spiritual operation, an operation of the Spirit of God upon the mind of the Apostle, also took place (“to reveal within me”), but only in consequence of the objective outward appearance of Christ. This itself was, first of all, the deciding and penetrating power; upon it all turned. And very naturally. That Christ had risen and was living, became by means of this at once a certainty to Paul. This, however, involved almost necessarily that total revolution of all his views and of the direction of his life, which followed. For Paul was a man who even previously stood upon the foundation of Israelitish faith, and whose faith in the Messiah was in itself steadfast, and who had even been misled by this to take his hostile position against Jesus and His cause, under the delusion that the dignity of Messiah was claimed for Him presumptuously. So much the more overpowering must the impression of the actual appearance of Christ, who was thereby manifested as risen and exalted to Heaven, have been upon him. This was a sudden collapse of the system held fast with so much zeal, a sudden conviction of the nothingness of that persuasion to which he had so energetically clung, and, moreover, a conviction through fact, against which therefore there was nothing more to object. As it would have been almost incomprehensible if that effect had not followed, which did follow, so on the other hand this effect presupposes the definite cause which is related in the Acts, and indicated by the Apostle himself in this passage. [That the conversion of Paul must necessarily follow the actual appearance of Jesus Christ to him, is not to be assumed in order to establish the fact of such appearance; for as in the narrative prominence is given to the actual revelation to Paul, here the stress is laid by the Apostle himself on the other fact, the revelation of Christ within him; both facts are essential in accounting for the conversion of Paul, and for Christianity itself.—R. ] That the Apostle in this passage by“revelation from Christ,” “to reveal His Son within me,” means primarily only the external revelation at his conversion is, of course, not inconsistent with his having received subsequent revelations, such as that mentioned in Acts 22:17, which, however, as an εἶναιἐνἐκστάσει, appears to be distinguished from that first fundamental one, or such as are alluded to in 2 Corinthians 12, and besides immediately afterwards in this Epistle Galatians 2:2. (Comp. 1 Timothy 1:13). 3. The calling of Paul. The conversion of Paul according to his own representation is to be viewed essentially as a call to the apostleship. Although at the same time his conversion was of course for him personally, of the greatest moment, and undoubtedly the condition of his apostolic activity (comp. 1 Timothy 1:14), yet strictly speaking the appearance on the way to Damascus had as its end the calling to the apostleship as well, and not merely his personal conversion to Christianity. Indeed, according to the Apostle’s own conception, the eighth chapter of Acts would be better entitled: the Calling of Paul. In this relation of the event to the whole church—inasmuch as it specially concerned the calling of an Apostle, that which is extraordinary in it, namely, the revelation of Christ finds its explanation. This event appears also as a call to the apostleship according to the representation of the Apostle in Acts 9:15; Acts 22:15; Acts 26:17, that is, it was first made known to Ananias, but in immediate connection with the wonderful scene, so that the purpose of the latter cannot be mistaken, and Paul, before Herod Agrippa, Acts 26:17, could speak of the message which was communicated to him by the mouth of Ananias, as an immediate message of Jesus to himself. The definite direction to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, Paul first received, according to Acts 22:21, during his first visit to Jerusalem. Yet even the first commission he received, pointed in a very distinct manner to the Gentiles, so that from the very beginning his call as Apostle of the Gentiles, in distinction from the other Apostles, was firmly established. So far, therefore, Paul is not to be reckoned with them, as thirteenth or indeed as twelfth (if the choice of Matthias be considered a premature one), but he stands beside them, in a certain measure over against them, with a special calling; only in the originality of his apostleship he is not inferior to them, but fully their peer. Comp. Galatians 2:7; Galatians 2:9. Futhermore, the special purpose of his calling stands certainly in a causal connection with the manner of the calling. “The Paul who through so unexpected a mercy of God was brought to the knowledge of His Son, was well fitted for the preaching of the same among the Gentiles, called as they also were out of God’s unlooked for mercy” (Rieger). The very manner of his calling, out of pure grace, passing thus a sentence of condemnation upon the legal position, caused him to know that to the Gentiles also, who, are ἄνομοι, the way to salvation of grace most stand open. Comp. also for 2 and 3, Lange’s Commentary, Acts, p. 165 sq. 4. Paul set apart by God. Paul cannot regard himself otherwise than as destined by God Himself, even in his mother’s womb, for what he now is, separated to the peculiar calling of the apostleship (an analogy, as it were, to the Nazarite’s vow, by which the child was dedicated, even from the womb, to be a Nazarite). His life up to his conversion, Paul then of course regards as standing in opposition to this, his divine destination; and therefore a special vocation was necessary. This vocation, however, has its root in the elections and as this, of course, was an entirely free one, founded on no manner of merit (as being entirely predent to the whole course of his life), the calling, therefore, was a pure act of grace (“by his grace”), on account of the opposition in which the previous life of Paul stood to his destined work. In the connection of this particular passage Paul contemplates his previous life from no other point of view, and certainly therefore does not designate himself as one set apart even from his mother’s womb, because he thought that before his conversion he possessed qualities for the sake of which God had called him. It is true his natural gifts and his acquirements of knowledge served to capacitate him for his vocation; and it was doubtless providential that even before his conversion he was the person that he was; and this natural adaptedness itself had its root in the divine destination of the man. And negatively, beyond question, the legal zeal by which Paul was animated, bringing as it did his subsequent evangelical position into so much more decided contrast with it, was advantageous to his apostolic activity, as in general the zeal with which Paul acted—at first, it is true, in the interest of the law, turned afterwards to the good of the gospel. Otherwise, however, his religious character, as a blindly legal, Pharisaical one, resting on the righteousness of works, stood in decided opposition to his destination. “ ‘He has called me,’ says the Apostle. But how? For my standing as a Pharisee? For my holy and blameless life? For my admirable works? No; I trow! Still less, then, for my blasphemy against God, my persecution and mad rage. How then? Through his pure grace.” Luther.—[Calvin:—He intends to assert that his calling depends on the secret election of God; and that he was ordained an Apostle not because by his own industry he had fitted himself, but because God had counted him worthy to undertake that high office, and because, before he was born, he had been set apart by the secret purpose of God. The Apostle had most explicitly attributed his calling to the free grace of God, when he traced its origin to his separation from the womb. But he repeats the direct statement (“by his grace”) both to take away all grounds of boasting by his commendation of Divine grace, and to testify his own gratitude to God.—R.] 5. Paul’s walk in Judaism. “His former walk Paul calls a walk in Judaism: if it had been a walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, it would have led him to faith in the gospel. It was, therefore, a walk in the Judaism that was tending towards apostasy, that, under pretext of the law, would defend itself against the faith in Christ.” Rieger.—Judaism of course here means the Jewish religion in its then form, when the soul of the Old Covenant, by which it pointed beyond itself, and in general its character of promise, was more or less overlooked. Or at least the legal sense in which the whole divine revelation was then apprehended, took away the right understanding of this character of promise. Hence the incapacity to understand Him in whom the fulfillment came. On this account proficiency in Judaism and persecution of the Christian church could go hand in hand with each other. 6. Paul’s solemn oaths. The solemn asseverations which Paul more than once utters (in Galatians 1:20, Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:31), would of themselves sufficiently show how little the passages, Matthew 5:34 sq., James 5:12 sq., are meant to forbid swearing in itself and totally, and how unwarranted it is to limit lawful oaths to oaths required by the magistrate, while on the other hand we certainly cannot be too strongly warned against all lightness in the taking of an oath. It must ever, as here, have respect to a weighty matter. [Wordsworth from Augustine: “An oath which cometh not from the evil of him who swears, but from the unbelief of him to whom he swears, is not against our Lord’s precept: ‘Swear not.’ Our Lord commands that as far as in us lies we should not swear; which command is broken by those who have in their mouths an oath as if it were something pleasant in itself. As far as in him lies, the Apostle swears not. He does not catch at an oath with eagerness, but when he swears it is by constraint, through the infirmity or incredulity of those who will not otherwise believe what he says.”—R.] AND Gal_1:11. Rieger:—In the address he has omitted the customary appellations: saints, beloved of God, etc.; after the first rebuke, however, he now adds, as the mollifying ointment, the name of “brethren.” What we cannot always do in unimpaired love, may yet be done at times in hope. Galatians 1:12. Luther (who emphasizes this so expressly in remarking on this passage):—Human teaching, human tradition, though it come down from holy fathers and teachers, from the holy Church herself, is in itself nothing; for in all this there may be error, just because it is human. And hence we must not let any one scare us by appealing to never so great human authorities; over against all this the only concern is, to abide simply by the Word of God. Spener:—Such as should be true, enlightened preachers, must have learned the Gospel through revelation from Christ; not immediately, to be sure, but so that, having been instructed by men, Christ’s spirit by means of such instruction having become a power in their hearts, they truly have a divine light in their souls, from which they then enlighten others. The gospel no work of man: 1. as a word of doctrine, not sprung from men, nor taught by men, but by Christ Himself (who brought it Himself and through whom alone His people have it); 2. as a word of comfort, only through Him can we commit ourselves to it; 3. as a word of power, in which there should be no change, from which no departure. Galatians 1:13. Rieger:—Oh, how often and how toilsomely do we gather much that in the right light must be counted harm and dung, and cast from us.—Quesnel:—A man may make his past sins known out of pride, but also out of humility. Whoever does not boast himself of the same, but humbles himself therefor before God, and willingly bears the shame of them before men, not relying upon himself, makes a good confession, but one not needful to be uttered before every man, as sometimes it would bring more scandal than benefit.—From Starke:—God is wise, permitting some things to be accomplished even by His enemies, that in His time He will direct to His own honor, to which before they were quite opposed. Paul studied in the law, and in his ancestral institutions, that he might thereby the better withstand the Christians. This afterwards served to enable him to dispute all the better with the Jews in favor of Christianity, as thoroughly understanding their side. Galatians 1:14. Berlenb. Bible:—Even unconverted men may be exceedingly zealous for ancestral traditions, traditional doctrines.—[Yes, the might of traditions, because received from “my fathers,”—whether from God or no, not being taken into the account,—is often in proportion to the ignorance of real Christianity. How conservative, yet often how contracting and how cruel the zeal for “the traditions of my fathers!” True in every age.—R.]—Starke:—Good intentions do not of themselves make a thing good before God. Many a one means well in his conduct, and see, he still is doing a sin; yes, out of good intentions the most cruel actions may sometimes arise. Such sins, however, are much less heinous than those which spring from real godlessness and malice. On Galatians 1:13-14.—Judaism and the Old Testament are different from one another: 1. the former closes the sense for Christ; 2. the latter opens it.—Persecution of the Church of God 1. takes place so easily in false zeal; 2. is so evil, therefore, take good heed!—When against others, so zealous; when for them, so lukewarm!—Take heed: is not thy progress, in reality, a retrogression?—Zeal for ancestral traditions 1. in itself good, but 2. no proof of a converted heart.—Condemnation of the perverseness of a former walk: 1. It must take place within, as a sign of a converted heart; 2. it may also become necessary before others, yet so that it is always done in humility. Galatians 1:15. Wόrt. Summ.:—Behold the Fatherly Providence of God, who careth for us and marks out the course of our life from our mother’s womb. Think not that God hath passed thee over, and that thou must care for thyself. Fear God and trust Him, for what He has designed for us from our mother’s womb will be sure to come, and no one shall divert it from us.—Berlenb. Bible:—As Paul here does, so should we look back and behold God from behind, as God says to Moses. God gives preintimations, which are forgotten. But then men should wake up when the work of God is fulfilled, and bethink themselves. His work is nothing uncertain and doubtful, although we cannot constrain others to believe it. Nevertheless we yet ourselves may know well enough how we are to look upon it. [Bushnell:—Every man’s life a plan of God. Go to God Himself, and ask for the calling of God; for as certainly as He has a place or calling for you, He will somehow guide you into it. Do you call it success, that you are getting on in a plan of your own? There cannot be a greater delusion.—R.] Galatians 1:16. Spener:—To the rightly profitable administration of the preacher’s office, there is needful the revelation of God in us, that we should have a living knowledge of that which we are to declare to others. Without this, the word preached retains, to be sure, its power, if it is left pure and unadulterated; but such people cannot well leave it pure, or set it forth worthily; they understand not to apply it rightly, and destroy much of its power with the hearers.—Berl. Bible:—The true work of God is done within, albeit He uses all manner of means thereto. The hurt is within; therefore, must the enlightenment also have place within. God must come and take away the veil. There needs then a heavenly illumination. This is the crown of conversions, that the Son becomes right plainly known to a man. But there are many veils between, and one after another is taken away, till one comes at last into the knowledge of God and the Son. Rieger:—The Son of God is still the pith and kernel of all revelation to be wished for in the heart.—Luther:—If the gospel is a revelation of the Son of God, as Paul declares, it is then certain that it does not accuse poor consciences, nor terrify them, but of Christ alone does it teach, who is no law nor work, but our righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption.—The gospel is a divine word, that comes down from Heaven, and is revealed by the Holy Ghost, yet so that the outward word goes before. For even St. Paul himself first heard the outward word from Heaven: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Not till then did he have secret and hidden, inner revelations.—Among the Gentiles, therefore, should be preached no law, but the gospel; no Moses, but God’s Son; no righteousness of works. but the righteousness of faith. This is the right preaching, whereto the heathen have claim, and which is apt for them.—Starke:—Paul was chiefly a teacher of the Gentiles, and that of divine purpose. Therefore we act not against God’s counsel if we keep especially to Paul’s writings (not excluding the other apostolical books), because in these we find most distinctly and most expressly what suits our condition, and is needful for us to know.—[Wordsworth:—A striking contrast! He who had been stricken with blindness as a persecutor, has now Christ, the Light of the world, revealed in him as a preacher. He who was himself dark, has become a light to others, a light revealing to them Christ.—R.] On Galatians 1:15-16. The grace of God, as free (without any merit of ours) as it is mighty in working—it can change the hearts so fully, that the man throws himself into the directly opposite course.—It is God, who defines our life’s course: therefore, courage!—All depends on this, that the Son of God be revealed in us.—The revelation of Christ in us: 1. wherein it consists; 2. how it is brought to pass (only through God’s grace); 3. whereto it helps.—Christ, the marrow 1. of all Christian knowledge, 2. of all Christian testimony.—God reveals His Son in the hearts of believers, that they may preach Him among the Gentiles. The former attains its purpose only in the latter; the latter has its foundation only in the former.—Every Christian, even without a special call to the ministry, is yet called to preach Christ among the heathen, that is he is called to a steady testimony in deed (and more or less also in word), against all heathen living, to call men back from dead idols to serve the living God. Galatians 1:16. Luther:—Herein the Apostle did right. For it would, indeed, have been a godless thing, if he would have had the divine revelation Strengthened by man’s counsel, like one who doubted thereon.—Starke, after the Berlenb. Bible:—Yet the meaning is not, that we may not hear other people’s opinion, yet we are not to give it the prζ, the upper hand, where God has given His testimony. If the will of God is plain, and if the matter is plain in God’s word, there is no need to ask other men for counsel. But if the will of God is yet doubtful, we may well ask good friends for advice; only these advisers must be such as possess the fear of God and wisdom.—Rieger:—Now, as then, the surest course for every one who will find the way of life is, to look alone upon God’s commandment, to make the testimonies of the Lord his counsellors, and to hasten thereunto. Without this faithfulness in that which is hidden, the best advice of another may become a temptation and a snare.—Hedinger:—Much doubting and long considering spoils matters. The good will, which God creates, goes to work and does not stand hesitating long. Divine guidance and human counsel in their right relation to each other. Galatians 1:17 sq. Rieger:—God foresaw all that would afterwards be brought against Paul, therefore He so ordered his ways that men could not say: he received his authority from the chief Apostles at Jerusalem; nor yet on the other side: he does not presume to go to Jerusalem; he joins himself with no one. God’s good Spirit always brings us out into a plain way. Even the apparently slight, accidental circumstances of our lives stand under God’s direction; if we know it not at the time, yet afterwards we do. [Galatians 1:18. Burkitt:—Ministers ought to maintain correspondency and familiarity with each other, in token of their harmony. But though this visit was in the most delightful and desirable, yea most profitable company, yet it was but for fifteen days. After the short time spent in visiting, we must return to our business, and mind, above all things, our ministerial charge.—R.] Galatians 1:20. Starke:—God is a witness of the truth, and a righteous judge of all lies. Can you in all that you say, call on God as the witness of its truth? In all cases this ought to be possible, although it is seldom needful or proper. Galatians 1:21. It is excellent, when any one, having left his country and his friends, a wicked man, returns back to them again a true child of God. Universities should especially serve this purpose, that those who went to them unconverted youths, should return home converted ones. Galatians 1:23. It is of God’s grace, when from a persecutor and misleader a man becomes a true teacher and confessor. O wonder! Is not that as much as if a dead man were raised to life? And it serves to the praise of the Divine compassion, that the Lord does not destroy His enemies, but wins them over and converts them to his service.—Rieger:—The glory redounding to God from his conversion has wiped out much of the harm of his former course. When Jesus, here and there again, His time of grace declares, That mercy count as thine own gain, Which others find as theirs. 2. In a subsequent conference in the mother church, he had most definitely guarded the Gospel liberty over against the demands of false brethren; while the Apostles had been fully convinced of his divine mission to preach to the Gentiles, and hence in an entirely free and peaceful agreement a division of the field of labor had been decided upon, and the Gentile world committed to him, without any obligation (respecting doctrine) to the mother church. Footnotes: Galatians 1:11.—The Recepta γνωρίζωδέ is well attested, adopted by Lachmann and latterly by Tischendorf. [Alford retains γάρ on the authority of B. F. and a few others; δέ is adopted by Wordsworth, Ellicott and Lightfoot, on the authority of ΰ, A. D23. K. L. and most versions. “Now I declare unto you” is taken from E. V., 1 Corinthians 15:1, where the Greek is the same.—R.] Galatians 1:12.—[Ellicott’s rendering given above, is an alteration made to retain the emphasis on “I,” and to indicate that the first negative is not strictly correlative to the second. “From” instead of “of,” in conformity with modern usage.—R.] Galatians 1:12.—[The genitive ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ is a subjective genitive. See Exeg. Notes.—R.] Galatians 1:13.—[Ἰουδαϊσμῷ is better rendered literally. So in Galatians 1:14.—R.] Galatians 1:13.—[The sense of the imperfect, ἐπόρθουν, is best expressed thus. Schaff renders: “labored to destroy.” The same change in Galatians 1:23.—R.] Galatians 1:14.—[Schaff thus renders it. The E. V. is unusually unsatisfactory here; the ἅπαξλεγόμενον, συνηλικιώτας means “contemporaries.”—R.] Galatians 1:15.—ὉΘεός of Rec. is rejected by Tischendorf, and bracketted by Lachmann. ΰ. has the words [so also A. D. K. L., many cursives and versions; retained by Ellicott, Wordsworth. There are paradiplomatic reasons for retaining it, but if a gloss, undoubtedly a correct one.—R.] Galatians 1:15—[“Separated” has a local sense not intended here.—R.] Galatians 1:17.—Of the two readings ἀνῆλθον (Rec.) and ἀπῆλθον, about equally attested, the second is decidedly preferable on internal grounds. Not only does the latter give a more formal and sharper antithesis; οὐδὲἀπῆλθον—ἀλλὰἀπῆλθον, but the former betrays itself as a correction from the fact that ἀνέρχομαι or ἀναβαίνω is generally used of the journey to Jerusalem, as in Galatians 1:18. Wieseler. ΰ. has ἀνῆλθον, [adopted by Tischendorf, Wordsworth. B. D. F. have ἀπῆλθον; adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, Wieseler, Alford, Ellicott; Lightfoot is doubtful. “Went away follows the latter reading.—R.] Galatians 1:18.—Instead of Πέτρον (Rec.), Κηφᾶν is to be read, as also in Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:11; Galatians 2:14. So also ΰ. The Hebrew name was suppressed by the Greek gloss, hence in Galatians 2:7-8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Κηφᾶς; is not found [So all modern editors. Ἱστορῆσαι means more than to see, “to visit, to make the acquaintance of.”—R.] Galatians 1:23.—[The English text has been amended to bring out the force of the Greek imperfects.—R.] Galatians 2:1-10.1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also [also with me]. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto [or laid before] them that [the] gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were [are] of reputation, lest by any means [per chance] I should run [be running] or had [have] run, in vain. But neither [not even] Titus, who was with me, being [though he was] a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4And that because of [the] false brethren unawares [insidiously] brought in, who came in privily [crept in] to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5To whom we gave place by subjection [by the submission, i.e., required of us] no, not [not even] for an hour; 6that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, [who are of reputation—] whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: [—to me those who are of reputation imparted nothing]: 7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me [that I am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision], as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter [as Peter with that of the circumcision]: 8(For he that wrought effectually [omit effectually] in [for] Peter to [toward] the apostleship of the circumcision, the same [omit the same] was mighty in me [wrought for me also] toward the Gentiles;) 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they [and became aware of the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed as pillars,] gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen [Gentiles], and they unto the circumcision. 10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which [which very thing]I also was forward to do. AND Gal_2:1. Then fourteen years after.—Is this to be reckoned from the calling of the Apostle, or from his first journey to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18)? At first view we might incline to the latter opinion. But the period of time mentioned Galatians 1:18, is unquestionably to be reckoned from the calling, not from the return to Damascus; it is natural, therefore, to do the same here. His calling is the deciding point of time, and Paul wishes to show what he was doing from that time on, how his apostolical activity has its root in the revelation of Christ then given, and not in human instruction. Besides, if it is acknowledged that Paul here does not mean to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem in an uninterrupted series, but that the journey to the apostolic council is here meant, there is no purpose served in giving the interval between the two journeys; but it might well be of importance to make known how many years he had already spent in his apostolical office. It would be important to know that, having received it at his calling, he had already been long in the exercise of it, when the other Apostles expressed their concurrence with his doctrine. Comp. also Elwert, programm on Galat. Galatians 2:1-10. The difficult question, which of the Apostle’s journeys to Jerusalem, mentioned in the Acts, is here meant, is too extended to be treated in our present space. Besides, it is of more essential importance for the Acts than for our Epistle. For no one doubts the historical character of the journey mentioned in the Epistle. The result of my investigation is that it was no other than the journey to the apostolic council, that it is not that mentioned Acts 11:30—since he is not giving an unbroken enumeration—nor that mentioned Acts 18:21 (against Wieseler). [Although this question occupies so large a space in most commentaries on this Epistle, the view given above has been so ably defended latterly, and is now so well established, that a synopsis of the argument and a reference to more extended discussions will be sufficient. The point from which Paul reckons, is his conversion, “being a purely subjective epoch” (Ellicott). Schaff thus states the case: “The Acts mention five journeys after his conversion, viz.: 1. Acts 9:23 (comp. Acts 1:18), the journey of the year 40, three years after his conversion. 2. Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25, the journey during the famine year in 44. 3. Acts 15:2, the journey to the apostolic council in 50 or 51. 4. Acts 18:22, the journey in 54. 5. Acts 21:15 (comp. Romans 15:25 sq.), the last visit, on which he was made a prisoner and sent to Cζsarea, in 58. “Of these journeys the first, of course, cannot be meant on account of Gal 1:18. The second is excluded by the chronological date in Galatians 2:1. For as it took place during the famine of Palestine and in the year in which Herod died, A. D. 44, it would put the conversion of Paul back to the year 30, which is much too early. Some proposed to read four instead of fourteen, but without any critical authority whatever. There is no necessity why Paul should have mentioned this second journey, since it was undertaken simply for the transmission of a collection of the Christians at Antioch for the relief of the brethren in Judea, and not for the purpose of conferring with the Apostles on matters of dispute. In all probability he saw none of them on that occasion, since in that year a persecution raged in which James the elder suffered martyrdom, and Peter was imprisoned. The fifth journey cannot be meant, as it took place after the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians and after the dispersion of the Apostles. Nor can we think of the fourth, which was very short and transient (Acts 18:21-22), leaving no time for such important transactions as are here alluded to; nor was Barnabas with him on that occasion, having separated from Paul some time before (Acts 15:39). “We must therefore identify our journey with the third one mentioned in the 15th chapter of Acts. For this took place in 50 or 51, i.e., fourteen years after his conversion (37), and was occasioned by the important controversy on the authority of the law of Moses and the exact relation of the Gentile converts to the Christian church (Acts 15:2). This visit Paul could net possibly pass over, as it was of the greatest moment to his argument. It is true our passage differs somewhat from the account given by the Acts. But the difference is not irreconcilable. Luke, in keeping with the documentary character of his historical narrative, gives us only the public transactions of the council at Jerusalem; Paul shortly alludes to his personal conference and agreement with the Apostles (Galatians 2:2); both together give us a complete history of that remarkable convention, the first Synod in Christendom, for the settlement of the first doctrinal and practical controversy which agitated the Church.” (Schaff, Comm. in loco.) See also his Apostolic Church, p. 245 sq.; Conyb. and How son, Vol. I., p. 227 sq.; Meyer and Wordsworth, in loco; Alford, Vol. II., Proleg., p. 26; and the valuable note of Lightfoot, p. 122 sq. The authorities in support of this view might be multiplied.—R.] Galatians 2:2. And I went up by revelation.—Not without design, doubtless, does he bring into view the fact that he went up κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, and so was again deemed worthy of a special revelation from God. He will also remove every thought of his having been, as it were, obliged to present himself before the Apostles, of their having summoned him before them. Laid before them the gospel=that which I preach among the Gentiles, namely, that they are justified by faith.—“Them,” probably the whole church of Jerusalem.—But privately to them which are of reputation.—Besides having addressed the Christians in Jerusalem generally, he appears to have held separate conferences with those “of reputation.” wieseler’s distinction, however, is quite arbitrary; making Galatians 2:3-5 contain the account of his general agreement with the whole church of Jerusalem, and Galatians 2:6-10 the first account of the separate conferences with he Apostles. [Alford thinks there was but one conference, making κατʼ ? ἰδίανδέ limit αὐτοῖς; “when I say ‘to them,’ I mean privately to those,” etc., but the view given above (that of Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot) is preferable. The general conference is described Acts 15 “they declared what things God had done with them,” (Acts 15:4) may refer to these private conferences which probably preceded. The emphasis here is undoubtedly on the private consultations, the result of the public council being already known to the Galatians.—R.] The judgment of “them” [the whole body] is thrown in the background, and he only speaks of “those in reputation,” just mentioned; for the fact that he had received their acquiescence is what he is opposing to the false teachers. Hence we must regard what is stated in Galatians 2:3, as their judgment also.—Δοκοῦντες, ζstimati, principal persons. Men of authority; in fact, doubtless, the senior Apostles; especially the three who are named afterwards in Galatians 2:9. He calls them not “Apostles,” but δοκοῦντες, “men of repute” because it is as authorities, as those who stood in repute in the Jerusalem church first, but also in the Christian church generally, nay more, were decisive authorities, that they come into consideration. For precisely this is of moment to him, to be able to say to the Galatians that he has been acknowledged by these as an equally authorized Apostle. Of course δοκοῦντες does not in the least imply a disparagement of the Apostles themselves, for it is the church that accords to them this consideration;—the expression conveys a censure upon this estimation in the church only so far as it might imply a failure to recognize his own apostolic dignity. The censures therefore, touched especially this estimation in the sense in which the Apostles were δοκοῦντες for the Galatian false teachers, and in which these turned it to their own account. The censure of this false preference is given prominence in Galatians 2:6, by the addditional phrase “whatsoever they were.” Paul cannot intend to dispute in the least that in the right sense the senior Apostles were δοκοῦντες for the Christians. [The force of Paul’s expression is weakened by rendering “were of reputation,” since when he writes, they “are” of reputation, hence thus brought into the argument (Lightfoot).—It must be noted also that Paul throughout does not use the word “Apostle.” Whether they were Apostles or no, is not evident from anything in the passage, except the mention of James and Cephas and John (Galatians 2:9), and whether that James was either an Apostle or one of the twelve is an open question. Without discussing the point here, it maybe suggested that one reason for not calling them “Apostles,” was that one of the three “who seemed to be pillars,” and “of repute” was not an Apostle, but James the Just, the head of the church at Jerusalem. This will not only explain the omission of the title, but meet subsequent difficulties.—R.] Lest perchance I should be running or have run in vain.—The sense remains essentially the same, whether we take μήπως as a final particle, or=whether perchance. After the thorough exposition of Wieseler, however, the latter is to be preferred. (So also Meyer in 4th ed.) Of course, however, he does not mean to say that he himself was doubtful about it. This would have been in conflict with the whole purpose of his detailed account, and would have represented him as dependent on the Senior Apostles. He wished only, on account of the antagonists of his teaching, to obtain from the Apostles, on whose authority these supported themselves, a confirmation of this teaching, in order to cut off every pretext from his opponents. “Run in vain”=labor to no purpose, operam perdere. This would have been the case, if Paul had actually proclaimed a false doctrine, with which the senior Apostles could not agree. The outward success of his preaching is not primarily in view, though we may conclude from Galatians 2:7-9, that he spoke of this also. Others take μήπως as a final particle, and interpret as follows: in order not to appear as one who was running or had run, in vain, as might have been the case, if I had not submitted my gospel to examination, had its harmony with Apostles established; but the idea of “appearing” is extraneous to the passage. [For a clear discussion of the grammatical and exegetical difficulties of this clause, see Ellicott, in loco. Whatever view be adopted, we must not concede that Paul had any doubt about his Gospel. The conditional μήπως is probably used to indicate respect for those in reputation at Jerusalem. The doubt could only concern the opinion of others, which by being opposed, might render his labors in vain.—R.] In what follows he says that he received the desired acquiescence on the part of the Apostles. He does not however at once declare this, but mentions a special circumstance, which implies it in a striking manner. Galatians 2:3. But not even Titus.—The sense is clear: οὐδέ points to a thought to be supplied. “I laid frankly before them, how I preach among the Gentiles; not concealing that I do not at all hold them to the keeping of the law, to the receiving of circumcision—and now, according to the representation of the false teachers, it was to be expected that they would appear in opposition to me; but. (ἀλλά) so far was this from being the case, so far from declaring this doctrine false [or, connecting it with the last clause, so far from my having run in vain—R.], not. even with respect to Titus, a born Gentile, who had come to Jerusalem, to the very mother of the Jewish Christian churches with me, was the demand made that he should be circumcised, though it might readily have been, when Jewish prejudice was so greatly offended by his uncircumcision.” Still less did they censure the doctrine of Paul, or demand of him that he should preach the necessity of circumcision among the Gentile Christians as a body. The case has been thoroughly perplexed by bringing in, in direct contradiction to what the words say, the thought, that the Apostles had wished, or even demanded, the circumcision of Titus; but that Paul and Titus had set themselves against their desire. Elwert justly remarks, Programm, p. Gal 10: Quid enim incptius dici potest quam illud: tantum abfuit, ut apostoli causam meam improbarent, ut ne Titus quidem illis contraria petentibus obsequeretur? [The word ἠναγκάσθη seems to imply that there was a demand made for the circumcision of Titus, not by the Apostles, but by the false brethren (Galatians 2:4). Had the idea bean merely, that the circumcision was not even demanded, so strong a word would not have been used. There is some force in the suggestion of Lightfoot, that the Apostles recommended Paul to yield as a charitable concession, but convinced at length that he was right, they gave him their support. Still we have not sufficient knowledge of the circumstances to decide whether Paul cites this as an evidence of the Apostles’ agreement with him or of his firmness—in all probability it is both. Not even Titus, of whom as a Greek the false brethren made the demand, was required to submit—or whom as a Greek I would not allow to be circumcised, since this would have been a giving up of the whole matter. The preceding context suggests the former, the subsequent context the latter side of the occurrence. On the reasons for the non-circumcision of Titus, and the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:2), see doctrinal notes.—R.] Galatians 2:4. And that because of the false brethren.—What is to be supplied with “because of the false brethren?” After an examination of all the views presented, it appears to me that we can only say: we do not and cannot know, since Paul has broken off the sentence, and all attempts to fill it out are hazardous, from the danger of introducing foreign matter. The mention of the ψευδάδελφοι is very intelligible. He has already indicated the concurrence of the Apostles by reference to the striking case of Titus, or at least, negatively, that they did not oppose him. But before he says anything definite, positive, respecting this concurrence (Galatians 2:6 sq), he mentions his opposers, who did not concur, who attacked him and his teaching, and had also especially occasioned his journey to Jerusalem. The mention of the false brethren, however, stirs his displeasure, so that he does not complete the thought begun, but first by a brief and fit phrase, describes his opposers, and then falling out of the construction, continues with οἰς, and expresses the thought, which probably he had in mind in mentioning the “false brethren,” namely, that he had not in the least yielded to them. In what he did not yield, is not expressed; probably to their demands, in general, respecting the obligation of the Gentile Christians to keep the law. Not till he has first established this negative result does he revert to the action of the δοκοῦντες, and he now relates the positive acknowledgment, which he had from them.—If we seek a complement to διά, three suggest themselves. (1), ἀνέθην—(Ewald, substantially). According to this, as he cannot pass over the remoter cause of his journey, namely, the intrigues of the Pharisees, the same party that had now of late again persecuted him so bitterly, he begins in Galatians 2:4, anew, as it were, the account of this journey.—Ordinarily, however, the complement is sought in the foregoing sentence, because the somewhat abrupt character of this was rather perplexing, and its contents appeared to require the statement of a reason. This view took δέ usually as epexegetical, and therefore supplied (2) οὐκἠναγκάσθη, which, in fact, strongly commends itself; simply, however, in the sense: Now, this took place on account of the “false brethren,” that is, it was even on account of these, that the Christians in Jerusalem, particularly the Apostles, did not urge it upon him, lest, by yielding to them, the opinion that circumcision was necessary, should receive sanction. This contains the implied thought, that in itself they would not unwillingly have seen him circumcised, but that now, for the sake of principle, they did not press it. But this makes it necessary, first to ascribe to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem a way of thinking, which is not ascribed to them in this chapter, but expressly limited to individuals, “false brethren,” in order afterwards to find it impossible that they should have abstained from all demands for circumcising Titus, on account of these “false brethren.” Whether the “false brethren” demanded particularly the circumcision of Titus, is not said. On the other hand, if we complete the sentence thus, the sense is inadmissible, that Paul, precisely on account of the false brethren, opposed himself to a demand to have Titus circumcised, from whomever it proceeded. This alters the plain meaning of Gal 2:3; ἠναγκάσθη receives the sense: the constraint, which it was attempted to exercise, was frustrated; and especially ούδέ, and the implied thought to which it points, is quite neglected. Then we should have this absurdity: “so far were they from disapproving my teaching, that I or Titus did not even yield when his circumcision was demanded.” If this demand is referred to the Apostles, the thought is completely inverted (see above), but even if it is referred only to the “false brethren,” it is none the less impossible. And the case remains the same, if, instead of “he was not compelled,” we supply “he was not circumcised,” still explaining it, “I or we, on account of the false brethren, did not consent, when it was desired.” Finally, (3) “He was circumcised,” is supplied (δέ therefore being taken adversatively), and in its turn defended by Elwert, Programm, with much acuteness. And, in fact, if we must fill out the sentence, I should be most disposed to declare for this. It especially commends itself by the light which it throws both upon Galatians 2:3 and upon Galatians 2:11. For, beyond question, it remains somewhat enigmatical, why he instances so particularly this one fact of refusing to circumcise Titus, hastening to it even before he has spoken, on the positive side, of the reception of his preaching in Jerusalem. The reproach (Galatians 2:11) then remains not altogether intelligible. On the other hand, all is easily explained, if we assume that Titus was then circumcised. That is, many founded upon this the allegation that he commended circumcision. But especially was this circumstance urged, in order to deduce therefrom, that his teaching had been disapproved by the Apostles, and that he had yielded to these. Therefore, he declares at once: It is not even true, as is commonly related, that Titus was constrained to receive circumcision. Titus was circumcised, not upon a requisition of the Apostles, but voluntarily by me, solely on account of the false brethren insidiously brought in, that they might not, making a handle of his being uncircumcised, prepossess the Christians in Jerusalem against me, and dispose them to a resolution unfavorable for the Gentile Christians. “Quare eandem, quam semper et in omnibus normam secutus, ne quid detrimenti capiat res Christiana, suζ libertatis minime tenax illorum se voluntati sub-mittit, imbecillioribus servit. Neutiquam fratrum irrepttiorum habita ratione hoc fecit, sed eos respiciens, quos, quum fidei infirma ac Judicii parum subacti essent, illorum insectationibus objectos videret. Circumcisione Titi permissa insidias hominum malignorum evitavit, animos imbecilliorum sibi conciliavit apostolus.” Elwert, p. 13. This interpretation is only apparently in conflict with Galatians 2:5. Nay, Elwert remarks that only so does τῇ ὑποταγῇ, find its true explanation; for that only the following translation is natural: to whom not even for an hour did we yield by the submission: “obsequium se prζstitisse Paulus profitetur, sed non ita prζstitisse, ut illis se victum daret vel de jure suo aliquid cederet.” For he provided that the truth of the Gospel should remain with the Gentile Christians. Of course, he could not yield to the circumstances of the time, without, at the same time, giving a testimony to the evangelical truth, whereby this was maintained in its integrity. This explanation of τῇ ὑποταγῇ, however, awakens some misgiving; could Paul well admit a “ὑπο-ταγή” towards the ψευδάδελφοι? Is not this expression too strong? We are tempted, therefore, even admitting this explanation of διά, etc., to join τῇ ὑποταγῇ to the negation, making Paul say that an εἵκειντῇ ὑποταγῇ nevertheless did not take place, even if their behavior occasioned him to have Titus circumcised. [As Lightfoot well remarks: “The counsels of the Apostles of the circumcision are the hidden rock on which the grammar of the sentence is wrecked,” but because the grammar is wrecked on this hidden rock, it is not necessary to wreck Paul’s facts and arguments and even principles, on a rock so easily avoided as the theory of Elwert advanced above. In fact, as Meyer remarks, such conduct “would have been unprincipled and wrong.” That is an all-sufficient objection. As regards what should be supplied, it is most naturally taken from the preceding verse, to which our verse then refers, δέ being explicative. Whether “he was not compelled,” or “he was not circumcised,” is open to discussion. The first implies that “those of reputation” did not compel it on this account; the other, that the thing was not done, either because Paul would not thus surrender a principle, or “those of reputation” thought it were best not to do it. As this latter does not imply any definite counsel of the other Apostles—the very point about which there is greatest doubt—it is on the whole safer to adopt it—R.] Ψευδάδελφοι (also 2 Corinthians 11:26), comp. ψευδαπόστολοι, ψευδοπροφήται, are in general, brethren, fellow-Christians, who bear this name unworthily; specifically, because they, on account of their Judaizing opinions, especially on the necessity of circumcision for Christians, are properly still Jews. So Wieseler. Yet this in itself hardly suffices to explain the strong ψευδο (and especially the παρείσακτοι and παρεισῆλθον), but we must add to it their behavior towards the other Christians, the utterly unbrotherly hateful opposition (not shrinking indeed from intrigues and slanders), which they maintained against the freer evangelical views. The complete definition of “false brethren” is given in “spy out,” “bring us into bondage;” they do not yet stand in the freedom which there is in Christ; nay, more they wish to deprive others also of it; nay, more, they exercise a system of espionage against these. The false teachers in Galatia were essentially such people, perhaps they were emissaries of those in Jerusalem; and on this account it is with special purpose that their conduct in Jerusalem, and their discomfiture, are mentioned. But the Galatian teachers themselves are not meant here; this would be entirely foreign to the context.—A more particular notice respecting these people is given Acts 15:5, whatever judgment may be held of the general relation of the present chapter to Acts 15. They were, according to this, persons of the sect of the Pharisees, who, it is true, had come to believe on Jesus, that He was the Christ, but had not given up their Nomism and Ergism, and, therefore, doubtless were so much the more hostile to their former fellow-Pharisee, Paul, on account of his present position, so sharply anti-Pharisaic. Holding fast, as they thus did, essentially, to their Pharisaism, it is easy to understand that their belief in Christ had as yet produced in them few effects of moral transformation. The article describes the persons as the Pharisaical Christians, historically known to the readers; either the particular individuals were known, or, at all events, this sort of people, since the Galatian false teachers were of the same class. [Insidiously brought in. Lightfoot:—“The metaphor is that of spies or traitors introducing themselves by stealth into the enemy’s camp. The camp is the Christian Church. Pharisees at heart, these traitors assume the name and garb of believers.” He thus paraphrases: “The agitators, who headed the movement, were no true brethren, no loyal soldiers of Christ. They were spies, who had made their way into the camp of the gospel under false colors, and were striving to undermine our liberty in Christ, to reduce us again to bondage.” Wordsworth:—“By mentioning these, he clears the holy Apostles from the imputation of being supposed to have been parties to such a requisition, as that Titus, a Gentile, should be compelled to be circumcised.”—R.] “What is already indicated in the composite ψευδάδελφοι is, by the predicate παρείσακτοι, interchanging immediately after with παρεισῆλθον, brought forward with especial emphasis. They are called παρείσακτοι, because they have pressed in on one side of the entrance; that is, by a forbidden way, sc. into the Christian church, and, therefore, do not properly belong to it. Παρείσακτοι and παρεισῆλοθν are doubtless to be applied to these alone, and not to an outward insinuation of themselves into a single church (for instance, that of Antioch), in order there to oppose Paul. Comp. Acts 15.”—Wieseler. Of course, they did the latter also; it was closely connected with their having insinuated themselves into the Christian Church. But here, doubtless, the primary reference is only to their appearance in Jerusalem itself. A local interpretation of παρείσακ-τοι and παρεισῆλθον is the less necessary, as parallel expressions are found: παρεισάγειν, 2 Peter 2:1, and παρεισδύειν, Judges 4, where the reference is clearly to the Christian Church in general. Who crept in to spy out.—The immediate purpose of their “creeping in” in itself was hardly “to spy out” the liberty of others; but what they did made their coming in (εἰσέρχεσθαι) a “creeping in” (παρεισέρχεσθαι) whose purpose could only be regarded as this “spying out.” “The false brethren are thus characterized according to their common dangerousness to Christian liberty, in order to give the reason why Paul could not yield to such false brethren.”—Wieseler. Two things are laid to their charge: first, a “spying out of” our liberty;—they lie in ambush for our liberty, spy out in what we show ourselves freemen, turn their notice to that, but with hostile intent; therefore, how widely removed from brotherly love! Then, in the second place, they seek to reλnslave the free, i.e., they demand of them to give up their freedom. By the freedom which we have in Christ Jesus is primarily meant freedom from the Mosaic law, from its ritual ordinances, and especially therefore from circumcision. The wider, deeper meaning of this freedom is involved in this, but here, doubtless, not primarily in view. “Our liberty.” Whose? Certainly it does refer to Paul merely, but yet primarily only to those who understood the freedom in Christ, and availed themselves of it, and these without exception. But as Paul no doubt vindicates this standing fast in freedom as at least a right of all Christians, and regards the “false brethren” with their views and their conduct as in truth no Christians, the “we,” in point of fact, embraces all Christians, the Gentile Christians, of course, and also the Jewish Christians, so far as these were not “false brethren.”—In Jesus Christ, as being found in him. [Schaff:—“In living union with Him who is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). This is the positive side of freedom.”—Ellicott:—Not “through Christ,” a meaning it may bear, but in the fuller and deeper sense “in Christ.”—R.]—That they might bring us into bondage:—that is, under the law. On this account, also, the reading καταδουλώ-σωνται=make us their servants, is to be rejected, and καταδουλώσουσιν to be read, which is better attested than the subjunctive—σωσιν. Galatians 2:5. To whom we gave place by the submission, no, not even for an hour.—Here “we” unquestionably, takes on a more restricted sense =I, Paul, probably also Titus himself, and Barnabas. This narrowing of the sense will appear arbitrary to no one. For here the reference is to a single, definite transaction, where Paul can have in mind only the individuals who had part in it; it is somewhat different with “freedom in Christ.” The yielding is still more strongly designated by ὑποταγῇ. (Comp. the different interpretation of Elwert above, Galatians 2:4.) This decided refusal to yield had been adequately explained by the foregoing characterization of the pseudo-brethren; it is now given again; that the truth of the gospel might continue.—For yielding would have represented Christian freedom as void, and would have overturned the truth of the gospel, on which it is founded.—With you; in itself, doubtless, signifying with the Gentile Christians generally—nay, more, with all Christians; but Paul “individualizes the matter, with reference to those to whom he writes.” For it concerned him to bring home to them, that even at that time he had guarded the benefit of Christian freedom for them, in order to show in what contradiction their present behavior stood with this fact, since they themselves were now abjuring this benefit. Galatians 2:6. But of those who are of reputation.—To the pseudo-brethren he now opposes “those of repute.” The former he withstood, from the latter he received no instruction implying disapprobation of his teaching. Galatians 2:6 is an anacoluthon, his language being somewhat disturbed in the thoughts of the presumption and deceit with which the Galatian false teachers had elevated the “δοκοῦντες” above him, and had vindicated the apostolic authority of the former only, denying it to him. He begins as if he would subjoin an οὐδὲνἔλαβον. But the remark respecting the δοκεῖνεἰ ?̄ναίτι leads him away from this, and he continues with another verb, afterwards resuming δοκοῦντες, and giving at the same time the grounds of the parenthetical statements. Ewald, on the contrary, however, joins οὐδένμοιδιαφέρει with ἀπὸ τῶνδοκ.=compared with these, however high they stood, I am in nothing inferior. It is difficult to justify this grammatically. “Of reputation.”—See above, Galatians 2:2. The main idea implied in δοκοῦντες, used absolutely, is here clearly expressed by the addition εἶναίτι=to be something great, to be of some account; with what incidental meaning, see above.—Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.—On the one hand Paul has emphasized the consideration in which the Apostles stood, because it was of moment to him to be able to say, that he had been acknowledged even by these. Yet this might be misunderstood, hence the parenthesis. He emphasizes only for the sake of his readers. To him, on his own account, “it makes no difference in how high authority soever they stood;” as respected him, they did not come into consideration as δοκοῦντες, they asserted no authority: to me they imparted nothing. This exaltation of individuals=the Apostles, in such a way as to throw the authority of Paul into the shade, rests entirely upon mere human judgment. God’s census does not rank them thus: God accepteth no man’s person.—He makes no such distinction, to Him the senior Apostles are not “of repute” in contrast with Paul; he has chosen Paul to be an Apostle as much as them. And, he continues, I have a right so to speak, for those “of repute” demeaned themselves altogether agreeably to this divine valuation, and did not undertake to instruct me. [The E. V., “in conference added nothing to me,” gives the commonly received interpretation of the verb προςανέθεντο: “gave no new or additional instruction.” But notwithstanding the authority for such a rendering, it does not seem to be justified by the use of the word (Meyer, Alford, Ellicott). The idea of imposing burdens is obviously inadmissible.—R.] It is most simple to refer the ποτέ to the lifetime of Jesus=it signifies nothing to me that they enjoyed the immediate, confidential intercourse of Jesus, while I did not. For it was on this that the Judaizers founded special preλminence which they attributed to the other Apostles over Paul. Others: then in Jerusalem; which is less probable. [The point in question respecting ποτέ is: has it a temporal reference in the sense of olim, formerly (either during our Lord’s lifetime or then in Jerusalem), or does it simply render ὁποῖοι more general and inclusive, having the force of cunque. The latter is classical, but the N. T. usage is disputed. Since it is not said anywhere that these “of repute” were Apostles, who enjoyed immediate intercourse with the Lord, the latter is, on the whole, preferable, as giving a wider signification to δοκοῦντες. “Were” may mean in the past from the time of narration or of the incident narrated; the latter is more probable if ποτέ is taken as referring to intercourse with the Lord during His lifetime.—R.] Galatians 2:7. When they saw that I am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision.—Naturally, “gospel” of course means here (comp. πεπίστ. and Galatians 2:8) an official activity of the Apostle, therefore not the gospel as to its contents, but the evangelical preaching, τὸ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, as often. The genitives, “of the uncircumcision,” “of the circumcision,” are therefore gen obj.=preaching of the gospel among the uncircumcision, or the circumcision; Galatians 2:8 exchanges it for “apostleship of the circumcision,” and as εἰςτὰ ἔθνη (Galatians 2:8-9) shows that the abstracts “uncircumcision,” “circumcision,” stand for the concretes—Jews, Heathen. That here we are not to suppose two gospels different in character, the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, and the Gospel of the Circumcision, of which the latter maintained the necessity of circumcision, while the former let it drop (Baur), but only two different circles of hearers of the same gospel, may be regarded as self-evident to the unprejudiced reader. Peter appears as the representative of the Apostles to the Jews, because he especially had hitherto labored as such. Afterwards, however, the two other Apostles, James and John, are designated, with Peter, as Apostles for the Jews (Galatians 2:9. αὐτοὶ δέ). “That Peter had a Gentile Christian vocation also (Acts 15:7) is not denied, but a parte potiori fit denominatio.”—Meyer; The converse applies to Paul. In Galatians 2:9 Barnabas also appears conjointly with him, as Gentile Apostle. [It must be noted that while Paul uses the word “apostleship” in Galatians 2:8, with reference to himself and Peter, he does not use it or anything to the same purport in Galatians 2:9, where James and Barnabas are spoken of. The same is true of the whole passage. There is no evidenoe of the apostleship of James or Barnabas in this whole Epistle, whatever the probabilities may be. See notes on Galatians 2:9.—R.] “Entrusted;” Supply: By God through Christ—agreeably to the proof of this affirmation rendered in Galatians 2:8. For from what facts did they perceive what is said in Galatians 2:7 respecting the different mission of each? Primarily from what follows in Galatians 2:8 (γάρ). Galatians 2:8. For he that wrought effectually for Peter.—From the fact that God had been operative for Peter in the one, and for Paul in the other direction, they concluded that God had given to the one the one, and to the other the other vocation. How far now was God operative for one and the other?—Meyer, Wieseler:—“He furnished them forth for the apostolic office, with illumination and endowments, gave them the χαρίσματα of an Apostle.” (Comp. Acts 15:12 : God did miracles and wonders by them among the Gentiles.) True, it is certainly not merely these endowments themselves that are referred to, but also and especially what they did in virtue of the same, the beginning and result of their activity, wherein God’s “working” was recognized. What immediately follows in Galatians 2:9 : and became aware of the grace that was given unto me, [unfortunately misplaced in E. V.—R.] undoubtedly also refers to the outfit for the apostolic office by means of charisms, yet it is most naturally referred mainly to the success of their preaching. Precisely from this they perceived how highly endowed Paul was. They first inferred his equal apostolic calling from the “grace given,” hence the calling itself cannot be meant. [Yet what more natural than that Paul should mean: “they recognize my calling, because they perceive that I was called by grace.” The main reference may be to the success, but the perception of the calling through the grace given, is not to be excluded. On the two participles ἰδόντες and γνόντες, Lightfoot says: “the former describes the apprehension of the outward tokens of his commission, as evinced by his successful labors; the latter the conviction arrived at in consequence that the grace of God was with him.”—R.] Galatians 2:9. James and Cephas and John.—“James.” Is this one identical with James the Lord’s brother, Galatians 1:19? The fact that there the additional appellation is expressly given, while it is lacking here, does not, of course, disprove the identity. Inasmuch as James had already been just mentioned as “the Lord’s brother,” if the same one is meant this special designation might be omitted here. The main question is: Could the James, whom Paul names in this passage, have been other than an Apostle? And this question we shall always be inclined to answer negatively. In itself it would be very intelligible, that a brother of the Lord converted to the faith, although not an Apostle, might have attained an eminent position in the church of Jerusalem. But, considering how plainly our Epistle itself brings to view the strong emphasis laid by the Jewish Christians on an immediate inauguration into the apostolate by Christ, would it have been probable that such a one, not an Apostle, would have been reckoned by these among the “pillars,” “those of reputation?” And if one not an Apostle had enjoyed so eminent an estimation as a “pillar” (James being here placed even before Peter), could they then have so strongly charged upon Paul a want of parity with the senior Apostles? And would he then have found it necessary to prove his equality with such strength of assertion as he does in Galatians 1? James, the Lord’s brother also lacks this parity, and could claim it even less than Paul, since he could not appeal to any immediate revelation and calling [? comp. 1 Corinthians 15:7.—R.], and Paul certainly would not have omitted bringing this forward, thereby to invalidate the reasoning of his opponents. These are substantially Wieseler’s arguments. We must then either take James the Lord’s brother as identical with James, the son of Alpheus, and therefore himself an Apostle (a view already rejected in commenting on Galatians 1:19), or take the James of this passage as a different one, i.e., the son of Alpheus and not the Lord’s brother. That the James in question occupied a certain official position as chief pastor in the church of Jerusalem is justly inferred from the precedence of his name here and also from Galatians 2:12. This on the other hand accords well with the special prominence given to Peter, Galatians 2:7-8. In reference to proper apostolic activity, in missionary activity, Peter precedes James. [We are again confronted with this difficult question respecting James. On the theory of the identity of James Alphaei and James, the Lord’s brother, all difficulty vanishes here, as well as in Acts 15, and for this reason it is adopted by many. The view, that there were other Apostles besides the Twelve and Paul, avoids both the other difficulties, but is on other grounds very objectionable. We are to reconcile the view advanced Galatians 1:19 (that there were two prominent men named James, one the son of Alpheus and an Apostle, the other James the Lord’s brother, who was not an Apostle) with this passage. Which is referred to here? Schmoller, following Wieseler, says, the former, to which view objection must now be made. 1. The James here referred to was the head of the church at Jerusalem. Such a position is ascribed to the Lord’s brother, to James the Just; if he cannot be identified with the son of Alpheus, the son of Alpheus is not referred to here. 2. This position over the church of Jerusalem, so obviously implied here, does not necessarily imply that James was an Apostles. For with respect to missionary activity Peter stands first, with respect to the church at Jerusalem this James. Was not missionary work distinctively apostolic work? was not one not an Apostle more likely to be in a permanent position at Jerusalem? 3. Paul does not call these three, Apostles, any more than he calls Barnabas an Apostle. In fact all the way through he uses a term that is indefinite—“of reputation.” If he meant Apostles only and wished to show his agreement with the senior Apostles, he would hardly have so carefully avoided saying so.—“Those in repute” were esteemed in Galatia as well as Jerusalem, and he was defending himself against Judaizers, who while denying his apostleship, quoted against him the mother church as well as the college of the Apostles. Hence he speaks of “the pillars” of the church then and there, not of Apostles as such, and puts them in the order of precedence in that church, “James and Peter and John.” Had all of them been of the Twelve, and as such recognized his apostleship (for these three gave him the right hand of fellowship), how could James, name come first? Any argument proving James to have done this as a distinctively apostolic act proves too much: proves him to be the head of the apostolic college. It is as head of that church, whence the Judaizing influence in Galatia came, that he takes precedence. Therefore we identify this James with the Lord’s brother (so in Galatians 2:12).—R.] Who were esteemed as pillars=as supports of the Christian church. Christ, of course, is the foundation. The Christian world is viewed as an οἰκοδομή. They gave—the right hands of fellowship.—In general=They concluded with me and Barnabas an agreement as formal and firm as it was amicable. The more precise sense is given by the preceding context, inasmuch as this agreement was founded upon that. Seeing the coφperation (ἐνεργεῖν) of God rendered to both Peter and Paul, they had become persuaded of the equal divine vocation of each, of the former to the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, of the latter to the preaching of the gospel among the Jews. To this clearly recognized divine will they now rendered obedience by the formation of this compact. Agreeably to this twofold vocation they regulated also the twofold activity; assigning formally to each the field of labor to which, as they had become convinced, he was called. This was, it is true, a division of the work, but in the consciousness that it was a common work of preaching the gospel, one in God, who had only assigned to one this post, and to the other that. Therefore they gave “right hands of fellowship.” [Lightfoot: “gave pledges.” “The outward gesture is lost sight of in this expression, as appears from the fact that the plural is often used of a single person.”—R.] It was to be a parallel but a coφperative activity. The assumption of Baur therefore is entirely untenable, that it had only been a purely external compromise, that the senior Apostles after as before had held firmly the necessity of circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic law to salvation; that for the mission to the Gentiles they had tolerated Paul’s so widely divergent principles, because they could not prevent them, but that a further, inner bond between Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, and their mission to the Jews, did not exist. This would make “gave the right hands of fellowship” signify nothing more than, to come to an agreement and indeed really to an agreement to separate. That we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision.—The purpose of the words, according to the connection, is doubtless to point out, that in this act the acknowledgment of the parity of Paul, and particularly the approbation of his teaching, was expressed in the strongest manner. So far were the senior Apostles from demanding a change in his teaching, that by this fixed compact they gave a full sanction to it, and declared in the most unequivocal manner, that they held it to be a pure gospel and worthy to be preached. For otherwise they would not have been able so composedly to make over the Gentile world to Paul as his mission field. To the general purpose of the statement the added clause “only,” etc., (Galatians 2:10) also contributes. One wish, to be sure, they had respecting Paul and Barnabas; which, however, related in no way to a change of doctrine, implied no obligation toward the “circumcision,” concerning doctrine, but was only an entreaty to remember the poor. But the meaning and purpose of this added clause is not, that this was the only limitation of the separation here coming to light (Baur). In practice, modifications of this partition of the field of labor arose, especially to Paul, in consequence of the Jews of the dispersion. The partition therefore is to be understood not so much ethnographically as geographically. (Comp. also Galatians 2:10, where “the poor” means poor people in Judea, and, therefore, “circumcision” here in contrast with the Gentile countries is also Judea.) Galatians 2:10. Remember the poor:—of course by gifts. As to the cause of the poverty of the Christians in Judea there are different conjectures.—Which very thing.—Paul studiously brings this forward in order to strengthen the contrast between the Jewish Christian opposition to him, and his approved zeal and affection for the Jewish Christians. AND ETHICAL1. The significance of this event. On the significance, with respect to Christian doctrine and the Christian Church, of the proceedings between the Apostle Paul and the Christians in Jerusalem, especially the senior Apostles, since the proceedings themselves are not here detailed, the reader is referred to Acts 15 and to the remarks of Lechler in loco, Lange’s Comm. Acts, p. 282 sq. Only this need be said here; by the acknowledgment of the “liberty in Christ Jesus”, an emancipation from the old Covenant was for the first time effected; it was authoritatively established that a new Covenant was come, and Christianity was recognized as the absolutely perfect and the universal religion. Even though it was Paul who first brought this truth, in theory and practice, to its just validity, it was not, by any means, merely his own subjective view to such an extent as to make of Christianity something else than what it was, or was meant to be, in itself. This appears in the clearest light from his representation. Doubtless there were not a few who imputed this to him, and, therefore, were passionately hostile to the rise of his influence (“pseudo-brethren”), Jewish Christians, who were as yet more Jews than Christians. Against these Paul had to combat, and to what extent is shown, not only in our Epistle, but also in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. But precisely those whose voice was most availing (“those of repute”), and who, at the same time, best knew what was Christ’s true mind and purpose, frankly concurred with Paul, were one with him, and with them certainly all who had really become disciples of Christ, and, in the power of the Holy Ghost, had overcome all Pharisaic leanings, or had never had them. And although they for themselves did not stand upon that point of the “liberty in Christ Jesus” represented by Paul, yet these only needed a setting forth, on the part of Paul, of his preaching among the Gentiles, and of the argument inhering in the fact of its success, to convince them, in the first place of the possibility, in the case of the Gentiles, of being saved through faith in Christ alone. Comp. respecting Peter, Galatians 2:16; moreover, his course, Acts 10, his justification of it, Acts 11; must not the other Apostles then have been prepared by the latter for the report rendered by Paul, Acts 15? Therefore, that chapter and Galatians 2, do not at all make the impression that they might still have had an opposite opinion and only now gave it up; and, of course, not the impression that they yet retained their antagonistic opinion, and yielded only externally. And even if they, and with them, the greater part of the Jewish Christians emancipated themselves only partially and gradually from a personal observance of the law, yet with that admission respecting the Gentiles, the principle of Christianity was acknowledged, it was acknowledged that a new Covenant had come, founded upon Christ alone.—There existed a consensus apostolorum on this question of principle: shall we have Law and the old Covenant or Christ and the new Covenant? This, thank God, is securely guaranteed, and the dissensus, which is said to have arisen between the original Apostles, as contracted Judaizers, and Paul, the man of Progress, is a discovery of modern criticism, which views testimony so plain as that of our chapter, and of Acts 15, only through the glass of its own preconceptions. 2. Liberty in Christ. In opposition to the pseudo-brethren, Paul, in the interest of the truth of the gospel, indicates the “liberty in Christ,” with the utmost decision, and will not be brought into bondage. On the other hand, where the truth of the gospel is not at stake, Paul scruples not of his own accord to make himself the servant of all, and for the sake of gaining souls (1 Corinthians 9:19-20) renounces “liberty.” The rule herein contained for the conduct of the Christian is clear; he may not bind his conscience by a human ordinance, which passes itself off for a commandment of God, nor permit it to be imposed upon him as a condition of salvation; but he not only may, but ought to, make himself a servant, to bind himself, to make something a duty of conscience to himself, for the sake of a weak brother. But because he does this of free will, in thus “becoming a servant,” he most shows his freedom, he does it as freeman, and remains clearly conscious of the distinction between God’s commandment and man’s ordinance. The rule in itself is clear, but demands much wisdom in its practical applications. 3. [Titus and Timothy. The principle just stated can best be illustrated by a reference to the Apostle’s conduct in this case of Titus and that of Timothy (Acts 16:3) subsequently. Wordsworth thus judiciously states the difference: “If Timothy was circumcised (as was probably well known in Galatia), why not Titus? If not Titus, why Timothy? St. Paul replies to this question here: ‘But not even he who was with me at Jerusalem, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. I would not consent that he should be circumcised, even at Jerusalem. I do not consent to your circumcision,—because you are Gentiles, and because you have embraced the gospel, and because it would be to force you backwards, instead of forwards, if I compelled you, or permitted others to compel you, to submit to the Levitical Law. But Timothy’s case was very different from yours. As has been well said by Augustine, St. Paul circumcised Timothy, in order that Timothy’s mother and maternal friends might not imagine that he detested circumcision, as if it were an idolatrous thing; for circumcision was from God, but Idolatry is of the Devil. But he did not circumcise Titus, lest he should afford a handle to those who alleged that Gentiles, receiving the gospel, could not be served without circumcision; and who deceived the Gentile Christians by imputing such an opinion to St. Paul. He might perhaps have allowed even Titus to receive circumcision, as a thing indifferent, and for the sake of peace and charity. But these false brethren did not proffer circumcision as a thing but as necessary. Observe 1) His charity, in circumcising Timothy at Lystra, in condescension to the scruples of weak brethren. 2) His courage in refusing to circumcise Titus at Jerusalem, in submission to the requisitions of false brethren. He would be tender-hearted to the erring, but he would not make the least compromise with error; and he would make no concession to any who would impose their errors on others as terms of communion.”—R.] 4. The importance of Paul’s position. Paul emphasizes so decidedly the fact that the senior Apostles gave him no new instruction, but recognized him as of equal authority, not out of pride, but in order to establish the truth of his preaching of the gospel, and the title by which he exercised the apostleship. He does it in the same spirit as in chap. 1; he declares that he did not receive his gospel from man.—Paul is protesting, in fact, against the beginnings of a Papacy, which the “false brethren” wished to erect by exaggerating the authority of the “Pillar Apostles” (and probably of Peter especially), as something to which a Paul must accommodate himself, as having no commission independently of it. “The authority of the pillars,” however, was only a pretext, the rallying word that they used; their own authority was what they sought.—Heubner. [The authority of the “Mother Church” seems, from the drift of Paul’s narrative, to have been the rallying cry rather than the authority of Peter, since, in the sentence which establishes the acquiescence of the “pillars,” the name of James stands first. The argument gains force as a protest in this view (especially if James were not one of the Twelve). For the essence of Papacy is not the primacy of Peter, that was just such a pretext as the Galatians used, but the infallible authority of a Mother-Church. Therefore, the ground on which Paul stands is the basis for other protests than the famous one of the 16th century, since the insisting upon things indifferent as necessary is not confined to one Pope at Rome, but often issues from a body claiming like authority.—R.] 5. Diversity of calling. Paul and Peter were engaged in the same one gospel, but to each the Lord had assigned a different mission; to the one, that to the Gentiles; to the latter, that to the Jews. Clearly conscious of this, they divided the field of labor between them. This diversity of calling, resting upon diversity of gifts (Charisms), or perhaps diversity in the providential course of previous life, etc., must be carefully considered in the kingdom of God, if anything is to be really accomplished. One may stand fully and firmly upon the ground of evangelical faith, himself have living faith, and yet be by no means qualified for every task in the kingdom of God. In this respect also, the body of Christ has many members, having diverse offices, but coφperating for the same end. It is an organic whole, and hence such an organization as took place on a small scale among the Apostles is entirely admissible. It must, however, be natural, inwardly true, not artificial and merely external, else it were mechanical, not organic. AND Gal_2:1. From Starke:—A preacher must not shrink from toil and labor, when he finds opportunity in his ministry to further the gospel, but neglecting his own convenience, should be ready to offer up all the powers of his body and spirit in the service of God.—Rieger:—A carefully chosen company; Barnabas, a Jew, one of the first fruits unto Christ, and Titus a born Gentile, not even circumcised, but both one in Christ.—Starke:—It is an excellent thing when brethren are at one.—This is in the church of God a beginning of Synods, which are rightly retained. Galatians 2:2. Let us strive at least for this, that what we do in weighty matters, we may do by God’s governance and not after our own will. Conferences which are held concerning the affairs of the kingdom of God, by men who stand in one Spirit, have a great advantage, for thereby there comes to pass a communication of gifts between each other to the common use.—Hedinger:—To ask men for counsel, must have divine command, will and order, else it helps little in matters of faith, and it is hurtful for man to trust thereon.—Rieger:—Also as concerns repute with others, a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above. Paul with all that God had bestowed on him, and wrought through him, came into no such general repute. He had to endure continually increasing contradiction against himself. It must, however, have been for him a needful mantle of obscurity.—Starke:—As all hindrances, that can hinder the fruit of the Gospel must be diligently avoided, and removed out of the way, so also the undeserved suspicion of any. Paul does not therefore defiantly say, “I know that I preach the right Gospel, let others think of it what they will,” but he is concerned for a mutual understanding, for the convincing of others, in the interest of peace and of the cause which they serve in common.—[Calvin:—What then? Does the word of God fall, when it is unsupported by the testimony of men? No, but a powerful confirmation of faith is yielded, when all the teachers “speak the same thing and there are no divisions among them.” Were many as desirous as he to edify the Church, they would take more pains to be agreed among themselves.—Wordsworth:—Paul did all that was requisite on his part to obviate that very result which, unhappily, manifested itself among the Galatians, viz.: the bringing of his doctrine into public collision with that of the other Apostles. Also by the mention of the private conference, particularly with Peter, he prudently prepares the way for his description of the public dispute with Peter at Antioch.