ΠΡΟΣΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ Chap. 1:1-5. Address and greeting. πολλοῦτὸπροοίμιονγέμειθυμοῦκ . μεγάλουφρονήματος · οὐτὸπροοίμιονδὲμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶπᾶσα , ὡςεἰπεῖν , ἡἐπιστολή . Chrys. In the very opening sentence of the Epistle, we see the fervour of the Apostle’ s mind and the weightiness of his subject betraying themselves. The vindication of his own apostolic calling,— and the description of the work and purpose of Christ towards us, shew him to be writing to those who had disparaged that apostleship, and were falling from their Saviour. 1. It is better not to join ἀπόστολος (here of course used in its strict and highest sense: see Ellicott, and an interesting note in Jowett) with ἀπ ʼ , but to let it stand by itself, and take the two prepositions as indicating, ἀπό the remote originating cause, διὰ the nearer instrumental one. In St. Paul’ s case, neither of these was merely human; the Lord Jesus was both the original Sender, and Himself the Announcer of the mission. Perhaps however the prepositions must not be so strictly pressed,— see ref. 1 Cor.,— and observe that the following διὰ belongs to θεοῦπατρός as well as to Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ .— ἀνθρώπου is perhaps (as Mey., De W., Ellic., al.) singular, for the sake of contrast to Ἰησ . χρ . following; but more probably for solemnity’ s sake, the singular making even a more marked exclusion of human agency than the plural. Luther’ s view of the sentence is: “ The Judaizing teachers could shew their credentials as disciples of Apostles or messengers of churches, and despised Paul as having none such. To this he answers that he had not indeed any commission from men, but derived his authority from a higher source.” But (1) this was not the fact, for he had a regular mission from the church at Antioch: (2) the words do not express it. κ . θεοῦπατρός ] If by Jesus Christ then also by God the Father, in and by whose appointment all the mediatorial acts of Christ in the Headship of His Church are done. The inferences of Chrys. al. as to the equality of the Father and the Son from this juxtaposition, appear far-fetched, and according to “ the mind, not of the apostolic, but of the Nicene age,” as Jowett: but we may say at least this, that the strongest possible contrast is here drawn between man, in the ordinary sense, on the one side, and Jesus Christ, and God the Father, on the other. Had not the Apostle regarded Jesus Christ as one with the Father in the Godhead, he never could have written thus. On the use of διὰ here where ἀπό might be expected, see Ellicott’ s note. He refers it to the brevity with which St. Paul expresses himself: I should rather say that he states our Lord Jesus and God the Father to have been the causa medians, in bringing down divine agency even to the actual fact of his mission— and leaving it therefore to be inferred à fortiori that the causa principalis was the will of God. It is important to remember that the mission of Paul to the actual work of the ministry was by the command of the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:2,— proceeding from, and expressing the will of, the Father and the Son. πατρός is better taken generally, as in reff., the Father, than supplied with ἡμῶν (as De W. al.) or αὐτοῦ (as Meyer al.). τοῦἐγ . αὐτ .] Why specified here? Not, I think, because (Meyer) Paul was called to be an Apostle by the risen Saviour,— nor merely (De W.) to identify the Father as the Originator of the Son’ s work of Redemption (which is so in Romans 4:24,— but here would not immediately concern Paul’ s calling to be an Apostle),— nor (Calvin, al.) to meet the objection that he had never seen Christ, and turn it into an advantage, in that (Aug. (but cf. his Retractations), Erasm., Beza, al.) he alone was commissioned by the already risen and ascended Jesus,— for in this case we should not find τοῦἐγείραντοςκ .τ .λ . stated as a predicate of the Father, but τοῦἐγερθέντοςκ .τ .λ . as one of the Son,— nor as asserting the Resurrection against the Jews and Judaizing Galatians (Chrys., Luther), which is far-fetched,— nor again (Jowett) as expressing an attribute of the Father, without which He can hardly be thought of by the believer,— for this is too loose a relevancy for a sentence so pointed as the present: but because the Resurrection, including and implying the Ascension, was the Father’ s bestowal on Christ of gifts for men, by virtue of which (ἔδωκεντοὺςμὲνἀποστόλους , κ .τ .λ . Ephesians 4:11) Paul’ s Apostleship had been received. Cf. a similar sentiment in Romans 1:4, Romans 1:5. ἐκνεκρῶν = ἐκτῶνν .,— see note on Romans 4:24. In Matthew 14:2; Matthew 27:64; Matthew 28:7; Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:18 (2:12?); 1 Thessalonians 1:10, the article is expressed: otherwise it is always omitted. 2. ἀδελφοί ] Who these were, may best be inferred by the Apostle’ s usage in the addresses of other Epistles, where we have Σωσθένηςὁἀδελφός (1 Corinthians 1:1), Τιμόθεοςὁἀδ . (1 Chronicles 1:11 Ch 1:11 Ch 1:1.Philemon 1:1 Philemon 1:1). They were his colleagues in the work of the Gospel, his companions in travel, and the like (not all the members of the church where he was, as Erasm., Grot., Jowett, al., who would hardly be specified as being σὺναὐτῷ ,— besides that such an address would be unprecedented): and their unanimity is here stated, as Chrys., Luther, al., to shew that he was not alone in his doctrine, but joined by all the brethren who were present. At the same time πάντες would seem to imply that just now he had many of these ἀδελφοί with him. But we cannot draw any inference from this as to the date of our Epistle: for we do not know who were his companions on many occasions. At Ephesus, where probably it was written, we hear only of Gaius and Aristarchus (Acts 19:29), but we cannot say that there were not others: in all likelihood, several more of those mentioned Acts 20:4, were with him. ταῖςἐκκλ .] πανταχοῦγὰρεἷρψενἡνόσος . Thdrt. The principal cities of Galatia were Pessinus and Ancyra: but this plural seems to imply more than two such churches. See 1 Corinthians 16:1, and Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23. That we have here barely ταῖςἐκκλ ., without any honourable adjunct (as in 1 Cor., 2 Cor., 1 Thess., 2 Thess., &c.), must he explained as Chrys. al.: θέαδέμοικαὶἐνταῦθατ . πολλὴνἀγανάκτησιν . οὐγὰρεἶπεΤοῖςἀγαπητοῖςοὐδὲΤοῖςἡγιασμένοις , ἀλλὰΤ . ἐκκλ . τ . Γαλ . Meyer denies this, alleging (carelessly, which is not usual with him) 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. as addressed barely τῇἐκκλησίᾳ , whereas in both we have added ἐνθεῷπατρὶκ . κυρίῳἸησ . χρ . 3. See introductory note on Romans 1:1-7. 4. He thus obiter reminds the Galatians, who wished to return to the bondage of the law, of the great object of the Atonement, which they had forgotten. Ch. 3:13 is but a restatement, in more precise terms, of this. δόντοςἑαυ .] viz. as an offering, unto death: an expression only found (in N. T.) here and in the Pastoral Epistles. Several such will occur; see the inference, in Prolegomena to Past. Epistles, § i. 32, note. περί , in this connexion, has much the same sense as ὑπέρ : see reff., and note on Ephesians 6:19; also Ellic.’ s note here. ὅπ . ἐξέληται ] ἐξαιρεῖσθαι is the very word used by the Lord of St. Paul’ s own great deliverance, see reff. τ . αἰῶνοςτ . ἐνεστ . πονηροῦ ] the present (not, as Mey., ‘ coming.’ The word will not bear this meaning in 1 Corinthians 7:26, nor apparently (see note) in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, much less in Romans 8:38) evil age (state of things; i.e. the course of this present evil world;— and, as understood, make us citizens and inheritors of a better αἰῶνος , τοῦμέλλοντος . So Luther: “ vocat hunc totum mundum, qui fuit, est et erit, præ sens seculum, ad differentiam futuri et æ terni sæ culi.” The allusion (Jowett) to the Jewish expressions, “ the present age,” “ the age to come,” as applying to the periods before and after the Messiah’ s coming, is very faint,— indeed hardly traceable, in the change which the terms had undergone as used in a spiritual sense by Christians. See however the rest of his note, which is full of interest). κατὰτὸθέλημα … ] And this, (1) not according to our own plan, in proportion to our legal obedience or any quality in us, but according to the Father’ s sovereign will, the prime standard of all the process of redemption: and (2) not so that we may trifle with such rescuing purpose of Christ by mixing it with other schemes and fancies, seeing that it is according to a procedure prescribed by Him, who doeth all things after the counsel of His own will. And this, not as the lord merely of His works, but as πατρὸςἡμῶν , bound to us in the ties of closest love— for our good, as well as to fulfil His own eternal purpose. On the question, whether the genitive ἡμῶν depends on both, or only on the latter of the two nouns θεοῦκ . πατρός , I agree in Ellicott’ s conclusion, that as πατρός is regularly anarthrous, and thus purely grammatical considerations are confounded,— as θεός conveys one absolute idea, while πατήρ might convey many relative ones, it is natural to believe that the Apostle may have added a defining genitive to πατήρ , which he did not intend to be referred to θεός . Render therefore, God and our Father, not ‘ our God and Father.’ 5. ᾧἡδόξα ] So (reff.) on other occasions, when speaking of the wonderful things of God, St. Paul adds a doxology. “ In politeia, quando regum aut principum nomina appellamus, id honesto quodam gestu, reverentia, et genuflexione facere solemus. Multo magis cum de Deo loquimur, genu cordis flectere debemus.” Luther. In ἡδόξα ,— the glory κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , or ‘ the glory which is His,’ — the article is probably inserted for solemnity. “ In this and similar forms of doxology,— excepting the angelic doxology, Luke 2:14, and that of the multitude, Luke 19:38,— δόξα regularly takes the article when used alone: see Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 2 Peter 3:18. When joined with one or more substantives, it appears sometimes with the article (1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 7:12): sometimes without it (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 1:17; Jude 1:25).” Ellicott. τοὺςαἰῶν . τ . αἰών .] See note on Ephesians 3:21. 6-10. Announcement of the occasion of the Epistle, in his amazement at their speedy falling away from the Gospel. Assertion of that Gospel’ s exclusive claim to their adhesion, as preached by him, who served God in Christ, and not popularity among men. We have none of the usual expressions of thankfulness for their faith, &c.; but he hurries vehemently into his subject, and, as Chrys. says, σφοδρότεροντῷμετὰταῦτακέχρηταιλόγῳ , καθάπερπυρωθεὶςσφοδρῶςὑπὸτῆςἐννοίαςτῶνεὐεργεσιῶντοῦθεοῦ . 6. θαυμάζω in this sense (see reff.) is a word of mildness, inasmuch as it imports that better things were expected of them,— and of condescension, as letting down the writer to the level of his readers and even challenging explanation from them. Still, like many other such mild words, it carries to the guilty conscience even sharper rebuke than a harsher one would. οὕτωςταχέως ] either (1) ‘ so soon after your conversion’ (Calv., Olsh., Meyer, &c.), or (2) ‘ so quickly,’ — ‘ after so little persuasion,’ when the false teachers once came among you (Chr., De W., &c.), or (3) ‘ so soon after my recent visit among you’ (Bengel, &c.). Of these I prefer (1), as more suiting the dignity of the passage, and as the more general and comprehensive reason. But it does not exclude (2) and (3): ‘ so soon,’ might be, and might be intended to be, variously supplied. See Prolegomena, on the time and place of writing this Epistle. μετατίθ .] are passing over, pres.: not as E. V. ‘ are removed,’ which is doubly wrong, for μετ . is not passive but middle, in the common usage of the word, according to which the Galatians would understand it. So Plato, Theog. 122 c, σμικρὸνγάρτιμετατίθεμαι , ‘ I am beginning somewhat to change my opinion:’ see also Gorg. 493 c: Demosth. 379. 10: Ἴβηρες , ὅσοι … ἐςῬωμαίουςμετέθεντο , Appian, Hisp. c. 17; &c. See also examples in Wetst. Chrys. says well, οὐκεἶπεΜετέθεσθε , ἀλλὰΜετατίθεσθε · τουτέστιν , οὐδέπωπιστεύω , οὐδὲἡγοῦμαιἀπηρτισμένηνεἶναιτὴνἀπάτην · δκαὶαὐτὸπάλινἐστὶνἀνακτωμένου . It is interesting to notice, in connexion with οὕτωςταχέωςμετατίθεσθε , the character given by Cæ sar of the Gauls: “ ut ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promtus est animus: sic mollis ac minime resistens ad calamitates mens ipsorum est.” B. G. iii. 19:— “ Cæ sar … infirmitatem Gallorum veritus, quod sint in consiliis capiendis mobiles, et novis plerumque rebus student:” ib. iv. 5: see also ib. ii. 8; iii. 10. τοῦκαλέσ . ὑμ .] not to be taken with χριστοῦ , as Syr., Jer., Luth. (gives both constructions, but prefers this), Calv., Grot., Bengel, &c., nor understood of Paul, as al. and recently by Bagge,— but, as almost always with the Apostle (see note on Romans 1:6), of God the Father see ver. 15; and cf. Romans 8:30; Romans 9:24, Romans 9:25: 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15, 1 Corinthians 7:17: 1 Thessalonians 2:12: 2 Thessalonians 2:14: 2 Timothy 1:9. Also 1 Peter 5:10). ἐνχάρ . χρ .] in (as the element, and hence the medium; not into, as E. V.; see for construction 1 Corinthians 7:15. In the secondary transferred sense of local prepositions, so often found in later Greek, it is extremely difficult to assign the precise shade of meaning: see Jowett’ s and Ellic.’ s notes here. But we may safely lay down two strongly marked regions of prepositional force, which must never be confounded, that of motion, and that of rest. ἐν , for example, can never be strictly rendered ‘ into,’ nor εἰς , ‘ in.’ Where such appears to be the case, some logical consideration has been overlooked, which if introduced would right the meaning) the grace of Christ. Christ’ s grace is the elementary medium of our ‘ calling of God,’ as is set forth in full, Romans 5:15, ἡδωρεὰἐνχάριτιτῇτοῦἑνὸςἀνθρ . Ἰησ . χρ .:— see also Acts 15:11. And ‘ Christ’ s grace’ is 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. εἰςἕτερ . εὐαγγ .] to a different (in kind: not ἄλλο , another of the same kind, which title he denies it, see below) gospel . 7. Meyer’ s note appears to me well to express the sense: “ the preceding εἰςἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον was a paradoxical expression, there being in reality but one Gospel. Paul appeared by it to admit the existence of many Gospels, and he therefore now explains himself more accurately, how he wishes to be understood— ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο , εἰμή &c.,” i.e. which “ different Gospel,” whereto you are falling away, is not another, not a second, besides the one Gospel (ἄλλο , not ἕτερον again; see above), except that there are some who trouble yon &c. That is: ‘ This ἕτερονεὐαγγ . is only in so far another, that there are certain, who &c.’ Notice that the stress is on οὐκ ; so that Paul, though he had before said εἰςἕτερονεὐαγγ ., yet guards the unity of the Gospel, and explains what he meant by ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον to be nothing but a corruption and perversion of the one Gospel of Christ. Others, as Chrys., Œ c., Thdrt., Luther, De Wette, &c., take ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο as all referring to εὐαγγέλιον , “ which is (admits of being) no other” : and then εἰμή is merely adversative, ‘ but,’ or ‘ only,’ a meaning which it will hardly bear, but which, as De W. remarks, is not necessarily involved in his interpretation: ‘ except that’ answering for it quite as well. The objection to his view is (1) that the meaning assigned to ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο is very harsh, taking the relative from its application to the concrete (ἕτερονεὐαγγ .), and enlarging it to the abstract (τὸεὺαγγ . in general) (2) that the juxtaposition of ἕτερον and ἄλλο in one sentence seems to require, as in 1 Corinthians 15:40, 1 Corinthians 15:41, that the strict meaning of each should he observed. Others again (Winer, Olsh., &c.) refer the ὅ to the whole sentence from ὅτι &c. to εὐαγγέλιον — ‘ which (viz. your falling away) is nothing else but (has no other cause, but that) &c.’ To this the objection (2) above applies, and it is besides very unlikely that St. Paul would thus have shifted all blame from the Galatians to their false teachers (‘ hanc culpam non tam vobis imputo quam perturbatoribus illis,’ &c. Luther), and, as it were, wiped out the effect of his rebuke just after uttering it. Lastly, Schö tt., and Cornel.-a-Lapide, take ὃοὐκἔστ . ἄλλο as a parenthesis, and refer εἰμή to θαυμάζω , which should thus have been ἐθαύμαζον . This would besides make the sentence a very harsh and unnatural one. The nature of this ‘ different Gospel,’ as gathered from the data in our Epistle, was (1), though recognizing Jesus as the Christ, it insisted on circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic ordinances as to times, &c.: (2) it professed to rest on the authority of some of the other Apostles see Chrys. quoted below. οἱταρ .] The article points out in a more marked manner the (notorious) occupation of these men, q. d. ‘ certain your disturbers, &c.’ Add to reff., Herodot. ix. 70, τὴνσκηνὴντ . Μαρδονίουοὗτοιἔσανοἱδιαρπάσαντες . Xen. An. ii. 4. 5, ὁἡγησόμενοςοὐδεὶςἔσται : and compare the common expression εἰσὶνοἱλέγοντες . τὸεὐαγγ . τ . χρ .] perhaps here not ‘ Christ’ s Gospel,’ but the Gospel of (i.e. relating to, preaching) Christ. The context only can determine in such expressions whether the genitive is subjective or objective. 8. But (no matter who they are οἱταρ . &c.) even though (in καὶεἰ , καὶἐάν , &c., the force of the καί is distributed over the whole supposition following, see Hartung, Partikell. i. 139; and ἐάν is distinguished from εἰ , in supposing a case which has never occurred, see 1 Corinthians 13:1, and a full explanation in Herm. on Viger, p. 832) we (i.e. usually, ‘ I, Paul:’ but perhaps used here on account of οἱσὺνἐμοὶπάντεςἀδελφοί , ver. 2) or an angel from heaven , preach (evangelize: it is impossible to preserve in English the εὐαγγέλιον , and in it the reference back to vv. 6, 7) to you other than what (παρά (reff.) as in παρὰδόξαν , παρὰτοὺςὅρκους , παραβαίνειν , &c. not merely ‘ against,’ nor merely ‘ besides,’ but indicating ‘ beyond,’ in the sense of overstepping the limit into a new region, i.e. it points out specific difference. The preposition is important here, as it has been pressed by Protestants in the sense of ‘ besides,’ against Roman Catholic tradition, and in consequence maintained by the latter in the sense of ‘ against.’ It in fact includes both) we preached (evangelized) to you, let him be accursed (of God: no reference to ecclesiastical excommunication: for an angel is here included. See note, Romans 9:3, and compare ch. 5:10: also Ellic.’ s and Bagge’ s notes here). 9. As we said before (referring, not to ver. 8 as most Commentators; for the word more naturally, as in 2 Corinthians 13:2 (so προείπαμεν , 1 Thessalonians 4:6), relates to something said on a former occasion,— and the plural seems here to bind it to εὐηγγελισάμεθα ,— but to what he had said during his presence with them: see a similar reference, ch. 5:3, 21), I also now say again,— If any one is (no longer now a supposition, but an assumption of the fact: see Hermann, ut supra; and Ellic.’ s note) evangelizing you (reff.) other (with another gospel) than that which ye received (from us), let him be accursed (see above). 10. For (accounting for, and by so doing, softening, the seeming harshness of the last saying, by the fact which follows) am I now persuading (seeking to win over to me, ζητῶνἀρέσκειν nearly; see reff.) men (see 1 Corinthians 4:3; 2 Corinthians 5:11: not, as Erasm. (al. not Luther), ‘ num res humanas suadeo, an divinas?’ — nor as Calvin, ‘ suadeone secundum homines an secundum Deum?’ ) or (am I conciliating) (πείθω losing its more proper meaning, as of course, when thus applied) God? or am I seeking to please men (a somewhat wider expression than the other, embracing his whole course of procedure)? (Nay) if I any longer (implying that such is the course of the world before conversion to Christ; not necessarily referring back to the time before his own conversion, any more than that is contained by implication in the words, but rather perhaps to the accumulated enormity of his being, after all he had gone through, a man-pleaser) were pleasing men (either (1) imperf., = ‘ seeking to please:’ so that the fact, of being well-pleasing to men, does not come into question; or (2) as Mey., ‘ the fact of pleasing, result of seeking to please:’ ‘ if I were popular with men:’ the construction will bear both), I were not (ἤμην is a late form, found however in Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 9: see Ellic. here) the servant of Christ. Some interpret χρ . δοῦ . οὐκἂνἤμην as Chr., ἔτιμετὰἸουδαίωνἤμην , ἔτιτὴνἐκκλησίανἐδίωκον . But this would more naturally be expressed by οὐκἂνἐγενόμην , and, as Mey. remarks, would give a very flat and poor sense: it is better therefore to take δοῦλος in its ethical, not its historical meaning. 11-Chap. 2:21. First, or Apologetic part of the Epistle; consisting in an historical defence of his own teaching, as not being from men, but revealed to him by the Lord,— nor influenced even by the chief Apostles, but of independent authority. 11, 12. Enunciation of this subject. γν . γάρ ] The γάρ seems to have been corrected to δέ , as not applying immediately to the foregoing,— or perhaps in reminiscence of 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1. It refers back to vv. 8, 9. On γνωρ ., see note, 1 Corinthians 15:1. κατὰἄνθρωπον ] according to man, as E. V. (see reff.): i.e. measured by merely human rules and considerations, as it would be were it of human origin: so βελτίονοςἢκατ ʼ ἄνθρωποννομοθέτου , Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, κατά cannot itself express the origin (as Aug., a-Lapide, Est., al.), though it is included by implication: see note ver. 4, on κατὰτὸθέλημα . 12. proof of this. For neither (οὐδὲγάρ in negative sentences, answers to καὶγάρ in positive; e.g. in Herod. i. 3, ἐπιστάμενονπάντωςὅτιοὐδώσειδίκας · οὐδὲγὰρἐκείνουςδιδόναι :— omit the οὐ , and substitute καί for οὐδέ , and the sentence becomes affirmative. So that οὐδέ has nothing to do, except in ruling the negative form of the clause, with οὔτε following, but belongs to this clause only. See on the whole, Ellic.’ s note) did I (ἐγώ strongly emphatic,— see example from Herodot. above: ‘ neither did I, any more than the other Apostles.’ Thus this clause stands alone; the ‘ neither’ is exhausted and does not extend to the next clause) receive it (historically) from man (i.e. ‘ any man;’ not ‘ a man,’ but generic, the article being omitted after the preposition as in ver. 1), nor was taught it (dogmatically); but through revelation of al. take the genitive as objective, ‘ revelation of,’ i.e. revealing) Jesus Christ. When did this revelation take place?— clearly, soon after his conversion, imparting to him as it did the knowledge of the Gospel which he afterwards preached; and therefore in all probability it is to be placed during that sojourn in Arabia referred to in ver. 17. It cannot be identical with the visions spoken of 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff.,— for 2 Cor. was written in a.d. 57, and fourteen years before that would bring us to a.d. 43, whereas his conversion was in 37 (see Chron. Table in Prolegomena, Vol. II.), and his subsequent silence, during which we may conceive him to have been under preparation by this apocalyptic imparting of the Gospel, lasted but three years, ver. 18. Nor can it be the same as that appearance of the Lord to him related Acts 22:18,— for that was not the occasion of any revelation, but simply of warning and command. He appears to refer to this special revelation in 1 Corinthians 11:23 ; 15:3. 1 Thessalonians 4:15; see notes in those places. 13-2:21. Historical working out of this proof: and first (vv. 13, 14) by reminding them of his former life in Judaism, during which he certainly received no instruction in the Gospel from men. 13. ἠκούσ .] ye heard, viz. when I was among you: from myself: not as E. V., ‘ ye have heard.’ γάρ binds the narrative to the former verses, as in the opening of a mathematical proof. ἀναστρ .] Wetst. cites Polyb. iv. 82. 1, κατάτετὴνλοιπὴνἀναστροφὴνκαὶτὰςπράξειςτεθαυμασμένοςὑπὲρτὴνἡλικίαν . This meaning of the word seems (Mey.) to belong to post-classical Greek. There is no article before nor after ποτε , perhaps because the whole, ἀναστ .-ποτε -ἐν -τῷ -Ἰουδ ., is taken as one, q.d. τὸνἐμόνποτεἸουδαϊσμόν : or better, as Donaldson in Ellicott, “ the position of ποτε is due to the verb included in ἀναστροφήν . As St. Paul would have said ἀνεστρεφόμηνποτε , he allows himself to write τὴνἐμ . ἀναστροφήνποτε .” Mey. cites as a parallel construction, ἡτῆςΤροίαςἅλωσιςτὸδεύτερον , Plato, Legg. iii. 685 d. τ . ἐκκλ . τ . θεοῦ ] for solemnity, to set himself in contrast to the Gospel, and shew how alien he then was from it (1 Corinthians 15:9). ἐπόρθ .] τουτέστι , σβέσαιἐπεχείρειτ . ἐκκλησίαν , καταστρέψαικ . καθελεῖν , ἀφανίσαι · τοῦτογὰρπορθοῦντοςἔργον . Chrys. But more than the mere attempt is to be understood: he was verily destroying the Church of God, as far as in him lay. Nor must we think of merely laying waste; the verb applies to men, not only to cities and lands, cf. Acts 9:21,— κεῖνοςγὰρἔπερσενἀνθρώπους , Soph. Aj. 1177, and σὲπαρακαλῶ , μὴἡμῖνὁΠρωταγόραςτὸνΣιμωνίδηνἐκπέρσῃ , Plato, Protag., p. 340. 14. συνηλικιώτας ] “ The compound form (compare συμμέτοχος , Ephesians 3:6; Ephesians 5:7: συγκοινωνός , 1 Corinthians 9:23 al,) is condemned by the Atticists: Attic writers using only the simple form.” Ellicott. ἐντῷγένειμ ., in my nation, see reff. περισσ .] viz. than they. ζηλ . τ . πῷμ . παρ .] a zealous assertor (or defender) of my ancestral traditions (i.e. those handed down in the sect of the Pharisees, Paul being Φαρισαῖος , υἱὸςΦαρισαίων , Acts 23:6,— not, the law of Moses. This meaning is given by the μου : without it the παραδόσεις of the whole Jewish nation handed down from οἱπατέρες , might be meant: cf. Acts 26:5). 15-17. After his conversion also, he did not take counsel with men. 15. It was God’ s act, determined at his very birth (cf. especially Acts 13:2), and effected by a special calling: viz., that on the road to Damascus, carried out by the instrumentality of Ananias, To understand καλέσας of an act in the divine Mind, as Rü ckert, is contrary to our Apostle’ s usage of the word, cf. ver. 6; Romans 8:30 al. This calling first took place, then the revelation, as here. 16. ἀποκαλ . belongs to εὐδόκησεν , not to καλ . (Erasm.), nor to ἀφορ . and καλ . (Est., al.),— to reveal his Son in me (strictly: ‘ within me,’ τῆςἀποκαλύψεωςκαταλαμπούσηςαὐτοῦτὴνψυχήν , Chrys.: not ‘ through me’ (Jer., Erasm., Grot., &c), which follows in ἵναεὐαγγ . κ .τ .λ ., nor in my case (Rü ckert, al.), as manifested by me as an example to myself or to others, as in 1 John 4:9: the context here requires that his own personal illumination should be the point brought out;— nor ‘ to me’ (Calv., al.), which though nearly equivalent to ‘ in me,’ weakens the sense), &c. Notice the present εὐαγγελίζωμαι , the ministry being not a single act, but a lasting occupation. ἐντ . ἔθν .] the main object of his Apostleship: see ch. 2:7, 9. ‘ εὐθέως is really connected with ἀπῆλθον : but the Apostle, whose thoughts outrun his words, has interposed the negative clause, to anticipate his purpose in going away.’ Jowett. προσανεθ .] See reff. The classical sense is, ‘ to lay on an additional burden:’ and in middle voice, ‘ on oneself:’ cf. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8. The later sense, ‘ to impart to,’ τινίτι , either, as here, with the view of getting, or as in ch. 2:6, with that of conferring. The πρός in composition does not signify addition, but direction: see Acts 27:7, note. σαρκὶκ . αἵμ .] i.e. with mankind, “ generally with the idea of weakness and frailty,” Ellic. whose note see, and also reff. 17. ἀπῆλθον both times refers to his departure from Damascus: q.d. ‘ when I left Damascus, I did not go … but when I left Damascus, I went.’ The repetition of ἀπῆλθον is quite in the Apostle’ s manner; Meyer adduces as examples Romans 8:15 (Hebrews 12:18, Hebrews 12:22. We may add Hebrews 2:16). εἰςἈραβ .] On the place which this journey holds in the narrative of Act_9, see notes on vv. 19, 22 there. Its object does not seem to have been (as Chrys., al., Meyer, al.) the preaching of the gospel,— nor are the words ἵναεὐαγγελ . κ .τ .λ . necessarily to be connected with it,— but preparation for the apostolic work; though of course we cannot say, that he did not preach during the time, as before and after it (Acts 9:20, Acts 9:22) in the synagogues at Damascus. Into what part of Arabia he went, we have no means of determining. The name was a very vague one, sometimes including Damascus (‘ Damascus Arabiæ retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta erat in Syrophœ nicem ex distinctione Syriarum.’ Tert. adv. Marcion., iii. 13, vol. ii. p. 339: so also (verbatim) adv. Judæ os 9, p. 619. ὅτιδὲΔάμασκοςτῆςἈραβικῆςγῆςἦκ . ἔστιν , εἰκαὶνῦνπροσνενέμηταιτῇΣυροφοινίκῃλεγομένῃ , οὐδ̓ὑμῶντινεςἀρνήσασθαιδὐνανται , Justin Mart. c. Trypho, 78, p. 176),— sometimes extending even to Lebanon and the borders of Cilicia (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 32). It was however more usually restricted to that peninsula now thus called, between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Here we must apparently take it in the wider sense, and understand that part of the Arabian desert which nearly bordered on Damascus. (From C. and H. edn. 2, i. p. 117, f.) How long he remained there we are equally at a loss to say. Hardly for any considerable portion of the three years: Acts 9:23 will scarcely admit of this: for those ἡμέραιἱκαναί were manifestly passed at Damascus. The journey is mentioned here, to account for the time, and to shew that he did not spend it in conferring with men, or with the other Apostles. καὶπάλ . ὑπέστρ .] cf. Acts 9:22, Acts 9:25. 18-24. But after a very short visit to Peter at Jerusalem, he retired to Syria and Cilicia. 18. At first sight, it would appear as if the three years were to be reckoned from his return to Damascus: but on closer examination we see that μετὰἔτητρ . stands in opposition to εὐθέως above, and the ἀνῆλθονκ .τ .λ . here answers to ἀπῆλθονκ .τ .λ . there. So that we must reckon them from his conversion: ὅτεδὲεὐδόκησενκ .τ .λ . ruling the whole narrative. See also on ch. 2:1. This is the journey of Act 9:26,— where see note. There is no real discrepancy between that account and this. The incident which led to his leaving Damascus (Acts 9:25. 2 Corinthians 11:32, 2 Corinthians 11:33) has not necessarily any connexion with his purpose in going to Jerusalem: a purpose which may have been entertained before, or determined on after, that incident. To this visit must be referred the vision of Act 22:17, Acts 22:18. ἱστορ . Κηφ .] to make the acquaintance of Cephas— not to get information or instruction from him: see reff., and Ellic. here. Peter was at this early period the prominent person among the Apostles; see note on Matthew 16:18. ἐπέμ . πρός ] originally a pregnant construction, but from usage become idiomatic. See reff. ἡμέρ . δεκαπ .] mentioned to shew how little of his institution as an Apostle he could have owed to Peter. Why no longer, see in Acts 9:29; Acts 22:17-21. [On the form δεκαπέντε see Moulton’ s Winer, p. 313, note 5. 19. This verse admits of two interpretations, between which other considerations must decide. (1) That James, the Lord’ s brother, was one of the Twelve, and the only one besides Peter whom Paul saw at this visit: (2) that he was one τῶνὰποστόλων , but not necessarily of the Twelve. Of these, (1) apparently cannot be: for after the choosing of the Twelve (John 6:70), the ἀδελφοί of our Lord did not believe on Him (John 7:5): an expression (see note there) which will not admit of any of His brethren having then been His disciples. We must then adopt (2): which is besides in consonance with other notices respecting the term ἀπόστολος , and the person heve mentioned. I reserve the subject for full discussion in the prolegomena to the Ep. of James. See also notes, Matthew 10:3; Matthew 13:55; John 7:5. 20. This asseveration (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:31) applies most naturally to the important fact just asserted— his short visit to Jerusalem, and his having seen only Peter and James, rather than to the whole subject of the chapter. If a report had been spread in Galatia that after his conversion he spent years at Jerusalem and received regular institution in Christianity at the hands of the Apostles, this last fact would naturally cause amazement, and need a strong confirmatory asseveration. As regards the construction, ἃ … ὑμῖν stands alone, (with regard to) the things which I am writing to you,— and the word necessary to be supplied to carry on the sense from ἰδοὺἐνώπ . τ . θεοῦ to ὅτι , lies under the ἰδού , which here answers to such words as διαμαρτύρομαι , 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:14; 2 Timothy 4:1,— παραγγέλλω , 1 Timothy 6:13. Meyer would supply γράφω , which seems harsh: others take ὅτι as ‘ for,’ which is worse still ,— and this too, understanding ἐστίν after θεοῦ (Bengel). 21. The beginning only of this journey is related in Acts 9:30, where see note. Dean Howson suggests (edn. 2, i. p. 129, f.) that he may have gone at once from Cæ sarea to Tarsus by sea, and Syria and Cilicia may afterwards have been the field of his activity,— these provinces being very generally mentioned together, from their geographical affinity, Cilicia being separated from Asia Minor by Mount Taurus. (See also note on Luke 2:1, Luke 2:2.) Winer, al. have understood by Syria here, Phœ nicia: but as Meyer has shewn, inconsistently with usage. In Acts 15:23, Acts 15:41, we find churches in Syria and Cilicia, which may have been founded by Paul on this journey. The supposition is confirmed by our ver. 23: see below. 22, 23. ‘ So far was I from being a disciple of the Apostles, or tarrying in their company, that the churches of Judæ a, where they principally laboured, did not even know me by sight.’ τῷπροσώπῳ , the referential, or adverbial dative: Donalds., Gramm. § 457. τῆςἸουδαίας excludes Jerusalem, where he was known. Jowett doubts this: but it seems to be required by Acts 9:26-29. Chrys. seems to mistake the Apostle’ s purpose, when he says, ἵναμάθη̣ς , ὅτιτοσοῦτονἀπεῖχετοῦκηρύξαιαὐτοῖςπεριτομήν , ὅτιοὐδὲἀπὸὄψεωςγνώριμοςἦναὐτοῖς : and Olshausen, in supposing him to be refuting the idea that he had learned the Gospel from other Christians in Palestine. 23. ἀκ . ἦσαν ] They heard reports (not ‘ had heard,’ as Luth.: the resolved imperfect gives the sense of duration: see reff. and passim) that (not the recitative ὅτι , but the explicative, following ἀκ . ἦσαν . Mey. remarks that no example is found of the former use of ὅτι by St. Paul, except in O. T. citations, as ch. 3:8) our (better taken as a change of person into the oratio directa, than with Mey. to understand ἡμᾶς as ‘ us Christians,’ the Apostle including himself as he writes) former persecutor (not, as Grot., for διώξας , but as ὁπειράζων , taken as a substantive: see reff.) is preaching the faith (objective, as in reff., and 1 Timothy 1:19 b; 1 Timothy 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:1, &c.; but not = the doctrine of the Gospel) which he once was destroying (see on ver. 13). And they glorified God in me (‘ in my case:’ i.e. my example was the cause of their glorifying God:— not, ‘ on account of me,’ see reff., and cf. ἐνἀρεταῖςγέγαθε , Pind. Nem. iii. 56,— ἐνσοὶπᾶσ ʼ ἔγωγεσώζομαι , Soph. Aj. 519. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 210). By thus shewing the spirit with which the churches of Judæ a were actuated towards him, he marks more strongly the contrast between them and the Galatian Judaizers. Thdrt. says strikingly: μανθάνοντεςγὰρτὴνἀθρόανμεταβολήν , κ . ὅτιὁλύκοςτὰποιμένωνἐργάζεται , τῆςεἰςτὸνθεὸνὑμνῳδίαςτὰκατ ʼ ἐμὲπρόφασινἐλάμβανον . 2:1-10. On his subsequent visit to Jerusalem, he maintained equal independence, was received by the Apostles as of co-ordinate authority with themselves, and was recognized as the Apostle of the uncircumcision. 1. διὰδεκατ . ἐτῶν ] First, what does this διὰ imply? According to well-known usage, διὰ with a genitive of time or space signifies ‘ through and beyond:’ thus, ὁμὲνχρόνοςδὴδιὰχρόνουπροὔβαινέμοι , Soph. Philoct. 285,— διὰδέκαἐπάλξεωνπύργοιἦσανμεγάλοι , Thuc. iii. 21, and then τῶνπύργωνὄντωνδι ʼ ὀλίγου : see reff., and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 235. Winer, Gramm. edn. 6, § 51. (The instrumental usage, διὰδακρύων , διὰνυκτός , &c. is derived from this, the instrument being regarded as the means, passed through before the end is attained: but obviously has no place here, where a definite time is mentioned.) See more in Ellic. διὰδεκ . ἐτ . then is after fourteen years, δεκατεσσάρωνπαρελθόντωνἐτῶν , Chrys. Next, from what time are we to reckon? Certainly at first sight it would appear,— from the journey last mentioned. And Meyer maintains that we are bound to accept this first impression without enquiring any further. But why? Is the prima facie view of a construction always right? Did we, or did he, judge thus in ch. 1:18? Are we not bound, in all such cases, should any reason ab extra exist for doing so, to reexamine the passage, and ascertain whether our prima facie impression may not have arisen from neglecting some indication furnished by the context? That this is the case here, I am persuaded. The ways of speaking, in ch. 1:18, and here, are very similar. The ἔπειτα in both cases may be well taken as referring back to the same terminus a quo, διὰ being used in this verse as applying to the larger interval, or even perhaps to prevent the fourteen years being counted from the event last mentioned, as they would more naturally be, had a second μετά been used. What would there be forced or unnatural in a statement of the following kind? “ After my conversion (ὅτεδέ , &c. ch. 1:15) my occasions of communicating with the other Apostles were these: (1) after three years I went up, &c. (2) after fourteen years had elapsed, I again went up, &c.?” This view is much favoured, if not rendered decisive, by the change in position of ἐτῶν and the numeral, in this second instance. In ch. 1:18, it is μετὰἔτητρία : ἔτη , in the first mention of the interval, having the emphatic place. But now, it is not δι ʼ ἐτῶνδεκατεσσάρων , but διὰδεκατεσσάρωνἐτῶν — ἐτῶν now passing into the shade, and the numeral having the emphasis— a clear indication to me that the ἔτη have the same reference as before, viz. to the time of his conversion. A list, and ample discussion, of the opinions on both sides, will be found in Anger, de ratione temporum, ch. 4. This (cf. Chronol. Table in Prolegg. Vol. II.) would bring the visit here related to the year 50: see below. πάλινἀνέβην ] I again went up: but nothing is said, and there was no need to say any thing, of another visit during the interval. It was the object of the Apostle to specify, not all his visits to Jerusalem, but all his occasions of intercourse with the other Apostles: and it is mere trifling, when Meyer, in his love of creating discrepancies, maintains that in such a narration as this, St. Paul would be putting a weapon into the hands of his opponents by omitting his second journey. That journey was undertaken (Acts 11:30) in pursuance of a mission from the church at Antioch, to convey alms to the elders of the suffering church at Jerusalem. It was at a period of persecution, when James the son of Zebedee and Peter were under the power of Herod.— and in all probability the other Apostles were scattered. Probably Barnabas and Saul did not see any of them. They merely (Acts 12:25) fulfilled their errand, and brought back John Mark. If in that visit he had no intercourse with the Apostles, as his business was not with them, the mention of it here would be irrelevant: and to attempt, as Mey., to prove the Acts inaccurate, because that journey is not mentioned here, is simply absurd. That the visit here described is in all probability the third related in the Acts (a.d. 50) on occasion of the council of Apostles and elders (Act_15), I have shewn in a note to the chronological table, Prolegomena to Acts, Vol. II. The various separate circumstances of the visit will be noticed as we proceed. συνπ . καὶΤίτον ] In Acts 15:2, ἔταξανἀναβαίνεινΠ . κ . Βαρν . καίτιναςἄλλουςἐξαὐτῶν . Titus is here particularized by name, on account of the notice which follows, ver. 3: and the καί serves to take him out from among the others. On Titus, see Prolegg. to Ep. to Titus. 2. δέ not only carries on the narrative, emphatically repeating the verb (Mey.), but carries on the refutation also— but I went up (not for any purpose of learning from or consulting others, but) &c.:— So II. ω . 484, ὣςἈχιλεὺςθάμβησενἰδὼνΠρίαμονθεοειδέα · θάμβησανδὲκαὶἄλλοι ,— and other examples in Hartung, i. p. 168. Of his undertaking the journey κατ ʼ ἀποκάλυψιν , nothing is said in the Acts, all that is related there being, the appointment by the church of Paul and Barnabas and others to go. What divine intimation Paul may have received, inducing him to offer himself for the deputation, we cannot say: that some such occurred, he here assures us, and it was important for him to assert it, as shewing his dependence only on divine leading, and independence of any behests from the Jerusalem church. Meyer well remarks that the history itself of the Acts furnishes an instance of such a double prompting: Peter was induced by a vision, and at the same time by the messengers of Cornelius, to go to Cæ sarea. Schrader would give a singular meaning to κατ ʼ ἀποκάλυψιν ; that his visit was for the purpose of making known the Gospel which he preached, &c. Hermann (de ep. ad Gal. trib. prim, capp., cited by Meyer) agrees: “ explicationis causa, i.e. ut patefieret inter ipsos quæ vera esset Jesu doctrina.” But it is against this sense, that (1) the N. T. usage of ἀποκάλυψις always has respect to revelation from above, and (2) this very phrase, κατ ʼ ἀποκάλυψιν , is found in ref. Eph. used absolutely as here, undoubtedly there signifying by revelation. Hermann’ s objection that for this meaning, κατάτιναἀποκ . would be required, is nugatory: not the particular revelation (concrete) which occasioned the journey, but merely the fact that it was by (abstract) revelation, is specified. ἀνεθέμην ] (reff.): so Aristoph. Nub. 1436, ὑμῖνἀναθεὶςἅπαντατἀμὰπράγματα . See more examples in Wetst. αὐτοῖς ] to the Christians at Jerusalem, implied in Ἱεροσόλ . above: see reff. This wide assertion is limited by the next clause, κατ ʼ ἰδ . &c. Œ c., Calv., Olsh., al. take αὐτοῖς to mean the Apostles: in which case, the stress by and by must be on κατ ʼ ἰδίαν ,— I communicated it (indeed,— μέν would more naturally stand here on this interpretation) to them, but privately (i.e. more confidentially,— but how improbable, that St. Paul should have thus given an exoteric and esoteric exposition of his teaching) τοῖςδοκοῦσιν . Chrys. is quoted for this view by Mey., but not quite correctly; ἐπειδὴγὰρἐντοῖςἹεροσολύμοιςπάντεςἐσκανδαλίζοντο , εἴτιςπαραβαίητὸννόμον , εἴτιςκωλύσειεχρήσασθαιτῇπεριτομῇ … παῤῥησίᾳμὲνπαρελθεῖνκ . τὸκήρυγμαἀποκαλύψαιτὸἑαυτοῦοὐκἠνείχετο , κατ ʼ ἰδίανδὲτοῖςδοκοῦσινἀνέθετοἐπὶΒαρνάβακ . Τίτου , ἵναοὗτοιμάρτυρεςἀξιόπιστοιγένωνταιπρὸςτοὺςἐγκαλοῦντας , ὅτιοὐδὲτοῖςἀποστόλοιςἔδοξενἐναντίονεἶναι , ἀλλὰβεβαιοῦσιτὸκήρυγματὸτοιοῦτον . Estius, characteristically enough, as a Romanist; ‘ publice ita contulit, ut ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem Mosis,— privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis habito placuit ipsos quoque Judæ os ab observantia Mosaiæ legis … esse liberandos.’ κατ . ἰδ . δέ ] but (limits the foregoing αὐτοῖς ; q. d., “ when I say ‘ to them,’ I mean.” Ellic. Exo_2, questions this, and understands δέ to introduce another conference, more private than that just mentioned) in private to those that were eminent (more at length ver. 6, οἱδοκοῦντεςεἶναίτι . These were James, Cephas, and John, ver. 9,— who appear to have been the only Apostles then at Jerusalem. Olsh. supposes the words to imply blame, not in the mind of the Apostle himself, but as reflecting on the unworthy exaltation of these Apostles by the Judaizing teachers. He illustrates this by οἱὑπερλίανἀπόστολοι , 2 Corinthians 11:5; but an expression of such feeling here seems out of place, and it is better to understand οἱδοκοῦντες as describing mere matter of fact; see examples in Kypke and Elsner), lest by any means I should (seem to) be running, or (to) have run, in vain. οὐπερὶἑαυτοῦτέθεικεν , ἀλλὰπερὶτῶνἄλλων · τουτέστιν , ἵναμάθωσινἅπαντεςτὴντοῦκηρύγματοςσυμφωνίαν , κ . ὅτικ . τοῖςἄλλοιςἀρέσκειτὰὑπ ʼ ἐμοῦκηρυττόμενα , Thdrt.: so also Chrys., Thl., Calv., al. The construction of two moods after the same conjunction is found elsewhere in Paul: cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5. The present subjunctive τρέχω implies continuance in the course; the 2 aorist indicative ἔδραμον , the course already run. It is quite out of the question, that this last clause should express a bonâ fide fear, lest his ministry should really be, or have been, in vain, without the recognition of the church at Jerusalem (De W., al.): such a sentiment would be unworthy of him, and, besides, at variance with the whole course of his argument here. The reference must be (as Thdrt. above) to the estimation in which his preaching would be held by those to whom he imparted it. When we consider the very strong prejudices of the Jerusalem church, this feeling of anxiety, leading him to take measures to prevent his work from being tumultuously disowned by them, is surely but natural. On εἰςκενόν and τρέχω , see reff. (The grammatical difficulty is well discussed in Ellicott’ s note.) 3. But (so far were they from regarding my course to have been in vain, that) neither (ἀλλ ʼ οὐδέ introduces a climax, see reff.) was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek (i.e. though he was a Gentile, and therefore liable to the demand that he should be circumcised), compelled to be circumcised (i.e. we did not allow him to be thus compelled: the facts being, as here implied, that the church at Jerusalem (and the Apostles? apparently not, from Acts 15:5) demanded his circumcision, but on account of the reason following, the demand was not complied with, but resisted by Paul and Barnabas. So Meyer, with Piscator and Bengel, and I am persuaded, rightly, from what follows. But usually it is understood, that the circumcision of Titus was not even demanded, and that Paul alleged this as shewing his agreement with the other Apostles. So Chrys.: ἀκρόβυστονὄνταοὐκἠνάγκασανπεριτμηθῆναιοἱἀπόστολοι , ὅπερἀπόδειξιςἦνμεγίστητοῦμὴκαταγινώσκειντῶνὑπὸτοῦΠαύλουλεγομένωνἢπραττομένων : so also Thdrt., Thl., Œ c., &c., and Winer and De W. Had this been so, besides that the following could not have stood as it does, not the strong word ἠναγκάσθη , but the weakest possible word would have been used— ‘ the circumcision of Titus was not even mentioned’ ): 4. but (i.e. ‘ and this:’ — the construction of the sentence is (against Ellic.) precisely as ver. 2: this δέ restricts and qualifies the broader assertion which went before. ‘ Titus was not compelled … : and that,’ &c. To connect this with ver. 2, supposing ver. 3 to be parenthetical, as Mr. Bagge, seems harsh, and unnecessary. A second δέ would hardly be found in the same sentence in this restrictive sense) on account of the false brethren who had been foisted in among us (the Judaizers in the church at Jerusalem, see Acts 15:1. The word παρείσακτος is not found elsewhere. It occurs in the title of the “ prologus incerti auctoris” to Sirach: πρόλογοςπαρείσακτοςἀδήλου . It is found however in the lexicons of Hesych., Photius, and Suidas, and interpreted ἀλλότριος . The verb παρεισάγειν is common in Polybius, without any idea of surreptitious introduction: see Schweigh.’ s Index: but such an idea certainly seems here to be attached to it, by the repetition of παρεις -, in παρεισῆλθον immediately after), men who (οἵτινες classifies) crept in to spy out our freedom (from the ceremonial law: to see whether, or how far, we kept it) which we have in Christ Jesus, with intent to enslave us utterly (the future after ἵνα is found John 17:2; Revelation 3:9; Revelation 8:3; Revelation 22:14. Hermann, on Œ d. Col. 156, says— “ futuro non jungitur ἵνα , ut.” The construction of the future with ὅπως and ὅπωςμή is common enough in the classics. Winer remarks, Gr. edn. 6, § 41. b. 1. b, that it denotes continuance, whereas the aorist subjunctive is used of something transitory: but qu.? I should rather say that it signifies the certain sequence, in the view of the agent, of that which follows, not merely that it is his intent,— and that it arises from the mingling of two constructions, beginning as if ἵνα with the subjunctive were about to be used, and then passing off to the direct indicative); to whom not even for one hour (reff.) did we (Barnabas, Titus, and myself) yield with the subjection required of us (dative of the manner: the article giving the sense, ‘ with the subjection claimed.’ Fritzsche takes it, ‘ yield by complying with the wish of the Apostles:’ but this is manifestly against the context: Hermann, and similarly Bretschneider, ‘ quibus ne horæ quidem spatium Jesu obsequio segnior fui,’ — absurdly enough, against the whole drift of the passage, and the Apostle’ s usage of ὑποταγή abstractedly), that the truth of the Gospel (as contrasted with the perverted view which they would have introduced: but not to be confounded with τὸἀληθὲςεὐαγγέλιον . Had they been overborne in this point, the verity of the Gospel would have been endangered among them,— i.e. that doctrine of justification, on which the Gospel turns as the truth of God) might abide (reff.: and note on ch. 1:18) with you (‘ you Galatians:’ not, ‘ you Gentiles in general:’ the fact was so,— the Galatians, specially, not being in his mind at the time: it is only one of those cases where, especially if a rhetorical purpose is to be served, we apply home to the particular what, as matter of fact, it only shares as included in the general). The omission of οἷςοὐδέ in this sentence (see var. readd.) has been an attempt to simplify the construction, and at the same time to reconcile Paul’ s conduct with that in Acts 16:3, where he circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews. But the circumstances were then widely different: and the whole narrative in Act_15. makes it extremely improbable that the Apostle should have pursued such a course on this occasion. 6. He returns to his sojourn in Jerusalem, and his intercourse with the δοκοῦντες . The construction is difficult, and has been very variously given. It seems best (and so most Commentators) to regard it as an anacoluthon. The Apostle begins with ἀπὸδὲῶνδοκούντωνεἶναίτι , having it in his mind to add οὐδὲνπροσελαβόμην or the like: but then, going off into the parenthesis ὁποῖοίποτεἦσαν &c., he entirely loses sight of the original construction, and proceeds with ἐμοὶγάρ &c., which follows on the parenthesis, the γάρ rendering a reason (this is still my view, against Ellic. whose note see) for the οὐδένμοιδιαφέρει &c. De Wette and others think that the parenthesis ends at λαμβάνει , and the construction is resumed from ἀπὸδέ &c. in an active instead of in a passive form: but it seems better, with Meyer, to regard the parenthesis as never formally closed, and the original construction not resumed. Other ways are; (1) most of the Greek Fathers (Chrys. hardly says enough for this to be inferred as his opinion), and others (e.g. Olsh., Rü ckert) take ἀπό as belonging to διαφέρει , as if it were περί : so Thl., οὐδεμίαμοιφροντίςπερὶτῶνδοκούντων , &c. The preposition seems capable, if not exactly of this interpretation, of one very nearly akin to it, as in βλέπετεἀπό and the like expressions: but the objection is, that it is unnatural to join διαφέρει with ἀπό which lies so far from it, when όποῖοίποτεἦσ . so completely fills up the construction. (2) Homberg (Parerg. p. 275: Meyer) renders,— ‘ ab illis vero, qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo.’ But as Meyer remarks, though διαφέρωἀπότινος may bear this meaning, certainly διαφέρειμοιἀπότινος cannot. (3) Hermann assumes an aposiopesis, and understands ‘ what should I fear?’ but an aposiopesis seems out of place in a passage which does not rise above the fervour of narrative. See other interpretations in Meyer and De Wette. οἱδοκοῦντ . εἶναίτι may be either subjective , or objective . The latter is obviously the meaning here. ποτε is understood by some to mean ‘ once,’ ‘ olim:’ ‘ whatever they once were, when Christ was on earth:’ so vulg. , Pelag., Luth., Beza, al. But this is going out of the context, and unnecessary. The emphasis is on μοι , and is again taken up by the ἐμοὶγάρ below. Phrynichus (p. 384) condemns τίνιδιαφέπει as not used by the best writers, but Lobeck (note, ibid.) has produced examples of it, as well as of the more approved construction τίδιαφέρει , from Xenophon, Plato, and Aristotle. πρόσεπ … λαμβ .] q. d. ‘ I wish to form all my judgments according to God’ s rule— which is that of strict unbiassed justice.’ See Ephesians 6:9. προσανέθεντο ] as in ch. 1:16,— imparted. As I, at my first conversion, did not impart it to flesh and blood, so they now imparted nothing to me: we were independent the one of the other. The meaning ‘ added’ is not justified by the usage of the word: see note, as above. Rü ckert, Bretschneider, Olsh., al. explain it: ‘ laid on no additional burden.’ But this is the active, not the middle, signification of the verb: see Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8, where προσαναθέσθαι is not ‘ to impose on another additional duties,’ but ‘ to take them on a man’ s self.’ 7. Not only did they impart nothing to me, but, on the contrary, they gave in their adhesion to the course which I and Barnabas had been (independently) pursuing. “ In what does this opposition consist? Apparently in this, that instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left him to fight his own battle (practically: but they added the weight of their approval: see Ellic.). They said, ‘ Take your own course: preach the Gospel of the uncircumcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the Gospel of the circumcision to Jews.’  ” Jowett. ἰδόντες , viz. by the communication mentioned ver. 2, coupled with the now manifest results of his preaching among the Gentiles. Compare Acts 15:12. πεπίστ . (for construction see reff. Acts and 1 Cor. and other examples in Winer, Gram., § 39. 1. a) has the emphasis: they saw that I was (lit. am: the state being one still abiding) entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision; therefore they had only to accede to the appointment of God. τῆςἀκροβ .] i.e. belonging to, addressed to, the uncircumcised (οὐτὰπράγματαλέγωναὐτά , ἀλλὰτὰἀπὸτούτωνγνωριζόμεναἔθνη , Chrys.). Peter was not the Apostle of the circumcision only, for he had opened the door to the Gentiles (Act_10, to which he refers, ib. 15:7), but in the ultimate assignment of the apostolic work, he wrought less among the Gentiles and more among the Jews than Paul: see 1 Peter 1:1, and note. But his own Epistles are sufficient testimonies that, in his hands at least, the Gospel of the circumcision did not differ in any essential point from that of the uncircumcision. Cf., as an interesting trait on the other side, Colossians 4:11. 8. Parenthetic explanation of πεπίστευμαικ .τ .λ . Πέτρῳ and ἐμοί are datives commodi, not governed by the ἐν in ἐνεργ ., the meaning of this preposition being already expressed in the word ἐνεργεῖν , and having therefore no force to pass on: cf. ref. Prov. ἐνήργ . applies to the ἀπακολουθοῦντασημεῖα with which the Lord accompanied His word spoken by them, and to the power with which they spoke that word. The agent in ἐνεργ . is God,— the Father: see 1 Corinthians 12:6; Philippians 2:13; Romans 15:15, Romans 15:16. εἰςἀποστ .] towards, with a view to, the Apostleship,— reff. εἰςτὰἔθνη ] The fuller construction would be, εἰςἀποστολὴντ . ἐθνῶν : so τάωνοὔτιςὁμοῖανοήματαΠηνελοπείῃ | ᾔδη , Od. β . 120: and frequently. 9. resumes the narrative after the parenthesis. Ἰάκωβος ] placed first, as being at the head of the church at Jerusalem, and presiding (apparently) at the conference in Act_15. δοκοῦντες alludes to vv. 2 and 6; see there. στύλοι ] pillars, i.e. principal supporters of the church, men of distinction and weight; see reff., and examples in Wetst.: and Suicer, sub voce. Clem.-rom. ad Cor. i. 5, p. 217, uses the word directly, without metaphor: οἱδικαιότατοιστύλοιἐδιώχθησαν . δεξ . ἔδωκ . κοιν .] On the separation of the genitive from its governing noun, see Winer, § 30. 3, remark 2. It is made here, because what follows respects rather κοινωνίας than ἔδωκαν . ἵνακ .τ .