—R.] Galatians 2:3. Spener:—In things indifferent we may well, out of love, yield something of our liberty to the good of the weak. But where men would press these upon us as necessary to salvation, and our yielding would have the appearance of bringing the truth of the gospel into jeopardy, we should never yield.—Starke:—It is wholly contrary to the nature of the gospel to lay on any one a constraint of conscience in things that concern our salvation, for the nature of the gospel is not to constrain, but to beseech, to allure, and to convince. But the spirit of Antichrist binds and constrains the consciences to his ordinances and doctrines of men. Galatians 2:4. Even in the best state of the Christian church there are false brethren, who will be taken as right-minded Christians, and are not. Now these are much more dangerous than open enemies of the gospel.—Cramer:—The true behavior of false teachers. They come not in at the right door; they are sneakers in, and hide themselves behind a false disguise.—Hedinger:—Legal disciplinarians, who look at the outward cannot endure that others should enjoy liberty, and yet in the Spirit do more than they. Dear Christian! learn once for all, that outward taskwork cannot make a living heir of God. The heart! the heart! The heart, from its inmost centre must love, fear, honor God, flee sin, and praise Him, who for thee has died and is risen again.—Starke:—The main aim of false teachers is only to take us prisoners to deprive us of our liberty in Christ, although they do not confess such an aim in words, but will have the appearance of wishing only to check carnal security and liberty. Galatians 2:5. Berlenb. Bible:—The world and hypocrites count this for obstinacy. Is that then commendable? is the cry with it. I thought now that Christians should yield, and Paul boasts himself of just the opposite ! But we must get the true understanding of the matter from the words that follows: We would not give way thereto in subjection, so as to suffer ourselves to be placed under this order of things. Otherwise a Christian willingly gives way, as Paul also proved when he circumcised Timothy. But when they would have him do it as a matter of conscience he did it not. One may be zealous for true freedom, and yet for love’s sake bear with much. If it be not given out for a first step to salvation, love endures all; but faith will suffer no derogation of itself.—In our time many a one thinks on a sudden, that he will be as valorous as Paul, as Luther; but he must first have their spirit. For valor there needs a divine power.—Freedom and Truth must go together, else freedom profits not. Truth is inward, freedom, what one maintains outwardly thereof. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. On one occasion (in Antioch) he therefore asserted, and, with the independence of an Apostle, dared assert, even in opposition to a Peter, the principles of his Gentile Christian preaching (Galatians 2:11-21.) 11But when Peter was come [Cephas came] to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed [was condemned]. 12For before that [omit that] certain [certain persons] came from James, he did eat [was eating together] with the Gentiles: but when they were come [Game] he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were [omit which were] of the circumcision. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also [ὥστεκαί, so that even Barnabas] was carried away with [by] their dissimulation. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter [Cephas] before them [omit them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou [how is it that thou art 15compelling] the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are [we are] Jews by 16nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing [yet knowing] that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but [ἐὰνμή, except or but only] by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we [we too] have [omit have] believed in Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus], that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17But if, while we seek to be justified by [in] Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid [or Far from it]. 18For if I build again the things 19[very things] which I destroyed, I make [prove] myself a transgressor. For I 20through the law am dead [died] to the law, that I might live unto God. I am [or have been] crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; [omit;] yet not I, [it is, however, no longer I that live] but Christ liveth in me: and [yea] the life which I now live in the flesh I live by [in] the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead [died] in vain [without cause]. AND Gal_2:11. I withstood him to the face, etc.—“To the face”=not behind his back, in his absence. [It does not mean “publicly‚” that is asserted below (Galatians 2:4). Some of the fathers‚ “to salve the authority of Peter” introduced the gloss κατὰ σχῆμα, “in appearance,” because he had been condemned by others. This view is opposed nobly by Augustine. See Alford and Wordsworth, in loco.—R.] Because he was or had been condemned: the reason why Paul opposed him. It was not therefore any attack on the part of Peter himself, that occasioned Paul’s taking a stand against him. Ἀνέστην, therefore not=I withstood him, but=I took a stand against him. [Yet Peter’s conduct was an attack on gospel liberty; and Paul “opposed” sufficiently to “withstand” him.—R.]—The reason was, the indignant feeling of the Christians of Antioch, the unfavorable judgment passed upon him by them. Moreover, the scandal which he had given, was notorious, and Paul was obliged to do what he did. But he certainly did not do it out of personal irritation or from arrogance or malice; his own words prevent such a charge. For himself he did it unwillingly, would have avoided rebuking Peter “before them all.” But a definite reason, viz., regard for the brethren, the Gentile Christian church, impelled him to it. And in this there was also a command, so that even regard for Peter on the other hand, was no ground for holding back. [It must be remarked that the Greek only states indefinitely that Peter “was condemned,” by whom is a matter to be inferred. Various answers are given: by God, by his own previous conduct, by Paul himself (Alford), by the church at Antioch. The last is most probably meant, else the rebuke would not have been public. It is not necessary to suppose that only the scandal at Antioch drove Paul to this course, for the conduct of Peter was in itself reprehensible. “Had been condemned” must be preferred, if it be referred to a definite condemnation on the part of the Gentile Christians at Antioch.—R.] Galatians 2:12. For before certain persons came from James, he was eating together with the Gentiles, i. e., with the Gentile Christians. He designates them according to their nationality, because it is on this that the matter turns. Peter therefore neglected the limitations of the Levitical law of meats. This is the simple sense of this remark. “A Jew could not without Levitical defilement eat with Gentiles” (even if these adhered to the decrees of the apostolic council). “Peter, however, had through Divine revelation (Acts 10.) been taught the untenableness of this isolation within the sphere of Christianity.” This Jewish law of meats he disregarded, that is he lived ἐθνικῶςκαὶ οὐκἸουδαϊκῶς, at all events here in Antioch.—“Before certain persona came from James.” “From James” is not to be connected with “certain persons” as if=“certain adherents of James” (for “James would then be marked out as the head of a party, something which it would be neither necessary nor wise to do here”), but with “came‚” either generally=“from James‚” that is, from his circle of helpers, or=“sent by James.” But at all events they were such as held like sentiments with James, i.e., Jewish Christians, who themselves still adhered strictly to the Mosaic law, lived Ἰουδαϊκῶςκαὶ οὐκἐθνικῶς, and who because, they felt obliged thereto as born Jews, regarded this Ἰουδαϊκῶςζῇν as necessary for all born Jews, and accordingly for all Jewish Christians, but by no means demanded any such thing as the ἰουδαΐζειν of the Gentile Christians in Antioch, as Wieseler, perverting the state of facts maintains. They stood, therefore, upon the platform of James. “Certain persons” is not therefore= such as without ground, appealed to the authority of James; neither were they of the “false brethren” (Galatians 2:4), who occupied a very different position from James. What views they had respecting the Gentile Christians, is not stated, for these were not at all in question; it is therefore natural to assume, that their views were those of James, and that the latter, when he sent these people, still thought as he did not long before, at the council (Galatians 2:9; Acts 15.). [Schaff:—“It would seem from this passage that, soon after the council, James sent, some esteemed brethren of his congregation to Antioch not for the purpose of imposing the yoke of ceremonialism upon Gentile Christians—for this would have been inconsistent with his speech—but for the purpose of reminding the Jewish Christians of their duty and recommending them to continue the observance of the divinely appointed and time-honored customs of their fathers, which were by no means overthrown by the compromise measure adopted at the council. It is unnecessary therefore to charge him with inconsistency. All we can say is that he stopped half-way and never ventured so far as Paul, or even as Peter, who broke through the ceremonial restrictions of their native religion. Confining his labors to Jerusalem and the Jews, James regarded it as his mission to adhere as closely as possible to the old dispensation, in the hope of bringing over the nation as a whole to the Christian faith.”—R.] But with Peter, as a Jewish Christian and an Apostle to the Jewish Christians, they found fault, undoubtedly on account of his eating with the Gentiles, that is, with his neglect of the Mosaic law of meats, his ἐθνικῶςζῆν. Yet it is by no means expressly said that they reproached him with it, for “fearing them of the circumcision,” may merely mean, that he feared possible reproaches, such as those, Acts 11:3. But as he then justified himself in this, and the justification was accepted (Acts 11:18), there is the more reason to doubt whether the Jewish Christians, who came from James, really made reproaches against Peter, or even whether they would have done it, and whether it was not an empty fear on Peter’s part, which was blamed the more on this account, as a causeless denying of the convictions which he then successfully vindicated, a retreat out of weakness, from the position he had then joyfully assumed and justified, supported as he was by the experience through which God had led him. Peter must of course have feared possible reproaches to this effect: that although his conduct at that time respecting Cornelius had afterwards been approved, it would be a different thing for him now, in the presence of Jewish Christians, to live ἐθνικῶς, and moreover that, in the absence of so definite an occasion as then, he would now be regarded as one also standing outside [i.e., with the Gentile Christians.—R.], his authority with the Jewish Christians might be diminished, etc. But even if such reproaches were really made to him, these persons nevertheless are not to be regarded as agreeing with the “false brethren” and standing upon an entirely different platform from James himself, for neither Acts 11:18, nor Acts 15. is to be regarded as unhistorical. Out of fear, therefore, he withdrew and separated himself.—The imperfects are adumbrative, cause the events to go on, as it were, before the eyes of the reader.—Meyer.—He ate no more with the Gentile Christians, and as appears to be intimated, discontinued this without giving any explanation: he again attached himself to the Jewish Christians, that is, he behaved himself all at once as if the Jewish law of meats were still sacred in his view, inasmuch as he began again to observe it. He did not therefore give up his freer convictions, his practice alone lost its freedom, and stood therefore in contradiction with his convictions. In the act itself, there was nothing different from that indulgent regard to the prejudices of those still weak, which Paul himself so often urges as a duty. But the motive of Peter’s conduct in this case was not anxiety to avoid a possible scandal to the faith—this was not to be feared here—but the fear of men, fear of reproaches, and most likely also of losing consequence and authority. [It must be noted that such a withdrawal was a withdrawal from the very frequent agapae and the frequent Lord’s Supper. Though the decree of the Apostolic council did not command or forbid the common participation of Jewish and Gentile Christians in these services, yet Peter had thus communed with the Gentile Christians; he ceased to do so, and of course made great scandal. While not violating the letter of the decree, he yet treated these brethren as unclean.—R.] Galatians 2:13. Paul therefore fastens on the conduct of Peter (and of the other Jewish Christians who did likewise) the sharp censure of the term ὑπόκρισις, dissimulation, and he is the more severe, because along with the consideration for the Jewish Christians, begotten of fear, there was a non consideration for the Gentile Christians; and thus they were both scandalized and perplexed, since by the change of conduct in Peter they were tempted to the thought that the Mosaic law must after all be binding. It is of course entirely incorrect to find the “dissimulation” in the former association with the Gentile Christians, as if this had been a momentary unfaithfulness towards actual Judaistic convictions. [Even Barnabas.—“My co-laborer in the work of heathen missions and fellow-champion of the liberty of the Gentile brethren.” Schaff.—Lightfoot: “It is not impossible that this incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas, which shortly afterwards led to their separation (Acts 15:39). From this time forward they never again appear associated together. Yet whenever St. Paul mentions Barnabas, his words imply sympathy and respect. This feeling underlies the language of his complaint here, ‘even Barnabas.’ ” Comp. 1 Corinthians 9:6, and also the mention of Mark, Colossians 4:10.—R.] [The conduct of Peter must be judged by the facts here stated, not by a desire to advocate or deny the primacy claimed for him. The occurrence is indeed characteristic of that Peter whom the Gospels describe; “first to confess Christ, first to deny Him; first to recognize and defend the rights of the Gentiles, first to disown them practically. His strength and weakness, boldness and timidity are the two opposite manifestations of the same warm, impulsive and impressible temper” (Schaff). The fault was one of practice, not of doctrine. The receiving of the rebuke is a sign of Peter’s genuine piety. Whether he went out again and wept bitterly we know not. But there was no “sharp contention,” and Peter’s love for Paul remained. On the early discussions respecting this occurrence see Lightfoot, p. 127, sq., showing how much the church is indebted to Augustine for a correct view of it. Comp. Doctrinal Notes.—R.] Galatians 2:14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, etc.—We are to supply from Galatians 2:11 : “And at the same time heard the Gentile Christians expressing themselves in condemnation of it.” [The necessity of supplying this makes it the more doubtful, whether the reference there is to the “condemnation” on the part of the Gentile Christians.—R.] Πρὸςτὴνἀλήθειαντοῦ εὐαγγελίου hardly =“according to,” which would be κατά, but “in the direction of,” = in order to preserve uprightly and further the truth of the gospel. The sense, therefore, is the same as in Galatians 2:5. This agrees with the context, for Paul, in the conduct of Peter and the other Jewish Christians, beheld an infringement of the “truth of the gospel,” especially of the principle of Christian freedom founded in the gospel, on account of its effect on the Gentile Christians: “How is it that thou art compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Meyer).—[The force of πρός is open to discussion, especially as the word ὀρθοποδεῖν is not only ἄπαξλεγόμενον, but very rare. Lightfoot says it denotes here “not the goal to be attained, but the line of direction to be observed. See Winer, p. 424.” And Ellicott in reply to Meyer, who claims that κατά would have been used to express the idea of rule or measure, observes that the instances he quotes are all after περιπατεῖν. If the line of direction be the meaning, the E. V. is correct, and the implication is that Peter did not deviate from the “truth of the gospel,” but from the line of conduct which the truth of the gospel marked out, hence the verb retains a semi-local meaning, “walk straight.”—R.] Before all, “very probably = in an assembly of the Church, although not convened immediately for this purpose” (Meyer)—before Jewish and Gentile Christians.—If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles: means the accustomed practice of Peter, from which he only then receded.—How is it that thou art compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?—Paul shows him the set-contradictoriness of his behavior, by a kind of ironical address. “Thou thyself a Jew, livest as a Gentile—and how comes it, then, that thou coustrainest Gentiles to live Jewishly? Is not that an utter contradiction?” It is true Peter does not constrain the Gentiles directly; it is a turn which sharpens the censure; in reality, it was only an indirect constraining through the authority of the example of Peter. The opinion is, therefore, quite unfounded, which supposes that the messengers of James had preached the principle of the necessity of the observance of the law—even for Gentile Christians—and that Peter had at least tacitly supported this principle. Thereby they would have directly oppugned the view of James himself (Acts 15.), and Peter would have oppugned his own. His “dissimulation” at this time by no means authorizes the assumption that he had changed his view as to the indispensableness or dispensableness of the law itself.—But at all events the Gentile Christians in Antioch looked upon Peter as one who, previously not observing the Jewish law, all at once began to observe it. That it was mere “dissimulation,” and not an actual change of view respecting the law, they did not at first know; and, therefore, they might easily, even if no one attempted directly to impose the law upon them, feel constrained to regard it as something necessary, and also to guide themselves in practice according to it—at least, in this one point respecting meats. There was at all events the danger that such a moral compulsion might be exercised; and when once a single point was regarded as necessary, matters might go farther.—Against Wieseler’s explanation: “You so act that the Gentiles also must live as Jews, if they wish any longer to eat with you” (which is connected with his erroneous view respecting the journey of the Apostle narrated Galatians 2:1 sq.), let it be here remarked only: Had Peter, by his conduct, only imposed on the Gentile Christians of Antioch the necessity of again observing the decrees of the apostolic council, in order to be able to eat with the Jewish Christians, and had Paul himself so regarded it, Peter would certainly not have received this public rebuke from Paul. Peter’s conduct, his yielding from fear, would indeed have been censurable, yet the consequences of this for others could only have given occasion for a public rebuke, provided they endangered the life of faith; but on Wieseler’s supposition this could not have resulted.—’Ἰουδαΐζειν is, without doubt, different from ’Ἰουδαϊκῶςζῇν, and is not merely another expression for this, but it is with design that Ἰουδ. ζῇν is not repeated. With Peter, at that time, a relapse into Ἰουδ. ζῇν took place—at least in practice, and through it a misleading of the Gentile Christians into ἰουδαΐζειν was to be feared. Ἰουδαϊκῶςζῇν was in the Jewish Christian something in itself quite irreprehensible, was only a maintenance of national usage; in the Gentile Christian a Ἰουδ. ζῇν became a ἰουδαΐζειν, that is, a Judaizing, being a Judaizer. [Hence, when Peter, who had been living ἐθνικῶς, occupying the position of the Gentile Christians, began again to live Ἰουδαϊκῶς his action was constructively ἰουδαϊζειν, and a moral compulsion put upon his late associates, the Gentile Christians, to do the same.—R.] The distinction is difficult to render in a translation; it is something like, “to live Jewishly,”—“to be Jewish.” Galatians 2:15-21. That this is a continuation of the address to Peter, is self-evident to every unprejudiced reader, and the assumption that an address to the Galatians suddenly comes in here is so utterly at variance with the context that it is unnecessary to refute it. To mention no other reasons against it, let any one read the historical narrative, extending from as far back as Galatians 1:13, up to this point, and imagine now, all at once, without any transition, an address to the Galatians, beginning, “We are, by nature, ‘Jews.’ ” This view, it is true, has found again decided advocates in Wieseler, Von Hofmann. True, on our view also, the exposition is somewhat difficult, but it commends itself too distinctly to allow us to hesitate on account of the difficulties of the interpretation. And has not this difficulty, in part, its ground in this, that Paul only cites words, spoken on another occasion, and perhaps somewhat condensed also.—At all events the words are not to be regarded as merely addressed to Peter personally. Paul passes over into a more general exposition, for the instruction of the Gentile and Jewish Christians that were then present. “He makes out of the transaction, which then arose respecting the eating or not eating with the Gentiles, a locum communem (an article of doctrine), which extends much further than the transaction itself. He speaks of the works of the law generally.”—Roos. Paul cites with such detail his words then uttered for this very reason, that the substance of what he then said corresponds so well with the purpose of his letter, suits the case of the Galatians so precisely. Of course it cannot be affirmed that Paul cites the words that he then used, with literal exactness; his expressions may have been modified to a nearer correspondence with the particular purpose for which he here adduces them, although there is nowhere in the expressions themselves any necessity for such an opinion. Galatians 2:15. We are by nature Jews, etc.Galatians 2:15-17 give the ground of the censure in Galatians 2:14 : we, as Jews, have the law, which, of itself, exalts us above the Gentiles, who, as “without law,” are to be regarded as “sinners;” yet we have surrendered the preλminence which we had, and emancipated ourselves from the law in the knowledge that a man is not justified by it, but by faith in Christ,—how then can one of us wish to bring the Gentiles under the law, over whom it was never in force?—would be the very obvious conclusion, which Paul, at all events, compels the hearer to draw, but he himself makes the more general, but more pointed one: How then can any one of us press the observance of the law again, as though otherwise we fell into the category of Gentiles of sinners? One who does this makes Christ thereby a minister of sin—that is, he declares, by this reλstablishment of the law, that faith in Christ itself, as it involves the giving up of the law, brings men into the category of sinners (Galatians 2:17).—Not sinners of the Gentiles.—Spoken from the national and theocratic point of view, on which Paul expressly places himself by the emphasizing of their Jewish descent. From that point of view, the Gentiles, as ἄνομοι, in contrast with the Jews, who are ἔννομοι, are, in themselves, ἀμαρτωλοίκατʼ ? ἐξοχήν, although it is, of course, certain that Paul, in another sense, enforces the truth that there is also an ἐννόμῳἁμαρτ., Romans 2:12; and that, in a deeper sense, they also, as Jews (with the law), were ἁμαρτωλοί, is an essential thought of the following context, inasmuch as they found justification only through faith in Christ. Galatians 2:16. Yet knowing that.—It is simplest to take εἰδότεςδέ, “knowing that,” etc., as the protasis, so that the apodosis begins with καὶ ἡμεῖς, “we also,” and to supply ἐσμέν in Galatians 2:15. The objection of Meyer, that the statement of how Paul and Peter had come to the faith, would not be historically accurate, inasmuch as the conversion of neither had come to pass in the discursive way implied in εἰδότες … ἑπιστ., is whimsical. The foundation of their faith in Christ was the knowledge, or at least the feeling, that in this faith alone “justification” was found. Only in the measure in which they acquired this conviction, did their faith in Christ become a full, ripe faith.—A man is not justified, etc.—As Paul here is merely citing words spoken on another occasion, the doctrine of the justification of man not by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ appears here only as a doctrinal principle of the general Pauline theology. It is uttered in a very definite manner, is almost dogmatically formulated, yet strictly speaking it is not demonstrated, but presupposed as familiar. (Chap. 3. contains not so much an elucidation of the nature of justification as a demonstration that it results from “faith,” not from “the law,” instructive as this demonstration doubtless is for the apprehension of its nature.) Hence the philological investigation of the word δικαιοῦν belongs rather to the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. On the doctrinal conception of justification, see Doctrinal Notes below. Looking at the present context alone, we should be disposed to refer the expression, works of the law to merely ceremonial requirements of the law; but by thus doing we should miss entirely the Apostle’s meaning. The meaning of the phrase “not justified by the works of the law” is not to be gathered from the immediate context merely; it is, as intimated above, a proposition, elsewhere set forth in detail, and only cited here with the presupposition that it is familiar.—The idea ἔργανόμου is to be taken in the universality implied in the expression. It denotes simply works prescribed by the law, whether of a more ritual character, or, in the stricter sense, moral injunctions. For a more particular consideration, see Doctrinal Notes below. [The E. V. renders ἐὰνμή rather weakly, “but,” since the meaning is “except,” “but only,” sola fide (Luther, Meyer). The justification is not at all by works of the law; which is also the meaning of the formal, final clause of the verse.—Διὰ πίστεως, per fidem. Faith is the means by which justification is received. Hooker: “The only hand which putteth on Christ to justification.” The Apostle also uses ἐκ with πίστεως; that preposition may imply origin, but as it is used with πίστεως in this connection, that idea is forbidden; perhaps the reason of the change was merely to make the correspondence, ἐξἔργων—ἐκπίστεως. It is here used in each case with ἔργων, where the thought of origin may be implied.—We believed in Christ Jesus.—Not “became believers in” (Lightfoot), but “have put our faith in.” The preposition (εἰς) retaining its proper force, and marking not the mere direction of the belief, but the ideas of union and incorporation with (Ellicott).—There seems to be some ground for the change from “Jesus Christ” to “Christ Jesus” here; it is more elevated than the usual form (Meyer), brings the Messiahship into prominence, as “we also” refers to Paul and Peter, who were Jews (Alford). Still this must not be insisted on.—The genitives Χριστοῦ and νόμου throughout are objective genitives (Meyer, Ellicott, Alford).—R.] For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.—[Schaff: “Literally, ‘shall all flesh not be justified,’ ‘find no justification.’ For the negation attaches to the verb, and not to the noun.” This justifies the force of ἐὰνμή above. No justification at all from works, even in connection with faith.—R.] This is founded on Psalms 143. In the parallel passage, Romans 3:20, ἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ, “in his sight,” is further added. Wieseler: “The words ἐξἔργωννόμου Paul has added entirely in the sense of the original passage; for when the Psalmist said, that before God no flesh shall be justified, he of course had in mind the works prescribed by the O. T. law. Since then this law prescribes not only outward works, but also holy dispositions, we must understand the latter also as included both by the Psalmist and Paul among the works of the law.”—“Shall be justified.”—“It remains undetermined whether the Apostle writes δικαιωθήσεται [future] in view of a final issue in the case of the individual or of mankind, but a final judgment is indicated by the future both here and in the original passage. Only thus, too, is there a progress of thought; otherwise the discourse would be intolerably indefinite. The entrance upon the way of faith (ἐπιστεύδαμεν) is explained from the knowledge that in the present it is the only means of becoming righteous, and the exclusion of the way of legal doing (καὶ οὐκἐξἔργων) has its ground in the unprofitableness of it, for appearing before God hereafter as righteous.” Von Hofmann.Galatians 2:17. But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ.—“In Christ” not=through communion with Christ, ἐνΧρ. εἷναι, although of course faith brings us into inward union with Christ, but it “denotes Christ as the ground of our justification, as the causa meritoria in which it rests” (Wieseler). [The phrase ἐνΧριστῷ is a formula of such deep significance in Paul’s Epistles, that it is perhaps better always to find in it the idea of union, fellowship with Christ. Why not understand it thus: justified because in Christ by faith? See Ellicott, and compare Meyer in loco.—R.] We ourselves also.—On our side also, so that we too came into the class of “sinners of the Gentiles.” If we came into this class in and through the effort to be justified in Christ, Christ would thus be a minister of sin, would make sinners and not “righteous,” and would therefore render a service to sin. On this interpretation of the protasis, the apodosis cannot be an interrogation (against Meyer); for from this apodosis it is now justly concluded that Christ would be the minister of sin.—God forbid negatives therefore the protasis on account of the consequence resulting therefrom—a consequence in fact utterly inadmissible. It is true, everywhere else in Paul’s writings, μὴ γένοιτο negatives a question. If it be thought on this account necessary to assume a question here, the protasis must be taken differently, somewhat, thus: “But if we, while we were seeking to be justified in Christ, were ourselves found sinners—because we would thereby declare, that the law has not availed us for justification, but that we were notwithstanding the law sinners, still needing justification—is Christ therefore a minister of sin?” Only we should then expect, as in Romans 3:3; Romans 3:5, μὴ Χριστὸςἁμ. διάκονος; as Von Hofmann remarks. He therefore supplies εὑρέθημεν in the protasis, making it a complete sentence, and translates: “But if as those, who seek to be justified in Christ, sc., we are found, then are we also found sinners.” But this explanation is evidently forced. It must also be noted that, while Paul elsewhere only uses μὴ γένοιτο after an interrogation, he as constantly introduces that interrogation with οὖν. As a deviation from his usual practice must be admitted in any case, the further deviation, that μὴ χέν. is not preceded by an interrogation may well be conceded. But in any case the explanation is difficult. [Light foot fairly discusses the various explanations. 1. As an attack on the premises through a monstrous conclusion (as above). 2. An illogical conclusion deduced from premises in themselves correct. This view, which makes an interrogation in the last clause, is preferred by him, and by most English commentators. “ ‘Seeing that in order to be justified in Christ it was necessary to abandon our old ground of legal righteousness and to become sinners (i.e., to put ourselves in the position of the heathen) may it not be argued that Christ is thus made a minister of sin?’ This interpretation best develops the subtle irony of ἁμαρτωλοί: ‘We Jews look down upon the Gentiles as sinners; yet we have no help for it but to become sinners like them.’ It agrees with the indicative εὑρέθημεν and with Paul’s use of μὴ χένοιτο.” It paves the way for the words which follow: “I, through the law, am dead to the law.” Ἆρα, is to be preferred to ἄρα in this case. The former hesitates, the latter concludes.—R.] Μὴ γένοιτο, in no way whatever is Christ a “minister of sin,” for it is not the seeking justification in Him, that makes me a sinner, but I am found a sinner in an entirely opposite case. [Lightfoot: “Nay verily, for, so far from Christ being a minister of sin, there is no sin at all in abandoning the law; it is only converted into a sin by returning to the law again.”—R.] Galatians 2:18. For if I build again the very things I destroyed.—In this opposite case, I represent myself as a sinner, but the blame does not rest on Christ. “Build up again,” etc. Thus Paul describes the conduct of Peter, “who previously, and even in Antioch had at first declared the Mosaic law not binding, as Christians had therefore, as it were, torn it down as a now useless building; but afterwards through his Judaizing conduct (even though it did not arise from conviction), represented it again as binding, and hence, as it were, built up the demolished edifice anew.”—“The first person veils what had taken place in concreto, under the milder form of a general statement” (Meyer).—Wieseler, according to his view of the whole section, gives the sense thus: “But if we also, who seek to be justified in Christ, are convicted as sinners, that is, should sin; Christ is not therefore a promoter of sin. For then I am myself to blame for the transgression, since what I have destroyed (namely, the dominion of sin!) this I build up again.” According to this, Paul is here laying stress upon the indissoluble connection between justification and sanctification. Certainly a striking example of dogmatizing exegesis.!—I prove myself a transgressor:—i.e., of the law. In what way? we must ask, for it might be the “destroying” itself in which the sin consisted, not the “building again.” The latter certainly; in Galatians 2:19 Paul tells us why. Galatians 2:19-21. [Bengel: “Summa ac medulla Christianismi.”—R.] Galatians 2:19. For I through the law died to the law.—“ ‘I’ for my own part, letting my own experience speak, to say nothing of the experience of others.” Meyer. “For” introduces a proof, found in “through the law.” “Whoever has been freed from the law through the law itself, in order to stand in a higher relation, acts in opposition to the law, proves himself a transgressor if not withstanding this he returns again into the legal relation.” Meyer. Νόμος is of course in both cases the Mosaic law, since otherwise the passage would have no demonstrative force; not the law of Christ in the first case as Romans 8:2. [The distinction made by Light-foot in his notes on this passage, must be regarded. The law is here spoken of, not as to its economical purpose (as Wordsworth who limits the meaning here to the law as a covenant), but rather in its moral effects.—R.] “I through the law died to the law” that is, the law itself caused me to die to it. But what now is the meaning of 1. “I died to the law”? That thereby a becoming free from the law is affirmed is clear. But in the first place this “dying to the law” is not (with many expositors) to be construed as an activity bearing upon the law=it has come to this, that I have acquitted myself of dependence on the law, etc. The Apostle means to affirm something as having happened to him, not something as having been done by him, although of course this event has had a basis in his ethical nature. In the next place, however, the conception of dying, which is involved in the expression, is not to be at once transmuted into that of becoming free; or else justice is not done to the Apostle’s turn of thought, which here, as the sequel shows, revolves about the ideas of life and death. Compare the analogous expressions: ἀποθανε͂ινἁμα-ρτίᾳ, νεκρ. ἁμαρτίᾳ, Romans 6:2; Romans 6:10-11, where also the Apostle, as the connection in each passage shows, means an event coming to pass through dying, Galatians 2:10 in the physical, Galatians 2:2; Galatians 2:11, in the ethical sense. Still more closely analogous is Romans 7:1 sq. In Galatians 2:4 of that passage we have the analogous expression—only there it is passive, while here it is expressed by the neuter verb θανατωθῆναιτῷ νόμῳ and in Galatians 2:1 he gives us the key to the figure in the sentence; “the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” The becoming free from the law is therefore, of course, the result of the dying to the law, but not immediately this itself. “Died to the law” is=I have died with this effect, that the law has lost me, who had hitherto belonged to it, that is, that its dominion over me, its claims upon me ceased, so that it could no longer urge its requirements upon me, as heretofore. While “died” of itself already intimates the legitimacy of this acquittal from the law, the complete demonstration of this is contained in the fact that this dying “to the law” has come to pass “through the law” not by a power residing outside of it has this death to the law been effected, not in any antinomistic way, not in conflict with the law, so that this would have any ground of complaint. But now the question Isaiah 2. how has he “through the law” died to the law? how has the “law” itself brought about in him a state of death as regards the law, and therewith a release from its dominion? Thus much, that the law leads to death, Paul plainly declares, e g. Romans 7:5; Romans 7:10-11; Romans 7:13. The middle term there is, that it is the νόμος itself which excites sin into ἀναζῇν. This thought is of obvious application hero, The explanation would then be; by the fact that the “law” brought me death, its dominion over me reached, it is true, its culmination, but thereby also was broken and done away. For with him who has died, the dominion of the law ceases—according to the principle cited above. And deducing the reason from the passage itself, we might thus state it; for the law can no more come forward with the claims that I should keep it, in order to justification, when its effect is rather death. The objection that the Apostle could not well affirm this “dying” of himself, as something actual since by his conversion he had been preserved from this effect of the law, will not hold; for Paul, Romans 7:10 affirms this very thing himself. This explanation is, however, at variance with the fact that according to Galatians 3:24, the νὁμος is, indeed παιδαγωγὸςεἰςΧριστόν, but of itself, without Christ, does not yet lead to man’s becoming free from it. Now it is true, that this passage reads as if Paul here refers the dying to the law directly to the law itself, but he then proceeds to give the elucidation of this, by giving the immediate cause of the dying, namely, “I have been crucified with Christ.” This statement therefore explains the former one. In the same way the dying unto sin, mentioned Romans 6 is by means of the “dying with Christ,” and in Romans 7 the death of Christ is made the cause of the becoming dead to the law. Thus much then is already clear, that the “law” in both cases is of course the same (Mosaic) law, but in each case it comes into view in a different relation; in νόμῳ in its requirements, in διὰ νόμου in its effect. This explains in a simple way the paradoxical expression, according to which the law appears as making free from itself. But since it is still the same law, Paul is entitled to say, that he who will nevertheless again live unto the law although “through the law he died unto the law” exhibits himself as a “transgressor” sc., of the law. Let us now consider the first statement of the purpose of this dying namely: that I might live unto God, with the dying to the law the living to the law, has, as the very terms imply, come lo an end. As long as this existed, no living unto God was possible, but with the dying to the law every hinderance to this living unto God is removed. “Live unto God:” just as Romans 8:11. As the dying to the law may not be treated as immediately convertible into a being released from the law, obliterating the conception of dying; so on the other hand the realism of the Pauline expressions requires the like in the case of the antithetical expression: “live to God.” Paul wishes first to oppose to the being dead a being alive, therefore this means: that I might be living as regards God=with this effect, that God should have me, after the law has lost me. As from the being dead there resulted the dissolution of a connection—with the law—which had hitherto existed, so from the life there results the formation of a new connection, namely, with God. (Why precisely this results, appears first from what follows, for from the dying “to the law through the law” of itself, there would certainly not as yet result any new life at all, and especially a life for God.) Hence by “living unto God” as well as by “dying to the law” Paul wishes to express, chiefly, an event, not an activity, something which should be accomplished in him, not something which should be done by him in consequence of the dying to the law. Comp. the way in which Paul, Romans 6:11 sets forth the “living unto God” of Christians as something that actually comes to pass in their case, not as something which is as yet their task. According to this it would be about=εἰςτὸ γενέσθαιὑμᾶςἑτέρῳ, Romans 7:4; to belong to God, which involves both a being under God’s authority and a communion with God. So far it rather affirms the possession of a good, the attainment of a position, the gaining of a profit, than the proposal of a work. The next verse especially leads us to refer it to the full filial status in relation to God, as it appertains primarily to Christ. This filial status would then be opposed to the condition under the law. Comp. Galatians 3:23 sq. The fact that Paul here contrasts “God” and “law,” “living unto God” and “living to the law” would then be explained by the essential difference existing between the full filial position of God’s children and the state of bondage under the law. And the antithesis would be essentially the same which Paul sets forth, Romans 6:14, as an antithesis between being “under the law” and “under grace.” Life, however, is not merely a state, but essentially an activity also, actualizing itself and having permanence only as such. Hence “living to God” indicates, though not primarily, yet as immediately resulting, an activity and course of conduct with reference to God, and the more so indeed for the very reason, that by this “living to God” especially a good is gained; on which account also Paul, e.g., Romans 6:12-13, affirms as an obligation contained therein, the obligation “to yield one’s self to God.” Since he there derives this obligation from the “being alive unto God,” we should doubtless assume it here also, as a secondary idea implied in “that I might live unto God.” In the first place the expression ἵνα—statement of design—points to something, which even if it is on the one hand already given, yet on the other is also still to be looked for. And in the second place the connection points to this ethical interpretation, for Paul means to repel the allegation that by faith in Christ, by abandoning the position of the law, one be comes a sinner: and he cannot do this more emphatically than by describing the release from the law as the operation of the law itself, and as having for its purpose the living unto God. “Living unto God” then passes over into the meaning: to dedicate one’s life to God, the dative thus acquiring of course a yet fuller meaning, denoting not merely possession, but devotion, surrender to. The antithesis between “living unto God” and “living unto the law” is also to be explained as Romans 6. For the law leads “to sin” (and to death). The living to the law then in truth sunders from God. The “dying to the law” thus acquires the sense of dying unto sin (Romans 6.), though of course it is not to be identified with it. [Ellicott thus sums up the results; while his views do not differ materially from those given above, the statement is so succinct that the substance of it may well be inserted here: 1. Law in each case has the same meaning. 2. The Mosaic law is meant. 3. The law is regarded under the same aspect as in Romans 8:7; Romans 8:13, a passage in strictest analogy with the present. 4. It was not διὰ νόμον or κατὰ νόμον but διὰνόμου, through the instrumentality of the law, that the sinful principle worked within and brought death upon all. 5. “Died” is not merely “legi valedixi,” but expresses generally what is afterwards more specifically expressed by “I have been crucified with.” 6. The dative “to the law” is not merely “with reference to,” but a species of dative “commodi:” “I died not only as concerns the law, but as the law required.” He paraphrases thus “I through the law, owing to sin, was brought under its curse; but having undergone this, with, and in the person of Christ, I died to the law in the fullest and deepest sense—being both free from its claims and having satisfied its curse.” So Lightfoot: “The law is the strength of sin. At the same time it provides no remedy for the sinner. On the contrary it condemns him hopelessly, for no one can fulfil the requirements of the law. The law then exercises a double power over those subject to it; it makes them sinners and punishes them for being so. What can they do to escape? They have no choice but to throw off the bondage of the law, for the law itself has driven them to this. They find the deliverance, which they seek, in Christ. Thus then they pass through three stages 1. Prior to the law—sinful, but ignorant of sin; 2. under the law—sinful, and conscious of sin, yearning after better things; 3. free from the law—free and justified in Christ. The second stage (‘through the law’) is a necessary preparation for the third (‘died to the law’).” So Meyer and many others, following Chrysostom in the main.—R.] Galatians 2:20. I have been crucified with Christ.—Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. “I have come into fellowship with Christ’s death on the cross, through faith, so that what happened to Christ has also happened to me.” The Apostle declares thereby in what way the dying to the law through the law has been effected. Christ died “through the law,” for in the crucifixion the curse of the law was fulfilled upon Him. Whoever therefore is “crucified with Christ,” has also died “through the law”=the curse of the law is fulfilled on him too. But Christ, dying through the law, died also to the law, i.e., His life of subjection to the law came to an end (comp. Galatians 4:4) even according to the principle, Romans 7:1, and the more so in His case, because it brought the curse undeservedly upon Him, and therefore forfeited its claim. As now the one “crucified with Christ” has died “through the law,” he has at the same time thereby also died “to the law”=he has, for the law, become a dead man, such an one as is no longer subject to the law, is free from it and its claims. The law over against him has no right of possession, having lost it. Comp. Romans 7:2 : “dead to the law through the body of Christ.” An equivalent sense is contained in Galatians 3:25 : “faith having come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” For “crucified with Christ” rests essentially upon “faith.” As “I have been crucified with Christ” was the proof of the precious declaration (Galatians 2:19), go Galatians 2:20 first makes clear, why in consequence of the “dying to the law through the law,” he has attained to a “living unto God.” For as it is especially true of Christ that through the law, He died to the law, so it is also especially true of Him, that this came to pass that He might live unto God. Comp. Romans 6:10. For His death on the cross was for Him the departure from that life in which He also had been subject to the law (Galatians 4:4), and through His resurrection it led in His case to the entrance into a life of another kind, into a life, in which He without any medium stood in immediate relation to God, in a pure filial relation, something which is most simply expressed by “living unto God.” Whoever now believes in Christ, participates, as in Christ’s death, so in Christ‘s new life; as he is crucified with Christ, so he lives with Christ (Romans 6:8). But Paul does not stop with this thought; he is not satisfied with a “crucified Christ” that he might live with Christ—It is, however, no longer I that live.—In his case the being “crucified with” has indeed led to a life; but what now lives in him is no more his Ego; this his Ego did live, when he was still under the law, without knowledge of Christ; it is therefore an Ego essentially linked with the law, disappearing with the legal life, so that he after the revolution which has come to pass within him through faith in Christ and the release from the law, must regard it as altogether vanished out of existence. This whole Ego has died with Christ.—But Christ liveth in me.—Another life is it, on the contrary (δέ adversative), that is now in him, the life of another personality; and this personality is Christ, viz., as one who has Himself passed through death to life. And as such He is living unto God. Therefore although living with Christ has as its result, living unto God, this must needs become far more complete by a living of Christ Himself in the man. Yea the life which now I live in the flesh.—But while Paul has declared of himself, that Christ Himself lives in him, Christ as the risen and glorified One, he, on the other hand, knows well that even yet there appertains to him as before, a life “in the flesh,” i.e., a life of terrestrial corporeality, and so far, therefore, a yet imperfect life, which of itself stands in conflict with the life of Christ in him (δέ in ὁ δέ adversative). [It is perhaps better to regard δέ as introducing an explanatory and partially concessive clause (Ellicott). “So far as I now live in the flesh; it is still a life in faith.” Lightfoot. To avoid the repetition of “but”—the word “yea” will convey the force of the connection—“Even though I do live a life in the flesh, Christ so lives in me, that yea this very life I live by the faith,” etc.—R.] “Flesh” here docs not of course affirm an ethical defect, for he affirms this life at this very moment of himself, but only so to speak, a physical life; the opposite idea is not: in the Spirit, but: in vision, in heaven. Paul does not, however, on this account, recall what he said before, but reconciles the life “in the flesh” with the life of christ in him by I live in the faith.—“Now” is in opposition to the past time before the “dying to the law.” Now, after he has died to thelaw, he lives, it is true, even yet “in the flesh,” but he lives “in the faith.” “In the faith” is of course opposed, first of all in a restricted way, to “in the flesh,” on which account also the two phrases are conjoined; but in fact it constitutes the antithesis to the previous “living to the law.” [Not “by faith,” but “in faith,” “the atmosphere as it were which he breathed in this his new spiritual life” (Lightfoot).—R.] Of the Son of God,—Christ, we may believe, is designedly distinguished by this exalted predicate, in order to characterize faith as something great, in that it lays hold on the Son of God Himself. As if to say: what matters it that I still live in the flesh? Even in the flesh I possess through faith the Son of God! At the same time also the preposterousness of the thought, that one can become a sinner, “seeking to be justified in Christ,” [or that “Christ is a minister of sin.”—R.] is intimated. Who loved me and gave himself for me.—“It is indeed natural that I should believe on Him, since He,” etc.—and on the other hand this is a more definite statement of what faith believes. Galatians 2:21 is a simple conclusion from what immediately precedes. Men cannot now say, that I frustrate the grace of God, for this manifested itself in the atoning death of the Son of God. But precisely in this do I believe, yea, my whole life is a life in faith thereon. Exactly the reverse: if righteousness come through the law, then Christ died without cause, needlessly, and if I through the law sought justification, I should then declare the death of Christ to have taken place in vain, and should thus reject the grace of God: but now this latter is precisely what I did not do, and therefore not the former; I cannot be reproached with this. It is to be supposed, that some accused Paul, on account of his independence of the law in his course of conduct, of a contempt of the grace of God, not recognizing, in their confusion of thought, the truth that just this self-elevation of Christ was the chief manifestation of this grace, that therefore every disparagement of that self-devotion to death, by emphasizing the law, implied a contemning of this grace. This δωρεάν is, in conclusion, a sharply trenchant word. [Meyer: “This death took place unnecessarily, if what it should effect, could be attained through the law. Erasmus is excellent: est autem ratiocinatio ab impossibili.”—R.] AND ETHICAL. 1. “Controversy of Paul with Peter” is a frequent, but incorrect title of this section. It should rather be entitled: Peter’s weak yielding and Paul’s open rebuke of it. For there is not the slightest mention made of a controversy between the two, and especially none of any opposing reply provoked by Paul. As regards the fault of Peter, the question, in what it consisted, has been answered in the main above. To express it generally, it was a practical denying of the freer, genuinely evangelical conviction, to which he had attained, and that too from an unworthy motive, namely the fear of man, a fear of the censure of legally-minded Christians (and thus at all events an ὑπόκρισς). This of itself gives an important hint as to how we are to show regard for “the weak,” and when we may, out of consideration for them, renounce some particulars of Christian freedom. It is right only when it proceeds not from the fear of men or their censure or in any other way from self-interest, but from indulgent care that scandal be not given, and conscience be not perplexed.—Peter’s conduct, however, was particularly indefensible on account of the special circumstances under which it took place; at a time when it was of moment to secure the principal of Christian liberty, “the truth of the gospel,” which through Peter’s behavior was put in jeopardy: for the Gentile Christians, who were witnesses of it, were thereby induced to suppose that the observing of the Mosaic law was something necessary for a Christian, were shaken in their previous Christian conviction. A further important hint as to this regard for the weak! it may be duty, it may also be forbidden, when the fundamental principle of evangelical freedom would thereby be rendered doubtful to any one (or when, on the other hand, it might be perverted so as to establish the legal position, and to support an attack upon evangelical liberty). The nature of the fault determines also our judgment respecting it. It was a fault: and on this account Paul’s correction of it, and that in the Way in which it took place, i. e., publicly, before all, was warranted, nay, necessary: necessary, not so much on account of the fear of man betrayed in it, as on account of the perplexity of conscience among the Gentile Christians, which was to be apprehended. This was the reason why Paul took occasion to set forth with such distinctness the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith. That a Peter should be set right by Paul, ill accords with the Romish view of the primacy of Peter. The transaction in Antioch will therefore also be urged with propriety against the assumption of such a primacy. The narrative is also instructive for the just apprehension of the general personal characters of the Apostles, and constitutes a corrective against exaggerated notions of these, as though a shortcoming, and unwarranted step, or even a sin, were never possible in their case.—But on the other side, more must not be made of Peter’s fault than it really was. It must not be regarded as anything else than a sin of weakness. If even Peter’s denial of his Master, rightly judged, can only be regarded as such, much more, and with entire certainty must this case in Antioch be so regarded, and this case, although in some measures analogous to his denial, is much less scandalous as indeed, considering that meanwhile he had been endued with the Holy Ghost, might be expected. That he strove with the Spirit, is not even to be imagined, nam quo rectore apostoli utebantur, spiritus sanctus neque sublata illos omni virium humanarum efficientia neque ita modcratus est, ut labe quavis eximerentur vel castigationi fraternζ locus non esset (Elwert, p. 16), as little as that sins of weakness generally are impossible in those who have received the Holy Ghost. Moreover, as this lapse of Peter was a lapse in practical conduct, and not in teaching, it cannot be pretended that it overturns faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures. The apostolic dignity of Peter and of his teaching, Paul does not in the least assail, and does not speak of them as impaired; as indeed it is precisely in his teaching on this particular point that Peter here comes into view as occupying the right position, failing of faithfulness to it in his practical behavior only. But in any case, the uncertainty of the senior Apostles respecting the obligation of the law, the existence of which is plainly enough attested by the Acts, does not warrant us in drawing a conclusion as to the truth of apostolic teaching generally. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ II Paul opposes the LEGAL VIEW itself, which through the false teachers had found entrance among the Galatians Galatians 3:1 to Galatians 6:10A. Remonstrance and expression of astonishment, at the contradiction into which this brings them with their own experience respecting the receiving of the Spirit(Galatians 3:1-5)1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched [did bewitch] you, that ye should not obey the truth [omit this clause] before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been [was] evidently set forth, crucified among you [set forth among you, crucified]? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law [was it by the works of the law that ye received the Spirit], or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in [with] the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by 4[being madeperfect with] the flesh? Have ye suffered [or experienced] so many things in vain? if it be yet [really] in vain. 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among [or miraculous powers in] you doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? AND Gal_3:1. O foolish Galatians.—Direct address, because Paul now, for the first time after his historical account, turns to the readers. It is, therefore, a trustworthy intimation that a new section begins here, and that all which precedes belonged together. “Foolish:” that they had given up the better, genuine knowledge, is what Paul wishes to prove to them in the whole Epistle; this is, in fact, implied in the very opening words, Galatians 1:6. His particular motive for expressing himself precisely thus here, and in general for expressing himself with especial emphasis, is that, although a new section begins here, yet, for the writer, this beginning presupposes what precedes—that is, in the first instance the proof of the full apostolicity of his preaching generally, and then particularly the just cited rebuking of Peter for conduct similar to theirs, concluding with the powerful words: “For, if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died without cause.” This very thought, so painful, that the Galatians, by their conduct, are declaring the greatest act. of God’s grace, the death of Christ, to have been in vain, may have been what impelled him to the vehement exclamation: ὦἀνόητοιΤαλάται. For here also his astonishment and his censure have primary reference to this death of Christ: “set before you, crucified.” [Jerome and others have imagined a national peculiarity to be referred to here, which is altogether inadmissible. The Galatians were sprightly, not stupid, and ἀνόητος marks not so much “dullness” as “foolishness,” want of νοῦς, improper use of it. They were not μωροί, but ἀνόητοι.—R.] Who did bewitch you?—So senseless and therefore incomprehensible is the apostasy of the Galatians, that Paul explains their being led astray as an effect of magic. For what he immediately subjoins had actually taken place among them; naturally, therefore, this apostasy—to Judaism—was least to be expected of them. For Christ’s atoning death and Judaistic legalism are at opposite poles to each other; the stronger the emphasis laid on the former, the most distant must be any thought of the latter. Comp. Galatians 2:21. [Lightfoot:—“The word βασκάνειν originally referred to witchery by spells and incantations, but in actual use it denotes the blighting influence of the evil eye. It here involves two ideas: 1) The baleful effect on the recipient, and 2) the envious spirit of the agent. The false teachers envy the Galatians this liberty in Christ, have an interest in subjecting them again to bondage. This idea, however, is subordinate to the other.” See Wordsworth, who quotes authorities for both ideas. There may be allusion to the notion that the power of the sorcerer was felt whenever the eye of the recipient rested on him, in the expression “before whose eyes,” as if keeping their eyes on that object would have preserved them from this bewitching; but this must not be pressed.—R.] Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently set forth.—Portrayed before the eyes, of course, by means of preaching, but the expression hints at the pains which Paul took to make known to them the crucified One, and to bring Him as near as possible to them. This is done designedly, in order to contrast the more strongly with this the apostasy that had taken place, and to justify the astonishment which he expresses—Among you strengthens the statement still further: in the midst of you, by oral communication, not merely from a distance by letters. The following is the simplest explanation: “Before your eyes,” so distinctly points out the meaning; “to paint,” as that of προεγράφη, that we cannot hesitate to accept it, although the compound verb does not occur elsewhere in this sense. Wieseler: “But as γράφειν is very frequently used of painting, there is little occasion for hesitation in extending the signification to the regularly formed compound, even though there were no further warrant for it. In the New Testament there are other ἄπαξλεγόμενα, both in form and meaning, and as to the latter in this case we have also the voice of the Greek Fathers.” To give προ a temporal reference [Meyer, Alford, and others.—R.] is less suited to the context, while the local signification corresponds with “before whose eyes.” [The safest rendering is that of the E. V. Lightfoot says of the verb: “This is the common word to describe all public notices and proclamations; hence: programme;” and this is, on the whole, preferable. Wordsworth finds here an allusion to the heathen practice of carrying amulets to guard against witchcraft, and to the Jewish custom of binding phylacteries between the eyes. “Who bewitched you, before whose eyes was written and bound up by me, as your frontlet of Faith, your spiritual Phylactery, Christ crucified; and who had, as I thought, been thus guarded by me against all the envious fascination of your spiritual enemies.” This is ingenious, but it presses unduly the allusion in the word “bewitched.”—R.] Galatians 3:2. This only would I learn of you.—The unreasonableness of the apostasy is still further, and now, indeed, for the first time, expressly exposed. Not merely has the proclamation of Christ’s death on the cross been made among them, but, through faith thereon, they have already attained to the receiving of the Holy Ghost,—and yet are you disposed to turn away from that which has already so attested itself? “Vide, quam efficaciter tractat locum ab experientia.” Luther. [“Learn” = obtain information, not used ironically in the stricter sense of “learning as a disciple,” as Luther, Bengel, and others.—R.] He refers them to the receiving of the Spirit through faith, as a proof that it is Faith which works justification. For the Spirit can only be given by God to the man whom He justifies (not whom He reprobates); the gift of the Spirit is a token of grace, not of wrath.—“Only,” for this is the main question; by this—so far as the proof is to be sustained by facts—the thing is proved.—The Spirit, generally, not merely as the principle of miraculous gifts; “for Paul reminds the collective body of his readers of their receiving of the Spirit; not till Galatians 3:5 are the δυνάμεις, as a species of the Spirit’s workings, particularly cited.” Meyer.—By the hearing of faith.—“Through the preaching concerning faith,” is the right translation, although not quite congruous with the first member, which has a subjective reference. [̓Ακοή, “hearing,” has a passive sense always in the New Testament, i.e., it refers to what is heard (see Meyer, Ellicott), “the preaching.”—Πίστεως, “of faith,” evidently an objective genitive. See Lightfoot, Wordsworth, against both the above positions. Most modern expositors agree with Schmoller’s next remark on the meaning of πίστις—R.] Not = “through listening to the faith,” since πίστις is never = doctrina fidei, but is only the subjective believing. “That in the first member of the double question their own strength, and, in the second, the power of the gospel (= of preaching) is made prominent, is quite natural, as it was through human strength that the Judaizing teachers would fain achieve that which was in truth only to be bestowed by the might of the gospel.” Wieseler. That the “hearing” was accepted is understood, of course, since, from the “hearing,” the gift of the Spirit proceeded (comp. Romans 10:17); from preaching (sc. from believing) comes faith, and with it the Holy Ghost. Galatians 3:3. Having begun with the Spirit.—You have made a beginning in the Christian life through the receiving of the Holy Ghost (Galatians 3:2). Where a beginning is made, the next question is about the completion. Now—remarks Paul with cutting irony, bringing homo the sense of this ἀνόητον of their conduct—such a completion there is also with you; but with the flesh! i.e., according to your and your false teachers’ fancy, this now is the true completion; yet, in truth, it is no completion, but the direct opposite of it, an annihilation of the work begun, because it is a completion with the flesh. “Flesh” is the opposite of “Spirit,” and where the “flesh” reigns, the “Spirit” must give way. “The flesh,” of course, rises again to dominion, where there is a retrogression to the legal position; for therewith the Holy Ghost, which has been obtained only through faith, is necessarily lost; and where the “Spirit” is wanting, there is the “flesh.” [Meyer:—“Spirit and flesh do not describe Christianity and Judaism themselves, but the specific vital agencies in each, the Holy Spirit, and the unspiritual, corporeally-physical human nature, leading contrary to God and to sin.” The datives are both modal, indicating the manner in which the two actions took place.—R.]’̓Επιτελεῖν signifies not merely “to end,” but “to complete,” consummare.’̓Επιτελεῖσθε may be middle; if so, then it is simplest to take it as = do ye now bring to completion (s. c. the work begun) in the flesh. But ἐπιτελεῖσθαι does not occur in the New Testament in a middle sense, though it is thus used by profane writers. Hence, others take it as passive, e. g. Meyer = you are brought to completion, sc., by the false teachers, inasmuch as they make of you people who lie under the dominion of the “flesh.” This renders the reproach still sharper. So also Luther : instead of saying, carne consummastis, he suddenly turns the address, and says: carne consummamini, which strictly signifies: Will you then let the matter be carried through with you in the flesh, and thereby be made completely righteous?—The present tense denotes that the Galatians are now engaged in this ἐπιτελεῖσθαι Comp. Galatians 1:6.—Νῦν = cum magis magisque deberetis spirituales fieri relicta came. Bengel. Galatians 3:4. [Are ye so foolish?—“So very foolish are ye then?” οὔτως being emphatic.—R.] Have you experienced [or suffered] so many things in vain?—Meyer, in connection with his explanation of “being made perfect,” interprets it as referring to the many burdensome performances connected with observing the law, which they had been obliged, by their new teachers, to undergo, in order, according to their notion, to become complete Christians. Having (according to Meyer) reminded them of these by ἐπιτελ’ he then lays before them the uselessness of such things by the exclamation (not question) : “So many things,” etc.—This is evidently a strained interpretation, and it is, by no means, probable that this would have been described as a παθεῖν’ or even that any such παθεῖν is to be presumed to have taken place. It is, therefore, to be understood, either of sufferings and persecutions, that they underwent, on account of their faith, or, since nothing is otherwise known of such, παθεῖν is to be taken as vox media, with the general signification, “to experience,” here “to experience manifestations of Divine grace.” [While the use of the aorist seems conclusive against the view of Meyer, it is more difficult to decide which of the other two interpretations is to be taken. Though nothing be known of such “sufferings,” yet what more likely to occur? And if these arose from Judaizing influences, as was generally the case in Apostolic times, additional point is given to the Apostle’s language. The other view, however, seems to give a greater logical unity to the passage, since Galatians 3:3; Galatians 3:5 both refer to “benefits.” But was not Paul, who gloried in tribulation, likely to cite “sufferings” also as evidences of spiritual benefits? These considerations, in connection with the fact that there is no other instance in the New Testament of such a neutral meaning of πάσχειν render it more prudent to follow the ancient versions and expositors, and adopt “suffered,” instead of “experienced.”—R.] If it be only [or really] in vain.—That is, if rather you are not in much worse case, as notorious backsliding is apt to make the man worse than he was before. This addition has special force against the interpretation of ἐπάθετε as denoting persecutions, as with this it gives a scarcely intelligible sense: for the mitigating thought, that perhaps the Galatians will yet bethink themselves, so that the παθείν will not have been in vain, can hardly be in Paul’s mind here, where he meditates only severe rebuke [?], while the explanation: “if only in vain!”=“if it do not rather turn to your loss and greater condemnation,” in its turn is not in keeping with the reference of παθεῖν to sufferings endured. For although, when sufferings have been endured for the faith, assistance rendered by God in bearing them may make the guilt of a subsequent apostasy greater, the sufferings themselves cannot well be said to increase it. [Notwithstanding the high authorities for this interpretation, which intensifies instead of softening “in vain,” it does seem more probable that Paul here leaves “a loophole of doubt.” If suffered is the thought implied, then as he recalled their sufferings, would be the very moment for a flash of doubt, or rather of hope, to enter. In this view it is better to render: “If it be really in vain,” “I would fain doubt whether it can be, that all this was in vain.”—R.] Galatians 3:5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit.—With this Paul returns to the decisive question of Gal 3:2, but with some variation of the thought. He no longer sets the matter back into the past, but represents (no doubt designedly) the communication of the Spirit as something still going on, on the ground of faith. They were to recognize themselves as still experiencing this gracious operation of God. Besides this, he singles out and notes particularly the miraculous powers which God communicates through the same medium. [The word “ministereth” means “to supply bountifully.” The ἐπί in the compound indicates the direction of the supply, not an enlargement of it. Δυνάμειςἐνὑμῖν may be rendered either, as E. V., “miracles among you,” or better, “miraculous powers in you,” i. e., the peculiar powers there brought by the Spirit, which Paul everywhere alludes to, as observable in the Christians to whom he writes (1 Corinthians 12:28). Meyer decides for the latter from the analogy of 1 Corinthians 12:6, and it suits better the line of argument, which refers throughout to their personal experience.—R.] Moreover he now designates God expressly as the Bestower of the Spirit, doubtless, in order to bring home with special emphasis the truth that God Himself declared for the preaching of faith. For the Scripture proof which follows supports this idea. God declares for this among the Galatians because He has declared for it in His word, and He must ever agree with Himself, His acts with His testimony. AND ETHICAL1. A Christian church without a “receiving the Spirit” is not conceivable. It may lose the Spirit again (comp. σαρκὶἐπιτελεῖσθε), but it must once have received it. Paul, therefore, because he knows that the Galatians have been converted to Christ, assumes of course that they have received the Spirit. The primary reference is undoubtedly to the Holy Ghost only as a charism from God. The immediate reference is not to definite ethical effects on the hearts of recipients, though it is true that these cannot be wanting, if the Spirit received is retained. But as the Holy Ghost here is to be apprehended primarily as a charism (comp. Galatians 3:5 : ἐπιχορηγῶν), it is quite intelligible that what is given elsewhere as the condition of justification appears here as the condition of “receiving the Spirit,” namely: Faith. “Receiving the Spirit” is, it is true, not immediately identical with “being justified,” but is nevertheless an inseparable consequence. At all events no receiving of the spirit” can take place without the “being justified,” because the receiving of the Spirit is a token of Divine grace. Hence from the “receiving of the Spirit” “by the hearing of faith” it is concluded that the “being justified” comes by the same method. See also on this point the remarks on the previous section. 2. The personal experience of the operation of the preaching of the gospel is rightly (according to the example of Paul) regarded as a principal proof of the truth of the same. The proof lies more particularly in the receiving of the Holy Ghost: if I receive this through the preaching of the gospel, then this must doubtless be true, be the Divinely ordained way to salvation. Thereby does God declare Himself for this preaching; for the Holy Ghost is certainly a gift of God. A special application of the “witness of the Holy Ghost” which it might not be amiss to call the strict and original meaning of this doctrine. 3. All evangelical preaching should in its essence be nothing else than a portraying of Christ, the Crucified, before the eyes of men. It is by this that it leads them to the receiving of the Spirit. AND Gal_3:1. “O foolish Galatians.”—In Starke:—It must not be supposed that this is such a phrase of contumely as “Fool,” Matthew 5:22, but it is a sorrowful and earnest representation of their spiritual blindness. Christ also addresses His disciples with a similar term of rebuke. Luke 24:25.—Severe reproofs, when they flow from a zeal for the wounded honor of God, and from love to our neighbor, and a desire to save him, are not wrong. The sharp tongue of good men is many times more wholesome than the friendly tongue and flattering words of the ungodly.—As to know Christ aright is the true wisdom, so on the other hand it is the greatest folly not to know Christ aright and not to cleave fast to Him.—[Luther:—A carnal man would interpret this to be a reviling, rather than a godly reprehension. Not so. So parents, of a fatherly and motherly affection, do sharply reprove and rebuke their children, which they would not bear if another should do it. Therefore one and the self-same word in the mouth of Paul is a benefit; but in the mouth of another it is a reproach.—R.] Wόrt. Summ.:—False doctrine is, as it were, an enchantment, wherewith the devil bewitches men’s hearts. For as through sorcery men’s minds are blinded, so that they think they see something, when yet they see nothing, and nevertheless it is hard to fetch them off from the notion; even so, when the devil through false doctrine engages the hearts of men, he bewitches them so that they fancy they have the truth before them, when yet it is mere error and lies. Let us therefore the more diligently take heed to ourselves, that we be not taken in and infected with doctrine; let us the more diligently cleave to God’s word, and moreover pray heartily with David, Psalms 119:18; Psalms 119:37.—[What spell is this that holds so many eyes, before which Jesus Christ has been set forth so plainly as the crucified One, who dies not “without cause!”—R.] “Jesus Christ evidently set forth before your eyes, crucified.”—Starke:—By this way of speaking is indicated the clearness of the evangelical doctrine of the cross of Christ. In the Old Testament Christ was portrayed to the Jews under many images and types, as in the type of the high priest, of the paschal lamb, etc.; but in the New Testament, He was, through the preaching of the gospel, without any shadows such as these, clearly placed before men’s eyes, inasmuch as His suffering, shame, satisfaction on the cross, were most clearly published and proclaimed. That was, as it were, the programme which the Apostles placarded in all places whither they came.—Spener:—The best church-paintings are plain instructions concerning Divine truth; thereby can a matter be brought as plainly, and more plainly into the hearts of the hearers, than by the skilfullest painter of them all, yea, those things also which no painter can set forth. Actual paintings in the church are to be by no means utterly rejected, they have their use as memorials; but the other painting of doctrine must be joined therewith, and Christ must be portrayed in the heart, else outward paintings, if men are to learn only by gazing upon them, are a lifeless affair.—[Calvin:—Paul intimates that the actual sight of Christ’s death could not have affected them more powerfully than his preaching. Such a representation could not have been made by any eloquence, or by enticing words of man’s wisdom. When the Church has painters such as this, she no longer needs the dead images of wood and stone, she no longer requires pictures. Such things come, when pastors become dumb.—R.] Galatians 3:2. “Was it by the works of the law that ye received the Spirit?”—Hedinger:—A definite, keenly importunate question, with an “either—or,” from which there is no escape, appealing to actual experiences, in which no debate is possible,—well fitted to dispel the sorcery (Galatians 3:1) of the false teaching.—A hint as to the right way of convincing and freeing misguided souls out of such enchantment.—Law quickens not, but enjoins, commands, threatens and terrifies, it is true, yet without life. Bondage, constraint; good appearances enough, hypocrisy enough; carefully contrived clockwork, but mute wheels, without soul. Of such are many, that are praised as Christians. Hourglasses are they, that punctually show the time, but where is there Spirit, Heaven, marks of grace? On that hangs all.—Spener:—The only means of receiving the Holy Ghost, is the preaching of the gospel, as being a word of the Spirit. Where this is heard, and its energy not resisted, the Holy Ghost comes into the soul, not only to work, but also to dwell therein.—Starke:—Whatever doctrine the Holy Ghost brings to man, assuring him of Divine grace, and impelling him to all good, that is the true saving doctrine. Galatians 3:3. It is not enough to have begun well, the matter must also be carried through. The beginning and the continuing of our salvation must be after one way, and we must not desire to be perfected otherwise than we have begun, else is it folly to us.—Spener:—That is a doctrine to be abhorred, which to be sure ascribes the beginning of salvation to faith and so to the Spirit, but afterwards feigns that the rest must be accomplished and completed with works. Galatians 3:5. Starke:—It is God alone who gives the Holy Ghost. The Apostles also imparted it through their preaching and imposition of hands, but they were only instruments of God. Now-a-days teachers and preachers impart the Holy Ghost, so far as they preach the Word, which in itself has power, and has the Holy Ghost with it.—It is a truly Divine property of the gospel that God aforetime accompanied it with the most excellent miracles. No one who passed over to Judaism, received from God the power of working miracles, but those did who turned from Judaism to Christianity.—Hast thou, O man, the Holy Ghost and His energy in too small measure? Seek the cause in thyself, in that thou usest not the stated means aright.—Spener:—Where the Holy Ghost is, there He works, although not always outward miracles, yet in the conversion and renewal of men themselves, which is a greater miracle than to make the sick well. On Galatians 3:1-5. To portray Jesus Christ before men’s eyes as the Crucified is the soul of all preaching of the gospel: 1. This it must do, because in the cross of Christ alone salvation is found, and it must do it unweariedly and explicitly, with all earnestness, all fidelity, and all zeal. 2. But more it cannot do; the inscribing on the heart it must leave to God; although indeed it must ever admonish of the necessity of this, and exhort men to prove whether this has taken place (must warn against dead faith).—Jesus Christ has been portrayed before your eyes as the Crucified; is He also portrayed in your hearts?—Whoever seeks his salvation elsewhere than in Christ, the Crucified, 1) lacks understanding, for he leaves the living spring, which God Himself has opened for us, and hews out for himself broken cisterns; 2) is entangled in an enchantment, bewitched by the deceiving spirit of self-righteousness.—Who hath bewitched you? A question which must be sounded forth in many a congregation; for 1) Christ, the Crucified, is portrayed before their eyes, and yet 2) there is such an utter neglect to seek salvation in Him.—How is the Holy Ghost obtained? 1. Not from works of the law, this follows from the nature of the law, but 2. through faith in the gospel—simply because it is the good news of Christ, the Crucified. Faith in Jesus Christ the true way to salvation; for through it alone is the Holy Spirit received, not through the works of the law.—How have you received the Spirit? A question to strengthen and warn those who are in danger of embracing the righteousness of works.—Faith in Christ Jesus, 1) it is true in itself, not yet a proof that a man has received the Spirit, for there is also a dead faith; 2) but yet the only way to receive Him.—The preaching of faith the way to the receiving of the Spirit. Therewith is condemned all fanaticism with which, indeed, a righteousness of works of some kind or other is commonly joined.—It is God who bestows the Spirit, but only through the preaching of faith.—The Holy Ghost is the true heavenly gift.—Where God gives the Spirit, He also gives power (Spirit and power always conjoined).—To begin in the Spirit, to end in the flesh, is the most preposterous folly, and yet how frequent.—Hast thou begun in the Spirit? Continue in like manner, and end in the Spirit! [Christ only, Christ plainly, Christ crucified! the Gospel we preach.—That which is “so foolish” is yet so natural.—Take heed that what God blessed to your spiritual profit, be not despised by you. What means He has honored with His Spirit, do not dishonor by your treatment of them.—Is it indeed in vain? All past sufferings for the Gospel’s sake? Aye, and worse than in vain. These have no power to save. Christ’s sufferings alone can save.—Our works do not earn God’s , works.—The Gospel, “the hearing of faith,” still has the “witness of the Spirit,” is still the δύναμις; of God, by which He works δυνάμεις—R.] Footnotes: Galatians 3:1.—[As a rule the English simple past tease is the better rendering of the Greek aorist.—R.] Galatians 3:1.—Τῆἀληθ. μὴπείθεσθαι is to be omitted with Lachmann and Tischendorf. A gloss from Galatians 5:7. [Omitted in ΰ. A. B. and others; by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot.—R.] Galatians 3:1.—̓Ενὑμῖν is probably to be retained, on account of its difficulty, with D. E. F. L. K., although it is wanting in ΰ. A. B. C. and omitted by Lachmann. [The uncial authority for it is not much stronger than for the clause above, but its omission is so much more readily accounted for than its insertion, that it is retained by Meyer, Ellicott, Wordsworth. Alford rejects it, Lightfoot is doubtful.—R.] Galatians 3:1.—[The E. V. by putting “among you” after “crucified,” destroys not only the emphasis which belongs to the latter, but also the proper connection of the former phrase.—R.] Galatians 3:2.—[The order of the Greek, given above, is to be preserved, as rendering the contrast more striking.—R.] Galatians 3:3.—[The E. V. renders the datives in this clause differently. Πνεύματι ... σαρκί, not “in the Spirit” and “by the flesh,” but “with the Spirit,” “with the flesh.”—R.] Galatians 3:3.—[̓Επιτελεῖσθε, passive, not middle, “being made complete,” not “completing yourselves.”—R.] Galatians 3:4.—[The meaning of ἐπάθετε is open to discussion. Schmoller renders “erfahren.” See Exeg. Notes.—R. J Galatians 3:5.—[Δυνάμειςἐνὑμῖν; the two interpretations of this phrase are indicated above. See Exeg. Notes.—R.] [Coleridge paints this in his wierd lines: “So deeply had she drunken in That look, those shrunken, serpent eyes, That all her features were resigned To this sole image in her mind.” Lady Christdbel.—R.] B. Doctrinal Exposition Galatians 3:6 to Galatians 4:7.1. Salvation is not to be attained by works of the law, but through faith alone (Galatians 3:6-18).a. Demonstration from Scripture (Galatians 3:6-14.) 6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children [sons] of 8Abraham. And [Moreover] the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify [or justifieth] the heathen [Gentiles] through faith, preached before the gospel [proclaimed beforehand the glad tidings]unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be [who are] of faith are blessed with [together with the] faithful Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the [ora] curse: for it is written,Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law [in the law no man is justified] in the sight of God, it is evident: for, 12The just shall live by faith. And [Now] the law is not of faith: but, The man 13[He] that doeth [or has done] them shall live in them. Christ hath [omit hath] redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made [having become] a curse for us; for [as] it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on [unto] the Gentiles through [ἐν, in] Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus]; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. AND Gal_3:6. Even as Abraham believed God.—This stands in immediate connection with the preceding, and gives the answer to the question in Galatians 3:5, by an affirmation of the second part of it (for Paul views the gift of the Spirit previously mentioned as a proof of justification, and can therefore answer the question in Galatians 3:5 with the statement in Galatians 3:6). Through the preaching of faith God bestows the Spirit of faith, and thereby justifies, even as Abraham attained to justification in the same way. But in a much as Paul in going on still keeps Abraham in view, we may, and ought to begin here a new section. This verse does not contain a citation proper, but Paul gives what is contained in Genesis 15:6 respecting Abraham, as his own immediate declaration. (Comp. Romans 4:3.) That accounted to him for righteousness is understood by Paul entirely in the sense of “being justified” needs no demonstration.Galatians 3:7. Here, in the first place, he only draws from it the conclusion, that a man by faith becomes a son of Abraham. (Οἰἐκπίστεως, “the spiritual character represented under the form of the causal relation,” those that are born of faith, have as it were their nature from it. Ewald explains it somewhat differently: those whose efforts and achievements proceed from faith, as the deepest, and at the same time highest power.) This conclusion of course rests on the presupposition that faith was an essential trait in Abraham’s character, and is directed against the Judaizers, who believe that they can prove themselves genuine children of Abraham by works of the law. [The older commentators took γινώσκετε as indicative; “ye know then;” modern ones generally consider it an imperative: Know ye therefore.—So Meyer, De Wette, Ellicott, Wordsworth, also Syriac, Vulgate. Ellicott: “The imperative is not only more animated, but more logically correct, for the declaration in the verse is really one of the points which the Apostle is laboring to prove.” He contends that ἄρα is most properly joined with the imperative. Alford and Lightfootadopt the other view, the latter suggesting that the verb means “to perceive” rather than “to know,” which makes the indicative more suitable. There is not necessarily any “argumentative irony” (Alford) here. On the whole the imperative seems preferable.—R.] Paul has made reference to Abraham as the type of justifying faith; he does not, however, content himself with that, but, going deeper, he finds still more striking proof in the significance of Abraham as the bringer of blessing for all the heathen. He dwells the longer on the Old Testament because it was to this that the false teachers naturally appealed against Paul, and by their appeals to it imposed on the Galatians. So he on the other hand seeks to establish his doctrine from the Old Testament, simply by going more deeply into it. [Lightfoot: “The passage Galatians 3:6-9 was omitted in Marcion’s recension of the Epistle, as repugnant to his leading principle of the antagonism between the Old and New Testaments.”—R.] Galatians 3:8. Moreover the Scripture foreseeing.—Δἑ is simply continuative. [Neither “and” nor “but” gives the precise force.—R.] What God has promised is ascribed to the Scripture itself, not simply because it is related in the Scripture, but because the Scripture, as inspired by God, is conceived as the organ of the Spirit of God. The same then is true of God’s foreknowledge, from which the promise proceeded. Yet Paul has not gained from some other source a knowledge of the fact that the Scripture foresaw, and in this foresight gave the promise (Wieseler), but he draws the conclusion as to the “foreseeing” simply from the promise itself: because it is promised, that “all nations shall be blessed in Abraham,” the “justifying of the Gentiles through faith” must also have been predetermined. Why, he then explains in what follows.—[Ellicott calls δικαιοῖ an ethical present, with significant reference to the eternal and immutable counsels of God. Alford: “Present, not merely because the time foreseen was regarded as present, not present as respected the time of writing, but because it was God’s one way of justification—He never justified in any other way—so that it is the normal present: ‘He is a God that justifieth’ through faith.”—R.] Paul cites as proof Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 18:18. The chief emphasis lies upon “shall be blessed,” which is therefore placed first in the Greek; yet only so far as it is a “being blessed in Abraham.” The sense is: The blessing bestowed upon thee includes a blessing hereafter to come upon all the Gentiles (ἔθνη here of course in the pregnant sense=Gentiles). From this the conclusion is drawn in Galatians 3:9. So then they which be of faith.—“So then”= agreeably to the promise in Galatians 3:8. Galatians 3:9 is nothing else than an exposition of the promise cited in Galatians 3:8. In Abraham, it was promised, all the heathen are to be blessed, a promise which has the sense indicated above. Now, he was the believing one, and it was (as follows from Galatians 3:6) on account of his faith that he received the promise of blessing. Therefore it is, of course, believers that are partakers of the blessing promised to him, it is they who are his children, and it is to them therefore that the promise of blessing holds good.—Are blessed with [together with the] faithful Abraham.—In this sentence the ἐν is dropped, for the sense is: because the “being blessed in him,” is promised to all the heathen, therefore “they which be of faith” (the heathen, if they are “of faith”) are blessed with him, that is, primarily, in like manner as he; but still further: it expresses the sameness of the lot into which they entered with him, and through this one lot they entered into inner communion with him.—[The preposition shows their community with him in the blessing; the adjective “faithful” renders prominent that point of ethical character in which they must resemble each other, in order to partake of the same blessing. (So Meyer, Alford.)—R.] “Are blessed.”—As to the meaning of this, there is little occasion for dispute. If we look at the original passage, this is, of course, to be understood quite generally, as is implied in the idea of Blessing = Manifestation of Divine Favor. This again is more specially defined in different ways, and so here; so far as concerns the blessing received by Abraham himself: “together with the faithful Abraham,” the primary meaning is that he should obtain a posterity, and as concerns the blessing of the Gentiles in Abraham, the passage is justly regarded as a Messianic promise in the wider sense=the Gentiles shall have part in the salvation brought by the Messiah, in the salvation that proceeds from one who is Abraham’s offspring. The latter is the sense here. Which side of this Messianic salvation, however, Paul has in mind, is to be made out solely from the connection, most simply from what is put in opposition to it, namely, to be “under the curse,” and, to that again, the simple antithesis is “justified” (Galatians 3:11). Paul of course views “blessed” and “justified” as essentially correlative, coincident ideas: and hence in Galatians 3:8 the one, namely, “justified,” is inferred from the other, “blessed.” Only, as is easily understood, “blessed” still remains the more general idea; what kind of blessing is meant must be shown by the context. Somewhat more restricted, again, than “justification,” is “receiving the Spirit,” which, however, is not only connected with the “justification,” but is really the true “blessing,” on which account Paul, starting from “receiving the Spirit” in the beginning of this chapter, returns to it again in Galatians 3:14.—The ground of the promise in Galatians 3:8, and also of the statement expository of it in Galatians 3:9, is given in Galatians 3:10. A blessing to be bestowed upon the Gentiles in Abraham, and therefore one resting upon faith, is promised; such a one is, and only such a one can be, contemplated. Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse.—The force of this is: it must be those “of faith” who are blessed; for those who busy themselves with “works of the law” (the only alternative possible, if not “of faith”) cannot be blessed; since these are under the curse, and therefore a bestowal of blessing cannot avail for them. [This negative argument (Galatians 3:10; Galatians 3:12,) strengthens the position taken in the preceding verses, and has an immediate application to the Galatian errors, to which however no allusion is made in this strictly argumentative passage.—R.] “Of the works of the law;” the form is the same as in the antithetical expression, “of faith,” but more fully stated.—Cursed is every one, etc.—Deut. 17:26, freely quoted from the LXX. The passage proves what it is cited to prove, viz., that “as many as are of the law are under the curse,” provided a non-continuance can be established. This shows that the reference here is to ethical requirements, and not merely to ritualistic ones; thus confirming the view of “works of the law,” given in chap. 2. At the same time the passage shows that the ground of “a man is not justified by the works of the law,” is that those who “are of the works of the law are under the curse;” the non-justification has then of course its ground, not in the externality of the law, for that would not of necessity involve a curse, but in our not keeping it. Galatians 3:11. But that in the law no man is justified, etc.—Those who are of the works of the law are under the curse. This includes not being justified, but only implicite. Paul now states it expressly, in order to support it by declarations of Scripture, as he previously did the positive side. The course of thought might, perhaps, be still more accurately defined as follows: Cursed, it has been declared, is every one that continueth not in all things; but, on the other hand, it might be said, such as entirely fulfil the law will be blest. But, remarks Paul, that is excluded by the tenor of the two Scripture passages about to be cited, for according to them man ζήσεταιἐκπίστεως, but the law is in no wise ἐκπίστεως, therefore no one is justified ἐννόμῳ; the thought that “in the law” justification is possible, is to be entirely put aside.—In the sight of God.—Παρὰθεῷ defines more particularly the idea of “justified,” and sets it in antithesis to any (justifying) human judgment. The proof that “in the law no man is justified,” Paul derives from two Scripture passages. According to the one (Habakkuk 2:4) “to live,” results from “faith,” according to the other (Leviticus 18:5) the law does not take note of faith, but of doing; through doing, fulfilling the law, a man has life.—This, of course, has demonstrative force, for “no man is justified” only on the presupposition that this doing (in the second passage) remains only a requirement, and does not actually take place, and that it is with the knowledge of this state of things that the prophet represents faith as the condition of life.—The just shall live by faith.—ΰֱ ?ξεּ ?πָ ?δ in the original has, rightly explained, not the signification “faithfulness,” but as Paul translates it, “Trust, Faith.” [The first is undoubtedly the primary meaning of the Hebrew word, but the other is implied in it. It is noteworthy that this passage is one of the two in the Old Testament, where the word “faith” is used in the E. V. See a very suggestive note in Lightfoot, p. 152.—R.]—ιִ ?ηְ ?ιֶ ?η he then naturally understands, agreeably to the New Testament knowledge of salvation, in the higher sense of the Messianic life, that which renders its consummation in eternal life. ̓Εκπίστεως must be joined as in the original with ςήσεται, and not with ὁδίκαιος. Wieseler justly remarks: In proof of the connection ὁδίκαιοςἐκπίστεως, it is alleged that the origin of justification was to be shown, not that of salvation or life. It must not be forgotten, however, that according to the connection the emphasis does not rest upon δικαιοῦσθαι in itself, but upon the fact that this results ἐκπίστεως; moreover that Paul is not here using his own words, in which case instead of ἐκπίστεωςζήσεται he would undoubtedly have chosen another term of expression, such as πίστεωςδικαιοῦσθαι, but that he had to choose from the actually existing passages which treated of the central significance of faith. Whoever examines these more particularly will not be able to deny that the choice made is a happy one. For what does ἐκπίστεωςζήσεται signify, but that Faith is the fundamental condition through which a man becomes well-pleasing to God, and partaker of the gracious gift of life? In this formula, therefore, the δικαιοῦσθαιἐκπίστεως, or the statement that one is declared righteous or well-pleasing to God, in consequence of faith, is in truth included. Δίκαιος, on the other hand, signifies the righteous or devout man, and has here nothing more than an etymological connection with δικαιοῦσθαι. That ἐκπίστεως is joined by Paul in the Galatians with ζήσεται, appears, moreover, from its antithesis, ζήσεταιἐναὐτοῖς: “he will live through the commandments.” [It is difficult to decide this question of connection; either would be grammatical, both are sustained by high authorities. Winer, De Wette, Ewald, Ellicott agree with Wieseler; while Bengel, Pareus, Meyer, Alford, and very many others connect “by faith” with “the just.” The former conforms better with the Hebrew; the latter with the general course of Paul’s thoughts here and elsewhere. The former is safer, the latter more pointed, but from either the same truth would be deduced.—R.] Galatians 3:12. Now the law is not of faith.—[Δέ, logical, introducing the minor proposition: “The just shall live by faith.” “Now the law is not of faith” (so Meyer).—R.] “The law is not an institution whose nature is determined by faith.” Wieseler. [Lightfoot: ‘Faith is not the starting-point of the law. The law does not take faith as its fundamental principle. On the other hand, it rigidly enforces the performance of all its enactments.’—Has done them.—Actual and entire performance of all requirements. Doing, not believing—.R.] Galatians 3:13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.—“The asyndeton makes the contrast more energetic.”—Meyer. [ “Redeemed.” Wordsworth: “The aorist is important to be observed, as intimating that the Redemption was effected by one act, i. e., by the shedding of His blood, paid as the price of our ransom, when He became a curse for us by dying on the cross.”—R.] That Paul here proceeds to speak of the redemption from the curse, and therefore presupposes the latter as existing, is of easy explanation. In Galatians 3:10 it had been declared that “as many as of the works of the law are under a curse;” and, on the other hand, it needed no demonstration that all those who had the “law,” and as yet nothing else, that is, the Jews, are “of the works of the law” and therefore “are under a curse.” “Us,” therefore, naturally refers primarily to the Jews, for these, who alone had the “law,” alone stood under the “curse of the law.” Comp. also, particularly, Galatians 4:5 : “to redeem them that were under the law.” Wieseler also justly remarks, that particularly in the doctrinal exposition in the Galatians, Paul loves, from easily intelligible reasons, to include himself with the Jewish people, in the first person. Yet I would not be disposed wholly to reject the more general sense of ἡμᾶς. It is true, it was primarily only the Jews who stood under the curse of the law; but Paul here may be thinking not only of the actual, but also of the ideal or possible being under it; that is, through Christ the true way to justification by faith in Him is opened to all. it could not therefore be any longer demanded of the Gentiles (and they could not be tempted) to concern themselves with “the works of the law,” through which they also would have come under the curse of the law. Ἔθνη, Galatians 3:14, need not be taken as the direct antithesis of this; doubtless it has the emphasis, and on this account stands first, but the ἔθνη may have been made particularly prominent, only because the fulfilment of the promise given in relation to them has become possible through the atoning death of Christ, and in the blessing of the Gentiles the reality and effect of the death of Christ is chiefly manifest. But that the effect of this extends of course to the Jews, also is added in the clause introduced by iva. In this clause at least Meyer, Wieseler, and others, understand the first person plural generally, of Jews and Gentiles. Meyer, limiting ἡμᾶς, Galatians 3:13, to the Jews, understands the somewhat difficult connection of Gal 3:13-14 peculiarly, almost too artificially: as long as the curse of the law stood in force, and the Jews therefore were unredeemed, the Gentiles could not become partakers of that blessing; for it was involved in the preλminence which, according to the Divine plan of redemption was bestowed on the Jews, that salvation should proceed from them to the Gentiles. When therefore Christ through His atoning death freed the Jews from the curse of their law, God must necessarily have had the design therewith, of imparting to the Gentiles the promised justification, and that not in any such way as through the law, but in Christ Jesus, through whom already redemption from the curse of the law had been effected for the Jews. More simple, and more congruous also with the interpretation of ἡμᾶς in the general sense, is Usteri’s explanation: Christ has, by His vicarious death, redeemed us from the curse of the law, in order that (if now henceforth justification is attained through faith) the Gentiles may become partakers of the blessing of Abraham, as from now henceforth there is required for justification a condition possible for all, namely, Faith. The simplest and best exposition of “redeemed from the curse of the law” is Meyer’s: “The law is personified as a potentate, who had subjected those dependent upon him to his curse; but from this constraint of the curse, out of which they would not else have come, has Christ redeemed them, and that by His having procured for them, through His mors salisfactoria, the forgiveness of sins (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Romans 3:24 et al.), so that now the curse of the law had no more relation to them (objectively—to which must then be added—and nothing else can be added—‘faith,’ in order that this redemption may also be subjectively realized.) Having become a curse for us.—The mode of the redemption is here expressed, namely, by His crucifixion, in which he was set forth as burdened with the Divine ὀργή. The emphasis therefore rests on the word κατάρα, which on this account is attracted to the end, and the use of which is immediately to be justified by a declaration of Scripture. The abstract instead of the concrete is chosen, in order to represent with more of vigorous precision the adequacy of the satisfaction which Christ has rendered (comp. the previous ἐκκατάρας), and it stands without the article, because the thought is not, that Christ suffered the definite, just named curse of the law, to which the subjects of the law are exposed, but in a general sense, that He became an accursed one; it is meant to express not what curse he became, but that He became a curse (the that moreover appears from the following Scripture passage).—̔Ψπὲρἡμῶν : “ὑπέρ in all places where the discourse is of the atoning death not=instead of, but=in behalf of. The satisfaction, which Christ rendered, was rendered in our behalf: that it was vicarious is implied in the nature of the act itself, not in the preposition. The curse of the law would have had to be realized in that all who did not completely satisfy the law (and this no one could), would have been compelled to endure the execution of the Divine ὀργή against them; but for their deliverance from this sentence Christ with His death has intervened, inasmuch as He died as Accursed, whereby, as through a ransom, that damnatory relation of the law was dissolved.” See the Doctrinal Notes below. As it is written, Cursed is every one, etc.—Scriptural justification of the declaration just made respecting Christ, “having become a curse:” from Deuteronomy 21:23, cited freely from the LXX. “The original passage has reference to persons stoned, and then far greater ignominy, publicly hung up on a (probably cruciform) stake, who, however, must not be left to hang over night, because such accursed ones would else have defiled the holy land. Deuteronomy 21:23; Numbers 25:4 : Joshua 10:26-27; 2 Samuel 4:12. And in that Christ also when executed hung upon a stake, the epithet ἐπικατάρατος applies also to Him.” Meyer. [Wordsworth notes a remarkable conformity of the prophetical reference to Christ in the passage here cited. The body must be taken down, but “if He had been crucified on some ordinary day, not on the day before that High Day, the Jews would have been as eager that He should remain on the cross as they were then earnest that He should be taken down. Thus, in crucifying Him, and taking Him down from the cross, they proved unconsciously that He whom they crucified is the Messiah, and that it was He who, bearing the curse of the law, has taken away that curse from all who believe.”—R.] “Therefore, even if in the original passage crucifixion proper is not meant (which was not an ancient Israelitish punishment), yet that which particularly made both kinds of punishment a curse, the hanging and exposure on the wood was common to them. Ξύλον, used of the wood of the cross, undoubtedly on account of the ςֵ ?υ of the Old Testament passage, is found also Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Acts 13:29; 1 Peter 2:24.” Wieseler. [Ellicott: “It is interesting to notice that the dead body was not hanged by the neck, but by the hands, and not on a tree, but on a piece of wood.”—R.] Galatians 3:14. That unto the Gentiles might come.—Respecting the connection see above on Galatians 3:13.—The blessing of Abraham= the blessing before announced to Abraham.—In Christ Jesus.—“In Christ (in His expiatory death) the bestowal of the blessing has its ground. The following διὰτῆςπίστεως expresses the matter from the point of view of the subjective medium, while ἐνΧριστῷ sets forth the objective fact.” Meyer.—That we might receive the promise of the Spirit.—“Climatically parallel to the first clause of intention.” Meyer. The first, person, “that we might receive,” applies undoubtedly to Christians generally, Jews or Gentiles.—“Receive the promise of the Spirit”=to receive the promised Spirit. [Ellicott: “Not merely the promised Spirit, but the realization of the promise of the Spirit.” This is to be preferred.—R.] Is this to be taken as a nearer definition of the “blessing of Abraham?” It is not immediately identical with this as (see on Galatians 3:9) the “blessing” (in itself quite general) in the connection means primarily the “justification.” However not only does the receiving of the Spirit stand in immediate connection, both of thought and fact, with the justification, but although in “the promise of the Spirit,” the primary reference is to such a promise as that in Joel 3 : [E. V.], yet this again stands, at least in the history of salvation, in connection with the promise given to Abraham in reference to the heathen, so that the two promises are combined on satisfactory grounds in this relation also. In any case Paul is looking back to the beginning of Gal 3:2. [Lightfoot: ‘The law, the greater barrier which excluded the Gentiles, is done away in Christ. By its removal the Gentiles are put on a level with the Jews; and thus united, they both gain access through the Spirit to the Father.’ Comp. Ephesians 2:14-18. Ellicott: “After a wondrous chain of arguments, expressed with equal force, brevity and profundity, the Apostle comes back to the subject of Gal 3:2; the gift of the Holy Ghost came through faith in Jesus Christ.”—R.] AND ETHICAL. 1. Abraham’s justification on the ground of his faith (or rather the direct declaration of the Scripture respecting it), is adduced by Paul as an argument for Justification on the ground of Faith here, and particularly, as is known, in Romans 4. also. The faith in Christ must therefore be regarded by Paul as one in kind with that of Abraham. But it by no means follows from this, as Wieseler justly remarks, that Abraham himself already believed on the Messiah. “For in the Old Testament history of Abraham the idea of the Messiah is nowhere mentioned, often as there was occasion for it, but only the idea of a salvation and blessing coming from Abraham to all nations, the first traces of a universal kingdom of God, to which however the Divine Head is yet lacking. In the New Testament also the idea of the Messiah is nowhere attributed to Abraham. The passage John 8:5-6, hardly signifies any thing else than that Abraham, in the theophanies, etc., experienced by him, already beheld the preλxisting Christ.” Yet Paul, with entire justice, places the Christian faith in parallelism with that of Abraham; for the one, as well as the other, was essentially a trustful laying hold of a promise coming from Divine grace, as to which, moreover, Wieseler points out that with Abraham, the promised heir of his body came into view at the same time as the future bearer of the collective blessing promised to Abraham, and faith on the promise respecting Him was therefore faith also on the kingdom of God originating in his posterity. It by no means follows from this, that then the matter [inhalt] of the Christian and of the Abrahamic faith would be a different one, and that faith would justify on account of its subjective character, while yet it justifies only on account of its matter and object. In the promise given by Divine grace, the faith of the Christian, as of Abraham, has its common matter. For such a promise the Christian lays hold of in faith on Christ, as much as Abraham did in his faith. The real ground of justification in both cases is therefore the grace of God, which gives man something that he could not of himself attain to, and on natural conditions could not even expect, and faith is, as that which nevertheless confidently lays hold of this grace, only the conditio sine qua non.—It is very true, this grace of God itself has a different matter with Christians and with Abraham; with Christians its matter is essentially the reconciliation accomplished in Christ, and the forgiveness of sin implied therein, with Abraham it is what has just been mentioned—a distinction which is conditioned simply by the course of the economy of salvation, and which does not prejudice Paul’s parallelizing of the two; for Paul speaks here—comp. Galatians 5:7-9—quite generally of πίστις, has in view, therefore what constitutes its generic nature.—Agreeably to this the definite matter of the δικαιοῦσθαι in the two cases is different, i.e., the generic unity is the becoming acceptable to God and accordingly being blessed by Him, and this community of character fully justifies this parallelizing also. But with Christians this general idea is still further defined as follows: to be delivered from the divine wrath incurred by their sins, and to become partakers of the forgiveness of sins. A distinction, to this extent at least, between the δικαιοῦσθαι of Abraham and that of Christians, must be conceded even by those who assume the Messiah to have been the object of faith in the case of Abraham also. For even on this assumption, it will not be alleged that “accounted to him for righteousness” in the case of Abraham has exactly the sense: his sins were forgiven him. This is not treated of in any way in this passage.—That this appeal to Abraham’s faith is in no respect an arbitrary laying hold of a single chance passage, that accords with the line of argument, is clear. For, allowing that this judgment respecting the faith of Abraham is found only here, yet confessedly faith in God’s gracious promise was that which specifically characterized Abraham, was precisely that which made him the child of God, nay, the Friend of God, and so of course acceptable to God. This would be irrefragably established by the history of his life, even if we had not this direct declaration. Genesis 15:6.—With perfect justice therefore Paul can designate those who are “of faith” as Abraham’s sons. A strong, crushing expression against the Jewish national pride, corresponding to the words of John the Baptist, Matthew 3:9, and of Jesus Himself, John 8:39—and yet not in conflict with the truth that according to the Divine purpose the Jewish nation as such, agreeably to its natural descent from Abraham, was the chosen nation. For this people itself, as a whole, was meant to be of the faith of its ancestor, in order to be a true people of God; and the Divine judgment made, we know, a perpetual distinction among the mass of the people between such as were “of faithful Abraham” =were his legitimate [i. e., spiritually legitimate.—R.] children, and such as were not.2. The Scripture is the exposition of a Divine plan of salvation, connected and of uniform tenor throughout, which has had its definite historical unfolding. In it therefore the earlier has respect, to the later, the first to the last; a word of God, belonging to the beginning, is already shaped in view of the consummation; to this is added, that the God who beholds at once the beginning and the end, ideally anticipates with direct words of promise the future development of His counsel of salvation.—To recognize even in the germ the development, requires, doubtless, an apprehension intimately conversant with Scriptural truth, an eye illumined by the Spirit. 3. The curse of the law. As the blessing comes from God, as a revelation of His favor and grace (in gifts), so also the curse, as a revelation of His wrath (in judgments, which concentrate themselves in the κατάκριμα of death). In that this revelation of wrath is a consequence of the non-fulfilment of the law, the curse is called “the curse of the law,” Galatians 3:13 (under which therefore, in the first place, only the Jews stood, as being alone those who hold to the law, but under which of course all would come, who are “of the works of the law”). More precisely: a man comes under this “curse,” is under bonds to it, and held prisoner by it, if he is “of the works of the law” (Galatians 3:10), that is, performs indeed single works, but nothing more, and yet believes himself thereby to have satisfied the law, which is in no wise the case (see above on “works of the law” in the preceding section). 4. Christ a curse for us. To avert this curse of God and to bring His blessing upon all men, Christ has become “a curse for us.” Here we stand in presence of the deepest mystery of atonement; we may not, in order to make it more comprehensible, weaken the fact, but must take the words even here, as they say and sound, without artifices of interpretation. Since Christ has freed us from our curse, by having become a curse for us, then, if our redemption from the curse is not to be an illusion, but something real, He became also really the bearer of the Divine curse, He has borne the Divine ὀργή passively, has felt it, and also actively has sustained it. And this has come to pass by His death on the cross. Only we must of course not suffer the monstrous thought to arise that God was angry with Him, something that could not be; nay more, it was in His death on the cross that He was above all an ὀσμὴεὐωδίας, “odor of sweetness,” unto God. Nevertheless He has, in the first place, undergone the Divine wrath by suffering death, whereby there was accomplished on Him the κατάκριμα, “condemnation,” of death, and so the curse upon sin; the mode of death, moreover, exhibiting this death, even in form, as a death under curse. Yet that is not all, He has, in the second place, also felt the wrath of God, in that the enjoyment, the sense of the blessed communion of love with God vanished from Him without the reality of this communion itself thereby ceasing. He was, it is true, an ὀσμὴεὐωδίας to God, but the sense of it vanished from Him, although perhaps only momentarily in those instants of anguish when He uttered the complaint upon the cross that God had forsaken Him. But what was lacking in duration, so to speak, was most completely, as it were, compensated by the fearful intensity of such a sense of abandonment by God, in the soul of the beloved Son of God. To this extent He has fully become a curse, has felt the wrath of God, even as condemning wrath. But if it is objected, “but not as eternally condemning,” we must again refer to that intensity of the sense of wrath as an adequate expiation.—He has thus become a curse for us =in our behalf; but in our behalf only inasmuch as He thereby came in our place. The vicariousness does not lie in the expression ὑπέρ, but in the fact; if we, by the very fact that He became “a curse,” have been made free from the “curse,” in that there is of course involved that He came in our place; an exchange of positions occurred.—For it is stated that the effect of Christ’s “becoming a curse” is to “redeem us from the curse of the law,” and so at all events an entire acquittal therefrom, and averting of it. Christ is here represented as showing Himself (immediately, yes alone) active in the work of redemption; He offered Himself, is the sense, in becoming a curse, and therewith He presented a ransom—to whom? to “the curse of the law” which had dominion over us. The ransom consisted in Himself; He devoted Himself in this very “becoming a curse” to the power of this potentate, and thus in return let us go free. Analyzing the conception thus, we see that it is a figurative one; in order to reduce it to its exact expression, we must take in the idea (which Paul does not here introduce in so many words) of the sin-offering. In becoming a curse Christ became a sin-offering, and this, because it was an unblemished one, and for this reason an ὀσμὴεὐωδίας, was accepted by God; and in return Christ, as it were, discharged us from the curse of the law which He represented, took it from us. (Inasmuch as Christ Himself brought this sin-offering in free obedience, He is with justice described as the one active in it, as here; the action of God Himself being of course understood.)—This is only the negative side, the positive is then added Galatians 3:14, where the positive (and moreover subjective) effects of the redemption “from the curse of the law” are named; generically, the being blessed, specially, the receiving of the Spirit. Upon this, especially upon the relation of it to justification, see above in the Exeg. Notes. We add only the observation: in the Apostle’s apprehension of the history of salvation, the operation of the death of Christ is taken out of its isolation; we recognize in it only the fulfilment of the promise given in the beginning of the redemptive revelation; in Christ it is nothing else than the blessing of Abraham that comes to fulfilment; Beginning and End are united. (See upon this the next Sections.) 5. [The two curses. Wordsworth thus sums up the doctrinal points implied: “Two curses pronounced in the law are here referred to by St. Paul. All mankind was liable to the former one. How was it to be removed? (1) He who was to remove it must not himself be liable to it. He who was to be a substitute for the guilty must himself be innocent He who was to suffer in the stead of the disobedient must himself be obedient in all things. (2) He who was to be the substitute for all must have the common nature of all. He must not take the person of one individual man (such as Abraham, Moses, Elias), but He must take the nature of all, and sum up all mankind in himself. (3) He who was to do more than counterbalance the weight of the sins of all must have infinite merits of His own, in order that the scale of Divine Justice may preponderate in their favor. And nothing that is not divine is infinite. In order, therefore, that He may be able to suffer for sin, he must be human; and in order that He may be able to take away the sins, and to satisfy God’s Justice for them, He must be Divine. (4) In order that He may remove the curse pronounced in the law of God for disobedience, He must undergo that punishment which is specially declared in the Law to be the curse of God. (5) That punishment is hanging on a tree. That is specially called in the Law the curse of God. Deuteronomy 21:23. By undergoing this curse for us, Christ, He who is God from everlasting, and who became Emmanuel, God with us, God in our flesh, uniting together the two natures—the Divine and the Human—in His One Person—Christ Jesus, redeemed us from the curse of the Law. Thus, having accepted the curse, He liberated us from it.”—R.] AND Gal_3:6. Rieger:—This reckoning somewhat for righteousness rests most of all on God’s taking pleasure in faith, and on the fulfilling of His promises, those to which faith trusts. True, even faith gives God the honor, and is in this respect greater than any work. But even faith cannot always give to God the honor so willingly, so fully, with such victory over all doubts arising from the reason, as it should. Therefore God’s imputation is still the best, according to which good pleasure of His will He counts even a weak spark of faith for righteousness, and therefore I may be assured that, though I now and then be somewhat doubtful of His gracious will, which He has towards me, mistrust Him, become in spirit sad and heavy, I am yet surrounded and overspread with the broad heaven of His promises, and especially of His forgiving grace, and even then His gracious imputation remains valid. Galatians 3:7. Heubner:—Abraham’s spiritual children are only those like-minded with him, i.e. believing souls. By faith thou becomest like the old patriarchs; they acknowledge thee for worthy offspring, whether thou be derived from the same nation, according to the flesh, as they, or not. Spiritual genealogy and probate is of another sort from civil. [Calvin:—Paul has omitted one remark, which will be readily supplied, that there is no place in the Church for any man who is not a son of Abraham.—Hooker:—The invisible Church consisteth only of true Israelites, true sons of Abraham, true servants and saints of God.—R.] Rieger:—The footsteps of faith and the walk therein prove this descent (Romans 4:12). Galatians 3:8.—O man be assured, all thy temptations also, and needs, He hath seen beforehand! Only go with confidence to the Scripture, therein to seek God’s consolations.—Who reads the Old Testament enough with the view of finding Christ every where therein? Galatians 3:9. Berlenb. Bible:—Already with Abraham began the stream of blessing that proceeds from God to believers. This now is the blessing of the one God, flowing from the like grace of God, even though in the most manifold manifestations.—Companionship in blessing a blessed companionship.—Wilt thou have blessing? Believe! Other way there is none.—We see then, where the trouble is, if one finds in his soul no such well-being or blessing, but rather the curse, and disquietness in his conscience. It is in this matter of faith, which a man will not frankly receive from God, and let old matters go, and deny them for Christs sake. But a man must himself be of faith, as Paul here expresses it, that is, thou must have so committed thy heart to the Spirit of Christ, that He has been able to gain possession of thee, and through faith bear thee as a child of God. Then is a man “of faith,” that is, he has, as to the spirit, a Divine origin. Galatians 3:10. “As many:” let there so as many of them as there will; and were there of them as many again who declare for this party and make their boast and glory of it, and will have their salvation from it.—“Of the works of the law:” this expresses the inner ground of the man, what fashions his soul, and whose child he is. It is not people who teach the law, but such as are born of the same. It means not: who give diligence to live after the measure of the law, but who live legally, take here a work and there a work, approach therewith before God, and so place themselves under the curse. “Under” signifies imprisonment, for these people bar themselves in.—Luther:—Our Lord God has two manner of blessings, a bodily, that appertains to this life, and a spiritual, that appertains to the life everlasting. Such bodily blessing have the ungodly in fulness and abundance. To banish the eternal curse, that is, the eternal wrath of God, death and damnation, there avails neither the world’s nor the law’s righteousness. Therefore those that have not more than the corporeal blessing alone, are for this reason not God’s children, and blessed before God, but under the curse they are and abide.—If now God’s law puts men under a curse, how much more other laws, which are of much less worth? Heubner:—If we will be saved by the law, we must do all, and must be able to say, that we have never neglected any thing commanded, nor done any thing forbidden. In brief, the matter stands thus: if we will merit salvation, amazingly little will come of it, for our virtue is piece-work; against one or two legal performances God can oppose ten transgressions. Whoever does not view the requirements of the law with the diminishing glass of light-mindedness, and his own works with the magnifying glass of self-love, must acknowledge this.—[John Brown:—It is absurdity thus to seek for justification from that which is and must be the source of condemnation. To expect to be warmed by the keen northern blast, or to have our thirst quenched by a draught of liquid fire, were not more, were not so incongruous.—R.] Galatians 3:11. Cramer:—The religion that teaches us to believe that we are saved by grace without works, is the true, original, Catholic religion, to which also Habakkuk and the old prophets bear witness; therefore the Romish religion, which contradicts this, can be neither the original, nor the true Catholic church, but must be a new church.—Starke:—The regenerate, who are already righteous through faith, continue in their righteousness and blessedness, and become at the last perfectly blessed, but still only through faith. Galatians 3:12. The law will have doers, that deserve Heaven by works. The gospel will have only sinners, who have done working, but who, repenting them of their sins (or broken into contriteness by the law), seek medicine, help and grace in Christ and His Father’s compassion. They now see aright their guiltiness, together with the loathsomeness of sin; they now first understand and love Moses aright, and walk after his law; not out of constraint or hope of reward, but as being already righteous in Christ, and minded to show forth the profit, purpose, joy and might of such righteousness in all manner of works possible. Galatians 3:13. Luther:—God hath cast all sin of all men upon His Son. Then forthwith comes the law, accusing Him and saying: Here find I this one among sinners, yea who hath taken all men’s sins upon Himself, and bears them, and I see in the whole world besides not another sin, except upon Him alone; therefore shall He suffer for it and die the death upon the cross.—Insomuch then as through this only Mediator, Jesus Christ, Sin and Death are taken away, without doubt the whole world were so pure that our Lord God therein could see nothing except mere righteousness and holiness, if we only could believe it.—On that side there is no lack. But the lack is with us, who believe it so faintly. If we believed it fully, doubtless we should already have been blessed and in Paradise, but the old sack, that still hangs around our neck, holds us back from arriving at such certain faith.—We should not look at Christ after the flesh, as if He were a man, righteous and holy for Himself alone, and having nothing to do with us. True it is that Christ is the holiest person of all, but thou must not stop with that knowledge, that does not yet give thee Christ. But thou knowest Him aright, and obtainest Him for thy own, when thou believest that this holiest Person of all has been bestowed upon thee by the Father, that He should be thy High-priest and Saviour, yea, thy minister and servant, who should lay from Him His own innocence and holiness, and take upon Him thy sinful person, and therein bear thy sin, death and curse, and thus become a sacrifice and a curse for thee, that He might so redeem thee from the curse of the law.—All virtue lies in the little words: for us. [Two curses are here mentioned by Paul. The one: “Cursed is every one that continueth not,” etc. That curse lay on all mankind. The other: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” This curse Christ took, that He might redeem us from the first. Both were curses in and of the law. The one specifies the guilt, the other the punishment. Christ bore the accursed punishment, thus He takes away the accursed guilt. He stood for the “every one” who continueth not, by becoming the very one who hung; upon the tree.—R.] [Wordsworth:—How much reason have we to abominate our sins, which were the principal causes of the crucifixion of Christ! They were indeed the traitors which, by the hands of Judas, delivered Him up. The Jewish priests were but our advocates; we by them did adjudge and sentence Him. Pilate was but our spokesman, the Roman executioners were but our agents therein. The Jewish people were but proxies acting our parts; our sins were they which cried out: “Crucify Him,” with clamors more loud and more effectual, than did all the Jewish rabble.—The second Adam hung on the tree in Calvary, in order that by hanging on the tree He might abolish the sin committed by us in the first Adam, when he ate of the fruit of the tree of good and evil in Paradise.—There on the cross He extends His hands to all and calls all—Gentiles as well as Jews.—R.] Galatians 3:14. Lange:—The blessing comes not alone from Christ, but also in Christ. For whoever does not receive it in Christ, receives it not from Christ; as indeed many wish to have it from Christ, but not to take it in Christ, that is, receive it so that they thereby suffer themselves to be brought into His fellowship and in it enjoy the blessing with large addition. On the whole Section:—The Christian’s walk, a walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham.—Those who occupy themselves with works of the law, are under the curse: (1) a fearful word, (2) yet only too true.—Blessing or Curse? Other alternative there is none.—Christ has turned the curse into blessing.—The redemption from the curse of the law through Christ.—He became a curse for us. (1) How is that possible? and yet (2) it was necessary, for (3) thereupon rests our salvation.—Our righteousness before God is grounded alone upon faith: (1) this is taught by Abraham’s example; (2) proved by the promise given by God to Abraham; (3) attested by the innermost essence of the law; (4) made sure by the redemption established by Christ.—Only through faith in the Crucified One have we part in the redemption accomplished by Him. I. That faith generally is the condition, Galatians 3:6-12. (1) Proof from the example of Abraham’s faith, Galatians 3:6-9; (a) on account of his faith was Abraham accounted righteous before God, Galatians 3:6; (b) the promise given to him of the blessing of the Gentiles, presupposes in these also faith. (2) Demonstration from the impossibility of any one being redeemed from the curse of the law through any manner of works, Galatians 3:10-12. II. That the redemption accomplished by Christ is the essential matter [Inhalt] of faith on Him. (1) That Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law; (2) that He has effected this by Himself becoming a curse for us.—The death of Christ deserves an imperishable remembrance, because in it He became a curse for us. (1) He became a curse for us: (2) Therein lies the power of His death for blessing. [Cowper:— Oh, how unlike the complex works of man, Heaven’s easy, artless, unincumbered plan! No meretricious graces to beguile: No clustering ornaments to clog the pile. From ostentation as from weakness free, It stands, like the cerulean arch we see, Majestic in its own simplicity. Inscribed above the portal, from afar Conspicuous as the brightness of a star, Legible only by the light they give, Stand the soul-quickening words—Believe and Live.] Footnotes: Galatians 3:8.—[Δικαιοῖ, present—Ellicott calls it the “ethical present.” “God justifleth,” this is His one way (Alford).—R.] Galatians 3:8.—-[Since “gospel” has a distinct meaning now. it is perhaps better to take the more etymological phrase in rendering προευηγγελίσατο. Schmoller: “Gab die verheissuang.”—R.] Galatians 3:8.—Elz. has εὐλογηθήσονται instead of ἐνευλογηθήσονται against decisive authorities. Galatians 3:9.—[“Together with” is more distinct than “with.” The article of the Greek is retained to emphasize “faithful.”—R.] Galatians 3:10.—According to the best MSS. ὅτι should be inserted before ἐπικατάρατος. [The generally received reading does not affect the English form, since ὅτι is here a mere quotation mark.—R.] Galatians 3:11.—[Since ἐννόμῳ must be rendered “in the law;” to avoid the too close proximity with “in the sight of,” it is better to retain the Greek order, which is emphatic also.—R.] Galatians 3:12.—[Δέ “logical, introducing the minor proposition” (Alford). “Now” is perhaps better than “but.”—R.] Galatians 3:12.—After αὐτά, Elz. reads ἄνθρωπος against decisive authorities. Galatians 3:13.—[The aorist ἐξηγόρασεν is historical, hence the simple past is better.—In Galatians 3:12, ποιήσας, aorist participle, should be rendered “hath done” to bring out its proper force.—R.] Galatians 3:13.—[Τενόμενος, “becoming,” but as it explains the manner of the past act “redeemed,” “having become” is more accurate “By becoming” would be still more forcible—R.] Galatians 3:13.—Lachmann and Tischendorf, following weighty authorities, read: ὅτιγέγραπται instead γἐγραπταιγάρ [So Meyer and modern English editors. ΰ. has γέγ.γάρ.—R.] Galatians 3:14.—[Εις, “unto.” The clause were perhaps better read in this order: “That unto the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus” (so Ellicott).—R.] Galatians 3:14.—[Χριστῷ̓Ιησοῦ is the reading of most MSS. (ΰ. B. Ιριστῷ), and is adopted by most modern editors.—R.] [Calvin thus refers to “the idle cavillings of certain persons who evade Paul’s reasoning. Moses, they tell us, gives the name of righteousness to goodness; and so means nothing more than that Abraham was reckoned a good man because he believed God. Giddy minds of this description, raised up in our time by Satan, endeavor, by indirect slanders, to undermine the certainty of Scripture. Paul knew that Moses was not there giving lessons to boys in grammar, but was speaking of a decision which God had pronounced, and very properly viewed the word righteousness in a theological sense. For it is not in that sense in which goodness is mentioned with approbation among men, that we are accounted righteous in the sight of God, but only where we render perfect obedience to the law. Righteousness is contrasted with the transgression of the law, even in its smallest point; and because we have it not of ourselves, it is freely given to us by God.”—R.] Stanley (History of the Jewish Church. Vol. I., Sect. 1) gives a more poetic view of Abraham’s faith. Fascinating as these lectures are. it is easier to see whither they tend as one studies this argument of Paul. The stress which this brilliant author puts upon “obeyed” in this very connection, may sound like the voice of a broader Christianity, but tested by Paul’s argument here, it proves to be the echo of a narrowing Judaism: “of the law.” Lightfoot’s note, p. 156, is much more satisfactory.—R.] b. Demonstration from the chronological relation of the Lord to the Covenant of Promise. (Galatians 3:15-18.)(Galatians 3:16-22. The Epistle for 13th Sunday after Trinity) 15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be [when it has been] confirmed, no man disannulleth [annulleth] or addeth thereto. 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. [Now to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed.] He saith not, And to seeds, as of 17many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And [Now] this I say, that the covenant, [A covenant] that was confirmed before of God in Christ [that has been before confirmed by God to Christ], the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul [does not invalidate] that it should make the promise of none effect [make void the promise]. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave [hath freely granted] it to Abraham by [through] promise. AND . Galatians 3:15.—[Brethren.—An affectionately pathetic address. How different from Galatians 3:1! The tone is greatly softened.—Meyer. “Here is a pause, at which the indignant feeling of the Apostle softens, and he begins the new train of thought which follows with words of milder character, and proceeds more quietly with his argument” (Windischmann).—R.] I speak after the manner of men.—Κατὰἄνθρωπον. Paul thus excuses himself for comparing a man’s διαθήκη with a διαθήκη of God, he will not (he says) regard the matter from a higher point of view, but simply according to the analogy of human relations. [Calvin: “By this expression he intended to put them to the blush. It is highly disgraceful and base that the testimony of God should have less weight with us than that of a mortal man.”—R.] Διαθήκη is not to be taken here in the sense of covenant (although approved by Meyer and Wieseler). [See below.—R.] The sense is that of Testament. It is true God made with Abraham a covenant, hence God’s covenant of promise with Abraham is here spoken of. But in these verses, Paul takes up this covenant in the aspect of a Testament, in order to emphasize the fact that in it God has made a free promise (of an inheritance) in contrast with the law, which imposes injunctions, making everything depend on merit. This character of the covenant of promise reminds him of a human Testament, and the principles of jurisprudence which are valid with respect to such an instrument, furnish the basis of his argument. [The majority of modern commentators take the other view. The reason here advanced is based upon the idea of “inheritance,” which belongs to a covenant as well as to a Testament. The usage of the LXX. is decidedly in favor of the rendering “covenant.” So the New Testament usage (the exceptional case, Hebrews 9:15-17, beginning with this idea also). So that while doctrinally considered it is not of much moment (Calvin, who however prefers the meaning “covenant”), the order of the words and the comparison require this meaning (Ellicott). Comp. Bagge, Meyer, Lightfoot. The influence of the Vulgate in substituting “Testament” for “covenant” in the name of the two parts of the Bible is perhaps to be deplored.—R.] No man annulleth—i. e., of course, legitimately. [̔ ?́Ομως belongs here logically. But the sense is well preserved in the E. V.—R.]—Addeth thereto = adds specifications to it, of any kind whatever.—From what is true of a human Testament [or covenant], Paul now argues as to the Testament [or covenant] of God; this also “no one annulleth or addeth thereto”—“no one” and hence not “the law” either. But before he draws this conclusion (Galatians 3:17), he furnishes (Galatians 3:16) the necessary premises for it (Wieseler). He does this, by showing that the διαθήκη referred to the time after as well as before the giving of the law, and in substance remains still in force, without which necessary link the demonstration, that the law made no change in the character of the διαθήκη, would be without value or meaning. For if the διαθήκη had been of limited duration, confined to Abraham for instance, if the promise had been made only to him, it would, when the law came, have been long before fulfilled and thereby done away; the two would not have come in contact. But this is not the case. Galatians 3:16.—Now to Abraham were the promises made [lit., were spoken], and to his seed.—This, as shown by “were spoken,” and still more by what follows refers to particular passages, and such moreover as contain the clause “and to thy seed” as also the promise of an “inheritance;” not, therefore, such as Genesis 22:18[?], but Genesis 13:15; Genesis 17:8 (and according to the LXX. also Genesis 24:17). The sense is therefore: not merely to Abraham was there in the διαθήκη a promise, sc., of an inheritance, made by God, but also to his seed; the διαθήκη was not exhausted in him, but was valid also for his seed. But especially must it be shown that it has validity even now. Therefore, says Paul, inasmuch as these promises were given “also to the seed of Abraham,” they were given also to Christ. This seed of Abraham (he says), is indeed no other than Christ. This, he says, follows from the very fact of the singular form “his seed” being used. “In order to explain this emphasizing of the singular form in the exegesis of Paul, appeal has been made to the fact that the Rabbins of his time also now and then strain the singular or plural to serve an exegetical turn, and in the passages Genesis 4:25; Genesis 19:32, themselves explain ζֶ ?ψַ ?ς of the Messiah. This comparison is admissible, if only we do not overlook the extraordinary contrast which exists between ordinary Rabbinical caprice, and Paul’s exposition in this passage. That in the Abrahamic promise the idea of the Messiah is concealed, and that the ‘seed of Abraham’ may be actually understood of the Messiah, is unquestionably the true view, on which the whole exposition of Paul rests, and which he has a little before demonstrated from the connection of Scripture and the deepest reality of the fulfilled truth. But the form in which he, in this passage, rather casually than otherwise, expresses this view, correct in itself, namely, that it is already indicated by the use of the singular in the text which gives the Abrahamic promise, appears to demand the explanation given by most interpreters, as derived from the Rabbinical training of his youth.” Wieseler. [The ground of this assumption of Rabbinical method in his argumentation is this: that the stress of the argument rests on a grammatical error; the Hebrew word, which he renders σπέρμα, having no plural answering to σπέρματα or “seeds.” Granting this, it must yet be remembered that the consequences involved in an admission of such “playing” with Divine truth, in a writer, who claims to speak for God, are too grave, to permit us to make such an admission hastily. Is there no other reasonably satisfactory explanation, which denies any Rabbinical influence, implying the slightest quibbling? If there be, justice to such a writer as Paul, aside from any reverence for this Epistle as inspired, should lead us to adopt it. Jerome’s application of κατὰἄνθρωπον to this verse is hardly allowable. He would not intentionally weaken his own cause thus. Lightfoot well says: “It is quite as unnatural to use the Greek plural with this meaning as the Hebrew. This fact points to St. Paul’s meaning. He is not laying stress on the particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective term, is employed, where τὰτέκνα or οἱἀπόγονοι, for instance, might have been substituted. Avoiding the technical terms of grammar, he could not express his meaning more simply than by the opposition ‘not to thy seeds, but to thy seed.’ The singular collective noun, if it admits of plurality, at the same time involves the idea of unity.” Ellicott: “We hold that there is as certainly a mystical meaning in the use of ζֶ ?ψַ ?ς in Genesis 13:15; Genesis 17:8, as there is an argument for the resurrection in Exodus 3:6, though in neither case was the writer necessarily aware of it. As the word in its simple meaning generally denotes not the mere progeny of a man, but his posterity viewed as one organically-connected whole; so here in its mystical meaning it denotes not merely the spiritual posterity of Abraham, but Him in whom that posterity is all organically united, the πλήρωμα, the κεφαλή even Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly to convey to his Greek readers by the use of σπέομα and σπέρματα.” Comp. Wordsworth, Olshausen in loco. How Pauline this conception is, will appear to every student of the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. Paul’s Rabbinical training undoubtedly made him quick and close in discrimination respecting the Old Testament; that it ever made him quibble, and institute false distinctions is against his character as well as against his inspiration.—R.] That any explanation of the passage which maintains that Paul does not mean to interpret “seed” of the person of Christ is incorrect, needs no proof. [Against this, see Alford in loco.—R.] Doubtless, secondarily, those who are “of Christ” are also “the seed of Abraham” (Galatians 3:29), but it is only because, primarily, Christ is this seed. This reference of “seed” to the person of Christ is not disproved by alleging that thereby the διαθήκη, the inheritance would be promised to Christ as well as to Abraham. But, it may be asked, is then the inheritance promised to Christ; is He designated as the Heir, and not rather as the Mediator and Bringer of the inheritance? Doubtless the latter, but primarily He is Himself the universal Heir; therefore in Galatians 3:19 he is called distinctly the universal Heir: “the seed to whom the promise was made.” Let us only vividly apprehend the course of prophecy that sketches the history of redemption. The Messiah Himself, according to it, is He who occupies the promised inheritance, that is, who takes full and abiding possession of it, and by this very fact, brings in the time of salvation and of God’s kingdom. The conception is therefore one somewhat different from that in Galatians 3:14, but both are equally according to truth, and the two modes of conception are most intimately connected. For Christ is certainly the Heir, only, He is the Heir in order to procure for His people the participation of the inheritance and therewith the blessing of God. And, as is self-evident, it is this truth, namely, that He in turn brings the inheritance into the possession of His people, which is here mainly in mind. Inasmuch as the διαθήκη had reference to Him, it had and has reference also to those that are “Christ’s”; the question as to them therefore still remains to be answered; nay, it is as to them that it occurs, how they become partakers of the inheritance promised in the covenant. For that the covenant with the promise of the inheritance is valid also for the Christian dispensation, that it is “confirmed by God to Christ,” is only one side of the truth. On the other side it was maintained with reference to the law that had come between, that the attainment of the inheritance had now become encumbered with the condition of the fulfilment of the law, that it came now of the law and no more simply “of promise.” This assertion Paul now opposes, by applying what was said in Galatians 3:5 about a covenant in general, to the covenant of God. Galatians 3:17. A covenant that has been before confirmed by God to Christ.—This passage, as Wieseler says, is rightly understood only by considering that the assertion which Paul undertakes to refute is not the assertion of an entire abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant by the law, but only that of a modification in the Judaistic sense by the law of an invalidating, so that it should make void the promise (which would be an “invalidating,” because thereby the character of the covenant as a promise given by grace, and thus its specific peculiarity would be taken away). This alone gives the sense of Gal 3:18 : I have a right to say: it “does not invalidate that it should make void the promise;” for if the inheritance is obtained by law, it no longer comes “of promise;” but “of promise” it is to come, for it was assured by God to Abraham through promise, and of grace. We cannot therefore concede an invalidating, so that the promise is made void through the law, for this would take away something essential to the covenant; but, according to Galatians 3:15, this cannot be.—[Various interpretations of εἰςΧριστόν have been suggested. The simplest and most obvious one is: “unto Christ,” i.e., as the second party to whom the covenant was ratified. Ellicott suggests “to be fulfilled in Christ,” and renders “for Christ.” Perhaps that of Wordsworth is implied: “unto Christ: so as to tend toward, and be consummated in Christ as its end, who, as man, sums up all Abraham’s seed in Himself.” But on the whole it is best to reject the words as a gloss.—R.] The law which was four hundred and thirty years after.—Paul has taken the number from Exodus 12:40, but apparently from the text of the LXX. which adds καὶἐνγῇΧαναάν thus including the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan (as do also the Samaritan text and Josephus Ant., 2, 15, 3), while according to the Hebrew text this number covers only the duration of the sojourn in Egypt. Therefore “it is hardly to be said, that Paul has here made a mistake of memory, but only that, on account of his Greek-speaking readers, who used the Septuagint, he has here, as commonly in his Old Testament citations, adhered to the tradition of the LXX., which he could the more easily do, because the precise numbers of the years was a matter of no moment.” Wieseler. [Though the precise number is of no moment as respects Paul’s argument, the chronological difficulty is a grave one. The period from the call of Abraham to the departure of Jacob into Egypt is fixed at two hundred and fifteen years. The question is: must we compute the sojourn there as extending over four hundred and thirty years, or only two hundred and fifteen years. The Hebrew text, Exodus 12:40, seems to demand the former term (and also Stephen, Acts 7:6, “four hundred years,” as in the prophecy Genesis 15:13, both of which passages give round numbers). The latter term is that of the commonly received chronology. If it be adopted, the difficulty is thrown mainly upon the passage, Exodus 12:40, to which the LXX. add as above. Alford and Ellicott suggest this strong point in favor of the shorter term, viz., that from the data respecting ages and births, the longer term would make the age of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, at least two hundred and fifty-six years when Moses was born. So that the longer term makes the accurate statement of numbers overthrow the accurate statement of genealogies and events, which was far less likely to be tampered with. The gloss, if it be a gloss, of the LXX. affords the easiest solution of the difficulty, and Gen. 15:40, Acts 7:6, are then to be explained in the same way. Comp. Usher, Windischmann, Hales.—R.] Galatians 3:18. But God hath freely granted it to Abraham through promise.—Prominence is to be given to the fact that God has .not limited His promise, which He gave to Abraham, by conditioning it on a fulfilment of the law, but that it was a promise of pure grace; therefore, says Paul, God has, out of grace, by means of promise, bestowed, s. c., the inheritance on Abraham, i. e., not put him in actual possession, but assured it to him. The two expressions, “freely granted,” and “through promise,” are conjoined to exclude most definitely the idea “of the law.” AND ETHICAL1. Epochs of Revelation. In the preceding section, as well as this, Paul has not cared to conduct a Scripture demonstration merely by the citation of isolated passages, but has used a freer and nobler method with the Scriptures. He showed in the revelation of God to Abraham a prophetic setting forth of the perfect revelation of God exhibited in Christ (especially at the close of Gal 3:14 had this become evident), and thus placed the Scripture in the light of a history of the revelation of redemption. This view of it has become, in the present section (as far as to Galatians 4:2), the controlling one. The law also here constitutes for him an epoch of the revelation of God, so that there are three of these epochs represented by Abraham, Moses, and Christ. They are not, however, simple stages of development, but the first and the third belong essentially together in one order, as germ and fruit; for the middle epoch, so diverse in character, a false claim is made, which it is his endeavor to refute, and to assign and establish its just position.—The suggestions which Paul here gives are important starting points for a just historical apprehension of Revelation, and at the same time an example of a proper adjustment of relations and reconciliation of apparent contradictions in it. 2. The Law is not a complement of the Covenant of Promise. It is not till in the next section that the purpose and meaning of the law, and its relation to the covenant of promise, are expounded positively. The negative proof, however, here adduced, is of itself important; viz.: That the law is not, and is not to be regarded or treated as a complement and rectification of the Covenant of Promise, so that whatever at first was freely promised as a boon “should be now encumbered with a burdensome condition.” Or rather, this was so, indeed, but only for a time, for a definite season (as is shown afterwards). In this way, however, the inheritance was not actually attained, but as it was originally assured purely by promise, so is it now attained only through faith, the subjective correlative of the promise; and only this is required. [3. The sum of the Apostle’s argument. “This, then, is the sum of the Apostle’s argument: A ratified, unrepealed constitution, cannot be set aside by a subsequent constitution. The plan of justification by believing was a ratified and unrepealed constitution. The law was a constitution posterior to this by a long term of years. If the observance of the law were constituted the procuring cause or necessary means of justification, such a constitution would necessarily annul the covenant before ratified, and render the promise of more effect. It follows, of course, that the law was appointed for no such purpose. Whatever end it might serve, it could not serve this end; it could never be appointed to serve this end.”—Brown. What end it serves, the Apostle states in the section immediately following.—R.] 4. Christ the Seed of Abraham. “ ‘Seed,’ comprehends posterity generally, and therefore of course a plurality. But among this posterity one nevertheless was found upon whom the whole expectation of faith was directed, and through whom also all promise first received its fulfilment. As Christ at His actual coming into the world humiliated Himself to live as a man among men, and had to be discovered and sought out by means of the words and works that were His alone, in like manner was He in the promise also concealed, as it were, among the seed, or among the collective posterity of Abraham, so that only when the time was fulfilled could any plainly distinguish Him and say: This is Christ, this is He who sanctifies and blesses, who yet is of the same descent with those that are sanctified and blessed; therefore also He is not ashamed to call them brethren, and it was not unbefitting Him, that all should be comprehended in the one Seed.”—Rieger. AND . Galatians 3:15.—“Brethren.”—Rieger: By this address the Apostle noticeably softens the sharpness used in the first verse. Nothing calls for so much consideration, for so thorough a mingling of sharpness and gentleness, as when men fall back under the law and the blindness as to the gospel conjoined therewith. For the bewitching arts of the prince of this world, which are implied therein, and the mischief to be feared therefrom, demand sharpness; the hunger and thirst after righteousness yet alive in the conscience, and the love to the truth, demand to be appealed to with the utmost possible tenderness.—In the word of God throughout there is much condescension to our weakness, or much that is presented in human style, suitable to our power of comprehension. God has also actually so arranged it, that between the visible and the invisible, between the ordinances in the realm of nature and in the realm of grace there is much that is similar, and we therefore through the images furnished us by our experience in human life, obtain a true conception of the ordinances of grace. The Incarnation of the Son of God has such an influence on the whole economy of God forward and backwards, that God everywhere deals with us after the manner of a man.—Lange:—Human ordinances and institutions, which in themselves serve for the outward well-being of human and civil society, are in themselves not to be contemned. Since God counts them worthy that His apostles should therewith make clearer the economy of His kingdom.—In Starke:—If a great lord gives us his hand and seal, we are satisfied and believe, that the heavens will fall before such a promise will be broken. Why do we not rather trust the sealed handwriting of our God who cannot lie.—“Addeth thereto.”—In divine things the human addition is often discernible, but very improperly, often causing that nothing pure is left.—[So the annulling by the addition of the law would make void the promise.—R.] Galatians 3:16.—Spener: In the Holy Scripture all is written with Divine wisdom, therefore no word, no letter, no arrangement of the words is settled at random.—Divine truth must be found in the Holy Scripture itself and the letter of it, and may not be expected by separate communication from the Holy Ghost. Else Paul could not insist upon a little word and thereupon rest his argument.—[Paul, who takes such a broad view of the Scriptures as the one great history of Redemption, is the one who notices the truth in the least details of the word. One need not be a loose expositor, in order to have broad views; the accurate reader is not contracted by his accuracy.—R.] Galatians 3:17. STARKE: Sacred chronology gives a great light, for a more accurate insight into the ways of God.—[How many read their Bibles, as if the whole were written at one time. They acknowledge a history there, but it sheds no light for them upon the great truth of God as a whole.—Abraham and Moses. How prominent, how related.—How often the followers of Christ stop at Moses, when they ought to go back to Abraham!—The covenant was confirmed of God to Christ. Through Abraham, indeed, yet It is essentially a covenant between God and our Redeemer. So the Old Covenant is the new and everlasting Covenant.—R. ] Galatians 3:18. Starke It is impossible to have righteousness and salvation partly from the works of the law, and partly from grace. For these are opposing things, that destroy one another. It must either be of works alone or of grace alone; now it is not of works, therefore it is of grace alone.—Rieger:—So long, indeed, as the human heart in falsehood still parts its love between light and darkness, nothing were more pleasing, than if it could thus turn from side to side between the promise and its own merit, that is, if, so far as might be, it could boast itself of merit and the law, and where these were too scant, could put forward, under cover of the promise, the grace and merit of Christ. Then, moreover, there would be in this way no great need of going deep in either quarter; it would only be to bend a little to the law, and as to the appropriation of grace, it need not call for any very special humility. But with such a divided heart, one has neither access to grace, nor entrance into the everlasting inheritance. All that we have from the Gospel or from the promise, is a gift, a free gift of grace, and nothing is attained by obedience as a condition. We are not, therefore, to regard a godly life as a condition of obtaining the blessings of grace, but as a part of the grace itself which the Lord shows us—[How old this method of grace by covenant of promise ! Older than Moses. Yet how new! for we never apprehend it until God reveals it to us by His spirit, and then it seems as though it were a revelation of something entirely new.—The benefits of the gospel are all through promise. Hence all of grace, all to faith, all for the glory of the Promiser!—R.] 2. The law had undoubtedly its value, and that for the attainment of salvation itself, but only a preparatory, and therefore also a transitory value. Believers are free from it. (Galatians 3:19 to Galatians 4:7.) a. The law had its own sufficient end, having respect to transgressions, and so far from opposing to the promises, it had the office of preparing the way for their fulfilment, as a schoolmaster unto Christ Footnotes: Galatians 3:15—[Κεκυρωμένην, simply “confirmed.” If anything be supplied, it need not be in the conditional form of the E. V.—R.] Galatians 3:15.—[“Disannulleth” is now obsolete, the simple form being of precisely the same signification. “Addeth thereto” i. e. new conditions.—R.] Galatians 3:16.—[The change in order is necessary to emphasize “and to his seed.” ’̓Ερ̀ῥέθησαν, ΰ. A. et al. Lachmann, Tischendorf Meyer, et al., instead of” ̓Εῤῥήθησαν, Rec.—R.] Galatians 3:17.—[The structure of this verse is cumbrous, but the insertion of “that” renders it still more so.—R.] Galatians 3:17.—ΕἰςΧριστόν is lacking in several MSS. including ΰ. The connection however favors the belief in its genuineness, since otherwise the argument in Galatians 3:16 would hardly be turned to practical account. [Omitted in ΰ. A. B. C. many versions, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot. Retained by Griesbach, Wordsworth, bracketted by Ellicott. If retained, may be rendered “to Christ,” or “for Christ.” See Exeg. Notes.—R] Galatians 3:17.—[Ούκἀκυροῖ ?—“cannot” may be implied, but is not expressed. “Invalidate” is preferable to “annul,” as the Greek word differs from that rendered “annul” (Galatians 3:15).—R.] Galatians 3:18.—[Κεχάρισται, “has given freely,” “given of grace.” We have no single word to express it—R.] (Galatians 3:19-24.) 19Wherefore then serveth the law [lit. what then is the law] It was added] because of [the] transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was [has been] made; and it was ordained [being ordained] by [by means of] angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God Isaiah 21 one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should [would] 22have been by the law. But [ἀλλά, But, on the contrary] the Scripture hath concluded [shut up] all under sin, that [in order that] the promise by faith of [or in] Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up [kept in ward, shut up under the law] unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was [So that the law hath been or become] our schoolmaster to bring us [omit to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. b. But for this very reason it has fulfilled its purpose, when it has brought us to faith, and believers, as children (sons) of God and heirs, are no longer under the law. (Galatians 3:25-29.) 25But after [now]that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children [all sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been [were] baptized into Christ have [omit have] put on Christ 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female [no male and female]; for ye are all [all are] one in 29Christ Jesus. And [But, δέ] if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and [or omit and] heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:23-29.—The Epistle for New Year’s festival.) AND Gal_3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law?—[“What then is the object of the law?”—R.] If the inheritance is not to come by the law, but still “of promise,” the objection is obvious: why then did not God suffer the promise to stand alone?’ Why then did the law come afterwards? Certainly this was in that case superfluous!