λ .] There is an ellipsis of some verb; πορευθῶμεν and -θῶσιν , or perhaps εὐαγγελιζώμεθα , -ζωνται which might connect with εἰς (see 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Peter 1:25. But Meyer objects that it is not found with εἰς in St. Paul): or as Beza, ἀπόστολοιγενώμεθα . Similar ellipses occur Romans 4:16; ch. 5:13. This division of labour was not, and could not be, strictly observed. Every where in the Acts we find St. Paul preaching ‘ to the Jews first,’ and every where the Judaizers followed on his track; see Jowett’ s note. 10. μόν . τ . πτ . ἵναμν .] The genitive is put before the conjunction for emphasis: see reff., and 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and John 13:29, where remarkably enough it is the same word which precedes ἵνα , … τοῖςπτωχοῖςἵνατὶδῷ . The construction is complete without supplying any participle , depending upon ἔδωκαν . ὃκαὶἐσπ . αὐτὸτ . ποι .] which was the very thing that I also was anxious to do,— viz., then and always: it was my habit. So that ἐσπούδασα has not a pluperfect sense. He uses the singular, because the plural could not correctly be predicated of the whole time to which the verb refers: for he parted from Barnabas shortly after the council in Act_15. Meyer understands ἐσπούδ . of the time subsequent to the council only: but this does not seem necessary. The proofs of this σπουδή on his part may be found, Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Acts 24:17: which, though they probably happened after the date of our Epistle, yet shewed the bent of his habitual wishes on this point. αὐτὸτοῦτο is not merely redundant, as in ἧςεἶχεντὸθυγάτριοναὐτῆςπνεῦμαἀκάθαρτον , Mark 7:25,— but is an emphatic repetition of that to which ὅ refers, as in the version above. So that ὃἐσπ . αὐτὸτοῦτοποι . = καὶἐσπ . τὸαὐτὸτοῦτοποι . Cf. Thuc. i. 10,— Ἀθηναίωνδὲτὸαὐτὸτοῦτοπαθόντων . Cf. Ellicott’ s note. 11-17. He further proves his independence, by relating how he rebuked Peter for temporizing at Antioch. This proof goes further than any before: not only was he not taught originally by the Apostles,— not only did they impart nothing to him, rather tolerating his view and recognizing his mission,— but he on one occasion stood aloof from and reprimanded the chief of them for conduct unworthy the Gospel: thus setting his own Apostleship in opposition to Peter, for the time. 11. ὅτεδὲἦλθ .] This visit of Peter to Antioch, not related in the Acts, will fall most naturally (for our narrative follows the order of time) in the period described, Acts 15:35, seeing that (ver. 13) Barnabas also was there. See below. Κηφᾶς ] ἡἱστορίαπαρὰΚλήμεντικατὰτὴνπέμπτηντῶνὑποτυπώσεων , ἐνᾗκαὶΚηφᾶν , περὶοὗφησὶνὁΠαῦλοςὍτεδὲἦλθ . Κ . εἰςἈντ . κατ . πρ . αὐτ . ἀντέστην , ἕναφησὶγεγονέναιτῶνἑβδομήκονταμαθητῶν , ὁμώνυμονΠέτρῳτυγχάνοντατῷἀποστόλῳ . Eus. H. E. i. 12. This story was manifestly invented to save the credit of St. Peter. See below. κατὰπρόσωπον ] to the face,— see reff.: not ‘ before all,’ which is asserted by and by, ver. 14. One of the most curious instances of ecclesiastical ingenuity on record has been afforded in the interpretation of this passage by the fathers. They try to make it appear that the reproof was only an apparent one— that ὁθεῖοςΠέτρος was entirely in the right, and Paul withstood him, κατὰπρόσωπον , ‘ in appearance merely,’ because he had been blamed by others. So Chrys.: so Thdrt. also: and Jerome,— “ Paulus … nova usus est arte pugnandi, ut dispensationem Petri, qua Judæ os salvari cupiebat, nova ipse contradictionis dispensatione corrigeret, et resisteret ei in facie, non arguens propositum, sed quasi in publico contradicens, ut ex eo quod Paulus eum arguens resistebat, hi qui crediderant e gentibus servarentur.” In Ep. ad Gal, ad loc. This view of his met with strong opposition from Augustine, who writes to him, nobly and worthily, Ep. 40. 3, vol. ii. p. 155, ed. Migne: “ In exposition quoque Ep. Pauli ad Gal., invenimus aliquid, quod nos multum moveat. Si enim ad Scripturas sanctas admissa fuerint velut officiosa mendacia, quid in eis remanebit auctoritatis? Quæ tandem de Scripturis illis sententia proferetur, cujus pondere contentiosæ falsitatis obteratur improbitas? Statim enim ut protuleris: si aliter sapit qui contra nititur, dicet illud quod prolatum erit honesto aliquo officio scriptorum fuisse mentitum. Ubi enim hoc non poterit, si potuit in ea narratione, quam exorsus Apostolus ait, Quæ autem scribo vobis, ecce coram Deo quia non mentior, credi affirmarique mentitus, eo loco ubi dixit de Petro et Barnaba, cum viderem, quia non recte ingrediuntur ad veritatem Evangelii? Si enim recte illi ingrediebantur, iste mentitus est: si autem ibi mentitus est, ubi verum dixit? Cur ibi verum dixisse videbitur, ubi hoc dixerit quod lector sapit; cum vero contra sensum lectoris aliquid occurrerit, officioso mendacio deputabitur?… Quare arripe, obsecro te, ingenuam et vere Christianam cum caritate severitatem, ad illud opus corrigendum et emendandum, et παλινῳδίαν , ut dicitur, cane. Incomparabiliter enim pulchrior est veritas Christianorum, quam Helena Græ corum.… ” (Similarly in several other Epistles in vol. ii. ed. Migne, where also Jerome’ s replies may be seen.) Afterwards, Jerome abandoned his view for the right one: ‘ Nonne idem Paulus in faciem Cephæ restitit, quod non recto pede incederet in Evangelio?’ Apol. adv. Ruf. iii. 2, vol. ii. p. 532: see also cont. Pelag. i. 22, p. 718. Aug. Ep. 180. 5, vol. ii. p. 779. ὅτικατεγνωσμένοςἦν ] (not, as vulgate, quia reprehensibilis erat (‘ because he was to be blamed,’ E. V.: similarly Calv., Beza, al.): no such meaning can be extracted from the perfect participle passive; nor can Hebrew usage be alleged for such a meaning in Greek. The instance commonly cited from Lucian de saltat., p. 952, ἀληθῶς , ἐπὶμανίᾳκατεγνωσμένος , is none whatever; nor is Iliad, α . 388, ὃδὴτετελεσμένοςἐστί : the perfect participle having in both its proper sense. Nor again is ψηλαφωμένῳ , Hebrews 12:18, at all to the purpose: see note there) because he was condemned (‘ a condemned man,’ as we say: by whom, does not appear: possibly, by his own act: or, by the Christians in Antioch: but St. Paul would hardly have waited for the prompting of others to pronounce his condemnation of him. I therefore prefer the former: he was (self) convicted: convicted of inconsistency by his conduct). 12. These τινεςἀπὸἸακώβον have been softened by some Commentators into persons who merely gave themselves out as from James (Winer, &c. and even Ellicott, edn. 2), or who merely came from Jerusalem where James presided (Beza, Grot., Olsh., &c.). But the candid reader will I think at once recognize in the words a mission from James (so Thl., Œ c., Estius (doubtfully), Rü ckert, Meyer, De W.): and will find no difficulty in believing that that Apostle, even after the decision of the council regarding the Gentile converts, may have retained (characteristically, see his recommendatior to St. Paul, in Acts 21:18 ff.) his strict view of the duties of Jewish converts,— for that is perhaps all that the present passage requires. And this mission may have been for the very purpose of admonishing the Jewish converts of their obligations, from which the Gentiles were free. Thus we have no occasion to assume (with De W.) that James had in the council been over-persuaded by the earnestness and eloquence of Paul, and had afterwards undergone a reaction: for his course will be consistent throughout. And my view seems to me to be confirmed by his own words, Acts 15:19, where the emphatic τοῖςἀπὸτῶνἐθνῶνἐπιστρέφουσιν tacitly implies, that the Jews would be bound as before. συνήσθιεν ] As he had done, Act_10, on the prompting of a heavenly vision; and himself defended it, Act_11. See below. ὑπέστελλεν ] as well as ἀφώριζεν , governs ἑαυτόν : withdrew himself. So Polyb. i. 16. 10, ὁδὲβασιλεὺςἹέρων , ὑποστείλαςἑαυτὸνὑπὸτὴνῬωμαίωνσκέπην , and al. freq. The imperfects express that there were more cases than one where he did this— it was the course he took. φοβούμενος ] being afraid of. Chrys., to bear out his interpretation of the whole incident, says, οὐτοῦτοφοβούμενος , μὴκινδυνεύσῃ · ὁγὰρἐνἀρχῇμὴφοβηθείς (witness his denial of his Lord), πολλῷμᾶλλοντότε · ἀλλ ʼ ἵναμὴἀποστῶσιν . ἐπεὶκαὶαὐτὸςλέγειΓαλάταις , φοβοῦμαιὑμᾶςμήπωςεἰκῆκεκοπίακακ .τ .λ . And so Piscator, Grot., Estius, al. The whole incident is remarkably characteristic of Peter— ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from, great principles and truths: see this very ably enlarged on in Jowett’ s note on ver. 11. 13. συνυπεκρ .] were guilty of like hypocrisy. The word is not (as De W.) too strong a one to describe their conduct. They were aware of the liberty in Christ which allowed them to eat with Gentiles, and had practised it: and now, being still aware of it, and not convinced to the contrary, from mere fear of man they adopted a contrary course. The case bore but very little likeness to that discussed in 1 Cor. 8-10; Rom_14. There, it was a mere matter of licence which was in question: here, the very foundation itself. It was not now a question of using a liberty, but of asserting a truth, that of justification by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. ὥστε … συναπήχθη ] The indicative usually follows ὥστε , when the result is matter of fact: the infinitive usually, when it is matter of course as well. So Herod. vi. 83,— Ἄργοςδὲἀνδρῶνἐχηρώθηοὕτω , ὥστεοἱδοῦλοιαὐτέωνἔσχονπάντατὰπρήγματα , where it was not a necessary consequence of the depopulation, but a result which followed as matter of fact (so also John 3:16, where the sending the Son to be the Saviour of the world was not a necessary consequence of the Father’ s love, but followed it as its result in fact: so that it is (against Ellic. edn. 1) an instance in point): Plato, Apol. 37 c,— οὕτωςἀλόγιστόςεἰμι , ὥστεμὴδύνασθαιλογίζεσθαι , where the degree of ἀλογία supposed involves the result of not being able to reason at all. See Krü ger, Gram. § 65, 3. 1; Kü hner, ii. p. 563. But the distinction does not seem always to be accurately observed. On συναπ ., see ref. Rom., and note. Understand αὐτοῖς after συναπ ., and take τῇὑπ . as the instrumental dative: ‘ was carried away (with them) by their hypocrisy:’ or possibly the dative of the state into which &c.: see 2 Peter 3:17: but this construction seems questionable: see Ellic. edn. 2. Fritz. cites Zosimus, Hist. v. 6, καὶαὐτὴδὲἡΣπάρτησυναπήγετοτῇκοινῇτῆςἙλλάδοςἁλώσει : add Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 17, p. 368 P., τῇἡδονῇσυναπαγόμενος (Ellicott). “ Besides the antagonism in which this passage represents the two great Apostles, it throws an important light on the history of the apostolic church in the following respects:— 1] As exhibiting Peter’ s relation to James, and his fear of those who were of the circumcision, whose leader we should have naturally supposed him to have been. 2] Also, as pourtraying the state of indecision in which all, except St. Paul, even including Barnabas, were in reference to the observance of the Jewish law.” Jowett. 14. ὀρθοποδεῖν apparently not occurring elsewhere, its meaning must be got from cognate words. We have ἀτραπὸνὀρθοβατεῖν , Anthol. ix. 11, ὀρθοπραγεῖν , Arist. Eth. Eud. iii. 2, and ὀρθοτομέω , ὀρθοδρομέω , &c.: to walk straight is therefore undoubtedly its import, and metaphorically (cf. περιπατεῖν , στοιχεῖν frequently in Paul), to behave uprightly. πρός ] It is best, with Meyer, to take ἀλήθεια as in ver. 5, and render, connecting πρός with ὀρθοποδοῦσιν , towards (with a view to) maintaining and propagating the truth (objectively, the unadulterated character) of the Gospel. Others (De W., al.) render πρός ‘ with reference to,’ (‘ according to,’ E.V.,) and take τ . ἀλήθ . τ . εὐ to mean ‘ the truth (-fulness of character) required by the Gospel.’ Mey. remarks, that St. Paul does not express nouns after verbs of motion by πρός , but by κατά , cf. Romans 8:4; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 3:3. Ellic. however answers, that in all these instances, περιπατέω , St. Paul’ s favourite verb of moral motion, is used, and that ὀρθοποδέω does not so plainly express motion as περιπατέω . Still, I prefer the former meaning, as better suiting the expression ἡἀλήθειατ . εὐαγγ .: cf. ver. 5. ἔμπρ . πάντ .] ‘ before the church assembled.’ The words require this, and the reproof would otherwise have fallen short of its desired effect on the Jewish converts. The speech which follows, and which I believe to extend to the end of the chapter, must be regarded as a compendium of what was said, and a free report of it, as we find in the narratives by St. Paul himself of his conversion. See below. If thou, being (by birth, originally, cf. Acts 16:20 and note) a Jew, livest (as thy usual habit. As Neander (Pfl. u. Leit., p. 114) remarks, these words shew that Peter had long been himself convinced of the truth on this matter, and lived according to it: see further on ver. 18) as a Gentile (how, is shewn by μετὰτῶνἐθνῶνσυνήσθιεν above) and not as a Jew, how (is it that (reff.)) thou art compelling the Gentiles (i.e. virtually and ultimately; for the high authority of Peter and Barnabas would make the Gentile converts view their course as necessary to all Christians. There is no need, with De W. and Wieseler, to suppose that the τινεςἀπὸἸακ . actually compelled the Gentile converts to Judaize, as necessary to salvation, and Peter upheld them: nor is there any difficulty in the expression: the present may mean, as it often does, ‘ art compelling to the best of thy power,’ ‘ doing thy part to compel,’ — for such certainly would be the ultimate result, if Jews and Gentiles might not company together in social life— “ his principle logically involved this, or his influence and example would be likely to effect it.” Jowett) to Judaize (observe the ceremonial law)? 15. Some (Calv., Beza, Grot., Hermann, al.) think that the speech ends with ver. 14: Calov., al., with ver. 15: Luther, al., with ver. 16: Flatt, Neander, al., with ver. 18: Jowett, that the conversation gradually passes off into the general subject of the Epistle. “ Ver. 14,” he says, “ is the answer of St. Paul to St. Peter: what follows, is more like the Apostle musing or arguing with himself, with an indirect reference to the Galatians.” But it seems very unnatural to place any break before the end of the chapter. The Apostle recurs to the Galatians again with ὦἀνόητοιΓαλάται , ch. 3:1: and it is harsh in the extreme to suppose him to pass from his speech to Peter into an address to them with so little indication of the transition. I therefore regard the speech (which doubtless is freely reported, and gives rather the bearing of what was said, than the words themselves, as in Act_22 and 26) as continuing to the end of the chapter, as do Chr., Thdrt., Jer., Est., Beng., Rosenm., Winer, Rü ckert, Usteri, Olsh., B.-Crus., Meyer, De W. We (thou and I) by nature (birth) Jews and not sinners from among the Gentiles (he is speaking to Peter from the common ground of their Judaism, and using (ironically?) Judaistic language, in which the Gentiles were ἄθεοι , ἄνομοι , ἄδικοι , ἁμαρτωλοί (reff.). The putting a comma after ἐθνῶν , and taking ἁμαρτωλοί with ἡμ . φύσ . Ἰουδ . (Prim. in Est., Elsner, Er.-Schmid, al.), ‘ We, by birth Jews, and, though not from the Gentiles, yet sinners,’ is absurd), knowing nevertheless (this seems, against Ellic. Exo_2, the proper force of δέ here, and is the same in sense as his “ but as we know,” but clearer) that a man is not justified by the works of the law (not ‘ by works of law,’ or ‘ on the score of duty done’ (Peile): this, though following as an inference, and a generalization of the axiom, was not in question here. ‘ The works of the law,’ just as ‘ the faith of Jesus Christ;’ the genitives in both cases being objective— the works which have the law (ceremonial and moral) for their object,— which are wrought to fulfil the law: Meyer compares ἁμαρτήματανόμου , Wisd. 2:12,— faith which has Jesus Christ for its object,— which is reposed in or on Him. On δικαιόω , see note, Romans 1:17),— (supply, nor is any man justified, and see reff.) except by (as the medium of justification. Ellic. observes that two constructions seem to be mixed— οὐδικ . ἄνθ . ἐξἔργ . ν ., and οὐδικ . ἄνθ . ἐὰνμὴδιὰπ . Ἰ . χ . ἐὰνμή in this elliptical construction is not elsewhere found: but εἰμή repeatedly (reff.). The ἐάν seems to remove further off the hypothesis, which arises in the mind, of the two being united) the faith of (see above) Jesus Christ,— we also (as well as the Gentile sinners, q. d., casting aside our legal trust) believed (reff.) on Christ Jesus (notice Ἰησ . χρ . above, χρ . Ἰησ . here. This is not arbitrary. In the general proposition above, Ἰησ . χρ ., as the name of Him on whom faith is to be exercised: here, when Jews receive Him as their Messiah, χρ . Ἰησ ., as bringing that Messiahship into prominence. Perhaps, however, such considerations are but precarious. For example, in this case, the readings are in some confusion. It may be remarked, that the Codex Sinaiticus agrees throughout with our text) that we might be justified by (this time, faith is the ground) the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because (it is an axiom in our theology that) by the works of the law shall all flesh find no justification (Angl.: ‘ shall no flesh be justified:’ our language not admitting of the logical form of the Greek: but by this transposition of the negative, the sense is not accurately rendered). There is a difference between Commentators in the arrangement of the foregoing sentence. Meyer follows Lachmann in placing a period after χριστοῦ , and understanding ἐσμέν at Ἰουδ . or ἁμαρτωλοί . Beza, Hermann, Rü ckert, Usteri, Ellicott, al., begin a new sentence at εἰδότεςδέ , also understanding ἐσμέν . But it seems much better, as above (with De W., al.), to carry on the sentence throughout. Meyer’ s objection, that thus it would not represent the matter of fact, for Peter and Paul were not converted as εἰδότεςκ .τ .λ ., would apply equally to his own arrangement, for they were not converted ἵναδικαιωθῶσινκ .τ .λ . 17. Continues the argument. But if, seeking (put first for emphasis— in the course of our earnest endeavour) to be justified in Christ , we ourselves also (you and I, addressed to Peter) were found to be sinners (as we should be, if we regarded the keeping of the law as necessary; for we should be just in the situation of those Gentiles who in the Judaistic view are ἁμαρτωλοί , faith having failed in obtaining righteousness for us, and we having cast aside the law which we were bound to keep) is therefore Christ the minister of sin (i.e. are we to admit the consequence which would in that case be inevitable, that Christ, having failed to obtain for his own the righteousness which is by faith, has left them sinners, and so has done all His work only to minister to a state of sin)? Whether we read ἄρα or ἆρα matters little; either will express the meaning, but the latter more pungently than the former. The clause must be interrogative, as μὴγένοιτο always follows a question in St. Paul; see reff. Those who would take ἆρα for ἆρ ʼ οὐ (qu. can it ever be so taken, in spite of Matthiæ (Gr. Gr. § 641), Winer (comm. h. l., but not in Gr. Exo_6, § 57. 2, where he allows the translation given above), Monk (on Eur. Alcest. 353), and Porson (pref. to Hec. p. x)?) seem to me to miss altogether the fine irony of the question, which, as it stands, presupposes the ἆρ ʼ οὐ question already asked, the inevitable answer given, and now puts the result, ‘ Can we believe, are we to hold henceforth, such a consequence?’ The same might be said of all the passages alleged by the above scholars in support of their view. Theodoret expresses well the argument: εἰδὲὅτιτὸννόμονκαταλιπόντεςτῷχριστῷπροσεληλύθαμεν , διὰτῆςἐπ ʼ αὐτὸνπίστεωςτῆςδικαιοσύνηςἀπολαύσασθαιπροσδοκήσαντες , παράβασιςτοῦτονενόμισται , εἰςαὐτὸνἡαἰτίαχωρήσειτὸνδεσπότηνχριστόν · αὐτὸςγὰρἡμῖντὴνκαινὴνὑπέδειξεδιαθήκην · ἀλλὰμὴγένοιτοταύτηνἡμᾶςτολμῆσαιτὴνβλασφημίαν . 18. For if the things which I pulled down, those very things (and no others) I again build up (which thou art doing, who in Cæ sarea didst so plainly announce freedom from the law, and again here in Antioch didst practise it thyself. The first person is chosen clementiæ causa; the second would have placed Peter, where the first means that he should place himself), I am proving (reff.) myself a transgressor . The force of the verse is,— ‘ You, by now reasserting the obligation of the law, are proving (quoad te) that your former step of setting aside the law was in fact a transgression of it:’ viz. in that you neglected and set it aside,— not, as Chrys., Thl., and Meyer (from ver. 19), because the law itself was leading you on to faith in Christ: for (1) that point is not yet raised, not belonging to this portion of the argument, and (2) by the hypothesis of this verse the ἐγώ has given up the faith in Christ, and so cannot be regarded as acknowledging it as the end of the law. See against this view, but to me not convincingly, Ellicott, Exo_2. 19. For (the γάρ (agst Ellic.) retains, on our view of παραβάτης , its full exemplifying force) I by means of the law died to the law that I should live to God (the end of Christ’ s work, life unto God. ζήσω Isa_1 aor. subj. in subordination to the aor. preceding: not fut., as stated in former edd. [before 1865]. See Ellic.). Many of the Fathers (some as an alternative), Luther, Bengel, al., take the first νόμος here to mean the Gospel (the νόμοςτοῦπνεύματοςτῆςζωῆς of Romans 8:2); but it will be manifest to any who follow the argument, that this cannot be so. This διὰνόμουνόμῳἀπέθανον is in fact a compendium of his expanded experience in Rom_7: and also of his argument in ch. 3:4 below. I am (‘ and have been,’ perf.) crucified with Christ (specification of the foregoing ἀπέθανον : the way in which I died to the law was, by being united to, and involved in the death of, that Body of Christ which was crucified): but it is no longer I that live, but (it is) Christ that liveth in me (the punctuation— χρ . συνεσταύρωμαι , ζῶδέ · οὐκέτιἐγώ , ζῇδὲἐνἐμ . χρ .,— as in E. V., &c.— is altogether wrong, and would require ἀλλά before οὐκέτι . The construction is one not without example, where the emphatic word is repeated in two parallel clauses, each time with δέ . Thus Eur. Iph. Taur. 1367, φιλεῖςδὲκαὶσὺτὸνκασίγνητον , θεά · φιλεῖνδὲκἀμὲτοὺςὁμαίμοναςδόκει : Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 22, ἔνθαπολὺςμὲνοἶνος , πολλὰδὲσῦκα , πολὺδὲἔλαιον , θάλατταδὲπροσκλύζει . So that our second δέ is not sondern,— ‘ not I, but,’ — but aber, as the first— q. d. ‘ but the life is not mine,— but the life is Christ’ s within me.’ Notice, not ὁἐνἐμοὶχρ .: Christ is the vine, we the branches: He lives, He, the same Christ, through and in every one of His believing people)— but that which (i.e. ‘ the life which,’ as E. V.) I now (since my conversion, as contrasted with the time before: not, as Rü ck., al., the present life contrasted with the future) live in the flesh I live in , Œ c., Thl., Thdrt. : ἐνπ . corresponds to ἐνσαρκί : faith, and not the flesh, is the real element in which I live) faith, viz. that (the article particularizes, what sort of faith) of (having for its object, see on ver. 16) the Son of God (so named for solemnity, and because His eternal Sonship is the source of His life-giving power, cf. John 5:25, John 5:26) who loved me (the link, which binds the eternal Son of God to me) and (proved that love. in that He) gave Himself up (to death) for me (on my behalf). 21. I do not (as thou (Peter) art doing, and the Judaizers) frustrate (reff.: not merely ‘ despise,’ as Erasm., al.) the grace of God: for if by the law (comes) righteousness (not justification— but the result of justification), then Christ died without cause (not ‘ in vain,’ with reference to the result of His death (for which meaning Lidd. and Scott’ s Lex. refers to LXX: but it does not appear to occur in that sense), but gratuitously, causelessly (reff.);— ‘ Christ need not have died.’ εἰγὰρἀπέθανενὁχριστός , εὔδηλονὅτιδιὰτὸμὴἰσχύειντὸννόμονἡμᾶςδικαιοῦν · εἰδὲὁνόμοςδικαιοῖ , περιττὸςὁτοῦχριστοῦθάνατος . Chr.). οὕτωταῦταδιεξελθὼνἐκτῆςπρὸςτὸντρισμακάριον (truly so in this case, in having found such a faithful reprover) Πέτρονδιαλέξεως , πρὸςαὐτοὺςλοιπὸνἀποτείνεται , κ . βαρυθυμῶνἀποφθέγγεται . Thdrt. Ch. 3:1– 5:12. Second, or Polemical part of the Epistle. 1. The Apostle exclaims indignantly, moved by the fervour and truth of his rebuke of Peter, against the folly of the Galatians, for suffering themselves to be bewitched out of their former vivid apprehension of Christ’ s work and Person. ἀνόητοι must not, with Jer., be taken as an allusion to any supposed national stupidity of the Galatians : it merely springs out of the occasion: see ref. Luke. ὑμᾶς has the emphasis— ‘ you, to whom,’ &c. ἐβάσκανεν ] Not with Chr. al., ‘ envied,’ in which sense the verb usually takes a dative: so Thom. Mag., βασκαίνω , οὐμόνονἀντὶτοῦφθονῶ , ὅπερπρὸςδοτικὴνσυντάσσεται , ἀλλὰκαὶἀντὶτοῦμέμφομαικ . διαβάλλωπαρὰτοῖςπαλαιοῖςεὕρηται , κ . συντάσσεταιπρὸςαἰτιατικήν (not always, cf. Sir. 14:6); but, as E. V. bewitched,— fascinated: so Aristot. Probl. xx. 34, διὰτίτὸπήγανονβασκανίαςφασὶφάρμακονεἶναι ; ἢδιότιβασκαίνεσθαιδοκοῦσιλάβρωςἐσθίοντες ; … ἐπιλέγουσιγοῦν , ὅταντῆςαὐτῆςτραπέζηςἰδίᾳτιπροσφέρωνται , μεταδιδόντες , “ ἵναμὴβασκάνῃςμε .” κατ ʼ ὀφθ .] openly,— before your eyes: so ἵνασοικατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοὺςλέγῃ , Aristoph. Ran. 625; cf. κατ ʼ ὄμμα , Eur. Androm. 1040, κρυπτὸςκαταστάς , ἢκατ ʼ ὄμμ ʼ ἐλθὼνμάχῃ ; προεγράφη ] was described before, as in reff. It has been variously explained, (1) ‘ depicted before you.’ So Œ c., Thl. (Chrys.?), Erasm., Luth., Calv., Winer, Rü ckert, Jowett, &c. But προγράφειν cannot be shewn to have any such meaning; nor (see below) is it required (as Jow.) by the context. (2) ‘ palam scriptus est:’ so Estius, Elsner, Bengel, al. But this, although an allowable meaning (τῆςδίκηςπρογεγραμμένηςαὐτῷ , διὰπένθοςοἰκούρει , Plut. Camill., 11), would not suit ἐνὑμῖν (see below). (3) ‘ proscriptus est.’ So Vulg., Ambr., Aug., Lyra. (προὔγραφεναὐτοὺςφυγάδας , Polyb. xxxii. 21. 12; οἱπρογεγραμμένοι , ib. 22. 1.) But this is quite irrelevant to the context. It is best therefore to keep to St. Paul’ s own meaning of προγράφειν , and understand it to refer to the time when he preached Christ among them, which he represents as a previous description in writing of Christ, in their hearts and before their eyes. Jerome, Hermann, al., understand it as above, ‘ olim scriptus est,’ interpreting it, however, of the prophecies of the O. T. But not to mention that no prophecy sets Him forth as ἐσταυρωμένος , the whole passage (cf. vv. 2-5) evidently refers to the time when the Apostle preached among them. (See more in De W. and Meyer, from whom the above is mainly taken.) (The ἐνὑμῖν of the rec. could hardly belong to ἐσταυρωμένος ; for if so, it would more naturally be ἐσταυρ . ἐνὑμῖν , the emphasis, as it now stands, being on ἐνὑμῖν : but it must belong to προεγράφη , as above, and as in 2 Corinthians 3:2,— ‘ in animis vestris.’ So Mey. Among the various meanings proposed,— ‘ among you’ (E. V., &c., De W., Rü ck.), ‘ on account of you’ (Koppe, but wrongly, see ch. 1:24, note),— Luther’ s is the most remarkable: “ jam non solum abjecistis gratiam Dei, non solum Christus frustra vobis mortuus est, sed turpissime in vobis crucifixus est. Ad eum modum loquitur et Epistola ad Ebr. vi. 6: denuo crucifigentes sibimetipsis filium Dei, &c.” This again is condemned by the context, and indeed by the aor. προεγράφη .) ἐσταυρωμένος , as expressing the whole mystery of redemption by grace, and of freedom from legal obligation. ‘ It has an echo of συνεσταύρωμαι in ch. 2:20.’ Jowett. 2. τ . μόνον ,— not to mention all the other grounds on which I might rest my argument, ‘ this only,’ &c. διὰσυντόμουλόγουκ . ταχίστηςἀποδείξεωςὑμᾶςπεῖσαιβούλομαι . Chr. μαθεῖν , be informed: not to be pressed, as Luther, al. , but taken in its ordinary sense, Bee reff. Did ye from (as its ground, see ch. 2:16) the works of the Law (not a Law) receive the Spirit (evidently here to be taken as including all His gifts, spiritual and external: not as Chr., Thl., Jer., χαρίσματα only: for the two are distinguished in ver. 5), or from the hearing of faith (meaning either, ‘ that preaching which proclaimed faith,’ or ‘ that hearing, which received (the) faith.’ The first is preferable, because (1) where their first receiving the Gospel is in question, the preaching of it would probably be hinted at, as it is indeed taken up by the οὖν below, ver. 5: (2) where the question is concerning the power of faith as contrasted with the works of the law, faith would most likely be subjective. But certainly we must not understand it ‘ obedience (ὑπακ . Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26. See 1 Kings 15:22) to the faith,’ as Wahl, al., which would spoil the contrast here)? 3. Are ye so (to such an extent, emph.) foolish (as viz. the following fact would prove)? Having begun in the Spirit (dative of the manner in which, reff. The Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit, guiding and ruling the spiritual life, as the ‘ essence and active principle’ (Ellic.) of Christianity,— contrasted with the flesh,— the element in which the law worked), are ye now being completed in (dative, as above) the flesh? 4. Did ye suffer (not, ‘ have ye suffered,’ as almost all Commentators, E. V., &c.,— i.e. πεπόνθατε , Hebrews 2:18; Luke 13:2) so many things in vain? There is much controversy about the meaning. (1) Chrys., Aug., and the ancients, Grot., Wolf, Rü ck., Olsh., &c., understand it of the sufferings which the Galatians underwent at the time of their reception of the Gospel. And, I believe, rightly. For (a) πάσχω occurs (see reff.) seven times in St. Paul, and always in the strict sense of ‘ suffering,’ by persecution, or hardship (similarly in Heb., 1 Pet., &c.): (b) the historic aorist here marks the reference to be to some definite time. Now the time referred to by the context is that of their conversion to the Gospel, cf. τὸπν . ἐλάβετε ,— ἐναρξάμενοιπνεύματι above. Therefore the meaning is, Did ye undergo all those sufferings (not specially mentioned in this Epistle, but which every convert to Christ must have undergone as a matter of course) in vain (Schomer first, and after him many, and Winer, B.-Crus., De Wette, understand παθεῖν here in a good sense, in reference to divine grace bestowed on them. But πάσχω seems never to be thus used in Greek without an indication in the context of such a meaning, e.g. εὖπάσχειν , or as in Jos. Antt. iii. 15. 