—To this Paul answers, in effect, thus: was the law then purposeless, if it had not precisely this purpose, of mediating the obtaining of the inheritance? Could it not have another purpose? Yes, this was the case, it had a purpose, but one very different from that of being the means of securing the inheritance. What then? The direct answer is not given immediately, but is introduced with: “It was added because of the transgressions.—This means, simply, on account of transgressions was the law added. “Transgressions,” multiplying and becoming aggravated, gave, in the first place, occasion for adding the law, necessarily brought it to pass that God came with respect to His people into an entirely different, more distant relation than existed, in the covenant of promise, between Him and the patriarchs. Instead of the more fatherly relation existing hitherto, God was constrained to place Himself in a relation involving the exercise of severe discipline, involving rigorous requirements and commands, nay, sharp threatenings, as it is afterwards expressed: “We were kept in ward, shut up under the law.” And as this relation so different from the former had been occasioned by “transgressions,” it was of course precisely in its right place where the “transgressions” of men prevailed, and it was designed, with reference to this, not so much in order to prevent them, as rather, by its commandments and prohibitions, and the threatenings annexed, to bring them under a more stringent accountability (which now first became possible), and a plainly expressed curse. Comp. Ewald: In order, because offences had come into the world, to punish them the more severely. (At first the judgment of death had kept the sense of sin alive. As men now were too accustomed to this, the law then came, and therewith the stricter imputation of sin, the curse more severely denounced, the obedience more rigorously required. Rieger.) At the most this is as far as we are to go in the explanation of παρασάσεωνχάριν. A more precise declaration as to the positive purpose of the law in relation to “transgressions” is not yet given here; and cannot therefore be deduced from the general expression; for then the second objection (Galatians 3:21) would no longer be possible; it is in the refutation of this that Paul first expresses himself more particularly. The common explanation therefore: “For the sake of transgressions” = to induce them (agreeably to what Paul elsewhere says of the effect of the law to promote sin), is at least in no way indicated. The question whether Paul had it in mind would not arise before Galatians 3:22-24. That the word χάριν does not necessitate this explanation, is shown by such passages as Luke 7:47; Luke 3:12. [The view here suggested seems to be in the main that of Ellicott and Wordsworth [Milton. Paradise Lost, 7:285). The purpose of the law as here set forth was, not (1) to prevent transgression, nor (2) to create, multiply transgressions, though elsewhere this is mentioned as its effect, but (3) to bring to light “the transgressions” of it already occurring and to occur, to make them “palpable, to awaken a conviction of sin in the heart, and make man feel his need of a Saviour” (Ellicott). Thus “the law had a supplementary, parenthetical, provisional and manductory character, and came in, as it were, incidentally” (Wordsworth).—R.] To this purpose of the law there then agree also: 1. The limited duration of its binding force, continuing only till the seed should come, for with that its purpose in reference to “transgressions” was fulfilled. (Why? is answered Galatians 3:23, sq.) “The seed” to whom the promise has been made (see on Galatians 3:16) is Christ, for He is the universal Heir; those who are Christ’s are then, it is true, included also in this seed, and become therefore joint-heirs with Him (Galatians 3:29). 2. The manner of its origin: ordained by means of angels in the hand of a mediator. As agents in giving the law (not as its authors), Paul designates the angels, agreeably to the ancient tradition, which appears first LXX. Deuteronomy 33:2 (not in the original); and also Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53; Josephus, Antiq. 15, 5, 3, and in the Rabbins. “In the hand of a mediator”—Moses. Moses received the tables of the law from God, and brought them down to the people. “In the hand” is therefore to be taken strictly. The explanation of most of the Fathers [so Barnes.—R.] referring it to Christ is incorrect. [Lightfoot remarks: “It will be seen that St. Paul’s argument here rests in effect on our Lord’s Divinity as its foundation, otherwise He would have been a mediator in the same sense in which Moses was a mediator. In another and a higher sense St. Paul himself so speaks of our Lord (1 Timothy 2:5).”—R.] Schneider refers it to the angel of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special commission to teach Moses the law. Unquestionably the Rabbins speak of an angel of the law, but it is no more possible to prove this Theolo-gumenon to have existed in Paul’s time, than it is to establish it from the Bible (Meyer). The purpose of this reference to the origin of the law is not to demonstrate its inferior dignity, and still less, indeed, is it, as even Meyer and Wieseler strangely assume, to bring the glory of the law, in the magnificence and solemnity of its institution, before the reader. The dignity of the law itself is not under consideration, but its design, as compared with the covenant of promise. We are not, in reading this verse, to pause without reason at προσετέθη, as though this were a complete idea, but should read the whole verse together. It is true, we first read: on account of transgressions it was added, but the complete statement is: on account of transgressions it was added in the definite way which is described, 1. by “till the seed,” etc., 2. by “ordained by,” etc. In this way did it originate, that Isaiah , 1. in an entirely different way from the covenant of promise; it was not an immediate giving of a promise, not a fatherly provision and agreement on the part of God, but was introduced by a mediation, and a double one, first of angels, and then, and not before, of a human mediator expressly chosen; the former mediation being on the side of God, the latter being given at the desire of the people themselves. (“How strangely does this appear in contrast with the former manifestations of God, in which the promises were given.” Reiger.) This is meant to point out how much more of strangeness God used towards the people in the law, how much more distant a relation it established than the covenant of promise; how could it then have had the same purpose as the covenant?—But this manner of origin 2. corresponded entirely with the purpose of the law as it has been stated: “because of the transgressions.” As these made the law in general necessary, so, moreover, they were the reasons why God came, only through angels, into relation to His people, and that the people on their side had need of a mediator, to hold intercourse with God. The difference indicated in the latter circumstance between the law and the covenant of promise, is then moreover expressly dwelt upon in the following verse. Galatians 3:20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one.—The first words are simple and plain: A mediator (ὁμεσίτης, the Art. generic) can never be mediator of a single party, the very idea presupposes more than one, two at least, between whom he is μέσος. The question can then only by, whether the design of the remark is, primarily, to express something respecting the mediator himself, personally, or something respecting his function. In the first case the sense would be: He belongs not merely to one, but to the two, the two parties between whom he mediates. So now here in concreto: the mediator of the law belonged to the two parties whose mediator he was, viz.: God and men; and the sense more particularly would be: therefore not merely to God, but also to men. The remark would then be intended as an affirmation respecting the nature of the law, that is, has not only a Divine, but also a human character.—Yet this explanation by no means commends itself. If we join ἑνός with οὐκἔστιν, the interpretation: He belongs not merely to one, is much less obvious than the other: He has to do not merely with one, but with two, mediates between two. Still simpler is the construction of Ewald, who joins ἑνός immediately with μεσὶτης=the mediator of one is not, does not exist, is an impossibility. [So Wordsworth.—R.] But God is one.—The words can mean nothing else: εἶς has a numerical signification, i.e., it can have no other meaning than that of the preceding εἶς, hence not=the same, One with Himself, etc. It is these words especially that have given rise to such an enormous number of attempts at explanation. As regards these the reader is referred to the monographs of C. F. Bonitz, C. F. Anton Reil, Koppe, or the ordinary commentaries, such as those of Meyer and Wieseler, where the more important modern explanations are arranged in order. A detailed examination may be spared here, especially as the passage of itself is not doctrinally important. [Meyer thus remarks on the course of exegesis: “The many different explanations of the passage, and there must be more than 250 of them, have been thus multiplied especially in more modern times; for the Fathers pass lightly over the words, which are plain in themselves, without regarding their pragmatic difficulties, for the most part applying the first clause, which is generally taken correctly, to Christ, who is the Mediator between God and men, some however casting a side glance at the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. Although there was no special dogmatic interest connected with the passage, the variety of interpretations in the 16th and 17th centuries’ (see Poole’s Synopsis) was such, that every expositor of importance took his own separate course, yet without polemical spirit, since no dogmatical question was at issue. The variety has become still greater since the middle of the 18th century, especially since the rise of grammatico-historical exegesis (the phi-logical errors of which exegesis it has however fully experienced), and is still increasing. How often too the absurdest fancies and crudest attempts have availed themselves of our text, the explanation of which seems to be regarded as an exegetical work of art!” He then answers fifteen of the later opinions, besides alluding to others. Jowett reckons 430 interpretations! What a testimony to the amount of exegetical labor bestowed on the Scriptures! That too on a passage which is at best but a general statement in support of a single point in a long argument, which seeks not so much to set forth the gospel, as to remove mistaken views respecting the law! How thankful we should be that the! gospel texts are so pellucid; had they been less so, we should doubtless have 250 interpretations of [ them also. As the exegesis now stands, it is perhaps better to admit that the Verse is δυσνόητόντι (2 Peter 3:16). The passage is undoubtedly genuine, and does not refer to Christ. Thus much seems clear. Schmoller gives below an exposition, to which he has added in the second edition another (on which comment is made in the proper place). To this the reader will find added the views of Ellicott and Lightfoot, which have been chosen on account of their clearness, a quality especially desirable, when the explanation has so often been lucus a non lucendo.—R.] The question is mainly this: Is δέ (of the second clause) simply metabatic, or adversative? A decision in favor of the one view, gives an entirely different sense from that arrived at by adopting the other.—In the first case we have simply the minor premise of a syllogism, ὁθεός is with εἴς subsumed under the εἴς denied with μεσίτης. The mediator is not a mediator of one, now God is one, therefore, &c. The conclusion now may be various. Wieseler gives it: Therefore the mediator has reference not merely to God, but also to men. But the thought that there is found in ὁδὲθεὸςεἰςἐστίν, namely, God is only one party, appears to have too little force. Ewald gives it: Therefore the Mediator has not reference to God, for God is only one, consists not, for instance, of two internally distinct Gods, or of an earlier and later God; it is clear therefore that Moses as mediator, did not mediate, say between the God of the promise and the God of the law, and thereby confound the law with the promise, and so annul the former by what was latter and later, but that he only mediated between God and the people of that time. Ingenious, but far-fetched. The chief objection, however, to this whole view of δέ as metabatic is, that the following sentence in Galatians 3:21 points too evidently in νόμος and θεός to a previous antithesis, from which then οὔν deduces an inference. The above mentioned explanations are wanting in the recognition of the inner connection of the two verses (Meyer); the thought breaks off, and an entirely new one begins. Besides, according to Ewald’s explanation the question as to a κατά would not have been in place here, as this κατά is precisely what the foregoing thought would have denied. Δέ is therefore doubtless to be taken adversatively, and the δέ of the first member is the metabatic δέ of a minor premise. Paul had said : The law was given through a mediator. Now with one there is no mediator, while on the other hand God is One. therefore it might be inferred that the law is against the promises. Meyer: Galatians 3:20 contains two loci communes, from which a possible inference (Galatians 3:21) with respect to the two concretes which are under consideration, is drawn. Sense: A mediator presupposes two, therefore also the law does; in the case of that, there were two parties, between which the mediator intervened;—on the other hand God is One, not a plurality, if the promise therefore, of which God is author (comp. Galatians 3:18; Galatians 3:21), had its origin through Him alone, there was only a single personage active thereby, it was a purely Divine act, not resting upon a contract of two parties. How entirely different in origin, therefore, was God’s covenant of promise, from the law! (Was it not thereby clearly indicated, that the purpose of the law was not to be the same and therefore is not the same, as that of the covenant of promise, that therefore its purpose in specie cannot have been, to secure—directly—the κληρονομία for men?) But can it not be inferred from this, that the law is against the promises of God? that it stands in conflict with them? so that,-because the law has come, the promises are no longer to be regarded as valid, and a fulfilment of them is not to be looked for; as at the giving of a constitution by compact between prince and people the qestion may arise whether previous promises given on one side are still to be fulfilled? The main point is to understand κατά (Galatians 3:21) rightly (even Meter does not explain this correctly). One objection, that the law is then purposeless, if “the inheritance is not of the law,” Paul has refuted in Galatians 3:19-20, by pointing to the fact that it was given for an entirely different purpose, as appears from the very manner of its origin. But out of this refutation of the first objection arises a second, whether by this superadding of the law (προσετέθη) the purpose of the covenant of promise be not hindered; first a free promise on the part of God (without regard to παραβάσεις), and then a law, coming through a mediator, who intervened between God and the people, originating therefore by a compact of God and the people (with definite reference to παραβάσεις); does not this then hinder the first, and so far do it away?—This abrogation however is not to be taken in the sense of Gal 3:17, that the law came in the place of the promise, so that the inheritance would now come “of the law,” for this is already refuted, first by the very course of the argument Galatians 3:15 sq. from the idea of a διαθἡκη, then also by the refutation of the objection that then the law is purposeless, Galatians 3:19-20. The question in Galatians 3:21 is to be understood as implying an apprehension that by the law the attainment of the inheritance (which, it is presupposed, according to the proof already given, can only be attained “by promise”) may be hindered, maybe made, comparatively speaking; impossible. It is not, therefore, the form of the “promise” which is here meant, but the substance; on which account we have here again the plural ἐπαγγελιῶν; the question being, whether the law does not render the fulfilment of the promises of God impossible. This alone gives a progress of thought, and this alone is entirely congruous with what follows. Paul now refutes this second objection also. The law in no wise interposes an obstacle to the promises of God, but rather, in itself, agrees fully therewith, nay, although it had not itself the ability or function of bringing—the promises immediately into fulfilment, it was meant nevertheless to serve the purpose of rendering men partakers of this fulfilment by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:23-24), and with this the law itself then attained its end (Galatians 3:25 sq.). I allow this explanation, given in the first edition, to remain. It was grounded on that of Meyer, and has at all events this in its favor, in distinction from other explanations, that it puts Galatians 3:21 in immediate connection with Galatians 3:20, and understands the question in Galatians 3:21 as seemingly resulting from Galatians 3:20, while the other explanations, though otherwise having much in their favor, assume that the thought breaks off with Galatians 3:20, and that in Galatians 3:21 Paul merely turns back to Galatians 3:17 or 19.—However a new explanation of Gal 3:20 has been given by Dr. Vogel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1865, Heft 3, which, it is true, also fails to give a connection between Galatians 3:20 and Galatians 3:21, but which, on the other hand, points out the connection between Galatians 3:19-20 with better success than usual, and which, in particular, gives due weight to the statement, the law was “ordained by means of angels.” In the other explanations full justice has not been done to this statement, which though otherwise so abrupt, could not have been made without a purpose. Vogel starts from the usually neglected point of the signification of μεσίτης, and shows that μεσίτης by no means signifies merely, and not even predominantly—as is commonly assumed in advance—one who stands in the midst between two, but that it means most commonly one who acts instead of some one, and cares for his affairs.—A genitive joined with it signifies either the matter, which is accomplished by the mediation, or the person whom the μεσίτης represents, or (which however cannot be shown of Paul’s use of it) the several parties between whom he discharges his function (as in 1 Timothy 2:5). When now it is said of the μεσίτης: ἑνὸςοὑκἔστιν; this of course involves the positive affirmition: a mediator can only be the mediator of more than one. And here Vogel admits that it would be most obvious to understand this plurality of a plurality of parties, between whom the mediator stands in the midst, but decides nevertheless in favor of the other interpretation of μεσἰτης: representative—of several persons, for the discharge of their affairs. It is true a representative may very well represent one person only; but then we must understand a representation for the purpose of mediation. In that case it is most natural, only one having to conclude a compact, that he should do it in his own person. But if several have it to do, and that in such a way that the transaction cannot be completed by all, a mediation by one person acting instead of many becomes necessary, and such a person is a μεσίτης. The sense would then be: where a mediator appears, we are obliged to understand him as representing a number of persons. Vogel is led to this interpretation, in the first place by the sentence immediately following: ὁδὲθεὸςεἰἐστίν =but (adversative) Go l is one. He therefore is not that plurality, which the mediator as such implies. Therefore—the strict logical inference—the mediator is not God’s mediator, does not appertain as mediator to God. But whose mediator is this mediator? who is this plurality? The answer, given Galatians 3:19 is: ἄγγελοι—in these we have the plurality we were looking for. The law is, according to Paul, διαταγεὶςδἰἀγγέλων. (Comp. Galatians 3:15, ἐπιδιατ.: the law is not an ἐπιδιαταγή in the sense that the covenant of promise was thereby prejudiced, or destroyed; it is, however, a προσδιαταγή—comp. προσετέθη—which, however, was not intended to annul the covenant of promise, for it was only meant to be in force “till the seed should come,” etc., that is, only for a time, only till the fulfilment of the covenant of promise should take place. The covenant, therefore, neither could nor should be in any way infringed upon.) The author of the law is not mentioned here, as He had not been at προσετέθη. Of course God is to be understood. But Paul is not specially engaged, in making this authorship prominent. He stops with declaring that the law was ordained—promulgated—through angels, having in mind thereby to place it on a lower level than the covenant of promise. With “in the hand of a mediator” (by which of course no one else than Moses is to be understood) Paul now proceeds to name the signs by which the inferior dignity of the law may be known. The disposition of it committed to the angels, took effect through a μεσίτης, who, it is manifest, is to be regarded then as their delegate. The angels, the sense might be, did not even themselves promulgate the law in their own person, but this was done through a (human) mediator. The sense therefore would be: ordained for men, that is, the people of Israel, through angels, who, moreover, availed themselves of a mediator.—Yet Paul, by “in the hand of a mediator,” is not so much giving a fresh sign of the inferior rank of the law, as strengthening the previous affirmation, “ordained by angels.” The circumstance that a mediator was engaged in the work, was not meant so much to explain the manner of the angelic ministration, as to establish the fact of it. The presence of a mediator was in Paul’s mind closely connected with this, but by no means so closely connected in the current doctrine. How far this circumstance, that a mediator (namely, Moses) had a joint agency in the giving of the law, is a proof of this ministry of angels, is explained in Galatians 3:20. “In the hand of a mediator” Paul has said and had to say: but where a μεσίτης is present, a plurality of parties represented by him is to be assumed; God however is not a plurality, but One: The law, therefore, at whose promulgation a plurality intervened, did not proceed from God, but from the angels (these being the only two parties conceivable)—and therefore form a plurality. The clause would not then be properly a proof (as indeed it is not introduced by γάρ), but the fact of the “being ordained in the hand of a mediator” would be simply alluded to for confirmation of the “by means of angels.” It would then in fact be best to include the clause in a parenthesis. This interpretation is not disproved by the fact that in many other passages Moses is explicitly named as dealing with the people by commission from God Himself. Paul could still have the right to say that if in a single passage, as here, the giving of the law is represented as the work of angels, Moses must necessarily be regarded as their delegate; comp. Acts 7:38.—It might also deserve attention, that in Galatians 3:21 the ἐπαγγελίαι are expressly distinguished by the epithet τοῦθεοῦ. Is not this connected with the fact that previously at the mention of the law, its Divine origin was entirely passed over and the giving of the law represented as the work of angels? The question in Galatians 3:21 would not then express a conclusion apparently resulting from the immediately preceding statement. It would rather express amazement, as to how any one could even imagine that the law, which is proximately to be referred to the angels, could invalidate the promises of God. It is too weak for that. And what would thus be improbable on account of the mode of the law’s origin, would then be further refuted by the truth, that the law is incapable of giving life. Even on this interpretation of Gal 3:20, however,—independently of the explanation of οὖν—the sense given by us to the κατὰτῶνἐπαγγελιῶν (see above) and to είγὰρἐδόθη (see below) might be preserved. [The above view to which such prominence is given on account of its novelty and originality, is in all essential features the same as that of Gfrφrer [Geschichte des Urchristenthums, das Jahrhundert des Heils; Erste Abtheilung, pp. 228, 229, Stuttgart, 1838). So that, although thirty years old, it has met with less consideration from commentators than is here given to it in its revived form. As Gfrφrer himself intimates that this interpretation is “easy to be perceived by the eye which has been sharpened by accurate acquaintance with the Jewish mode of thought,” it may be allowable to suggest that were this Paul’s meaning, his Rabbinical training would be more apparent than in Galatians 3:16. Besides this view would make Paul apparently disingenuous in his attempt to lower the claims of the law, which is God’s law,—“through angels, by the hand of a mediator.” And yet the chief peculiarity of this novel interpretation is its ignoring that fact. This vitiates the whole, in our view. As Schmoller remarks Galatians 3:19, “the purpose of this reference to the origin of the law is not to demonstrate its inferior dignity.”Subjoined is the view of Ellicott (2d ed.): “The context states briefly the four distinctive features of the law with tacit reference to the promise, 1) restricted and conditioned; 2) temporary and provisional; 3) mediately, not immediately, given by God; 4) mediately, but not immediately, received from God. Three of these are passed over; the last as the most important, is noticed; ‘the law was with, the promise was without a mediator.’ Galatians 3:20 thus appears a syllogism of which the conclusion is omitted: ‘Now a mediator does not appertain to one (standing or acting alone); but (in the promise) God is one (does stand and act alone); therefore (in the promise) a mediator does not appertain to God. Is then the law (a dispensation which, besides other distinctions, involved a mediator) opposed to the promises which rested on God (and involved no mediator)? God forbid.’ According to this view the only real difficulty is narrowed to the minor proposition. How was God one? And the answer seems,—not because He is essentially unity, nor because He is one by Himself, and Abraham is one by himself, nor yet because He is both the Giver, the Father, and the Receiver, the Son, united (as held in ed. 1), but, with the aspect that the last clause of Gal 3:18 puts on the whole reasoning,—because He dealt with Abraham singly and directly, stood alone, and used no mediator.” This has the merit of simplicity and is a safe view. Lightfoot is perhaps not so close in his explanation, but it may well be added: “The very idea of mediation. supposes two persons at least, between whom the mediation is carried on. The law then is of the nature of a contract between two parties, God on the one hand, and the Jewish people on the other. It is only valid so long as both parties fulfil the terms of the contract. It is therefore contingent and not absolute. But God (the Giver of the promise) is one. Unlike the law, the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties, there is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The Giver is every thing, the recipient nothing. Thus the primary sense of ‘one’ here is numerical. The further idea of unchangeableness may perhaps be suggested; but if so, it is rather accidental than inherent. On the other hand this proposition is quite unconnected with the fundamental statement of the Mosaic law, ‘the Lord thy God is one God,’ though resembling it in form.”—R.] Galatians 3:21. God forbid. For if there had been a law, etc.—That the law is not in the sense indicated “against the promises of God,” Paul proves first by the consideration, that if a law had been given which could make alive, δικαιοσύνη would have proceeded from it, i. e., not as it is commonly and altogether erroneously explained, in connection with the erroneous view as to the force of the objection: if a law that could do this had been given, and δικαιοσύνη came from it, then were the law actually” against the promises of God (a sense to which γάρ, rightly taken, is unsuitable); but Paul really wishes to show that the law accords with the promises, and cannot be intended to annul these; for if the law were able to make alive, δικαιοσύνη would actually proceed from it, that is the same effect which is to be wrought through the promises. The law cannot, therefore, in itself, have any tendency hostile to “the promises.” But, he continues, “the Scripture has shut up all,” etc.=the power to “give life” (ζωοποιεῖν) was, as it were, denied the law, in order that “the promise might be given by faith in Jesus Christ.” It could not “give life,” and thereby bring “righteousness,” if only on account of the sins of men; but, in truth, it was not to do this, this was in no wise its design, for the promise was to come ἐκπίστεωςἸησ. Χρ’—Given life.—Ζωοποιεῖν = to make inwardly living, not == to give eternal life, for the sense is: if the law could awaken man from his death in sins, and give him spiritual life, “righteousness” (=δεδικαιωμένονεἶναι), would actually proceed from the law, for with the ζωοποιηθῆναι, the condition of justification would be of course perfectly realized. The conclusion is therefore from cause to effect. Meyer incorrectly takes it “from effect to cause,” in connection with his explanation of ζωοποιεῖν as the bestowment of eternal life. The “making alive” is not indeed actually the cause of “justification,” but this is only because a making alive through the law is not possible. It is however precisely this unrealized case, viz., a making alive through the law, that is here spoken of. [The being dead in sins is hero taken for granted; what is meant by “life?” Wieseler’s view is given above. Meyer as usual restricts it to future eternal life; but Lightfoot well says, it includes “alike the spiritual life in the present and the glorified life in the future, for in the Apostle’s conception the two are blended together and inseparable.” This seems to accord better with New Testament usage. The reasoning then is not from the whole to its part (Alford), for the “justification” is not strictly a part, but a condition of “life,” nor from cause to effect, but from effect to cause. “Life” does not comefrom the law, it does not, was not designed to justify, it is not against the promise, but has another purpose afterwards set forth.—R.] Verily.—Ὄντως= in fact, and not merely according to the fancy of the Judaizers, as is now the case, the hypothesis being denied.—Righteousness.—Δικαιοσύνη is of course not immediately identical with “the inheritance,” but it is an essential element of it, and the one treated of throughout the Epistle, which to be attained by faith. Galatians 3:22. But on the contrary, the Scripture shut up all under sin.—Συγκλείειν is the strengthened κλείειν, to shut up, (not to shut together): then more tropically with εἰς to deliver up as a prisoner to some one; and generally, to give up into the power of any one, to deliver over. ̔Υπό in this verse and the next one expresses this state of subjection still more strongly. Ἡγραφή: the Scripture, generally, the written word of God: not the law. Τὰπάντα: collective whole=all men; as a fact, doubtless including Gentiles as well as Jews; although, as the context shows, the immediate reference is only to those who have the law, and of whom the Scripture speaks, that is, the Jews.—The sense of this somewhat peculiar expression is easily deduced from Galatians 3:21. It is meant to explain, why the law (and generally, any law) could not make alive=impart spiritual life. “If the law had been able ζωοποιεῖν, then δικαιοσύνη would have proceeded from it; an impossible thing, for the Scripture has placed all under the power of sin,” it was therefore not possible to fulfil the law and in this way to come to spiritual life; for the law certainly has not the power to destroy the dominion of sin, such a dominion as exists; it has not the power to break as it were the yoke of sin. But how far now can such a “shutting up under sin” be ascribed to the Scripture? Of course only in so far as it bears witness to this “being shut up.” The sense therefore is: according to the testimony of the Scripture all are subjected under the power of sin=sin exercises a dominion, and that over all. This was the fault of men, but the active expression: the Scripture has done it, points nevertheless to an activity, which, it is true, could not have been exercised by the Scripture (for this, in itself, could only be a witness), but which yet was exercised by the Author of the Scripture, God. He has placed all under the dominion of sin (and that, as appears afterwards, with the design that the promise might be given by faith, etc.). But this, of course, He could only do for the punishment of men, on account of their “trangressions;” it is a punishment ordained of God, that sin should exercise a formal dominion over men.—The connection stated with the previous verse excludes an explanation which otherwise would have a good deal for it, especially because then a function would be ascribed immediately to the Scripture. The explanation is this: the Scripture has, by its declaration, its portrayal, as it were, shut up=subjected all men without leaving any escape or exception, to the sentence: Thou art a sinner! and therewith has also shut them up under the curse which sin brings.—Still less is it meant to be said that the Scripture constrains all to acknowledge that they are sinners. Nor is there any allusion here to the truth, that the law, instead of restraining sin, has promoted it. Unquestionably, however, we are warranted by what Paul elsewhere says of the law, to bring in this thought, not in order to explain the words, but in order to gain a clearer conception of the fact. The purpose of this “shutting up all under sin” was, that “the promise” should not be given “by the law” but “by faith of Jesus Christ” and therefore that matters should proceed according to the “covenant” of God, that is, that the promised good should be given, in a certain sense attained, not by merit of works, but of free grace. (This was the purpose of God of course with the foreknowledge that this end, on account of the sinfulness of men, cannot be reached through the law.) But more specially this “shutting up under sin” had as its aim, that the promise might be given ἐκπίστεως̓ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ. For the law was given until the seed should come to whom it had been promised: this shutting up all under sin in consequence of which the law could not make alive, had therefore as its aim, that the promise should be given “by faith” on this Seed, that is, this Seed is Himself first made partaker of the promised good, since, according to Galatians 3:16, the promises were given also to Him, and to others only through Him. Therefore also the duplicate expression by faith of Jesus Christ—to them that believe.—It no longer concerns the writer merely to show that the promise is given “by faith” or “to them that believe,” agreeably to its original nature, and therefore really “of promise,” or of grace. This has already been established in Galatians 3:17-18, but now, after the new epoch of the history of redemption, the epoch of law, is expressly called an adventitious [hinzugekommene] period, and the sinful condition of men having been made prominent, the discourse is directed more definitely to the point that the promise is given by faith on Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer, of grace therefore, but of grace ministered in this way. [It is perhaps best, with Ellicott and Alford, to take the genitive “of Jesus Christ” as both objective and subjective; the Object and the Giver of faith. St. Paul’s opponents, as nominal Christians, might hold that the promise came to believers only, but he insists that it came not “by the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ.” Hence there is no tautology (Lightfoot)—R.]—“The promise:” here of course, in the objective sense, the object of promise. Taken generally this is=the inheritance; in a more special application that which is attainable for sinful men “by faith of Jesus Christ,” is the “being justified,” as is simply stated in Galatians 3:24.—The promise, therefore, was to be given “by faith;” it was not possible “by the law” on account of sin: but before faith came, the law—and that on account of being shut up under sin—or more precisely, the peculiar position of men in respect to the law, was in its proper place, in order to open the way for the revelation of faith. This Paul says in Galatians 3:23. Galatians 3:23. But before faith came.—Neither here nor anywhere else [in N. T.] does πίστις mean the doctrina fidem postulans, the gospel, but subjective faith, which however is made objective. When men at the preaching of the gospel, believe on Christ, faith, which before was wanting, was now come, that is, it had entered, so to speak, the hearts of those who had become believers in Christ (Meyer).—We were kept in ward, shut up under the law.—“We”=the Christians from among the Jews. “Under the law” (ὑπὸνόμον) is to be joined with “shut up” (συγκεκλ.)‚ and this is then more closely characterized by “kept in ward” (ἐφρουρ.), which marks the transition to “unto the faith‚” etc. Paul then says first: We were “shut up under the law” the law was the master to whose power, we were completely subjected, without any freedom of our own. And as such (shut up under the law), we were guarded, kept in ward (ἐφρουρούμεθα)=that we might not become free, in substance: we were held in subjection to the law. What now does this mean? Plainly it. characterizes, briefly and strikingly, the nature of the law; it was a pressing yoke, a constraining power, to which men were subject. It was such by its continual holding up of commandments and prohibitions, and especially by what was connected therewith, the continual, terrifying denunciation of the curse in case of transgression in case of the non-fulfilment of the enjoined conditions. According to this, how can the condition of men under the law be more strikingly depicted than as a “being shut up under the law” [the perfect participle, which reading we retain, expressing this continued, permanent state.—R.], and because no manner of dispensation therefrom was bestowed in the whole epoch before faith was revealed as a συγκεκλ. φρουρεῖσθαι? [The meaning of ἐφρουρούμεθα is not “safely kept,” but “kept in ward.” We were shut up under the law and thus kept prisoners.—R.] The purpose of this representation of the condition of law is no longer merely “to place in the light” still more clearly the great difference between the law and the covenant of promise in itself (as in Galatians 3:19-20), but it is now to be shown how the design of the law, in its deeper significance, nevertheless coincided with that of the covenant, how the former was preparatory to the perfecting of the latter. For “we were kept in ward, shut up under the law,” says Paul, unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. This is to be taken not merely as temporal, but also as telic=for faith=to the end that it might be possible for faith to be revealed, the same faith therefore, in reference to which it had just been said, that the Scripture shut up all under sin, in order that the promise might be given through it. The direct aim of the law, therefore, was the revelation of this faith, and through this we are made partakers of the promise; so absolutely untrue is it, that it stood in the way of the promise.—“Revealed:” for “so long as men had not yet believed on Christ, faith had not yet come into manifestation, it was still an element of life hidden in the counsel of God, which, as a historical manifestation, was unveiled, when the congregation of believers came into being.” Meyer. How far now was this being “kept in ward, shut up under the law” preparatory for faith, and pointing to it? This Paul does not state; we must fill out the statement for ourselves, which however is not difficult after the preceding remarks. The Scripture has shut up all under sin. But on the other hand these same were kept shut up under the law. What else was purposed thereby (since ζωοποιεῖν through it is already excluded), than to awaken and keep continually awake in the soul, the fearful consciousness of standing under the curse of the law (the curse comprehended in the law itself, against transgression of it, against sin), and by this very means, on the other hand, to ground more and more deeply in the soul the conviction of the impossibility of attaining to “righteousness” through this law. The first effect, the consciousness of deserving the curse is elsewhere (comp. Galatians 2:19) designated by Paul as a “dying,” and this operation of the law as a “killing.” Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:6. In this way it led to the revelation of faith in men’s hearts, as to the only way of escape yet possible, or, it led to the longing for a redemption from sin, and thus made men willing for faith. on the Redeemer given by God in Christ. [This was the result, but the state “under the law” was still objectively real, whether this consciousness were awakened or not Ellicott remarks on the unusual order, that it “seems intended to give prominence to μέλλουσαν, and to present more forcibly the contrast between former captivity and subsequent freedom.” Comp. Romans 8:18.—R.] Galatians 3:24. So that the law hath been.—Ὥστε: an inference. The fact of this “being kept in ward,” etc., “unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed” made the law our schoolmaster.—This name it deserves, and that for a twofold reason: 1. The παιδαγωγός approaches his charge with commands and prohibitions, nay, sometimes with threats of punishment, and in general, with limitations of his freedom, and lays upon him in this respect a stringent yoke; there takes place a keeping in ward, shut up under him. This limitation of freedom, and in general this whole relation of subjection, is not however an end in itself, but has place only as a means to an end, serves a higher purpose, namely, that the pupil may be trained for mature age, and for the assuming of that higher grade, for which he is destined; “kept in ward, shut up” only “unto” that, which is afterwards to be revealed. And, according to Galatians 3:23, the function of the law also had precisely this twofold aspect.—This goal that was set for attainment, the second point, was the main thing with the pedagogy of the law; this, therefore, is expressly stated in the added phrase (hath been our schoolmaster) εἰςΧριστόν, unto Christ.—This is unquestionably relic; this again is more precisely explained by that we might be justified by faith.—The goal was Christ=justification by faith in Him. Justification, which the law itself could not bring, because “shutting us up under sin,” it was yet to open the way for, to conduct to; because it could not itself bring it, was yet to impel to the seeking and attaining of it “by faith.” Galatians 3:25. But after that faith is come, etc.—The law was preparatory to faith in Christ (and so far, indeed, in agreement with the covenant of promise), but for the very reason that it was preparatory, it had only a temporary validity, it ceased with the coming of that for the coming of which it was meant to prepare. Freedom from the law had the way prepared for it by the law itself, leading as it did to faith (how, see on Galatians 3:23); but actual freedom came in only with faith. How? Galatians 3:26 explains how (in connection with the aspect of the law as schoolmaster). By the fact that man through faith becomes a son of God. In this conception, however, we are not unduly to emphasize “son” as is commonly done, and to attribute to it the sense of free, son, come to majority, who therefore no longer stands, as a παῖς, under the παιδαγωγός . No doubt the “son of God” is also the one of full age, and therefore free; but Paul, instead of the bare notion of majority, substitutes at once a higher, theological idea, that of the Child of God. Whoever now stands to God in the relation of child, can no longer remain under the law, that schoolmaster, whose threats of the wrath of God awaken slavish fear.—Πάντες=all without distinction. This word is meant to emphasize strongly the power of faith. Whoever he be that has it, becomes a son of God and free from the schoolmaster, therefore you also are free. “You” writes Paul of set purpose, having before (Galatians 3:25) spoken only of the Jewish Christians as those who had previously been under the schoolmaster. But now: You all, even the Gentile Christians, all you who are become believers,—that it might come into no one’s mind, to place himself, of his own accord, under the schoolmaster, the law.—Paul says designedly in Christ Jesus instead of a genitive immediately depending on faith because he wishes to predicate of Christians that they are in Christ Jesus. For he proves that they are sons of God, from their putting on Christ, ver 27. Galatians 3:27. The demonstrative force here appear to be simply in this, that Christ was God’s Son (Meyer). Wieseler’s objection that Son of God is not used in a similar sense to that in which υἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ would be applied to Christ, because it is not used in the sense to a being begotten of God, is a strange one. Certainly that is not meant, but by this very putting on of Him who as begotten of God is God’s Son, believers come into the relation of children to God, of course in the measure in which it is possible with them.—It is peculiar that Paul proves that all are the children of God through faith in Christ, immediately from the fact that they all have put on Christ by baptism, and so, without any intermediate step, puts Baptism in the place of Faith. Faith and Baptism, accordingly, are to him in a certain sense convertible ideas, that is, he does not conceive faith without baptism, or baptism without faith; he can therefore prove an effect of faith from an effect of baptism, and doubtless he speaks only to and of such as were not only baptized as well as believers, but with whom also the act of baptism was at the same time an act of faith.—The transition, however, from the “faith is Christ Jesus” to the baptizedin to Christ is easily intelligible in another view also. For nothing proves so clearly that any one has become a Son of God, as that he has put on Christ, and this takes place through the “being baptized into Christ” in a way that is also objective, and therefore undeniable. On the other hand, his reference to baptism is of course only secondary; he does not as yet mention it in Galatians 3:26, because, according to the connection he is there concerned directly with the effect of faith. The full import of put on Christ is not developed, yet one thing at least is said, and that is primarily the most important—it involves the having become a son of God. It is not immediately = the putting on of “the new man.” For the discussion here respects not the ethical quality of the act, but the relation to God involved in it; it is by justification and the relation of children to God given therewith and not by the subsequent sanctification, that we become free from the pedagogy of the law; the filial relation to God does not result from the putting on of the new man, but the reverse. On the other hand, in becoming a son of God, a man naturally has come into an inner relation to Christ, into communion with Him. This inner relation to Christ, in which we invest ourselves with Him, must then without fail lead to this result, that Christ becomes in us the principle of a new life, and we become inwardly transformed. This result is the more certain in that the entrance into relation with Him is so entirely real, through the act of baptism. One cannot enter into Such inward relation with Christ without also experiencing this inward transformation, at least in its principle. The admonition Romans 13:14 : “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,” may therefore be understood in the sense of an admonition to a corresponding ethical work=to a becoming like Him through our work.—All are children of God by faith (πάντες, Galatians 3:26; ὅσοι, Galatians 3:27). This Paul carries out in the concrete in Galatians 3:28. Galatians 3:28. There is neither Jew nor Greek.—All these natural antitheses do not come into account in this relation,=if one only believes on Christ, he is a son of God, let him be what else he may. This is tersely expressed at the end of the verse by for ye all are one in Christ Jesus.—For this, according to the connection, can mean nothing else than: these distinctions, in a certain sense, antagonisms, do not, as respects being in Christ, come into consideration. All who are in Christ Jesus, are in the same degree “sons of God,” how different soever they may be in other relations, that is, they are all, (ἕν) one and the same. Paul, however, goes somewhat farther yet, and by using εἷς, says that they are capable of being regarded all together, as one (moral) person.—Here too, we are not to think, at least directly, of “the new man” as if the “one new man” were meant.—Why now precisely this concrete explication of the “all” in Galatians 3:26? The connection shows that the Apostle’s first concern is to represent the antagonism of Jews and Gentiles as done away in Christ; for by the law this antagonism especially was maintained, and was therefore removed by the falling away of the law. And, on the other hand, the abrogation of the law could not be maintained in full earnest unless that antagonism were regarded as removed. But in order to make this “all” more vivid, or to place in still stronger light the power and meaning of faith in Christ, he adjoins yet other antitheses, and remarks that they too, in the new relation, are no longer reckoned of account; the slave also is through “being in Christ” a “son of God” as well as the freeman, and it is the same with sex. In this also, he appears to have the law still in mind. For these antitheses were maintained by the law; at least the law spoke sometimes of slaves, sometimes of freemen, sometimes of men, sometimes of women, and gave in respect to one class, ordinances which were not in force for another, while in view of faith in Christ, or of baptism in Christ’s name—these antitheses fell entirely away. [There is a slight change of construction in the last antithesis. “The alterable social distinctions are contrasted by οὐδέ, the unalterable natural one is expressed by καί. The latter distinction is specially applicable as against the Jews insisting on their own spiritual privileges, and on the perpetual obligation of circumcision.”—Wordsworth. Of this there may be a hint in the use of vial, “sons,” not “children,” as e. v. The other sex have now the same privilege once belonging to “sons” alone. “Ἄρσενand θῆλυ, generalized by the neuter, as being the only gender which will express both” (Alford).—R.] Galatians 3:29. But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed.—Because Christ Himself is Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:19), and those that are His participate in His status.—Heirs according to the promise—for it was to Abraham and his seed that the promise was given, therefore=the promise goes then for you also into fulfilment. On the other hand it needs no proof that those who are Christ’s (because they are heirs by virtue of this fact, that they are Christ’s) are heirs in the way of the promise of grace, not of works. [Ellicott: “The declaration of Gal 3:7, is now at length substantiated and expanded by twenty-two verses of the deepest, most varied, and most comprehensive reasoning that exists in the whole compass of the great Apostle’s writings.”—R.] AND ETHICAL1. The Law and the Covenant. Three points respecting the law are treated of in this section: a) the difference between the law and the covenant of promise; b) the inner relation of the law to the covenant as the means of preparation for the faith which receives the promised inheritance; c) the liberation from the law on the entrance of faith. Upon the first two points we have little more to say in addition to what has been already said in the Exeg. Notes. a. The difference between the Law and the Covenant of Promise. The law was not only given much later (Galatians 3:17), but had also an entirely different character from the covenant of promise made with Abraham, and is not therefore to be regarded as a sort of renewal of that first covenant. The revelation of God to the patriarchs was essentially a different one from the subsequent one at the giving of the law on Sinai. In the first God gave pure, free promises of grace for faith; in the second He also, it is true, gave promises, but imposed as a condition of their fulfilment, the observance of a complex system of law. Or, primarily, the whole sinful people were placed under a constitution of law, and to this promises were attached, but only in the case of obedience; in the case of disobedience, there were threatenings, quite as distinct. To this corresponded the entirely different way in which the law was brought in—in the formal way of a compact concluded through a third party, a mediator, where both sides make engagements, and take on themselves obligations. By this was indicated a separation of God and His people, and it was therefore not the normal relation of God to His people, the one corresponding to the nature of God, but only a relation induced by the circumstances, especially by the transgressions of the people at the time; from the beginning, therefore, it pointed beyond itself, but was, no doubt, for a certain time the proper one, adapted to prepare for the relation of grace between God and His people that had been introduced by His dealings with the patriarchs. b. The inner relation of the Law to the Covenant as the means of preparation for the faith which receives the promised inheritance. Respecting the second point we give here only the apt remarks of Rieger (although his interpretation of Gal 3:22 is in itself incorrect): The attestation of God, written down and publicly promulgated in the law, has so taken hold of us and all our doing and leaving undone, that no denying, palliating, justifying of ourselves can any longer avail anything, but we must give ourselves up guilty and prisoners under the curse denounced against every transgression; and through this captivity under the law, become pliant and ready for faith on the promise, as afterwards for coming humbly to the cross of Christ preached in the gospel, and thus seizing the only way of escape left remaining to us. The law, then, by its confining me under sin, so far from having the will or power to close against me the access to grace, on the contrary drives me into a strait, in which I am most apt to find and lay hold on the only means of escape. Deluding hiding places of the caves of sin, it indeed closes; but the appointed fleeing to the wounds that have atoned for me it furthers, rather than hinders. In brief: the promise ratifies to man everything, the law comes between and denies him all. Thereupon it is thought, God is against Himself, that must be allowed; but at last it turns out, that, the law itself has had to help to this end, namely, that faith and the promise should have the victory. Christ is the law’s honor, end, and fulfilment. c. The liberation from the Law on the entrance of faith. Christ is the law’s honor, that is, what honors the law is precisely this, that it leads to Christ. But at the same time and on this very account is He the law’s end and fulfilment. The end of the law, for this beyond question is the intention of the whole Epistle, to demonstrate that Christians are no longer under the law, and in Galatians 3:25, this is expressly declared: now that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster; he has fulfilled his office.—This is, in the first instance, to be understood historically. With the coming of Christ the epoch of the law, when it exercised dominion, is past, and a new epoch has begun, that of faith on Christ. Hence, also, those who in this new epoch are added to the people of God, through faith in Christ, that is, the Gentiles, are no longer to be held subject to the law, as though faith were not sufficient for salvation.—But this is to be understood also more specially, in a subjective sense; the man who has attained to faith in Christ, is thereby no longer under the law, but may and ought to view himself as free therefrom, and to appropriate to himself the full consolation of God’s grace, and to oppose it to all accusations of the law. 2. The Law hat still its use, and must be preached among Christians. But if now from (c) it were inferred: The law then no longer concerns us, and ought not to be preached among Christians! this would be a false conclusion. A usus justificatorius, unquestionably, cannot be made of the law under any circumstances, and we must, with Paul, warn men against any such use; and to this extent the position of the Christian preacher, as respects the law, is a negative one. But such a usus, indeed, did not belong to the law in itself, according to its Divine intention (as Paul teaches us), even though it was actually so employed. What belonged to the law, was the usus pζdagogicus, and that it has still, and so far it has a function even in this, the New Testament era. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ c. In their condition of minority the sons of God were indeed held as servants = were under the law; but with the sending of the Son fo God the time of majority, and therefore of the full position of sons and heirs, is come. (Galatians 4:1-7) (The Epistle for the Sunday after Christmas.) 1Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing [in nothing] from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2But is under tutors and governors [guardians and stewards] until the time appointed of the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were [or were kept] in bondage under the elements [στοιχεῖα, rudiments] of the world: 4But when the fulness of the time was come [came], God sent 5forth his Son, made [born] of a woman, made [born] under the law, To redeem [That he might redeem] them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God hath [omit hath] sent forth the 7Spirit of his Son into your [our] hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore [So then, ὥστε] thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ [heir through God]. AND This section depends on the proposition which Paul announced at the close of the preceding one, that Christians are no longer under the νόμοςπαιδαγωγός, because they are sons of God, and heirs. It distinguishes, with a reference to Israel, which was God’s son, and yet was under the law, a twofold condition of the sons of God, the condition of minority, when they were still kept in bondage, and the condition of majority, when that bondage ceased, and therewith the proper position of sons first began. Galatians 4:1. Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child—“The heir”=the son, as the one who—by law and descent.—is heir, even though he does not until afterwards come into possession of the property. He is lord of all =has the right thereto; nay, if the father is dead, he is actual possessor, only he cannot enjoy it, cannot assert his character as master, so long as he is under guardians as νήπιος, a child, [an infant, a minor. Lightfoot: “The minor was legally in much the same position as the slave. He could perform no act, except through his legal representative. This responsible person, the guardian in the case of the minor, the master in case of the slave, who represents him to the state—was termed in Attic law κύριος Prospectively, however, though not actually, the minor was κν́ριοςπάντων, which the slave was not.”—R.] The most natural reference is to a child placed under guardianship, whose father is dead, especially on account of the expression κύριοςπάντων; and this is favored by the direct application to the son, of the term κληρονόμος, heir. Some interpreters, it is true, cite the expression: “until the time appointed of the father,” as inconsistent with this, on the ground that the age of majority was legally determined; but this objection has too pedantic a character. [Alford: “The question, whether the father of the heir here is to be thought of as dead, or absent, or living and present, is in fact one of no importance; nor does it belong properly to the consideration of this passage. The fact is, the antitype breaks through the type, and disturbs it; as is the case wherever the idea of inheritance is spiritualized. The supposition in our text is, that a father has pre-ordained a time for his son and heir to come of age, and till that time, has subjected him to guardians and stewards. In the type, the reason might be absence, or decease, or even high office or intense occupation of the father; in the antitype, it is the Father’s sovereign will; but the circumstances equally exist.” So Ellicott and Lightfoot.—R.] Galatians 4:2. Guardians and stewards.—Επίτροπος also usually signifies guardian. Here, as =he who counsels the ward, defends him, and directs him. It is distinguished from οἰκονόμος =agent, a steward of the estate. The twofold expression is meant to bring out more strongly the idea of dependence.—Until the time appointed of the father.—Προθεσμία “tempus prζstitutum, appointed term, only here in n. t., but frequently in the classics, Philo and Josephus.” Meyer. [Objection is made to the view that the definite time was appointed by the father (Meyer and others), since the term was fixed by statute in Roman law. Some suppose a reference to some exceptional legislation as respected the Galatians. But this difficulty arises only on the supposition that the father is conceived of as dead, which is but a supposition. Besides it is unnecessary, as implied above, to press the illustration.—R.] Galatians 4:3. Even so we.—To be taken strictly = the Jewish Christians. They must be such as were “under the law” (Galatians 4:5). [Meyer objects strongly to this limitation and with reason, urging 1) the sense of “rudiments of the world,” 2) that in Galatians 4:5, where the first clause evidently refers to the Jewish Christians alone, the second, taking up ἡμεῖς again, as evidently refers to Christians generally, since Galatians 4:6 addresses such, and 3) that οὐκέτι (Galatians 4:7) and τότε (Galatians 4:8), applied to the Galatians, refer back to the servile condition. Alford, Ellicott and others admit only a secondary reference to the Gentile Christians. This is perhaps sufficiently satisfactory, but the whole context seems to refer it to Jews and Gentiles alike (Lightfoot).—R.] When we were children, νήπιοι.—The pre-christian state is regarded as a childhood in relation to the Christian state of the same persons, only the Christian state then is regarded as ripe age (the comparison is differently applied 1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:13). In childhood a state of bondage existed [the perfect indicating a continued state.—R.]; the external position was that of a servant, not that of the free son. For we were yet ὑπὸτὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου, under the rudiments of the world.—For the different explanations which this difficult expression has received, see Meyer or Wieseler. According to my view the expression applies in any case only to Judaism, especially to the “law” (an Apostle Paul could not possibly comprehend Heathenism and Judaism under one idea, regarding them thus as virtually equivalent); and moreover στοιχεῖα, especially in view of Gal 4:9, is to be taken in any case in a spiritual sense=beginnings of religion, elementary wisdom; for only with that do the expressions άσθενῆκαὶπτωχά, “weak and beggarly,” agree. [Στοιχεῖα, originally the letters of the alphabet, as being set in rows. The question here is, has it a physical or an ethical reference. The fathers adopted the former view. The latter: “elementary teaching,” is now generally received, and is supported by its simplicity, its accordance with the idea of “minor” running through the context, as well as by Colossians 2:8. See notes on that passage. Against the limitation to Judaism, see below.—R. ] Τοῦκόσμου is either general = Mankind; “the collective human world is conceived as an I individual subject, needing the Divine training, to which God, in its boyish age, lasting till the sending of Christ, gave the elementary instruction of the law” (Wieseler). It is true that the heathen world=this part of the κόσμος, had not these rudiments, but for that very reason does not here, where the object is the exposition of the Divine pedagogy, come into consideration. Or could “the world” be taken in a more specific sense, more fully characterizing the “rudiments” themselves = elements, which primarily belong only to the sphere of “the world,” of the visible, the external, and hence themselves having the like character, themselves external (comp. Luther), opposed to the higher stage, as pneumatic or heavenly? Comp. τὸἅγιονκοσμικόν, Hebrews 9:1 (Wieseler). [The first view seems preferable, but without the limitation to Judaism, which grows out of Schmoller’s view of “we.” For there was a Divine pedagogy in heathenism also, under which most of these to whom Paul wrote “were kept in bondage.” Lexically such a limitation is highly improbable. Meyer refers “world” to non-Christian humanity, and “the rudiments of the world” would then mean, not anti-Christian teachings, but the rudimentary training of non-Christian, ante-Christian humanity, including both Judaism and the strivings of heathenism, which may indeed have generally taken the form of external ceremonies, but which were alike propζdeutic, the one containing besides an element absolutely good, absorbed in the gospel, the other, an element absolutely bad, antagonistic to the gospel. The Christian view of Ancient History, now generally received, strongly favors this interpretation. See Calvin, Meyer, and comp. Colossians 2:8; also a thoughtful note of Lightfoot, p. 170 sq., comparing the component parts of Judaism and heathenism.—R.] Galatians 4:4-5. But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son. = When the measure of time was full: and this was full when the time appointed by God had elapsed. The time is conceived as a measure. [Lightfoot: “It was ‘the fulness of time.’ First: in reference to the giver. The moment had arrived which God had ordained from the beginning and foretold by His prophets for Messiah’s coming. This is implied in the comparison ‘the time appointed of the Father.’ Secondly: In reference to the recipient. The gospel was withheld until the world had arrived at mature age; law had worked out its educational purpose and now was superseded. This educational work had been twofold: 1. Negative: It was the purpose of all law, but especially of the Mosaic law, to deepen the conviction of sin and thus to show the inability of all existing systems to bring men near to God This idea which is so prominent in the Epistle to the Romans appears in the context here, Galatians 4:19; Galatians 4:21. 2. Positive: The comparison of the child implies more than a negative effect. A moral and spiritual expansion, which rendered the world more capable of apprehending the gospel than it would have been at an earlier age, must be assumed, corresponding to the growth of the individual; since otherwise the metaphor would be robbed of more than half its meaning.—The primary re ference in all this is plainly to the Mosaic law; but the whole context shows that the Gentile converts of Galatia are also included, and that they too are regarded as having undergone an elementary discipline, up to a certain point analogous to that of the Jew.”—R.] Born of a woman.—Conveying no allusion to His miraculous conception, but simply an emphatic designation of the Incarnation, defining precisely “sent forth.” The reality of the Incarnation is emphasized, in order, in the first place, to bring fully into view the humiliation which God imposed on His Son, and to make this contrast felt: He humbled Himself—we were exalted. But this humiliation did not consist in the Incarnation alone, it was only the beginning; its full expression is found in born under the law, and the contrast becomes thereby still stronger: He was brought under bondage—we, into freedom. Yet of course the object is not merely to make the contrast sensible, but “born of a woman” and “under the law” is mentioned, because it was the means of attaining the end which was to be attained, namely, that he might redeem, etc.—i. e., primarily and principally the being “born under the law” was this means, but this again was only possible through His really becoming man.—Τενόμενονὑπὸνόμον, probably simply=born under the law, not: brought under the law. The primary meaning of this is, in general, that by virtue of His Jewish birth, He, like every Israelite, was subordinated to the requirements of the law, and we are therefore to supplement “redeem them that were under the law” with ἐκτοῦνόμου, “from the law=that He might make those subjected to the law free from the law=that He might free them from the state of subjection under it, from their obligation to it, from the “bondage” just mentioned. The sense of “redeem” is given by the simple addition: ἵνατὴνυἱοθεσ.κ.τ.λ., = might translate us from the position of servants into the free position of sons. Primarily, only this is implied in the words, and the expression therefore is not immediately convertible with the narrower, more defined one in Galatians 3:13; although, indeed, if we look for the causal nexus between Christ’s being born under the law and His redeeming those under the law, we shall be led back to the thought expressed Galatians 3:13, as the connecting one, namely, that the one who stood “under the law” became by this law “a curse” =bore also the curse of this law, and thus freed the men who stood under the curse of this law from this curse of the law, and therewith from the law altogether, from dependence on it, since in the place of that dependence there now naturally came a believing self-surrendering to the Liberator. This filling out the thought by a reference to the death of Christ, gives moreover to “born of woman” also, its full significance; for only through this was death itself possible, as only through the being “born under the law” was it possible as a death under the curse of the law. That we might receive the adoption of Sons.—Properly the position of sons [υἱοθεσία] as opposed to the position of servants. Even “under the law” they were in themselves ὑιοί , but as yet differing in nothing from servants; through Christ they first attained also to the position of sons, differed from servants.Υἱοθεσία There means then more exactly: the right of the free, major son. This may very well be designated simply as υἱοθεσία, since sonship de facto really begins with it, the son thereby first becomes properly a son.—That a sonship relatively to God is here treated of, is made apparent by the connection. [Schmoller evidently refers “we,” in this clause, to Jewish Christians alone; but the objections of Meyer and others to such a limitation (see on Galatians 4:3), apply with great force here. That it breaks the force of the Apostle’s argument, and destroys the connection of the whole passage, to restrict it thus, is evident from the explanation into which Schmoller is forced in his remarks on the succeeding verse. It may be allowed that, in the previous clause, “those under the law” refers to Jewish Christians alone, but a wider reference of “we” to all Christians must be insisted upon.—R.] Galatians 4:6. And because ye are sons.—Remarkable is the abrupt transition into the address to the Galatians, whereas what preceded applied to the Jewish Christians; for these were “those under the law,” while the Galatians were, at all events, predominantly Gentile Christians. But through the sending of the Son the Gentiles also were to obtain the sonship with God, and they did actually obtain it through faith in Him. He can therefore naturally say to Gentile Christians also: Ye are sons,—and can appeal to the witness of the Spirit concerning this, which they have in themselves. And the discussion had properly direct reference to the Gentile Christians, the Galatians, to their freedom from the law; the remarks Galatians 4:1 sq., were only as it were episodically woven in [?!], in order to explain the peculiar position of Israel under the law.—[Accepting the wider reference of “we” (Galatians 4:6), we find here no “abrupt transition,” but a change to the second person, in order to apply to the Galatians, what had been affirmed of all Christians. Of course this obviates the necessity of such an explanation of the connection, as Schmoller makes.—R.]—With this sentence Paul wishes to confirm to the Galatians, in a way indisputable to themselves, that they actually have the position of sons and no longer that of servants; they also (he says) have this, as well as the Jewish Christians, as certainly as the Spirit also utters His voice in them. The primary purpose of the sending of the Son, stopped with this υἱοθεσἰα. That the purpose has been accomplished, is shown first in this, the Spirit’s witness of adoption. Galatians 4:7 therefore contains the simple conclusion from Galatians 4:6 : Accordingly thou art, etc. [It is a question whether ὅτι should be rendered “because,” quoniam, or “that,” i. e., to show that ye are sons (Ellicott). Most commentators incline to the former view. Alford in his notes opposes Meyer, who adopted the latter view, which in his fourth edition, however, he characterizes as “harsh and unusual.” Still the. proof of sonship remains. He would not have sent the Spirit, if they had not been “sons.”—R.] God sent.—At the regeneration of each of the readers, or what may here be taken as identical, at their baptism. Yet naturally a continuous sending from that time forward, is not excluded but included. [The aorist is used as in Galatians 4:4, referring to a definite act. Meyer notes the similarity of form, as “a solemn expression of the objective (Galatians 4:4) and subjective (Galatians 4:5) certainty of salvation,” and also as indicating doctrinally “the same personal relation of the Spirit, which God has sent from Himself as He did Christ.”—R.]—Spirit of His Son.—A peculiar expression; not immediately convertible with the conception: spirit of sonship, but = the Spirit, which the Son of God has; plainly, moreover, which He has peculiarly as Son; hence, the Spirit, in which, with Him the consciousness of sonship relatively to God rests and expresses itself, and so = the Son of God’s Spirit of sonship. God gives the very same Spirit into the hearts of those whom He has accepted as His sons for the sake of His Son Christ; and therewith they also attain to the consciousness of sons relatively to God, so that they cry: Abba, etc.—Crying.—This strong word, κράζειν, doubtless expresses, first and chiefly, the assurance and the strength of the persuasion, the full undoubting faith of having in God our Father; also, however, as resulting from this, the fervor with which the soul turns to this Father, yet without, direct reference to a condition of trouble, in which a call is made for help.—Abba, Father!—“It is simplest to suppose that the juxtaposition of the two equivalent expressions is meant to emphasize more strongly the idea of Father.” Wieseler. Meyer with less probability thinks, that Ἀφφᾶ had become so settled and sacred a term, as an address to God in Christian prayer, that it had acquired the nature of a proper name, admitting thus the addition of the appellative ὁπατήρ. The ancients found in it an intimation: quod idem Spiritus fidei sit Judζorum et gentium. [It seems best to regard this repetition as taken from a liturgical formula, which may have originated among the Hellenistic Jews, who retained the consecrated word “Abba,” or among the Jews of Palestine, after they became acquainted with the Greek language. The latter theory best explains the expression as used Mark 14:36 (Lightfoot). There may be a reason for retaining “Abba” in its affectionate character, “My Father” (Alford). And the repetition may contain the hint, which the Fathers, Luther, Calvin and Bengel find, of the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ. Certainly an advance from the “Abba” of childhood to the “Father” of maturity, on the part of the believer, is not implied, nor is there a reference “to the fact that a freedman might by addressing any one with the title Abba, prepare the way for adoption by him,” since they are enabled thus to cry, “because ye are sons.”—R.] Galatians 4:7. So then thou art.—A progress in individualizing for a practical purpose; namely, to bring home fully to each one separately, what he possesses through Christ.—No more a servant.—This refers back to the being “in bondage under the rudiments of the world,” and applies to the Jewish Christians in its full sense, and then to the Gentile Christians also, in this respect, that in consequence of the sending of the Son, the necessity of giving themselves up to be held in bondage “under the rudiments of the world” was done away for them also; that in Christ these have lost their force. [In the wider view of “we” (Galatians 4:3) this explanation is unnecessary.—R]. In what special, still more wretched sense, they too were actually slaves, and so the state of servitude was abolished for them, appears immediately after in Galatians 4:8.—But a son.—The contrast between “servant” and “son,” as applied to the Jewish Christians, is limited to their being now in actual enjoyment of the son’s privileges; as applied to Gentile Christians it is without restriction.—And if a son, then an heir through God.—“Through God” makes prominent that the one character, as well as the other, proceeds from grace, as opposed to all desert of works. Because a son (sc of God), therefore according to the well-known hereditary right, also an heir, sc. of God. The controversy, whether Jewish or Roman right of inheritance is meant, may be called pedantic. Heir of God= to whom God’s possession appertains, eternal life. [The briefer reading, διὰθεοῦ now generally adopted, is thus remarked upon by Windischmann: “It combines, on behalf of our race, the whole before-mentioned agency of the Blessed Trinity: the Father has sent the Son and the Spirit, the Son has freed us from the law, the Spirit has completed our sonship; and thus the redeemed are heirs through the Triune God Himself, not through the law, nor through fleshly descent.”—R.]—This gives another basis for “heirs,” Galatians 3:29, and the train of argument thus reaches its conclusion. AND ETHICAL1. The rudiments of the world. Respecting the characterizing of the law as “rudiments of the world,” comp. the remark of Luther: Learn from this, when it concerns the business of justification before God, to speak of the law most contemptuously, following the Apostle. But when we are not treating of how a man may become acceptable and righteous before God, we are to reckon the law most highly and honorably, and with St. Paul, to call it holy, righteous, good, spiritual, and divine, as indeed it truly is.—St. Paul is alone among all the Apostles, in speaking so scornfully as it may appear, of the law. The other Apostles make it not their wont, so to speak. Therefore ought every one, who will study in the Christian theology, to take careful note of this diverse manner in St. Paul’s writings. He has been called by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself His chosen vessel, and therefore also He gave him an elect mouth, and a diverse way of speaking above the other Apostles, so that he, as chosen vessel [Rόstzeug, lit. weapon], might most firmly and most faithfully found the citadel of the faith, even the article which teaches how a man must become righteous before God, and might teach the same most perspicuously, and most clearly, 2. Law and Old Testament. “Law is not synonymous with Old Testament, gospel with New Testament; as if we could say: The law has been abrogated by the gospel, Christ is the end of the law, therefore for us Christians the Old Testament has no more validity. It is not so, but the Old Testament as well as the New, contains gospel promise of grace, and the New as well as the Old contains law Only that in the Old Testament the law, the schoolmaster unto Christ, prevails, the gospel, on the other hand, appears in the form of promise of the future salvation, and so is more veiled; but in the New Testament the gospel of the accomplished salvation strikes the key-note, and the law, as a threatening might, only opposes itself to the despisers of salvation, and is written in the hearts of believers. And since the gospel extends through the whole Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament, every Christian must necessarily count the Old Testament also honorable and holy. It is true here also: What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Anacker. 3. The fulness of the time. For a full historical demonstration of Christ’s having come in the fulness of time, see e. g., Anacker. [Schaff: History of the Apostolic Church, and History of the Christian Church, vol. I. “It was a great idea of Dionysius ‘the little,’ to date our era from the birth of the Saviour. Jesus Christ, the God-man, the prophet, priest, and king of mankind, is, in part, the centre and turning point not only of chronology, but of all history, and the key to all its mysteries. All history before His birth must be viewed as a preparation for His coming, and all history after His birth as a gradual diffusion of His spirit and establishment of His king dom. He is ‘the desire of all nations.’ He appeared in the ‘fulness of time,’ when the process of preparation was finished, and the world’s need of redemption fully disclosed.” “As Christianity is the reconciliation and union of God and man in and through Jesus Christ, the God-Man and Saviour, it must have been preceded by a two fold process of preparation, an approach of God to man, and an approach of man to God.—In Judaism the true religion is prepared for man; in heathenism man is prepared for the true religion. There the divine substance is begotten; here the human form is moulded to receive it. Heathenism is the starry night, full of darkness and fear, but of mysterious presage also, and of anxious waiting for the dawn of day: Judaism, the dawn, full of the fresh hope and promise of the rising sun; both lose themselves in the sunlight of Christianity, and attest its claim to be the only true and the perfect religion for mankind.” “The way for Christianity was prepared on every side, positively and negatively, directly and indirectly, in theory and in practice, by truth and by error, by false belief and by unbelief—those hostile brothers, which yet cannot live apart—by Jewish religion, by Grecian culture, and by Roman conquest; by the vainly attempted amalgamation of Jewish and heathen thought, by the exposed impotence of natural civilization, philosophy, art and political power, by the decay of the old religions by the universal distraction and hopeless misery of the age, and by the yearnings of all earnest and noble souls for the unknown God. ‘In the fulness of time,’ when the fairest flowers of science and art had withered, and the world was on the verge of despair, the Virgin’s Son was born to heal the infirmities of mankind. Christ entered a dying world as the author of a new and imperishable life.”—R.] 4. God sent His Son, born of a woman. In these few words we have the sum of the second article [i. e., of the Augsburg Confession]: “Jesus Christ, true God, born of the Father in eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary.” Anacker.—If the preλxistence of the Son does not follow of necessity from the expression: God sent Him, it follows so much the more necessarily from the added clause: “Born of a woman,” i. e., from the fact that this is predicated of the Son as something peculiar. Paul cannot have been thinking of a man, to whom the character of God’s Son belonged only in some theocratic sense, who had been elevated to it by God: for why then the particularizing clause: born of a woman? It would be absolutely meaningless. It has a meaning only in the case of One, who in Himself was not one born of woman, who only became so, with whom this was something entirely peculiar. The peculiarity and note-worthiness of the fact, also, that the Son of God was born under the law, depended, in reality, upon this, that in His original state He had not human nature.—The supernatural conception, it is true, is by no means implied in the expression: born of a woman, in itself, as if by this the concurrence of the man were to be excluded. But if we take this expression together with “God sent His Son,” we are almost necessarily constrained to assume another than the ordinary origin through the generative activity of the man, an immediate activity, instead, of the God who purposed to send the Son.—The Divine Sonship of Christ is one belonging to Him in Himself, essential to His nature, so essential, that even by being born of a woman, and under the law, it was not nullified. It is on this account entirely different from our Divine sonship: this is an acquired, a mediated one; mediated through God’s Son Christ.—On the other hand in this passage the true humanity of Christ is most distinctly declared. He did not bring His body from Heaven, and did not pass with it through Mary quasi per canalem, nor did He merely assume a body like an angel. Either is excluded by the expression: born of a woman. And the tenor of the passage shows plainly that it is meant, not to declare His pre-existent being (this we can infer only by reasoning back), but precisely His true humanity, that God sent Him in such wise that He caused Him to be born and be manifested as man; it was precisely this which made it an actual sending, fulfilling the promise. But on the other hand this Man=God’s Son; for if not, the purpose would in this way have failed in accomplishment, since it was no other than His Son that God would send. 5. Born under the Law. By this is made prominent not the legal obedience which Christ rendered, or anything performed by Him, but something to which He subjected Himself, the dependence on the law, in which He was placed—according to the whole connection: a δουλοῦσθαι (comp. τοὺςὑπὸνόμον), primarily dependence in general, and then as the culmination of it, the curse of the law, to which He subjected Himself. This passage therefore is no proof of the “active obedience of Christ,” as it is termed. Christ, it is true, was in such a sense under the the law that He observed it; He did not resist it; He was content with this dependence, and fulfilled the requirements of the law. But it is inappropriate to designate the obedience, which Christ indeed rendered in fullest measure towards His Father, as fulfilment of the law, and to designate the (active) fulfilment of the law as that which was great and meritorious in Christ. Christ’s obedience was an essentially free obedience of a child towards the Father, and thus far surpassing a bare law-obedience.—On the other hand, the statement of doctrinal theology, which in many quarters causes scandal, that Christ was in Himself not subject to the law, is in itself not incorrect. Only we must then take law in the entirely definite Biblical sense. The γενέσθαιὑπὸνόμον which was added because of transgressions, was of course something in itself wholly inadequate to His sinless being, wholly obedient as it was to God; He stood, as concerned Himself, in the Son’s relation to God, not in the servant’s relation, was no minor, needed no παιδαγωγός. This γεν.ὑπὸ ?̀νόμου, therefore, was something in itself foreign to Him, imposed upon Him, and undertaken by Him, for the definite purpose of the redemption of those under the law. But He was the first one “under the law” who yet was sinless, obedient to God, and this availed to the good of the men who were under the law 6. Adoption and the consciousness of it. From the attainment of the filial relation to God [Gottes-Kindschaft] Paul distinguishes again the certainty of the same, so to speak, the conscious exercise of the privilege of children. Agreeably to this he distinguishes a twofold sending: the sending of the Son into the world and the sending of the Spirit of the Son into human hearts. On the first is grounded the attainment of the adoption of God’s children, inasmuch as the sending of the Son led to the ransoming of those under the law. This is the objective side. Yet this hardly denotes merely the redemptive act of Christ, but includes doubtless, even at this point, faith in this act, as without this faith there is not an actual adoption, a being a son (comp. ὅτιδέἐστευἱοί).But to this is yet added the sending of the Spirit of the Son into the hearts of the redeemed, or more specifically: His crying Abba in the heart. Primarily this serves for the sealing and making sure of the now established filial right (comp. Romans 8:16). Yet it is not bare assurance that is wanted, but the exercise, the use of the right; and this first becomes possible by receiving the Spirit of Sonship, exclaiming Abba. “Should we wish to do it of our own desire and folly (namely, use such an heartily filial address to God), the word would die upon our lips; for we cannot make God our Father, only He Himself can do it.” It is this Spirit of adoption Himself, says Paul here, that cries Abba in us, of course, by uniting Himself with the spirit of the suppliant, and forming in it the language of filial address to God. Therefore Romans 8:15 : We cry Abba by this Spirit. Paul distinguishes, as has been said, two stages, but yet plainly not in such a sense as if the first were something complete within itself, and the second added to it, as something distinct, but whoever is “son” receives eo ipso this Spirit, and if he did not receive it, the Apostle would not predicate the being a son of him. The receiving of this Spirit is for him, and is meant to be for the readers (on which account he alludes to it), the criterion of having become a “son of God.” He cannot conceive the being a son without this Spirit in the heart exclaiming Abba. Therefore he affirms it at once and in reference to all: “Because ye are sons, God sent forth,” etc. The same faith which translates us into the position of children, opens also the access to this Spirit. Yet of course this receiving of the Spirit of sons or children, is again somewhat successive, and Paul does not mean to say that this crying Abba takes place always with uniform strength and joyfulness; he will not deny that there come times of spiritual conflict; he only expresses what is normal. 7. Son, not servant. The idea of Divine sonship is a twofold idea, for the υἱὸςθεοῦ is first (υἱὸς) θεοῦ and then υἱὸς (θεοῦ) In Romans 8:14 sq., the previous context shows the former to be the main idea, for “being a son of God” is opposed to living “after the flesh,” and is defined by “led by the Spirit of God.” In this passage the essential idea is the second one: the Son of God is son and no longer servant (with which we may also supply “of God”), or the filial relation of the Christian to God, as it is brought into effect by Christ, involves the idea of religious maturity. The Christian has through his faith come religiously to majority; he no longer stands to God in the relation of the minor son, still kept in bondage. This latter relation of man to God is also one in itself possible and relatively admissible. God Himself placed man in it by the law (Galatians 4:3); Israel itself stood by God’s appointment in the relation to God of religious minority, was as yet “kept in bondage under the rudiments of the world.” This was at that time what was fitting and wholesome for the people of God. (And in a certain sense the man who as yet knows nothing of Christ, is, even now, in this relation to God, is the unfreed minor, kept in by legal restraints, at least by the inward law of the conscience. It is true this law is a far more imperfect one than the positive law of God. Therefore the natural man without Christ is far more a δοῦλος than Israel was—a δοῦλος rather to the σάρξ or the φύσειμὴὅντεςθεοί than to God; and there is needed at first a special activity directed to the awakening of the conscience. See below.) It is otherwise with the Christian; he has gained through faith in Christ, or rather through the Spirit of Christ, the position towards God of the free major son: this position, because established through Christ, has its direct analogy in the relation of Christ to His Father. It is true there is in this no independent dignity [Selbstherrlichkeit]; but it is not so much that this is forbidden him, as that he himself is the farthest possible from wishing it, recognizing in it, as he does, an illusive image, knowing that thereby he would in truth lose his freedom, that true freedom consists in this very obedience of love towards God, in speaking nothing else than what He teaches, in doing nothing else than what He points out. Thus, although not living to himself, he is yet truly free, even towards God, as one of full age; is, sui juris, independent. For his conduct is not prescribed to him in legal injunctions, regulating even the outward life, and seeking in his way to conform the inner life to God’s will; he recognizes the “living to God” as his very element, the condition of his happiness. His obedience is not merely an obedience of law towards a ruler, but a life in trustful love to Him who is recognized as Father and sealed through the Spirit. But especially does the maturity of the Christian consist in this, that he is heir, in possession of the paternal estate. For thus the minor is distinguished from the major son; for the former the inheritance is as yet administered by others, and he himself is not yet in enjoyment of it, but only, it may be, from time to time, receives out of it what is necessary for him, and on the other hand, may, on occasion, be kept in straits, or even subjected to punishment. So with man under the law; as he first sees in God One who commands and strictly regulates life, so also he sees in Him one who bestows good only according to desert, and who just as certainly, where punishment is deserved (as is more often the case), inflicts punishment, and instead of a blessing communicates a curse. It is otherwise with the son of full age and with the Christian. He is heir, is in possession and enjoyment of the paternal estate. This actual enjoyment of the inheritance he possesses in the first instance in justification and the state of grace connected therewith. As the major son freely disposes of the paternal estate, so also the Christian, in faith freely applies himself, as it were, when he will and as oft as he will, to his Father’s treasure, and takes from it whatever he desires. Only this possession and enjoyment of his is, as it were, still embarrassed by the “sufferings of this present time,” and the glory of the inheritance is still “to be revealed” (Romans 8:17-18), as indeed the major son also, who has come into possession of the paternal estate, has still to struggle with many inconveniences, and so cannot as yet give himself up to the undisturbed enjoyment of his estate, and yet is none the less the free son, of full age, and by no means any longer in his minority. From this the simple inference is: (1) That as the Christian may not deprive himself of his position as Christian, if he would not incur the reproach in Galatians 4:9, so also he may not be robbed of this rank or denied it, he may not be again placed. under guardianship, and thus reduced from one of full age to a minor again, that therefore in particular the law may not be again imposed upon him, and his relation to God represented as conditioned by that; (2) that a Christian church, which does not regard her members as mature children of God, and train them to be such, but which instead retains them under the guardianship of the Divine law, or, more than that, of self-devised human ordinances, and accords to them only such a share in the benefits of Divine grace as suits her own discretion, if indeed, she does not wholly conceal them and set an inheritance invented by herself in their place—that such a Christian church misapprehends her most essential character (for Christ was no new lawgiver), and that therefore the Romish church, which does this, incurs this reproach, and that the evangelical church would incur the like reproach, so far as she imitated her in this, in a supposed pedagogic interest, or for the sake of discipline and order. She has simply to be God’s almoner by offering the means of grace which excite and strengthen faith, as the condition of adoption as God’s children, and what she ordains can lawfully have no other end than directly or indirectly to further such beneficence. True, individually as well as historically, the state of maturity, in the child of God, is preceded by that of immaturity; for just so certainly as a Christian is in the former state, just so certainly is he there no otherwise than through actual heart faith. But the true way, that agreeable to the Divine order in such a case, is (according to remarks on the foregoing section) to hold up the law for this end and this only, that the man’s conscience and with it the knowledge of sin may be awakened, that the law may prove itself in him also “a schoolmaster unto Christ.” Now this comes to pass only through the preaching of the word of God in its completeness, inasmuch as thereby the law also is set forth, but now, of course, only with the intention of leading to the Gospel and therewith to the condition of spiritual maturity. 8. Old Testament believers not of full age.—As respects Christians the believers of the old covenant were accordingly not yet in the full sense “sons of God,” i. e., “major sons.” “But how were then the holy prophets, the great heroes, the upright men of God, who lived from Moses until Christ, minor children, that must be kept under the figurative rudiments of divine instruction as under tutors and governors? Doubtless in a certain sense they were. It is true that in much they have surpassed us; but what was spiritual, heavenly, eternally permanent in the kingdom of God, what Paul ever calls ‘a mystery,’ was not revealed to them so plainly as to us” (Roos). In order to judge correctly, we must however, with the Apostle himself, distinguish the period before the law from that under the law. For example, the patriarchs, although in another respect also children, stood in immediate intercourse with God, were not in the position of servants. On the other hand there certainly was also in the believers under the law, in proportion as the promise of the new covenant was living in them, e. g., in the prophets, an anticipation, in a certain sense, of the position of major sons of God, although rather in some single moments of elevation. AND Gal_4:2. Starke:—Human ordinances, which are directed to the well-being of the commonwealth, are in themselves in no wise contrary to the Divine law.—When the Prince of Wales in his childhood once refused obedience to his governess, appealing to his dignity as heir to the throne, Prince Albert brought the Bible, read him this passage, and chastised him. Galatians 4:3. Heubner:—The human race has had authorized and unauthorized guardians. Moses was authorized, for God had appointed him, on the other hand the Pope and Mohammed without authority have endeavored to bring back the race, now free and of full age, to minority again. The authority of revelation does not retain us in minority; for the faith which it requires is no blind second hand piety, but first makes us truly free from all that darkens and binds.—Spener:—God has His wise distribution of the measure of grace at various times, with which we must be content and learn to accommodate ourselves thereto. He has also His holy order, according to which He leads His children in conversion from the law into grace.—Berlenber. Bible:—This guardianship was designed only for minors; hence it is all wrong when Christians allow themselves to be brought into bondage again under ordinances, which are urged upon souls as good and necessary to salvation, and made a burden, beyond and without God’s Word and revealed will, which therefore proceed not from nor are approved of Christ and His Spirit. O how many, that otherwise have a good degree of knowledge and personal piety, are in a pitiable bondage under such things! Either they are things which are counted as belonging to outward worship, or which should otherwise serve to make people pious. Now it is not indeed to be denied that some incitements in themselves innocent may help beginners somewhat. But so soon however as a rule and necessity, or it may be even a holiness, is make out of it, it is a yoke. But the main cause why such ordinances of men are a slavery of souls is, because men commonly therein seek and exalt themselves. Our crafty nature seeks with its tricks to maintain itself in its false life, and conceals itself behind outward observances and human usages. Meanwhile it secretly carries on its sins, as before, and will not drown and die in the death of Christ.—It is enough to suffer that other hard yoke, which presses the man at his first conversion. The law of God itself knows how to press him hard enough then, with its righteous judgments and requirements. Matters go laboriously and wretchedly enough with a young believer. Galatians 4:4-5. For this fulness of the time the fathers and all believers in the Old Testament waited with great pangs and earnestness. Not less longingly then, even now, must he wait and look for this Deliverer, who feels his imprisonment. For the fulness of the time, which began with Jesus’ birth, continues ever from then on through all times, our own times among them.—As this took place as to the outward work, so does it now come to pass as to the inward, since the revelation of the Son breaks forth at the time which the Lord has decreed, and His government takes the upper hand in order to bring matters to that stage, to which under the drawing of the Father they could not attain. If thou therefore spyest in thyself a mighty drawing towards faith and hungering after Jesus, take heed that thou neglect it not. For this is even the fulness of thy time, when thy Saviour is about to be sent into thy heart by the Father. In the same hour learn thou to watch and pray, and to forget all else, that thou mayst win thy freedom. Luther:—Hear thou, O law, thou hast no right nor might over me; therefore I concern myself nothing, that thou accusest and condemnest me long and much; for I believe on Jesus Christ, God’s Son, whom God the Father hath sent into this world, that He might redeem us poor, wretched sinners, who were in bondage under the law’s constraint and tyranny.—Christ hath redeemed us, in that He was made under the law. When He came, He found all of us together guarded and shut up under the law. What did He then? Because He is God’s Son and Lord over the law, the law hath no right nor power over Him, nor can it accuse Him. Now, although He was not under the law, yea, was its Lord, He nevertheless willingly subjected Himself to the law. Christ incurred no debt to the law, yet did the law nevertheless behave itself towards this innocent, holy One, &c, even so as towards us, yea, it raged much more and more cruelly against Him than it is wont to do against us men. For it accused Him as if He were the very worst blasphemer and mover of sedition, and pronounced that He was guilty of all the sins of the whole world, and finally it condemned Him by its sentence to death, and moreover to the most shameful of all deaths on the cross.—Because now the law has dealt so cruelly against its God, Christ now appears against the law, and speaks on this wise: Good mistress Law, you are indeed a mighty invincible empress and tyrant over the whole race of man, and have moreover a right thereto; but what have I done to you, that you have so cruelly and contumeliously accused and condemned me the Innocent? Then must the law, because it can by no means answer for this, nor excuse itself, suffer for it in turn, and allow itself also to be condemned and strangled, so that it may therefore retain no right, nor power, not alone against Christ, whom it hath so injuriously assailed, but also against all who believe on Him.—So has Christ now through this His victory chased the law away out of our conscience in such manner that it can no more put us to shame before God. This one thing it does yet, it still continues to reveal sin to accuse and terrify us; but the conscience lays hold against it of these words of the apostle: Christ hath redeemed us from the law, maintains itself thereon by faith and comforts itself therewith. Yea, so proud and courageous moreover does it become in the Holy Ghost, that it dares bid defiance to the law, and say: I care little for all thy threatening. For the victory, which Christ hath won of thee, He hath bestowed upon us; therefore we are now become free of the law unto eternity, if so be we abide in Christ. Therefore let there be praise and thanks to our dear God, who hath given us such victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. [Galatians 4:4-5. Robert Hall:—(1) The mission of Jesus Christ, and the manner in which He manifested Himself. The Son of God, “made of a woman, made under the law.” (2) The design of His mission; “to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (3) The fitness of that season which God in His infinite wisdom appointed for this purpose.—It was a most favorable time to prevent imposture in matter of fact; an age the furthest removed from credulity, an age of skepticism. The Infinite wisdom saw fit to select this time to silence forever the vain babblings of philosophy, to “destroy the wisdom of the wise.”—Because the fulness of the time was come, the event here referred to was the most important that had ever distinguished the annals of the world. The epoch will arrive when this world will be thought of as nothing, but as it has furnished a stage for the “manifestation of the Son of God.”—R.] Galatians 4:6. Luther:—When we stand in the midst and deepest in the terrors of the law, when sin as it were thunders over us, death makes us tremble and quake, the devil roars most cruelly, then begins the Holy Ghost to cry: Abba, dear Father! And this, His cry, is much mightier than the law’s, sin’s, death’s, and the devil’s cry, let it sound ever so loud and hideously, it breaks and presses with all might through the clouds and the heavens, comes before God’s ears, and is heard, &c.—Although I am on all sides in great terrors and distresses, and it seems as if I, Lord, were wholly and utterly forsaken by thee, yet am I nevertheless child, thou, Father, for Christ’s sake. I am to thee dear and pleasant for the Beloved’s sake. But for man in his heart to be able to utter the little word “Father” in time of temptation in true earnestness, there needs such a deep skill thereto, as truly neither Cicero, nor Demosthenes, nor any other accomplished orator has had; yea, should they even melt together all their skill in one heap it were not yet possible for them perfectly to utter forth what is meant by the Holy Ghost in the single word “Father” in believer’s hearts.—We ought to let go the injurious, damned doctrine (wherewith the pope hath denied all Christendom), that man cannot be certain whether he is in grace before God, or not, and hold for certain that we have a gracious and compassionate God, who has in us a gracious complacency, cares for us as His dear children in earnest and most heartily—for Christ’s sake; item, that we also have the Holy Ghost, which intercedes for us with crying and groanings unutterable.—In Starke:—Behold the nature of ejaculatory prayers [Stossgebetlein], as they are called, wherein only the heart is lifted to God. In such a way can a believing soul very well pray without ceasing.—[Bunyan:—O how great a task is it for a poor soul that comes, sensible of sin and the wrath of God, to say in faith but this one word, Father! The Spirit must be sent into the heart for this very thing; it being too great a work for any man to do knowingly and believingly without it.—That one word spoken in faith, is better than a thousand prayers in a formal, lukewarm way.—I myself have often found that when I can say but this word, Father, it doth me more good than when I call Him by any other Christian name.—R.] Galatians 4:7. Luther:—Because Christ has redeemed us, that were under the law, there is no servant any more, nothing but children; therefore can thy power and tyranny, good mistress Law, have no place upon the lordly throne where my Lord Christ is to sit; therefore now I heed thee not, for I am free and a child, that is to be subjected to no servant’s place.—The law may well rule and reign over the body and the old man; but the bridal bed, wherein Christ is to have His rest, it should leave unstained; that is, the law should leave the conscience at ease and undisturbed, for this is to reign alone with its bridegroom Christ, in the realm of freedom and of sonship.—“And if a son, then an heir.” No one through his works or merit succeeds in becoming heir, but birth alone brings it to him; even so do we also come to the eternal, heavenly possessions, such as forgiveness of sins, righteousness, the glorious resurrection, and eternal life, not through our cφoperation, but without any act of ours—we suffer them to be bestowed upon us, and receive them from God through Christ.—Whoever could believe without any doubt, that it were true, and certainly comprehend, how immeasurably great a thing it is, that one should be God’s child and heir, such an one would without doubt take little account of the world, with all that therein is esteemed precious and honorable, such as human righteousness, wisdom, dominion, power, money, possessions, honor, pleasure, and the like; yea, all that in the world is honorable and glorious, would be to him loathsome and an abomination.—How great and glorious a bestowment the eternal kingdom and the heavenly inheritance is man’s heart in this life can not understand, and still less express. We see in this life only the central point, but in the life to come, we shall see the whole infinite circle. Galatians 4:1-7. There are two degrees of the adoption of God’s children: the degree of minority, where one is rather servant than child, and the degree of majority, where one has the place of a child.—The bondage of the law the way to the full adoption of God’s children.—The relation of the law and of the gospel to adoption with God—The son, still a minor, must wait till God declares him of age; while the son of full age is not to abdicate the child’s place, else he makes a retrogression displeasing to God. Without Christ, under age, through Christ, of full age.—When Christ came, came the time of majority for the people of God; when He comes to thee, it comes also for thee, not earlier—but then, really.—Glφckler: The wisdom and love of God in the sending of His Son: Wisdom: He came, when the time was fulfilled: Love: He came to bring redemption, and the adoption of children.—The true intent, virtue, and fruit of the incarnation of the Son of God.—When the time is fulfilled, God will send also to thee His Son, and His Spirit into thy heart; only wait and doubt not!—Every time, even the longest, has its fulfillment, for it is subject to God, in the service of His purpose.—Kapff: The blessedness of the adoption of God’s children: It is (1) a condition of freedom, (2) of joyfulness in faith, (3) of heirship to God.—W. Hofacker:—On the family or house of God, into which, to us as children, access stands open in Christ Jesus: 1) The house or the family of God: there is there a Father, God, a mother-free, unmerited grace, a first-born Brother; many brothers and sisters besides, and a ministering retinue in the holy angels. 2) The different relations in which we may stand to the household of God: a. there are some, and they are greatest in number, who stand in a far distant and alien relation to the family of God , b. a smaller, less considerable number stand to the family of God in a nearer, but yet not the nearest relation; c. the third class stands to it in the full, conscious relation of children, as Paul says, Galatians 4:6. 3) The laborious [aufgabenreiche] and yet glorious condition of those, who walk as children of the house of God: a. the first task is, to learn more and more the true temper of children; b. the second, to show faithfulness and diligence in the daily work entrusted to them by the Lord; c. the third is, to wait in patience and hope for the promised inheritance.—Mόhlhδuser: The Abba cry: 1) a sign of being God’s child; 2) but only possible through the Spirit of God.—Christ the Redeemer from the bondage of the law, 2) the redemption itself, 3) the consequence of this redemption.—Hesse: In what does sonahip with God consist? 1) In the maturity of the spirit; 2) in the joyfulness of prayer; 3) in the certainty of salvation.—Ahlfeld: Redemption through Jesus Christ. 1) From what has He redeemed us? From the law, from the constraint and from the curse of the law. 2) What does God offer us through our redemption? Sonship: the spirit of a child and the inheritance of a child. Footnotes: Galatians 4:2.—[Ἐπιτρόπους … καὶοἰκονόμους ; the first referring to controllers of his person, i.e, guardians, “the latter, to managers of his property i.e. “stewards.” See Lightfoot.—R.] Galatians 4:3.—[Ἠμενδεδουλωμἐνοι: the force of the perfect participle is more accurately expressed by “were kept in bondage.”—R.] Galatians 4:3.—[“Rudiments” is preferable to “elements,” as bringing out more distinctly the ethical meaning. See Exes, Notes.—R.] Galatians 4:4.—[Τενόμενον must be rendered alike in both cases. “Born,” natum, is the interpretation now generally adopted. So Koppe, Schott, Meyer, and later English commentators.—R] Galatians 4:5.—[“It seems more exact to indicate the repeated ἵνα by the same form of translation” (Elliott).—R.] Galatians 4:6.—[On the exact force of ὅτικ.τ.λ, see Exeg. Notes. “Sent forth” is the better rendering of the aorist.—R.] Galatians 4:6—Elz. has ὑμῶν against preponderating authority. Altered to conform to the foregoing [Ἡμῶν, ΰ.A. B. C. D. F , adopted by the best editors.—R.] Galatians 4:7.—The reading κληρονόμοςδιὰθεοῦ is with good reason approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Lightfoot.] ΰ. has it. “It is commended also by its comparative difficulty.” The κληρονόμοςθεοῦδιαΧριστοῦ of the Rec. has arisen from a wish to lighten the difficulty, and is founded on Romans 8:17. So also the simple θεοῦ. The reading κληρονόμος alone is without any authority. [Wordsworth alone, among many recent English editors, adopts the longer reading.—R.] [There is doubtless a polemical reference in these statements of Schmoller, of no special interest to the American reader. It need only be suggested that Lutheran antinomism sometimes seems (but only seems, it may be conceded; to verge on antinomianism.—R.] C. Rebuke, passing over into Sorrowful Complaint Galatians 4:8-181. Interrupting the doctrinal exposition, Paul rebukes the incomprehensible backsliding into which they are falling. (Galatians 4:8-11) 8Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service [were in bondage] unto them which by nature are no [not] gods. 9But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known [have been known] of God, how turn ye again [how is it that ye are turning again] to the weak and beggarly elements [rudiments], whereunto 10ye desire again [again anew] to be in bondage? Ye observe [carefully] days, and months, and times [seasons], and years. 11I am afraid of [respecting] you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain. 2. In language agitated by sorrow, he complains of the equally ungrounded estrangement, they had suffered to grow up between him and them through the selfish intrigues of the false teachers (Galatians 4:12-18.) 12Brethren, I beseech you, be [become]5as I am; for I am [also have become] as 13ye are: [.] ye have not injured me at all [ye injured me in nothing]: [yea] Ye know how through [that on account of]infirmity of the flesh I preached the 14gospel unto you at the first [the first time]. And my [your]temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; [,] but received me as an angel of God,even as Christ Jesus. 15Where is then [or What then was] the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own [omit own] eyes, and have given them to me. 16Am I therefore [So then, am I] become your enemy, because I tell you the truth [or by speaking to you the truth]? 17They zealously affect you, but not well [They pay you court in no good way]; yea, they would exclude [desire to exclude] you, that ye might affect 18them [may pay them court]. But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing [to be courted in a good way at all times], and not only when I am present with you. AND Gal_4:8. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God.—This sounds as if it continued the doctrinal development, but it takes a practical turn in the very next verse. “Now no longer a servant,” Paul had said,—but, he now continues, reverting to the former time, then were ye servants—when ye did not know God. Yet this is doubtless not merely a note of time, but a statement of the ground of the then existing bondage=as certainly as ye are now no longer servants, just so certainly was there a valid ground for your being formerly servants, when ye knew not God, namely, servants of idols. But comprehensible on this account as your earlier bondage was, equally incomprehensible is your present surrendering of yourselves into bondage again. For the “not knowing God” has ceased, hence with the cause, the effect also; they are, as already said, no longer δοῦλοι, and therefore a δουλεύειν in their case has no longer any justification whatever; their new bondage to the law is now as much without warrant as was their former bondage to idols.—Ye were in bondage to them which by nature are not gods.—This indicates more precisely the kind of bondage, in which the readers, as being Gentiles, formerly found themselves. From the fact that he so distinctly states of what kind their bondage was, it appears to be beyond doubt that he could not place them, as respected their pre-Christian state, in one category with the Jewish Christians as respected the pre-Christian state of these (Galatians 4:3), nor comprehend them together under “those in bondage under the rudiments of the world.” Their bondage was, it is true, also bondage, but nevertheless an essentially different, more wretched one: they were not “kept in bondage” sc. by God Himself for a while, from pedagogic reasons, under a law, but it was a bondage resulting from their not knowing God, and being servants, moreover, τοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσιθεοῖς= to those gods, which yet are in their real nature not gods, but are only so called; they are in fact according to Paul’s teaching elsewhere, demons. [Undoubtedly there is a “bondage” here referred to somewhat different from that of Gal 4:3, but the distinction seems to be, that in addition to the pedagogic bondage, in which all were held, these Galatians, or heathen, were in even a worse condition. The sense of the two readings must be noticed; that of Rec., τοῖςμὴφύσειοὖσιθεοῖς joins the negative μὴ with φύσει; not gods in reality, only thought to be so; but the better sustained order, τοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσιθεοῖς joins the negative with οὖσι, asserting that they were not gods at all, did not exist; whether 1 Corinthians 10:20 justifies us in supposing that the implied antithesis is demons, is very doubtful. Meyer and Ellicott remark that this is a subjective negation.—R.] Galatians 4:9. Rather have been known of God.—A corrective climax, in order to give the following “how” still more emphasis. “This knowing on the part of God is of course not used of a theoretical knowing—for in that sense every one is an object of Divine knowledge—but of an affectionate, loving, interested knowledge; comp. 1 Corinthians 8:3; 1 Corinthians 13:12, and in the Hebrew ιָ ?γַ ?ς as frequently used. The aorist points to an act of God in the past, which was the act of adoption.” Wieseler.—How is it that ye are turning again?—Πάλιν does not belong to “the rudiments” but to “turn” therefore not as if they had already before served the στοιχεῖα but πάλιν only affirms that a second, new turning [Umwandlung] was asking place with them first from idols to God, now from God to “the rudiments of the world”=how turn you again—namely, to the στοιχεῖα?—In ἐπιστρέφετε, moreover, there is not of necessity implied the idea of turning back, but simply that of turning away; although in the expression: “Conversion from idols to God” the thought of an original apostasy from God lies at the foundation, yet it lay being rather in the background; and as ἐπιστρέφετε has in itself an entirely general signification, it could very well be applied, even in a case where there was no reference to a turning back; indeed there was scarcely another word to express this turning away, this striking into a particular course. [Schmoller, having adopted Wieseler’s view of Gal 4:3, is of course, consistent in following out that interpretation here, but it is very evident that this interpretation is difficult to defend. Here, and especially in the final clause of the verse, there must be a departure from the more obvious meanining of the words, to admit the idea that they had not relapsed as well as lapsed by their apostasy, Πάλιν does not necessarily imply a turning back to the same things but to similar things, not retro but iterum, i.e., not again to heathenism indeed, but to Judaism, both of which are included in “the rudiments of the world.” So Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot and others. The present tense (ἐπιοτρέφετε) is used, for the change was Still going on. Comp. Galatians 1:6 (Lightfoot).—R.]—The rudiments are called weak, because they have not the power to atone for sinful man, and by communication of the Spirit to transform him inwardly, agreeably to what Paul says of the law, e.g. Galatians 3:21; Romans 8:3; comp. also Hebrews 7:18. They are called beggarly on account of their relatively imperfect matter in comparison with the perfection and the riches of the gospel. Wieseler.—Whereunto ye desire again anew to be in bondage.—“Again” belongs to “serve,” not as if they had already once served “the rudiments” but they have already served, they have been δοῦλοι; and now they wish to be so again, although servants of another lord, and thus they wish to begin the δουλεύειν again ἄνωθεν, from the beginning, after it has scarcely as yet come to an end. [Ellicott’s statement is preferable: “They had been slaves to the rudiments in the form of heathenism; now they were desiring to enslave themselves again to the rudiments, and to commence them anew in the form of Judaism.”—R.] Galatians 4:10. Ye carefully observe.—Proof of the declaration first made: “Ye desire to be in bondage.” [The punctuation is a matter of dispute. An interrogation mark is placed at the close of the verse by Tischendorf, Lightfoot, and others, but Ellicott, Wieseler, and more lately Meyer and Alford (both of whom formerly made the verse interrogative) adopt a simple period. This suits the transition to Galatians 4:11 much better.—R.] “Παρατηρεῖσθε: to observe carefully, not to celebrate, or else the objects would have been σάθθατα, νεομηνίας, ἑορτάς. The Apostle means to say, that they were not only given to the celebration, but, precisely like the Jews, were already scrupulous also as to the correct reckoning of time for their holy days. Days, with reference to the Sabbath; months, probably with reference to the new moons, not, because certain months, the seventh especially, were regarded as peculiarly holy months; seasons, within the year, with reference to the feasts; years with reference to the Sabbatical year, not the year of jubilee, which was no longer celebrated.” Wieseler.—This passage shows how far and how far not, the Galatians had as yet been led astray. [Comp. Colossians 2:16. Alford is scarcely warranted in saying that this verse is at variance with any and every theory of the Christian Sabbath, since the reference is evidently to Jewish observances, Jewish days, etc. Wieseler supposes that they were then celebrating a Sabbatical year, because the present tense is used, but this is pressing it too far.—R.] Galatians 4:11. I am afraid respecting you.—Not superfluously has Paul added the ὑμᾶς, but in the consciousness that it is not his own interest (as for instance his having labored fruitlessly, in itself regarded), but the readers’ that his anxiety respects. Meyer.—Luther aptly says: Lacrimas Pauli hζc verba spirant [These words breathe the tears of Paul]. Galatians 4:12. Become as I.—The Apostle’s reprehension of their conduct naturally prepares the way for the admonition to a change of this. Yet he does little more than briefly indicate the exhortation, without continuing it, but goes on rather to make mention, with painful emotion, of his personal relation to the readers, as it had been and as it had now become.—The sense of the briefly expressed admonition is not quite evident: but probably=become like me in freedom from Judaistic observance; the motive to this is then added: For I also have become as ye are, like you Gentiles, through my ἐθνικῶσζῇν, comp. Galatians 2:14, and moreover the Apostle means, doubtless: when I brought you the gospel.—[Schmoller joins Brethren, I beseech you, with what follows, but the punctuation of the E. V. is better. The meaning of the first clause seems plain. In regard to the second, “two interpretations deserve to be considered: 1. ‘For I was once in bondage as ye now are.’ I once was a Jew, as ye now Judaize. 2. ‘For I abandoned my legal ground of righteousness, I became a Gentile like you.’ The latter sense is simpler grammatically, as it understands the same verb which occurs in the former clause, ‘because,’ not ‘was.’ It is also more in character with the intense personal feeling which pervades the passage. ‘I gave up all those time-honored customs, all those dear associations of race, to become like you. I have lived as a Gentile that I might preach to you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me, when I have abandoned all for you?’ This sense is well adapted both to the tender appeal ‘Brethren, I beseech you,’ and to the eager explanation which follows: ‘Ye did me no wrong’ ” (Lightfoot).—Ye injured me in nothing.—The emphasis does not rest, on me, a mere enclitic in the Greek, as if implying that they had injured God and Christ. As the verb is aorist like those which follow, it seems best to refer this to that time of his first preaching. In that case the meaning “I have no personal grounds of complaint” (adopted by many from Chrysostom to Lightfoot) is untenable. He begins with this clause to adduce their former treatment of him, as a reason for “becoming as he is.” The next clause is not strictly adversative.—R.] Galatians 4:13. Yea ye know that on account of infirmity of the flesh.—“The only correct, because the only grammatical explanation, is: On account of weakness of the flesh, so it appears from this, that Paul was necessitated, on his first journey through Galatia, to linger there, although properly it had not lain in his plan, and that he had during this compulsory sojourn preached the gospel to the Galatians. How and from what cause he was suffering, whether from natural sickness, or from injuries undergone for the gospel’s sake, we do not know. Paul does not, by the mention of a previously unintended activity among the Galatians, work against his purpose, but rather right in the line of his purpose, since the love which received him so heartily and joyfully, must have been so much the greater, the less it was founded on the duty of a thankfulness owing for a benefit previously intended for the receivers, and for efforts made strictly on their account” (Meyer);—or rather, perhaps; “the less he, considering the impediment of his bodily condition, could expect such a reception” (Wieseler). That is, we suppose, because, through his infirmity he was in many ways impeded in his public labors, because his preaching of the gospel was a variously marred, imperfect one. He means to say then, that he preached in a state of bodily weakness. But the words themselves are not to be so translated. [Wordsworth: “On account of the infirmity in his flesh and the consequent temptation to his hearers, he was naturally led—perhaps he was guided by the Holy Spirit—to shun in the first instance the more civilized population, of Asia and Europe, as to go rather to the despised Galilees of the world and then when his reputation was established, to proceed through Macedonia to Athens, and thence to Corinth and to Ephesus, and so finally to Rome.” But this learned author can scarcely be warranted in making this the implication in πρότερον, as he does, in order to deny a second visit to Galatia.—R.] Πρότερον apparently not=formerly, referring generally to time past viewed from the present; for the addition would then be entirely superfluous; but special=the first of two definite occasions. The second time of “preaching” is, however, not the present writing of the Epistle, for εὐαγγελίζω is invariably used of oral preaching; but there is a twofold presence of the Apostle among the Galatians presupposed, to the first of which the πρότερον refers. In fact, the book of Acts also mentions two visits of Paul in Galatia, Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23. “Paul therefore adds τὸπρότερον in order to designate with full distinctness the first visit, during which he founded the churches. At his second visit, also, the joyful experiences which he had had τὸπρότερον were not repeated; the churches were already infected with Judaism” (Meyer). Galatians 4:14. With the reading πειρασμὸνὑμῶν it appears best to set a period after ἐντῇσαρκίμου, and to connect the words with οἴδατε Galatians 4:13=you know how you, through my bodily infirmity, and the hampering of my evangelical activity in consequence of it, were put on proof=experienced the temptation to think unfavorably of me. Unquestionably the connection is somewhat difficult. But plainly the connection with what follows is wholly inadmissible, although Meyer accepts it=you have not despised your trial in my flesh. But what is meant by despising the trial, &c.? Who could understand it at all? Meyer himself has to alter the expression somewhat, so as to mean : contemptuously repel. And besides what would be signified by the climatic expression with two words: ἐξουθενήσατε and ἐξεπτύσατε. This, however, manifestly constitutes the antithesis to the strong affirmative expression ἀλλ̓ὡςἅγγελονκ. τ. λ. The one as well as the other therefore refers to himself. He praises this in them, that they did not reject and even spit out him, as there was room to apprehend, but—the exact opposite—received him as an angel, nay, as Christ. [The reading ὑμῶν must be adopted, but this by no means compels us to follow the punctuation and connection just indicated. Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot and most editors reject Lachmann’s punctuation, which makes the latter part of the verse intolerably harsh and abrupt, and does little to remove the difficulty of the former part. As Wordsworth intimates “the teacher’s infirmity is the people’s trial.” Paul’s infirmity, whatever it was, put them on trial, was the thing which tried them (πειρασμὸνὑμῶν), and yet they did not despise and loathe him on account of this infirmity, but received him, etc.—R.] Galatians 4:15. What was then [or where then is] the blessedness ye spake of? [The E. V. gives a sufficiently correct paraphrase, if ποῦ be read.—R.] Weiseler:= How highly blessed you pronounced yourselves, sc. that you were able to hear me? --Τίς=how great. Οὖν comes in somewhat abruptly, but is explained by the emotional character of the style. Paul transfers himself vividly into the time when they received him with such veneration, and exclaims: How was it then, what a boasting of blessedness then arose?—With that agrees, as a proof, what follows: For I bear you record.—Meyer: Of what character then was you boasting of blessedness?=how inconstant? More farfetched is the explanation: On what was your boasting of blessedness founded? Others supply ἐστί: What then is your boasting of blessedness?=it is nothing any longer; it is at an end, therefore somewhat in the sense of ποῦ But the following γάρ does not agree with this. That, if it had been possible, etc.—A proverbial mode of speech, derived from the high value and indispensableness of the eyes. Puerile is the explanation: Paul had an opthalmia, and says here, that the Gailatians, if it had been possible would have given him their sound eyes. [The E. V. “your own eyes,” giving an emphasis, unwarranted by the Greek, favors this theory of “opthalmia.” It is well defended by Dr. Brown, Horζ Subscecivζ, yet scarcely sustained by this passage.—R.] Galatians 4:16. So then, am I become your enemy.—A sharp antithesis. The simplest sense: Since you were so minded towards me, can I be afterwards regarded as your enemy only because I tell you the truth (instead of speaking according to your fancy). The sentence is introduced somewhat abruptly, or the inference implied in ἕστε is not so very obvious. It may be explained, however, from the emotional character of the language. The emphasis lies on “tell the truth;” but in the first instance “enemy” (ἐχθρός), as. constituting a contrast, must be made prominent; it therefore stands first, and by placing ἀληθεύωνὑμῖν at the end, this also is emphasized. The Apostle had already told the Galatians the truth, rebuking their errors and short-comings, before the writing of his Epistle (for this they had not seen as yet), at a second visit in person among them. [The present form of the E. V. seems against this, but the participle means “by telling the truth,” which of course admits of a part reference. Wordsworth renders “being true,” to avoid the admission of a second visit.—R. ] Galatians 4:17. They pay you court in no honest way.—[So Ellicott. Lightfoot: “As ζηλοῦν would seem to have one and the same sense throughout this passage, its more ordinary meanings with the accusative, as ‘to admire, emulate,’ must be discarded. It signifies rather ‘to busy one’s self about, take interest in,’ a sense which lies close to the original meaning of ζῆλος if correctly derived from ζέω.” So Schmoller liebeifern.—R.] “They also, it is true [sc. the false teachers; for we usually abstain from naming; those whose very names produce in us dislike and aversion (Calvin)] will fain have an affectionate zeal towards you, and contend for the possession of you: but in view of the truth, that, while they will bring you out of affectionate zeal, is worse than what you already have, we must say; they are zealous for you to no good.” Ewald.—They desire to exclude you,—first from me, and thus from the pure gospel to them and their teaching.—“Iva, (that) with the indicative present is certainly harsh; but Meyer’s interpretation is altogether too forced. He feels himself obliged on account of this harshness to take” iva=ubi, in quo statu; whereby, by which exclusion, when it has taken place, you, with your zeal are directed to them as objects of your interest. [The final sense of ἵνα, i.e., they do it for this purpose, is preferable; the indicative being regarded by Alford and Ellicott as a solecism, though Lightfoot remarks that this usage, while quite unclassical, is often found in later writers. Meyer, insists very strongly however upon the local sense.—R.] Galatians 4:18. But it is good to be courted in a good way at all times.—The “courting” of which they are the objects, he has been obliged to censure, and accordingly he adds (turning to the readers themselves): It is indeed good (καλόν) to be an object of the affectionate zeal of others, good to be zealously loved—but only in a good thing. It, is only good to be zealously loved in a good laudable cause, and for the sake of it, but not as now, on account of an evil cause, namely, apostacy from the truth. This thought Paul completes by the addition: At all times it is good to be loved for the sake of a good cause. But (he says) more accurately considered, it is only good, when one is zealously loved at all times, for the sake of a good cause, and not merely for a while, or at certain times, i. e., when one is always worthy of zealous love (for the sake of a good cause). This thought however, Paul does not leave thus general, but suddenly—disturbing the concinuity of the discourse, though quite in congruity with the emotion expressed in the language of this section—gives it a definite application—not only when I am present with you.—Then you showed yourselves worthy of love, but, alas, not now, when I am not with you.—Meyer and Wieseler understand the beginning of the sentence thus: good it is, that zeal is shown, etc.; and not so that the Galatians are understood as the objects of the zed, but so that the zeal ἐνκαλῷ is opposed to the zeal of the false teachers, which was ἐνκακῷ, But justice is not thus done to the passive infinitive. [This verse has caused much discussion. The following results seem clear: 1. That the verb ζηλοῦν is to retain the same meaning throughout. 2. That the last infinitive is passive, and the Galatians the object. But 3. the force of ἐνκαλῷ is doubtful. It may be (a) merely adverbial (Ellicott). “It is a good thing to be the object of courting in an honest way (as you are by me, though not by them) at all times, and not merely when I happen to be with you.” (b) It may indicate the sphere, in contrast with that of the false teachers (Alford). It is a good thing (for you) to be the objects of this zeal, in a good cause, at all times and by every body, not only when I am present with you. I do not grudge the court that is paid you. Only let them do it in an honorable cause, (c) Or the phrase may be pressed, as is done by Schmoller, to imply a contrast between their present and their former state. Lightfoot prefers a view similar to this, but, as he admits, it supplies too much. As (b) is entirely consistent with the requirements of 1, and 2, it seems preferable.—R.] [Many commentators (including Bengel, Wordsworth, Lightfoot) put a comma at the close of Gal 4:18, thus joining the next verse most closely with this section. There is a sufficient change of tone and thought to justify a full stop, but it seems doubtful whether a new section or paragraph should begin with Galatians 4:19. Most commentators, even those who separate Galatians 4:18-19, begin the new paragraph with Galatians 4:21; with more propriety apparently. Schmoller, however, joins Galatians 4:19 with Galatians 4:21, and divides the sections accordingly. While the matter is not of sufficient moment to warrant an alteration of his arrangement, the usual division presents the Apostle’s thought more satisfactorily. See Exeg. Notes on Galatians 4:19-20 in the next section.—R.] AND ETHICAL. 1. The characteristic of heathenism is, lack of the knowledge of God. A heathen was before his conversion an atheist (Ephesians 2:12). True they had a certain religiosity, but “Knowledge of God” is for Paul at least, a very definite positive idea, essentially distinct from that religiosity. What the heathen worship are by nature not gods.—A hint not to overvalue in an unscriptural manner the religious feeling of the heathen world, which manifested itself in idolatrous worship; also not to see in it too readily anything positive, a prophecy of the true knowledge of God, something only different from it in degree. Rather, it is something negative, a having lost the truth, or at most an echo of that truth which in its main substance is lost. For, according to Romans 1, the heathen also had indeed originally a knowledge of God, but this before they became heathen by their being servants to them which are by nature not gods; with the coming in of this servitude they lost the knowledge of God. Very different then was the standing of the Israelite from that of the heathen, i. e., although he was “in bondage under the rudiments of the world,” yes, “shut up under sin,” he was yet one “knowing God,” not “without God” (ἅθεος) in the world. 2. Confidence between teachers and hearers.—“There must be more depending on hearty confidence between teachers and hearers, than is commonly thought, because the Apostle so solicitously strives for it, and assures them he has not lost his affection for them, but is still mindful of their first love.” Rieger.—The preacher, it is true, is in the first place only the bearer and bringer of the divine word, and it is primarily this itself, which opens and wins hearts. The man, compared with the word which he brings, falls entirely into the background, as appears from the very declarations of Paul in this section. Had not the word which he brought, in itself won hearts, had not these conceived confidence in the word as such, for the sake of its contents, Paul himself would have found no access among them; for in his personal appearance, in view of the weakness of the flesh, with which he came, there was at least nothing captivating to the hearts of men.—But on the other hand, simultaneously with the receiving of the word, there is also formed a personal relation to the bringer of it; he is not a mere instrument, but a personality, and in his bringing of the word comes into consideration as such. A bond of confidence and love is knit between the hearer and the teacher; to him who brings what searches the heart in its inmost recesses, who proclaims to us the word of salvation and eternal life, our heart must also necessarily turn in love, if it has suffered the word to gain any hold of it whatever. And on the other hand the personal bond which is formed, will then in its turn have an essential influence in promoting the reception of the word and steadfastness in faith. The preacher may also, as Paul shows, expressly appeal to this personal relation, may and should value highly the love which he experiences, may—not indeed affect an injured tone when it is withdrawn from him, but may well, when the Church has in any way gone astray, use the personal relation that has been formed, as a motive in his admonitions. [3. Observance of days, etc. The scrupulous observance of “days and months and seasons and years,” is to the Apostle a token that his labor in the gospel has not resulted in appropriate effects. These things belong to “the weak and beggarly elements,” to which the Galatians were returning. That there is no allusion to the observance of the Lord’s Day is evident, for this cannot be classed among these “rudiments,” to which they desire to be again anew in bondage. It could not be classed among “heathen rudiments,” for they knew nothing of it; nor with “the bondage of the law,” for God’s Sabbatic law ante-dated the Mosaic law (comp. the fourth commandment, “Remember”). And whatever of legal bondage had been linked with the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was eliminated together with the change to the first day of the week. This at once removes the Lord’s Day from the category of “days” (Galatians 4:10), and also of “weak and beggarly elements” (Galatians 4:9). The mode of observance is learned from the Lord’s words: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,” which at the same time imply, when rightly understood, the perpetual necessity for a Sabbath.—R.] AND Gal_4:8. Cramer:—“To reflect often on our former miserable condition of heathenism, serves to move us to thanksgiving for the benefit received.” Luther:—There is a twofold knowledge of God, a common and a special. The common all men have by nature, in that they know that there is a God, who has made heaven and earth, &c. But how our Lord God is minded towards us, what He will give us and do for us, that we may be redeemed from sin and be saved, of that men know nothing. They know not what pleases or displeases God, and so adore, instead of the actual God, something that their own heart has dreamed out and feigningly devised, but which, in very truth, is naught.—[Brown:—In false religion in all its forms, nothing is more remarkable than its enslaving, degrading influence on the minds of its votaries.—R.] Galatians 4:9. Luther:—We are known of God, rather than we know Him. For what we do towards such knowledge is nothing else than to hold still, and let God occupy Himself with us, namely, by giving us His word, which we lay hold of through the faith which He also works in us, and thus to become God’s children.—We shall not fare better than the dear Apostles themselves fared, who in their lifetime had to see the congregations that had been built up through their office with much pains and labor, so sadly torn down, that for very pity their heart was ready to break.—It may easily and quickly happen, that one apostatize from the truth. For even Christians, who are in earnest as to sound doctrine, consider not sufficiently, how precious and most needful a treasure is the right and true knowledge of Christ. Besides there are exceeding few among those (hat hear the preaching of faith, that are tried by the holy cross and spiritual conflict, and that sometimes have with sin, death and devil a skirmish, but the greater part live on in all security, without all combat and strife. So long as they have sound teachers with them, they speak according to them; but when these their true teachers are away, and the wolves in sheeps’ clothing come creeping in, at once that takes place with them, which happened to the Galatians, namely, that they are soon and easily seduced and perverted.—When the foundation is destroyed, it is then all one, whether men turn themselves to the law, or to idols. Whoever falls from grace upon the law, has as hard a fall as he that falls from grace into heathenism, for out of Christ there, is nothing else than idolatry and a vain image of God.—“To the weak and beggarly rudiments.” When the law accomplishes its right and fitting work or office, it accuses and condemns men; then it is not a weak and beggarly element, but strong and rich, yea, it is an immeasurable, inviucible power and wealth, against which the conscience is indeed weak and poor.—It is most admirable that St. Paul speaks so contemptuously of the law. For he does it to this end, that they who will through the law be made righteous, may from day to day become still weaker and more beggarly. For they are of themselves weak and beggarly, i. e., by nature children of wrath and guilty of perdition, and lay hold then on that which also is nothing else than merely infirmity and beggary, whereby they will fain become strong and rich. Galatians 4:10. “Ye carefully observe days.” Here might some one say: If the good Galatians did so great a sin, in that they observed days, months, seasons, &c, how comes it then, that ye do not also sin, who yet do the like? Answer: in that we keep Sunday, Christmas, Easter, and the like days of solemnity or festivals, we do it with all freedom, we burden with such ceremonies no one’s conscience, nor teach, that men must needs keep them, in order to be thereby justified and saved, or to make satisfaction for sin. But on this account we keep them, that matters may go on in the church in good discipline and order, and that outward unity may not be sundered (for inwardly we have another unity). But the principal cause is this, that the ministry may remain in its full exercise, and that the people may have their certain appointed time, when they may come together, hear God’s word, and therefrom know God. Item, that they may take the sacrament, pray in common for all necessities of all Christendom, and may thank our dear Lord God for all His benefits. Berlenb. Bible:—In such things that is even against Christianity which is urged upon men over and above Christianity. He that can comprehend what mischief the evangelical spirit sufers from such patch work, has made great progress. Galatians 4:11. Heubner:—The teacher labors upon an uncertainty, knows not what he accomplishes, he sows upon hope. Galatians 4:12-20. Rieger:—As much depends on such earnest remonstrances for opening the hearers’ hearts, as on the most convincing arguments. Galatians 4:12. Spener:—A true pastor is sensitive in no particular, save in what is contrary to the honor of God, and the salvation of His flock.—Luther:—That he gives the Galatians so good words, is as much as to mix and temper the bitter wormwood drink so with honey and sugar that it may become sweet and pleasant. Even so do parents, when they have well flogged their children, give them good words, give them gingerbread, apples, pears, nuts and the like, that the children may take note and understand that their parents have at heart their good. Galatians 4:13-14. It may well be that human reason stumbles and starts back, when it beholds the slight, contemptible and weak nature of the dear Christians, wherein there is so much of suffering, yea, the world has ever counted all God’s servants for great fools, who will fain comfort, help and counsel others, item, inasmuch as they boast of so great heavenly possessions and treasures, of righteousness, power, strength, victory over sin, death and all evil, of everlasting joy, &c., and are yet the poorest beggars, and moreover weak, troubled and despised.—Starke:—True servants of the gospel are angels of God, as having the name of messengers and heralds of the divine will, even as also the invisible and heavenly spirits bear the name of angels from a like office.—Lange:—If teachers wish to be looked on as angels of God, and in a certain sense as Christ Himself, they must also approve themselves as good angels, and not as Satan’s angels and servants, and discharge their office with such purity, as they have Paul for an example.—[Burkitt:—It is an high commendation to a people, when neither poverty nor deformity, nor any deficiency, which may render a minister of the gospel base and contemptible in the estimation of the world, can possibly diminish any thing of that respect which they know to be due and payable unto him.—R.] Galatians 4:15. Heubner:—Let the apostate reflect, when the was happiest, how blessed he was before he fell.—Berlenb. Bib.:—As indeed we are owing more than the eyes of the body, to those that have opened to us the eyes of the soul.—Hedinger:—A beautiful proof of faith, to love those from the heart, that plant faith within us! O the horror, that some would gladly tear out tongue and eyes from those that teach us the word of the kingdom of heaven!—Cramer:—It is everywhere the same, that new preachers are welcome, and soon get followers and a great concourse. While the sign is new, it is hung against the wall; but when it is old, it is thrown under the bench.—[Brown:—When the gospel is remarkably successful, the danger is not of converts not being sufficiently attached, but of their being inordinately attached, to the minister who has been the instrument of conveying to them so great a benefit. The being greatly applauded, is scarcely any proof that a minister has been successful; the being highly esteemed and cordially loved, is a considerably strong presumption that he has; the being regarded with indifference and dislike, is a clear proof that he has not.—R.] Galatians 4:16. Heubner:—Him who tells us the truth, we ought to count for our true and best friend.—Luther:—In the world matters go altogether strangely and against reason, namely, he that speaks truth becomes an unwelcome guest, yea, is counted for an enemy; but this is not so among good friends, and still less among Christians.—Starke:—He that bates any one, because he tells him the truth, such an one betrays himself very clearly as no child of God. Galatians 4:17. Luther:—This is the way of all false spirits, to put on a friendly behavior, and give people the best words, so as to get a hold. When they first come creeping in, they swear most fervently, that they seek nothing else than alone how they may further God’s honor and men’s salvation; they promise to those that receive their teaching, that they shall certainly be saved. And with such assumed appearance of godliness and sheep’s clothing, the ravening wolves do immensely great harm to the Christian church, where pastors are not active and vigilant and earnest to withstand them.—Rieger:—Great pains given to any thing, great certainty assumed concerning it, is indeed something very taking to men’s minds; but zeal alone gives no certain proof of truth. The doctrine is not to be judged according to the zeal, but the zeal according to the doctrine. The zeal does not make the cause good, but the cause must make the zeal good.—[Bunyan:—Zeal without knowledge is like a mettled horse without eyes or like a sword in a madman’s hands.—Riccaltoun:—In reading the history of the church it is hard to say whether what has gone, and still goes under the name of zeal, has done more good or hurt to religion.—Burkitt:—The old practice has ever been amongst seducers, first to alienate the people’s minds from their own teachers, and next get themselves looked upon as alone, and only worthy to have room in the people’s hearts.—R.] Galatians 4:18. Starke:—Zeal for good must be enduring.—This is a human feeling, which exists in many, even pious souls. They are zealous in good, when faithful teachers are present, but when they are absent, or it may be dead, they : slacken in their zeal. Footnotes: 1 Gal 4:8.—[The idea of servitude rather than service is more accordant with the connection of thought.—R.] Galatians 4:8.—Lachmann, Tischendorf read τοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσιθεοῖς, instead of τοῖςμὴφύσειοὖσιθεοῖς. Rec. [The former reading is that of ΰ. A, B, C, and modern editors generally.—R.] Galatians 4:9.—[The tense here is the same as in the preceding clause, and the translation must conform.—R.] Galatians 4:9.—[The construction is like Galatians 2:14.—The rendering above given retains the force of the present: ye are in process of turning.—R.] Galatians 4:12.—[Τἰνεσθε—“become.” In the next clause the same verb is to be supplied. The better division of verses would join the last clause with Galatians 4:13, as the better pointing transposes the period and colon.—R.] Galatians 4:13.—[This rendering of διʼ ? ἀσθένειαν may now be considered as established.—R.] Galatians 4:14.—The reading τὸνπειρ.ὑμῶνἐντῆσαρκίμου is followed. So ΰ [1A. B. D.1 F., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Bagge, Ellicott, Alford, Wordsworth, Lightfoot.—R.] Rec. reads τὸνπειρ. μουτὸνέντῆσαρκίμου; its, sense is: You have not despised my bodily temptation=me on account of my sickness, by which I was tempted of God. But M.S. authority is strongest for ὑμῶν. Evidently this was not understood, and the Recepta is a conjectural emendation, based on a false interpretation. Πειρασμόν was understood as calamitas, as an infirmity in the body of Paul himself, because in Galatians 4:13 this is spoken of; and so ὑμῶν had either to be entirely erased, or replaced by μου; and τόυ added to connect ἐνσαρκίμου with πειρασμόν. On the sense of the approved reading, see Exeg. Notes. [Schmoller follows Lachmann’s punctuation, which puts a full stop after σαρκίμου, but this is objectionable, and not adopted by later editors. It is better to put a comma only after “rejected.”—R.] Galatians 4:15.—There are three readings: 1) The Recepta, τίςοὖνἧνὁμακαρισμὸςὑμῶν. 2) The same, only without ἧν. 3) Ποῦοὗνὁμακαρ.ὑμῶν without ἦν which gives no sense with ποῦ. The last reading is well supported, and found in ΰ., but seems to be a very old gloss; for a change of ποῦ into the more difficult τίς cannot readily be explained. Of the two others, 2) seems preferable, though we cannot definitely decide, [Ποῦ is adopted by Tischendorf. Alford, Wordsworth, Lightfoot; τίς, without ἧν by Ellicott. If we adopt 1) or 2), the E. V. must be altered: “What then was”—i. e. of what kind was, etc.—R.] Galatians 4:15.—[“Own” is not warranted by the simple τοὺςὀφθαλμοὺςύμῶν.—R.] Galatians 4:17.—[On the alterations, Galatians 4:17-18, see Exeg. Notes. Ellicott’s translation has been adopted only in part.—R.] Galatians 4:17.—Ἡμᾶς [instead of ὑμᾶς.—R.] is an unnecessary conjecture [of Beza’s]. Galatians 4:18.—The reading ζηλοῦσθε is an unnecessary conjecture in all probability, though found in ΰ. B. [Rejected by all editors of importance. Meyer, Ellicott, Wordsworth, read τὸζηλοῦσθαι; Lachmann, Alford, Lightfoot omit the article. It probably disappeared with the incorrect reading of the verb in some MSS.—R.] D. Confirmation of the freedom of Christians, from the narrative of the Scripture concerning the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, by means of an interpretation referring it to the Jewish and the Christian Church Galatians 4:19—30(Galatians 4:21-31. The Epistle for the 4th Sunday in Lent.) 19My little children of whom I travail in birth again [with whom I am again in 20travail] until Christ be formed in you, I desire [I could wish indeed] to be present with you now, and to change my voice [tone]; for I stand in doubt of you 21 [am perplexed about you]. Tell me ye that desire to be under the Jaw, do ye not hear the law? 22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman [one by the bondmaid, and one by the free woman 23]. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise [through the promise]. 24Which things are an allegory [are allegorical]: for these are the [omit the] two covenants; the one from the [omit the] mount Sinai, which gendereth to [bearing children unto] bondage, which is Agar [Hagar]. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia [(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia), or For the word Agar means in Arabia mount Sinai; or For this Hagar represents mount Sinai in Arabia], and answereth to [she ranks with] Jerusalem which now is [the present Jerusalem], and is [for she is] in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all [and she is our mother]. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children [many are the children of the desolate more] 28than she which [who] hath a husband. Now we [But ye], brethren, as Isaac was, 29are the [omit the] children of promise. But [still] as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir [shall in no wise be heir] with the son of the free woman. AND Gal_4:19. My little children.—[Lightfoot: “A mode of address common in St. John, but not found elsewhere in St. Paul. Here the diminutive expresses both the tenderness of the Apostle and the feebleness of his converts. It is a term at once of affection and rebuke.”—R.] It is more natural to make a break here (the very suddenness of the appeal implies this) and to join “my little children” with “tell me” (Galatians 4:21). It cannot at all events be connected with the preceding context, but the connection with Galatians 4:20 is only possible on the assumption of an interruption of the discourse (comp, δέ). [The presence of δέ in Galatians 4:20 is urged as a reason for connecting our verse very closely with Galatians 4:18, as is done by many commentators. The course of the thought would then be: “I have a right to ask for constancy in your affections. I have a greater claim on you than these new teachers. They speak but as strangers to strangers; I as a mother to her children with whom she has travailed” (Lightfoot). But there is something so sudden in the address, that it is better to separate the verses (so Meyer, Alford, Ellicott).—R.] On the other hand the contents of Gal 4:20 fit very well into the discourse as a parenthetical remark. In the “am again in travail” the wish presses itself upon him, rather to be present with them—and this he then expresses—before going on, in Galatians 4:21, to attempt to change the minds of his readers, as being his children, and to bring them back. It is true “tell me,” after this interruption, does not connect immediately with Galatians 4:19; the “little children” receives a particular definition in “ye that desire to be under the law,” but this only indicates how far a travailing again is necessary, in order to prepare for a continuance of this ὠδίνειν through the following exposition, as indeed all that precedes had been nothing else than such a travail. [This view of the connection of the passage is open to serious objection. Two vocatives are joined together, which are separated both in position and in tone. Galatians 4:20 which contains the wish to be present is sundered from Galatians 4:18, where the thought of his presence is introduced. The idea of travailing is joined to a passage of argument by illustration, and separated from the more personal part of the discourse. If there be a difficulty about. δέ (Galatians 4:20) as introducing an “opposition,” and hence a parenthesis be deemed necessary, this “opposition” may be found (Meyer) “in the tacit contrast between the subject of his wish to be present with them, and his actual absence and separation.” It seems best then to connect Galatians 4:19-20 together—detaching them as a burst of tenderness from both the preceding and subsequent context, though joined in thought more closely with the I former.—R.] With whom I am again in travail.—i. e., the second time.—The labor of his spirit on the hearts of the readers he here compares with the travail of a mother (elsewhere with the begetting of the father), in which the point of comparison I is the activity directed to the coming of a child into the world; with the mother—of a natural child; here with the Apostle—of a spiritual child. This image is continued with the expression until Christ be formed in you.—It is a ripe, completely developed child that is in contemplation=in which the life has come to perfect manifestation. Such a child, and only such a one, renders a mother’s pangs of labor effectual, for only such a child lives, and therefore only in such a one has she a child. So long as the birth is not that of a perfect child, so long must she ever look forward to new pangs of labor, before she can have this, her wish granted. [Ellicott: “The idea is not so much of the pain, as of the long and continuous effort of the travail.”—R.]—With justice therefore is the complete formation of the child represented as the aim of the labor, and there is here nothing like an inversion of the physiological process, in which the formatio takes place ante partum. This is not here the point in question. The natural child is completely developed, in that the natural life, as it were the spirit of life, comes in it to perfect manifestion, gains an actual, corresponding form. What this natural spirit of life is in the natural child, Christ is in the spiritual child, as the principle of spiritual life, and hence the expression of the Apostle: Christ is μορφωθῆναι in them=the inward principle is to come with them to manifestation to gain a form in an established, assured, evangelical conviction of faith; only when this takes place, has Paul as spiritual mother actually a spiritual child. But since this is wanting, as is shown by their apostacy, he is therefore now bearing them once again, in the hope that this perfect formation may come to pass. (If it had not, he would have needed to travail in birth still again, but here, as is natural, he only speaks of a second travail.) That in nature a completely developed child is not hoped for from a second bearing of the same child, is a self-evident incongruity between the fact and the image, but it answers the purpose that the activity is the same—in both cases there is a travail of birth.—Wieseler incorrectly finds in πάλινὠδίνειν the doctrinal conception of the new birth, and takes πάλιν therefore as antithetical to the natural birth. In the first place the Apostle’s lamentation over the alteration that had taken place in the readers, brings almost necessarily to our thoughts the probability of a renewed activity among them; and secondly he could well designate the labor bestowed by him upon the Galatians as a bearing of spiritual children, but not as a regeneration in the doctrinal sense, for this appertains to God alone. Paul’s travailing in birth with them, it is true, had as its end, their becoming regenerate children of God, but the one is not therefore to be identified with the other. Galatians 4:20. I could wish indeed to be present with you.—[This rendering, though not literal, brings out the force of the passage, and the “tacit contrast” in δέ. See above.—&.]—And to change my tone.—This, in its immediate connection with a wish to be present with them, appears to signify: I should be glad to give my language such a form as suits with oral intercourse; from the written style, with its more formal, unpliable character, less suited to make an impression on the heart, I should be glad to pass over into oral discourse. But φωνὴνἀλλάξαι does not on this account mean: to interchange discourse with any one=to converse together, as Wieseler singularly assumes. Why he should like to be with them, and to vary his discourse, he then expressly declares: For I am perplexed about you.—Ἐν, the perplexity has its ground chiefly in them, in their state of mind. He knows not with what arguments he can find access to them and dispose them to a return. Therefore he thinks now he could more easily accomplish something by oral discourse with them. Meyer understands φωνὴνἀλλάσσειν of a wish of Paul, instead of the rigorous tone used in his last visit, to essay a milder tone. But this is far from evident.—Rieger justly remarks that in a certain sense Paul does immediately after in Galatians 4:21 what he wishes in Galatians 4:20, namely, varies the form of his language, and speaks as if he were present with them: λέγετέμοικ. τ. λ. [For the various interpretations of the phrase “change my voice” see Meyer in loco. The view given above seems tame, but the reference to the tone during his second visit is doubtful. So also the interpretation: “to modify my language from time to time as occasion demands.” Certainly it is improper to think of a desire to change his tone to a more severe one (in contrast with the mild τεκνία). On the whole it seems best to conclude 1) that the desired change was from the severe to the milder address; 2) that the severe tone referred to is that of the present Epistle (so Ellicott and many others).—R.] Galatians 4:21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?—“Hear” is hardly to be taken precisely as implying that the law was publicly read by the pseudo-apostles among them, but generally: Do you not give heed to what is written in the Law? The second time νόμος, according to the Jewish use of ϊεֹ ?ψָ ?