1, ὅσαπαθόντεςἐξαὐτοῦκ . πηλικῶνεὐεργεσιῶνμεταλαβόντες , where the added clause defines the παθόντες ; and never in N. T., LXX nor Apocrypha at all. (3) Bengel refers it to their patience with Paul (patientissime sustinuistis pertulistisque me); but this, as Meyer remarks, would be expressed by ἀνέχειν , hardly by πάσχειν . (4) Meyer, to the troubles of their bondage introduced by the false and judaizing teachers. But not to dwell on other objections, it is decisive against this, (a) that it would thus be present, πάσχετε (see ch. 4:10), not past at all, and (b) that even if it might be past, it must be the perfect and not the aorist. I therefore hold to (1); οὐγὰρὑπὲρτοῦνόμουἀλλ ʼ ὑπὲρτοῦχριστοῦτὰπαθήματα , Thdrt.: πάνταγὰρἐκεῖνα , φησίν , ἅπερὑπεμείνατε , ζημιῶσαιὑμᾶςοὗτοιβούλονται , κ . τὸνστέφανονὑμῶνἁρπάσαι . Chrys. (So Ellic. Exo_2.) When Meyer says that this meaning is ganz isolirt vom Context, he is surely speaking at random: see above. (Ellic. Exo_1 took ἐπάθετε in a neutral sense, as applying to both persecutions and blessings, and nearly so Jowett: ‘ Had ye all these experiences in vain?’ objecting to (1) that it is unlike the whole spirit of the Apostle. But we find surely a trace of the same spirit in Philippians 1:29, Philippians 1:1:30; as there suffering is represented as a special grace from Christ, so here it might well be said, ‘ let not such grace have been received in vain’ ))? if it be really in vain (on εἴγεκαί , see note on 2 Corinthians 5:3: the construction is, ‘ if, as it must be, what I have said, εἰκῆ , is really the fact.’ The Commentators all take it as a supposition,— some, as Chr., &c., E.V., ‘ if it be yet in vain,’ as a softening of εἰκῆ , others, as Meyer, De W., al., as an intensification of it, ‘ if it be only in vain (and not something worse)’ ). 5. οὖν takes up again the question of ver. 2, and asks it in another form. There is a question whether the participles ἐπιχορηγῶν and ἐνεργῶν are present, referring to things done among them while the Apostle was writing, or imperfect, still spoken of the time when he was with them? Chrys., Thdrt., &c., and Bengel, al., maintain the latter: Luth., Calv., Rü ck., Meyer, De W., &c., the former. It seems to me, that this question must be settled by first determining who is the agent here spoken of. Is it the Apostle? or is it not rather God, and is not this indicated by the reference to Abraham’ s faith in the next verse, and the taking up the passive ἐλογίσθη by δικαιοῖὁθεός in ver. 8? If it be so, then the participles here must be taken as present, but indefinite, in a substantive sense (Winer), as ὁδιώκωνἡμᾶςποτέ , ch. 1:23. And certainly God alone can be said (and so in ref. 2 Cor.) ἐπιχορηγεῖντὸπνεῦμα , and ἐνεργεῖν (Ch. 2:8) δυνάμειςἐνὑμῖν (see below). ἐπιχορ .] The ἐπί does not imply addition, but as so often with prepositions of motion in composition, the direction of the supply: see notes on Acts 27:7; Romans 8:16. δυνάμεις ] here, not merely miracles or χαρίσματα , though those are included: nor is ἐνὑμῖν , ‘ among you;’ but δυν . are the wonders wrought by divine Power in you (cf. θεὸςὁἐνεργῶντὰπάνταἐνπᾶσιν , 1 Corinthians 12:6. θεὸςγάρἐστινὁἐνεργῶνἐνὑμῖντὸθέλεινκ .τ .λ . Philippians 2:13.Ephesians 2:2 Ephesians 2:2; also Matthew 14:2), viz. at your conversion and since. ἐξἔργ .] (supply does He it) in consequence of (“ as the originating or moving cause,” Ellic.) the works of the law, or in consequence of the hearing (see above, ver. 2) of faith? 6-9. Abraham’ s faith was his entrance into righteousness before God: and Scripture, in recording this, records also God’ s promise to him, by virtue of which all the faithful inherit his blessing. 6. The reply to the foregoing question is understood: it is ἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως . And then enters the thought of God’ s ἐνεργεῖν as following upon Abraham’ s faith. The fact of justification being now introduced, whereas before the ἐπιχορηγεῖντὸπνεῦμα was the matter enquired of, is no real departure from the subject, for both these belong to the ἐνάρξασθαι of ver. 3,— are concomitant, and inseparable. On the verse, see note, Romans 4:3. 7. γινώσκ . is better taken indicatively, with Jer., Ambr., Beza, Rü ck., al., than imperatively, with most Commentators (and Mey., De W., Olsh., Ellic.). It is no objection to the indicative that such knowledge could not well be predicated of the Galatians: it is not so predicated, but is here set before them as a thing which they ought to be acquainted with— from this then you know (q. d. ‘ omnibus patet.’ The imperative seems to me to lose the fine edge of the Apostle’ s argumentative irony: besides that the usage of that mood with ἄρα is not frequent: indeed apparently only to be found in Homer; cf. Il. κ . 249; ω . 522. See on the other side, Ellicott’ s note here). οἱἐκπίστεως ] see Romans 2:8; Romans 3:26, and notes, those who are of faith, as the origin and the ἀφορμή of their spiritual life. οὗτοι ] emphatic; these, and these only (see Romans 8:14), not οἱἐξἔργων . Chrys. says οὐχοἱτὴνφυσικὴνἔχοντεςπρὸςαὐτὸνσυγγένειαν : but this point is not here raised: besides, they might be, as well as others, if they were ἐκπίστεως , see Romans 4:16. υἱοὶἈβρ .] see Romans 4:11-17, and notes. 8. But (transitional (see Ellicott’ s note)) the Scripture (as we say, Nature: meaning, the Author of the Scripture; see reff.) foreseeing (Schö ttgen, Hor. Hebr. i. 732, gives examples of ‘ quid vidit Scriptura?’ and the like, as common sayings among the Jews) that of faith God justifieth the Gentiles (observe, there is no stress here on τὰἔθνη ,— it is not ἐκπίστεωςκαὶτὰἔθνηδικαιοῖὁθ .: so that, as is remarked above, no question is raised between the carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham,— nor, as Bengel, ‘ δέ vim argumenti extendit etiam ad gentes:’ the question is between those who were ἐκπίστεως , and those who wanted to return to the ἔργανόμου , whether Jews or Gentiles. So that in fact τὰἔθνη must be here taken in its widest sense, as in the Abrahamic promise soon to be quoted) announced the good news beforehand … τοὺςταρσοὺςδιασείεινφιλεῖ , τὴνἐλπίδατοῦπέτεσθαιδυνήσεσθαιπροευαγγελιζόμενος ) to Abraham: (ὅτι recitative) In thee (not, ‘ in thy seed,’ which is a point not here raised; but strictly in thee, as followers of thy faith, it having first shewn the way to justification before God. That the words will bear that other reference, does not shew that it must be introduced here) shall all the Gentiles (see above: not to be restricted with Meyer, al., to its narrower sense, but expressing, from Genesis 18:18; Genesis 22:18, in a form suiting better the Apostle’ s present argument, the πᾶσαιαἱφυλαὶτῆςγῆς of Genesis 12:3) be blessed. 9. Consequence of ἐνευλογηθήσονται above, substantiated by ver. 10 below. A share in Abraham’ s blessing must be the accompaniment of faith, not of works of the law πίστεως has the emphasis. σύν , to shew their community with him in the blessing: τῷπιστῷ , to shew wherein the community consists, viz. faith. 10. substantiation of ver. 9: they ἐξἔργωννόμου cannot be sharers in the blessing, for they are accursed; it being understood that they do not and cannot ἐμμένεινἐνπᾶσιν &c.: see this expanded in Romans 3:9-20. The citation is freely from the LXX. On τοῦποιῆσαι , not a Hebraism, but a construction common in later Greek, see Ellic.’ s note. 11, 12. ‘ contain a perfect syllogism, so that ὁδίκ . ἐκπίστ . ζήσεται is the major proposition, ver. 12 the minor, and ἐννόμῳοὐδ . δικ . παρὰτ . θεῷ the consequence.’ Meyer. It is inserted to strengthen the inference of the former verse, by shewing that not even could a man keep the law, would he be justified— the condition of justification, as revealed in Scripture, being that it is by faith. But (= moreover) that in the law no man is justified (the normal present: is, in God’ s order of things) with God is evident, for (it is written, that) the just by faith shall live (not ‘ the just shall live by his faith,’ as Winer, De W., al. The order of the words would indeed suggest this rendering, seeing that ὁἐκπ . δ . ζ . would properly represent the other: but we must regard St. Paul’ s logical use of the citation: and I think, with Meyer, that he has abstained from altering the order of the words as being well known. He is not seeking to shew by what the righteous shall live, but the ground itself of that righteousness which shall issue in life; and the contrast is between ὁδίκαιοςἐκπίστεως and ὁποιήσαςαὐτά . It is right to say that Ellic. (both edd.) prefers the other rendering, and supports it by the fact that the original Hebrew will not bear this one, and that St. Paul adopts the words of the LXX as they stand; and by the contrast between ζήσεταιἐκπίστεως , and ζήσεταιἐναὐτοῖς . Jowett doubts whether ζήσεται could be used absolutely: but see Hebrews 12:9. I still however prefer rendering as above. The construction desiderated by Bp. Middleton to suit our rendering,— ὁδίκαιοςὁἐκπ .,— would stultify the sentence, by bringing into view other δίκαιοι , who were not ἐκπίστεως ): but (logical, introducing the minor of the syllogism: see above) the law (not ‘ law, as such,’ Peile: no such consideration appears here, nor any where, except in so far as the law of Moses is treated of as possessing the qualities of law in general) is not of (does not spring from nor belong to: ‘ non agit fidei partes,’ Beng.) faith: but (sondern) (its nature is such that) he who has done them (viz. πάντατὰπροστάγματάμουκ . π . τὰκρίματάμου of Leviticus 18:5) shall live in (conditional element) them (see Romans 10:5). 13. But this curse has been removed by the redemption of Christ. The joyful contrast is introduced abruptly, without any connecting particle: see an asyndeton in a similar case in Colossians 3:4. The ἡμᾶς is emphatic, and applies solely to the Jews. They only were under the curse of ver. 10,— and they being by Christ redeemed from that curse, the blessing of Abraham (justification by faith), which was always destined by God to flow through the Jews to the Gentiles, was set at liberty thus to flow out to the Gentiles. This, which is Meyer’ s view, is certainly the only one which suits the context. To make ἡμᾶς refer to Jews and Gentiles, and refer ἡκατ . τοῦνόμ . to the law of conscience, is to break up the context altogether. ἐξηγόρ .] See, besides reff., 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; 2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 5:9. Ellicott remarks, ‘ the ἐξ - need not be very strongly pressed, see Polyb. iii. 42 2, ἐξηγόρασεπαρ ʼ αὐτῶντάτεμονόξυλαπλοῖακ .τ .λ .… The tendency,’ he continues, ‘ to use verbs compounded with prepositions without any obvious increase of meaning, is one of the characteristics of later Greek: so Thiersch, de Pentat. vers. alex. ii. 1, p. 83.’ The form of the idea is,— the Law (personified) held us (Jews) under its curse; (out of this) Christ bought us, becoming (emphatic, standing first) a curse (not ἐπικατάρατος , concrete, but κατάρα , abstract, to express that he became not only accursed, but the curse, coextensive with the disability which affected us) for us (the Jews again. Not, as many older Commentators, and Rü ck., Olsh., Peile, &c., ‘ instead of us,’ but ‘ on our behalf.’ It was in our stead; but that circumstance is not expressed by ὑπέρ used of Christ’ s death for us— see reff. and Ellic.’ s note; and Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegriff, p. 115 ff.). ὅτιγέγρ . κ .τ .λ . is a parenthesis, justifying the formal expression γενόμ . ὑπ . ἡμ . κατάρα . The citation omits the words ὑπὸθεοῦ of the LXX. They were not to the point here, being understood as matter of course, the law being God’ s law. The article ὁ is not in the LXX. The words are spoken of hanging after death by stoning; and are given in I. c. as a reason why the body should not remain on the tree all night, because one hanging on a tree is accursed of God. Such formal curse then extended to Christ, who died by hanging on a tree. 14. in order that the blessing of Abraham (promised to Abraham: i.e. justification by faith; ver. 9) might be (come) upon the Gentiles (not, all nations, but strictly the Gentiles: see above on ver. 13) in (in and by, conditional element) Jesus the Christ, that (ἵνα , parallel with, not dependent on and included in, the former ἵνα : for this clause has no longer to do with τὰἔθνη , see below. We have a second ἵνα co-ordinate with a first in Romans 7:13; 2 Corinthians 9:3; Ephesians 6:19, Ephesians 6:20) we (not emphatic, nor is ἡμεῖς expressed: no longer the Jews, as Beza and Bengel, but all Christians: see Jowett’ s note, which perhaps is too finely drawn) might receive (in full, as fulfilled, aor.) through the (or, but not so usually, our) faith (as the subjective medium: but rendered objective by the article, as so often by St. Paul: no stress on διὰτ . π .) the promise of the Spirit (viz. that made Joe 2:28. See Acts 2:17, Acts 2:33; Luke 24:49,— the promise of the new covenant). The genitive τοῦπν . is objective,— the Spirit being the thing promised. But let me guard tiros against the old absurdity, “ ἐπαγγελίατοῦπνεύματος pro τὸπνεῦματὸἐπηγγελμένον ,” which would destroy, here and every where else, the logical form of the sentence. This ‘ receiving the promise of the Spirit’ distinctly refers back to ver. 2, where he asked them whether they received the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? “ 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. 15-18. But what if the law, coming after the Abrahamic promise, abrogated that promise? These verses contain the refutation of such an objection: the promise was not abrogated by the law. 15. τίἐστικατ ʼ ἄνθρ . λέγω ; ἐξἀνθρωπίνωνπαραδειγμάτων . Chr. But (see 1 Corinthians 15:32) the expression refers not only to the character of the example chosen, but to the temporary standing-point of him who speaks: I put myself for the time on a level with ordinary men in the world. ὅμως is out of its logical place, which would be after οὐδείς ; see on ref. 1 Cor. To make it ‘ even’ and take it with ἀνθρώπου , is contrary to its usage. A (mere) man’ s covenant (not ‘ testament,’ as Olsh., after Aug., al.; for there is here no introduction of that idea: the promise spoken to Abraham was strictly a covenant, and designated διαθήκη in the passages which were now in the Apostle’ s mind, see Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:7. On the general meaning, see Mr. Bagge’ s note) when ratified (reff.), no one notwithstanding (that it is merely a human covenant) sets aside or supplements (with new conditions, Jos. Antt. xvii. 9. 4 describes Archelaus as ὁἐνταῖςἐπιδιαθήκαιςὑπὸτοῦπατρὸςἐγγεγραμμένοςβασιλεύς ,— ‘ in his father’ s subsequent testament:’ and again says of Antipas, B. J. ii. 2. 3, ἀξιῶντῆςἐπιδιαθήκηςτὴνδιαθήκηνεἶναικυριωτέραν , ἐνᾗβασιλεὺςαὐτὸςἐγέγραπτο . Nothing is implied as to the nature of the additions, whether consistent or inconsistent with the original covenant: the simple fact that no additions are made, is enounced). 16. This verse is not, as commonly supposed, the minor proposition of the syllegism, applying to Abraham’ s case the general truth enounced in ver. 15: for had it been so, (1) we should certainly find ὑπὸθεοῦ contrasted with the ἀνθρώπου before, and (2) the parenthesis οὐλέγει … χριστός would be a mere irrelevant digression. This minor proposition does not follow till ver. 17. What is now said, in a parenthetical and subsidiary manner, is this: The covenant was not merely nor principally made with Abraham, but with Abraham and his seed, and that seed referred, not to the Jewish people, but to Christ. The covenant then was not fulfilled, but awaiting its fulfilment, and He to whom it was made was yet to appear, when the law was given. αἱἐπ .] because the promise was many times repeated: e.g. Genesis 12:7; Genesis 15:5, Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:7, Genesis 17:8; Genesis 22:18. κ . τῷσπ . αὐ .] These words, on which, from what follows, the stress of the whole argument rests, are probably meant to be a formal quotation. If so, the promises quoted must be Genesis 13:15; Genesis 17:8 (Jowett supposes xxi. 12, but qu.?), where the words occur as here. οὐλέγει ] viz. He who gave the promises— God. ἐπὶπολ ., ἐφ ʼ ἑνός ] of many, of one, as E. V. Plato has very nearly this usage, βούλομαιδέμοιμὴἐπὶθεῶν (de diis) λέγεσθαιτὸτοιοῦτον , Legg. p. 662 d. See also Rep. 524 e. Cf. Ellic.’ s note. τοῖςσπέρμασιν … τῷσπέρματι ] The central point of the Apostle’ s argument is this: The seed to whom the promises were made, was Christ. To confirm this position,— see Genesis 22:17, Genesis 22:18, where the collective σπέρμα of ver. 17 is summed up in the individual σπέρμα of ver. 18, he alleges a philological distinction, recognized by the Rabbinical schools (see Wetst. and Schö ttgen ad loc.). This has created considerable difficulty: and all sorts of attempts have been made to evade the argument, or to escape standing committed to the distinction. Jerome (ad loc.), curiously and characteristically, applies the κατὰἄνθρωπονλέγω to this distinction especially, and thinks that the Apostle used it as adapted to the calibre of those to whom he was writing: “ Galatis, quos paulo ante stultos dixerat, factus est stultus.” The Roman-Catholic Windischmann, one of the ablest and most sensible of modern expositors, says, “ Our recent masters of theology have taken up the objection, which is as old as Jerome, and forgetting that Paul knew Hebrew better than themselves, have severely blamed him for urging the singular σπέρματι here, and thus justifying the application to Christ, seeing that the word ז ֶ ר ַ ע , which occurs here in the Hebrew text, has no plural , and so could not be used. Yet they are good enough to assume, that Paul had no fraudulent intent, and only followed the arbitrary exegesis of the Jews of his time (Rü ckert). The argument of the Apostle does not depend on the grammatical form, by which Paul here only puts forth his meaning in Greek,— but on this, that the Spirit of God in the promise to Abraham and the passage of Scripture relating that promise, has chosen a word which implies a collective unity, and that the promise was not given to Abraham and his children. Against the prejudice of the carnal Jews, who held that the promise applied to the plurality of them, the individual descendants of the Patriarch, as such,— the Apostle maintains the truth, that only the Unity, Christ, with those who are incorporated in Him, has part in the inheritance.” On these remarks I would observe, (1) that the Apostle’ s argument is independent of his philology: (2) that his philological distinction must not be pressed to mean more than he himself intended by it: (3) that the collective and individual meanings of σπέρμα are both undoubted, and must have been evident to the Apostle himself, from, what follows, ver. 29. We are now in a position to interpret the words ὅςἐστινχριστός . Meyer says ‘ χριστός is the personal Christ Jesus, not, as has been held (after Aug.), Christ and His Church.’ This remark is true, and untrue. χρ . certainly does not mean ‘ Christ and His Church:’ but if it imports only the personal Christ Jesus, why is it not so expressed, χριστὸςἸησοῦς For the word does not here occur in passing, but is the predicate of a very definite and important proposition. The fact is, that we must place ourselves in St. Paul’ s position with regard to the idea of Christ, before we can appreciate all he meant by this word here. Christians are, not by a figure, but really, the Body of Christ: Christ contains His people, and the mention even of the personal Christ would bring with it, in the Apostle’ s mind, the inclusion of His believing people. This seed is, Christ: not merely in the narrower sense, the man Christ Jesus, but Christ the Seed, Christ the Second Adam, Christ the Head of the Body. And that this is so, is plain from vv. 28, 29, which are the key to ὅςἐστινχριστός : where he says, πάντεςγὰρὑμεῖςΕἿΣἐστεἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ (notice Ἰησοῦ here carefully inserted, where the Person is indicated). εἰδὲὑμεῖςχριστοῦ , ἄρατοῦἈβραὰμΣΠΕ ʹ ΡΜΑἘΣΤΕ ʹ , κατ ʼ ἐπαγγελίανκληρονόμοι . So that while it is necessary for the form of the argument here, to express Him to whom the promises were made, and not the aggregate of his people, afterwards to be identified with Him (but not here in view), yet the Apostle has introduced His name in a form not circumscribing His Personality, but leaving room for the inclusion of His mystical Body. 17. Enthymematical inference from vv. 15, 16, put in the form of a restatement of the argument, as applying to the matters in hand. This however I say (this is my meaning, the drift of my previous statement): the covenant (better than a covenant, as most Commentators; even Meyer and De W.: the emphatic substantive is often anarthrous: cf. the different arrangement in ver. 15) which was previously ratified by God (εἰςχρ . being inserted by some to complete the correspondence with ver. 16: the fact was so, it was ‘ to Christ,’ as its second party, that the covenant was ratified by God), the Law, which took place (was constituted) four hundred and thirty years after, does not abrogate, so as to do away the promise. As regards the interval of 430 years, we may remark, that in Exodus 12:40, it is stated, “ The sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” (In Genesis 15:13, Acts 7:6, the period of the oppression of Israel in Egypt is roundly stated at 400 years.) But to this, in order to obtain the entire interval between the covenant with Abraham and the law, must be added the sojourning of the patriarchs in Canaan,— i.e. to the birth of Isaac, 25 years (Genesis 12:4; Genesis 21:5),— to that of Jacob, 60 more (Genesis 25:26),— to his going down into Egypt, 130 more (Genesis 47:9); in all = 215 years. So that the time really was 645 years, not 430. But in the LXX (and Samaritan Pentateuch) we read, Exodus 12:40, ἡδὲκατοίκησις (παροίκ ., A.) τῶνυἱῶνἸσραήλ , ἣνκατῴκησαν (παρῴκ ., A.) ἐνγῇΑἰγύπτῳκαὶἐνγῇΧαναάνἔτητετρακόσιατριάκοντα :— and this reckoning St. Paul has followed. We have instances of a similar adoption of the LXX text, in the apology of Stephen: see Acts 7:14, and note. After all, however, the difficulty lies in the 400 years of Gen 15:13 and Acts 7:6. For we may ascertain thus the period of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt: Joseph was 39 years old when Jacob came into Egypt (Genesis 41:46, Genesis 41:47; Genesis 45:6): therefore he was born when Jacob was 91 (91 + 39 = 130: see Genesis 47:9). But he was born 6 years before Jacob left Laban (compare ib. 30:25 with 31:41), having been with him 20 years (ib. 31:38, 41), and served him 14 of them for his two daughters (30:41). Hence, seeing that his marriage with Rachel took place when he was 78 (91-20-7; the marriages with Leah and Rachel being contemporaneous, and the second seven years of service occurring after, not, as I assumed in the first edition, before, the marriage with Rachel); Levi, the third son of Leah, whose first son was born after Rachel’ s marriage (29:30-32), must have been born not earlier than Jacob’ s 81st year,— and consequently was about 49 (130-81) when he went down into Egypt. Now (Exodus 6:16) Levi lived in all 137 years: i.e., about 88 (137-49) years in Egypt. But (Exodus 6:16, Exodus 6:18, Exodus 6:20) Amram, father of Moses and Aaron, married his father Kohath’ s sister, Jochebed, who was therefore, as expressly stated Numbers 26:59, ‘ the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt.’ Therefore Jochebed must have been born within 88 years after the going down into Egypt. And seeing that Moses was 80 years old at the Exodus (Exodus 7:7),— if we call x his mother’ s age when he was born, we have 88 + 80 + x as a maximum for the sojourn in Egypt, which clearly therefore cannot be 430 years, or even 400; as in the former case x would = 262,— in the latter 232. If we take x = cir. 47 (to which might be added in the hypothesis any time which 88 and x might have had in common) we shall have the sojourn in Egypt = 215 years, which added to the previous 215, will make the required 430. Thus it will appear that the LXX, Samaritan Pent., and St. Paul, have the right chronology,— and as stated above, the difficulty lies in Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6,— and in the Hebrew text of Exo 12:40. 18. See Romans 4:14. For if the inheritance (the general term for all the blessings promised to Abraham, as summed up in his Seed who was to inherit the land,— in other words, for the Kingdom of Christ: see 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10) is of the law (i.e. by virtue of the law, having as its ground the covenant of the law) it is no more (οὐκἔτι , as νῦν in argumentative passages, not of time, but logical— the οὐκ follows on the hypothesis) of (by virtue of) promise: but (the ‘ but’ of a demonstration, appealing to a well-known fact) to Abraham by promise hath God granted (it) (and therefore it is not of the Law). 19-24. The use and nature of the Law. What (ref.) then (is) the Law (‘ ubi audimus Legem nihil valere ad conferendam justitiam, statim obrepunt variæ cogitationes: aut igitur esse inutilem, aut contrariam fœ deri Dei, aut tale quippiam.’ Calv.)? For the sake of the transgressions [of it] (the words τῶνπαραβάσεωνχάριν have been variously understood. (1) Aug., Calv., Beza, Luth., al., explain it of the detection of transgressions, as in Rom_7. (2) Chrys., Œ c., Thl., Jer., Erasm., Grot., Rü ck., Olsh., B.-Crus., De Wette, al., of their repression: μὴἐξῇἸουδαίοιςἀδεῶςζῆν … ἀλλ ʼ ἀντὶχαλινοῦὁνόμοςαὐτοῖςἐπικείμενοςᾖ , παιδεύων , ῥυθμίζων , κωλύωνπαραβαίνειν . Chrys. (3) Luth., Est., Bengel, al., combine (1) and (2). But it is hardly possible that either of these should be the true explanation. For the Apostle is not now treating of the detection of sin, or of the repression of sin (which latter was besides not the office of the Law, see Romans 5:20), but of the Law as a preparation for Christ, vv. 23, 24: and therefore it must be regarded in its propæ deutic office, not in its detective or (?) repressive. Now this propæ deutic office was, to make sin into transgression,— so that what was before not a transgression might now become one. The law then was added (to the promise, which had no such power), for the sake of (in order to bring about as transgressions) the transgressions (of it) which should be, and thus (ver. 23) to shut us up under sin, viz. the transgression of the law. This is nearly Meyer’ s view, except that he makes this the exclusive meaning of χάριν , which usage will not sustain, cf. 1 John 3:12. Ellic.’ s view is very close to mine, which he has mistaken) it was superadded (“ προσετέθη does not contradict the assertion of ver. 15, οὐδεὶς … ἐπιδιατάσσεται . For the Law was not given as an ἐπιδιαθήκη , but came in as another institution, additional to that already existing.” Meyer) until the seed shall have come (he places himself at the giving of the law and looks on into the future: hence the subjunctive, not the optative: and without ἄν , because the time is a certain and definite one), to whom (ver. 16) the promise has been (see above) made better, and is justified by reff. Macc. Bretschneider understands it cui demandatum est, viz. to put an end to the law: but this is against N. T. usage of ἐπαγγέλλω , and absurd, where ἐπαγγελίαι is so often used in the context. This Seed is of course Christ), being enjoined (the aorist participle does not here denote previous occurrence, but is merely part of an aorist sentence: so Herod. i. 14, Γύγηςδὲτυραννεύσαςἀνέπεμψενἀναθήματα … : Diod. Sic. xi. 31, γενναίωςἀγωνισάμενοςπολλοὺςἀνεῖλετῶνἙλλήνων . See Hermann on Viger, pp. 772-3. For διατάσσω , cf. note on Acts 7:53, and Hesiod, Op. 274, τόνδεγὰρἀνθρώποισινόμονδιέταξεΚρονίων : it is not promulgate, as Winer) by means of (not, under the attestation of, as Peile, nor in the presence of, as Calov., al.) angels (angels were, according to the Rabbinical view, the enactors and enjoiners of the Law: so Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, ἡμῶντὰκάλλιστατῶνδογμάτωνκ . τὰὁσιώτατατῶνἐντοῖςνόμοιςδι ʼ ἀγγέλωνπαρὰτοῦθεοῦμαθόντων : see also the citations in Wetst.: Hebrews 2:2; and note on Colossians 2:15. Of course no explaining away of ἄγγελοι into men (Moses, Aaron, &c.) as Chrys. , al., can be allowed. Observe, the angels are not the givers of the Law, but its ministers, and instrumental enactors: the Law, with St. Paul, is always God’ s Law; see especially Romans 7:22) in the hand of a mediator (viz. Moses, who came from God to the people with the tables of the law in his hands. Cf. his own words, Deuteronomy 5:5, κἀγὼεἱστήκεινἀναμέσονκυρίουκ . ὑμῶνἐντῷκαιρῷἐκείνῳἀναγγεῖλαιὑμῖντὰῥήματακυρίου , ὅτιἐφοβήθητεἀπὸπροσώπουτοῦπυρὸςκ . οὐκὰνέβητεεἰςτὸὄρος , λέγων … : Philo, vita Mos. iii. 19, vol. ii. p. 160, οἷαμεσίτηςκ . διαλλακτὴςοὐκεὐθὺςἀνεπήδησεν , ἀλλὰπρότεροντὰςὑπὲρτοῦἔθνουςἱκεσίαςκ . λιτὰςἐποιεῖτο . Schö ttgen gives numerous examples from the Rabbinical books, in which the name Mediator is given to Moses.