δ= the Pentateuch. From the law itself, on which you lay so much stress, you might discover that you are not, and are not meant to be under the law. [Meyer:—“At the close of the theoretical part of his Epistle, Paul now appends a very peculiar allegoric argument from the law itself, intended to destroy the influence of the false Apostles with their own weapons, and to root it up out of its own proper soil.”—R.] Galatians 4:22. For it is written.—Γάρ=I must inquire: do ye not hear the Law; for if you really heard the law, you would find in it that which might convince you how unsound and dangerous it is to “desire to be under the law.” That to which Paul refers the Galatians, as being found in the law, is the narrative in Genesis, of the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, the one by the bondmaid, Hagar, and the other by the free woman, Sarah. As is known, he had Ishmael first, and he is therefore mentioned first. They were therefore indeed both Abraham’s sons, but they had not merely different mothers, but mothers also of entirely different conditions; the one was the son of a bondmaid, the other of a free woman. Galatians 4:23. Yet even with that they might have been begotten in like manner, but (ἀλλά) this was far from being the case, the son of the bondmaid was begotten after the flesh, and the son of the free woman through the promise.—Κατὰσάρκα = entirely in the ordinary way of natural generation, of carnal intercourse; διὰτῆςἐπαγγελίας = formally also, it is true, in this way, but materially (by the side of which the other is a vanishing factor), by virtue of the divine promise, which Abraham had received, inasmuch as God in a miraculous manner, restored the long-lost capacity of Sarah to conceive, so that in truth the efficient factor was God. [The preposition διά denoting the causa medians (Ellicott).—R.] Galatians 4:24. Which things are allegorical, ἅτινάἐστινἀλληγορούμενα.—Paul thus introduces his interpretation of the narrative which he quotes. He states what the Galatians might learn from it. [Ellicott has a valuable note on the distinction between ὅς and ὅστις. His view of ἅτινα is thus expressed: “all which things viewed in their most general light.” This wider meaning will guard against the assumption that the narrative itself was a mere allegory and not historical.—R.]—Ἀλληγορεῖν = ἄλλοἀγορεύειν: to say something else than is expressed by the letter, to say something in figures; passively: to have a tropical sense, ἀλληγορούμενονεἶναι = to be something that has such a sense. That Paul understands what is related in Genesis of Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, etc., as history also, needs I no proof: but undoubtedly at the same time he sees in the history an intimation of something else, something higher, than the simple history relates. In what sense, see below, in the Doctrinal Notes. [The precise meaning of ἀλληγορεῖν must be noted. It may be made to cover the thought: to be treated as having an allegorical sense, but here we must insist on the more definite and strict meaning: to have an allegorical sense. “Which things viewed in their most general light have an allegorical meaning;” this interpretation will guard against the assumptions and errors which are based upon a looser view. See Doctrinal Notes.—R.] To what the history points is then stated: for these are two covenants.—Αὐται seems not to refer immediately, i. e., grammatically, to the women, but, according to ordinary Greek usage, to stand for ταῦτα; it would be somewhat different if in Galatians 4:23 the women were the subjects. Substantially no doubt it refers to the two women, in whom he sees types of the two covenants—not however in the twofold marriage covenant of Abraham with Hagar and Sarah (as Jatho assumes, who, in order to sustain this view, is obliged to give an exceedingly forced interpretation of “which is Agar”). It is peculiar, and renders the understanding of this passage somewhat difficult, that Paul, in the first place, designates the women and not the sons themselves as symbols, more particularly as prophetic symbols of the two covenants; and in the second place, it even more perplexes the matter, that he finds in them the two covenants == of God with men, which were typified or prophesied (that is, in general, the Old and the New Covenant), and takes these themselves as mothers, and then from these first passes over to the two diverse churches, whose motherhood appears more clearly when viewed in connection with their members. Of course, however, the covenants stand in intimate relation to the churches; it is not only they that confer on them their peculiar character, but also that properly constitute them; without the covenants the churches would not exist.—The one from Mount Sinai, etc.—A pregnant expression = the first covenant is that which originates from mount Sinai and bears unto bondage. Γεννῶσα, feminine, because it corresponds to the mother Hagar. The expression εἰςδουλείανγεννῶσα is itself to be supplemented so that it=bearing, sc. children, as it were into bondage = and translating them into bondage, of course by subjection to the law, for the covenant from Sinai is the covenant of law.—Which is Hagar.—This is = this covenant is typified by Hagar, for she too as “bondmaid” bore children “unto bondage.” This is of course primarily the ground why he compares the Sinaitic covenant with Hagar; of both alike the bearing children unto bondage” was an attribute. But this abrupt assertion: the Sinaitic covenant is Hagar, or, Hagar signifies the Sinaitic covenant, because it as well as she “bore unto bondage,” is of itself too bold and startling, and Paul therefore in a parenthesis intimates that Sinai and Hagar, far apart as they might seem to be, yet even independently of this “bearing,” stand of themselves related to one another. Galatians 4:25. The words setting forth this relation are, according to one reading: τὸγὰρΣινᾶὄροςἐσὶνἐντῇἈραβίᾳ: according to the other: τὸδὲ [or γάρͅ ?] ἌγαρΣινᾶὄρος, &c. Accepting the first reading, Paul points to the fact that Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia—that therefore the Sinaitic covenant has one home with Hagar, and so far a relation to her. Both originate from Arabia—are not at home in the Holy Land; while yet they both came in near relation to the people of God; Hagar to Abraham, bearing him a son; the Sinaitic covenant to Abraham’s posterity, raising up children to this; for Israel by the Sinaitic covenant first became an organized theocratic people, possessing the principle of self-preservation and hereditary continuance.—Accepting the reading: τὸδὲἌγαρ, κ. τ. λ. in which δέ is exceedingly well suited to introduce an elucidation, which indeed it properly is, rather than a demonstration [γάρ being however the more probable reading, on critical grounds, see critical note.—R.], the Apostle points out that even as to name there exists a relation between Hagar and the Sinaitic covenant,—that it is not therefore so arbitrary as might seem on his part, to interpret the former as a type of the latter; for that among the Arabians, Mount Sinai has just this name of Hagar, and that—as Paul undoubtedly assumes—after Hagar. It is true we have no other proof of Sinai’s having this appellation, and it would have to be assumed that Paul had learned, perhaps from his sojourn in Arabia, that Sinai bore this name also among the Arabs, which he referred back to Hagar. It is certainly probable, that the Arabs named Sinai Ἄγαρ; for this is = Rock, and so corresponds precisely to the character of this mountain chain, and probably also to the signification of the ancient name “Sinai” itself, which etymology renders by “Rock.”—Paul would then, only err in the reference of this name Ἄγαρ to the Hagar of the Old Testament, but at all events the name would be the same, and this, in the first instance would be the main thing. Yet this circumstance will always make this reading suspicious. [In addition to these interpretations, which may be distinguished as I., II., another (III.) must be considered, viz., that of Calvin, Beza, Estius, Wordsworth (and Lightfoot, if the correctness of the Recepta be established): “For this Hagar (is) represents Mount Sinai in Arabia.”—I. is comparatively free from grammatical difficulty, forming a parenthesis, which introduces a geographical remark, the point of which is obvious, though on the whole it seems much tamer than the other views. Besides the critical grounds for preferring the longer reading (not the least strong being this absence of grammatical difficulties), it may be objected 1. That since a mere geographical remark would be unnecessary, the emphasis must lie on ἐντῇἈραβ.; but to convey such an emphasis, the Greek order should be ἐντῇἈρ. ἐστίν (Alford). 2. Meyer intimates that this view must press as the essential point, the fact that the mountain was “outside of the land of Canaan,” and yet this essential point is only implied. Still there is not much force in this objection, since the positive statement “is in Arabia,” the land of bondsmen, is after all the main thought, the other being a negative antitheses, that may well be omitted.—II. is adopted by Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, and many older commentators (Chrysostom, Luther, et al). This may be called the etymological view. Here the grammatical difficulties are not great, for it may readily be conceded, that τὸἌγαρ means “the word Agar,” ἐστίν, “means”—and ἐντῇΑρ. either “among the Arabians” or “in the Arabian (supply διαλέκτῳ) dialect,” and the objection that “the word Agar” cannot properly be the subject of συστοιχεῖ is met by putting a semicolon at the end of this clause, or throwing it into a parenthesis. The real difficulties are far graGal Galatians 4:1. It is extremely doubtful whether “Agar” did mean “in Arabia, Mount Sinai.” The testimony of travellers is not strong, that of philology even less so. Granting that the Arabic word for “rock” is similar in sound, we are far from settling the question of identity of name. 2. “If in writing to a half-Greek, half-Celtic people, he ventured to argue from an Arabic word at all, he would at all events be careful to make his drift intelligible” (“Lightfoot). Was it likely to be intelligible to them, when in these days of philological and geographical research, this interpretation is still doubtful? 3. The argument or illustration seems fanciful when resting on this identity of name, especially as Hagar had a meaning in Hebrew, and Sarah also, which meanings could well have been used here, were it a question of names.—III. “For this Hagar represents,” etc. This may be called the typical or allegorical interpretation, and for that very reason more likely to be correct in this connection. It avoids the objections against I. on the score of emphasis, and tameness; with II. follows the reading which seams more correct, but avoids the fanciful and doubtful features of that view. Meyer considers the neuter article an insuperable objection. But this may be met 1) as is done by Wordsworth, by joining the article with Σινᾶὄρος not with Ἄγαρ. He contends that this is allowable and that no other order was admissible. Still this seems unnatural. Or 2) by understanding τὸἌγαρ, “the thing Hagar,” not the woman, for Galatians 4:24 passes over into allegory, but the allegorical Hagar,—her position as set forth in Galatians 4:24. This is less objectionable. As this is the only real difficulty (ἐστίν, “represents,” is of course admissible), we may adopt III. as perhaps the safest view, seemingly that of E. V. As regards punctuation, a comma then suffices after this clause, and Ἄγαρ is the grammatical subject of συστοιχεῖ.—R.] Ranks with.—Συστοιχεῖδέ might be connected with ἤτις (Galatians 4:24) or back of that with μία, sc. διαθήκη. [So De Wette, Lightfoot.—R.] “For she is in bondage” is given as the proof of “ranks with,” and this evidently refers to “bearing children unto bondage” (Galatians 4:24). The covenant “bearing children unto bondage” “ranks with the present Jerusalem, for she is in bondage with her children.” Συστοιχεῖν, to stand in one row with something else, to belong to the same species, to belong together with anything. The Sinaitic covenant, says Paul, and the present Jerusalem, although separated in time and place, yet belong essentially together; the former brought into “bondage,” the latter is in that very bondage. The object is to show that an internal relation exists between the Sinaitic covenant and the present Jerusalem. [This is certainly preferable to the view of Chrysostom and most of the Fathers, Luther et al., which takes Σινᾶ as the subject, and renders the verb either “is contiguous to” or “joined in a continuous (mountain) range” with Jerusalem. The thought is irrelevant, and we should then have Mt. Zion, rather than Jerusalem, following the verb. Lightfoot thus shows the exact meaning of the verb: “In military language συστοιχία denotes a, file, as συζυγία does a rank of soldiers; comp. Polyb. X. 21, 7. The allegory of the text may be represented by συστοιχίαι thus: Hagar, the bond woman. Ishmael. the child after the flesh. The Old Covenant. The earthly Jerusalem, etc. Sarah, the free woman. Isaac, the child of promise. The New Covenant. The heavenly Jerusalem, etc.” Accepting this meaning, it is necessary to take exception to embracing the idea of type in the word. Those in each list are σύστοιχοι with each other, but ἀντίστοιχοι to those in the opposite list.—R.]—It seems however more accordant with the context to make Ἄγαρ (Galatians 4:25) the subject. For Hagar is a type of the present Jerusalem, “ranks with”—stands in the same row with it, or better, fits as a type to the antitype [?] Moreover Hagar was “in bondage with her children, just as the present Jerusalem.” Besides in this connection there is significant reference to the fact that “the present Jerusalem” corresponds to Hagar alone—and not to Sarah: the special proof of which is, what is affirmed of “the present Jerusalem,” viz.: “for she is in bondage with her children.” [So that not only the proximity of the word Ἄγαρ, but the closer correspondence also, supports the view that “Hagar” is the logical subject of the verb. See Meyer.—R.] The present Jerusalem.—Jerusalem represents here as it always did in the Old Testament, the Jewish people; but this as a collective personality, and moreover a maternal one, the individual members of the people being viewed as children of this mother. ἩνῦνἹερουσ. is the present Jerusalem in contrast with the μελλ. Ἱερουσ. as it shall become through the Messiah, i. e., through faith in Him, the Jerusalem, which has not, and so long as it has not, received the Messiah. “The present Jerusalem” meaning thus the historical Israel, the Jewish people, its children are of course “born after the flesh” and Paul presupposes this as self-evident.—Is in bondage.—This cannot apply to the yoke of the Romans, for this has nothing at all to do with the Sinaitic covenant, but applies to the being in bondage under the Mosaic law. A state of bondage in this sense Paul predicates of the existing Jewish church without further proof, as something which the readers after the preceding exposition of the nature of the law (comp. Galatians 3:23; Galatians 4:3-7), must concede, and indeed that the Jews were strenuous observers of the law was a matter beyond doubt. Galatians 4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free.—Paul does not continue the course of thought begun in Galatians 4:24 with “for these are two covenants.” He names the first covenant only, not the second one also, but to make the contrast more palpable, opposes at once to the present Jerusalem, which is in bondage, another Jerusalem which is free. Now the present Jerusalem is in a condition of bondage because the first covenant, which is a covenant of bondage, came in her to manifestation. So the freedom, of the other Jerusalem would have its ground also in the character of the Second covenant, which comes into manifestation in her, and we have a right to find implied a second covenant bearing children unto freedom, which is typified prophetically by Sarah, just as the covenant of bondage by Hagar. If we inquire what this second covenant is, according to the previous context, the answer cannot be doubtful; over against the covenant of law stands a covenant of grace or promise. Wieseler’s parallelism goes too far, where he wishes to supply: δευτέραδὲ (διαθήκη) ἀπὸὄρουςΣιὼν, εἰςἐλευθερίανγεννῶσα, ἥτιςἐστὶΣάῤῥα. τὸγὰρΣιὼν, εἰνὄροςἐστὶνἐντῇγῇτῆςἐπαγγελίας, συστοιχεῖδὲτῇἄνωἹερουσαλήμ. ἐλευθέρηγάρἐστιμετὰτῶντέκνωναὐτῆς. [“The second covenant from Mount Zion, bearing children unto freedom, which is Sarah. For Zion is a mountain in the land of promise, and ranks with Jerusalem above, for she is free with her children.” This follows from his view of Gal 4:25, and is objectionable besides for the reason that it forces an allegory beyond the point to which it has been carried by the Apostle himself.—R.] Somewhat too definite also is Meyer’s view: The other covenant is the one established in Christ (see afterwards on ἡἄνωἹερουσαλήμ). Paul has not waited till now to give the proof that the covenant of grace is a covenant of promise, and that on this account Jerusalem above is also free. This is in part clear from what precedes and in part results from the nature of the case, since a covenant of promise given of grace, because it has nothing to do with any law, can have no connection with “bondage” either. In addition he now demonstrates to the Galatians this only, that they are children of that Jerusalem which is free, and that therefore it would be preposterous for them to wish to be under the law. “Free” of course =not being under the law. The main question is, what ἡἄνωἹερουσ. signifies. “Jerusalem” here also means a church taken as a collective personality, her individual members being conceived as her children. But ἡἄνωἹερουσ. is of course not the “ancient” Jerusalem, the Salem of Melchisedek, nor yet the mountain of Zion, which in Josephus is called ἡἄνωπόλις. [Lightfoot: “The Apostle instinctively prefers the Hebrew form Ἱερουσαλὴμ here for the typical city, as elsewhere in this Epistle (Galatians 1:17-18; Galatians 2:1) he employs the Grζcised form Ἱερόσόλυμα for the actual city. ‘Ἱερουσαλὴμ est appellatio Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: Ιεροσόλυμα, deinceps obvia, Grζca, magis politico,’ says Bengel on Revelation 21:2, accounting for the usage of St. John (in the Gospel the latter; in the Apocalypse the former), and referring to this passage in illustration.”—R.] On the other hand Luther is right in his decided protest against the reference to the ecclesia triumphans, for the Christians of this world are here designated by Paul as children of this ἄνωἹερουσαλήμ. (Only so much is correct, that with the παρουσία it is no other than this very ἄνωἹερουσ. that comes to perfection, so that the Church after the παρουσία is essentially identical with that before it. But the eye is not at all directed here to the παρουσία; and the very reason why the expression ἡμέλλουσαἹερουσ. is not chosen is, that after Christ had appeared upon earth this must be referred to the παρουσἱα. Wieseler is therefore also incorrect in asserting not only that the church of the perfected is meant, but in insisting as he does that these are expressly comprehended.)—But ἡἄνωἹερουσ. must at all events signify a Jerusalem that is above, an upper Jerusalem, and this “above” can only refer to Heaven. Here again Luther has a right understanding of it, in the main point at all events, when he remarks that this “above” is to be understood not of place but of character: “when St. Paul speaks of a Jerusalem above and the other here below upon earth, he means that the one Jerusalem is spiritual, but the other earthly. For there is a great distinction between spiritual and corporeal or earthly things. What is spiritual, that is above, but what is earthly, that is here below. Therefore says he then, that the spiritual Jerusalem is above, not that in respect to space or place it is higher than the earthly here below, but in that it is spiritual.” The upper Jerusalem would therefore = the spiritual Jerusalem. This explanation, it is true, does not appear to do full justice to the material idea “above,” but it leads in. the right direction for this, and needs only to be completed by including also the conception of space which is contained in ἄνω. That is, ἡἄνωἹερουσ. is not= the Jerusalem that is localiter, externally situated above (this is refuted by Luther), but the Jerusalem, that as to its essential character is an upper, heavenly one, and therefore neither originates from earth nor belongs to earth, but originates from Heaven and belongs to Heaven, lot it be situated where it may, of which nothing is expressly said. (In reality Luther also means this and nothing else by his spiritual Jerusalem, and his explanation, therefore, only apparently incurs the reproach of spiritualizing.) Whether the expression is immediately founded upon the rabbinical doctrine of the ιψεּ ?ωׁ ?μινωׁ ?μξςμδ “which according to Jewish teaching is the archetype existing in Heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and at the establishment of the Messianic kingdom will be let down from Heaven to earth, in order, as the earthly Jerusalem is the central point and the capital of the old theocracy, to be the same for the Messianic theocracy” (Meyer), cannot be affirmed with certainty; that Paul did not share the crude and sensuous rabbinical conceptions of this heavenly Jerusalem, but had a scripturally purified idea of it, is in any case clear; so that from the Jewish schools he only derives the expression rather than the substance of the idea. At the most he had only the fundamental conception, which was then essentially modified. [Lightfoot: “With them,” i. e., the rabbinical teachers, “it is an actual city, the exact counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem in its topography and furniture: with him it is a symbol or image, representing that spiritual city of which the Christian is even now a denizen (Philippians 3:20). The contrast between the two scene?, as they appeared to the eye, would enhance, if it did not suggest the imagery of St. Paul here. On the one hand, Mount Zion, of old the joy of the whole earth, now more beautiful than ever in the fresh glories of the Herodian renaissance, glittering in gold and marble; on the other, Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren sides, bleak and desolate, the oppressive power of which the Apostle himself had felt during his sojourn there—these scenes fitly represented the contrast between the glorious hopes of the new covenant and the blank despair of the old. Comp. Hebrews 12:18-22.”—R.] And she is our mother.—If we seek to define still more distinctly the idea of the ἄνωἹερουσ., we shall find that here also Luther had the right sense of it, when he peremptorily declares, and in opposition to the transcendental fantasies, which overlooked the actually operative heavenly forces in the word and sacraments, so strongly insists that: “the heavenly Jerusalem, which is above, is nothing else than the dear church or Christendom, that arc in the whole world here and there dispersed, who all together have one gospel, one manner of faith in Christ, one Holy Ghost, and one manner of sacrament.” Only here again he makes the idea too special. The upper Jerusalem, which essentially springs from Heaven and not from earth, and belongs to Heaven and not to earth, is in the first instance nothing else than the true Church and people of God in its entire generality; for this has its constitution not in the covenant of law, but in the covenant of grace or promise, and its essential character may therefore with full right, nay must be denominated by Paul a heavenly one.—As certainly now as Paul dated back the covenant of grace as far back beyond the covenant of law as Abraham’s time, so certainly did this “upper Jerusalem” properly begin with Abraham himself, although at first indeed rather in the way of promise, in idea, as it were, but yet realiter, as certainly as God’s covenant of grace was one really concluded. This “upper Jerusalem” then, it is true, first came to full manifestation with the advent of the Messiah, as with this God’s covenant of grace first found its true actualization; and so far is the upper Jerusalem=Christendom, but yet even now it must not be identified with it. It is a higher, more general idea, precisely=God’s congregation [Gottesgemeinde] which the idea of the church does not altogether exhaust, but which continues to rise above it, lying at the foundation of the church, which is its concrete manifestation, but yet to be distinguished from it; and indeed this idea of the congregation of God will never attain its completely adequate expression in the church of this dispensation, but only with the παρουσία will such a complete coincidence of ideas and phenomenon be realized (as indeed on the other hand the present Jerusalem which is in bondage was also not absolutely coincident with the Jewish community, but many members of it raised themselves above this bondage, although no doubt in this case the coincidence was far more nearly complete). [Meyer’s interpretation: “the Messianic theocracy, which before the παρουσία is the church, and after it Christ’s kingdom of glory” is substantially correct, provided we sufficiently extend the meaning of  the word “Church.” Our conceptions of her, “who is our mother,” must here be large enough to include all her children, in the Old and the New Dispensations, as militant and triumphant. See Doctrinal Notes.—R.] What Paul now wishes to show is, that Christians are children of this true congregation of God, that is grounded upon the covenant of grace, and therefore of course is free, and not merely that they are children of the Christian community, which certainly would have needed no proof.—From the foregoing we see still more evidently (what has already been touched upon above), that the expression ἡμέλλουσαἹερουσ., although it would have corresponded with ἡνῦνἹερουσ., would not have been suitable here. On the other hand nothing stood in the way of designating the natural Israel as ἡνῦνἹερουσ., inasmuch as every one would refer this expression to the right object; in this sense a κάτωἹερουσ. would have sounded strange, and would have been less intelligible, so that the want of correspondence in the expressions is not at all surprising. Galatians 4:27-28 contain the proof of the proposition that “Jerusalem which is above” is the mother of Christians,—in syllogistic form, only not quite exact, since ὑμεῖς is the more probable reading in Galatians 4:28. Galatians 4:27, major premise: To the “Jerusalem which is above,” although she does not bear, there are many children promised, who therefore, as Isaac, must have been born purely in virtue of Divine promise. Galatians 4:28, minor premise: But now are we, or rather, says the Apostle, with definite application to the readers, for whom particularly the proof is intended, ye are the children of promise, after the analogy of Isaac;—therefore (conclusion) ye are children of the Jerusalem above. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not, etc.—For the major premise Paul appeals to Isaiah 54:1. The theocratic nation is addressed during the Babylonian exile, and told that though aforetime in the bloom of Israel’s prosperity she was like a woman “who hath a husband,” who had by her husband numerous children, she now resembled a woman that is “desolate” = without a husband (for it had been repudiated by God), and in consequence—for στεῖρα is here to be taken in this sense—is “barren,” “not bearing,” “not travailing,” bears no children. (God is to be conceived as the husband, if this part of the figure is also to be interpreted, according to the familiar Biblical image of God’s marriage covenant with Israel.) But yet is she to rejoice, and loudly to express her joy (ῥῆξον sc. φωνήν, rumpe vocem, let loose the voice), for she shall become richer in children than before! This therefore not in the way of natural generation, but through the immediate extraordinary operation of God: they are therefore children not “after the flesh,” but born “through the promise.” (Only, so to speak, the natural, carnal relation of God to the people as begetting natural posterity, was dissolved; God yet remained, in the exercise of a higher energy, devoted to the people as His people, for the very end of bringing in something higher than before.) Evidently in this the image of Sarah hovers before the prophet, of that barren one who was “desolate,” that is, at least as “barren” could have no conjugal intercourse with her husband, and therefore was so far without husband, and who yet became a mother of a numerous progeny in virtue of the Divine energy. Thus even the prophet sees in Sarah a type of the theocratic nation—not, it is true, in her condition of freedom, but at least in her becoming a mother by promise, and therefore is she a type of the theocratic people, inasmuch as this increases not in the natural way=through natural descent, but through the addition of spiritual children.—Herein also is found Paul’s justification for referring this passage immediately to “Jerusalem which is above.” Primarily, indeed, it applies to the theocratic people as a whole. But even here, to the natural children,=to such as become members of the theocratic people by natural descent, are opposed spiritual children=such as become such in virtue of Divine operation, without natural consanguinity. The sense therefore cannot be merely: The now depopulated Israel shall again become populous, yea, even more than before, by renewal of the now interrupted conjugal intimacy; but from that people of God which increased by natural descent, there is distinguished the people of God in the higher, completely true sense, whose existence does not depend on natural descent, but on Divine operation, that is of course, the operation of the Spirit, inasmuch as God through His Spirit produces faith, and so raises up children to His people, regarded as mother, or to Abraham their first ancestor. There is thus contrasted with the natural, empirical people of God, the one ἔχουσατὸνἄνδρα, which is now continued in the present Jerusalem, a higher spiritual one, the one which is “barren, bearing not,”=not naturally maintaining and increasing itself, i. e., in short the “Jerusalem which is above.”—The fulfilment of the promise then, took place, i. e., numerous children, without being naturally begotten by the theocratic people, were born to it, in particular, through the appearance of the Messiah, for all, who came to believe on Him, became thereby, and not by natural descent, members of God’s people (comp. Galatians 4:28).—But it must here be remarked in addition, that Paul’s design is not strictly to declare positively of the Jerusalem above (as even Meyer assumes), that it had first been barren, therefore first unpopulated, childless, and had then become the mother of children (with the origin of the Christian people of God); but he means thereby only to distinguish it from the theocratic people that is maintained and continued by natural means. In distinction from this the Jerusalem above is in its nature—and remains therefore barren, not bearing, not travailing, desolate, for she obtains children indeed, but by no means through becoming fertile, τίκτειν, ὠδίνειν = not by such natural processes, as if these had only failed for awhile, and had then again become operative; on the other hand the children are given to her in a way not to be naturally explained, not as bodily offspring, but spiritually by Divine operation; for she is and remains not “having a husband” (=who does not stand to God in this natural and carnal relation). [Alford:—The “husband” of the E. V. may mislead “by pointing at the one husband (Abraham) who was common to Sara and Agar, which might do in this passage, but not in Isaiah: whereas ἔχ. τὸνἄνδρα means, ‘her (of the two) who has (the) husband,’ the other having none: a fineness of meaning which we cannot give in English.” This goes to sustain the view of Schmoller.—R.] We need not be perplexed because this would create a divergence from the type of Sarah, with whom certainly, after her barrenness, a bearing and travailing took place. But although Paul undoubtedly knew this well, he yet (Galatians 4:23; Galatians 4:29) denies explicitly and roundly that Isaac was born after the flesh and vindicates to him only a being born through the promise, after the Spirit; and he can very well apprehend the contrast thus absolutely, because he looks only at the essential thing, the determining, generative principle, and this was purely “the promise,” “the spirit,” even though the act did not proceed without the medium of the “flesh.” Sarah, is his meaning, did not obtain her son Isaac, because from a naturally unfruitful woman she had become a naturally fruitful one; her obtaining the son was therefore only, as it were, formally, not essentially, a τίκτειν, &c. (see on Galatians 4:23). But if Paul expresses himself thus even respecting Sarah, with whom nevertheless in a certain sense a τίκτειν, and the like, did take place, the same of course holds good in its full sense of the antitype, the true people of God, as Jerusalem above. This is precisely its specific quality, that it obtains children without “bearing” as “barren,” and in this very way approves itself as the true people of God, for which God begets children; therefore we have only: “many are the children of the desolate,” not: she will bear many children. Of course “barren” varies a little; at first it is one who cannot bear, because she is deprived of the husband; but from that it becomes one, who does not bear and is to bear, i. e., does not in this way obtain children, and is to obtain them, but in another way. But this variation is already implied in the original sense of the passage, which as it were says: “Barren hast thou become, that cannot bear; well, so shalt thou be and remain, but not to thy hurt, but to thy good,” &c.—Many are the children of the desolate more, etc.—Meyer rightly explains: not=πλείοναἤ, which would leave the numerousness of the children wholly undetermined, but it expresses, that both have many children, but the solitary one, more=numerous are the children of the solitary, far more, than of her who hath her husband. Galatians 4:28 places the Galatians, as Christians, among the children of the Jerusalem above, promised her in Galatians 4:27. As Isaac was.—ΚατὰἸσαάκ, in conformity with, according to the type of, even as Isaac. The antitype of the mother, Sarah, was named Galatians 4:26; even so are Christians antitypes of her son, Isaac.—Children of Promise,—opposed to σαρκὸςτέκνα, therefore properly children whom the promise has born=who are born in virtue of the promise of God, not through carnal generation.—So was it with Isaac; he was born to Abraham as son in this way. Even so is it with you: you have in this way been born, i. e., become member’s of God’s people. This needs no proof, for on one side, it was certain that they as Christians were members of God’s people, and on the other side also, that they were not so by nature, by carnal descent, but in a spiritual manner, namely, through their knowledge of Christ, to which God had led them by His Spirit, thereby fulfilling His promise. It therefore follows from this, that they belong, because members of the theocratic people, and yet not such by natural descent, to “the children of the desolate” (Galatians 4:27)=have her (to whom, although desolate, children are promised by God) as their mother, as was affirmed in Galatians 4:26. Galatians 4:29. Still as then he that was born after the flesh.—Why will you nevertheless be under the law, and so in the condition of bondage? Paul had brought home to his hearers, You are like Isaac, not like Ishmael. This he had deduced from the manner of the birth of each. But now he adds—looking at the subsequent lot of each—a warning, that it is dangerous to place themselves in a position like Ishmael’s, for he had been shut out of the inheritance. Even so will it fare—Paul gives them to understand, with those that are like Ishmael=those that are under the law. Ἀλλά: for the thought which Paul first expresses, is in opposition to that in the foregoing verse, where he had described Christians as having a possession, as children of the free woman, because children of the promise. Yet Paul does not affirm this in order to frighten them back from the condition of freedom, as one of persecution, but on the contrary (ἀλλά, Galatians 4:30) in order to set forth immediately after the evil lot of the children of the bondwoman, as persecutors, and thus to hinder the Christians from placing themselves, through bondage to the law, in a like position with them. Persecuted.—In Genesis 21:9, Ishmael is mentioned only as a scoffer: Paul here then either uses διώκειν in a more general sense, or he follows a more developed tradition, traces of which are found in the Rabbins. [Διώκειν is a strong word, and we are not justified in altering or extending its meaning to meet a difficulty, arising from the interpretation of another passage. The question then is: Is this statement of the Apostle based only upon the Scriptural narrative (Genesis 21:9), or also upon some other reliable source of information, supplementing the Old Testament narrative. The chief objection urged by most modern commentators against the former of these views is, that there is no thought of “persecution” either expressed or implied in the passage referred to. It tells us of Ishmael’s “laughing” (ξֵ ?φַ ?ηֵ ?χ: which the LXX. expands into παίζονταμετὰἸσαὰκτοῦαυτῆς”); this has been interpreted as in play awakening Sarah’s jealousy, and as in mockery, arousing her anger. Obviously the latter is more in accordance with the context and is a legitimate rendering of the Hebrew (see Lange’s Com. Gen. in loco). But is it said that even this view of the narrative will not justify the assertion “persecuted.” Wordsworth, accepting the meaning “playing,” remarks: “The temper in which Ishmael played with Isaac, may best be inferred from the comment which Isaac’s mother made upon it. Sarah’s words interpret Ishmael’s act. If his play had been loving play, she would not have been displeased by it. It must have been the spirit of spiteful malice, made more offensive by its pretence to sportiveness and love, which extorted from Sarah the words which the Holy Spirit, speaking by St. Paul, here calls a verdict of Scripture. And Almighty God Himself vouchsafed to confirm Sarah’s interpretation of Ishmael’s play, by commanding Abraham, although reluctant, to hearken to Sarah’s voice in that matter.” It would seem that an inspired Apostle, reading the Old Testament narrative in the full gospel light, could interpret the spirit of that occurrence, without relying on tradition. If however the objection urged by Meyer, De Wette, Jowett, and others, be deemed valid, as even Ellicott admits them to be, the following remarks of Lightfoot may well be taken into account. “1) This incident which is so lightly sketched in the original narrative had been drawn out in detail in later traditions, and thus a prominence was given to it, which would add force to the Apostle’s allusion, without his endorsing these traditions himself. 2) The relations between the two brothers were reproduced in their descendants. The aggressions of the Arab tribes on the Israelites were the antitype to Ishmael’s mockery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the Apostle may have indirectly contemplated Ishmael’s progeny; and he would therefore be appealing to the national history of the Jews in saying ‘he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.’ ”—R.] After the Spirit.—The one born according to the Spirit. The Spirit of God was the power by which the generation of Isaac took place. The Spirit however is here conceived not as the power, but as the norm, according to which the generation took place=he was begotten in the way and manner in which the Spirit begets. “After the flesh” is to be interpreted in the same way. Even so now.—Those born after the Spirit =“the children of promise” are persecuted by those born after the flesh=the natural members of the theocratic people, the Jews. But the main point is not the suffering of persecution by the one, although the thought of it occasions the ἀλλά, but the persecution of the others. See Galatians 4:30.—To what this specially refers, is hard to say: that there was no lack of persecutions on the part of the Jews, is indeed well known. That the plotting of the Judaizers against the Christians are also meant, is probable; for these Judaizers believed themselves to have a preλminence, precisely as those born after the flesh, and, as our whole Epistle shows, took a position, which though professedly in the interest of others’ salvation, was nevertheless really hostile towards those who were only “born after the Spirit,” or only set a value on this, and denied to them a title to membership among the people of God. A similar self-exaltation over others and a disposition to suppress them, took place also, he says, in the case of Ishmael with respect to Isaac. But it turned out the other way. [Wordsworth: “St. Paul’s comparison here is peculiarly apposite and relevant to the subject before him. The Judaizers, with whom he is dealing in this Epistle, were like Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman Agar, the representative of the Old Covenant not spiritually understood. They professed friendship for the Galatian Christians, who were the spiritual Isaac. In semblance they were playing with the offspring of the free woman, but in reality they were persecuting him. The Judaizers were endeavoring to rob the Galatian Christians of their Evangelical inheritance derived from Abraham. Thus Ishmael pretended to be playing with Isaac, but was in fact persecuting him. The Apostle, therefore, who had just been comparing himself to an affectionate mother, comes forward as a vigilant. Sarah, and interferes to part, the Jewish Ishmael from the Christian Isaac; and to rescue the children of the promise and of freedom from the treacherous flattery and tyrannical sport of the children of the flesh and of bondage.” This beautiful comparison is of course marred by any reference to tradition in our verse.—R.] Galatians 4:30. Cast out the bondwoman and her son, etc—Paul here cites the words of Sarah Genesis 21:10 according to the LXX. only instead of μετὰτουυἱοῦμουἸσαάκ, he substitutes, because the expression is severed from the context, μετὰτοῦυἱοῦτῆςἐλευθερας; therewith stating expressly the meaning of Sarah; for it is from this very point of view, namely, that her son is the son of the free woman, that she comes forward so decidedly against Ishmael, as the son of the bondmaid, declares that he is not entitled to be co-heir with her son, and demands his expulsion. It is not the personal behavior of Ishmael therefore which she urges against him, but his position, although, it is true, she is moved to do it by his behavior. As he is in himself not entitled to be co-heir, this right possessed against him is now urged—and as the narrative shows, made good. The application with an “even so now,” Paul leaves to the readers as being obvious, because through the whole argument he desires that they themselves may see the perverseness of the position which they are on the point of assuming. It would be thus supplied: Even so now—will it fare with the children of the bondmaid; they have as little right of inheritance as the son of the bondmaid had then, and this want of title will be brought into force against them on account of their persecution (so that in this particular also they will prove themselves antitypes of Hagar and Ishmael). The reference, to the expulsion of these does not as yet apply immediately to the readers, but if they suffer themselves to be made children of the bondmaid—and what that signifies is clear—by going over to the legal Jewish position, they lose at all events their right of inheritance, and are on the way to lose also the inheritance itself. Paul specifies the persecution primarily because the Divine exclusion from the inheritance was historically occasioned by that. A searching admonition, “to hoar the law better” (Galatians 4:21)=to take better note of the intimations which are contained therein—and therefore not to place themselves under the law. [Lightfoot: “Shall in nowise inherit! The Law and the Gospel cannot coexist; the Law must disappear before the Gospel. It is scarcely possible to estimate the strength of conviction and depth of prophetic insight which this declaration implies. The Apostle thus confidently sounds the death-knell of Judaism at a time when one-half of Christendom clung to the Mosaic law with a jealous affection little short of frenzy, and while the Judaic party seemed to be growing in influence and was strong enough, even in the Gentile churches of his own founding, to undermine his influence and endanger his life. The truth which to us appears a truism must then have been regarded as a paradox.”—R.] The course of thought begun in Galatians 4:21, concludes therefore with our verse in a complete and satisfactory way: Take heed then to the law, and learn from it: (1) that ye are free as Christians and (2) that ye, if ye do not persevere in this freedom, forfeit the inheritance—so that necessarily the conclusion must be drawn with Galatians 4:30, and Galatians 4:31 cannot be viewed as an immediate deduction from what precedes, nor as a conclusion, but only as a sentence summing up once more the foregoing result and introducing a transition to what follows, on which account it is to be joined with it. AND ETHICAL1. The personal relation between teacher and congregation. The significance which attaches to the personal relation between teacher and congregation (see on the former section, the first remark), comes most evidently to view in this, that the teacher must regard it as his commission, to beget spiritual children (and that truly living ones)—as father, nay, yet more: to bear them also—as mother. There is thus of necessity constituted an inner bond of personal fellowship between him and the souls on which he labors; but it is true, the existence of such a bond is not to be presupposed as a matter of course, or demanded even where the condition of such a loving labor of spiritual begetting and bearing is wanting. 2. “Christ is formed (1) in the understanding of man, when he receives a truly living and spiritual knowledge of Christ’s person, offices, and benefits; (2) in the will of man, when (a) in regeneration faith in Christ is not only kindled, but also attains to its fit form, so that he hangs simply and solely on Christ, which faith then in justification apprehends and puts on Christ, and unites itself inwardly with Him; (b) in renewal, when Christ’s Divine mind is daily more and more formed in men, so that the lineaments of Christ’s image become ever more discernible.—It reads moreover: Till Christ be formed in you, not, Till you or I form Him in you, because regeneration is no human work.”—Starke. 3. The allegory. What view are we to hold of the interpretation of the two wives and sons of Abraham in this section? Is Paul a representative of that allegorical interpretation which presupposing a double, yes, multiplex sense of the Biblical text, long prevailed in the church, to the prejudice of the sound historical understanding of the contents of Scripture? The appearance is strongly for it, but in truth it is not so. Paul to be sure allegorizes here, for he says so himself. But with the very fact of his saying this himself, the gravity of the hermeneutical difficulty disappears. He means therefore to give an allegory, not an exposition; he does not proceed as an exegete, and does not mean to say—after the manner of the allegorizing exegetes—that only what he now says is the true sense of the narrative, conceded in the letter, the only sense really worthy of God’s word. The question then is only (1) whether this allegorical interpretation is merely a subjective fancy of the Apostle, or whether it is grounded in the actual facts; (2) what use he makes of this allegory. Commonly these two questions are not kept distinct from each other. Respecting the first, no one can speak of a mere arbitrary fancy (of a play of allegorical sharp-wittedness, rabbinism, and the like), who pays the least attention to the typical significance which according to Paul appertains to Abraham and his history,—and who allows any justice whatever in this the Apostle’s view of Abraham. We well know that for Paul Abraham himself is typical by his faith, and in immediate connection with that, Isaac is typical by his birth through the power of the Divine promise, and not of the flesh; he is the type of the true children of Abraham, i. e., of the true theocratic people, whose origin is not that of natural birth alone (comp. Romans 9:16 sq.). This of itself then gives on the other hand the converse, namely, the typical character of the carnal son, Ishmael. But now, in this section, Paul goes yet a step further. To him not only the manner of birth of the two sons of Abraham is typical, but also the condition in which they were born: the bondage of the one and the freedom of the other. Isaac is thus the type of a theocratic people, that (1) does not become such by natural birth, but by Divine operation; (2) and is also in possession of freedom, is the spiritual and free Israel; on the contrary Ishmael is the type of a merely natural and enslaved theocratic people: that is, the natural people of God is enslaved by its being under the law, something which is not true of the spiritual, genuine Israel. Respecting the warrant for a typological apprehension of the Old Testament generally, Wieseler justly remarks: “Since the whole of the Old Covenant is a σκιά of the New Testament dispensation, the single facts, persons and truths have therefore a prefigurative character, according to the measure in which each has within this whole and in relation to the New Covenant, a conspicuous and central significance.” That this applies to the person of Abraham is clear, and equally to the manner in which children were born to him, for through Abraham’s children the progress of the history of redemption is determined. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ E. Admonition to perseverance in Christian freedom—with a threatening allusion to the pernicious consequences of the opposite course Galatians 4:31 to Galatians 5:631 So then [Wherefore], brethren, we are not children of the [a] bondwoman, but 5 of the free. 1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free [Stand fast therefore in the liberty for which Christ made us free, or For freedom Christ made Us free. Stand fast therefore], and be not entangled again with 2[in] the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised 3[i. e., submit to circumcision], Christ shall [will] profit you nothing. For [Moreover, δέ continuative] I testify again to every man that is circumcised [who has himself circumcised], that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you [Ye are separated from Christ], whosoever of you are justified [being justified] by [in] the law; ye are fallen [fallen away] from grace. 5For we through 6[by] the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by [from] faith. For in Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus] neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by [working through] love. F. Renewed lamentation over the apostasy of the Galatians. Sharp testimony against the misleading misrepresentations of his preaching on the part of the false teachers Galatians 5:7-127 Ye did run [were running] well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey 8, 9the truth? This [The] persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little 10leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I [I, for my part] have confidence in [as regards] you through [in] the Lord, that ye will be none [in nothing] otherwise 11minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And [But] I, brethren, if I yet [still] preach circumcision, why do I yet [still] suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased [the scandal of the cross done away with]. 12I would they were even cut off which trouble you [I would that they who are unsettling you would even mutilate themselves, or would even cut themselves off from you]. AND Gal_4:31. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman.—Paul, after the indirect warning in Galatians 4:29-30, sums up the contents of Gal 4:22 sq. once more, in an exact form, appealing to the Christian sense of dignity =you will therefore surely not suffer yourselves to be reduced to children of the bondwoman. [Notice the omission of the article: “not of any bondwoman,” Judaism or any form of heathenism (Lightfoot, Meyer, Ellicott). This explanation is more striking and appropriate than that of Alford, who is disposed to think παιδίσκης is anarthrous, because emphatically prefixed to its governing noun.—R.]—But of the free,—therefore ourselves free. This Paul expressly states in the following sentence. Galatians 5:1, refers the freedom of Christians to Christ; yet the main idea is no longer the fact or method of their having become free, but the end, namely: τῇἐλευθερίᾳ, for freedom, for being and remaining free. Then follows the admonition itself; στήκετε, used absolutely, without any modifying clause=remain firm. [Schmoller follows Lachmann, in beginning a new sentence with στήκετε; of course if a different punctuation is adopted, the verb is modified by the preceding clause, without altering its meaning however. He also takes τῇἐλευθερία as dative commodi, “for freedom,” not instrumental, “with freedom” (so Alford). It must be remarked that this pointing makes the style very abrupt, and that since the stress in this interpretation rests on for freedom, the end of their being made free, so emphatic a thought would scarcely be expressed by a dative of doubtful force, for as Lightfoot observes, the dative is awkward, in whatever way it is taken. Even Meyer explains the passage far more satisfactorily, on the theory that the other reading is correct. Following this reading, we render: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty for” or “with which Christ made us free.” The prominent dative then denotes “the sphere in which and to which the action is limited” (Ellicott); and the relative ῇ is either dative commodi (Winer, Ellicott) or ablative (instrumental, Luther, Beza, Calvin). Meyer thinks this latter usage is uncommon with Paul. The former is safer. The sense is then: therefore stand fast in that liberty (which is our state as children of the freewoman, and) for which, to remain in which, Christ made us free.—R.] Be not entangled again.—As Gentiles they had not formerly been under the yoke of the Mosaic law, but for all that had certainly (see Galatians 4:8) been in bondage; having now become free from it by their faith in Christ, they ought not to allow themselves to be enslaved again by a yoke. [In the yoke of bondage.—“In” it, because the thought is of being ensnared; they were to stand upright, not to bow to the yoke (Lightfoot); “bondage” was its predominant nature (Ellicott).—R.] All that preceded, doctrinal exposition and expostulation, pointed to this exhortation: to remain free. But just because this lies at the foundation of everything preceding, the brief, plain utterance in this verse suffices, and the Apostle at once turns to a warning menace in case the admonition should not be heeded, and the Galatians instead should go so far as to submit to circumcision. Galatians 5:2. Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised.—Rousing personal attention with “Behold” and with the interposition of his personal authority, “I Paul,” he warns them against the final step, not yet taken by them, which would bring them completely under the yoke of the law, namely, the receiving of circumcision. [It is highly probable that some of them had been circumcised, and that the present points to the continuance of this course of conduct among them (Alford, Ellicott). He does not mean that the fact of a man’s being a circumcised man would prevent his being a Christian, but if after all this instruction and warning, they resorted to this rite as necessary to salvation, “Christ will,” etc.—R.] They would then have had no advantage of Christ, because they would have sought salvation, in circumcision and not of Christ.—Will profit you nothing.—The future is probably (as in Galatians 5:5) to be referred to the παρουσία and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom. [So Meyer, who finds in this a reference to its nearness. But he is fond of such references. Ellicott with more propriety says: “it simply marks the certain result of such a course of practice; ‘Christ (as you will find) will never profit you anything.’ ”—R.] Galatians 5:3. Moreover I testify again.—Paul strengthens his warning by referring to a further consequence of receiving circumcision. It obliges to the observance of the whole law; “for circumcision makes one a full participant in the covenant of law, a proselyte of righteousness, and the law demands of the one that is held to it its complete fulfilment (Galatians 3:10).” Meyer. At the same time Paul gives with this a more precise explanation of “Christ will profit you nothing” so much the more certainly will this be the case, because a man by receiving circumcision becomes a debtor to do the whole law, and therefore is not at liberty to persuade himself, that he does not mean to erect again the law as a whole, but only to accept one point. But all, who are “of the works of the law are under the curse,” Galatians 3:10.—In view of the solemnity of the asseveration we must suppose that the false teachers designedly concealed this perilous consequence of circumcision or sought to soften it. “Again” alludes to the earlier (second) presence of the Apostle. Galatians 5:4. Ye are separated from Christ.—“Paul by speaking asyndetically and recurring to the second person speaks so much the more emphatically and vividly.”—Meyer.—The verse expresses the consequence of becoming “a debtor to do the whole law” (for ἐννόμῳδικαιοῦσθαι is substantially identically with this). This is the καταργ. ἀπὸτοῦΧρισποῦ which completes the explanation of the declaration in Galatians 5:2.—Καταργεῖσθαιἀπότινος, a pregnant expression = the connection in which one stands with any one is done away, and so one is loose from him.—Justification by the law and justification for Christ’s sake are mutually exclusive; whoever seeks the first falls out of fellowship with Christ. Justified, here of course an expression representing the view of the persons concerned, who think “through the law we shall be justified.”—Ye are fallen away from grace.—Here he expressly names the benefit the loss of which they suffer by “being justified in the law” and the resulting separation from Christ. A cutting contrast: they think that they are being justified, but by this very means instead they are fallen away from grace, so far is an actual justification from being possible in this way. Ἐκπίπτειντῆςχάριτος opposed to ἑστηκέναιἐντῇχάριτι (Romans 5:2). Galatians 5:5. For we by the spirit wait for the hope of righteousness from faith.—“A justification of the judgment passed in Galatians 5:4 upon those that seek to be justified through the law, drawn e contrario, i. e., from the entirely different manner in which Paul and those like him wish to be justified.” Meyer. [“We” i. e. those who have not sought justification in the law, and fallen from grace; the contrast is not very strongly marked in the subject however (δέ is not used), for Paul addresses the Galatians, not as those who had fallen, but were in danger of falling, and the subject “we” may include them also.—R.] Πνεύματι is used neither of the human spirit in itself, nor of the spirit of man enlightened by the Holy Ghost, but of the Spirit of God as the objective principle of the Christian life. As it is from the Holy Spirit working in believers, that the whole Christian life proceeds, so in particular the persevering Christian hope is thus wrought, of the fulfilment of which he also gives pledge (2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:14; Romans 3:11-23). So Wieseler and Meyer. But of course this hope of future righteousness proceeds from the Holy Ghost only so far as it rests upon a right basis. This basis is then stated in ἐκπίστεως, which is meant to express that Christians ground their hope of future righteousness not upon the works of the law, but precisely on faith alone, that they hope to be justified not in the law but by faith. [Ἐκπίστεως does not therefore describe πνεύματι (Luther), but the latter sets forth the agent: “by the spirit,” the former the origin or source (Schmoller says with less exactness, the ground) of their hope. “By faith” cannot qualify “righteousness,” as the order of the E. V. seems to indicate.—R.] Δικαιοσύνη is here also of course, Righteousness before God = δικαίωσις. But this is here represented for Christians as something future; we are therefore not to understand it of that which takes place in time, but of the δικαίωσις which comes to completion only at the final judgment. But it is a difficulty that it does not simply read: ἐλπίδαδικ. ἔχομεν, but ἐλπ. ἀπεκδ. whereby the hope itself is presented in turn as an object of hope. Ἐλπίς is therefore here to be understood as the object of hope, res sperata, as in Colossians 1:5; Titus 2:13, and δικαιοσύνης as genitive of apposition. Ἀπεκδέχεσθαι is more precisely not = ἐλπίζειν itself, but = to wait for, to expect perseveringly (Wieseler). [This view of the passage, which is that of Wieseler, avoids the seeming pleonasm, “wait for the hope,” but is open to one serious objection, viz.: that the genitive is never thus used with ἐλπίς (Meyer). Besides ἐλπίδαἀπεκδεχόμεθα is not pleonastic, but forcible and almost poetical, the accusative being cognate (Ellicott). The genitive may be regarded as 1) subjecti; the hoped for reward of righteousness, sc. eternal life (so Beza, Bengel and most older commentators). This avoids the seeming difficulty of every other interpretation, viz.: making “righteousness” future, but it is not in keeping with the context, as it introduces and gives prominence to an adjunct of “righteousness,” while the passage treats of “justification.” 2) It seems best then to take it as genitive objecti, i. e. the hope of being justified (so Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, also the versions of Tyndale and Cranmer). This is strictly grammatical and in keeping with the context. The objection that it makes “righteousness” future is easily met, see below.—R.] That Paul should here speak of the (complete and final) justification, as something to be expected first in the future, is entirely accordant with the context. In Galatians 5:4 he speaks of such as, being already justified by faith, now turn to the law and thereby suffer the loss of grace. In order to illustrate the latter, he now enforces the truth, that a Christian must remain in faith, because only then can he have the hope of justification at the judgment; faith remains the condition of the state of grace, for even at the final judgment it is the condition of gracious acceptance. [This view contrasts Christianity with Judaism, and represents “justification as one of those divine results, which stretches into eternity, conveying with it and involving the idea of future blessedness and glorification” (Ellicott).—R.] Galatians 5:6. He now proceeds to justify the waiting “for the hope from faith” on the part of the Christian. For in Christ Jesus = for him that is in Christ Jesus, for the Christian, neither circumcision availeth anything = has no influence in the attainment of justification (in the sense of Gal 5:5), nor uncircumcision (while the Galatian false teachers laid so great stress upon this distinction); but faith working through love, faith which shows itself operative through love.—Ἐνεργεῖσθαι is always middle in the New Testament. The passive meaning given by many of the older Catholics, as Bellarmine and Estius, in the interest of the Catholic system, is therefore incorrect. Reference is made to this display of the activity of faith through love, in view of the following section Galatians 5:13 sq., the theme of which is given in our verse. [Lightfoot: “These words bridge over the gulf which seems to separate the language of St. Paul and St. James. Both assert a principle of practical energy, as opposed to a barren, inactive theory.” Against the use made of this passage by modern Romanist commentators who give up the passive sense, such as Windischmann, Mφhler, Symbolik, see Alford and Doctrinal Notes below.—R.] Galatians 5:7. Ye were running well.—Short, emotional, and therefore asyndetic propositions respecting the unhappy alterations which had taken place with the Galatians.—The comparison of the Christian walk to a race is, as is well known, a favorite one with Paul. The running well consisted in obedience to the truth, that is, in their going in the true=evangelical, way, seeking their righteousness in faith.—Paul asks in surprise: Who did hinder you?Galatians 5:8. He here answers the last assertion to himself and them. Certainly, it is not God that has turned you away, has brought you upon this other way! The intriguing of the false teachers is represented as something ungodly. Ἡπεισμ. κ. τ. λ., therefore, is to be translated; The persuading is not from your caller=God. The calling and the persuading are opposed to each other as distinct in character; the former is divine activity, the latter not, but essentially human with human intention, art, importunity (Meyer).—In itself “persuasion” could have also a passive signification=the being persuaded, disposition to follow; and so many interpreters take it here also=obsequiousness towards the false teachers. [In favor of the latter meaning we have the support of the Greek expositors, and perhaps the paranomasia (πείθεσθαι, ver 7). But Meyer, Alford, Ellicott prefer the active meaning, both because it is better established, and because it suits the active meaning of “calleth.” It seems to accord better with Galatians 5:9 also.—R.] Galatians 5:9. A little leaven.—It is disputed whether this refers to doctrine or persons; a little leaven of doctrine, as a few bad men, false teachers. Manifestly the former. It is not the number of the false teachers that is of account, but the influence of their teaching, not the πείθοντες but the πεισμονή. Plainly nothing else is meant by “leaven” than the immediately preceding “persuasion,” for of this, “leaven” is an image. As the leaven works into the lump, so does the “persuasion,” the persuasive, seducing word into the soul (or into a whole community): therefore=even an influence in itself apparently insignificant, may nevertheless be ruinous to the whole man (or whole community of men). [The proverb (quoted also 1 Corinthians 5:6) is undoubtedly true both of doctrines and persons. To which it refers here is extremely doubtful. In support of each view the best commentators may be cited, and the context is not decisive, for while Galatians 5:8 may favor the former reference, Galatians 5:10 with its individualizing turn, favors the latter. Leaven is, as usually, a symbol of evil.—R.] This of course contains a warning to be on their guard, and to turn back in time, and remove the leaven.—The Apostle, in order the easier to win them to him, expresses the confidence which he still continues to have in them. Galatians 5:10. I, for my part,—even though the false teachers believe you already won over to them.—He knows his confidence to be grounded in the Lord. The Lord will doubtless bring it to pass and give you the right mind—in the interest of His cause.—Οὐδὲνἄλλοφρονήσετε is best taken absolutely=that you will not be otherwise minded than hitherto, that you will not alter your conviction, will not apostatize. It is true, a giving way had indeed already begun; but it was as yet only in its incipiency; evidently Paul deals with them throughout as those that are yet wavering, and therefore it may well be hoped of them that matters will not come to an actual ἄλλοφρονεῖν=change of conviction. Up to the present time they are only, as is immediately expressed, “troubled.”—He that troubleth you=every one, who, &c. The supposition that the Apostle refers to a leader among his opponents well known to himself (Erasmus, Luther, Bengel and others), or even to Peter (Jerome), is supported by nothing in the Epistle. Therefore also whosoever he be ought to be understood as entirely general, and not referred to any eminent consideration enjoyed by the false teachers. Undoubtedly, however, Paul means to signify, that no consideration whatever could cause him to waver in this judgment.—Κρῖμα=God’s sentence of condemnation (e. g. Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47; Romans 2:3; Romans 13:12); this is conceived as something exceedingly irksome, a burden, therefore βαστάσει. Galatians 5:11. But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision.—Paul refutes moreover the pretence of the false teachers, invented to further their cause, that he himself elsewhere preached circumcision. They had probably appealed, in support of their charge, to the circumcision of Timothy, which had lately taken place, but which by no means took place on the ground of its necessity to salvation (Acts 16:3. See I moreover, the explanation of Gal 2:4).—“Still” dates not from a period within his apostolic career itself, as though Paul as Apostle had yet at one time preached circumcision, which in view of the manner of Paul’s conversion and of his whole previous course is an unpsychological and unhistorical assumption, but it dates from his conversion. Why do I still suffer persecution.—This second ἔτι is a logical one: what reason remains, etc.?—Then is the scandal of the cross done away with.—Apodosis of the conditional sentence, “if I still preach circumcision,” for the purpose of demonstrating the nullity of the protasis: he would no longer be persecuted.—Τὸσκάνδ. τοῦσταυροῦ more precisely—that, which is offensive in the preceding of Christ’s death on the cross, namely, that it is proclaimed as the only ground of salvation. Had Paul, with this or instead of it, still preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the Jew would have seen his law maintained in authority, and would not have taken offence at the death on the cross, and especially the preaching of it. Galatians 5:12. Ὄφελονκαὶἀποκόψονται.—The ordinary explanation is: Would that they would even have themselves made eunuchs, for which partly the middle signification of the future ἀποκόψονται is cited, partly the connection, which is thought to point (καί) to a play of words upon περιτομή. But, as this would be a bitter turn of wit, and as the assumption, that Paul means thereby to lash the sexual intemperance of the false teachers, is arbitrary, it is not pleasant to accede to this explanation. The lexical argument, which has the most weight, is the hardest to meet; it can only be said that the passive use of the future middle, even in the classics, is by no means unknown. On the other hand the connection, which is especially adduced in support of this explanation, has not a strictly demonstrative force, as Wieseler remarks. He, it is true, lays almost too much stress on the absence of an actual paronomasia; on the fact that Paul did not at least choose ἐκτείνειν, as being a very common word among the Greeks for castration, and the paronomasia with κατατομή (Phil. 3:23) proves at least so much as this, that Paul in opposition to such Judaizers, was not particularly tender in dealing with περιτομή, for this is a sarcastic allusion to περιτομή. On the other hand this remark of his particularly is correct, that we should then expect instead of ἀναστ. an allusion to περιτ., the more so, as in Galatians 5:11 περιτ. is not at all alluded to in the light of a demand made by them. If we can therefore make up our minds to take ἀποκ. as passive, this would be in itself entirely suitable, especially for the final sentence: Would they were even hewn off=condemned by God (since the reference to excommunication is less congruous). Καί certainly is far from necessitating the reference to περιτ., as with either explanation it is alike a climactic particle. [It seems entirely incorrect to take the passive sense, for which there is no authority in the New Testament. Ellicott, preserves the middle sense, and yet avoids the seemingly coarse interpretation, which is usually given. He renders: “would even cut themselves off from you.” Unfortunately καί is a climactic particle, and this view gives us an anti-climax. In fact were there no question of taste involved, scarce a doubt would arise as to the Apostle’s meaning. Have we a right to adopt forced interpretations, to avoid a natural one, because it seems to us unrefined? As Lightfoot remarks “If it seems strange that St. Paul should have alluded to such a practice at all, it must be remembered that as this was a recognized form of heathen self-devotion, it could not possibly be shunned in conversation, and must at times have been mentioned by a Christian preacher. The remonstrance is doubly significant as addressed to Galatians, for Pessinus, one of their chief towns, was the home of the worship of Cybele, in honor of whom these mutilations were practiced.” Wordsworth: “There would be more hope from their ex-cision, than from their circumcision. For then they would be excluded from the Jewish congregation, they would feel the rigor of the law, they would be ashamed of enforcing it on you. Then there would be good hope, that they also would joyfully hail and accept the gracious liberty of the gospel, and would be joined as sound members to the Body of Christ.”—R.]—Ἀναστατοῦντες, unsettling=to bring into tumult, stronger than ταράσσειν. Wieseler: To render seditious, namely, against the order of Christianity, or rather against its Lord and King, Christ.—[Chrysostom: “Well does he say ἀναστατοῦντες, for abandoning their country and their freedom and their kindred in heaven, they compelled them to seek a foreign and a strange land; banishing from the heavenly Jerusalem and the free, and forcing them to wander about as captives and aliens.” (From Lightfoot.)—R.] AND ETHICAL1. Christian Liberty. Respecting the idea of Freedom, which Paul in this Epistle maintains and vindicates for Christians with such decision (from Galatians 3:25 on, substantially this, but more on its negative side; in express words in this section), we are to consider that it does not primarily mean freedom from the accusations and the curse of the law (wrath of God, etc.), but, agreeably to the whole polemics of the Apostle, means freedom from the claims (requirements) of the law, from the obligation of attaching ourselves to it, in order by works of the law to seek salvation (to seek it through these conjointly with faith, yes, essentially to seek it through these). Too precipitately and too prevailingly does Luther, for example, take this freedom, which Christ has won, in the former sense, and in this sense eulogizes it as the most precious benefit. Undoubtedly, however, freedom in this sense stands causally connected with freedom in the other; in the first place by the very fact that only he who through Christ is delivered from the curse of the law, is a Christian, and only to him does freedom from the law itself accrue (although strictly speaking this does not belong here);—and secondly, inasmuch as only to him who does not give himself any more into bondage under the law, does freedom from its curse also remain assured, while conversely, whoever gives up the other freedom, loses also this, and thus comes into double bondage. Hence it is fully admissible to comprehend in the freedom which Paul claims for the Christian, his freedom from the curse of the law—not exegetically it is true, but at least in the practical application of the doctrine. Still more; in the reference to freedom from the curse of the law (wrath of God), an entirely just apprehension of the doctrine is involved, since Paul contends with such earnestness for the freedom of the Christians from the law, and against the imposing of the law upon them, and thus against their being brought upon the ground of the righteousness of works, for this very reason, that thereby we forfeit also our freedom from the curse of the law, and so come under this curse, losing thereby the advantage that we have in Christ, the certainty of the grace of God. His strong emphasizing of the freedom of Christians has its ground indeed not merely in an abstract pride of freedom, leading him to feel: Christians now have no longer need of allowing themselves to be held in bondage by a law, but it is grounded in the doctrinal knowledge of the loss of salvation, which would result from the giving up of that freedom. 2. Either the law wholly, or not at all; either Christ or the law. The Apostle presents two momentous alternatives and thereby sets himself against all half courses and their self-deceiving effect. The first is: “Either the law wholly—or not at all.” Whoever once places himself in one particular on the legal ground, cannot stop short with that one. For in the first place the law, although a whole consisting of many members, is yet a whole in which one member depends on another. And secondly for this very reason the blessing of God is not promised to the observance of one or the other part of it, but only to the observance of the whole; whoever therefore will become partaker of the blessing in the way of law, must observe the whole law. But if he shrinks from undertaking the whole, either because he recognizes much of it as abolished for the Christian, or because much of it is burdensome to him, or as he thinks of the impossibility of fulfilling all aright, and of the curse which is denounced against all short comings, then let him give up the legal position altogether. This suggests then the other alternative: “Either Christ or the law,” The two “do not match,” i. e. whoever will be justified by works of law, thereby renounces virtually, and ought therefore to renounce formally the consolations of grace in Christ; for in so doing he does not seek his righteousness in Christ, but rejects Him. Commonly however man would be glad to take the latter with the former, would at least, without building upon it, be well content with the free grace of God, as the complement of his imperfect righteousness of works; but in vain—the sentence is: Fallen away from grace!—“This text, Galatians 5:2; Galatians 5:4, is a true touchstone, by which we may securely and certainly judge all manner of doctrines, works and ceremonies of all men. Whoever now, be they Papists, Turks, Jews, sectaries,—or whoever they may be, teach, that anything is necessary to salvation besides faith in Christ, they hear in this place the sentence of the Holy Ghost pronounced against them by the Apostle, namely, that Christ profiteth them nothing. But if St. Paul can venture to pass so terrible a judgment against the law and circumcision, which God Himself has given, what kind of judgment would he utter upon the chaff and the dross of men’s ordinances? Wherefore this text is such a thunderclap, that by right the whole papal realm should be astounded and terrified thereat.” Luther. 3. “Waiting for the hope of righteousness.” Justification, on one hand, is a benefit to be obtained even now, but on the other hand, that which we now obtain is not yet the whole, not yet the consummation. But the justification of the Christian in the present is not on this account in any way an illusion, nor is the joyful certainty, which faith has, of being justified in Christ, prejudiced. On the contrary the believer knows very well that at first he can only have this benefit in a measure corresponding to the imperfection of the present dispensation. The joyfulness of faith would be beclouded if the hope of consummation in eternity, in spite of all present imperfection, did not essentially appertain to faith, as certain hope. Hoping and waiting include, it is true, a negative element, a not yet having; but they also include essentially a positive element, the certainty that what is not yet possessed will nevertheless be attained, and this positive element is derived from nothing else than faith. Hope is grounded in faith—but never in our works; faith is therefore not only necessary in the beginning, but remains so perpetually; if we lose it, we lose hope also. 4. Faith, Hope, Love. Faith, that has hope, is the one thing that characterizes the Christian, to which is added Love. As in hope faith becomes a waiting faith, πίστιςἀπεκδεχομένη, so through love does it become an active faith, π. ἐνεργουμένη, i. e., the ἐνέργεια does not first through love come into faith, but rather faith manifests in this love its own indwelling energy; had it no such ἐνέργεια in itself, there would be no such result as love, and where this energy is wanting to it, because it is a mere nominal faith, there is no such result. Even so the capacity of waiting does first come into faith, not through hope, but on the contrary, because this inheres in faith, from faith emanates hope.—The Catholic doctrine of a fides caritate formata, as the condition of justification, has of course not the least support in this passage; for the simple reason that “working through love” affirms something enirely different: “non per caritatem formam suam accipere vel formari fidem, sed per caritatem operosam vel efficacem esse ap. docet.” Calovius. Nor can it be concluded from this passage that the Apostle would make love the principle of justification together with faith. See the Exegetical Notes above, but especially Luther, who has so truly apprehended the significance of our passage: “Paul treats not in this place of what Faith accomplishes before God, as how one becomes righteous before God; for this he has done at full length above; but he says just here at the end, as it were for a short conclusion, what is a true Christian life; in Christ such a faith alone avails, which is no feigned, hypocritical one, but a true living faith. Now such a faith is one that exercises itself and perseveres in good works through love. For this is nothing else than to say: Whoever will be a true Christian man and in Christ’s Kingdom, he must forsooth have a true faith. But now assuredly the faith is not sound, where the works of love do not follow after. Therewith he shuts out from the Kingdom of Christ all hypocrites, both on the right hand and on the left; on the right all Jews and work-saints, but on the left all slothful and secure folk, who say: If faith without works makes righteous, then God requires nothing of us than only that we believe, therefore we are permitted to do what we list.” 5. Love does not overlook perversion of doctrine. Certain as it is that faith, active through love, is part of the Christian life, yet over against those, who destroy faith by perversion of doctrine, indulgence for love’s sake, is not in place, but earnestness and severity (comp. the remarks of Luther upon this, in the Homiletical Notes, Galatians 5:10). AND Gal_5:1. Luther:—Let us learn to count this our freedom, most noble, exalted and precious, which no emperor, no prophet, nor patriarch, no angel from heaven, but Christ, God’s Son, hath obtained for us; not for this, that He might relieve us from a bodily and temporal subjection, but from a spiritual and eternal imprisonment of the cruellest tyrants, namely, the law, sin, death, devil, &c.—Those that will be secure and snore on without care, these will not keep this freedom. For Satan is to the light of the Gospel hostile above measure, i. e., to the doctrine of grace, freedom, consolation and life. Therefore, where he is aware that it is about to dawn, he keeps no holiday, but sets himself speedily with all might against it. [Calvin:—He reminds them that they ought not to despise a freedom so precious. And certainly it is an invaluable blessing, in defence of which it is our duty to fight, even to death. If men lay upon our shoulders an unjust burden, it may be borne; but if they endeavor to bring our conscience into bondage, we must resist valiantly, even to death. If men be permitted to bind our consciences, we shall be deprived of an invaluable blessing, and an insult will be, at the same time, offered to Christ, the author of our freedom.—R.] [Cowper:—This is a liberty unsung By poets, and by senators unpraised; Which monarchs cannot grant, nor all the powers Of Earth and Hell confederate take away: A liberty which persecution, frand, Oppression, prisons, have no power to bind; Which whoso tastes can be enslaved no more. ’Tis liberty of heart, derived from Heaven, Bought with His blood who gave it to mankind. * The oppressor holds His body bound; but knows not what a range His spirit takes, unconscious of a chain, And that to bind him is a vain attempt, Whom God delights in, and in whom He dwells.—R.] Galatians 5:2. Luther:—Under the sun there is no more hurtful or poisonous thing, than the doctrine of human laws and works, that, are received in the imagination of thereby obtaining forgiveness of sins. For they take away in one heap the truth of the gospel and Christ Himself. Galatians 5:3. “A debtor to do the whole law.” If we overlook this chance, and Moses begins in one particular to rule over us, we must thereafter be wholly and entirely subject to his power, whether we will or not. Therefore, to be brief, we cannot, yea, ought not, nor will not suffer, that any one should hang any one fraction of Moses’ law [Gesetzlein Mosis] upon our neck. Galatians 5:4. “Ye are separated from Christ.”—How could one speak more powerfully against the law? What can or will any one bring up against this mighty thunderclap? It is not possible that the gospel and the law can dwell and rule in one heart at the same time with one another, but of necessity either Christ must yield to the law or the law to Christ. Therefore, when thou fanciest that Christ and confidence in the law might dwell together with one another in thy heart, thou art of a certainty to believe and know, that in thy heart not Christ, but the very devil dwells and keeps house, who under the form of Christ accuses and terrifies thee, and demands that thou through the law and thine own works shouldst make thyself righteous; for the true Christ has not that way.—Even as one that falls out of a ship, let it happen as it may, must certainly drown in the sea; even so can it not be otherwise than that whoever falls away from grace, must be condemned and lost.—If those fall away from Grace, that will be justified by the law of God, beloved, whither will those fall that will be justified through human ordinances, their vows and merits? Into the deep abyss of hell, to the devil. Galatians 5:5. Spener:—Faith is not merely the beginning of our salvation, so that we must receive the first grace from God, and afterwards earn the rest ourselves, but all remaining gifts of grace and glory are alone expected and bestowed from faith.—Luther:—This is an admirable, noble consolation, wherewith all wretched, perplexed hearts, that feel their sin and are terrified thereat, are mightily holpen against all the fiery darts of the devil. For when the conscience has to wrestle and strive in such distress and perplexity, it becomes terrified and anxious, and the feeling of sin, of God’s wrath and of death is so great that it seems as if there were neither righteousness nor salvation to hope for. Then is it time to say: Dear brother, thou wouldst be glad to have such a righteousness, as might be felt, whereof thou mightest have joy and comfort, even as sin lets itself be felt and stirs up terror and despond; now that cannot be done, but do thou labor on, that the righteousness, which thou hast in hope, and which is yet hidden, may surpass the sin which thou feelest; and know, that it is not such a righteousness as lets itself be seen or felt, but as to which one must hope that in is time it will be reached. Therefore thou art not to judge after the feeling of sin, but according to the promise and doctrine of faith, through which Christ is promised to thee, that he may be thy perfect and everlasting righteousness.—Starke:—Waiting comprehends in it; a believing assurance of certain attainment of the thing hoped for, a high estimation of the j same, a continual remembrance thereof, an ardent longing thereafter, a joy in the apprehension of future felicity, a patient expectation, an abstinence from all that stands opposed to the purity and steadfastness of such hope.—Those that will be righteous by the law have nothing more to expect of Christ but believers have yet glorious benefits to hope from him. Galatians 5:6. Luther:—St. Paul points out here what is the fashion of the Christian life, namely, that it is nothing else than, inwardly, faith towards God and, outwardly, love and works towards our neighbor, so mat a man becomes perfectly a Christian, inwardly by faith towards God, who does not need our works, and outwardly by works towards men, whom our faith can help nothing, but our works and our love.—Of faith, what it is, what its inward hidden nature, power, work and office is, has he treated above, where he says that faith makes us righteous before God. But here he conjoins it with love and works, i. e. he speaks of its works and office, which it outwardly and publicly accomplishes, that it is the stirrer up to good works and to love, yea not alone the stirrer up, but the true doer and workmaster of all good works.—There stands St. Paul and says outright, that faith, which worketh by love, makes a Christian, says not that cowls, fasts, distinct attire or genuflections make a Christian.—Anything else, be it called what it may, makes no one a Christian: only faith and love do so. See also above in the Doctrinal Notes. Galatians 5:7. In Starke:—Running in religion is good, running well still better, to accomplish the race best of all. To a Christian life there appertains standing and walking: standing, that one may not fall, walking, that one may not stand still, which is commonly linked with a going back.—Luther:—These words are very comforting, for Christians have ever this temptation, to imagine that their life is an idle and sleepy matter, it seems more a creeping than a running. But so far as they remain steadfast in the wholesome doctrine, walk in the Spirit and wait on their vocation, they should in no wise trouble themselves, although it seems as if their work and doing went slowly on, and crept rather than walked. But our master, God, judges far otherwise. What seems to us slow walking, seems to Him quick and swift running, item, what we count for mournfulness, suffering, death etc., that is with Him joy, laughing and blessedness.—“Who did hinder you?” And now they supposed, forsooth, that all their matters were going most prosperously and most swiftly along.—Hedinger:—Have a care, pilgrim! on the way to heaven there are many stumbling blocks.—Hearest thou the sirens sing and the robbers whistle? Finish thou thy course with joy, let not the threatening and flattering of the world lead thee astray! The Lord is with thee!—Lange:—Beware of all credulousness, especially in spiritual things, which concern the well-being of the soul! Let a doctrine wear ever so good a guise, it must nevertheless be tested by God’s word. Galatians 5:8. Luther:—The devil is a prince of persuaders. He can so blow up and magnify the very smallest sins, that he who is tempted, thinks nothing else than that they are so great and terrible sins, as are worthy the punishment of eternal death. Then is it high time that we comfort such a disturbed soul in such wise as St. Paul has here done, saying to it, that such persuasion is not of Christ, since it gainsays the word of the gospel, which depicts Christ to us, not as an accuser, but as meek and compassionate, a Saviour and Comforter. Galatians 5:9. Hedinger:—The least particle of evil infects, a single spark kindles a forest. Away with it! But O ye careless! is it a small thing to you, to be corrupted through idle talk and companyings, through poison of lies against Christ? Galatians 5:10. Luther:—Has St. Paul done right in saying: I have a good confidence towards you, while yet the Holy Scripture forbids that we should have confidence in man? Answer: Faith and Love both believe, yet is the belief of the two not directed upon one thing. The faith is directed towards God, therefore it cannot be deceived: but love believes man, therefore is it often and greatly deceived. But yet the faith that love has is such a needful thing in this present life, that without it this life cannot at all continue. For if no man trusts nor believes another, what would this life upon earth become? Christians out of love believe people easier than the subtle children of the world are wont to do. For that believers trust people and expect good of them, that is beautiful fruit of the Holy Ghost and faith. But the Christian adds: In the Lord=so far do I trust you and expect good of you, as the Lord is in you and ye in Him, that is, so far as ye abide in the truth.—We must diligently distinguish doctrine from life. Doctrine is heaven, life the earth. In life there is sin, error, discord. Here love should pass by and overlook, should forbear; here should forgiveness of sins bear sway, yet so that one should not wish to uphold such sin and error. But with doctrine it is quite another thing, for it is holy, pure, ummixed, heavenly, divine; therefore can we not suffer it, that any one should distort it even in the least particular. Whoever will alter or adulterate it, against such a one there is neither love nor compassion. Galatians 5:11. St. Paul holds that for a certain sign, that it is not and cannot be the true gospel, if it is preached in peace and in quietness and is not gainsayed nor persecuted. On the other hand, the world, when it sees that from the preaching of the gospel great rumors, divisions, scandal and tumults follow, holds that for a certain size that such teaching is heretical and seditious.—To murderers, thieves and other evil-doers grace is shown; on the contrary the world deems that no more evil, mischievous people are to be found than Christians; therefore it also persuades itself that they can never have punishment and torment enough inflicted on them.—As long as persecutions and suffering endure, the state of the church is good. The church must suffer persecution, if the gospel is purely preached. For the gospel goes about to preach alone God’s compassion, grace, glory and praise, and on the other hand discovers the devil’s craft and malice. Where the gospel comes it cannot be otherwise, there must follow the scandal of the cross; where that does not come to pass, there certainly the devil is not yet fairly hit, but only a little grazed.—May God be surety that the offence of the cross do not cease, which would soon come to pass, if we only preached, what the prince of this world with his members would be glad to hear, namely, how to be justified and saved by one’s own works. [The offence of the cross. 1. It asks men to humble their pride and take salvation as a free gift; this is a great scandal. 2. It sometimes seems to cease: 3. It never does.—R.] The homiletical uses of the single verses, especially 1–9, are easily suggested by the sententious character of the greater part. Galatians 5:1-6 From Lisco:—The care taken by the Christian, to stand fast in the true freedom. Galatians 5:7-12. How are we to rescue those who stand in danger of apostacy? 1. By bringing to their minds their earlier life in communion with God: 2. by warning against the destruction to which they are hastening, Galatians 5:9-10; Galatians 3. by the testimony of our own walk and perseverance in fellowship with God through Christ, Galatians 5:11. For Galatians 5:1-6 at New Year. Frantz:—A good counsel at the New Year for all, who will strengthen their inward life: 1. Stand fast in the freedom, wherewith Christ hath made us free; 2. lose not Christ and fall not away from grace; 3. wait in the Spirit through faith for the righteousness that is to be hoped for; 4. walk in faith which worketh by love. Footnotes: [Wordsworth finds here a reference to the false accusation (Galatians 5:11) that he preached circumcision, and Lightfoot thinks this is probably an indirect refutation of calumnies as well as an assertion of authority.—R.] [Lightfoot renders “are driven forth, are banished with Hagar your mother,” but white this meaning of ἐκπίπτειν is classical, it is not found elsewhere in New Testament and must not be pressed.—R.] [The verb here used means “to break up a road,” so as to render it impassable. It originally took the dative of the person, but in the New Testament is followed by an accusative. Lightfoot seems to think ἀνέκοψεν (Rec.) would suit the metaphor of the stadium better, its meaning being “to beat back,” to hinder with the further idea of thrusting back (Ellicott), but the other reading is too well supported, he also remarks that the transcribers seem to have taken offence at the word ἐγκόπτειν, since it is frequently altered, e. g. 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Acts 24:4.—R.] Galatians 4:31.—ΰ. διό. [So B. D1. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Lightfoot. Ἄρα (Rec.) is feebly supported; as also ἡμεῖςδέ.—R.] Galatians 5:1.—The correct reading is probably that of Lachmann: τῇἐλευθερίᾳἡμᾶςΧριστὸςἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετεοὖν. So ΰ. which also begins Galatians 5 with στήκετε. [This reading is supported also by A. B. C. D., and adopted by Usteri, Meyer (4th ed., Schmoller mentions the other reading as his) and Alford. Τῇἐλευθεριᾳ, ᾖἡμᾶςΧριστὸςἠλευθέρωσεν, στήκετεοὖν is supported by D.2 3 E. K. L., the great majority of cursives, many versions and fathers, and is adopted by Griesbach, Rόckert, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot (who differs in punctuation however), Between these two readings the choice is very difficult. The authorities are so equally divided, and as the verbal difference is slight, the critical question resolves itself into this delicate one: whether the transcriber was more likely to have omitted or inserted ᾖ, because of ἡμᾶς immediately following. Meyer thinks it was inserted, others that it was omitted. The latter opinion seems more probable, and the second reading is preferable on diplomatic grounds. The renderings given above are in accordance with the two readings, but minor variations in interpretation are noticed in the Exeg. Notes. We find besides, οὖν placed after ἐλευθερίᾳ, but this is feebly supported; it is put after στήκετε in ΰ. A.B.C.F. On this position of the particle, an argument for Lachmann’s punctuation is based, though it is not decisive. Χριστός is placed before ἡμᾶς in C.K.L.: after it in ΰ. A. B. D. E. F. G. Lightfoot not only begins a new sentence at δτήκετε, but, retaining ᾖ, is forced to join the first clause directly with Galatians 5:31, and to render: we are sons “of her who is free with that freedom which Christ has given us.” So Schott and Rinck. This seems forced, but Lightfoot’s note on the various readings is valuable.—On the other variations from the E. V., in this verse, see Exeg. Notes.—R.] Galatians 5:2.—ΰ. omits Παῦλος, inserted however by the corrector. Galatians 5:2.—[Both here and in Galatians 5:3, the reference is not to the fact of having been circumcised, but now resorting to the rite as necessary.—R.] Galatians 5:4.—[Schmoller renders: abgetrennt seid ihr von (der gemeinschaft mit) Christo. The construction is pregnant, and scarcely admits of a literal translation. Vulgate: evacuati estis a. Alford’s “annihilates from Christ” is objectionable. Ellicott’s paraphrase is good: “Your union with Christ became void” (so Meyer). It seems both more lively and more exact to retain the present in English, since “the aorists (κατηργήθητε, ἐξεπέσατε) represent the consequences as instantaneous” (Lightfoot).—R.] Galatians 5:5.—ΰ. has ἐκδεχόμεθα, ΰ.3 ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. Galatians 5:7.—[Rec. has ἀνέκοψε, but the correct reading is ἐνέκοψε (all MSS., most cursives, and modern editors).—R.] Galatians 5:7.—Τῇἀληθείαμὴπείθεσθαι is, without ground, deemed spurious by Semler and Kopp. [ΰ. A. B. Lachmann, Lightfoot, omit τῇ; retained on good authority by Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott.—R.] Galatians 5:9.—Δολοῖ is a gloss. Galatians 5:12.—[See Exeg. Notes, on the meaning of this verse.—R.] G. Extended exhortation to the Qalatians, instead of turning back from Faith to works of the Law, to give activity to their Faith (in a right understanding of Christian freedom) by ministering Love, as the best fulfilment of the Law Galatians 5:13 to Galatians 6:101. More general—reverting to the principle of ethical opposition between Spirit and Flesh, in a discussion, partly didactic (Galatians 5:13-24) (Galatians 5:16-24.—Epistle for 14th Sunday after Trinity) 13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty [ye were called unto liberty, brethren]; only use not liberty [or your liberty] for an occasion to the flesh, but by [or by means of your] love serve one another. 14For all the [the whole] law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then [Now I say], Walk in [by] the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and [for] these are contrary [opposed] the one to the other; so that 18ye cannot do the things that ye would [that ye may not do what things ye would]. But if ye be led of [by] the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these [of which kind are], adultery [omit adultery], 20fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness [wantonness], idolatry, witchcraft [sorcery], hatred [hatreds], variance [strife], emulations [jealousy], wrath, strife, seditions, 21heresies [caballings, dissensions, factions], envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past [I forewarn you as I did forewarn you], that they which do such things [as these] shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 23longsuffering, gentleness [benignity], goodness, faith [or trustfulness], Meekness, 24temperance: against such [as these] there is no law. And [Now] they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the [its] affections and lusts. AND Gal_5:13. For ye were called unto liberty, brethren.—“For”: Paul justifies the strong expression, he has used in Galatians 5:12, against the false teachers. They deserved this rebuke, for—they seek to deprive you of your freedom, and yet—ye are called to that (by God through your conversion to Christ); therefore they strive against the counsel and will of God Himself.—To this thought: “ye were called unto liberty,” Paul however now adds a restriction, a warning against misunderstanding and misuse of this liberty (which in all that precedes he had vindicated with such decision for Christians, and which he had made it their duty not to surrender): only use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, μόνονμὴ κ. τ. λ. We must supply, say τρέπετε=Turn not, use not liberty as a pretext for the flesh=let not the flesh (your sinful human nature) obtain in this freedom (from the law) an occasion to pretend that it is therefore now allowed to man to do what he will, and therefore it also may claim indulgence with its sinful lusts. This of course would be an entire perversion of Christian freedom, were the flesh thus allowed to take advantage of it. The antithesis shows distinctly, what Paul regards as the essence of the sarcical state; not by any means the corporeal nature, properly so called, but the selfish Egoism. For he exhorts: but by your love serve one another; love being conceived as the means of serving.—Δουλεύειν in happy antithesis to the ἐλευθερία of Christians. Christians are not to be servants to the law; in this sense they are free; but on the other hand this freedom does not exclude but includes δουλεύειν in the sense of “serving one another. [Lightfoot: “Both ἀλάπης and δουλεύετε are emphatic. St. Paul’s meaning may be expressed by a paraphrase thus; ‘you desire to be in bondage: I too recommend to you a bondage, the subservience of mutual love. Temper your liberty with this bondage, and it will not degenerate into license’.”—R.] With this verse a new section, of course, begins, but it is incorrect to begin here, as is variously done, a second or third main division. Above all it is not to be supposed that the Apostle henceforth addresses himself to those Galatian Christians who had held fast the principle of evangelical freedom; on the contrary he has throughout the whole Epistle the same individuals in mind, namely, those led astray by Judaism, and his present exhortation also is immediately connected with the leading thought of the Epistle. How nearly? This he, himself, plainly sets forth in the first place with μόνονμή: the energetic admonition to the maintenance of freedom receives its needful complement in the warning against misuse of the same, by the reference to its ethical character.—But this is unquestionably only one side, hardly more than the mere point of attachment. Paul gives his exhortation to serviceable love not merely as a precaution in case the Galatians, perceiving the inadmissibleness of the legal position, should desire to return to the freer one, but this also belongs, together with the entire explication which it receives in the following verses, to the polemics against their present erroneous view. To that legalism, which he combatted, as slighting faith, and surrendering Itself into false bondage, he opposes as the truth, “the fulfilling of the law” by the activity of faith in love (comp. Galatians 5:6), where we make ourselves servants, more generally in a walk by the Spirit, in which one is free from the law in the very “fulfilling” of it (Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 5:23). He is the more earnest in holding this up to them, because the Galatians especially, in spite of (or on account of) their legal zeal, were wanting in this fulfilment of the law through a walk by the Spirit, a fulfilment which obliges Christians also (comp., especially Galatians 5:15). The same persons who wanted to impose the law upon themselves, were content to be lacking in that which is the heart of the law; those who wished to make themselves servants to the law, would not be servants to one another. It was therefore of moment, to exclaim to these: Behold, what you need, is not in any way to turn yourselves away from faith, as if this were too little, to the law, but simply to make faith active through a walk in the Spirit, in love. Comp. Galatians 5:6, and also chap. 6, where the more detailed exhortations follow. We thus see plainly how impossible it is to disconnect this section from the preceding one, how on the other hand it concurs with the entire polemics of the Apostle, nay, how these find in it their true, convincing culmination.—It is of course incorrect to oppose this section, as hortatory, to the preceding part of the Epistle, as didactic, for this reason that the preceding part also includes exhortation (especially ver.1); this however was dogmatic, and now comes ethical exhortation. Unquestionably therefore this section might with some propriety be called the Ethical part, in distinction from the Doctrinal; but if by this were meant, as commonly, that Paul now leaves the controversy concerning the relation of the Law to Faith, and, having no longer in mind the defection of the Galatian churches, merely proceeds to exhort to a walk of Christian morality, with reference to ethical short-comings, this too must be deemed incorrect according to what has been remarked. Moreover, even if such a distinction into a dogmatic and an ethical part is not unwarranted in fact, it is at all events not exact in form; this section cannot be formally contrasted with all that precedes. For certainly the discourse proceeds without interruption; Paul is speaking hortatively to the Galatians (especially from ver.1 on), but on the ground of the doctrinal exposition, and now he merely gives a sudden ethical turn to this exhortation, bringing, as has been remarked, the whole to an appropriate conclusion.Galatians 5:14. For the whole law is fulfilled.—It is not easy to determine either the meaning of this clause, or its connection with what precedes. The first explanation, which offers itself on account of ἐνἑνὶ λόγῳ, taken πληροῦται as= ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, comprehenditur, as Romans 8:9. [So Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, et al.—R.] But this must be rejected as lexically untenable. Besides with the reading [now generally adopted], πεπλήρωται it becomes at once incorrect.—As little does νόμονπληρ. have here the same sense as in Matthew 5:17=to bring out, to make evident the deeper sense, the ideal substance in distinction from the literal form. Doubtless it is not a πληροῦν in the doctrine that is here in question, and in reality, if πληρ. were taken in this sense, the explanation would come back again to the one already disapproved, namely, that the commandment of love to our neighbor is the substance of ὁ πᾶςνόμος, since that which is substance, in another aspect, is also foundation. Πληροῦν is to be understood of fulfilment by deed, conformity, satisfacere legi. [Ellicott: “The perfect πεπλήρωται suitably points to the completed and permanent act.”—R.] It is peculiar then, no doubt, that this is said to be in one word, ἐνἑνὶ λόλῳ, and this to be regarded as an abbreviated expression for; By conformity to the one word, precept (from Leviticus 19:18), immediately follows: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.—[Meyer: “Neighbor is for the Christian, who rightly (Matthew 5:17) applies this Mosaic command to himself, his fellow-Christian (comp. Galatians 5:13, ἀλλήλοις), as for the Jew it was fellow-Jew; but how little this is to be taken as excluding any one whatever, is shown by the whole spirit of Christianity, which finds its most beautiful expression in the case of the Samaritan (Luke 10); Paul himself was such a Samaritan toward Jew and Gentile.”—R.] But how far does Paul declare obedience to the one commandment of love to our neighbor, an obedience to the whole law? Not in the sense in which Love is styled πλήρωμανόμου (Romans 13:8-10). Nearly related as the two passages appear to be, they must by no means be confounded. For in Romans 13 it is expressly stated what is to be understood by νόμος, namely, the individual commandments of the Decalogue which respect conduct towards our neighbor, and love is called the πλήρωμα of those, because, whoever has the dispositions of love, and in truth only such a one, will of course fulfil also the duties of love commanded by the law. But that “the whole law” in this passage is not to be arbitrarily turned into “second table of the Decalogue,” nor even interpreted generally = Moral law, is plain; on the contrary, it doubtless signifies nothing else than: the whole Mosaic law. But in the second place it is also clear, that Paul cannot mean to say, that in love to our neighbor is found the pledge of the fulfilment of the whole law. For this latter Paul has not at all in mind, it is precisely the opposite that he is aiming at; his meaning is, that on him who does this there is no future requirement made in respect to observance of the law, that from this he is free. The sense of πεπλήρωται can therefore only be: He is to be regarded as if he had fulfilled the law, and therefore the law can exact nothing further of him. By no means therefore is the commandment of love to our neighbor regarded by Paul as the summary of the whole law; this would be entirely incorrect. He will rather say this, that if any one fulfils this, all the rest comes no more into account; of course, with reference to his emphatic demonstration in what precedes, that the law has lost its binding force for the believer. If the believer now does not take this faith to be a dead one, but quickens it through love, he has done all; there can be of further claims of the law upon him no mention, but he ought on the other side to have and exercise love, for only then can he regard himself as free from the claims of the whole land besides, only then, in fact, is he a believer.—If it is asked how Paul could view the whole law as fulfilled in love to our neighbor, especially without even mentioning love to God, this question is mostly raised with the understanding that he means to designate the commandment of love to our neighbor as the summary, or the fulfilment of it as the condition and principle of the fulfilment of the whole law; and if he meant it so, his assertion must unquestionably be declared unwarranted. (Where the former is in question, Jesus in Matthew 21:34 sq. places the two commandments together; and where the latter, Paul, Romans 13., restricts the law to the second table.) But this understanding of his proposition has been already designated as incorrect. He doubtless means to say: Of him who has love to his neighbor the law can exact nothing more. The question, rightly stated, is therefore only this: How could Paul attribute to love towards our neighbor so eminent a position, that he designates him who should fulfil it as free from all else? Must he not also, nay, above all, demand of the believer a fulfilling of the commandment of love to God, and could he, except on condition that both were found in a man, esteem it equivalent to a fulfilment of the whole law? As to this it is simply to be remarked, that (1) he conceives Faith as essentially comprehending love to God, and (2) cannot conceive love to our neighbor without love to God, and therefore in demanding the former from Christians, he of course does not mean to release them from the latter. He does not, however, mention love to God, for his exhortation has not respect to a merely inward fulfilling of the law, belonging to the disposition, but to that fulfilling of the law which comes into manifestation, and shows itself forth in the walk, to the true ethical conduct of the life, and especially of the common life, and this rests upon love to our neighbor. Therefore this only is made the subject of discourse.—If now the Apostle uses this proposition to establish the preceding exhortation (γάρ), this is not in the sense that he means thereby to represent the “serving by love” (Galatians 5:13), as a divine duty because commanded by the law; after he has previously denied so decidedly that Christians are under the law, he cannot make the fact that it is commanded in the law a motive for the exercise of love. The principal emphasis lies rather upon πᾶς and πεπλήρ., on the circumstance that through serving love the whole law is fulfilled, in the sense given=enough has been done for the law, i. e., negatively, they are therewith absolved from the rest of the law. Therefore nearly=Love one another: for therewith the whole ground of controversy, respecting the observance of the law, whether this or that precept is to be observed, is taken away. The whole sentence, therefore, serves rather to strengthen his exhortation than to give, strictly speaking, a reason for it. The commandment of love to our neighbor, although expressed by a citation from the law (Leviticus): ἀγαπήσειςτὸνπλ. κ. τ. λ, does not therefore come into consideration as a particular commandment of the law, as if Paul from the other commandments, as being abrogated, excepts this one as remaining in force; only the commandment to exercise love towards our neighbor remains in fact valid for the Christian (and if it is done, the law has no further claim upon him); but to him it is a commandment not on account of the law, but because he is a Christian, on account of his faith in Christ, or because (Galatians 5:6) “in Christ” alone “faith working through love” “availeth anything.” Into the question how far the faith in Christ obliges to love, Paul does not enter, but he then goes on to show that this love is the operation of the Spirit, which faith brings.—While the proposition serves primarily to commend the exhortation, and while such an argument must have had the more weight for this end with those zealous for the law, yet of course at the same time it deals a blow against this zeal for the law, and exhibits its emptiness; for all the rest, the many observances are, according to it, purely superfluous; with the one thing. Love to our neighbor, all is done. [Meyer “Paul looked down from a lofty spiritual level, and saw all other commands of the law subordinated to the law of love, that whoever had fulfilled this command, must be treated as having fulfilled the whole.” The fact that Paul chose this particular expression, “the whole law is fulfilled,” places his teaching in opposition to antinomian tendencies, just as the Sermon on the Mount shows Christ’s position to the law, viewed as a purely ethical rule of life. “The whole law,” i. e., the Mosaic law, regarded in this light, was fulfilled in the case of the believer by this love to his neighbor; for the whole law of Moses had an ethical purpose, which purpose is now fulfilled to its full extent only when the believer, because he as a believer, is living “by the Spirit.” has that temper of heart to God, which enables him to obey this “one word.”—Schmoller insists too strongly on the idea that “all the rest are superfluous.” It is doubtful whether this is implied even in Galatians 5:18. The Doctrinal Notes show his meaning more clearly.—R.] Galatians 5:15. But if ye bite and devour one another.—This is = if ye intend of serving one another through love, do just the opposite: bear ill will towards and hate one another, and let this come into act, plot mischief against one another, yea, seek to destroy one another; something like this is the sense of these strong expressions borrowed from ravening beasts. Then take heed, adds Paul with incisive words, that the result be not the opposite of what you intend, that ye be not consumed of one another.—Each might be disposed to supplant the other, but in the end it will come to this, all will be wasted away. The sentence thus coφperates per contrarium to the establishment of Gal 5:12. The explanation: “your Christian community will go to pieces,” I am inclined to regard as too special. It is not improbable, indeed, that this influence of the Judaizers occasioned divisions among the Galatians, and threw them into controversies upon the question of the law; yet I should not be disposed to refer this δάκνεινκαὶ κατεσθίειν so definitely to that, as is commonly done. For this is at least intimated nowhere else in the Epistle. Galatians 5:16. Now I say, walk by the Spirit.—With λέγωδέ Paul conducts his exhortation to serve one another by love (agreeably to the warning already given in the first half of Gal 5:13.) back to a more general, fundamental exhortation to walk by the Spirit (for in the Spirit he sees the Agent that leads to love), and then designates Spirit and Flesh as the two ethical principles opposite to one another, expressing themselves in opposite workings.—Πνεύματιπεριπ. Dative of instrument; properly: walk through the Spirit, so that He is (not the path in which—Wieseler, but) the power, through which they walk=πνεύματιἀγόμενοι, Galatians 5:18. [The dative may be instrumental, as in Galatians 5:18, but it is better, perhaps, with Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, to consider it a normal dative, that by which, according to which they are to walk (almost =κατὰ πνεῦμα), for the reason that “Spirit” is contrasted in this passage not merely with “flesh,” but also with “law,” and the double contrast is best brought out thus, since under the idea of the normal dative, that of rule or direction is included. Wieseler brings out the same meaning, but takes the dative as instrumental.—R.] Πνεῦμα is here also doubtless =The Holy Ghost; it is this, that overcomes the σάρξ. He enters, it is true, into the hearts of believers, and works only by impelling and determining the walk, as He who dwells in the believers. But yet πνεῦμα is not on this account=the new disposition of the believer himself, sanctified by the Spirit, but remains ever distinct from the individual human spirit as Divine, transcending it. [Meyer adopts this view, and remarks that the absence of the article is not against it. “The distinction affirmed by Harless, that τὸ πνεῦμα means the objective Holy Ghost, πνεῦμα without the article the subjective, cannot be justified, since πνεῦμα has the nature of a proper name, and always, even when it dwells and reigns in the human spirit, remains objective, as the Divine πνεῦμα specifically distinct from the human (Romans 7:16).”—R.] And ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.—We are led to construe this clause, as one of result, both by grammatical considerations (καί with οὐ μή and the subjunctive or future after an imperative has this force commonly) and by the context. In “walk by the Spirit” he indicates the means of victory over “the lust of the flesh.” [On the grammatical point urged above, see the note of Ellicott in loco. He claims that the clause might be imperative, but “as there is no distinct instance of such a construction in the New Testament, and still more as the next verses seem more naturally to supply the reasons for the assertion than for the command, it seems best to adopt the future translation.” (So E. V., Meyer also in 4th ed., and above.) This future with οὐ μή is strong: “shall in no wise” (Lightfoot).—On the word “flesh,” see Doctrinal Note 4.—R.] Galatians 5:17. For.—This introduces, in the first place, simply the proof of a “lust of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16)=of such an one I speak, for the flesh lusteth. Paul does not stop, however, but is led further to the antagonistic idea ἐπιθυμεῖνΠνεῦμα.—Against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.—Each principle combats the other, and seeks to wrest the dominion from it, and on the other hand to place itself in the possession of this. [It is scarcely proper to supply the verb ἐπιθυμεῖν with Πνεῦμα, but the Apostle’s meaning is obvious. Lightfoot suggests “strives,” “fights against.”—R.] This is explained by what follows: these are opposed the one to the other, that ἴνα=with the design, that ye may not do what things ye would, bring into effect precisely the desire which you have admitted into your will. Ἃἂνθέλητε is neither to be restricted to the good nor to the evil will. The inquiry whether the two powers in the cases in question, attain the object desired by them or not, is not proposed here, since the only purpose is to bring vividly to view the irreconcilable antagonism of their tendencies. Wieseler. Ἵνα is therefore not at all to be understood in an ecbatic sense. [Alford: “The necessity of supposing an ecbatic meaning for ἵνα in theology is obviated by remembering, that with God results are all purposed.—R.] The contest moreover is by no means to be conceived as an interminable one. The context shows that on the contrary there is expected of the Christian a complete surrendering of himself in order to be actuated by the one principle, the Spirit, and a refusal to give way to the lust of the flesh, whose motions, it is true, must still be experienced. The passage therefore, is entirely different from Romans 7:17 sq. [The reference is to “the free-will in its ordinary acceptation, subject only to this necessary and obvious limitation, that this conflict must be only predicated in its full extent, of the earlier and more imperfect stages of a Christian course. The state of the true believer is conflict, but with final victory.” Ellicott.—R.] Galatians 5:18 then speaks of the victoy of this principle: But if ye be led by the Spirit=if the combat becomes a victory, and that on the right side; if the ἐπιθ. of the πν. becomes an ἄγειν. [Bengel: ubi vero spiritus vincit, acie res decernitur. The dative here is instrumental.—R.]—Ye are not under the law.—This is according to Galatians 5:14; there it was only stated specially of love, here generally of the “being led by the Spirit,” which correspondence makes evident, how Paul regards its relation to the exercise of love; the two are to him essentially one, that is, the former is the principle of the latter. What in Galatians 5:14 is called somewhat enigmatically a fulfilling of the whole law, is here simply and literally described as “a not being under the law.” The latter is essentially identical with the former; the sense is: The law then can exact nothing more of you; implying naturally: for you are then in the right ethical condition beseeming the Christian, even though not carrying out every detail prescribed in the law. But if you—is the thought implied—are not led by the Spirit, you are then still under obligation to the law; for you are then in fact not yet all in Christ. [Meyer: “Through the impelling power of the Spirit you find yourselves in such a moral condition of life (‘newness of life,’ Romans 6:4) that the law has no power to find fault with you, to condemn and punish you. This explanation is the only correct one according to Galatians 5:23 : and this freedom is the true moral freedom from the law.” So Ellicott, who remarks: “The more obvious conclusion might have seemed, ‘ye are not under the influence of the flesh,’ but as the law was confessedly the principle which was ordained the influences and works of the flesh, the Apostle (in accordance with the general direction of his argument) draws his conclusion relatively rather to the principle, than to the mere state and influences against which that principle was ordained.” It must be borne in mind that Paul’s use of the phrase “under the law” usually regards the law as a judge and pedagogue; here the Christian is viewed as one led by the Spirit, and thus taken from “under the law,” but so led according to the law, as a guide to our new life of gratitude, that of the fruit of the Spirit it is ever true “against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:23).—R.] Galatians 5:19-21. Now the works of the flesh are manifest.—Φανερά, evident=plainly conspicuous and therefore of course undeniable. This φανερά is the main point, and therefore placed first. For Paul wishes to furnish the Galatians inducement for being “led by the Spirit,” and therefore he not only calls the works of the flesh “evident,” but moreover carefully enumerates them, portrays them before their eyes (puts them in the pillory); so that every one may know, what conversely belongs to being led by the Spirit, that one may not practice such things, if he will be one led by the Spirit and not under the law. The positive side is then given Galatians 5:22 sq.—That Paul does not mean to say that all of these things are found among the Galatians, is easily understood.—“Works of the flesh”=“that which is brought to pass when the flesh, i. e., the sinful human nature, and not the Holy Ghost, is the actuating principle.” Meyer. Therefore naturally many sins are here enumerated, which are by no means carnal sins in the common acceptation, but rather in a very special sense sins against love, agreeably to the context. There are four classes: 1. Lust (πορν.—ἀσελγ.) 2. Idolatry (εἰδωλολ., φαρμ.), 3. Contentiousness (ἔχθραι—φόνοι). 4. Intemperance (μέθαι—κῶμοι). The third class is treated the most in detail. [While we must not regard this specification as a charge against the Galatians in particular, it is extremely improbable that the Apostle would not choose such sins as most “easily beset” his readers. Lightfoot very properly observes: “From early habit and constant association a Gentile church would be exposed to sins of the first two classes. The third would be a probable consequence of their religious dissensions, inflaming the excitable temperament of a Celtic people. The fourth seems to be thrown in to give a sort of completeness to the list, though not unfitly addressed, to a nation whose Gallic descent perhaps disposed them too easily to these excesses.”—R.]—Uncleanliness, ἀκαθ., lustful impurity in general after the special fornication, πορνεία; wantonness, ἀσελγ., lustful wantonness. [Lightfoot: “The same three words occur together in a different order, 2 Corinthians 12:21. The order here is perhaps the more natural: πορνεία a special form of impurity; ἀκαθαρσία uncleanness in whatever guise, ἀσέλγεια an open reckless contempt of propriety. A man may be ἀκάθαρτος and hide his sin; he does not become ἀσελγής until he shocks public decency.” As the reference in the New Testament is usually to sensuality, “wantonness” is the best rendering, “standing as it does, by the double meaning which it has, in remarkable ethical connexion with this word” ἀσέλγεια. See Trench, Syn. New Testament § xvi.—R.]—The transition from the first class to the second is easily found in the fact that with idolatrous worship many forms of unchastity were connected; but idolatry is not on that account to be considered as a species of lustful indulgence. [Yet the two forms of sin are so frequently joined together in the New Testament and the latter is so common a metaphor for the former in the Old Testament, as to suggest a more intimate connection than the simple fact that sensual excesses usually accompanied idolatrous worship. This fact must be regarded as an indication of some underlying affinity.—R.]—Φαρμακεία, here apparently, in juxtaposition with idolatry=Sorcery, not poisoning, [Lightfoot: “ ‘Idolatry,’ the open recognition of false gods, ‘sorcery,’ the secret tampering with the powers of evil. It is a striking coincidence, if nothing more, that φαρμακεῖαι were condemned by a very stringent canon of the council held at Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, about A. D. 314.”—R.]—Third class: the substantives up to αἱρέσεις have reference to dissension, the first four as shown in individual conduct, among which however, jealousy, ζῆλος and wrath, θυμοί, refer to the inner aspect, the source. [The latter is rendered “displays of wrath” by Ellicott, and thus referred to outward manifestations, which seems preferable, since the plural is used, serving to denote the concrete form of the abstract sin (so too the plurals which follow); were the reference to the source the singular were more appropriate. See Trench, Syn. New Testament, § xxvii., on the precise meaning of the word.—R.] The three following, caballings, dissensions, factions refer to the dissension of bodies of men.—Envyings, murders follow these, evidently named together mainly on account of the paronomasia, since φθόνος would otherwise belong with ζῆλος; “murders,” however, fittingly closes the list as the culmination of discord. Besides, the two are perhaps put in juxtaposition with reference to the concurrence of envy and murder in the first murder, comp. 1 John 3:12. [Lightfoot: “A principle of order may be observed in the enumeration: 1. ἔχθραι, a general expression opposed to άγἀπη, breaches of charity in feeling or in act; from this point onward the terms are in an ascending scale: 2. ἔρις ‘strife,’ not necessarily implying self-interest; 3. ζῆλος ‘rivalry’ in which the idea of self-assertion is prominent: 4. θυμοὶ ‘wraths,’ a more passionate form of ἔρις; 5. ἐριθεῖαι ‘factious cabals,’ a stronger development of ζῆλος: 6, 7. hostility has reached the point where the contending parties separate; such separation is either temporary (διχοστασίαι ‘divisions’), or permanent (αἱρέσεις ‘sects, heresies’): 8. φθόνοι, a grosser breach of charity than any hitherto mentioned, the wish to deprive another of what he has; 9. φόνοι, the extreme form which hatred can take, the deprivation of life.”—On drunkenness, revellings, Ellicott remarks: “the latter is the more generic and inclusive, to which the former was the usual accompaniment.”—R.]—In order to brand still further “the works of the flesh,” and to restrain from them, he points moreover to the punishment decreed against them, in words which are meant to express: that however often one might come to speak of them, he would always have to render the same judgment, and to express moreover that this judgment might be rendered in advance with perfect distinctness.—Προ in προλέγω and προεῖπον=before it comes; the preterite in προεῖπον=during my presence among you.—Shall not inherit the kingdom of God.—Just as in 1 Corinthians 6:9 sq.; Ephesians 5:5, of course with the pre-supposition: If no conversion intervenes. Galatians 5:22-23. After the negative exposition, Paul now states explicitly in what the being led by the Spirit consists, or, more particularly, reveals itself.—The fruit of the Spirit.—Καρπὸςτοῦ πνεύματος, essentially the same as ἔργα, “works,” Galatians 5:19 : That which comes to pass, which is brought into effect, when the Holy Ghost is the impelling principle. But in what follows it is only qualities that are mentioned, and not works, and so of course ἔργα was not appropriate. And certainly it is not unintentional, that Paul in the first place names only the inward “fruit of the Spirit,” consisting in the disposition of the soul, for the reason that the Spirit primarily and principally changes and must change the inward disposition. When this is done, there is a genuine leading by the Spirit, living by the Spirit, which then finds external manifestation also in a walking by the Spirit.—The singular καρπός also is significant, “proceeding from the conception of the inward unity and ethical continuity of all that the Spirit works.” As “Spirit” in this connection is conceived as the principle from which serving love proceeds, the enumeration of precisely these virtues is easily explicable. That many things besides are effected by the Spirit, does not need to be said. At the head stands Love, as the most general, and at the same time the chief virtue of Christians (comp. Galatians 5:13-14). Gal 10: Χαρά, one is inclined to take as Joy with the brethren, opposed to ζῆλοι, φθόυοι. It is no objection that this incidental idea is not contained in the word itself; the connection might easily indicate in what particular sense χαρά is here to be taken. Yet the explanation of it as the inward joyfulness of the Christian in the consciousness of the love of God may also be justified, as this too stands in close connection with his conduct towards his brethren, and is incompatible with an unloving behavior. At all events the following words from εἰρήνη to πραΰτης belong together, as designating the fruits of “love,” unselfish love; εἰρήνη therefore denotes peace with others, μακροθυμία patience under injuries, χρηστ. gracious, friendly character, ἀγαθ. is nearly related to this: Benevolence (Luther); not so generally as, good dispositions (the special meaning is quite frequent in the Septuagint): πίστις here of course not=justifying faith, but either trustfulness, as opposed to mistrust, or faithfulness.—Finally, temperance, ἐγκράτεια, is added in antithesis particularly to the sins of lust and intemperance (Galatians 5:19-21).—[Here again Lightfoot is excellent: “The difficulty of classification in this list is still greater than in the case of the works of the flesh. Nevertheless some sort of order may be observed. The catalogue falls into three groups of three each. The first of these comprises Christian habits of mind in their more general aspect, ‘love, joy, peace.’ (The fabric is built up story upon story. Love is the foundation, joy the superstructure, peace the crown of all.) The second gives special qualities affecting a man’s intercourse with his neighbor, ‘long-suffering, kindness, beneficence.’ (This triad is again arranged in an ascending scale; μακροθυμία is passive, ‘patient endurance under injuries inflicted by others;’ Χρηστότης, neutral, ‘a kindly disposition towards one’s neighbors’ not necessarily taking a practical form; ἀγαθωσύνη, active, ‘goodness, beneficence’ as an energetic principle.) The third, again general in character like the first, exhibits the principles which guide a Christian’s conduct.”—Ellicott: “Ἐγκράτεια, ‘temperance,’ is distinguished by Diog. Laert, from σωφροσύνη as implying a control over the stronger passions, whereas the latter implies a self-restraint in what is less vehement.”—R.]—Against such as these there Is no law.—Τοιούτων is neuter, as in Galatians 5:21, and the sense is: Such virtues the law condemns not. This, however, implies of course: Against those that possess such qualities the law is not, and this is the same thought, only more specially conceived, as in Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:18. The law requires nothing more of them, and therefore also it can bring no accusations against them. [Or rather, because the law can find nothing to oppose or restrain in such things (which fulfil its ethical purpose), the law has no power over those who bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. Schmoller presses too strongly the implied thought. Beza and others make a meiosis here: these are pleasing to God, but as Meyer remarks: Paul wishes to explain only what he has said in Galatians 5:18 of those led by the Spirit. He sets forth the fruit of the Spirit and says: against virtues and states such as these the law is not, and he thus makes clear, how those led by the Spirit by virtue of their moral condition are not subject to the Mosaic law. For whoever is so circumstanced, that a law is not against him, over him it has no power.—R.] Galatians 5:24. And they that are Christ’s.—Another proposition weighty in itself, and especially also in the connection. It joins on well to what precedes, with which it is probably better to connect it, although on the other hand what follows naturally connects itself with this. That is, as Paul went back from the exhortation to the exercise of love towards our neighbor to the exhortation to a walk in the Spirit, as the principle of love, so now he goes back beyond that again, and shows how this walk in the Spirit is itself grounded in fellowship with Christ. As thus, in the first place he spoke of the fruit of the Spirit, and then says: Now it is those that are Christ’s, who have crucified their flesh, etc.; who therefore have crucified the very disposition opposed to the aforesaid fruit of the Spirit, the disposition from which the works of the flesh proceed, so that the opposite disposition, the fruit of the Spirit, can find a place. [Ellicott: “The connection of the whole paragraph appears to be as follows:—‘The Spirit and the flesh are contrary to each other; if the flesh prevail, man is given over to all sin, and excluded from the kingdom of God: if the Spirit be the leading principle, man brings forth good fruits, and is free from the curse of the law. Now the distinguishing feature of the true Christian is the crucifixion of the flesh; consequently, it must be obvious from what has been said, the living in and being led by the Spirit’.”—R.]—Have crucified, ἐσταύρωσαν.—This is conceived as something accomplished, and is therefore apparently to be referred to an individual act, the act of becoming a Christian through faith and baptism. The meaning, to be sure, is not, that now the flesh, with its affections and lusts, is not any longer present at all with those that have become Christians. But yet at least a walk in the flesh should not any longer exist in the case of Christians; we may declare to these that such a walk is in contradiction to their essential character as Christians, and that a walk in the Spirit may rightly be expected of them; yet this is only possible because we may urge this upon them: You now have crucified the flesh. It is to be noted also, that the language is not: slain, but, crucified. The former could not so well be said, as it is conceived rather as a task of the Christian to be accomplished only by continual effort (Colossians 3:5). In “crucified,” however, the simple slaying is not the main idea, but the condemning, giving sentence, surrendering to infamous death; and this has necessarily taken place in becoming Christ’s. [Ellicott: “Though this ethical crucifixion is here designated as an act past, it really is and must be a continuing act as well. This however the aorist, with its usual and proper force, leaves unnoticed; it simply specifies, in the form of a general truth, the act as belonging to the past, without affirming or denying any reference to the present. In all such cases the regular reference of the tense to the past may be felt in the kind of summary way in which the action is stated,—the sort of implied dismissal of the subject, and procedure to something fresh.”—R.]—Ἐσταύρ. naturally alludes to the cross of Christ, and the fellowship with Christ involves a crucifixion of the flesh for the very reason that it is fellowship with Christ’s death on the cross; for through this the fact that men’s σάρξ deserves condemnation and is obnoxious to death, is demonstrated and set forth in a way of irresistible force; for Christ indeed has only suffered what men have deserved on account of their sinful “flesh,” and therefore what this itself has deserved. Whoever therefore appropriates to himself in faith Christ’s death upon the cross, regards the “flesh” in himself no longer; for him in Christ’s death this has been crucified. (Comp. Romans 6:6.) [Meyer: “ ‘Have crucified the flesh,’ expresses: to have divested themselves of all vital fellowship with sin, whose seat the σάρξ is, so that, as Christ was objectively crucified, we, by means of the entrance into the fellowship of this death on the cross, crucify the σάρξ subjectively, moral consciousness of faith, i.e., have made it entirely lifeless and inoperative through faith as the new vital element, to which we have passed over. To Christians considered ideally as here, this ethical slaying of the flesh is something which has taken place, in reality however, it is also something taking place and continuing.”—R.] Παθήματα are passions, aroused by the σάρξ in the sensibility; these then show themselves active in definite sinful lusts, ἐπιθυμίαι. In the παθ. the man is, as is implied in the word passive; but this passivity becomes activity in the ἐπιθυμίαι. [Comp. Colossians 3:5, and see Trench, Syn. New Testament, 2d series, § xxxvii.—R.] AND ETHICAL1. Men are pointed away from the law and to faith, first and above all, because only faith in Christ and not the keeping of the precepts of the law, or the doing of works of the law, is the way to the attaining of justification and of the divine inheritance (subjectively: to the attaining of the comfort of the forgiveness of sins, of the adoption of children and the hope of the eternal inheritance). For him who has this faith, the law loses its importance, for the reason that a usus justificatorius it has not, while it has already fulfilled its usus pζdagogicus, of impelling to faith, in the case of such a one.—But nevertheless the Apostle is the farthest possible from meaning that the believer on Christ is dispensed from giving a truly moral (ethico-religious) character to his inward disposition and his life (from the doing of “good works”), and is entitled to persevere in sin, that is, to indulge the “flesh.” So far is this from being true that this, despite his faith and despite the fact that faith is the condition of salvation, nevertheless excludes him from the kingdom of God and from eternal life (Galatians 5:21; Galatians 6:8). And, indeed, this cannot be the opinion of the Christian, for this his faith in Christ involves not merely an impulse and power to the avoidance of sin, to the willing and doing of good, but because it is a coming into fellowship with Christ’s death, it immediately involves also the arising of a hatred against sin, a condemning of the flesh (Galatians 5:21), and because it is a receiving of Christ, it involves also the beginning of a life for God (comp. Galatians 2:19 sq. and the Doctrinal Notes on that section). The latter fact, the new life, which arises or is given with faith on Christ, receives in this section its exact expression; there begins in man a working of the Spirit (πνεῦμα), who, overcoming the flesh (Galatians 5:16), brings forth fruit in an ethically good, God-pleasing disposition of heart and life (Galatians 5:22 sq.). Nay, it is only this faith in Christ which leads to this goal, as it is only this which leads to the other goal of justification. The law cannot effect this second, and quite as little can it effect the first. On the contrary, it arouses the σάρξ (and the ἁμαρτία dwelling therein), but does not assist to the receiving of the Spirit (comp. Galatians 2:2, and Romans 7:8). So little therefore does faith in Christ dispense from a disposition and course of action pleasing to God, that it is just this, nay more, only this which leads thereto. If any one is disposed to call this disposition and activity to the Christian, thus conformed to God’s will, a “fulfilling of the law,” he does not name it wrongly; only in doing it he is to keep in mind (1) that it is not to be understood in a formal, but only in a material relation: a doing of that which the law commands, yet not because the law commands it, but in the strength and on the impulse of faith, or more properly, of the Spirit, something therefore entirely different from what Paul calls “works of the law;” it is that which he so often names ἔργαἀγαθά, works of the Spirit, rather than of the law; (2) that in this appellation law is taken in a quite restricted sense, of the properly ethical commandments (see Romans 13:8 sq., where it plainly appears what Paul means by the νόμος; when he speaks generally, he uses the expression ἐντολαὶ θεοῦ, 1 Corinthians 7:19). “Fulfilling of the law” will therefore always be an only partially adequate expression for a Christian life, a conformity of the life to God’s will. Entirely abandoning the Old Testament point of view therefore, Paul speaks directly of an ἀναπληροῦντὸννόμονΧριστοῦ (Galatians 6:2).2. But it is true that the “doing of good works” the making faith active in a walk and mind pleasing to God, does not come to pass, as it were, of itself (as might appear from what precedes), even with the believer (even though, as of course is pre-supposed, his faith is an actual one of inward persuasion, and not merely nominal, is actually equivalent to a τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἶναι, and therefore bears within it the energy perfectly adequate to a moral renewal of the life). Even with the believer the σάρξ has not disappeared. Therefore, although abstractly we must say: the believer cannot dispense himself from a genuine ethical renewal of his life, yet in concreto we are rather to say: He ought not. The “thou oughtest” comes back even to him who stands on the foundation of faith. This appears in the case of the believer, in a twofold manner. In the first place and chiefly on the side of the πνεὺμα, which he receives in faith; for this works not merely as it were physically, in the form of an energy of nature, converting the will of man into agreement with the mind of God (and the figure of the καρπός must be understood cum grano salis: a bare growing up it certainly is not); the result is brought about ethically and not physically; the πνεῦμα also approaches the will with requirements, which it is true are far more intensive, which have as it were a quite different power of bending the will from the requirements of the law or of the conscience (the law of the letter or of the conscience); for they are strengthened by the persuasion which is received along with faith into the heart, of the condemnation of sin as well as the forgiveness of it, of the holiness as well as the compassion inhering in the grace of God in Christ. But it is with an “ought,” however intensive, that the πνεῦμα in the believer approaches the will of man, and seeks to determine it to let itself be guided by him, to determine it to the ἄγεσθαι and then also to the πνεύματιπεριπατεῖν: and in doing this he meets with many hindrances on the side of the σάρξ (Galatians 5:17).—This is the immediate, inward “ought” that has place and is needful even with the believer. But to this inward monition and impulse of the Spirit, there must be added, in order to keep it ever alive and guard it against all impure admixture, one coming from without. Of this we have in this very section the speaking proof. The Apostle sees occasion given him to admonish the Galatian Christians with earnest words to a disposition and course of life answerable to their faith; he approaches them with an “Ought:” “So ought it to be with Christians = because you believe in Christ!” And his admonition here and elsewhere holds good also for us; it is the testimony of the Spirit conveyed through the word—testimonium externum (in distinction from internum)—the comprehensive exposition of which is the function of New Testament ethics. 3. That even the believer is not and cannot be spared the earnestly admonishing and impelling “ought” because even with him there is not found a steady will (on account of the old Adam), is the meaning of the church doctrine of the tertius legis usus, the usus legis with the renatus (the us. didact. or normal.), and understood in this sense it is correct. But as it is expressed it is distorted and incorrect, and is in conflict with the indisputable Pauline doctrine, that the believer is not ὑπὸ νόμον, that he may not be placed nor place himself under it. He is indeed under a law of the Spirit, so far as the Spirit admonishes, requires, rebukes, yet the Spirit does by no means merely this, but far more; this is the very least that he does. But especially is the believer in no sense whatever under the law of the letter, the Old Testament law, the proper lex, and with all its generalizing of the conception of lex, the Formula Concordiζ, nevertheless, in the section touching this matter does not really go beyond the Mosaic law. It does not arrive at the conception of the law of the Spirit (the law of faith), whether this is entirely inward, or expressed also in the word of Scripture (in the New Testament word of Scripture, which for the fulfilment of the ethical requirement presupposes the faith in Christ with what it has and gives). The law of the letter (the proper lex), has, it is true, its great significance for the believer but it has its place not, so to speak, after Faith, but only before the same, as pζdagogus (see above on Galatians 3:19 sq.); and in this sense it permanently retains its importance, and is indispensable for faith. That is, the sinfulness and imperfection of the new life even in the believer, make it needful that the law should not once only, but ever afresh, awaken in him the knowledge of sin and the impossibility of himself attaining salvation and eternal life, and by that very means drive him to assure himself of it in. faith in Christ; and so ever impel him anew to faith. So far, therefore, as a usus of the lex, strictly so called, can be predicated even as to the renatus, it falls under the usus pζdagogicus, as usus secundus. But in this pedagogy its function is continually exhausting itself again; this function only does Paul ascribe to it, and another, the function docere, ut in vera pietate vivemus et ambu-lemus, we have no right to attribute to it, especially as we thereby come into conflict with the definite assurance that the law only stirs up sin and the σάρξ, and of itself continually hinders anew the Spirit’s gaining dominion and therewith the attainment of the vera pietas. The law contributes directly neither to justification nor to the new life, and cannot therefore be directly the means of maintaining the latter. What it can and should do, was and is, to open the way for that which does lead to justification and to the new life, namely, Faith. As this is its work at first, so is it ever after. The accomplishment of these two things it must then leave to faith, first as that which lays hold of God’s grace—for justification, then as that which has laid hold of it and therewith receives the Spirit. This Holy Ghost now, and not the νόμος, is alone in condition as the spirit of faith to assist to ever renewed victory over the σάρξ, partly through His teaching, partly through His monition, partly through His persuasion and drawing. For if the believer did right because admonished by the law, he would only attain again to ἔργανόμου, but not to veritable ἔργαἀγαθά.—Only so much is true, that in concreto very many a Christian, because faith has been with him from the beginning or has become only a name, allows himself to be guided merely by the law of the letter, at least if he has moral earnestness of temper, and thereby accomplishes nothing more than ἔργανόμου, as to which he simply deceives himself, in accounting them perhaps for ἔργατοῦ πνεύματος. More or less, moreover, does he seek in these ἔργανόμου his justification also, and his hope; half-way at least, reckoning as the other half the merit of Christ, yet more in name than in reality. [It is only necessary to remark here, that Paul uses the word νόμος as covering the whole Mosaic law. That this whole Mosaic law has not the third use, of “teaching us how we may live and walk in true piety,” is very evident. So also, that the new life of the believer is only a new life, in so far as it is through the teaching, monition, persuasion and drawing of the Spirit, must be believed and felt by the Christian. Still what does that Spirit teach and admonish us to do? To “walk even as he walked,” all will agree. And how did He walk, that Master whom we follow?—He fulfilled all righteousness, He obeyed the law for us. Clearly then the Spirit, which receives of the things of Christ and shows them unto us, will show us as our duty, what Christ did, the complete obedience to God’s requirements, and this will include all of permanent ethical value in the Mosaic law.—That may be but a part, yet it is a part, for what was in itself right at Sinai’s foot is right at the foot of the cross. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Holiness is opposed to sin, Sin is opposition to God, it expresses itself in disobedience to His moral law,—the Holy Spirit must teach, admonish, persuade and draw us to the observance of whatever has been at any time an expression of God’s moral law. The law cannot have a usus pζdagogicus still, did it not convict us of sin; it cannot convict us of sin, unless its requirements are holy, and just and good; and as such the Spirit of Holiness must teach us the moral law still.—The controversy about the third use of the law, between the Lutherans and Reformed, seems to be one of terms. The only practical question that can arise out of it, is one respecting the obligation to observe the Fourth Commandment.—R.] 4. Spirit and Flesh. Πνεῦμα and σάρξ are the two polar antithesis, as the Apostle most vividly shows in this section, Galatians 5:17. Πνεῦμα is the Holy Ghost, the Divine principle, that enters along with faith in Christ into the man, generating in him a divine temper and divine life, and that in conflict with the σάρξ and its παθήματα and ἐπιθυμίαι. Σάρξ is in itself simply (in antithesis to the Divine principle), human nature, of course the whole because the living nature, and embraces therefore body and soul. But it is not human nature on the side of its relation to God, but on the side of its alienation from God, on which side man with relation to God draws himself back upon himself, seeks himself and takes honor to himself, withdrawing it from God; in short human nature as sinful.—The use of “flesh” to denote human nature in general, is grounded in the Hebrew idiom, according to which αָ ?ωָׂ ?ψ is used by synecdoche for the whole man, and this idiom itself is in its turn, without doubt, grounded in the experience and Scriptural doctrine of the frailty of man, which induced the sacred writers to derive the designation for man generally’, from that part of man in which his frailty is most conspicuous. As this frailty again has its ground, according to Biblical teaching, in man’s alienation from God, there became connected with σάρξ, the established designation of human nature, the accessory idea of alienation from God=sinfulness. This took place in the proportion in which this view into man’s alienation from God even from birth, as the deepest ground of his frailty, became clear, and in the New Testament, therefore, more than in the Old.—The expression σάρξ, therefore gives us no right whatever, to think of the bodily organism more than of the soul, and (with reference to the accessory notion of sinfulness,) to find intimated in the expression either the view of the derivation of sin from the body, or an especial reference to so-called fleshly sins more than others. (Comp. Wieseler’s thorough exposition of this conception.)—The essential element in the idea of the σάρξ is the turning away from God and referring ourselves to ourselves, the self-seeking, egoistic element. This is primarily in respect to God, but immediately connected with it is the fact that a man in reference to other men also seeks himself, his enjoyment or his gain. It is easily explicable therefore why love appears as the first effect of the πνεῦμα, being the temper and act opposed to selfishness. In this section the Apostle has, it is true, special occasion to exhort to the love of our neighbor, but his speaking of love is not on this account merely casual. [Comp. on σάρξ, J. Mόller, Christian doctrine of sin.—R.] AND Gal_5:13. Luther:—The natural man understands nothing of the doctrine of grace; therefore comes it, when he hears this doctrine, that he straightway draws it down to his own lust and lewdness, and concludes on this wise; If the law concerns us not and has no right to us, then will we live as we list.—How we at this time have seen in all ranks that all will fain be evangelical and enjoy the Christian liberty, and yet nevertheless the great crowd goes its own way; this one follows his avarice, the other his lewdness, the third his pride and haughtiness, etc.—Rieger:—The liberty to which we are called by the gospel, is not so intended that we may tear ourselves loose from the law at our own will and please the flesh.—Into such a freedom the law can with honor dismiss man; for through Christ and the curse borne on the cross the law has its highest honor, and sin or the flesh wins thereby no advantage. For precisely that which was impossible to the law, namely, to bring to pass an inward enduring hatred against evil and an inward cleaving to good, from a willing heart, is accomplished by faith in Christ, and therefore the liberty of faith is not against the law.—Heubner:—By the side of the highest good stands the highest evil, by the side of freedom, lawlessness. No word has been so abused and desecrated, as Freedom. Luther:—“By love serve one another.” We must diligently teach in religion both sorts of doctrine, of Faith and Works; yet so that we carry neither too far. Else, where one teaches Works alone, he loses Faith, but if one teaches concerning Faith alone, forthwith gross, carnal men begin to dream that works are not necessary. Yet must the doctrine of Faith be planted first, or it cannot be understood what good works really are.—Although we have been justified, yet have we still sin in us, which rhymes as ill with good works as with faith, but draws us away from both. Besides flesh and reason is so disposed that it has by nature all its delight and pleasure in Pharisaic and superstitious works, and does those works with far greater earnestness which itself has chosen, than those which God has commanded. Therefore have rightminded preachers as much to do, in admonishing the people to genuine love and really good works, as in teaching genuine faith.—Christians must consider thus, that in their conscience they are indeed free from the curse of the law, sin and death, but as to the body they are servants, for therein should one serve another by love. Galatians 5:14. It is needless for any one to trouble you with circumcision and Moses’ ceremonies; see to this before all things, that you remain steadfast in the doctrine of faith. Will you after that do good works, as indeed you should, I will with a single word point out to you the noblest and greatest of all works, which ye should do, that ye may fulfil all laws: Love one another! Therefore the true, perfect doctrine and Christian theology of Faith and Love is in long and in short this: Believe on Christ, love thy neighbor as thyself! It is most short, to look upon the words, but if it is to be practical, it is broader, higher and deeper than heaven and earth.—The reason imagines it a very low thing, to say nothing of its being an act of God’s service, for one to help the other by love, i. e., for one to instruct and set aright a wanderer, comfort a mourner and afflicted, support the weak, for every one to help his neighbor, as he can, and make up for that which he lacks; item, for one to be obedient to government, hold his parents in honor, to have patience at home and bear with a whimsical, strange-tempered yoke-fellow, with ill-mannered servants, etc.; all which amounts to this: By love serve one another. But believe me, they are not contemptible and mean, but excellent and precious works, because God has commanded them and they please Him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. More special Admonition to the Walk in the Spirit (to serving Love), or warning against excessive self-valuation and envious selfishness (Galatians 5:25 to Galatians 6:10.)(Epistle for the fifteenth Sunday after Trinity.) 25If we live in [by] the Spirit, let us also walk in [by] the Spirit. 26Let us not be desirous of vain-glory [become vain-glorious], provoking one another, envying one another. a. Warning against unloving self-exaltation above others (Galatians 6:1-5) 6 1Brethren‚ if [even if] a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which [who] are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also [shouldst] be tempted. 2Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so [or thus shall ye] fulfil the law of Christ. 3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4But let every [each] man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another [his ground of boasting only in what concerneth himself, and not in what concerneth the other]. 5For every [each] man shall bear his own load.b. Warning against envious selfishness.—Admonition to unweariedness in doing good, especially to teachers of the word (Galatians 6:6-10). 6Let [But let] him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8For he that soweth to his [own] flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9And [But] let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10As we have therefore [Accordingly then as we have] opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. AND Paul, after the exhortation, Galatians 5:13 (and the more general one, Galatians 5:16), had passed on to a more didactic exposition. But from Galatians 5:25 on, he returns to the general exhortation to “walk by the Spirit” (which, as he means it, is essentially equivalent to exercising serving love) immediately specifying it more particularly, Galatians 5:26; Galatians 6:1 sq. Galatians 5:25. If we live by the Spirit.—Ζῇνπνεύματι means of course not the outward life, the realization in walk of this life in the Spirit, for the words “let us also walk,” etc., are the first in which the Apostle exhorts them to stamp the life by the Spirit upon the outward walk. Ζῇν therefore means the inner life, and the spiritual life is here referred to, as one at first entirely internal. It is not improbable that “live” is to be taken here in a pregnant sense (Meyer)=if we are living through the Spirit, i. e., death occurs to the man, who is Christ’s, with respect to the “flesh;” but in another respect precisely thus does Life come in; the death of the old man introduces the life of the new (comp. Galatians 2:19-20), and this latter is grounded upon the “Spirit.” [There is some doubt as to the force of the dative πνεύματι here. Schmoller renders it durch den Geist; Meyer calls it ablatival, and Ellicott says it is “here adopted rather than διά with the accusative as thus forming a sharper antithesis to the dative which follows.” Alford follows the E. V., but, while objecting to the ablatival dative, gives the same sense to the word. Lightfoot renders “to the Spirit,” after the parallel passage, Romans 6:2; Romans 6:10 : “die unto sin,” etc. But the first view is preferable.—R.]—Let us also walk by the Spirit.=περιπ. πν. Galatians 5:16. [Schmoller thus makes the second πνεύματι an instrumental dative, but it seems better to take it as a normal dative (so Galatians 5:16) with Meyer, Ellicott, et al. The verb στοιχεῖν seems to imply a more studied following of a prescribed course.—The Greek order is striking: “If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk.” “By” has both the instrumental and normal force in English.—R.] In what this walk should consist is then shown. Galatians 5:26. Let us not become vain-glorious.—The walking by the Spirit (or walking in love) should show itself thus. Κενόδοξονεἶναι=vanam gloriam capture, to affect vain-glory. [Γινώμεθα, “become” vain-glorious, there being in the verb as well as in the use of the first person an intentional mildness as though the sin had not yet taken root (Ellicott).—R.] The sense appears to be: we should not seek glory by provoking one another and envying one another, for such glory is “vain,” worthless.—Provoking one another.—Ἀλλήλουςπροκαλούμδνοι, by vaunting in the presence of those to whom we feel ourselves superior, by pressing our superiority.—Envying one another.—’Ἀλλήλοιςφθονοῦντες, not favoring one another, enviously refusing to acknowledge the good qualities that a man possesses. (Φθουεῖν is to be taken in this sense here, see below on Galatians 5:6; Galatians 5:10.)—The seeking of vain-glory naturally goes hand in hand with provoking and envious behavior. Where the former is abandoned, the latter also disappears. The warning of this verse is nothing else than the admonition to serve one another by means of love (Galatians 5:13), somewhat more particularly defined. The Apostle now reverts to this, in order to give it a more precise application. The remark on Galatians 5:16, that the exhortation of the Apostle may have had a direct connection with the main theme of the Epistle, since the intrusion of the false teachers might very naturally have provoked a bitter party strife in the churches, applies also to the more special application of that admonition (Galatians 5:13) in this section. Especially is it not improbable that through the intrusion of the false teachers the relation of the individual members to their teachers had been disturbed, thus giving occasion to the earnest admonition, Galatians 6:6 sq. Yet this conjecture is not absolutely necessary; we need only suppose that some circumstances in the churches gave him particular occasion to direct his exhortation to this point.—[The context seems to justify the close connection of what follows with this verse. It is urged, however, that “brethren” indicates a change of topic (comp. Galatians 4:12), and also that the change from the first to the second person favors the opinion that a new paragraph begins with Galatians 6:1. But the thoughts are too closely linked, to allow these arguments from mere forms of expression to be conclusive against the close connection which Meyer and others defend.