— But most of the Fathers (not Thdrt.), Bede, Lyra, Calvin, Calov., al., understand Christ to be meant: Schmieder and Schneckenburger, the Angel of the Covenant,— the Metatron. Neither of these interpretations however will hold against the above evidence). Why does the Apostle add this last clause? I am inclined to think with Meyer that it is,— not to disparage the law in comparison with the Gospel (as Luth., Elsn., Flatt, Rü ck., Jowett, &c. &c.) or with the promise (Estius, Schneckenb., De Wette), but to enhance the solemnity of the giving of the law as a preparation for Christ, in answer to the somewhat disparaging question τίοὖνὁνόμος ; If the δι ʼ ἀγγέλων had been here disparaging, as in Hebrews 2:2, διὰτοῦκυρίου or the like must have been expressed, as there, on the other side. And ἐνχειρὶμεσίτου is certainly no disparagement of the old covenant in comparison with the new, for this it has in common with the other. The fact is (see below on ver. 20), that no such comparison is in question here. 20. “ The explanations of this verse, so obscure from its brevity, are so numerous (Winer counted 250: Jowett mentions 430) that they require a bibliography of their own.” De Wette. I believe we shall best disentangle the sense as follows. (1) Clearly, ὁμεσίτης and ὁθεός are opposed. (2) As clearly, ἑνὸςοὐκἔστιν and εἷςἐστιν are opposed. (3) From this contrast arises an apparent opposition between the law and the promises of God, which gives occasion to the question of ver. 21. Taking up therefore again (1),— ὁμεσίτης , by whose hand the law was enacted, stands opposed to ὁθεός , the giver of the promises. And that, in this respect (2);— (a) ὁμεσίτης is not ἑνός , but (b) ὁθεός is εἷς . And herein lies the knot of the verse; that is, in (b),— for the meaning of (a) is pretty clear on all hands; viz. that ὁμεσίτης (generic, so ref. Job; ‘ quæ multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis,’ Hermann ad Iph. in Aul. p. 15, præ f. cited by Meyer) does not belong to one party (masculine) (but to two, as going between one party and another). Then to guide us to the meaning of (b), we must remember, that the numerical contrast is the primary idea: ὁμεσίτης belongs not to one, but ὁθεός is one. Shall we then say, that all reference of εἷς beyond this numerical one is to be repudiated? I cannot think so. The proposition ὁθεὸςεἷςἐστιν would carry to the mind of every reader much more than the mere numerical unity of God— viz. His Unity as an essential attribute, extending through the whole divine Character. And thus, though the proposition ὁμεσίτηςἑνὸςοὐκἔστιν would not, by itself, convey any meaning but that a mediator belongs to more than one, it would, when combined with ὁθεὸςεἷςἐστιν , receive a shade of meaning which it did not bear before,— of a state of things involved in the fact of a μεσίτης being employed, which was not according to the ἑνότης of God, or, so to speak, in the main track of His unchanging purpose. And thus (3), the law, administered by the μεσίτης , belonging to a state of οὐχεἷς , two at variance, is apparently opposed to the ἐπαγγελίαι , belonging entirely to ὁεἷς , the one (faithful) God. And observe, that the above explanation is deduced entirely from the form of the sentence itself, and from the idea which the expression ὁθεὸςεἷςἐστιν must necessarily raise in the mind of its reader, accustomed to the proposition as the foundation of the faith;— not from any preconceived view, to suit which the words, or emphatic arrangement, must be forced. Notice by the way, that the objection, that the Gospel too is ἐνχειρὶμεσίτου , does not apply here: for there is no question here of the Gospel, but only of the promises, as direct from God: the μεσίτης of the Gospel is altogether different, and His work different: He has absolutely reconciled the parties at variance, and made them one in Himself. Remember St. Paul’ s habit of insulating the matter in hand, and dealing with it irrespective of all such possible objections. To give even an analysis of the various opinions on this verse would far exceed the limits of this commentary: I will only take advantage of Meyer’ s long note, and of other sources, to indicate the main branches of the exegesis. (I) The Fathers, for the most part, pass lightly over it, as easy in itself,— and do not notice its pragmatic difficulty. Most of them understand by the μεσίτης , Christ, the mediator between God and man. In interpreting ἑνὸςοὐκἔστιν and εἷςἐστιν , they go in omnia alia. It may suffice to quote one or two samples. Chrys. says, τίἂνἐνταῖθαεἴποιεναἱρετικοί ; εἰγὰρτὸ “ μόνοςἀληθινός ,” οὐκἀφίησιτὸνυἱὸνεἶναιθεὸνἀληθινόν , οὐκἄραοὐδὲθεόν , διὰτὸλέγεσθαι “ ὁδὲθεὸςεἷςἐστιν .” … ὁδὲμεσίτης , φησί , δύοτινῶνγίνεταιμεσίτης . τίνοςοὖνμεσίτηςἦνὁχριστός ; ἢδῆλονὅτιθεοῦκ . ἀνθρώπων ; ὁρᾷςπῶςδείκνυσινὅτικαὶτὸννόμοναὐτὸςἔδωκεν ; εἰτοίνυναὐτὸςἔδωκε , κύριοςἂνεἴηκαὶλῦσαιπάλιν . And Jerome, ‘ manu mediatoris potentiam et virtutem ejus debemus accipere, qui cum secundum Deum unum sit ipse cum patre, secundum mediatoris officium alins ab eo intelligitur.’ Theodoret, having explained the μεσίτης of Moses, proceeds, on ὁδὲθεὸςεἷςἐστιν ,— ὁκαὶτὴνἐπαγγελίαντῷἈβραὰμδεδωκώς , καὶτὸννόμοντεθεικώς , καὶοὖντῆςἐπαγγελίαςἡμῖνἐπιδείξαςτὸπέρας . οὐγὰρἄλλοςμὲνἐκεῖναθεὸςᾠκονόμησεν , ἄλλοςδὲταῦτα . (II) The older of the modern Commentators are generally quite at fault: I give a few of them: Grotius says, ‘ Etsi Christus mediator Legem Judæ is tulerit, ut ad agnitionem transgressionum adduceret, eoque ad fœ dus gratiæ præ pararet, non tamen unius est gentis Judaicæ mediator, sed omnium hominum: quemadmodum Deus unus est omnium.’ Luther (1519), ‘ Ex nomine mediatoris concludit, nos adeo esse peccatores, ut legis opera satis esse nequeant. Si, inquit, lege justi estis, jam mediatore non egetis, sed neque Deus, cum sit ipse unus, secum optime conveniens. Inter duos ergo quæ ritur mediator, inter Deum et hominem; ac si dicat, impiissima est ingratitudo, si mediatorem rejicitis, et Deo, qui unus est, remittitis, &c.’ Erasmus, in his paraphrase: ‘ Atqui conciliator, qui intercedit, inter plures intercedat oportet, nemo enim secum ipse dissidet. Deus autem unus est, quocum dissidium erat humano generi. Proinde tertio quopiam erat opus, qui naturæ utriusque particeps utramque inter sese reconciliaret, &c.’ Calvin, as the preferable view, ‘ diversitatem hic notari arbitror inter Judæ os et Gentiles. Non unius ergo mediator est Christus, quia diversa est conditio eorum quibuscum Deus, ipsius auspiciis, paciscitur, quod ad externam personam. Verum Paulus inde æ stimandum Dei fœ dus negat, quasi secum pugnet, aut varium sit pro hominum diversitate.’ (III) The later moderns begin to approach nearer to the philological and contextual requirements of the passage, but still with considerable errors and divergences. Bengel, on the first clause, ‘ Medius terminus est in syllogismo, cujus major propositio et minor exprimitur, conclusio subauditur. Unus non utitur mediatore illo: atqui Deus est unus. Ergo Deus non prius sine mediatore, deinde per mediatorem egit. Ergo is cujus erat mediator non est unus idemque cum Deo sed diversus a Deo, nempe ὁνόμος Lex … ergo mediator Sinaiticus non est Dei sed legis: Dei autem, promissio.’ Locke (so also Michaelis): “ God is but one of the parties concerned in the promise: the Gentiles and Israelites together made up the other, ver. 14. But Moses, at the giving of the law, was a mediator only between the Israelites and God: and therefore could not transact any thing to the disannulling the promise, which was between God and the Israelites and Gentiles together, because God was but one of the parties to that covenant: the other, which was the Gentiles as well as Israelites, Moses appeared or transacted not for.” (IV) Of the recent Commentators, Keil (Opusc. 1809-12) says: ‘ Mediatorem quidem non unius sed duarum certe partium esse, Deum autem qui Abrahamo beneficii aliquid promiserit, unum modo fuisse: hincque apostolum id a lectoribus suis colligi voluisse, in lege ista Mosaica pactum mutuum Deum inter atque populum Israeliticum mediatoris opera intercedente initum fuisse, contra vero in promissione rem ab unius tantum (Dei sc. qui solus eam dederit) voluntate pendentem transactam,— hincque legi isti nihil plane cum hac rei fuisse, adeoque nec potuisse ea novam illius promissionis implendæ conditionem constitui, eoque ipso promissionem omnino tolli.’ And similarly Schleiermacher (in Usteri’ s Lehrbegriff, p. 186 ff.), but giving to εἷς the sense of freedom and independence;— and Meyer, only repudiating the second part of Keil’ s explanation from ‘ hincque,’ as not belonging to an abstract sentence like this, but being historical, as if it had been ἦν , and besides contrary to the Apostle’ s meaning, who deduces from our verse a consequence the contrary to this , and obviates it by the question in ver. 21. For the numerous other recent interpretations and their refutations I must refer the reader to Meyer’ s note (as also to Ellicott’ s (in his Exo_1: see his present view in his Exo_2), who preferred Windischmann’ s interpretation of εἷς , ‘ One, because He was both giver and receiver united: giver, as the Father; receiver, as the Son, the σπέρμαᾧἐπήγγελται .’ But this seems going too deep— almost, we may say, arriving at the conclusion by a coup de main, which would not have borne any meaning to the readers): see also Jowett’ s note, which seems to me further to complicate the matter by introducing into it God’ s unity of dealing with man, and man’ s unity with God in Christ. (V) We may profitably lay down one or two canons of interpretation of the verse. Every interpretation is wrong, which understands Christ by ὁμεσίτης . The context determines it to be abstract, and its reference to be to Moses, the mediator of the Law. Every interpretation is wrong, which makes εἷς mean ‘ one party’ in the covenant. ὁθεὸςεἷςἐστιν itself confutes any such view, being a well-known general proposition, not admitting of a concrete interpretation. Every interpretation is wrong, which confines εἷς (as Meyer) to its mere numerical meaning, and does not take into account the ideas which the general proposition would raise. Every interpretation is wrong, which deduces from the verse the agreement of the law with the promises: because the Apostle himself, in the next verse, draws the very opposite inference from it, and refutes it on other grounds. Every attempt to set aside the verse as a gloss is utterly futile. 21. The Law being thus set over against the promises,— being given through a mediator between two,— the promises by the one God,— it might seem as if there were an inconsistency between them. The nature of the contrariety must not (as De W.) be deduced from the following disproof of it: this disproof proceeds on τῶνπαραβάσεωνχάρινπροσετέθη , which is not the ground of the apparent contrariety, but its explanation. The appearance of inconsistency lay in the whole paragraph preceding— the οὐκἀκυροῖ of ver. 17, the εἰἐκνόμου , οὐκέτιἐξἐπαγγελίας of ver. 18,— and the contrast between the giving of the two in ver. 20. “ τοῦθεοῦ is not without emphasis: the promises which rest immediately on God, and were attested (? sic still in Exo_2) by no mediator.” Ellic. εἰγάρ ] Notwithstanding all the above features of contrast between the Law and the promises, it is not against them, for it does not pretend to perform the same office; if it did, then there would be this rivalry, which now does not exist. νόμοςὁδυν . is best expressed in English, as in E. V., a law which could … for the article circumscribes the νόμος to some particular quality indicated in the defining participle which follows: see reff. Peile’ s rendering, “ if that which (ὁδυνάμενος !) should have power to give life had been given in the form of law,” is in the highest degree ungrammatical. ζωοποιῆσαι takes for granted that we by nature are dead in trespasses and sins. ὄντως has the emphasis: in very truth, and not only in the fancy of some, by the law (as its ground) would have been righteousness (which is the condition of life eternal,— ὁδίκαιος … ζήσεται . If life, the result, had been given by the law, then righteousness, the condition of life, must have been by it also: reasoning from the whole to its part). 22. But on the contrary (ἀλλά , not δέ : comp. Ellic. This not being the case,— no law being given out of which could come righteousness) the Scripture (not the Law, as Chrys. and most of the Fathers, also Calv., Beza, al.; but as in ver. 8, the Author of Scripture, speaking by that His witness) shut up (not subjective, as Chrys., ἤλεγξεν … κ . ἐλέγξαςκατεῖχενἐνφόβῳ ,— for it is their objective state of incapacity to attain righteousness which is here brought out:— nor ‘ conclusit omnes simul,’ as Bengel, al.: the preposition enhances the force of κλείειν , as in ‘ contraho,’ συμπνίγειν , &c.: see note Romans 11:32, where the same expression occurs. “ The word συγκλείειν is beautifully chosen, to set off more clearly the idea of Christian freedom by and by.” Windischmann: cf. ch. 5:1. Nor has συγκλ . merely a declaratory sense, as Bull, Examen Censuræ xix. 6, ‘ conclusos involutos declaravit,’ al.) all (neuter, as indicating the entirety of mankind and man’ s world: ‘ humana omnia,’ as Jowett: cf. reff. I think (against Ellic. Exo_2) that we must hold fast this) under sin, in order that (the intention of God, as in Romans 11:32: not the mere result, here or any where else. Beware of such an assertion as Burton’ s, quoted also by Peile;— “ ἵνα here implies, not the cause, but the consequence, as in many places.” ἵνα never implies any thing of the sort; nor does any one of the examples he gives bear him out) the promise (i.e. the things promised— the κληρονομία , cf. vv. 16, 18) (which is) by (depends upon, is conditioned by) faith of (which has for its object and its Giver— is a matter altogether belonging to) Jesus Christ (q. d. ἡἐπαγγ . ἡἐκπ .0: but the article in such sentences is frequently omitted, especially where no distinction is intended between the subject and another of the same kind: cf. τῆςπίστεωςἐνχρ . Ἰησ . below, ver. 26,— τοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , Ephesians 6:5, &c. The words ἐκπίστ . cannot well be taken with δοθῇ without harshness, especially as Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ intervenes, and τοῖςπιστεύουσιν is already expressed. Besides, in this case they would most naturally come first,— ἵναἐκπίστεωςἸ . χρ . ἡἐπαγγ . δοθῇτ . π .) might be given (be a free gift— δοθῇ has the emphasis) to them that believe . 23. But (δέ carries us on to a further account of the rationale and office of the law. “ When the noun, to which the particle is attached, is preceded by a preposition, and perhaps the article as well, δέ may stand the third or fourth word in the sentence. So ἐντοῖςπρῶτοιδὲἈθηναῖοι , Thuc. i. 6: οὐχὑπὸἐραστοῦδέ , Plato, Phæ dr. 227 d, &c.” Hartung, Partikell. i. 190) before (this) faith (not, the faith, in the sense of the objects of faith, but the faith just mentioned, viz. πίστιςἸησοῦχρ ., which did not exist until Christ) came (was found, or was possible, in men: cf. ref., where however it is more entirely subjective), we (properly, we Jewish believers— but not here to be pressed, because he is speaking of the divine dealings with men generally— the Law was for τὰπάντα , the only revelation) were kept in ward : συγκλειόμενοι is quite against this, and the pæ dagogic figure does not enter till the next verse, springing out of the preparation implied in εἰς , joined to the fact of our sonship, see below. Our present verse answers to ch. 4:2, where we find ἐπίτροποι and οἰκονόμοι , not the παιδαγωγός . See Jowett’ s beautiful illustration), shut up under the law, in order to (εἰς of the preparatory design, not merely of the result, or the arrival of the time: and it may belong either to συγκλειόμ . (not to συγκεκλεισμένοι , if that be read, as that would betoken the act completed when the Law was given), or to the imperfect ἐφρουρούμεθα ) the faith (as in ver. 22) about to be revealed (on the order of the words see on ref. Rom. “ As long as there was no such thing as faith in Christ, this faith was not yet revealed, was as yet an element of life hidden in the counsel of God.” Meyer). 24. So that (taking up the condition in which the last verse left us, and adding to it the fact that we are the sons of God, cf. γάρ , ver. 26) the Law has become (has turned out to be) our tutor (pedagogue, see below) unto (ethically; for) Christ (the παιδαγωγός was a faithful slave, entrusted with the care of the boy from his tender years till puberty, to keep him from evil physical and moral, and accompany him to his amusements and studies. See Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. sub voce. The E. V. ‘ schoolmaster’ does not express the meaning fully: but it disturbs the sense less than those have done, who have selected one portion only of the pedagogue’ s duty, and understood by it, ‘ the slave who leads a child to the house of the schoolmaster’ (οἷόντινισοφῷδιδασκάλῳπροσφέρειτῷδεσπότῃχριστῷ , Thdrt.: so also Thl.: see Suicer, νόμος , b), thus making Christ the schoolmaster, which is inconsistent with the imagery. On the contrary, the whole schoolmaster’ s work is included in the παιδαγωγός , and Christ represents the ἐλευθερία of the grown-up son, in which he is no longer guarded or shut up, but justified by faith, the act of a free man; and to Christ as a Teacher there is here no allusion), in order that by faith we might be justified (which could only be done when Christ had come): but (adversative) now that the faith (see above) has come, we are no longer under a tutor (pedagogue). 26. Reason of the negation in last verse. For ye all (Jews and Gentiles alike) are sons of God by means of the (or, but not so well, your) faith in Christ Jesus (some (Usteri, Windisch., al.) would join ἐνχρ . Ἰησ . with υἱοὶθεοῦἐστε , but most unnaturally,— and unmeaningly, for the idea of ἐνχρ . Ἰησ . in that case has been already given by διὰτῆςπίστεως . The omission of τῆς before ἐν will stagger no one: see Colossians 1:4, where the same expression occurs). 27. For (substantiates and explains the assertion of ver. 26: see below) as many of you as were baptized into (see Romans 6:3 and notes) Christ, put on Christ (at that time, compare the aorists in Acts 19:2: not “ have been baptized,” and “ have put on,” as E. V., which leaves the two actions only concomitant: the aorists make them identical: as many as were baptized into Christ, did, in that very act, put on, clothe yourselves with, Christ: see Ellicott’ s note). The force of the argument is well given by Chrys.: τίνοςἕνεκενοὐκεἶπεν , ὅσοιγὰρεἰςχριστὸνἐβαπτίσθητε , ἐκτοῦθεοῦἐγεννήθητε ; τὸγὰρἀκόλουθοντοῦδεῖξαιυἱοὺςτοῦτοἦν . ὅτιπολὺφρικωδέστεροναὐτὸτιθησιν . εἰγὰρὁχριστὸςυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , σὺδὲαὐτὸνἐνδέδυσαι , τὸνυἱὸνἔχωνἐνἑαυτῷκ . πρὸςαὐτὸνἀφομοιωθείς , εἰςμίανσυγγένειανκ . μίανἰδέανἤχθης . Observe here how boldly and broadly St. Paul asserts the effect of Baptism on all (πάντεςγὰρ … and ὅσοιἐβαπτ .) the baptized. Luther remarks: “ Hic locus diligenter observandus est contra fanaticos spiritus, qui majestatem baptismi extenuant, et sceleste et impie de eo loquuntur. Paulus contra magnificis titulis baptismum ornat, appellans lavacrum regenerationis ac renovationis Sp. sancti (Titus 3:5), et hic dicit omnes baptisatos Christum induisse, quasi dicat: non accepistis per baptismum tesseram, per quam adscripti estis in numerum christianorum, ut nostro tempore multi fanatici homines senserunt, qui ex baptismo tantum tesseram fecerunt, hoc est, breve et inane quoddam signum, sed ‘ quotquot’ inquit etc.: id est, estis extra legem rapti in novam nativitatem, quæ facta est in baptismo.” But we may notice too, as Meyer remarks, that the very putting on of Christ, which as matter of standing and profession is done in baptism, forms a subject of exhortation to those already baptized, in its ethical sense, Romans 13:14. 28. The absolute equality of all in this sonship, to the obliteration of all differences of earthly extraction or position. See Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13. οὐκἔνι = οὐκἔνεστιν — ‘ il n’ y a pas:’ De Wette quotes Plato, Gorg. 507, ὅτῳδὲμὴἔνικοινωνία , φιλίαοὐκἂνεἴη . Buttmann (ii. 299), Kü hner (i. 671), Winer (§ 14. 2, remark), maintain ἔνι to be a form of the preposition ἐν , and the same of ἔπι , πάρα , &c. But Meyer replies, that all those passages are against this view, where ἔνι and ἐν occur together, as 1 Corinthians 6:5; Xen. Anab. v. 3. 11. Observe, Ἰουδ . οὐδὲἝλλ ., δοῦλοςοὐδὲἐλεύθ .,— but ἄρσενκαὶθῆλυ : the two former being accidental distinctions which may be entirely put off in falling back on our humanity,— but the latter a necessary distinction, absorbed however in the higher category: q. d. “ there is no distinction into male and female.” ἄρσενκ . θῆλυ , generalized by the neuter, as being the only gender which will express both. γάρ , reason why there is neither, &c.— viz. our unity in Christ. On the unavoidable inference from an assertion like this, that Christianity did alter the condition of women and slaves, see Jowett’ s note. εἷς , more forcible and more strict than ἕν : for we are one, in Him, εἷςκαινὸςἄνθρωπος , as he says in Ephesians 2:15, speaking on this very subject. 29. Christ is ‘ Abraham’ s seed’ (ver. 16): ye are one in and with Christ, have put on Christ; therefore ye are Abraham’ s seed; consequently heirs by promise; for to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. The stress is on ὑμεῖς , τοῦἈβραάμ , and κατ ʼ ἐπαγγελίαν , especially on the latter,— carrying the conclusion of the argument, as against inheritance by the law. See on this verse, the note on ver. 16 above. “ The declaration of ver. 7 is now substantiated by 22 verses of the deepest, the most varied, and most comprehensive reasoning that exists in the whole compass of the great Apostle’ s writings.” Ellicott. 4:1-7. The Apostle shews the correspondence between our treatment under the law and that of heirs in general: and thus, by God’ s dealing with us, in sending forth His Son, whose Spirit of Sonship we have received, confirms (ver. 7) the conclusion that we are heirs. 1. λέγωδέ refers to what follows (reff.), and does not imply, ‘ What I mean, is.’ ὁκληρ ., generic, as ὁμεσίτης , ch. 3:20. The question, whether the father of the κληρονόμος 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 the 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 (from what reason or under what circumstances matters not. Mr. Bagge quotes from Ulpian, speaking of the right of a testator appointing guardians, “ Tutorem autem et a certo tempore dare et usque ad certum tempus licet.” Digest. xxvi. 2. 8) has preordained 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. οὐδὲνδιαφ . δούλου ] διὰτοῦτογὰρκ . παίεινκ . ἄγχεινκ . στρεβλοῦν , κ . ἃτῶνδεσποτῶνπρὸςτοὺςοἰκέτας , ταῦτατῶνυἱέωντοῖςἐφεστῶσινἀξιοῦσινὑπάρχειν . Libanius (Wetst.). See below on ver. 3: and Plato, Lysis, pp. 207. 8, cited at length in Bagge. κύριοςπάντωνὤν must be understood essentially, rather than prospectively. It is said of him in virtue of his rank, rather than of his actual estate: in posse, rather than in esse. 2. ἐπιτρόπους , overseers of the person; guardians: οἰκονόμους , overseers of the property, stewards. See Ellicott’ s and Bagge’ s notes. προθεσμία , the time (previously) appointed. The word (an adjective used substantively: scil. ἡμέρα or ὥρα . See for the classical meaning, ‘ the time allowed to elapse before bringing an action,’ Smith’ s Dict. of Antt. sub voce) is a common one: Wetst. gives many examples. The following clearly explain it: ὁρίσαιπροθεσμίαν , ἐνᾗτὸἱερὸνσυντελεσθήσεται , Polyæ n. p. 597:— εἰδὲὁτῆςζωῆςτῶνἀνθρώπωνχρόνοςεἰκοσαετὴςἦν … τὴνδὲτῶνκ . ἐτῶνπροθεσμίανἐκπληρώσαντα , Plut. ad Apollon. p. 113 e. It is no objection to the view that the father is dead, that the time was fixed by law (Hebrew as well as Greek and Roman): nor on the other hand any proof of it, that προθεσμία will hardly apply to a living man’ s arrangement: see on the whole, above. 3. ἡμεῖς — are Jews only here included, or Jews and Gentiles? Clearly, both: for ἵνατ . υἱοθεσ . ἀπολάβωμεν is spoken of all believers in Christ. He regards the Jews as, for this purpose, including all mankind (see note on ch. 3:23), God’ s only positive dealings by revelation being with them— and the Gentiles as partakers both in their infant-discipline, and in their emancipation in Christ. ὅτεἦμεννήπιοι refers, not to any immaturity of capacity in us, but to the lifetime of the church, as regarded in the προθεσμίατοῦπατρός : see below on ver. 4. τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου ] Aug. interprets this physically, of the worship of the elements of nature by the Gentiles: Chrys., Thdrt., al., of the Jewish new moons and sabbaths: Neander (Pfl. u. Leit. p. 370), of a religion of sense as opposed to that of the spirit. But it is more natural to take στοιχεῖα in its simpler meaning, that of letters or symbols of the alphabet, and τοῦκόσμου not in its worst sense, but as in Hebrews 9:1, ἅγιονκοσμικόν ,— ‘ belonging to the unspiritual outer world.’ Thus (as in reff. Col.) the words will mean, the elementary lessons of outward things (as Conybeare has rendered it in his note: ‘ outward ordinances,’ in his text, is not so good). Of this kind were all the enactments peculiar to the Law; some of which are expressly named, ver. 10. See στοιχεῖα well discussed in Ellicott’ s note; and some useful remarks in Jowett, in loc. Meyer prefers taking ἦμεν and δεδουλωμένοι separate: ‘ we were under the elements of the world, enslaved:’ as answering better to ὑπὸἐπιτρόπουςἐστίν above. 4. τὸπλήρωματ . χρόνου answers to the προθεσμίατ . πατρός , ver. 2: see reff. The Apostle uses this term with regard not only to the absolute will of God, but to the preparations which were made for the Redeemer on this earth: partly as Thl., ὅτεπᾶνεἶδοςκακίαςδιεξελθοῦσαἡφύσιςἡἀνθρωπίνηἐδεῖτοθεραπείας , partly as Bengel, ‘ suas etiam ecclesia æ tates habet.’ The manifestation of man’ s guilt was complete:— and the way of the Lord was prepared, by various courses of action which He had brought about by men as his instruments. ἐξαπέστ . cannot,— however little, for the purposes of the present argument, the divine side of our Lord’ s mission is to be pressed,— mean any thing less than sent forth from Himself (reff.). γενόμ . ἐκγυν . will not bear being pressed, as Calv., Grot., Estius, al., have done (“ discernere Christum a reliquis voluit hominibus: quia ex semine matris creatus sit, non viri et mulieris coitu,” Calv.): it is Christ’ s Humanity which is the point insisted on, not His being born of a virgin. On the other hand, the words cannot for an instant be adduced as inconsistent with such birth: they state generically, what all Christians are able, from the Gospel record, to fill up specifically. γενόμ . ὑπὸνόμον ] ‘ born of a woman,’ identified Him with all mankind: born under the law, introduces another condition, in virtue of which He became the Redeemer of those who were under a special revelation and covenant. A Gentile could not (humanly speaking, as far as God has conditioned His own proceedings) have saved the world: for the Jews were the representative nation, to which the representative man must belong. γενόμ . is both times emphatic, and therefore not to be here rendered ‘ legi subjectum,’ as Luther, ‘ unter das Gesess gethan.’ 5. See above. Christ, being born under the law, a Jewish child, subject to its ordinances, by His perfect fulfilment of it, and by enduring, as the Head and in the root of our nature, its curse on the tree, bought off (from its curse and power, but see on ch. 3:13) those who were under the law: and if them, then the rest of mankind, whose nature He had upon Him. Thus in buying off τοὺςὑπὸνόμον , He effected that ἡμεῖς , all men, τὴνυἱοθεσίανἀπολάβωμεν — should receive : there is no allusion to the innocence which we lost in Adam, nor was redemption by Christ in any sense a recovery of the state before the fall, but a far more glorious thing, the bestowal of an adoption which Adam never had. Nor is it, as Chrys., καλῶςεἶπεν , ἀπολάβωμεν , δεικνὺςὀφειλομένην : it is true, it was the subject of promise, but it is the mere act of reception, not how or why it was received, which is here put forward. Nor again, with Rü ckert and Schö tt., must we render ἀπο — ‘ therefrom,’ as a fruit of the redemption. This again it is, but it is not expressed in the word) the adoption (the place, and privileges) of sons. The word υἱοθεσία occurs only in the N. T. In Herod. vi. 57 we have θετὸνπαῖδαποιέεσθαι , and the same expression in Diod. Sic. iv. 39. 6. Meyer interprets this verse with Chrys.: καὶπόθενδῆλονὅτιγεγόναμενυἱοί , φησίν ; εἶπετρόπονἕνα , ὅτιτὸνχριστὸνἐνεδυσάμεθατὸνὄνταυἱόν · λέγεικ . δεύτερον , ὅτιτὸπνεῦματῆςυἱοθεσίαςἐλάβομεν · οὐγὰρἂνἐδυνήθημενκαλέσαιπατέρα , εἰμὴπρότερονυἱοὶκατέστημεν . And so Thdrt., Thl., Ambr., Pel., Koppe, Flatt, Rü ckert, Schö tt., and Ellicott. [Jowett combines both interpretations: but this can hardly be.] If so, we must assume a very unusual ellipsis after ὅτιδέἐστευἱοί ,— one hardly justified by such precedents as Romans 11:18,— εἰδὲκατακαυχᾶσαι , οὐσὺτ . ῥίζανβαστάζεις , κ .τ .λ ., Romans 11:15, and supply, ‘ God hath given you this proof, that.… ’ Meyer urges in defence of his view the emphatic position of ἐστε , on which see below. I prefer the ordinary rendering because it suits best (1) the simplicity of construction,— the causal ὅτι thus beginning a sentence followed by an apodosis, as in ref.,— whereas we have no example of the demonstrative ὅτι followed by the ellipsis here supposed: cf. ch. 3:11, where δῆλον follows:— (2) the context;— it is not in corroboration of the fact that we are sons, but as a consequence of that fact, that the Apostle states what follows: to shew the completeness of the state of sonship. In Romans 8:16, the order of these is inverted, and the witness of the Spirit proves our sonship: but that does not affect the present passage, which must stand on its own ground. (3) The aorist ἐξαπέστειλεν is against Meyer’ s view— it would be in that case ἐξαπέσταλκεν . It is now used of the time of the gift of the Spirit. Render then: Because moreover ye are sons (the stress on ἐστε is hardly to be urged: υἱοίἐστε would certainly give a very strong emphasis on the noun: all we can say of ἐστευἱοί , where so insignificant a word as a verb substantive is concerned, is that there is now no such strong stress on υἱοί , but that the whole fact, of the state of sonship having been brought in, and actually existing, is alleged) God sent forth (not, ‘ hath sent forth’ — see above) the Spirit of His Son (you being now fellows with that Son in the communion of the Spirit, won for you as a consequence of His atonement: called, Romans 8:15, πνεῦμαυἱοθεσίας , and ib. 9, πνεῦμαχριστοῦ , where participation in Him is said to be the necessary condition of belonging to Christ at all) into our hearts (as he changed from the third person to the first in the foregoing verse, so now from the second: both times from the fervour of his heart, wavering between logical accuracy and generous largeness of sympathy), crying (in Romans 8:15, it is ἐνᾧκράζομεν . Here the Spirit being the main subject, is regarded as the agent, and the believer merely as His organ) Abba Father. ὁπατήρ is not a mere Greek explanation of Ἀββᾶ , but an address by His name of relation, of Him to whom the term Ἀββᾶ was used more as a token of affection than as conveying its real meaning of ‘ my father:’ see notes on Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15. Aug. gives a fanciful reason for the repetition: “ Eleganter autem intelligitur non frustra duarum linguarum verba posuisse idem significantia propter universum populum, qui de Judæ is et de Gentilibus in unitatem fidei vocatus est: ut Hebræ um verbum ad Judæ os, Græ cum ad gentes, utriusque tamen verbi eadem significatio ad ejusdem fidei spiritusque unitatem pertineat.” And so Luther, Calvin, and Bengel. 7. Statement of the conclusion from the foregoing, and corroboration, from it, of ch. 3:29. The second person singular individualizes and points home the inference. Meyer remarks that this individualization has been gradually proceeding from ver. 5— ἀπολάβωμεν ,— ἔστε ,— εἶ . διὰθεοῦ ] The rec. θεοῦδιὰχριστοῦ seems to have been an adaptation to the similar passage, Romans 8:17. On the text, Windischmann remarks, “ διὰθεοῦ 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 tri-une God Himself, not through the law, nor through fleshly descent.” 8-11. Appeal to them, as the result of the conclusion just arrived at, why, having passed out of slavery into freedom, they were now going back again. 8. τότε refers back for its time, not to ver. 3, as Windischmann, but to οὐκέτιεἶδοῦλος , ver. 7. In οὐκεἰδότ . θ ., there is no inconsistency with Romans 1:21: there it is the knowledge which the Gentile world might have had: here, the matter of fact is alleged, that they had it not. τοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσινθ .] to gods, which by nature exist not: see 1 Corinthians 8:4; 1 Corinthians 10:19, 1 Corinthians 10:20 and note. The rec. would be, “ to those which are not by nature gods,” i.e. only made into gods by human fancy: but this is not the Apostle’ s way of conceiving of the heathen deities. Meyer compares 2 Chronicles 13:9, ἐγένετοεἰςἱερέατῷμὴὄντιθεῷ . Notice μή — giving the Apostle’ s judgment of their non-existence— and see 2 Corinthians 5:21 note, where however I cannot hold with Ellic., that μὴγνόντα expresses ‘ God’ s judgment’ (?). 9. “ The distinction which Olsh. attempts to set up between εἰδότες as the mere outward, and γνόντες as the inner knowledge, is mere arbitrary fiction: see John 7:26, John 7:27; John 8:55; 2 Corinthians 5:16.” Meyer. μᾶλλονδὲγν . ὑπ . θ .] See note on 1 Corinthians 8:3. Here the propriety of the expression is even more strikingly manifest than there: the Galatians did not so much acquire the knowledge of God, as they were taken into knowledge, recognized, by Him,— προσληφθέντεςὑπὸθεοῦ , Thl.: οὐδὲγὰρὑμεῖςκαμόντεςεὕρετετὸνθεόν , … αὐτὸςδὲὑμᾶςἐπεσπάσατο , Chrys. And this made their fall from Him the more matter of indignant appeal, as being a resistance of His will respecting them. No change of the meaning of γνωσθ . must be resorted to, as ‘ approved,’ ‘ loved’ (Grot., al.: see others in De W. and Mey.): cf. Matthew 25:12; 2 Timothy 2:19. Cf. also Philippians 3:12. πῶς ] how is it that … ? see reff. ἀσθ .] so the προάγουσαἐντολή is called in Hebrews 7:18, ἀσθενὲςκ . ἀνωφελές . Want of power to justify is that to which the word points here. πτωχ .] in contrast with the riches which are in Christ. Or both words may perhaps refer back to the state of childhood hinted at in ver. 6, during which the heir is ἀσθενής , as immature, and πτωχός , as not yet in possession. But this would not strictly apply to the elements as the Gentiles were concerned with them: see below. On στοιχεῖα , see note, ver. 3. πάλιν ] These Galatians had never been Jews before: but they had been be fore under the στοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου , under which generic term both Jewish and Gentile cultus was comprised: so that they were turning back again to these elements. ἄνωθεν ] from the beginning,— afresh; not a repetition of πάλιν : Mey. quotes πάλινἐξἀρχῆς , Barnab. Ep. 16, p. 773 Migne: and Wetstein gives, from Plautus, Cas. Prol. 33, ‘ rursum denuo.’ θέλετε , as in E. V., ye desire: but if thus expressed here by our translators, why not also in John 5:40, where it is still more emphatic? 10. The affirmative form seems best, as (see Ellic.) supplying a verification of the charge just brought against them interrogatively: explaining τίςτῆςδουλείαςτρόπος , Thdrt. Wishing to shew to them in its most contemptible light the unworthiness of their decadence, he puts the observation of days in the forefront of his appeal, as one of those things which they already practised. Circumcision he does not mention, because they were not yet drawn into it, but only in danger of being so (ch. 5:2, al.):— nor abstinence from meats, to which we do not hear that they were even tempted. ἡμέρας , emphatic, as the first mentioned, and also as a more general predication of the habit, under which the rest fall. The days would be sabbaths, new moons, and feast days: see Colossians 2:16, where these are specified. παρατηρ .] There does not seem to be any meaning of superstitious or inordinate observance (as Olsh., Winer, &c.), but merely a statement of the fact: see ref. Joseph., where, remarkable enough, the word is applied to the very commandment (the fourth) here in question. “ When παρά is ethical, i.e. when the verb is used in a bad sense, e.g. ἐνεδρεύεινκ . παρατηρεῖν , Polyb. xvii. 3. 2, the idea conveyed is that of hostile observation.” Ellicott. μῆνας ] hardly new moons, which were days: but perhaps the seventh month, or any others which were distinguished by great feasts. καιρούς ] any festal seasons: so Leviticus 23:4, αὗταιαἱἑορταὶτῷκυρίῳκληταὶἅγιαι , ἃςκαλέσετεαὐτὰςἐντοῖςκαιροῖςαὐτῶν . ἐνιαυτούς ] can hardly apply to the sabbatical or jubilee years, on account of their rare occurrence, unless indeed with Wieseler, Chron. der Apost. Zeitalt. p. 286 note, we are to suppose that they were then celebrating one: perhaps those observations may be intended which especially regarded the year, as the new year. But this is not likely : and I should much rather suppose, that each of these words is not minutely to be pressed, but all taken together as a rhetorical description of those who observed times and seasons. Notice how utterly such a verse is at variance with any and every theory of a Christian sabbath, cutting at the root, as it does, of all obligatory observance of times as such: see notes on Romans 14:5, Romans 14:6; Colossians 2:16. “ These periodical solemnities of the law shewed, by the fact of their periodical repetition, the imperfection of the dispensation to which they belonged: typifying each feature of Christ’ s work, which, as one great and perfect whole, has been performed once for all and for ever,— and were material representations of those spiritual truths which the spiritual Israel learn in union with Christ as a risen Lord. To observe periods then, now in the fulness of time, is to deny the perfection of the Christian dispensation, the complete and finished nature of Christ’ s work: to forsake Him as the great spiritual teacher of His brethren, and to return to carnal pæ dagogues: to throw aside sonship in all its fulness, and the spirit of adoption: and to return to childhood and the rule of tutors and governors.” Bagge: who however elsewhere maintains the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath. 11. There is no attraction in the construction , as Winer (comm. in loc.) holds: in that case ὑμεῖς must be the subject of the next clause (so in Diod. Sic. iv. 40 (Meyer), τὸνἀδελφὸνεὐλαβεῖσθαι , μήποτε … ἐπίθηταιτῇβασιλείᾳ ): but φοβ . ὑμᾶς stands alone, and the following clause explains it. So Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 760, δέδοικ ʼ ἐμαυτὸν … μὴπόλλ ʼ ἄγανεἰρημέν ʼ ᾖμοι . The indicative assumes the fact which μήπως deprecates:— see reff. 12-16. Appeal to them to imitate him, on the ground of their former love and veneration for him. 12. This has been variously understood. But the only rendering which seems to answer the requirements of the construction and the context, is that which understands εἰμι or γέγονα after ἐγώ , and refers it to the Apostle having in his own practice cast off Jewish habits and become as the Galatians: i.e. a Gentile: see 1 Corinthians 9:20, 1 Corinthians 9:21. And so Winer, Neander, Fritz., De W., Meyer, Jowett (alt.), &c. (2) Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., Erasm.-par., al., regard it as said to Jewish believers, and explain,— τοῦτονεἷχονπάλαιτὸνζῆλον · σφόδρατὸννόμονἐπόθουν · ἀλλ ʼ ὁρᾶτεπῶςμεταβέβλημαι . ταύτηντοίνυνκαὶὑμεῖςζηλώσατετὴνμεταβολήν (Thdrt.). But to this Meyer rightly objects, that ἤμην , which would in this case have to be supplied, must have been expressed, as being emphatic, and cites from Justin ad Græ cos, c. 2, where however I cannot find it, γίνεσθεὡςἐγώ , ὅτικἀγὼἤμηνὡςὑμεῖς . (3) Jerome, Erasm.-not., Corn.-a-lap., Estius, Michaelis, Rü ckert, Olsh., ‘ … as also I have accommodated myself to you.’ But thus the second member of the sentence will not answer to the first. (4) Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grot., Bengel, Morus, Peile, al., would understand it, ‘ love me, as I love you’ (“ accipite hanc meam objurgationem eo animo quo vos objurgavi: … sit in vobis is affectus erga me, qui est in me erga vos,” Luth.). But nothing has been said of a want of love: and certainly had this been meant, it would have been more plainly expressed. The words ἀδελφοί , δέομαιὑμῶν are by Chrys., Thdrt., al., Luther, Koppe, al., joined to the following: but wrongly, for there is no δέησις in what follows. οὐδένμεἠδικήσατε ] The key to rightly understanding these words is, their apposition with ἐξουθενήσατε , … ἐξεπτύσατε … ἐδέξασθε below. To that period they refer: viz. to the time when he first preached the Gospel among them, and the first introduction of this period seems to be in the words, ὅτικἀγὼὡςὑμεῖς . Then I became as you: and at that time you did me no wrong, but on the contrary shewed me all sympathy and reverence. Then comes in the inference, put in the form of a question, at ver. 16,— I must then have since become your enemy by telling you the truth. The other explanations seem all more or less beside the purpose: δηλῶνὅτιοὐμίσους , οὐδὲἔχθραςἦντὰεἰρημένα … Chrys., and similarly Thl., Aug., Pel., Luth., Calv. , Estius, Winer, al., which would be irrelevant, and indeed preposterous without some introduction after the affection of the foregoing words: ‘ ye have done me no wrong,’ i.e. ‘ ex animo omnia condonabat si resipiscerentur,’ Beza: so Bengel, Rü ckert, al.,— which is refuted by the aorist ἠδικήσατε , of some definite time. The same is true of ‘ ye have wronged not me but yourselves’ (Ambr., Corn.-a-lap., Schö tt.),— ‘ … not me, but God, or Christ’ (Grot. al.). 13. δι ʼ ἀσθένειαντῆςσαρκός can surely bear but one rendering,— on account of bodily weakness: all others (e.g. ‘ in weakness,’ as E. V., μετὰἀσθενείας , as Œ c., Thl., ‘ per infirmitatem,’ as vulg., Luth., Beza, Grot., Estius, Jowett (comparing Philippians 1:15, where see note), ‘ during a period of sickness,’ as Mr. Bagge) are ungrammatical, or irrelevant, as ‘ on account of the infirmity of (your) flesh’ (Jer., Estius, Hig., Rettig), which would require some qualifying adverb such as οὕτως with εὐηγγελισάμην , and would besides be wholly out of place in an Epistle in which he is recalling them to the substance of his first preaching. The meaning then will be, that it was on account of an illness that he first preached in Galatia: i.e. that he was for that reason detained there, and preached, which otherwise he would not have done. On this, see Prolegomena, § ii. 3: the fact itself, I cannot help thinking, is plainly asserted here. Beware of conjectural emendation, such as δι ʼ ἀσθενείας of Peile, for which there is neither warrant nor need. τὸπρότερον may mean ‘ formerly,’ but is more probably ‘ the first time,’ with reference to that second visit hinted at below, ver. 16, and ch. 5:21. See Prolegomena, § v. 3. 14. I had in some former editions retained the rec., feeling persuaded that out of it the other readings have arisen. The whole tenor of the passage seeming to shew that the Apostle’ s weakness was spoken of as a trial to the Galatians, μου appeared to have been altered to ὑμῶν ,— or to have been omitted by some who could not see its relevance, or its needfulness. But the principles of sounder criticism have taught me how unsafe is such ground of arguing, and have compelled me to adopt the text of the most ancient mss. The temptation seems to have been the ‘ thorn in the flesh’ of 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff., whatever that was: perhaps something connected with his sight, or some nervous infirmity: see below, and notes on Acts 13:9; Acts 23:1. ἐξεπτύσατε ] “ expresses figuratively and in a climax the sense of ἐξουθ . Cf. the Latin despuere, respuere. In other Greek writers we have only καταπτύειντινός , ἀποπτύειντινά (Eur. Troad. 668; Hec. 1265. Hes. ἔργ . 724), and διαπτύειντινά in this metaphorical sense,— but ἐκπτύειν always in its literal sense (Hom. Od. ε . 322), as also ἐμπτύειντινί . Even in the passage cited by Kypke from Plut., Alex. i. p. 328, it is in its literal sense, as ὥσπερχαλινόν follows. We must treat this then as a departure from Greek usage, and regard it as occasioned by ἐξουθ ., as Paul loves to repeat the same prepositions in composition (Romans 2:17; Romans 11:7 al.), not without emphasis.” Meyer. ὡςἄγγελ . θ ., ὡςχρ . Ἰησ .] a climax:— besides the freedom of angels from fleshly weakness, there is doubtless an allusion to their office as messengers— and to His saying, who is above the angels, Luke 10:16. No inference can be drawn from these expressions being used of the Galatians’ reception of him, that they were already Christians when he first visited them: the words are evidently not to be pressed as accurate in point of chronology, but involve an ὕστερονπρότερον : not, ‘ as you would have received,’ &c., but ‘ as you would (now) receive.’ 15. Where then (i.e. where in estimation, holding what place) (was) your congratulation (of yourselves)? i.e. considering your fickle behaviour since. ‘ Quæ causa fuit gratulationis, si vos nunc pœ nitet mei?’ Bengel. Various explanations have been given: ‘ quæ erat beatitudo vestra,’ neglecting the οὖν , and making μακαρισμός into beatitudo, which it will not bear: so (Œ c., Luth., Beza, &c. All making the words into an exclamation (even if τίς be read) is inconsistent with the context, and with the logical precision of οὖν , and ὥστε below. ‘ Where is then the blessedness ye spake of?’ (E. V.) is perhaps as good a rendering as the words will bear. μαρτυρῶγὰρ … ] a proof to what lengths this μακαρισμός , and consequently their high value for St. Paul ran, at his first visit. In seeking for a reference for this expression, τ . ὀφθ . ὑμῶνἐξορ . ἐδώκ . μοι , the right course will be, not at once to adopt the conclusion, that they point to ocular weakness on the part of the Apostle, nor because they form a trite proverb in many languages, therefore to set down (as Meyer, De W., Windischmann, al., have done) at once that no such allusion can have been intended, but to judge from the words themselves and our information from other sources whether such an allusion is likely. And in doing so, I may observe that a proverbial expression so harsh in its nature, and so little prepared by the context, would perhaps hardly have been introduced without some particle of climax. Would not the Apostle have more naturally written, ὅτιεἰδυνατόν , καὶτοὺςὀφθ . ὑμ .… ? Had the καί been inserted, it would have deprived the words of all reference to a matter of fact, and made them purely proverbial. At the same time it is fair to say that the order τοὺςὀφθ . ὑμῶν rather favours the purely proverbial reference. Had the Apostle’ s eyes been affected, and had he wished to express “ You would, if possible, have pulled out your own eyes, and have given them to me,” he would certainly have written ὑμῶντοὺςὀφθ ., not τοὺςὀφθ . ὑμῶν . In other words, the more emphatic τοὺςὀφθαλμούς is, the more likely is the expression to be proverbial merely: the less emphatic τ . ὀφθ . is, the more likely to refer to some fact, in which the eyes were as matter of notoriety concerned. The inference then of any ocular disease from these words themselves seems to me precarious. Certainly Acts 23:1 ff. receives light from such a supposition; but with our very small knowledge on the subject, many conjectures may be hazarded with some shew of support from Scripture, while none of them has enough foundation to make it probable on the whole. The proverb is abundantly illustrated by Wetst. ἐξορύσσω is the regular classic word: cf. Herod. viii. 116: this however is doubted by Ellic. See on the whole passage, Jowett’ s most interesting “ fragment on the character of St. Paul,” Epp. &c. vol. i. pp. 290-303. 16. So that (as things now stand; an inference derived from the contrast between their former love and their present dislike of him. See Klotz, Devar. ii. 776) have I become your enemy (‘ hated by you;’ — ἐχθρ . in passive sense: or perhaps it may be active, as Ellic.) by speaking the truth (see Ephesians 4:15 note) to you? When did he thus incur their enmity by speaking the truth? Not at his first visit, from the whole tenor of this passage: nor in this letter, as some think (Jer., Luther, al.), which they had not yet read; but at his second visit, see Acts 18:23, when he probably found the mischief beginning, and spoke plainly against it. Cf. similar expressions in Wetst.: especially ‘ obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit,’ Ter. Andr. i. 1. 40: ὀργίζονταιἅπαντεςτοῖςμετὰπαῤῥησίαςτ ʼ ἀληθῆλέγουσι , Lucian, Abdic. 7. 17. ‘ My telling you the truth may have made me seem your enemy: but I warn you that these men who court you so zealously have no honourable purpose in so doing: it is only in order to get you away from the community as a separate clique, that you may court them.’ Thus the verse seems to fit best into the context. As regards particular words, ἐκκλείω must bear the meaning of exclusion from a larger and attraction to a smaller, viz. their own, party. (Our very word ‘ exclusive’ conveys the same idea.) I have therefore not adopted Mey.’ s rendering, ‘ from all other teachers,’ — nor that of Luther (1538), Calv., Grot., Beng., Rü ck., Olsh., Winer, al., ‘ from me and my communion,’ — nor that of Chrys., Œ c., Thl., τῆςτελείαςγνώσεωςἐκβαλεῖν ,— nor that of Erasm., Corn.-a-lap., ‘ from Christian freedom.’ The mood of ζηλοῦτε has been disputed: and it must remain uncertain here, as in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where see note. Here as there Meyer would give ἵνα the meaning of ‘ in which case:’ but it is surely far better where the sentence so plainly requires ἵνα of the purpose, to suppose some peculiar usage or solœ cism in formation of the subjunctive on the part of the Apostle. 18. Two meanings are open to us: (1) as E. V. and many Commentators taking ζηλοῦσθαι as middle— or passive with a signification nearly the same, ‘ it is good to be zealously affected in a good cause, and not only during my presence with you:’ in which case the sense must be referred back to vv.13-15, and the allusion must be to their zeal while he was with them. But, considering that this context is broken at ver. 17,— that the words ζηλοῦσθαιἐνκαλῷ are an evident reference to ζηλοῦσινὑμ . οὐκαλῶς , and that the wider context of the whole passage adduces a contrast between their conduct when he was with them and now, I think it much better (2) to explain thus: ‘ I do not mean to blame them in the abstract for τὸζηλοῦνὑμᾶς : any teacher who did this καλῶς , preaching Christ, would be a cause of joy to me (Philippians 1:15-18): and it is an honourable thing (for you) to be the objects of this zeal ἐνκαλῷ , in a good cause (I still cannot see how this rendering of ἐνκαλῷ ‘ alters the meaning of the verb’ (Ellic.): it rather seems to me that the non-use of καλῶς , while the paronomasia is retained, leads to this meaning), at all times and by every body, not only when I am (or was) present with you:’ q. d. ‘ I have no wish, in thus writing, to set up an exclusive claim to ζηλοῦνὑμᾶς — whoever will really teach you good, at any time, let him do it and welcome.’ Then the next verse follows naturally also, in which he narrows the relation between himself and them, from the wide one of a mere ζηλωτής , to the closer one of their parent in Christ, much as in 1 Corinthians 4:14 f.,— ὡςτέκναμουἀγαπητὰνουθετῶ · ἐὰνγὰρμυρίουςπαιδαγωγοὺςἔχητεἐνχριστῷ , ἀλλ ʼ οὐπολλοὺςπατέρας · ἐνγὰρχρ . Ἰησοῦδιὰτ . εὐαγγελίουἐγὼὑμᾶςἐγέννησα . On other interpretations, I may remark, that after ζηλοῦσιν , the strict passive meaning is the only suitable one for ζηλοῦσθαι , as it is indeed the only one justified by usage: that ζηλόω must keep its meaning throughout, which will exclude all such renderings as ‘ invidiose tractari’ here (Koppe): that all applications of the sentence to the Apostle himself as its object (ἐνκαλῷ , in the matter of a good teacher, as Estius, Corn.-a-lap., al.) are beside the purpose. 19. belongs to what follows, not to the preceding. Lachmann, (I suppose on account of the δέ following, but see below,) with that want of feeling for the characteristic style of St. Paul which he so constantly shews in punctuating, has attached this as a flat and irrelevant appendage to the last verse (so also Bengel, Knapp, Rü ckert, al.): and has besides tamed down τεκνία into τέκνα , thus falling into the trap laid by some worthless corrector. My little children (the diminutive occurs only here in St. Paul, but is manifestly purposely, and most suitably chosen for the propriety of the metaphor. It is found (see reff.) often in St. John, while our Apostle has τέκνον , 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:1), Whom I again (a second time; the former was ἐντῷπαρεῖναίμε , ver. 18) travail with (bear, as a mother, with pain and anxiety, till the time of birth) until Christ shall have been fully formed within you (for Christ dwelling in a man is the secret and principle of his new life, see ch. 2:20), 20. yea, I could wish (see note on Romans 9:3. There is a contrast in the δέ between his present anxiety in absence from them and his former παρεῖναι ver. 18: similar constructions with δέ are frequent, especially after vocatives, when some particular is adduced more or less inconsistent with the address which has preceded: thus Hom. Il. ο . 244, Ἕκτορ , υἱὲΠριάμοιο , τίηδὲσὺνόσφινἀπ ʼ ἄλλων | ἧσ ʼ ὀλιγηπελέων ; Eur. Hec. 372, μῆτερ , σὺδ ʼ ἡμῖνμηδὲνἐμποδὼνγένῃ … al. freq.) to be present with you now, and to change my voice (from what, to what? Some say, from mildness to severity. But surely such a change would be altogether beside the tone of this deeply affectionate address. I should rather hold, with Meyer,— from my former severity, when I became your enemy by ἀληθεύωνὑμῖν , to the softness and mildness of a mother, still ἀληθεύων , but in another tone. The great majority of Commentators understand ἀλλάξαι as Corn.-a-lap. (Mey.): ‘ ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc obsecrarem, nunc objurgarem vos.’ But so much can hardly be contained in the mere word ἀλλάξαι without some addition, such as πρὸςτὸνκαιρόν , πρὸςτὸσυμφέρον (1 Corinthians 12:7), or the like): for I am perplexed about you . 21-30. Illustration of the relative positions of the law and the promise, by an allegorical interpretation of the history of the two sons of Abraham: “ intended to destroy the influence of the false Apostles with their own weapons, and to root it up out of its own proper soil” (Meyer). 21. θέλοντες ] καλῶςεἶπεν · οἱθέλοντες , οὐγὰρτῆςτῶνπραγμάτωνἀκολουθίας , ἀλλὰτῆςἐκείνωνἀκαίρουφιλονεικίαςτὸπρᾶγμαἦν . Chrys. τ . νόμονοὐκἀκούετε ] do ye not hear (heed) the law, listen to that which the law imparts and impresses on its hearers? Meyer would understand, ‘ do ye not hear the law read?’ viz. in the synagogues, &c. But the other seems to me more natural. 22. γάρ answers to a tacit assumption of a negative answer to the foregoing question— ‘ nay, ye do not: for,’ &c. Phrynichus says on παιδίσκη , τοῦτοἐπὶτῆςθεραπαίνηςοἱνῦντιθέασιν , οἱδ ʼ ἀρχαῖοιἐπὶτῆςνεάνιδος , οἷςἀκολουθητέον . 23. κατὰσάρκα , according to nature, in her usual course: δι ʼ ἐπαγγελίας , by virtue of (the) promise, as the efficient cause of Sara’ s becoming pregnant contrary to nature: see Romans 4:19. 24. which things (on ὅς and ὅστις see Ellic.’ s note: here ἅτινα seems to enlarge the allegory beyond the mere births of the two sons to all the circumstances attending them) are allegorical: i.e. to be understood otherwise than according to their literal sense. So Suidas: ἀλληγορία , ἡμεταφορά , ἄλλολέγοντὸγράμμα , κ . ἄλλοτὸνόημα : Heysch., ἀλληγορία , ἄλλοτιπαρὰτὸἀκουόμενονὑποδεικνύουσα : and gloss. N. T., ἀλληγορούμενα , ἑτέρωςκατὰμετάφρασιννοούμενα , καὶοὐκατὰτὴνἀνάγνωσιν . The word is often used, as the thing signified by it is exemplified, by Philo. It was the practice of the Rabbinical Jews to allegorize the O. T. history. “ Singula fere gesta quæ narrantur, allegorice quoque et mystice interpretantur. Neque hac in parte labores ipsorum plane possumus contemnere. Nam cadem Paulus habet, qualia sunt de Adamo primo et secundo, de cibo et potu spirituali, de Hagare, etc. Sic Joannes memorat Sodomum et Æ gyptum mysticam, plagas item Æ gyptias per revelationem hostibus Ecclesiæ immittendas præ dicit,” Schö ttgen. How various persons take this allegorical comment of the Apostle, depends very much on their views of his authority as a Scripture interpreter. To those who receive the law as a great system of prophetic figures, there can be no difficulty in believing the events by which the giving of the law was prepared to have been prophetic figures also: not losing thereby any of their historic reality, but bearing to those who were able to see it aright, this deeper meaning. And to such persons, the fact of St. Paul and other sacred writers adducing such allegorical interpretations brings no surprise and no difficulty, but only strong confirmation of their belief that there are such deeper meanings lying hid under the O. T. history. That the Rabbis and the Fathers, holding such deeper senses, should have often missed them, and allegorized fancifully and absurdly, is nothing to the purpose: it is surely most illogical to argue that because they were wrong, St. Paul cannot be right. The only thing which really does create any difficulty in my mind, is, that Commentators with spiritual discernment, and appreciation of such a man as our Apostle, should content themselves with quietly casting aside his Scripture interpretation wherever, as here, it passes their comprehension. On their own view of him, it would be at least worth while to consider whether his knowledge of his own Scriptures may not have surpassed ours. But to those who believe that he had the Spirit of God, this passage speaks very solemnly; and I quite agree with Mr. Conybeare in his note, edn. 2, vol. ii. p. 178, “ The lesson to be drawn from this whole passage, as regards the Christian use of the O. T., is of an importance which can scarcely be overrated.” Of course no one, who reads, marks, learns, and inwardly digests the Scriptures, can subscribe to the shallow and indolent dictum of Macknight, ‘ This is to be laid down as a fixed rule, that no ancient history is to be considered as allegorical, but that which inspired persons have interpreted allegorically: but at the same time, in allegorizing Scripture, he will take care to follow the analogy of the faith, and proceed soberly, and in dependence on that Holy Spirit, who alone can put us in possession of His own mind in His word.’ Calvin’ s remarks here are good: “ Quemadmodum Abrahæ domus tunc fuit vera Ecclesia: ita minime dubium est quin præ cipui et præ aliis memorabiles eventus qui in ea contigerunt, nobis totidem sint typi. Sicut ergo in circumcisione, in sacrificiis, in toto sacerdotio levitico allegoria fuit: sicuti hodie est in nostris sacramentis, ita etiam in domo Abrahæ fuisse dico. Sed id non facit ut a literali sensu recedatur. Summa perinde est ac si diceret Paulus, figuram duorum testamentorum in duabus Abrahæ uxoribus, et duplicis populi in duobus filiis, veluti in tabula, nobis depictam.” As to the objection of Luther, repeated by De Wette, that this allegory shews misapprehension of the history (die Allegorie von Sara und Hagar, welche … zum Stich zu schwach ist, denn sie weichet ab vom historischen Verstand. Luth., cited by De W.), because Ishmael had nothing to do with the law of Moses, the misapprehension is entirely on the side of the objectors. Not the bare literal historical fact is in question here, but the inner character of God’ s dealings with men, of which type, and prophecy, and the historical fact itself, are only so many exemplifications. The difference between the children of the bond and the free, of the law and the promise, has been shewn out to the world before, by, and since the covenant of the law. See an excellent note of Windischmann’ s ad loc., exposing the shallow modern critical school. See also Jowett’ s note, on the other side: and while reading it, and tracing the consequences which will follow from adopting his view, bear in mind that the question between him and us is not affected by any thing there said on the similarity between St. Paul and the Alexandrians as interpreters of Scripture,— but remains as it was before,— was the O. T. dispensation a system of typical events and ordinances, or is all such typical reference fanciful and delusive? For these , not as Jowett, Ishmael and Isaac, which would confuse the whole: the mothers are the covenants;— the sons, the children of the covenants) are (import in the allegory, see reff.) two covenants (not ‘ revelations,’ but literally covenants between God and men): one (covenant) indeed from Mount Sina gendering (bringing forth children: De W. compares υἱοὶ … τῆςδιαθήκης , Acts 3:25) unto (with a view to) bondage, which one is (identical in the allegory with) Agar. 25. (No parenthesis: συστοιχεῖδέ begins a new clause.) For the word Agar (when the neuter article precedes a noun of another gender, not the import of that noun, but the noun itself, is designated,— so Demosth. p. 255. 4, τὸδ ʼ ὑμεῖςὅτανεἴπω , τὴνπόλινλέγω . Kü hner ii. 137) is (imports) Mount Sina, in Arabia (i.e. among the Arabians. This rendering, which is Chrysostom’ s,— τὸδὲΣινᾶὄροςοὕτωμεθερμηνεύεταιτῇἐπιχωρίῳαὐτῶνγλώττῃ (so also Thl., Luther), is I conceive necessitated by the arrangement of the sentence, as well as by τὸἌγαρ . Had the Apostle intended merely to localize Σινᾶὄρος by the words ἐντῇἈρ ., he could hardly but have written τὸἐντῇἈρ ., or have placed ἐντ . Ἀρ . before ἐστιν . Had he again, adopting the reading τὸγὰρΣινᾶὄροςἐστὶνἐντῇἈραβίᾳ , intended to say (as Windischmann), ‘ for Mount Sina is in Arabia, where Hagar’ s descendants likewise are,’ the sentence would more naturally have stood τὸγὰρΣινᾶὄρ . ἐντῆἈρ . ἐστίν , or καὶγὰρΣινᾶὄρ . ἐντ . Ἀρ . ἐστίν . As it is, the law of emphasis would require it to be rendered, ‘ For Sina is a mountain in Arabia,’ information which the judaizing Galatians would hardly require. As to the fact itself, Meyer states, “ ح َ ج َ ر ُ in Arabic, is a stone: and though we have no further testimony that Mount Sina was thus named κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν by the Arabians, we have that of Chrysostom; and Bü sching, Erdbeschreibung, v. p. 535, adduces that of the traveller Haraut, that they to this day call Sinai, Hadschar. Certainly we have Hagar as a geographical proper name in Arabia Petræ a: the Chaldee paraphrast always calls the wilderness of Shur, ח ג ר א .” So that Jowett certainly speaks too strongly when he says, “ the old explanations, that Hagar is the Arabic word for a rock or the Arabic noun for Mount Sinai, are destitute of foundation.” As to the improbability at which he hints, of St. Paul quoting Arabic words in writing to the Galatians, I cannot see how it is greater than that of his making the covert allusion contained in his own interpretation. We may well suppose St. Paul to have become familiarized, during his sojourn there, with this name for the granite peaks of Sinai), but (δέ marks the latent contrast that the addition of a new fact brings with it: so Ellic.) corresponds (viz. Agar, which is the subject, not Mount Sina, see below. “ συστοιχεῖν is ‘ to stand in the same rank:’ hence ‘ to belong to the same category,’ ‘ to be homogeneous with:’ see Polyb. xiii. 8. 1, ὅμοιακ . σύστοιχα .” Mey., Chrys., all., and the Vulg. (conjunctus est), take it literally, and understand it, γειτνιάζει , ἅπτεται , ‘ is joined, by a continuous range of mountain-tops,’ understanding Sina as the subject) with the present Jerusalem (i.e. Jerusalem under the law, the Jerusalem of the Jews, as contrasted with the Jerusalem of the Messiah’ s Kingdom), for she is in slavery with her children. 26. But (opposes to the last sentence, not to μίαμέν , ver. 24, which, as Meyer observes, is left without an apodosis, the reader supplying that the other covenant is Sara, &c.) the Jerusalem above (i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem = Ἱερ . ἐπουράνιος Hebrews 12:22, ἡκαινὴἹερ . Revelation 3:12; Revelation 21:2, and see reff. on ἄνω . Michaelis, al., suppose ancient Jerusalem (Melchisedek’ s) to be meant. Vitringa, al., Mount Zion, as ἡἄνωπόλις means the Acropolis. But Rabbinical usage, as Schö ttgen has abundantly proved in his Dissertation de Hierosolyma cœ lesti (Hor. Heb. vol. i. Diss. v.), was familiar with the idea of a Jerusalem in heaven. See also citations in Wetst. This latter quotes a very remarkable parallel from Plato, Rep. ix. end,— ἐνᾗνῦνδὴδιήλθομενοἰκίζοντεςπόλειλέγεις , τῇἐνλόγοιςκειμένῃ , ἐπεὶγῆςγεοὐδαμοῦοἶμαιαὐτὴνεἶναι . Ἀλλ ʼ ἦνδ ʼ ἐγώἐνοὐρανῷἴσωςπαράδειγμαἀνάκειταιτῷβουλομένῳὁρᾷνκαὶὁρῶντιἑαυτὸνκατοικίζειν . διαφέρειδὲοὐδὲνεἴτεπουἐστὶνεἴτεἔσται · τὰγὰρταύτηςμόνηςἂνπράξειεν , ἄλληςδὲοὐδεμιᾶς . Εἰκόςγ ʼ , ἔφη . The expression here will mean, “ the Messianic Theocracy, which before the παρουσία is the Church, and after it Christ’ s Kingdom of glory.” Mey.) is free, which (which said city, which heavenly Jerusalem) is our mother (the emphasis is not on ἡμῶν as Winer: nay rather it stands in the least emphatic place, as indicating a relation taken for granted by Christians. See Philippians 3:20. The rendering adopted by Mr. Bagge, “ which (Jerusalem the free) is (answers to, as ἥτιςἐστὶνἌγαρ above) our mother (viz. Sarah),” is untenable from the absence of the article before μήτηρ , besides that it would introduce confusion, and a double allegory). 27. Proof of this relation from Prophecy. The portion of Isaiah from which this is taken, is directly Messianic: indicating in its foreground the reviviscence of Israel after calamity, but in language far surpassing that event. See Stier, Jesaias nicht pseudo-Jesaias, vol. ii. p. 512. The citation is from the LXX, verbatim. ῥῆξον ] sc. φωνήν : cf. many examples in Wetst. Probably the rule of supplying ellipses from the context (following which Kypke and Schö tt. here supply εὐφοσύνην , from εὐφράνθητι , and Isaiah 49:13; Isaiah 52:9; cf. also ‘ erumpere gaudium, Ter. Eun. iii. 5. 2 (Ellic.)) need hardly be applied here; the phrase with φωνήν was so common, as to lead at last to the omission of the substantive. The Hebrew ר ִ נ ּ ָ ה , ‘ into joyful shouting,’ seems not to have been read by the LXX. St. Paul here interprets the barren of Sara, who bore not according to the flesh (= the promise), and the fruitful of Agar (= the law). Clem. Rom., Eph_2. ad Cor. 2, p. 333, takes the στεῖρα of the Gentile Church, ἐπεὶἔρημοςἐδόκειεἶναιἀπὸτοῦθεοῦ , ὁλαὸςἡμῶν , νυνὶδὲπιστεύσαντεςπλείονεςἐγενόμεθατῶνδοκούντωνἔχεινθεόν (the Jewish Church), and similarly Origen (in Rom., lib. vi. 7, vol. iv. p. 578), … ‘ quod multo plures ex gentibus quam ex circumcisione crediderint.’ And this has been the usual interpretation. It only shews how manifold is the ‘ perspective of prophecy:’ this sense neither is incompatible with St. Paul’ s, nor surely would it have been denied by him. (So Chrys., al., in this passage, which is clearly wrong: for ἡμῶν , even without πάντων , must apply to all Christians for the argument to hold.) ὅτιπολ ] not, as E. V., “ many more &c.,” which is inaccurate: but, many are the children of the desolate, more than (rather than; both being numerous, hers are the more numerous) of her, &c. τὸνἄνδρα ] The E. V. has perhaps done best by rendering ‘ an husband,’ though thus the force of the Greek is not given. ‘ The husband’ would mislead, by pointing at the one husband (Abraham) who was common to Sara and Agar, which might do in this passage, but would not in Isaiah: whereas ἐχ . τὸνἄνδρα means, ‘ her (of the two) who has (the) husband,’ the other having none: a fineness of meaning which we cannot give in English. 28. But (transitional: or rather perhaps adversative to the children of her who had an husband, which were last mentioned. With ἡμεῖς , it would be resumptive of ver. 26) ye (see var. readd.), brethren, like (the expression in full, κατὰτ . ὁμοιότηταΜελχισεδέκ , occurs Hebrews 7:15. Wetst. quotes from Galen, ὁἄνθρωποςοὐκατὰλέοντάἐστιτὴνῥώμην , and from Arrian, Hist. Gr. ii., τιμώμενοςὑπὸτοῦδήμουκατὰτὸνπατέραἌγνωνα : see also reff.) Isaac, are children of promise (ἐπαγγ . emphatic:— are children, not κατὰσάρκα , but διὰτῆςἐπαγγελίας , see ver. 23, and below, ver. 29). 29. ὁκατ . σάρ . γεν ., see ver. 23. It has been thought that there is nothing in the Hebrew text to justify so strong a word as ἐδίωκεν . It runs, ‘ and Sarah saw the son of Hagar … מ ְ צ ַ ח ֵ ק ’ (παίζονταμετὰἸσαὰκτοῦυἱοῦαὐτῆς , LXX); and some deny that צ ָ ח ַ ק ever means ‘ he mocked.’ But certainly it does: see Genesis 19:14. And this would be quite ground enough for the ἐδίωκεν , for the spirit of persecution was begun. So that we need not refer to tradition, as many have done (even Ellic., whom see; Jowett, as unfortunately usual with him when impugning the accuracy of St. Paul, asserts rashly and confidently, that the sense in which the Apostle takes the Hebrew is inadmissible), to account for St. Paul’ s expression. τὸνκατὰπνεῦμα , sc. γεννηθέντα , him that was born after the Spirit, i.e. in virtue of the promise, which was given by the Spirit. Or, ‘ by virtue of the Spirit’ s agency:’ but the other is better. οὕτωςκαὶνῦν ] “ nec quicquam est quod tam graviter animos nostras vulnerare debeat, quam Dei contemptus, et adversus ejus gratiam ludibria: nec ullum magis exitiale est persequutionis genus, quam quum impeditur animæ salus.” Calv. 30. ἀλλά , as in E. V., ‘ nevertheless:’ notwithstanding the fact of the persecution, just mentioned. The quotation is adapted from the LXX, where μονἸσαάκ stands for τῆςἐλευθέρας . We need hardly have recourse (with Ellic.) to the fact that God confirmed Sarah’ s words, in order to prove this to be Scripture: the Apostle is allegorizing the whole history, and thus every part of it assumes a significance in the allegory. κληρονομήσῃ ] See Judges 11:2 (LXX), κ . ἐξέβαλοντὸνἸεφθάε , κ . εἶποναὐτῶ , οὐκληρονομήσειςἐντῷοἴκῳτοῦπατρὸςἡμῶν , ὅτιυἱὸςγυναικὸςἑταίραςσύ . “ The distinction drawn by Hermann on Œ d. Col. 853, between οὐμή with future indicative (duration or futurity) and with aorist subjunctive (speedy occurrence), is not applicable to the N. T. on account of (1) various readings (as here): (2) the decided violations of the rule where the MSS. are unanimous, as 1 Thessalonians 4:15: and (3) the obvious prevalence of the use of the subjunctive over the future, both in the N. T. and ‘ fatiscens Græ citas:’ see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 722.” Ellicott. 31. I am inclined to think, against Meyer, De W., Ellic., &c., that this verse is, as commonly taken, the conclusion from what has gone before: and that the διό is bound on to the κληρονομήσῃ preceding. For that we are κληρονόμοι , is an acknowledged fact, established before, ch. 3:29; ver. 7. And if we are, we are not the children of the handmaid, of whom it was said οὐμὴκληρονομ ., but of the free-woman, of whose son the same words asserted that he should inherit. Observe in the first clause παιδίσκης is anarthrous: most likely because emphatically prefixed to its governing noun (cf. ἐθνῶνἀπόστολος , Romans 11:13): but possibly, as indefinite, q. d. we are the children of no bondwoman, but of the freewoman. I prefer the former reason, as most consonant to N. T. diction. V. 5:1-12. De W. calls this the peroration of the whole second part of the Epistle. It consists of earnest exhortation to them, grounded on the conclusion of the foregoing argument, to abide in their evangelical liberty, and warning against being led away by the false teachers. 1. It is almost impossible to determine satisfactorily the reading (see var. readd.). In the fourth Edition I adopted that in the text, as being best attested by the most ancient authorities. With liberty did Christ make you free (i.e. ἐλεύθεροι is your rightful name and ought to be your estimation of yourselves, seeing that ἐλευθερία is your inheritance by virtue of Christ’ s redemption of you). Stand fast, therefore (reff. στήκω is unknown in classical Greek), and be not again (see note on ch. 4:9: in fact, the whole world was under the law in the sense of its being God’ s only revelation to them) involved (reff.) in the yoke of bondage . 2. ἴδε , not ἰδέ , in later Greek: see Winer, § 6. 1. a:— it draws attention to what follows, as a strong statement. ἐγὼΠαῦλος ] ἄντικρυςὑμῖνλέγωκ . διαῤῥήδην , κ . τὸἐμαυτοῦπροστίθημιὄνομα , Thdrt. τὴντοῦοἰκείουπροσώπουἀξιοπιστίανἀντὶπάσηςἀποδείξεωςτίθησι , Theophyl., and so Chrys. There hardly seems to be a reference to his having circumcised Timothy. Calvin says well: “ Ista locutio non parvam emphasin habet; coram enim se opponit, et nomen dat, ne videatur causam dubiam habere. Et quanquam vilescere apud Galatas cœ perat ejus auctoritas, tamen ad refellendos omnes adversarios sufficere asserit.” The present, ἐὰνπεριτέμνησθε , implies the continuance of a habit, q. d. if you will go on being circumcised. He does not say, ‘ if you shall have been circumcised:’ so that Calv.’ s question, ‘ quid hoc vult? Christum non profuturum omnibus circumcisis?’ does not come in. On χρ . ὑμ . οὐδ . ὠφελήσει , Chrys. remarks: ὁπεριτεμνόμενοςὡςνόμονδεδοικὼςπεριτέμνεται , ὁδὲδεδοικὼςἀπιστεῖτῇδυνάμειτῆςχάριτος , ὁδὲἀπιστῶνοὐδὲνκερδαίνειπαρὰτῆςἀπιστουμένης . Nothing can be more directly opposed than this verse to the saying of the Judaizers, Acts 15:1. The exception to the rule in Paul’ s own conduct, Acts 16:3, is sufficiently provided for by the present tense here: see above. 3. δέ , moreover, introduces an addition, and a slight contrast— ‘ not only will Christ not profit … but … ’ On μαρτύρομαι (usually, in this sense, -ροῦμαι ;— -ρομαι having an accusative, whence Bretschn., al., supply τὸνθεόν here, but wrongly), see reff. πάλιν , once more: applies to the verb, not to the μαρτυρία which follows, for that is not a repetition. Thus it will refer to παντὶἀνθρ . as ‘ a more extended application of ὑμῖν ’ (Ellic.), not, as Meyer, to a former inculcation of this by word of mouth at his second visit. περιτεμνομένῳ , not -τμηθέντι , see above— to every man who receives circumcision,— ‘ submits to be circumcised,’ as Ellic. The emphasis is on παντί , substantiating, and carrying further, the last verse. ὅλον has the stress. The circumcised man became a ‘ proselyte of righteousness,’ and bound to keep the whole law. “ This true and serious consequence of circumcision the false Apostles had probably at least dissembled.” Mey. 4. Explains and establishes still further the assertion of ver. 2. Ye were annihilated from Christ (literally: the construction is a pregnant one, ‘ ye were cut off from Christ, and thus made void:’ see ref. 2 Cor. ‘ were,’ viz. at the time when you began your course of ἐννόμῳδικ .), ye who are being justified in the law,— ye fell from (reff.: see 1 Corinthians 13:8, note. Wetst. quotes from Plut., Agis and Cleom. p. 796, τῶνπλείστωνἐξέπεσενἡΣπάρτηκαλῶν : Gracch. p. 834, ἐκπεσεῖνκ . στέρεσθαιτῆςπρὸςτὸνδῆμονεὐνοίας . ‘ So Plato, Rep. vi. 496, ἐκπεσεῖνφιλοσοφίας : Polyb. xii. 14. 7, ἐκπίπτειντοῦκαθήκοντος ,’ Ellic.) grace. 5. Proof of ἐξεπ . τ . χάρ ., by statement e contrario of the condition and hope of Christians. Emphasis (1) on ἡμεῖς , as opposed to οἵτινεςἐννόμῳδικαιοῦσθε ,— (2) on πνεύματι (not ‘ mente’ (Fritz.), nor ‘ spiritually,’ Middleton, al., but by the (Holy) Spirit, reff.), as opposed to σαρκί , the fleshly state of those under the law, see ch. 4:29,— (3) on ἐκπίστεως , as opposed to ἐννόμῳ , which involves ἐξἔργων . ἐλπίδαδικαιοσύνης ] Is this genitive objective, the hope of righteousness, i.e. the hope whose object is perfect righteousness,— or subjective, the hope of righteousness, i.e. the hope which the righteous entertain— viz. that of eternal life? Certainly I think the former: for this reason, that ἐλπίδα has the emphasis, and ἐλπίδαδικ . ἀπεκδεχ . answers to δικαιοῦσθε above— ‘ Ye think ye have your righteousness in the law: we, on the contrary, anxiously wait for the hope of righteousness (full and perfect).’ The phrase ἀπεκδέχεσθαιἐλπίδα may be paralleled, Acts 24:15; Titus 2:13; Eur. Alcest. 130, τίν ʼ ἔτιβίουἐλπίδαπροσδέχωμαι ; Polyb. viii. 21. 7, ταῖςπροσδοκωμέναιςἐλπίσιν . 6. Confirmation of the words ἐκπίστεως , ver. 5. ἐνχριστῷ , in Christ, as an element, in union with Christ, = in the state of a Christian: notice χρ . Ἰησ ., not Ἰησ . χρ .:— in Christ, and that Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. ἐνεργουμένη , not passive, but middle, as always in N. T. See reff. and notes on those places: also Fritzsche’ s note on Romans 7:5. “ ἐνεργεῖν , vim exercere de personis, ἐνεργεῖσθαι , ex se (aut suam) vim exercere de rebus collocavit, Galatians 5:6; Colossians 1:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:13 al., ut h. l. Passivo (cf. ἐνεργεῖταιπόλεμος , Polyb. i. 13. 5; Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3) nunquam Paulus usus est.” The older Romanist Commentators (Bellarm., Est.) insisted on the passive sense as favouring the dogma of fides formata, for which it is cited by the Council of Trent, sess. vi. cap. 7, de Justific. And the modern Romanist Commentators, though abandoning the passive sense, still claim the passage on their side (e.g. Windischmann); but without reason; love is the modus operandi of faith, that which justifies, however, is not love, but faith; nor can a passage be produced, where St. Paul says we are justified by ‘ faith working by love,’ but it is ever by faith only. One is astonished at the boldness of such a generally calm and fair writer as Windischmann, in claiming the passage for the Tridentine doctrine, even when the passive interpretation, which was all it had to lay hold on, is given up. As parallels to our passage, see Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 7:19. 7-12. He laments their deflexion from their once promising course, and denounces severely their perverters. Ye were running well (‘ hoc est, omnia apud vos erant in felici statu et successu, vivebatis optime, contendebatis recta ad vitam æ ternam quam vobis pollicebatur verbum,’ &c. Luther): who (see ch. 3:1, the question expresses astonishment) hindered you that ye should not (μή before πείθεσθαι is not pleonastic, but the construction, so often occurring, of a negative after verbs of hindering, is in fact a pregnant one, μὴπείθεσθαι being the result of the hindrance: q. d. ὥστεμὴπ . or καὶἐποίησεμὴπ . See Bernhardy, Syntax, ix. 6 b, who quotes one example very apposite to this,— ἐμποδὼνἡμῖνγένηταιτὴνθεὸνμὴ ʼ ξελκύσαι , Aristoph) obey the truth (i.e. submit yourselves to the true Gospel of Christ. These words, which Chrys. omits here, have been transferred hence to ch. 3:1. See var. readd. there. On that account they are certainly genuine here)? 8. The persuasion (to which you are yielding— active; not your persuasion, passive. πεισμονή may mean either. Ellic. says: “ As the similar form πλησμονή means both satietas (the state) and also expletio (the act), Colossians 2:23; Plato, Sympos. 186 c. πλ . καὶκένωσις ,— so πεισμονή may mean the state of being persuaded, i.e. conviction, or the act of persuading, ‘ persuadendi sollertia’ (Schö tt.): cf. Chrys. on 1 Thessalonians 1:3, οὐπεισμονὴἀνθρωπίνη … ἦνἡπείθουσα .” But here, ἡπεισμ . being connected with ὁκαλῶνὑμᾶς , and answering to the act of ἐγκόπτειν in the last verse, is better taken actively) is not from (does not come from, is not originated by) Him who calleth you (i.e. God: see ch. 1:6 and note). 9] ζύμη may allude either to men (Jer., Aug., Grot., Est., Beng., De W., al.), or to doctrine. In the parallel place in 1 Corinthians 5:6, it is moral influence; so also where our Lord uses the same figure, Matthew 16:12, where ζύμη = διδαχή . Nor can there be any objection to taking it as abstract, and φύραμα concrete:— a little false doctrine corrupts the whole mass (of Christians). So Chrys. , Thl., Luth., Calv., all. 10. “ After the warning of vv. 8, 9, Paul assures his readers that he has confidence in them, but that their perverters shall not escape punishment. Divide et impera!” Meyer. ἐγώ , emphatic, I, for my part; ‘ quod ad me attinet, … ’ εἰς , with regard to, see reff., and Bernhardy, p. 220. On ἐνκυρίῳ , see 2 Thessalonians 3:4:— it is the element or sphere in which his confidence is conditioned. οὐδὲνἄλλοφρον .] See ἑτέρως , Philippians 3:15: of which this ἄλλο is a kind of softening. We take the meaning here to be, ye will be of no other mind than this, viz. which I enjoin on you,— not in vv. 8, 9 only, but in this Epistle, and in his preaching generally. ὁδὲταράσσων need not be interpreted as referring necessarily to any one ἐπίσημος among the Judaizers (as Olsh., al.), but simply as individualizing the warning, and carrying home the denunciation to each one’ s heart among the perverters. Cf. οἱἀναστατοῦντες below, and ch. 1:7; 4:17. τὸκρῖμα , the sentence, understood to be unfavourable, is a burden laid on the judged person, which he βαστάζει , bears. The ὅστιςἐὰνᾖ generalizes the declaration to the fullest extent: see ch. 1:8, 9. 11. The connexion appears to be this: the Apostle had apparently been charged with being a favourer of circumcision in other churches; as shewn e.g. by his having circumcised Timothy. After the preceding sharp denunciation of ὁταράσσωνὑμᾶς , and ὅστιςἐὰνᾖ , it is open to the adversaries to say, that Paul himself was one of their ταράσσοντες , by his inconsistency. In the abruptness then of his fervid thoughts he breaks out in this self-defence. ἐγώ , emphatic as before. περιτομήν has the chief emphasis, as the new element in the sentence, and not κηρύσσω , as Chrys. , al.,— its position not allowing this. The first ἔτι is best understood, as referring, not to any change in his preaching as an Apostle (for he appears always to have been of the same mind, and certainly was from the first persecuted by the Jews), but to the change since his conversion, before which he was a strenuous fautor of Judaism. Olsh. objects to this, that κηρύσσω could not be used of that period. But this (even if it be necessary to press κηρύσ . so far into matter of fact) cannot be said with any certainty:— the course of Saul as a zealot may have often led him even to preach, if not circumcision in its present debated position, yet that strict Judaism of which it formed a part. τίἔτιδιώκ .] ἔτι is logical, as in reff. (De W.): i.e., what further excuse is there for my being (as I am) persecuted (by the Jews)? For, if this is so, if I still preach circumcision, ἄρα , then is brought to nought, is done away, the offence (reff. stumbling-block, σκάνδ . has the emphasis) of the cross— because, if circumcision, and not faith in Christ crucified, is the condition of salvation, then the Cross has lost its offensive character to the Jew: οὐδὲγὰροὕτωςὁσταυρὸςἦνὁσκανδαλίζωντοὺςἸουδαίους , ὡςτὸμὴδεῖνπείθεσθαιτοῖςπατρῴοιςνόμοις . καὶγὰρτὸνΣτέφανονπροσενέγκοντες , οὐκεἶπονὅτιοὗτοςτὸνἐσταυρωμένονπροσκυνεῖ , ἀλλ ʼ ὅτικατὰτοῦνόμουκ . τοῦτόπουλέγειτοῦἁγίου . Chrys. 12. The καί introduces a climax— I would (reff.) that they who are unsettling you would even … As to ἀποκόψονται , (1) it cannot be passive, as E. V., ‘ were even cut off.’ (2) It can hardly mean ‘ would cut themselves off from your communion,’ as the καί is against so mild a wish, besides that this sense of the word is unexampled. (3) There is certainly an allusion to ἐνέκοψεν in ver. 7, so that in reading aloud the Greek, the stress would be, ὄφελ . κ . ἀποκόψονταιοἱἀν . ὑμ . But (4) this allusion is one only of sound, and on account of the καί , all the more likely to be to some well-known and harsh meaning of the word, even as far as to which the Apostle’ s wish extends. And (5) such a meaning of the word is that in which (agreeably to its primitive classical sense, of hewing off limbs, see Lidd. and Scott) it is used by the LXX, ref. Deut., by Arrian, Epict. ii. 20, by Hesych., ὁἀπόκοπος , ἤτοιὁεὐνοῦχος — by Philo, de legg. special. ad vi. vii. dec. cap. § 7, vol. ii. p. 306, τὰγεννητικὰπροσαπέκοψαν ,— de vict. offerent. § 13, p. 261, θλαδίαςκ . ἀποκεκομμένοςτὰγεννητικά (Wetst.). It seems to me that this sense must be adopted, in spite of the protests raised against it; e.g. that of Mr. Bagge recently, who thinks it “ involves a positive insult to St. Paul” (?). And so Chrys., and the great consensus of ancient and modern Commentators: and, as Jowett very properly observes, “ the common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of language in the LXX, is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the delicacy of modern times.” ὄφελον is used in the N. T. as a mere particle: see reff.: also Hermann on Viger, p. 756-7, who says: “ omnino observandum est, ὤφελον nonnisi tunc adhiberi, quum quis optat ut fuerit aliquid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est.” The construction with a future is very unusual; in Lucian, Solœ c. 1, ὄφελονκαὶνῦνἀκολουθῆσαιδυνήσῃ is given as an example of a solœ cism. I need hardly enter a caution against the punctuation of a few mss. and editions, by which ὄφελον is taken alone, and the following future supposed to be assertive, as βαστάσει above, ver. 10. The reff. will shew, how alien such an usage is from the usage of the N. T. ἀναστατοῦντες , ἀνατρέποντες , Hesych. It belongs to later Greek: the classical expression is ἀνάστατονποιεῖν , Polyb. iii. 81. 6 al.: or τιθέναι , Soph. Antig. 670: and it is said to belong to the Macedonian dialect. Ellic., referring to Tittmann, p. 266: where however I can find no such assertion. 13-Ch. 6:5. The third or hortatory portion of the Epistle, not however separated from the former, but united to it by the current of thought:— and, 13-15. Though free, be one another’ s servants in love. γάρ gives the reason why the Apostle was so fervent in his denunciation of these disturbers; because they were striking at the very root of their Christian calling, which was for (on condition of; hardly, for the purpose of; see reff.) freedom. Only (make not) (so μή with the verb omitted and an accusative in μή ʼ μοιγεμύθους , Aristoph. Vesp. 1179; μὴτριβὰςἔτι , Soph. Antig. 577; μήμοιμυρίουςμηδὲδισμυρίουςξένους , Demosth. Php_1. § 19. See more examples in Hartung, ii. 153) your liberty into (or, use it not for) an occasion (opportunity) for the flesh (for giving way to carnal passions), but by means of (your) love, be in bondage to one another. Chrys. remarks, πάλινἐνταῦθααἰνίττεται , ὅτιφιλονεικίακ . στάσιςκ . φιλαρχίακ . ἀπόνοιαταύτηςαἰτίατῆςπλάνηςαὐτοῖςἐγένετο · ἡγὰρτῶναἱρέσεωνμήτηρἡτῆςφιλαρχίαςἐστὶνἐπιθυμία . 14. See Romans 13:8, Romans 13:9. The rec. reading πληροῦται would mean merely ‘ is in course of being fulfilled,’ whereas now it is, ‘ is fulfilled:’ not ‘ comprehended’ (Luth., Calv., Olsh., Winer, al.). “ The question, how the Apostle can rightly say of the whole law, that it is fulfilled by loving one’ s neighbour, must not be answered by understanding νόμος of the Christian law (Koppe), or of the moral law only (Estius, al.), or of the second table of the decalogue (Beza, al.), or of every divinely revealed law in general (Schö tt.);— for ὁπᾶςνόμος cannot from the circumstances of the whole Epistle, mean any thing but ‘ the whole law of Moses:’ — but by placing ourselves on the lofty spiritual level from which St. Paul looked down, and saw all other commands of the law so far subordinated to the law of love, that whoever had fulfilled this command, must be treated as having fulfilled the whole.” Meyer: who also remarks that τὸνπλησίονσου applies to fellow-Christians; cf. ἀλλήλους below. 15. ἀλλήλους has both times the emphasis. The form of the sentence is very like Matthew 26:52,— πάντεςοἱλαβόντεςμάχαιραν , ἐνμαχαίρᾳἀπολοῦνται , except that there λαβόντες , as having the stress, precedes. Chrys. says, ταῖςλέξεσινἐμφαντικῶςἐχρήσατο . οὐγὰρεἶπεδάκνετεμόνον , ὅπερἐστὶθυμουμένου , ἀλλὰκαὶκατεσθίετε , ὅπερἐστὶνἐμμένοντοςτῇπονηρίᾳ . ὁμὲνγὰρδάκνων , ὀργῆςἐπλήρωσεπάθος · ὁδὲκατεσθίων , θηριωδίαςἐσχάτηςπαρέσχενἀπόδειξιν , δήγματαδὲκ . βρώσειςοὐτὰςσωματικάςφησιν , ἀλλὰτὰςπολὺχαλεπωτέρας . οὐγὰροὕτωςὁἀνθρωπίνηςἀπογευσάμενοςσαρκὸςἔβλαψεν , ὡςὁδήγματαεἰςτὴνψυχὴνπηγνύς · ὅσονγὰρψυχὴτιμιωτέρασώματος , τοσούτῳχαλεπωτέραἡταύτηςβλάβη . ἀναλωθ .] The literal sense must be kept,— consumed (by one another),— your spiritual life altogether annihilated: ἡγὰρδιάστασιςκ . ἡμάχηφθοροποιὸνκ . ἀναλωτικὸνκαὶτῶνδεχομένωναὐτὴνκ . τῶνεἰσαγόντων , καὶσητὸςμᾶλλονἅπανταἀνατρώγει . Chrys. 16-26. Exhortation to a spiritual life, and warning against the works of the flesh. 16. λέγωδέ refers to ver. 13— repeating, and explaining it— q. d., ‘ What I mean, is this.’ πνεύματι , the normal dative, of the rule, or manner, after or in which: Meyer quotes Hom. II. ο . 