—R.] VI. Galatians 6:1-5. These verses extend the warning of Gal 5:26, against “provoking one another.” The Christian instead of using any advantage he may possess over another, or any defect he may observe in him, to exalt himself above him (and thereby to provoke him), should, as walking by the Spirit, do just the reverse, should set his neighbor right, when he sees him at fault (Galatians 6:1) and then help him bear the burdens which oppress him (Galatians 6:2). Galatians 6:3 justifies these admonitions by the remark that a man’s thinking himself to be something, when he is nothing, is self-cheatery; for it is such a vain imagining that underlies the refusal to set others right (in the spirit of meekness) and to carry their burdens. As the right means to be saved from this self-deception, Paul proceeds to commend self-examination. (On this, see below, Galatians 6:4-5.) [Ellicott thinks it probable “that the teachers are mainly addressed in Galatians 6:1-6, and the hearers and laity in Galatians 6:6-10.” But while there are points in the exhortation specially applicable to classes thus distinguished, it seems best not to discriminate thus, for it limits the force of some parts of the exhortation, and might lead to an incorrect interpretation of Gal 6:1.—R.] Galatians 6:1. [Brethren.—Beza: a whole argument lies hidden under this one word.—R.]—Even if a man be overtaken. Προλημφθῇ: πρό expresses undoubtedly the unexpectedness of the being taken=before a man is aware, or is able to offer resistance. The ἐν shows that the verb is here to be understood as=to entangle, so that in a fault, according to the frequent Biblical image, is used of the snare in which any one is caught (Wieseler). Luther gives the sense quite correctly: “ubereilt,” overtaken. [The strictly temporal reference (before the arrival of the Epistle, or a recurrence of the offence) is unsatisfactory. Ellicott, Alford and Lightfoot join καί with the verb: “if a man be even surprised,” i. e., caught before he can escape, flagrante delicto; thus implying an aggravation of the offence. But it is not necessary to connect καί thus, and such a meaning of the verb is rare, while the interpretation does not accord with the context so well as the common view given above. Meyer: The Apostle charitably regards the sins, which may occur among the Galatians, as peccata precipitantiζ.—R.] Ye who are spiritual.—This refers back to Galatians 6:25=ye who have the Holy Ghost, show your possession of it, your living by the Spirit, by such action. He thus describes “provoking one another,” as something repugnant to their very character. In view of this exalted predicate, which he ascribes to them, they should now reflect, what demeanor is the becoming one for them as “spiritual.” This implies that they are not now conducting themselves agreeably to this designation, or such admonitions would be unnecessary. [The general character of the exhortation forbids our finding in this phrase a reference to a party of more liberal views, who had taken his side against the Judaizers, and were not paying sufficient regard to the weaker brethren. Hence there is no irony, but he is giving a test for their spirituality. It is true those who would stand the test, who were really led by the Spirit, would necessarily be the adherents of Paul, as the representative of the freedom of the gospel, but there is no evidence that there was such a party when he wrote.—R.]—But to the validity of this claim to be “spiritual,” it is necessary that, when a brother is overtaken in a fault, the πνευματικός should restore such a one, should bring him into his normal state, instead of turning this fall into an occasion of self-exaltation against him. [Καταρτίζετε: the verb is properly a surgical term, applied to the setting of a joint, here used in an ethical sense, the idea of amendment being more prominent than that of punishment. The figurative meaning would perhaps imply some official act of restoration, but this is forbidden by the context.—R.] This “restoring” (or the wish for it) is the main idea, and not strictly speaking, as is commonly assumed, the spirit of meekness; or at least not this alone. This latter phrase only states the manner in which the setting right should be performed. This spirit must attend the act, or there is no real restoration, only a seeming one, in which the irritating lust of praise still seeks its gratification. It is forced, to understand “spirit” of the Holy Spirit, whose character is meekness, or rather who bestows meekness; it signifies the human spirit disposed to meekness. The foregoing “spiritual” does not require us to understand the Holy Spirit here, comp. 1 Corinthians 4:21. [It does not mean merely “a meek spirit,” but a spirit whose characterizing quality is “meekness,” with an ultimate reference to the Holy Spirit. (See Ellicott.) As “spiritual,” possessing the Holy Spirit, their spirit toward offenders should be characterized by “meekness.”—R.]—Considering thyself.—An individualizing transition to the singular. The added clause contains a motive to “restore” (not merely to “meekness”).—Lest thou also should be tempted—and it happen to thee to be overtaken in a fault. Galatians 6:2 makes the admonition of Gal 6:1 more general. It is not always by setting our neighbor right, that we may do him good; another exhibition of love is to bear his burdens.—Burdens.—Βάρη is undoubtedly in itself quite general: whatever presses our neighbor, lies heavy upon him, so that occasion is given to the vain-glorious man to provoke him. Moral delinquencies, such as are named in Galatians 6:1, are included; but also more grievous things, such as outward distress.—Bear.—Βαστάζετε, of course, does not mean: endure (for I do not endure what oppresses my neighbor, but only that, for example, with which he oppresses me), but simply: bear=to take upon our shoulders as our own burdens, and thereby help him to bear; this includes, in some circumstances, the lightening of them; in others, their entire removal (Wieseler).—We see that the restoring of a neighbor who has been overtaken in a fault falls under this general idea of bearing his burden.—The Apostle adds to this admonition a powerful motive for its fulfilment: and thus shall ye fulfil the law of Christ.—The expression “fulfil the law of Christ” is significant, and designedly chosen with reference to the zealots for the law. You will forsooth have a law, now see here is a law but “of Christ;” fulfil that! At the same time it refers back to Galatians 6:14, where the duty of love to our neighbor has been designated as the commandment equivalent to the whole Mosaic law, but a “law of Christ,” not of Moses. [Yet this “law of Christ” must necessarily include that “law.” which He not only came to fulfil, but so fully illustrated and enforced in His teachings. The use of the future indicative instead of the imperative seems to imply, that the Christian needs “the law of Christ” only as a guide to grateful duty. “Thus shall ye fulfil” what your hearts would fulfil, “the law of Christ,” “who died for us and rose again.”—R.] Galatians 6:3. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing.—“When he is nothing” belongs to the protasis. Being nothing: not precisely in the ethical sense alone, but one, who can in truth make no claim to consideration above others, yet ambitiously assumes this. This of course involves the admission that one may be something, but such a one is least likely to assume this; it is the one that is nothing, who is most likely to lay claim to consideration above his merits.—He deceiveth himself, his “glory” shows itself to be “vain,” [Lightfoot: “φρεναπατᾷ, ‘deceives by his fancies.’ Comp. Titus 1:10. More is implied by this word than by ἀπατᾷν, for it brings out the idea of subjective fancies and thus enforces the previous δοκεῖ. It was possibly coined by St. Paul, for it seems not to be found in any earlier writer, and at a later date occurs chiefly, if not solely in ecclesiastical authors.”—R.] Galatians 6:4. Paul therefore immediately after enjoins: let each man prove his own work.—Τὸἔργον: not collective=the aggregate of his actions; for it is not particularly an ethical self-examination that is referred to, but general, about equivalent to: His case, the way matters stand with him. [The view of Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, et al., that τὸ ἔργον is emphatic and collective, seems on the whole preferable.—R.]—The reason why he enjoins this, is then stated with: then shall he have his ground of boasting only in what concerneth himself and not in what concerneth the other.—“He will then have matter of self-gratulation only it will be in reference to himself, and not to another.” [See the excellent note of Ellicott, the results of whose exegesis are given in the above rendering. The preposition εὶς must be translated by a paraphrasis, in order to preserve the same force in both cases. Τὸνἔτερον, “the other”—the man with whom he was comparing himself; general in its meaning, but particular in each case of comparison. (Alford.)—R.] Every one, in that case, directing his look as he does in self-examination only upon himself, will refer his self-praise only to himself; will only boast of such excellences as he may discover in himself; but he will not vaunt himself on the ground of the deficiencies which he finds in others. And if this results from the very nature of self-examination, as directing the look of the man upon himself alone, it will also be sure to come to pass from the result, which every one will find from self-examination, as this is stated in Galatians 6:5, with which Paul gives special weight to the οὐκεἰςτὸνἕτερον. Of course not to the εἰςἑαυτόν. In order to have εὶςτὸνἔτερονκαύχημα, i. e., in order to be able to make what another lacks a ground for boasting over him, one must not only have many good qualities but a preeminence above the other, of which he is conscious. Galatians 6:5. But this is not the case. On the contrary ἔκαστοςτὸἴδιονφορτίονβαστάσει, each man: I as well as the other, I cannot therefore make his φορτίον, a ground of vaunting myself against him.—Shall bear.—Future, expressing the result of the self-examination, because it succeeds it (not referring to the last judgment) = it will turn out, that every one has a burden of his own to bear, [i. e., now in actual life, he is appointed to bear, must bear.—R.]—His own load.—Φορτίον: although principally meaning moral imperfection, yet here it is not to be limited to this; it means imperfection of every kind, every defect which one discovers in himself. Φορτίον is in itself a vox media, it may be either heavy or light; βάρος can only be heavy. To this general declaration the more general word exactly suits; respecting the degree of burdensomeness Paul does not in the first instance mean to make a statement, but only to say that each one has his own φορτίον. It is otherwise in Galatians 6:2 : there the idea of heaviness is the main one. [Conybeare finds here an allusion to Ζsop’s fable (πῆραιδύο), but Ellicott thinks this not very plausible. Lightfoot says: “βάρη suggests the idea of an adventitious and oppressive burden, which is not implied in φορτίον. The latter is the common term for a man’s pack. Each Christian soldier bears his own kit.” Still this does not sufficiently imply the idea of imperfection and consequent grievousness, which the context, with its injunctions to self-examination, seems to demand.—R.]—The difficulty in Galatians 6:4-5 is, that the Apostle condenses together two thoughts: 1. “in what concerneth himself alone,” 2. “not in what concerneth the other;” which to be sure are in one aspect identical, and yet must be distinguished, because the second is strengthened by the subsequent declaration, “for each man,” etc., which gives it a somewhat different sense from what it has when disjoined from this and taken with what precedes. De Wette takes it differently: And then will he have his joy (if he has any, which is manifestly put as doubtful) for himself alone (for his own joy) and not for others (to irritate and provoke them therewith).—Self-examination is therefore the antidote to “provoking one another;” it is to oppose this that the Apostle has enjoined it. Galatians 6:6-10. This division also is a specifying of the admonition Galatians 5:26; it must, although more remotely related, still have reference to it, because it is undeniably a carrying out of the admonition to “serve one another by means of love,” (Galatians 5:13) of which, as we have seen, Galatians 5:26, only gives the negative expression. More accurately considered this division opposes the second vice named in Galatians 5:26, “envying one another.” It contains admonitions to an abounding, unwearied “communication in good things,” and this is the direct opposite of “envying one another”=grudgingly withholding. Only he who is unenvious will do good to all. Galatians 6:6. The exhortation in this verse does not therefore come in so abruptly, as at first sight appears. Paul first opposes envious grudging in that relation in which it looks particularly ill, and yet must have occurred, in the relation of him that is taught in the word of God to him that teacheth, and in contrast with this, admonishes to communicate and that in all good things. This is of course not= in all that is morally good (Meyer), but = in all good things [i.e., temporal possessions of every kind.—R.]. It is expressed with the utmost generalness, and is therefore to be understood in its broadest sense; care for temporal support is included in it, but not exclusively intended; there is to be, according to the words, a sharing of all good things, that is, in a certain sense a community of benefits; he “that is taught” is to give “him that teacheth” a share in all his advantages. This is the very strongest antithesis to “envying.” [The verb means literally “go shares with.” It is intransitive here, followed by the dative of the person, and the thing (“in all good things”) governed by a preposition. There is no lexical or grammatical difficulty. Almost all commentators refer the verse to the temporal support of ministers. Meyer gives it an ethical meaning mainly to preserve the connection, and Schmoller, for the same reason, makes the meaning general, as above. But δέ arrests the former topic before it passes out of sight (Lightfoot), and serves here to indicate the contrast between the temporal and spiritual application (Ellicott). As if he had said: “I spoke of bearing one another’s burdens. There is one special application I would make of this rule. Provide for the temporal wants of your teachers in Christ.” Κατηχούμενος here means simply “instructed,” and is followed by an accusative of reference (λόγον), “in the word,” i. e., the gospel.—R.] Galatians 6:7-10. To give weight to this admonition to him that is taught in the word that he should show a generous liberality in all things to his teacher, Paul points to the last judgment, to the law of Divine retribution as one of immutable validity. This is primarily meant to strengthen only the special admonition, Galatians 6:6, and shows how earnestly he means it, that he attributes to it an importance which we may not in any way lessen; but still this confirmatory reference to Divine retribution is expressed with such generalness, that Paul is able immediately to deduce from it an entirely general exhortation to unwearied “well doing,” which he then again specializes somewhat in Galatians 6:10. But the main matter is still the “communicating in all good things” in opposition to “envying one another.” Galatians 6:7. Be not deceived.—Do not entertain the erroneous thought, even should it occur, or be presented to you, that God can be mocked (lit., to turn up the nose at), that is, with success. (All glory sought therein is vain.) This mocking would occur, if man might do what he would, if he could with impunity neglect a communication of good things to his teacher, who himself imparts that which is best to him. The declaration that this cannot occur, is established by for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.—[Τοῦτοκαί; “this and nothing else than this” (Ellicott).—R.] The essential correspondence between the seed sown and the fruit reaped, which takes place according to a law of nature and is therefore subject to no mutation, is a current image in other writings also (even in profane writers, e. g. Cicero, de Orat. II. 65, ut sementem faceris, ita metes, and others), for the exact correspondence between the retribution of God in the judgment and the moral acts of man in his earthly life. Galatians 6:8. The general proposition of Gal 6:7 is established in this verse. For never will it fail of coming to pass, that he that soweth to his own flesh shall therefrom reap corruption; and even so he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.—“Corruption” is therefore conceived as that which corresponds to sowing to the flesh, as the harvest to the seed, or “corruption” is essentially the crop into which the flesh when sown develops, and in like manner “life everlasting” is nothing else than the ripened fruit sown to the Spirit.—Ὁ σπείρων, it may be remarked, does not alter the figure in Galatians 6:7 b, making it the soil instead of the seed, but, as Paul has to speak of two different sorts of seeds, he only designates this difference according to the difference of the soil, on which it is sown; for seed is always chosen according to the soil that is to be sown; that which is sown upon the flesh is even thereby a different seed from that which is sown upon the Spirit. Perhaps it would be better to say: ὄ in Galatians 6:7 is not merely to be understood of the seed itself, but of the whole manner and method of the sowing, and so to be taken as equivalent to this: According as any one sows, even so shall he also reap; and in view of this “according as” we should have in Galatians 6:8 to understand especially the soil which is sown, inasmuch as it is especially on this that the character of the harvest depends, as good or bad. For it is this that is treated of here. Flesh and Spirit, moreover, are figuratively represented as the soil, because they are conditioning, quickening factors, and therefore to sow upon the flesh or Spirit generically = to let one’s self be determined in the act by the flesh or Spirit. Πνεῦμα of course, as in Galatians 6:16 sq. = the Holy Ghost, and therefore lacks ἑαυτοῦ, which stands with σάρξ. Φθορά, agreeably to the contrast with ξωὴ ἀίωνιος=Destruction, Ruin, and that eternal ruin=ἀπώλεια, θάνατος, not=Transitoriness. Galatians 6:8 was only a proof of Gal 6:7 b, according to its two contrasted sides; 7b itself again was in proof of θεὸςοὐ μυκτηρίζεται. The sense of this is: One cannot neglect doing good, without being punished of God. But the thought is not expressed. Galatians 6:9. Here, however, it is expressed affirmatively, agreeably to 8b, as an admonition (because it is true, as said in Galatians 6:7-8, that what a man sows, he reaps) to do “well,” in a certain sense to sow τὸ κάλον. That the admonition rests immediately upon what precedes, is shown by the continuance of the image, which we find at least in the second clause.—Well doing is to be taken in its greatest possible extension; agreeably to the signification of καλόν, about=to do what is praiseworthy, only it must not be taken so generally as no longer to fall within the sphere of unenvious exhibition of love towards our neighbor. This is the frame, within which this “well doing” also falls.—Let us not be weary.—[“Behave cowardly, lose heart.”—R.] It is possible to grow weary, because “well doing” is at first a sowing, which, according to the laws of nature, is not immediately, perhaps not till long after, followed by the harvest. It comes in due season, καιρῷ ἰδίῳ, not just when we wish it: at the precise time, when it can appear according to its inward law, as ordained by God. Agreeably to the eschatological expectations of the Apostle we have here to understand particularly the Parusia.—If we faint not.—Μὴ ἑκλυόμενοι, to be taken as conditional and to be refesrred to the sowing: if we do not become weary in that. This is no “languid repetition of the warning against ἐγκακεῖν” (Usteri); for it is just this not becoming weary in good which Paul wishes to emphasize, as the condition of reaping the harvest (Wieseler). [Bengel: ἐγκακεἶν est in velle, ἐκλύεσθαι est in posse. The latter is a consequence of the former (Lightfoot). The verse is one of mingled warning and encouragement, and the latter element appears from the promise to those who do not “faint,” for one may be “weary,” and not yet have fainted.—R.] Galatians 6:10. [Accordingly then as we have.—Ἄραοὖν, “so then,” “accordingly then;” ὡς, not “while,” nor “according as,” nor since, but “in proportion as” (Alford).—R.] The mention of the “season” of the harvest reminds him to warn against wasting the καιρός, season, opportunity, of the sowing, because when the former is come, it will be too late for the latter. And in conclusion Paul deduces from the more general admonition (Galatians 6:9) the more special exhortation let us do good, which is also to be taken in the widest possible extent, but still retaining the special idea of doing good. The generic interpretation of ἐργαζώμεθατὸ ἀγαθόν=to do what is morally good (Meyer, as in Galatians 6:6), is inconsistent especially with the distinction, which Paul makes with especially, etc. For to the doing of what is morally good, one is of course equally obliged towards all men, members of the household of faith or strangers to it (Wieseler).—To them who are of the household of faith.—Οἰκεῖοιτῆςπίστεως, doubtless not merely=those belonging to faith, as an amplification of the simple term: Believers (Meyer,) but kindred in faith, fellow-Christians, as constituting together one οἶκοςτῆςπίστεως, one family of faith. The emphasis rests upon the fact that believers are of one family; for this is the reason why love should be especially shown to them (Wieseler).—The expression is of course general and comprehends their fellow-Christians as a body, but yet it refers back to Galatians 6:6; because their fellow-Christians should be so especially the objects of the “doing good,” it follows from this, that those who teach should least of all be excluded therefrom. Paul in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, refers to a more specific instruction concerning beneficence which he had given to the Galatians. AND ETHICAL1. Self-exaltation and self-seeking. In respect to the right conduct of Christians towards each other, Paul designates two vices as especially incompatible therewith: Self-exaltation and self-seeking. And indeed there is nothing which more undermines society in general than these two vices; while self-exaltation rends the inner bond of unity with our fellow-men, self-seeking rends besides this the outer bond. But now the maintaining of fellowship is the specific character of the relation of Christians to each other; they are meant to form an undivided whole. These two vices therefore stand in diametrical opposition to the very nature of the Christian life. And of course they must, for they are the immediate offspring of the “flesh,” whose essence is self-seeking. But Christians should walk by the Spirit, and should prove this to each other especially by serving love.—Certain as it is therefore, that both self-exaltation and self-seeking stand opposed to the essence of Christian fellowship, and must therefore be most vigorously contended against, it is nevertheless equally certain, that they may, and do in fact, appear within the circle of Christian fellowship. For this is by no means as yet pure and free from such manifestations of the “flesh,” though not thereby necessarily losing the name of Christian fellowship. On the contrary an individual or a community may really “have the Spirit,” be possessed of a spiritual life, while yet in their walk the sarcical element still manifests itself in various ways, against which we must protest. Things must be rebuked which, looking at the ideal, and not at the concrete fact, might appear impossible to occur; admonitions must be given, which might from the ideal point of view appear superfluous. The admonitions given in this section are the simple proof of what was remarked on the former section, respecting the indispensableness of continual admonition, respecting the “shall” which the Spirit inwardly, as also the Word of Scripture from without, must continually present to the Christian. While therefore we must not be lax, as if every thing in the Christian life, including the fruits of the Spirit, came of itself, and while we must earnestly represent to the Christian the incongruity of every thing sarcical with his faith, we must on the other hand be very careful not to make rigoristic requirements of him, not to expect that no manifestation of the flesh should ever appear in him; we must not, in particular, imagine that among Christians every thing must, as it were, of itself, be serving love. And therefore, even when many virtues of the Christian life are yet very defective, we must not be quick to deny that one is “spiritual,” to dispute the sincerity of his faith and declare him to be a hypocrite. 2. Admonitions especially necessary for those busy about the law. “But was it then necessary, one might here ask, that Paul should write such admonitions to people, who were already anxious about works of the law and out of conscience were submitting themselves to the Jewish ordinances? Was there not then in their case an exaggerated piety, that needed rather to be tempered? Alas, no! The world lies in wickedness and yet is busy about works of the law. It lives in contention and envy, in turbulence and lewdness, and yet forsooth will be saved by its virtue. By what sort of virtue? By a magnanimity, which from time to time, amid many evil deeds, a man may practice toward his neighbor, by wit and lively discourse, by a decent gravity, the offspring of age and function, of interest and love of honor, by the observance of political and ecclesiastical laws, yet with many exceptions. Let no one go into raptures over this virtue.—At a distance it appears great, but near by it is mean and in God’s eyes naught. Do not such people need to have some one proclaim to them: Be not deceived, God is not mocked? The Galatians gave themselves up to the Jewish law, which did in fact, contain the strictest moral teaching. They sought salvation earnestly, and sought it, not by vices, but by virtue and religious works; yet notwithstanding this Paul was constrained to warn them against all manner of gross sins, especially against hatred and envy, and to proclaim to them: Be not deceived, God is not mocked! How certain it is therefore, that he who does not live in faith on the Son of God, will be overmastered by sin, and in spite of his endeavors to be virtuous, will become ever more vicious! If then one does not come into the right way, he at last mocks God. And how does one mock Him? In this way, that one desperately imagines that He will at last take black for white, that He will let him reap wheat who has sown tares, and will reward the sin, to which men have given the name of a virtue. By such principles, which to be sure, when we read them on paper, contradict the first principles of human intelligence, the whole world is ruled, and therefore is there occasion to say it: God is not mocked; what a man sows in this world, that, and nothing else, shall he reap in the next.” Roos. 3. What a man sows, that shall he also reap. An utterance as simple, as it is true and deep. According to it, all the actions of men are a sowing, which shall have a harvest, the actions of men shall bear a fruit. This image, taken from the processes of nature, declares in the first place in general terms, that actions never stop with themselves, but that with inexorable certainty a retribution will one day follow, as certainly as the sowing is only a beginning, which according to a settled law leads at last to the harvest. This it is true does not follow at once, and therefore there is need of patience, but afterwards, when the time has come, and then without fail. And, more definitely, the seed bears a harvest, and such a harvest as corresponds exactly with itself. The actions of men therefore find a retribution fully adequate. On this account it is not so indifferent what kind of seed we sow, for the seed, that is, our acts, will bear their proper fruit, and no other. If we want then a fruit to please us, we must sow a seed that will bring it; we shall never succeed in getting a harvest that is independent of the seed; and on the contrary no one can deprive us of the harvest that answers to the seed. The harvest of our actions is nothing casual, it is that which they must produce. It rests with us, then to determine the harvest, by determining the seed. If “corruption” is the harvest of sowing to the flesh, and “life everlasting” the harvest of sowing to the Spirit, each result follows by an inward necessity. The former is only the carnal sowing come to ripeness, the latter is only the ripened seed sown to the Spirit. Thereby the character of arbitrariness and externality is removed from the Divine retribution, and objections from this side obviated. But on the other hand it must not be thought, that we can in this way set aside the positive Divine activity, and therewith retribution in a definite sense, and change it into a kind of natural process. As in the natural process of the springing of the harvest from the seed, the inner law of nature, according to which this takes place, is no other than the law of God, as it is He who gives it effect, so is it also in this spiritual harvest. His ordinance is it, that “corruption” grows up from the sowing to the flesh and the reverse. And especially is this so, in that corruption is really what it is, only as decreed by Him, as consisting in being rejected by Him, and even so, on the contrary, life everlasting; this is His gift for the sowing to the spirit, only because He gives it and gives Himself also therein. Moreover the time of harvest is in itself simply a future one for the time of sowing; when the sowing, therefore, is over, every moment may be a “due season” for the harvest, even in this world, and there are indeed many such harvests. But these are only anticipations. The proper, due season for the harvest first comes with the time appointed by God for general retribution at the consummation of the kingdom of God. Not till then will the sowing to the flesh have ripened into corruption, and the sowing of the spirit into life everlasting. Before that, the time of the sowing still continues, and it is still possible to change the character of the harvest by changing the one sort of seed for the other. 4. Care for spiritual teachers. The emphasis and earnestness, with which Paul admonishes against a selfish behavior of the church towards her teachers, are remarkable. This very estimate of spiritual good, as above all others, makes him the more impatient of selfishness concealing itself behind a pretended spiritual mind. “The support of teachers by their hearers is grounded on a divine institution, not only in the Old Testament (comp. Priests and Levites), but also in the New. Although now in the New Testament there is no definite prescription how much of their property hearers shall contribute to their teachers, yet it is certain from the New Testament that God requires an adequate and liberal support. This admonition was the more necessary in the Apostle’s time, because there were not then, as now, yearly incomes definitely appointed. But now that there are such settled incomes the admonition to hearers has not lost its force, especially when they know that the regular income is insufficient. Christ’s commandment binds them then to a subsidy. Men act to-day, as if their forefathers alone had been bound to care for the support of their teachers, and the hearers of to-day had nothing to add to this.” Starke.—Luther expresses himself very definitely and strongly respecting this duty towards teachers, e.g.: “It is indeed impossible that true Christians should endure to have their pastors pinched and in want. But because they do not only suffer this, but laugh in their sleeve at it, it is certain, that they are worse than Turks and Heathen.” AND Gal_5:25. Heubner:—The internal and the external must harmonize, must be one. The outer life is the reflection and thereby the sign of the inward life.—Rieger:—To keep the flesh crucified is the only way to give room for the spirit, whose life appears in growing strength in a spiritual walk. Although walking is a consequence inseparable from life, yet the Apostle exhorts thereto, as to a duty, on account of the danger of slothfulness creeping on, as indeed one cannot walk without taking some special thought about it.—[Brown:—If we are spiritually alive, let us show that we are so by being spiritually active.—R.] Galatians 5:26. Luther:—Love of vain glory is a common vice the whole world through, in all conditions. No village so small but there be one or two peasants therein, that will fain be taken for wiser and better than the rest. It is so pleasant to be pointed at with the finger and hear it said: See there is a man that is fit for anything! This vice is common, yet nowhere does it such harm, as to those who fulfil a spiritual function and service in the church.—[Calvin:—It is not lawful for us to glory but in God alone. Every other kind of glorying is pure vanity. Mutual provocations and envyings are the daughters of ambition.—R.]—Starke:—To seek honor with a proud spirit, is a token of a carnal man and an abomination to God. Lust of praise leads many sins together, held in one leash, as the huntsman leads hounds. Nothing is more opposite to the love of our neighbor, than high-minded self-love; wherefore it is of no use to commend the latter where the former is not eradicated.—Heubner:—The stoic pride of virtue also is the worst kind of vain-gloriousness. Chap. 6 Galatians 6:1. Luther:—The forgiveness of sins belongs to those who are weak and frail in faith and life, and yet acknowledge their sins and pray for forgiveness; but to those who pervert the doctrine, it does not belong.—Rieger:—The very words, in which the Apostle describes what behavior beseems us in regard to others’ faults, are so chosen, that they insensibly incline us to the more merciful side. A man (how easy for a man to fall) is overtaken by the suddenness of temptation, by the concurrence of many circumstances, that have beclouded his vision. In such circumstances admonition, rebuke, persuasion, consolation, etc., may do the work of restoration, even as a dislocated limb may be again set in place. But for this there is needed the Spirit, and therefore on the one hand not blind love, not a careless disparagement of the fault, and on the other hand not severity, but insight into the gospel, to draw from thence motives for forbearing admonition, such as shall advance the crucifixion of the flesh and the strengthening of the inward man.—Hedinger:—Are we ourselves pure and blameless as angels, that our neighbor’s fault drives us so quickly to arms? Was it Christ’s way to break the bruised reed? Let us do as He did! The Lord is in the still small voice, although mighty winds sometimes herald his coming.—Augustine:—Rebuke administered in bitterness, profits not. Quidquid lacerato animo dicetis, punientis est impetus, non caritas corrigentis; dilige et dic, quod voles.—[Calvin:—Nothing is more difficult than to bring us to examine or acknowledge our own weakness. Whatever may be our acuteness in detecting the faults of others, we do not see “the wallet that hangs behind our own back.”—Whenever we have occasion to pronounce censure, let us begin with ourselves, and, remembering our own weakness, let us be indulgent to others.—R.] Galatians 6:2. Luther:—A Christian must have strong shoulders and stout legs, in order to bear the flesh, i. e., the weakness of his brethren; for they have vices that are troublesome and annoying. Therefore must love pass by and overlook, and endure much. We must learn, since we can so easily endure and overlook our own sins and faults, many of which we daily commit, to bear also other people’s sin.—In Starke:—What is our whole religion, but a burden-bearing? We have our own and also others’ burden to bear. We are all on a journey; if one is like to give way, the other must refresh him; if one is likely to fall, the other must help him up.—If it is not to be answered for, that we should not help another bear his burden, how unchristian must it be, to double his burdens for him.—[Wordsworth:—Poverty is the load of some, and wealth is the load of others, perhaps the greater load of the two. It may weigh thee down to perdition. Bear the load of thy neighbor’s poverty, and let him bear with thee the load of thy wealth. Thou lightenest thy load by lightening his.—R.]—[The law of Christ is the law of mutual love.—R.] Galatians 6:3. Starke:—Self-conceit and haughtiness have cheated many a man. Pride is the harbinger of a heavy fall. It is often a grace, when God allows the presumptuous one to fall, that he may come to a knowledge of his own nothingness.—[Brown:—Those who in their own estimation have little to learn, have in truth learned but little.—The greater advances a man makes in true Christianity, the more humble he becomes.—R.] Galatians 6:4. Luther:—He that faithfully discharges his function, does not inquire much what men say of him, it is all one to him, whether the world praises or reviles him, but he has his honor within himself, that is, the testimony of his conscience, and the honor before God. It will doubtless in time come to pass, that your honor, which you have within yourselves, will be acknowledged also by other people. But if you have your honor only from others, it will surely come to pass, that the shame and ignominy, which you have now inwardly concealed in your heart, will in time become manifest to other people also.—Starke:—Daily self-examination is one of the most important of all the duties of a Christian. A Christian must always look more at himself than at others, and examine his own life more than another’s; for God will judge each man according as He finds him to be in himself and before his own conscience.—Rieger:—To seek one’s glory by self-comparison with others, or even, it may be, by disparagement of others, by divulging their faults, is a perilous course, and will avail nothing, when hereafter each one shall have to give account of himself before God. Galatians 6:5. Heubner:—Every genuine self-examination will certainly always have humiliation as its result.—[Wordsworth:—We cannot make the burdens of our own sins lighter by imputing a heavier burden of sins to others. Praise of ourselves, whether it proceeds from our own lips or those of others, cannot lighten our burdens. Because we are heavy laden, Christ exhorts us to take His light burden. Thus he converts our heavy burdens into light wings. The wings of birds are their weights, which they bear and which bear them. Let thy soul have the weight of Christ’s burden; it has the pinions of peace and the wings of charity, and will bear thee to heaven, Thus bear thy own weight and it will bear thee.—R.] Galatians 6:6-10. The more carefully one avoids judicial severity and other unwarranted assumptions in regard to others, the more room there is to make our intercourse with one another profitable for love and good works. Galatians 6:6. Luther:—I do not love to expound such sentences, which speak for us, that are ministers of the Word; moreover, it may look, if one is zealous to treat such texts before the people, as if he did it on account of avarice. But one must nevertheless instruct the people thereabout, that they may know what degree of honor and support they owe to their teachers. This is also good for us, that are in the ministry, to know, that we may not take our deserved recompense with uneasy conscience, and as if we had no right thereto.—Rieger:—The Scripture has not accounted it superfluous, to put into His Word, that remains good for all time, the admonition to communicate in all good things with him who teaches. But it is to be left wholly to this same Spirit and His prompting, when he will bring the observance of this admonition so into effect, that it exercises faith and strengthens faith.—Starke:—Between teachers and hearers there should be a lovely exchange and joyful barter. A hearer needs not to complain as though he suffered disadvantage in this exchange. Whoever will not give our Lord God a penny, gets his due, when he is forced to give the devil a dollar.—In general the world requites the very greatest benefits bestowed upon it with the very basest unthankfulness.—[Calvin:—It is one of the tricks of Satan to defraud godly ministers of support‚ that the church may be deprived of their services. Paul’s recommendation arose from a desire to preserve a gospel ministry.—Brown:—It had been well for the church and for the world‚ had Christianity been sustained and extended solely by the voluntary exertions and the voluntary contributions of those who themselves had experienced its invaluable blessings‚ and who felt the obligations under which both duty and gratitude laid them to supply the temporal wants of those who ministered to their spiritual necessities. Here‚ as in every other case‚ the foolishness of God is wiser than men.—R.] Galatians 6:7. In Starke:—Mock on: God will endure it for awhile‚ and will not send a thunderbolt at once; yet will He not always be silent‚ but early enough will hold discourse with thee in wrath.—Whoever under any manner of apparent excuses seeks to deceive his neighbor‚ such an one mocks the omniscient God and does himself the greatest conceivable injury.—Heubner:—Besotted man would fain persuade himself that God’s severity‚ His threatenings and judgments are not to be taken so very much in earnest. God is directly mocked when He is blasphemed‚ indirectly‚ when His commandments are presumptuously neglected. Galatians 6:7‚ 8. In Starke:—The realm of nature has many vestiges of Divine wisdom‚ goodness‚ righteousness in it‚ which show forth and reveal themselves yet more gloriously in the realm of grace.—It is undoubtedly agreeable to the Divine order‚ as in the realm of grace so in that of nature‚ that every one should enjoy what he himself sows or does‚ whether good or evil. But whoever does evil and yet hopes for good‚ opposes himself to God’s order in vain‚ and his hope is lost.—The sowing to the flesh cannot possibly be followed by anything but an evil harvest‚ unless such a harvest before it ripen‚ be uprooted by true repentance.—Our whole life is nothing but a seed-time‚ with which the future harvest in eternity is inevitably connected. Ah! let every one take heed that he scatter not tares and yonder be compelled to reap the curse.—Corruption does not really come from God, either directly or indirectly, but from the flesh.—Rieger:—How slight and insignificant good and evil often appear when first sown! But how steadily they grow day and night, unnoticed by man. How late, but how infallibly do they reappear at the harvest! How irrevocable is the neglected seed time! Who can force it into being an unsown harvest?—Heubner:—Future and present stand in the strictest connection. Our future state will not only follow our present, but will be in the very strictest sense its product; the two will stand in as real a nexus as the seed sown and the harvest.—There is a double seed-time and harvest! Sowing to the flesh does not consist merely in a gross carnality of life, such as is followed by the most wretched want and pain, but in all living and working, even that which, materially considered, is the most beneficent and laudable, when it proceeds from an impure motive. Sowing to the Spirit is not merely the spiritual vocation, but every sowing, which is done at the leading of the Spirit.—[Calvin:—Our liberality is restrained by the supposition that whatever passes into the hands of another is lost to ourselves, and by the alarm we feel about our own prospects in life. These views Paul meets here.—Burkitt:—The Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead, will also raise us up at the great day, and reward our present parting with the things of this life which we cannot keep, with eternal life which we shall never lose.—R.] Galatians 6:9. Starke:—This admonition is uttered as an encouragement, as a way which has the least appearance of authority assumed over others. It is a way therefore which preachers should incline to use.—Christians may become weary in the race, for they find many an assault and many a hindrance. Happy are they who encourage themselves with this word: Let us not be weary in well doing! The more laborious the seedtime has been, the richer shall the harvest be. The harvest comes hereafter; the first fruits of the present time are a small matter compared with what is to come.—Christians are not greedy for reward, and do not demand it from God on the ground of merit, but they do suffer their work to be sweetened, and themselves spurred up to activity and faithfulness by the prospect of the reward.—[Fatigue is not weariness.—In well doing we are more apt to be weary than fatigued.—Weariness may come from habits of slothfulness.—The due season is God’s season.—If we work on, feeling weary, yet not fainting, we shall reap.—R.] Galatians 6:10. Heubner:—The incalculable value of the present life consists in this, that we have opportunity to do good. The fleshly minded cannot hereafter make up the good which he had the vocation and opportunity to do, e. g., the hard hearted rich man, the negligent father or pastor, etc.—Starke:—One should not put off remembering the poor till death. Quod moriens das, ideo das, quod tecum ferre non poles; da igitur, dum vivis, et mercedem habebis.—[Brown:—The Christian knows no limits in doing good, except those which are fixed by his power and opportunity of doing good.—For a Christian to be unkind to a Christian is not only wrong, it is monstrous.—R.]—Rieger:—As the house of God, the church, is of two kinds, the visible and the invisible, so are also those of the household of two kinds, namely, those who belong to the visible church, and then the true believers, whose faith and sincerity of heart are invisible. From this it follows, that one owes more love to his fellow-believers, even such as are so but in profession, than to those of another religion; but most to really believing fellow-members, to whom the appellation: they of the household of faith, especially applies. In the present day it is our business to seek out those who have pressed through from the service of the letter into the life of religion, into the service of the Spirit, and to count them for the members of the household of faith chiefly commended to us.—Spener:—The more closely one, besides the general bond, is connected with any one by a special bond also, the more is he under obligation towards such a one. Thus a man is bound to his wife, parents to their children, brothers and sisters and blood relatives to one another, masters to their servants, citizens of one town or dwellers in one house to each other, in respect to works of love, more than they are to others; yet always without prejudice to the general love of our neighbor. On the whole Section:—Wherein Christians’ walk in the Spirit should especially show itself in their conduct towards one another: (1) In this, that no one exalts himself above others, but that one helps another up when he falls and assists him to bear his burdens: (2) in this, that no one grudgingly withholds what is his from another, but willingly lets him share in all and is unwearied in doing good (especially towards those who impart to one the bread of life in the word of God).—Sarwey:—If ye live in the Spirit, then walk in the Spirit; if ye walk in the Spirit, then walk in humility and forbearance, and in thankfulness towards your teacher and in liberality towards your brethren; and if ye walk therein ye walk in blessing.—Glφckler:—Concerning the spirituality of the children of God: (1) What people are in the word of God called spiritual; (2) what their duties are towards others and those of others towards them; (3) whether it is necessary for all that wish to be saved, to be be spiritual men; (4) how and when then one is to set about becoming a spiritual man.—Hengstenberg:—Christian love of neighbors as a chief part of a walk in the Spirit: it shows itself: (1) in loving converse with our neighbor, and that (a) in unambitious humility; (b) in helpful long-suffering; (c) in enduring patience; (2) in loving activity for our neighbor’s good: (a) in willing advancement of church and school in our own dwelling place, see Galatians 6:6; (b) in ready zeal for giving and helping for the sowing of the gospel in still wider circles (Galatians 6:7-8); (c) in general, in untiring doing of good of all kinds, especially to those of the household of faith (Galatians 6:9-10). On Galatians 6:1-5 : Self-exaltation. (1) Wherein it shows itself. In this, that it docs not do, what is mentioned in Galatians 6:1-2. (2) What secures against it: Self-examination. The single verses of the whole section almost all afford a theme at once, especially as several have the character of apothegms. Galatians 5:25. Text and theme of a Whitsunday sermon in Nitzsch (Auswahl I. p. 177):—(1) The grounds of this Whitsuntide declaration. (a) The spiritual life requires to be demonstrated and revealed in the walk, or it does not exist; (b) it requires to be maintained and augmented by the walk or it is lost. (2) The substance of this requirement: not=abandon the world and kill the body; nor yet=no longer esteem the word and violate the law; but=in the power of the atonement pursue after holiness. Galatians 6:2. Suitable text for a wedding discourse; Galatians 6:7-8, Fast-day, or New Year’s eve, or harvest text; Galatians 6:9, also a harvest text. Footnotes: Galatians 5:25.—[The dative Πνεύματι has perhaps a slightly different force in each member of this verse, but “by” will express the meaning in each case, better than “in.”—R.] Galatians 5:26.—[“Become vain-glorious” is both a more literal and a more correct rendering of γινώμεθακενόδοξοι.—R.] .—[“Even if” preserves the force of καί.—R.] Galatians 6:2.—Ἀναπληρώσετε is strongly supported; and is to be preferred (with Lachmann and Schott) to the reading σατε; the latter was perhaps occasioned by the preceding imperatives. It is found however in ΰ., where, singularly enough, we have the moods reversed, βαστάσετε occuring in the preceding clause. ΰ3. however reads βαστάζετε. [The future, ἀναπληρώσετε, is the reading of ΰ3. B. F. G., most versions; it is adopted by Meyer, De Wette, Mill, Ellicott, Light-foot. The aorist imperative, σατε, is found in A. c. D. E. K., most cursives, Tischendorf (later eds.), Alford, Wordsworth. The aorist imperative is rare, and this is an argument in favor of retaining it. If it be retained, the E. V. is correct, with the other reading, it must be emended as above. The question is not easily settled, since the external authority is so nearly balanced.—R.] Galatians 6:4.—[Ellicott paraphrases as above. The E. V. is not satisfactory. See Exeg. Notes.—R.] Galatians 6:5.—[“Load” is a good rendering. “Burden” is open to this great objection, that it does not discriminate between φορτίον and βάρη (Galatians 6:2).—R.] Galatians 6:9.—[Ἐγκακῶμεν is the correct reading. ΰ. A. B. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot. It is doubtful whether ἐκκακεῖν (Rec. ἐκκακῶμεν) is a genuine word.—R.] Galatians 6:10.—[Ἄραοὖν “accordingly then,” see Exeg. Notes.—R.] Galatians 6:10.—[Ἐργαζώμεθα. The reading ἐργαζόμεθα is too weakly supported. [So all modern Editors. Lachmann at first adopted the latter reading, but soon discarded it.—R.] [Lightfoot calls attention to the fact that this proverb occurs in 2 Corinthians 9:6, in reference to the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, to which object the Galatians had been asked to contribute (1 Corinthians 16:1); he therefore conjectures that this implies a general censure of their habitual niggardliness.—R.] [Perhaps as Lightfoot suggests to bring out the idea of selfishness. It need not be made emphatic, but is best retained in English by “to his own flesh.”—R.] [Alford and Ellicott deny this reference, but any other meaning seems insipid, and might have been better expressed in some other way.—R.] [The principle of voluntaryism so plainly implied in the verse has found its happiest exemplification in our own country. Dr. Brown represents one of the few European churches (United Presbyterian Church of Scotland), that has not only acted upon, but stoutly contended for this principle.—R.] OF THE EPISTLE Written by the Apostle with his own hand. He portrays himself in contrast with the False Teachers. An entreaty for future quiet out of regard to his sufferings. Benedictions. Galatians 6:11-1811 Ye see how large a letter I have written [See in how large letters I have written, or with what letters I write] unto you with mine own hand. 12As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should [that they should not] suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13For neither they themselves [not even do they] who are circumcised keep the law [themselves]; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15For in Christ Jesus [omit in Christ Jesus] neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16And as many as walk [shall walk] according to this rule, peace 17be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From [omit From] henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord [omit the Lord] Jesus. 18Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit [The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren]. Amen. AND Gal_6:11. See with what letters I write [or in what large letters I have written (see below)—R.] unto you with mine own hand.—Paul as a rule dictated his Epistles; but attested them by adding at least the conclusion in his own hand (comp. 2 Thessalonians 3:17). So also in this Epistle. But as it is the first letter which he has written to the Galatians, he begs them to notice his handwriting. This is the sense of πηλίκοιςγράμμασιν, which is therefore simply = with what sort of letters. Ἔγραψα, according to the familiar epistolary usage; the aorist does not therefore refer back to the portion already written, but Paul means what he is just beginning to write in conclusion. So Laurent, zur Kritik der Briefe des Apostles Paulus, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1864 H. 4, p. 643 sq.—His interpretation seems to have more in its favor than that of Wieseler (adopted in the 1st edition of this work), who renders it: “See with how great letters,” etc., referring the words to the whole Epistle, in this sense, that he means to give his readers a token of his special love in having written to them in quite large, and therefore unusually legible, characters, and that, not through an amanuensis, as ordinarily, but with his own hand. Against this Laurent remarks: How is it conceivable that immediately after so profound and earnest a discourse, the Apostle should have reviewed the characters he had already written, and have made so trivial a remark about their appearance? Besides the letters were not at all large; not much larger than ours. In Paul’s day cursive writing was already in use. While therefore the amanuensis probably wrote in uncial letters, Paul himself wrote cursively[!?]—But his purpose in adding the conclusion with his own hand was in this case not merely to attest the Epistle. For the conclusion is unusually long. Paul was also impelled to write by the desire of impressing more deeply on the minds of the Galatians a notice respecting his own person in opposition to the false teachers. [Two questions arise in the interpretation of this verse: 1. to what does the Apostle call attention; 2. to how much does he refer. The answer to the first question turns upon the meaning of πηλίκοιςγράμμασιν, that to the second mainly, though not exclusively, upon the force of ἔγραψα. 1. We may determine with comparative certainty the meaning of πηλίκοιςγράμμασιν. Πηλίκος, occurring only here and in Hebrews 7:3 (where the reference is to magnitude, though in an ethical sense), is not synonymous with πόσος, “how many;” hence “how many letters”=how large a letter, is incorrect; nor does the plural γράμματα mean “letter,” for which Paul invariably uses ἐριστολή. Besides the phrase γράφεῖνγράμμασιν, in the sense of “write a letter,” is nowhere found. Nor is πηλίκος identical with ποῖος (so Schmoller and others), “what kind;” Ellicott justly characterizes this interpretation as arbitrary. It means “how large,” referring to the size, implying that, for some cause, what Paul himself wrote was written in larger characters than usual (or perhaps than an amanuensis was in the habit of using). There is no necessity for finding a reference to shapelessness. It is no valid objection to say that this reference was trivial, for other things that Paul has written may be thus spoken of with equal propriety (comp. 2 Timothy 4:13). See Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth and Lightfoot. 2. To how much does he refer? In other words, did Paul write the whole Epistle with his own hand, or only these concluding verses. The aorist indicates the former, unless it be an epistolary aorist. But the burden of proof rests with those who maintain this. Besides if the reference be exclusively to what follows, it seems singular that the epistolary aorist should be chosen. We cannot perhaps decide the question from this word alone, but there are other considerations which may be urged in favor of the autographic character of the whole Epistle, a) Attention may have been called to the size of the letters, as a proof that Paul had written the whole, not using an amanuensis, who would probably have written more rapidly, hence in smaller characters, and this would be a proof of his earnestness and affection. b) The Epistle is largely a personal vindication, and hence was more likely to be an autograph, c) Alford finds a similarity, in style and in use of words, between this and the Pastoral Epistles (which he regards as autographs), see Vol. III. New Testament Prolegg. pp. 4, 79 sq. d) Wordsworth refers to the passage in Habakkuk cited in this Epistle, (Galatians 3:11), and finds in the injunction to the prophet to write “the just shall live by faith” in large characters, an implication that this Epistle on the same theme was written in similar characters. (This however is not of much weight.) Although the use of ἔγραψα is not decisive, yet taken in connection with the meaning of πηλίκοις, and whatever of weight attaches to the considerations mentioned above, it is much safer to assume that Paul wrote the whole letter; the probabilities are strongly in favor of this view. (So Alford, Ellicott and Wordsworth most decidedly.) There is a conjecture that the size or shapelessness of the letters arose from Paul’s weakness of vision, but it must be regarded as only a conjecture. Comp. Galatians 4:15. Paul could not have been unskilful in writing Greek.—R.] Galatians 6:12. As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh.—In condensed sharp language the Apostle (Galatians 6:12-13) characterizes the intrigues of the false teachers. They are people who want to have a good repute (εὐπροσωπῆσαι), but for all that live in the flesh, according to the lusts of the flesh, and shun suffering. Therefore they constrain you to be circumcised.—(Ἀναγκάζουσινὑμᾶςπεριτέμνεσθαι= “are busied with forcing a circumcision upon you.”) For this is done only that they should not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.—Τῷσταυρῷ not: on account of the cross, but: by the cross; the cross of Christ is itself represented as the persecutor—a significant image for these people’s fear of the cross, because it brings persecution. But the cross of Christ brings with it such persecution, sc. on the part of the Jews, only when it is preached and confessed as the sole condition of salvation, which is not done when circumcision is regarded as a condition of salvation. Therefore they insist upon this, in order to escape persecution. [It seems better to take τῷσταυρῷ as the dative of the ground or occasion (so Meyer, Alford, Ellicott and many others). Schmoller actually presents this view in his explanatory remark. It cannot mean “with the sufferings of the cross” (Winer). The objection to both is that “the cross of Christ” means “the atoning death of Christ upon the cross” (Brown), and this meaning will not admit of these interpretations.—R.] Galatians 6:13. Paul immediately explains the strong μόνον, “only” (Galatians 6:12). They have in this no other view than the one assigned—the purely egoistic one—they are not concerned for the law on its own account; for not even do they who are circumcised keep the law themselves.—Of the circumcised, or those who receive circumcision, [the reference being to the Judaizing party; the perfect would perhaps point more to the leaders, the present to the party as one which was then enforcing this rite,—R.] with all their zeal for circumcision, it might be expected that they kept the law. But their conduct is hypocritical. When they desire to have you circumcised, it is not in the interest of the law, but only that they may glory in your flesh, that they may be able to boast themselves; and it is moreover the σάρξ of the Galatians, that is to be the subject of their boasting: to be taken either physically, with reference to the circumcision to be performed in their flesh; or in a sense similar to Galatians 6:12, because if the Galatians should receive circumcision, they would follow the σάρξ and its suggestions, would display a carnal weakness and pliability of which these men would then boast as their own work. [The latter view is preferable.—R.] Galatians 6:14. But God forbid that I should glory.—To this sinful boasting of the false teachers, to whom the cross of Christ is more or less a scandal, and who are unwilling to suffer any persecution for its sake, Paul opposes his own boasting, whose subject is this very cross of Christ.—Save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.—Meyer incorrectly supposes that Paul wishes to mention the subject of his official glorying over against the official vauntings of the false teachers, and hence understands “the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” of the preaching of the cross of Christ, not of the fact itself. [In the 4th Ed. Meyer says: Only the cross of Christ should be the subject of his καυχᾶσθαι, viz.: that nothing other than the Redemption accomplished on the cross by Christ was the ground, contents and Divine assurance of his faith, life, hope, labor, etc.”—Surely this is not open to Schmoller’s objection.—R.] Wieseler:—Paul will, in contrast with these Judaizers, not boast at all of what he is or has or does, and therefore also not of his official labors, but of the cross of Christ.—By whom or which.—Διʼ ? οὖ is then most naturally referred to the main idea, “cross,” not to “our Lord Jesus Christ.” [The meaning is evidently the same, whether the relative be referred to one or the other; “by which” would mean through the cross of Christ; “by whom,” through Christ crucified. Still there is much force in the suggestion, that the subject immediately preceding, “so fully and triumphantly expressed, so important and so emphasized, throws the other word into the shade.” (It is not necessary to suppose that in this case we would find ἐνᾦ.) Besides, the idea of sundered fellowship with the world, which follows, seems to imply here more of a fellowship with Christ than with the cross. See Meyer, Alford and Ellicott, and on the other side Calvin, Bengel, Brown and Lightfoot.—R.] The world is crucified unto me.—By this Paul does not mean to state, for instance, why he cannot any longer boast of anything else, viz., because nothing else exists for him (Meyer), but he gives in a few yet pregnant words a glimpse into the significance which the cross has for him, on account of its operation. It is of course only because the cross is for me the object of faith, because I stand by faith in inward fellowship therewith (comp. Galatians 2:19), [or, better, with Christ Himself as the Crucified One—R.], that a crucifixion has been accomplished in my case also. Paul, however, is here speaking not simply of the fact that he or his old Ego has been crucified. Recognizing as he does his old Ego as one entangled with the world, and recognizing this entanglement with the world as its distinguishing character, he says, that the world, to which it clung, has been crucified to him, i. e., the world had become in his eyes condemned, yea dead = had utterly lost all significance, all attractive power for him, and that therefore his fellowship with it had been wholly broken off. Of course Paul’s fellowship of faith with the cross of Christ [or Christ crucified—R.] involved no direct action upon the world itself, but only upon it so far as it appertained to him, i. e., upon his fellowship with it.—And I to the world.—And even so had he been crucified to the world. A crucifixion of him had naturally been the consequence of his fellowship of faith with the cross of Christ (comp. Galatians 2:19), but calling to mind his former entanglement with the world, he declares himself crucified “to the world,” says, that in its eyes also he is one dedicated to death, yea, a dead man, so that he has no longer any attraction for the world, that the world will have nothing more to do with him, that its fellowship with him is also fully dissolved. This double statement thus expresses in the strongest manner, the absolute dissolution of every bond between him and the world. To him this result appeared a gain, and he saw in this a new reason, for glorifying in the cross of Christ. The second clause, κἀγὼτῷκόσμῳ, appears to imply also the positive statement, that not only does the world no longer regard him as one of its own, but also hates and persecutes him, and thus does precisely that which his adversaries seek to avoid (Galatians 6:12); yet Paul accounts it as nothing, but glories in the cross of Christ, although it brings these consequences with it; so highly does he value the gain, which he has from it. Galatians 6:15. For.—He immediately gives the reason for his determination to boast exclusively of the cross of Christ (not for the δι’ οὖ, Meyer).—Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.—Everything depends on the last, nothing on the first. But it is the cross of Christ which leads to this new creation, and that through the operation of it described by δι’ οὖ Galatians 6:14. This reciprocal crucifixion of the world and the old man to each other is the death of the old man and the beginning of a new one. [Καινὴκτίσις is probably passive, the thing created, resulting from a new creation on the part of God.—R] Galatians 6:16. And as many as shall walk according to this rule.—In Galatians 6:15 Paul stated a principle; here he designates this as the standard, according to which one should walk. Upon all who shall thus walk (the future applies to the time from the receipt of the Epistle thenceforward; Paul hopes that the Epistle will have a converting and confirming effect upon the readers) he invokes peace (see on Galatians 1:3) and mercy, thereby indicating the high importance of this standard. As this belongs to the conclusion, it is best to take it as a benediction; others understand it as a statement, supplying ἔσται.—The correct interpretation of and upon the Israel of God is the explicative one = that is [for they are the Israel of God.—R.] For there is here no reason for bringing the Jewish Christians into especial prominence; besides, the comprehensive ὅσοι does not admit of a national distinction being now first made in addition, and others named, who, it would even appear, had not to walk according to this standard. On the other hand, “the designation of all those, who walk according to this Anti-Judaistic standard, as the Israel of God, the true theocratic people, at this solemn close, is, as it were, the triumph of the whole Epistle.”—Meyer. [Ellicott doubts whether καί can have so strong an explicative force, and prefers to take it as copulative, as if the Apostle’s thought turned to his kindred according to the flesh; but the exegetical objections to this view are great, and the other interpretation is so suitable that it must be adopted.—R.] Galatians 6:17. Henceforth let no man trouble me, i. e., by still listening to the false teachers; for I (ἐγώ and not the persecution-shunning false teachers) bear in my body the marks of Jesus, the stigmata of Jesus, i. e., the proofs, that I am a real servant of Jesus (στίγματα with reference to the marks which masters had branded upon their slaves), namely, in all the traces, scars, wounds, and the like, of the maltreatments and persecutions, which I have endured in my apostolic calling. [“of Jesus,” i. e. my Master, Captain, God, for slaves, soldiers and votaries bore such marks. See Wordsworth and Lightfoot in loco.—R.] Galatians 6:18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.—Μετὰτοῦπνεύματοςὑμῶν; we are not to understand a special intention in his not writing the simple μεθ’ ὑμῶν; yet we should not overlook what is significant in the expression. Grace operates and is meant to operate upon the πνεῦμα of the man; only so does it operate truly and fully, and just such a full, truly salutary operation of grace does he wish for them.—Brethren.—Ἀδελφοί: “The Epistle, so severe in its prevailing tone, concludes with this address, in which unaltered brotherly love expresses itself.” Meyer. [Bengel: Ita mollitur totius epistolζ severitas.—R.]—Amen. AND ETHICALChrist’s cross is the touchstone of true Christianity. What Paul says in this section of the Judaistic teachers, applies strikingly mutatis mutandis, to the great mass of nominal Christians. They by no means wish to keep the law in its whole extent, that is much too burdensome for them; on the contrary they appeal to the fact that they forsooth believe on Christ, and therefore are free from the yoke of the law. But now on the other hand they have as little mind to believe on Christ in the whole extent of faith; what is inconvenient in this, they leave behind, and that is the cross of Christ, i. e., so far as it is a means of quieting the conscience, it is willingly accepted, but so far as it includes a dying of the old man, and the entering into a fellowship of the cross with Christ, they will none of it. Instead of this men turn rather to the otherwise despised law, and arbitrarily make the law to consist in this or that particular, some practice, some abstinence, and imagine themselves there to be satisfying all the severer requirements of God, while yet they are far from this utterance: The world is crucified to me and I unto the world!—Christ’s cross is the touchstone of true Christianity; it is in this, that salvation and comfort is to be sought, and so far it would not be so very hard to glory in the cross of Christ, which many are willing to do. But salvation and consolation are to be sought exclusively in that, no longer in the world, no longer in one’s self, everything else is to be accounted loss, and on the other hand the fellowship with the cross of Christ is to be counted no loss; in brief, there must come into being a new creature. This is the “Canon” (Galatians 6:16) for a Christian; only he who guides himself according to this becomes and is in truth a Christian. This is hard and yet not impossible. God will help therein by the pedagogy of his law, and will lead to faith, and to faith will give the Spirit, which helps through to the new creature.—Comp. also Roos: “Paul shows, that it is not so completely indifferent, what a man thinks of Christ and His cross. Now-a-days, as many of the people say: I pray, read, hear, and am none of the worst. A clever man of the world says: I do much evil, but I have a good heart with it all, and between my evil works I also do some good ones. God will look at me on my good side. What now shall we make of Jesus of Nazareth? Here the world boggles. At last it says: Let Him pass for a good teacher, who has told us, that God is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, and that He loves such virtuous persons as we. Let Him be also an example for imitation. Finally, let Him be also, if one will so have it, the Redeemer, who has acquired for us freedom to hasten on a broad and easy way, with a trifle of virtue, light-mindedly to eternity, and notwithstanding our wickedness to fear no punishment. Now consider, whether this is the gospel of Paul, and whether he so preached Christ. Can such a man say that he boasts only of the cross of Christ, and that through it the world is crucified to him and he unto the world? Has he experienced a new creation? Is the culture, which age, office, intercourse with men, has given him, worthy of this lofty name? Is he in Christ Jesus? Has he the confidence, as he is, to stand before the holy God? Let him, in moments of reflection, put this question to himself and hear concerning it the answer of God and the Bible. Perhaps God will be so gracious as yet to reveal to him the gospel which Paul preached, and if this is so, he will be astonished to find that before this, he, without his knowledge, had a false religion. Mercy and peace be upon every one that is thus brought right.” AND Gal_6:12. Rieger:—In every age there are points in which the world insists upon being yielded to, agreeing then to leave other points untouched. And whoever does not consent to this impure commingling, must not only suffer persecution, but also bear the reproach, that he himself is to blame, that he suffers only on account of his own self-will.—Hedinger:—How many thousand brethren have ye, ye clerical placemen, in Galatia? The handful of barley, the merry countenance, the assured friendliness, the favorable patron your comfort; flattery and trimming the sails, you think, will bring a man on. I do not agree with you. Moses’ course and choice is the best. Christ’s reproach before the purple of Egypt.—Starke:—Love must, indeed, cover and excuse a neighbor’s faults, but from hypocrites and seducers one must, for a warning, tear away the mask; especially should those do it to whose office it appertains.—Spener:—The doctrine of Christ preaches Christ’s cross, and brings a cross to him who preaches it. Galatians 6:13. Hedinger:—To preach to others and be one’s self a reprobate, to lade others with burdens, and not one’s self to touch them with a finger, what hypocrisy!—Starke:—It is an attribute of false teachers and zealots for religion, who are only concerned with the outside, to proselytize a man to the religion, let him believe afterwards as he will. This is a carnal zeal with abundant craving for notoriety. Galatians 6:14. In Starke:—Christians must not be ashamed of the cross of Christ, but rather glory in being justified and saved by that alone. Faith in Christ, the Crucified One, brings commonly such a fellowship of suffering with Him, that one has to bear his cross after the Lord Christ.—As soon as the union of a soul with Christ through faith takes place, so soon is the tie which holds it to the sin prevailing in the world, loosed.—A Christian may have much which even the world esteems, but the heart must not rest upon it.—Luther:—The world is crucified to me, i. e., I account, that the world is damned; and even so am I in turn crucified unto the world, i. e., it accounts, that I am damned. Thus we condemn one another. I anathematize all its human righteousness, doctrine, and work, as the very devil’s poison, and it in return anathematizes also my doctrine and work, counts me for a mischievous man, etc.Galatians 6:15. Luther:—“A new creature” does not mean, that one clothes himself differently, and puts on a different air, from before, but it means the renewal of the mind, which is brought about by the Holy Ghost. From that there follows an alteration of the outer life. For where the heart through the gospel obtains a new light, there it never fails that the outward senses also are altered. The ears have there no longer pleasure, in hearing human dreams and fools’ tidings, but God’s word alone. The mouth no longer boasts of a man’s own works, righteousness and monastic rule, but of God’s compassion in Christ Jesus. This then is an alteration, which consists not in words, but in work and in power. Galatians 6:16. [Burkitt:—1. Christianity is a walk: a free and voluntary motion, an uniform and even motion, a progressive motion, a constant motion. 2. This walk is a walk by rule. A Christian is not a lawless person to range up and down as fancy leads him. 3. The rule is the law of the new creature. The new creature, in the principles and workings of it, is made the ground, the pattern and direction of our obedience, and we frame and square all the actions of our lives according thereunto. 4. The blessed privileges belonging to those who thus walk: peace and mercy. 5. Such are the true Israel: a thousand times greater privilege than to be the children of Abraham’s flesh.—R.]—Rieger:—Even if one cannot accept the ungodly peace offered by those who make a fair show in the flesh, yet one by steadfast abiding within the limits of his faith, has the enjoyment of a Divine peace, and mercy is shown us in recompense of what many a one will lay upon us with an unrighteous judgment. Galatians 6:17. In Starke:—The burdened servant of the Lord has a claim to be unmolested.—It is not necessary to be ever anew entering into argument with unprofitable chatterers in defence of the truth, especially where it has been once and again vindicated against them.—Luther:—Because I am Christ’s servant and walk after the right rule, i. e., because I publicly confess, that out of Christ no man can attain to salvation, therefore also must I wear my Lord’s livery, which does not consist in marks and scars that I have inflicted in will worship as presumption on myself, like Francis, but such as are without my thanks or will inflicted on me by the world and Satan for Jesus’ sake. Galatians 6:18. In Starke:—Grace is the beginning, middle and end in Paul’s writings. As the beginning of religion is grace, so does its progress depend upon grace. Dost thou, O Christian, in thy solicitations from men, find neither grace nor comfort? Be not dismayed! The grace of thy Lord Jesus remains assured to thee.—Let every one see to it, that he be and remain a dear brother of Paul, i. e., a true child of God; so may he also appropriate to himself the wish that God’s grace may remain with him, with a believing Amen.—[Brown:—Thus does the Apostle conclude this admirable Epistle, and show us, by his example, what it is to do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by him.—R.] Fleeing the cross, or boasting of the cross? The decisive question in religion.—In Lisco:—The incomparable worthiness of the cross of Christ to be gloried in: 1. That a man can only refuse to acknowledge this out of unworthy motives. a) That such a refusal exists; b) why many refuse: a) because one will only make a fair show in the flesh, β) because one is not willing to be persecuted with the cross of Christ, y) because one will have glorying for himself and by means of himself. 2. On what account the cross of Christ is thus solely worthy to be gloried in: a) for the sake of that, which came to pass thereon; b) for the sake of the fruit which the cross of Christ bears in the hearts and lives of His people: a) as respects their demeanor toward the world, ί) as respects their temper towards others: they cherish warm love towards those of like mind; they contemn the assaults of those, that are not so minded; they wish that all may become and remain sharers in His grace. [The Apostle had first vindicated his apostle-ship, then his gospel, but was it for his own glory? Nay, in one sense Galatians 6:14 is a summing up of the whole Epistle; all this defence, this earnestness, this boldness, this tenderness, was but a glorying in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.—Many see the cross, some trust in it, not all of these glory in it. Why not? Because their fellowship with Christ is not yet such, that the world is crucified to them and they to the world.—Those who gloried in the cross of Christ have gotten glory to Christ and His cross.—Among the many celebrated sermons on Galatians 6:14 may be mentioned those of Bishops Atterbury and Beveridge, also of McLaurin, Summerfield and McCheyne.—R.] Galatians 6:11.—[The E. V. is obviously incorrect both in rendering “ye see” and “how large a letter;” the two interpretations offered to our choice are given above. See Exeg. Notes. The aorist ἔγραψα must be rendered: “I have written,” if it is not un epistolary aorist; “I wrote” (Am. Bib. Un.) is verbally correct, but is not in any case a proper English dress for the Apostle’s idea.—R.] Galatians 6:12.—[Μή is misplaced in Rec. after ἵνα. It should follow Χριστοῦ. Διώκωνται is the reading of ΰ. B. D. E., adopted by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Wordsworth. Tischendorf (with A. C. F. G. K. L.), διώκονται; an improbable solecism, arising from the frequent interchange of ω and ο.—R.] Galatians 6:13.—Rec. περιτεμνόμενοι; the reading περιτετμημένοι is, however, recommended by Griesbach, and adopted by Lachmann and Scholz. “With right; the perfect is absolutely necessary, since the Judaistic teachers are meant. The present was introduced by the transcribers, who had just written περιτέμνεσθαι and perhaps were reminded of Gal 6:3.” Meyer. [If the perfect be the correct reading, we must render, “who have been circumcised,” or simply “the circumcised;” but the present is not only lectio difficilior, but is supported by preponderant external authority (ΰ. A. C. D. E. K., many versions); it is therefore adopted by Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Wordsworth.—R.] Galatians 6:14.—Τῷ is omitted by Lachmann on important authorities. [ΰ. A. B. etc.; Alford, Lightfoot omit the article. There is great room for doubt, since the omission may be readily accounted for both by the similarity of the preceding syllable and the desire to conform with the anarthrous κόσμος; Meyer, Tischendorf, Ellicott, Wordsworth retain it.—A careful examination of all the proposed emendations leaves the impression that the rendering of this verse in the E. V. ought not to be altered in the least particular.—R.] Galatians 6:15.—ἘνγὰρΧριστῷἸησοῦ is probably an explanatory gloss from Galatians 6:6, though ΰ. has it. We should read simply: οὔτε—γάρ. [The MSS. authority for the longer reading is very great, but so many old versions follow the shorter one, and the probability of an importation from Galatians 6:6 is so great, that Tischendorf and almost all editors adopt it.—R.] Galatians 6:15.—Ἐστίν; Elz. and Matth. [and Rec.] have ἰσχύει (from Galatians 6:6) against decisive authorities. Galatians 6:16.—Στοιχήσουσιν. The reading στοιχοῦσιν is approved by Griesbach, put in the margin by Lachmann, and adopted by Tischendorf. Meyer asks with right: “What reason could the transcribers have had for changing it into the future?” [The authorities for the future are weighty; the change to the present is more explicable; the future is slightly more difficult. Adopted by Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, Wordsworth; hence “shall walk.”—R.] Galatians 6:17.—Κυρίου is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, [Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, on the authority of A. B. C.—R.]; probably imported from Galatians 6:18, but ΰ. has τοῦκυρίουἸησοῦΧριστοῦ. [Wordsworth, with his usual conservative tendencies, follows the Rec.—R.] [“Ἴδετε is imperative; “see” not “ye see” as E. V.—R.] [It does not appear whether this statement is made by Schmoller, on his own authority, or that of Laurent. There seems to be no other authority for it. The very reverse is more probable.—R.] [Or perhaps, “make a fair shew in things which appertain to a mere fleshly life.”—R.] [Wordsworth remarks that this is the only place in the New Testament where εἰρήνη is placed before ἔλεος.—R.] [True where this commentary was written, but partially true everywhere.—R.]