194, οὔτιΔιὸςβέομαιφρεσίν :— by the Spirit. But πν . is not man’ s ‘ spiritual part,’ as Beza, Rü ck., De W., al.; nor is πνεύματι ‘ after a spiritual manner,’ Peile,— nor will ἡἐνοικοῦσαχάρις give the force of πνεῦμα (Thdrt.): it is (as in ver. 5) the Holy Spirit of God: this will be clear on comparing with our vv. 16-18, the more expanded parallel passage, Romans 7:22-11. The history of the verbal usage is, that πνεῦμα , as χριστός and θεός , came to be used as a proper name: so that the supposed distinction between τὸπν . as the objective (the Holy Ghost), and πν . as the subjective (man’ s spirit), does not hold. σαρκός ] the natural man:— that whole state of being in the flesh, out of which spring the practices and thoughts of ver. 19. οὐμὴτελέσητε ] Is this (1) merely future in meaning, and a sequence on πνεύματιπεριπ ., ‘ and ye shall not fulfil,’ — or is it (2) imperative, ‘ and fulfil not?’ Ellic. in his note has shewn that this latter meaning is allowable, it being doubtful even in classical Greek whether there are not some instances of οὐμή with the second person subjunctive imperatively used, and the tendency of later Greek being rather to use the subjunctive aorist for the future. And Meyer defends it on exegetical grounds. But surely (1) is much to be preferred on these same grounds. For the next and following verses go to shew just what this verse will then assert, viz. that the Spirit and the flesh exclude one another. 17. Substantiation of the preceding,— that if ye walk by the Spirit, ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. The second γάρ (see var. readd.) gives a reason for the continual ἐπιθυμεῖν of these two against one another: viz., that they are opposites. ἵνα ] not ‘ so that:’ — this is the result: but more is expressed by ἵνα . Winer gives the meaning well: “ Atque hujus luctæ hoc est consilium, ut &c. Scil. τὸπν . impedit vos, quo minus perficiatis τὰτῆςσαρκός (ea, quæ ἡσάρξ perficere cupit), contra ἡσάρξ adversatur vobis ubi τὰτοῦπνεύματος peragere studetis;” and Bengel: “ Spiritus obnititur carni et actioni malæ : caro, Spiritui et action! bonæ , ut neque illa neque hæ c peragatur.” The necessity of supposing an ecbatic meaning for ἵνα in theology is obviated by remembering, that with God, results are all purposed. See this verse expanded in Romans 7:8. as above: in 7:20 we have nearly the same words, and the same construction. It is true that θέλειν there applies only to one side, the better will, striving after good: whereas here it must be taken ‘ sensu communi,’ for ‘ will’ in general, to whichever way inclined. So that our verse requires expansion, both in the direction of Rom 7:15-20,— and in the other direction, οὐγὰρὃθέλω (after the natural man) ποιῶκακόν · ἀλλ ʼ ὃοὐθέλωἀγαθόν , τοῦτοποιῶ ,— to make it logically complete. 18. By this verse, the locus respecting the flesh and the Spirit is interwoven into the general argument, thus (cf. ver. 23): the law is made for the flesh, and the works of the flesh: the Spirit and flesh ἀντίκεινται : if (δέ bringing out the contrast between the treatment of both in ver. 17, and the selection of one side in this verse) then ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. This he proceeds to substantiate, by specifying the works of the flesh and of the Spirit. This interpretation is better than the merely practical one of Chrys., al., ὁγὰρπνεῦμαἔχωνὡςχρή , σβέννυσιδιὰτούτουπονηρὰνἐπιθυμίανἅπασαν · ὁδὲτούτωνἀπαλλαγεὶςοὐδεῖταιτῆςἀπὸτοῦνόμουβοηθείας , ὑψηλότεροςπολλῷτῆςἐκείνουπαραγγελίαςγενόμενος ,— for it is a very different thing οὐδεῖσθαινόμου , from οὐκεἶναιὑπὸνόμον . 19-23. substantiates (see above) ver. 18. 19. φανερά (emphatic), plain to all, not needing, like the more hidden fruits of the Spirit, to be educed and specified: and therefore more clearly amenable to law, which takes cognizance of τὰφανερά . ἅτινάἐστιν ] almost = ‘ for example:’ ‘ qualia sunt:’ see on ch. 4:24. ἀκαθ ., impurity in general. ἀσέλγ ., ἑτοιμότηςπρὸςπᾶσανἡδονήν , Etym. Mag. It does not seem to include necessarily the idea of lasciviousness: “ Demosthenes, making mention of the blow which Meidias had given him, characterizes it as in keeping with the well-known ἀσέλγεια of the man (Meid. 514). Elsewhere he joins δεσποτικῶς and ἀσελγῶς and προπετῶς .” Trench, New Test. Synonyms, p. 64. The best word for it seems to be wantonness, ‘ protervitas.’ 20. εἰδωλ ., in its proper meaning of idolatry: not, as Olsh., ‘ sins of lust,’ because of the unclean orgies of idolatry. φαρμ ., either ‘ poisonings,’ or ‘ sorceries.’ The latter is preferable, as more frequently its sense in the LXX and N. T. (reff.), and because (Mey.) Asia was particularly addicted to sorceries (Acts 19:19). θυμοί ] passionate outbreaks. θυμὸςμένἐστιπρόσκαιρος , ὀργὴδὲπολυχρόνιοςμνησικακία , Ammonius. διαφέρειδὲθυμὸςὀργῆς , τῷθυμὸνμὲνεἶναιὀργὴνἀναθυμιωμένηνκ . ἔτιἐκκαιομένην , ὀργὴνδὲὄρεξινἀντιτιμωρήσεως . Orig. sel. in Psa_2, vol. ii. 541: both cited by Trench, Syn. p. 146. ζῆλος , jealousy (in bad sense)— reff. ἐριθεῖαι ] not ‘ strife,’ as E. V. and commonly, in error: see note on Romans 2:8,— but cabals, unworthy compassings of selfish ends. Wetst. N. T. ii. p. 147, traces in a note the later meanings of αἵρεσις . Here διχοστ ., divisions, seems to lead to αἱρέσ ., parties, composed of those who have chosen their self-willed line and adhere to it. Trench quotes Aug. (cont. Crescon. Don. ii. 7 (9), vol. ix. p. 471): “ Schisma est recens congregationis ex aliquâ sententiarum diversitate dissensio: hæ resis autem schisma inveteratum.” But we must not think of an ecclesiastical meaning only, or chiefly here. 21. φθόν ., (φόν .)] see Romans 1:29, where we have the same alliteration. ἃπρολ .] The construction of ἅ is exactly as John 8:54, ὃνὑμεῖςλέγετεὅτιθεὸςὑμῶνἐστιν :— it is governed, but only as matter of reference, by προλέγω ,— not to be joined by attraction with πράσσοντες , as Olsh., al. προλ . κ . προεῖπον ] I forewarn you (now), and did forewarn you (when I was with you): the προ - in both cases pointing on to the great day of retribution. τὰτοιαῦτα ] The article generalizes τοιαῦτα , the things of this kind, i.e. all such things. See Ellic.’ s note. βασ . θ . οὐκλ .] See reff. 22. καρπός , not ἔργα , τοῦπνεύματος . The works of the flesh are no καρπός , see Romans 6:21. These are the only real fruit of men: see John 15:1-8: compare also John 3:20, note. They are, or are manifested in, ἔργα : but they are much more: whereas those others are nothing more, as to any abiding result for good. ἀγάπη — at the head, as chief— 1Co_13. See Romans 12:9. χαρά , better merely joy, than as Winer, al., ‘ voluptas ex aliorum commodis percepta,’ as opposed to φθόνος . We must not seek for a detailed logical opposition in the two lists, which would be quite alien from the fervid style of St. Paul. χρηστότης , ἀγαθωσ .] Jerome, comm. in loc., says, “ Benignitas sive suavitas, quia apud Græ cos χρηστότης utrumque sonat, virtus est lenis, blanda, tranquilla, et omnium bonorum apta consortio: invitans ad familiaritatem sui, dulcis alloquio, moribus temperata. Non multum bonitas a benignitate diversa est, quia et ipsa ad benefaciendum videtur exposita. Sed in eo differt; quia potest bonitas esse tristior, et fronte severis moribus irrugata bene quidem facere et præ stare quod poscitur: non tamen suavis esse consortio, et sua cunctos invitare dulcedine.” Plato, deff. 412 e, defines χρηστότης , ἤθουςἀπλαστίαμετ ʼ εὐλογιστίας . ἀγαθωσ . is a Hellenistic word, see reff. Perhaps kindness and goodness would best represent the two words. πίστις , in the widest sense: faith, towards God and man: of love it is said, 1 Corinthians 13:7, πάνταπιστεύει . 23. πραΰτης seems to be well represented by meekness,— again, towards God and man: and ἐγκρ . by temperance,— the holding in of the lusts and desires. τῶντοιούτ . answers to τὰτοιαῦτα above, and should therefore be taken as neuter, not masculine, as Chrys., al. This verse (see above on ver. 18) substantiates οὐκἐστὲὑπὸνόμον — for if you are led by the Spirit, these are its fruits in you, and against these the law has nothing to say: see 1 Timothy 1:9, 1 Timothy 1:10. 24. Further confirmation of this last result, and transition to the exhortations of vv. 25, 26. But (contrast, the one universal choice of Christians, in distinction from the two catalogues) they who are Christ’ s crucified (when they became Christ’ s,— at their baptism, see Romans 6:2: not so well, ‘ have crucified,’ as E. V.) the flesh, with its passions and its desires,— and therefore are entirely severed from and dead to the law, which is for the fleshly, and those passions and desires— on which last he founds,— 25. If (no connecting particle— giving more vividness to the inference) we live (emphatic— if, as we saw, having slain the flesh, our life depends on the Spirit) in (said to be a species of instrumental dative; but such usage is of very rare occurrence, and hardly ever undoubted. Here the dative is probably employed more as corresponding to the dative in the other member, than with strict accuracy. But it may be justified thus: our inner life, which is hid with Christ in God, Colossians 3:3, is lived πνεύματι (normal dative), the Spirit being its generator and upholder) the Spirit,— in the Spirit (emphatic) let us also walk (in our conduct in life: let our practical walk, which is led κατὰπροαίρεσιν of our own, be in harmony with that higher life in which we live before God by faith, and in the Spirit). 26. connected with στοιχῶμεν above, by the first person,— and with ch. 6:1, by the sense; and so forming a transition to the admonitions which follow. μὴγινώμ ., let us not become— efficiamur, vulg., Erasm.,— a mild, and at the same time a solemn method of warning. For while it seems to concede that they were not this as yet, it assumes that the process was going on which would speedily make them so. ‘ Let us not be,’ of the E. V., misses this. κενόδοξοι would include, as De W. observes, all worldly honour, as not an object for the Christian to seek, 1 Corinthians 1:31; 2 Corinthians 10:17. ἀλλήλ . προκαλ .] εἰςφιλονεικίαςκ . ἔρεις , Chrys. So ἐςδίκαςπροκαλουμένωντῶνἈθηναίων , Thuc. vii. 18: εἰςμάχηνπροὐκαλεῖτο , Xen. (Wetst.) “ φθονεῖν is the correlative act on the part of the weak, to the προκαλεῖσθαι on the part of the strong. The strong vauntingly challenged their weaker brethren they could only reply with envy.” Ellicott. These words are addressed to all the Galatians:— the danger was common to both parties, the obedient and disobedient, the orthodox and the Judaizers. 6:1-5. Exhortation to forbearance and humility. Brethren (bespeaks their attention by a friendly address; marking also the opening of a new subject, connected however with the foregoing: see above), if a man be even surprised (προλημφθῇ has the emphasis, on account of the καί . This makes it necessary to assign a meaning to it which shall justify its emphatic position. And such meaning is clearly not found in the ordinary renderings. E.g. Chrysostom,— ἐὰνσυναρπαγῇ ,— so E. V. ‘ overtaken,’ and De Wette, al., which could not be emphatic, but would be palliative: Grotius,— ‘ si quis antea (h.e. antequam hæ c ep. ad vos veniat) deprehensus fuerit:’ Winer,— ‘ etiam si (si vel) quis antea deprehensus fuerit in peccato, eum tamen (iterum peccantem) corrigite:’ Olsh., who regards the προ - almost as expletive, betokening merely that the λαμβάνεσθαι comes in time before the καταρτίζειν . The only meaning which satisfies the emphasis is that of being caught in the fact, ‘ flagrante delicto,’ before he can escape: which, though unusual, seems justified by ref. Wisd.: and so Meyer, Ellic., al.) in any transgression (with the meaning ‘ overtaken’ for προλημφθῇ , falls also that of ‘ inadvertence’ for παράπτωμα . The stronger meaning of ‘ sin,’ is far commoner in St. Paul: see ref. Rom. and ib. 5:15, 16, 20; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 1:2:1, Ephesians 1:5; Colossians 2:13 bis), do ye, the spiritual ones (said not in irony, but bonâ fide: referring not to the clergy only, but to every believer), restore (Beza, Hammond, Bengel, al., have imagined an allusion to a dislocated limb being reduced into place: but the simple ethical sense is abundantly justified by examples: see Herodot., cited on 1 Corinthians 1:10; Stob. i. 85, καταρτίζεινφίλουςδιαφερομένους (Ellic.)) such a person (see especially 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 5:11) in the spirit of meekness ,— looking to thyself (we have the same singling out of individuals from a multitude previously addressed in Thucyd. i. 42, ὧνἐνθυμηθέντες , καὶνεώτερόςτιςπαρὰπρεσβυτέρονμαθών , ἀξιούτω … ἡμᾶςἀμύνεσθαι . See more examples in Bernhardy, p. 421), lest thou also be tempted (on a similar occasion: notice the aorist). 2. ἀλλήλων , prefixed and emphatic, has not been enough attended to. You want to become disciples of that Law which imposes heavy burdens on men: if you will bear burdens, bear one another’ s burdens, and thus fulfil (see var. readd.: notice aorist: by this act fulfil) the law of Christ,— a far higher and better law, whose only burden is love. The position of ἀλλήλων I conceive fixes this meaning, by throwing τὰβάρη into the shade, as a term common to the two laws. As to the βάρη , the more general the meaning we give to it, the better it will accord with the sense of the command. The matter mentioned in the last verse led on to this: but this grasps far wider, extending to all the burdens which we can, by help and sympathy, bear for one another. There are some which we cannot: see below. ἀναπληρ ., thoroughly fulfil: Ellic. quotes Plut. Poplicol. ii., ἀνεπλήρωσετὴνβουλὴνὀλιγανδροῦσαν , ‘ filled up the Senate.’ 3. The chief hindrance to sympathy with the burdens of others, is self-conceit: that must be got rid of. εἶναιτί , see reff. μηδὲνὤν ] there is (perhaps: but this must not be over-pressed, see Ellic.) a fine irony in the subjective μηδέν — ‘ being, if he would come to himself, and look on the real fact, nothing:’ — whereas οὐδὲνὤν expresses more the objective fact,— his real absolute worthlessness. See examples of both expressions in Wetst. h. l. φρεναπατᾷ ] not found elsewhere: see ref. and James 1:26. The word seems to mean just as ἀπατῶνκαρδίαναὐτοῦ there: I should hardly hold Ellic.’ s distinction: both are subjective deceits, and only to be got rid of by testing them with plain matter of fact. 4. The test applied: emphasis on τὸἔργον , which (as Mey.) is the complex, the whole practical result of his life, see reff. δοκ .] put to the trial (reff.): not ‘ render δόκιμον ,’ which the word will not bear. κ . τότε ] And then (after he has done this) he will have his matter of boasting (the article makes it subjective: the καὐχημα , that whereof to boast, not without a slight irony,— whatever matter of boasting he finds, after such a testing, will be) in reference to himself alone (εἰςἑαυ . μόν . emphatic— corresponds to εἰςτὸνἕτ . below), and not in reference to the other, (or, his neighbour— the man with whom he was comparing himself: general in its meaning, but particular in each case of comparison). 5. And this is the more advisable, because in the nature of things, each man’ s own load (of infirmities and imperfections and sins: not of ‘ responsibility,’ which is alien from the context) will (in ordinary life: not ‘ at the last day,’ which is here irrelevant, and would surely have been otherwise expressed: the βαστάσει must correspond with the βαστάζετε above, and be a taking up and carrying, not an ultimate bearing the consequences of) come upon himself to bear. φορτίον here, hardly with any allusion to Æ sop’ s well-known fable (C. and H. ii. 182, edn. 2),— but,— as distinguished from βάρος , in which there is an idea of grievance conveyed,— the load imposed on each by his own fault. The future, in this sense of that which must be in the nature of things, is discussed by Bernhardy, pp. 377-8. 6-10. Exhortation (in pursuance of the command in ver. 2, see below), to liberality towards their teachers, and to beneficence in general. 6. κοινωνείτω most likely intransitive, as there does not appear to be an instance of its transitive use in the N. T. (certainly not Romans 12:13). But the two senses come nearly to the same: he who shares in the necessities of the saints, can only do so by making that necessity partly his own, i.e., by depriving himself to that extent, and communicating to them. On κατηχούμ . and κατηχῶν , see Suicer, Thes. sub voce. This meaning, of ‘ giving oral instruction,’ is confined to later Greek: see Lidd. and Scott. δέ , as bringing out a contrast to the individuality of the last verse. τὸνλόγον , in its very usual sense of the Gospel,— the word of life. It is the accusative of reference or of second government, after κατηχούμενος , as in Acts 18:25. ἐνπᾶσ . ἀγ .] in all good things: the things of this life mainly, as the context shews. Nor does this meaning produce an abrupt break between vv. 5 and 6, and 6 and 7, as Meyer maintains. From the mention of bearing one another’ s burdens, he naturally passes to one way, and one case, in which those burdens may be borne— viz. by relieving the necessities of their ministers (thus almost all Commentators); and then, 7. regarding our good deeds done for Christ as a seed sown for eternity, he warns them not to be deceived: in this, as in other seed-times, God’ s order of things cannot be set at nought: whatever we sow, that same shall we reap. οὐμυκτηρ .] is not mocked:— though men subjectively mock God, this mocking has no objective existence: there is no such thing as mocking of God in reality. μυκτηρίζεινλέγομεντοὺςἐντῷδιαπαίζειντινὰςτοῦτόπωςτὸμέροςἐπισπῶντας , Etym. Mag. (cited by Ellic.) Pollux quotes the word from Lysias: in medicine it is used for bleeding at the nose (Hippocrat. p. 1240 d). γάρ , ‘ and in this it will be shewn.’ σπείρῃ , present subjunctive (cf. σπείρων below). τοῦτ . κ . θ .] this (emphatic, this and nothing else) shall he also (by the same rule) reap, viz. eventually, at the great harvest. The final judgment is necessarily now introduced by the similitude (ὁθερισμὸς — συντέλειααἰῶνόςἐστιν , Matthew 13:39), but does not any the more belong to the context in ver. 5. 8. ὅτι , for— i.e. and this will be an example of the universal rule. ὁσπείρων , he that (now) soweth,— is now sowing. εἰς , unto,— with a view to— not local, ‘ drops his seed into,’ ‘ tanquam in agrum,’ Bengel: this in the N. T. is given by ἐν (Matthew 13:24, Matthew 13:27. Mark 4:15), or ἐπί (Matthew 13:20, Matthew 13:23.Mark 4:16 Mark 4:16, Mark 4:20, Mark 4:31): εἰςτὰςἀκάνθας (Matthew 13:22.Mark 4:18 Mark 4:18) rather being ‘ among the thorns’ (see Ellic.). ἑαυτοῦ , not apparently with any especial emphasis— to his own flesh. φθοράν ] (not ἀπώλειαν — as Philippians 3:19) corruption— because the flesh is a prey to corruption, and with it all fleshly desires and practices come to nothing (De W.): see 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 15:50:— or perhaps in the stronger sense of φθορά (see 1 Corinthians 3:17; 2 Peter 2:12), destruction (Meyer). ἐκτ . πν .] See Romans 8:11, Romans 8:15-17. 9. But (in our case, let there be no chance of the alternative: see Hartung, Partikell. i. 166) in well-doing let us not be faint-hearted (on ἐγκ . and ἐκκ ., see note, 2 Corinthians 4:1. It seems doubtful, whether such a word as ἐκκακέω exists at all in Greek, and whether its use by later writers and place in lexicons is not entirely due to these doubtful readings. See Ellic.’ s note): for in due time (an expression of the pastoral Epistles, see reff.,— and Prolegomena to those Epistles, § i. 32, and note) we shall reap, if we do not faint . Thdrt., al., join μὴἐκλ . with θερίσομεν ,— πόνουδίχαθερίσομεντὰσπειρόμενα · … ἐπὶμὲνγὰρτῶναἰσθητῶνσπερμάτωνκαὶὁσπόροςἔχειπόνου , κ . ὁἀμητὸςὡσαύτως · διαλύειγὰρπολλάκιςτοὺςἀμῶνταςκ . τὸτῆςὥραςθερμόν · ἀλλ ʼ ἐκεῖνοςοὐτοιοῦτοςὁἀμητός · πόνουγάρἐστικ . ἱδρῶτοςἐλεύθερος . But though such a rendering would be unobjectionable (not requiring οὐ for μή , as Rü ck., al., for as Mey. rightly, the particle being subjective, μή would be in place), it would give a very vapid sense: whereas the other eminently suits the exhortation μὴἐγκ . 10. ἄραοὖν , so then: “ the proper meaning of ἄρα , ‘ rebus ita comparatis,’ is here distinctly apparent: its weaker ratiocinative force being supported by the collective power of οὖν .” Ellic. ὡς ] not ‘ while’ (Olsh., al.), nor, ‘ according as,’ i.e. ‘ quotiescunque,’ nor, ‘ since,’ causal (De W., Winer, al.),— but as, i.e. in proportion as: let our beneficence be in proportion to our καιρός — let the seed-time have its καιρὸςἴδιος , as well as the harvest, ver. 9. Thus καιρός is a common term between the two verses. τὸἀγ .] the good thing: as we say, ‘ he did the right thing:’ that which is (in each case) good. τ . οἰκείουςτ . πίστ .] those who belong to the faith: there does not seem to be any allusion to a household, as in E. V. In Isaiah 58:7 ‘ thy fellow-men’ are called οἱοἰκεῖοιτοῦσπέρματόςσου : so also in the examples from the later classics in Wetst., οἰκεῖοιφιλοσοφίας ,— γεωγραφίας ,— ὀλιγαρχίας , τυραννίδος ,— τρυφῆς . 11-end.] Postscript and benediction. 11. See in how large letters (in what great and apparently unsightly characters: see note on next verse. πηλίκοις will not bear the rendering (1) ‘ how many,’ πόσοις ,— or (2) ‘ what sort,’ ποίοις :— but only (3) how great (reff.). Nor can (3) be made to mean (1) by taking γράμματα for ‘ Epistle,’ a sense unknown to St. Paul) I wrote (not strictly the epistolary scribebam, nor referring to the following verses only: but the aorist spoken as at the time when they would receive the Epistle, and referring I believe to the whole of it, see also below) with my own hand. I do not see how it is possible to avoid the inference that these words apply to the whole Epistle. If they had reference only to the passage in which they occur, would not γράφω have been used, as in 2 Thessalonians 3:17? Again, there is no break in style here, indicating the end of the dictated portion, and the beginning of the written, as in Romans 16:25; 2 Thessalonians 3:17 al. I should rather believe, that on account of the peculiar character of this Epistle, St. Paul wrote it all with his own hand,— as he did the pastoral Epistles: and I find confirmation of this, in the partial resemblance of its style to those Epistles. (See Prolegomena, as above on ver. 9.) And he wrote it, whether from weakness of his eyes, or from choice, in large characters. 12. As my Epistle, so my practice: I have no desire to make a fair show outwardly: my γράμματα are not εὐπρόσωπα (is there a further allusion to the same point in ὅσοιτῷκανόνιτούτῳστοιχήσουσιν , and even in στίγματα , below?) and I have no sympathy with these θέλοντεςεὐπροσωπῆσαιἐνσαρκί . The word εὐπροσωπεῖν occurs only here: but we have φαινοπροσωπεῖν , Cic. Att. vii. 21; xiv. 21: σεμνοπροσωπεῖν , Aristoph. Nub. 363. ἐνσαρκί , not merely ‘ in the flesh,’ but in outward things, which belong to man’ s natural state: see ch. 5:19. οὗτοι , it is these who: see ver. 7. ἀναγκάζουσιν ] are compelling:— go about to compel. τῷσταυρῷ ] dative of the cause, see reff. Winer would understand ‘ should be persecuted with the Cross (i.e. with sufferings like the Cross) of Christ.’ But apart from other objections which I do not feel, however, so strongly as Ellic.), surely this would have been otherwise expressed— by τοῖςπαθήμασιν or the like. 13. For (proof that they wish only to escape persecution) not even they who are being circumcised (who are the adopters and instigators of circumcision, cf. ἀναγκάζουσιν above) themselves keep the law (νόμον emphatic: the words contain a matter of fact, not known to us otherwise,— that these preachers of legal conformity extended it not to the whole law, but selected from it at their own caprice), but wish you (emphatic) to be circumcised, that in your (emphatic) flesh they may make their boast (ἵναἐντῷκατακόπτειντὴνὑμετέρανσάρκακαυχήσωνταιὡςδιδάσκαλοιὑμῶν , i.e., μαθητὰςὑμᾶςἔχοντες , Thl. In this way they escaped the scandal of the Cross at the hands of the Jews, by making in fact their Christian converts into Jewish proselytes). 14. But to me let it not happen to boast , except in the Cross (the atoning death, as my means of reconcilement with God) of our Lord Jesus Christ (the full name for solemnity, and ἡμῶν to involve his readers in the duty of the same abjuration), by means of whom as many Commentators; the greater antecedent, τοῦκυρ . ἡμ . Ἰ . χ ., coming after the σταυρῷ , has thrown it into the shade. Besides, it could hardly be said of the Cross, δι ʼ οὗ ) the world (the whole system of unspiritual and unchristian men and things. Notice the absorption of the article in a word which had become almost a proper name: so with ἥλιος , γῆ , πόλις , &c.) has been (and is) crucified (not merely ‘ dead:’ he chooses, in relation to σταυρός above, this stronger word, which at once brings in his union with the death of Christ, besides his relation to the world) to me (ἐμοί , dative of ethical relation: so μόνῳΜαικήνᾳκαθεύδω , Plut. Erot. p. 760 a: see other examples in Bernhardy, p. 85), and I to the world. Ellic. quotes from Schö tt., ‘ alter pro mortuo habet alterum.’ 15. See ch. 5:6. Confirmation of last verse: so far are such things from me as a ground of boasting, that they are nothing: the new birth by the Spirit is all in all. κτίσις (see note on 2 Corinthians 5:17), creation: and therefore the result, as regards an individual, is, that he is a new creature: so that the word comes to be used in both significations. 16. And as many (reference to the ὅσοι of ver. 12; and in κανόνι to the εὐπροσωπ . and πηλίκοιςγράμμ .? see above) as shall walk by this rule (of ver. 15. κανών is a ‘ straight rule,’ to detect crookedness: hence a norma vivendi. The dative is normal), peace be (not ‘ is:’ it is the apostolic blessing, so common in the beginnings of his Epistles: see also Ephesians 6:23) upon them (come on them from God; reff., and Luke 2:25, Luke 2:40 al. freq.) and (and indeed, ‘ und zwar:’ the καὶ explicative, as it is called: see reff.) upon the Israel of God (the subject of the whole Epistle seems to have given rise to this expression. Not the Israel after the flesh, among whom these teachers wish to enrol you, are blessed: but the Israel of God, described ch. 3. ult., εἰδὲὑμεῖςχριστοῦ , ἄρατοῦἈβραὰμσπέρμαἐστέ . Jowett compares, though not exactly parallel, yet for a similar apparent though not actual distinction, 1 Corinthians 10:32). 17. τοῦλοιποῦ , as E. V., henceforth: scil., χρόνου . So Herod. iii. 15, ἔνθατοῦλοιποῦδιαιτᾶτο :— see numerous other examples in Wetstein. “ τὸλοιπόν continuum et perpetuum tempus significat,— ut apud Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 24; τοῦλοιποῦ autem repetitionem ejusdem facti reliquo tempore indicat, ut apud Aristoph. in Pace, v. 1684 (1050 Bekk.).” Hermann ad Viger., p. 706. But the above example from Herod. hardly seems to bear this out. Rather is a thing happening in time regarded as belonging to the period including it, and the genitive is one of possession. Against this Ellic., viewing the gen. as simply partitive, refers to Donalds. Gram. § 451: who however defines his meaning by saying “ partitive, or, what is the same thing, possessive.” This indeed must be the clear and only account of a partitive genitive. κόπ . παρεχ .] How? Thdrt. (hardly Chrys.), al., understand it of the trouble of writing more epistles— οὐκέτι , φησί , γράψαιτὶπάλινἀνέξομαι · ἀντὶδὲγραμμάτωντοὺςμώλωπαςδείκνυμι , κ . τῶναἰκισμῶντὰσημεῖα . But it seems much more natural to take it of giving him trouble by rebellious conduct and denying his apostolic authority, seeing that it was stamped with so powerful a seal as he proceeds to state. ἐγὼγάρ ] for it is I (not the Judaizing teachers) who carry (perhaps as in ver. 5, and ch. 5:10,— bear, as a burden: but Chrys.’ s idea seems more adapted to the ‘ feierlich’ character of the sentence: οὐκεἶπεν , ἔχω , ἀλλά , βαστάζω , ὥσπερτιςἐπὶτροπαίοιςμέγαφρονῶνἢσημείοιςβασιλικοῖς : see reff. (2)) in (on) my body the marks of Jesus. τὰστίγματα ,— the marks branded on slaves to indicate their owners. So Herod. vii. 233, τοὺςπλεῦναςαὐτέων , κελεύσαντοςΞέρξεω , ἔστιζονστίγματαβασιλήϊα : and in another place (ii. 113) is a passage singularly in point: ὅτεῳἀνθρώπωνἐπιβάληταιστίγματαἱρά , ἑωϋτὸνδιδοὺςτῷθεῷ , οὐκἔξεστιτούτουἅψασθαι . See many more examples in Wetst. These marks, in St. Paul’ s case, were of course the scars of his wounds received in the service of his Master— cf. 2 Corinthians 11:23 ff. Ἰησοῦ is the genitive of possession,— answering to the possessive βασιλήϊα in the extract above. There is no allusion whatever to any similarity between himself and our Lord, ‘ the marks which Jesus bore;’ such an allusion would be quite irrelevant: and with its irrelevancy falls a whole fabric of Romanist superstition which has been raised on this verse, and which the fair and learned Windischmann, giving as he does the honest interpretation here, yet attempts to defend in a supplemental note. Neither can we naturally suppose any comparison intended between these his στίγματα as Christ’ s servant, and circumcision: for he is not now on that subject, but on his authority as sealed by Christ: and such a comparison is alien from the majesty of the sentence. 18. The Apostolic blessing. No special intention need be suspected in πνεύματος (ἀπάγωναὐτοὺςτῶνσαρκικῶν , Chrys.), as the same expression occurs at the end of other Epistles (reff.). I should rather regard it as a deep expression of his Christian love, which is further carried on by ἀδελφοί , the last word,— parting from them, after an Epistle of such rebuke and warning, in the fulness of brotherhood in Christ.