THE EPISTLE TO THE — — — — I. (1:1-10) 1. Salutation, including the assertion of the writer’ s apostolic commission (1:1-5) The apostle Paul, writing to the churches of Galatia (who had received the gospel from him, but were already, under the influence of preachers who held a different type of Christian thought, on the point of abandoning the gospel as Paul had taught it to them to accept the teachings of these other preachers), affirms in the very salutation of the letter his direct commission as an apostle from Jesus Christ and God the Father, making mention also in this connection, doubtless as against the declaration or insinuation of his opponents that only a personal follower of Jesus could be an apostle, of the fact that the Christ still lives, having been raised from the dead by the Father. Invoking upon them grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, he adds to this usual element of his epistolary salutation a characterisation of Jesus Christ, emphasising his mission of Saviour of men from their sins, as against the conception of law as the means of salvation, which the preachers who had succeeded him in Galatia held. Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead, 2and all the brethren that are with me, to the churches of Galatia: 3grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be the glory for ever. Amen. 1. Παῦλοςἀπόστολος , “ Paul an apostle.” By the addition of the word ἀπόστολος to his name, at the very opening of the epistle Paul claims to be one who is divinely commissioned to preach the gospel of Christ and authorised to plant Christianity. The apostleship as conceived by him involved the idea of the church œ cumenical, Christianity as an organic whole, not simply isolated centres of effort, and of divine appointment in relation to it. To the apostles was committed the task of laying the foundations of the church (1 Corinthians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 3:10, Ephesians 3:20) and among those who were endowed with the gifts of the Spirit for the building up of the church they constituted the highest rank (1 Cor., chap. 12, esp. v. 28; cf. Ephesians 4:11, Ephesians 4:12). These facts gave to them a responsibility and right above that of any other class in the church. While this was apparently generally recognised there was much controversy over the question to whom this responsibility and right belonged. In Paul’ s view they belonged neither exclusively to any individual nor to a college of apostles as such. The function of the apostle, neither limited on the one side to a local church, nor extended on the other to the whole world, was defined as respects each apostle or group of apostles by the divine commission which made them apostles. See Romans 1:1, Romans 1:5, in which S. and H. rightly translate ἐνπᾶσιντοῖςἔθνεσιν “ among all the Gentiles” ; 1 Corinthians 9:2; but esp. Galatians 2:8. Respecting the origin of the apostolic order or class, the qualifications, rights, and responsibilities of an apostle, and the limitations of his authority, see detached note on Ἀπόστολος , p. 363. It is evident from what follows in the epistle both that Paul’ s representation of the content of the gospel had been declared to be incorrect by those who had visited Galatia since Paul was there, and that they had denied his right to assume the function or claim the rights of an apostle. This denial Paul meets, in the very salutation with which the letter opens, by the affirmation of his apostleship, which he claims to possess not to the exclusion of others, but along with others; note the absence of the article before ἀπόστολος and cf. 1:17, 2:8. The title is certainly not here, and probably not in the salutation of any of his letters, a mere title of dignity, but involves an assertion, the maintenance of which is essential to the purpose of the letter. Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Romans 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:6, etc. οὐκἀπ ʼ ἀνθρώπωνοὐδὲδι ʼ ἀνθρώπου “ not from men nor through man.” The first phrase denies that Paul’ s apostleship had a human source, the second that it had come to him through a human channel, by human agency. Paul claims not only to be an apostle, but to have an apostleship which is in no sense indirect, dependent, or secondary. This fact is important for the understanding of the whole personal portion of the letter. It is evident that his opponents were substantially in agreement with Paul himself in holding that the right of self-directed presentation of the gospel, and the laying of foundations, belonged to the apostles as a definite class in the church. Apparently, also, they held respecting apostles much the same view which Acts 1:21, Acts 1:22 represents Peter as holding respecting the Eleven, viz.: that authority to add to the number lay with the Jerusalem church. With this idea of the basis on which additions to the Eleven were to be made they apparently associated the view that any one whose teaching differed from that of the Jerusalem church, in which the influence of James and the Twelve was dominant, was either an altogether unauthorised and false teacher, or a renegade associate or representative of the Twelve and a perverter of the true teaching; in either case no true apostle. It is not wholly clear in which class Paul’ s critics had placed him. But the nature of his reply, in which he denies with emphasis any kind of dependence on men in general (1:1, 11), or the apostles in particular (1:16, 17), combined with the facts mentioned in 1:18-24 in themselves considered, makes it probable that his opponents looked upon him, not indeed as having been commissioned as an apostle by the Twelve, but as one who having received instruction from them had perverted their teaching, and thereby deprived himself of all right as a Christian teacher. His claim to be an apostle they would doubtless have treated as wholly groundless. This denial of authority he answers, not as Barnabas or Mark might have done, with the assertion that he was true to the teaching of the Twelve, but by affirming that he possessed an independent apostleship, neither derived from a human source nor through a human channel. The preposition ἀπό expresses source in its simplest and most general form; hence it is the most natural preposition to use to express clearly the idea of source as distinguished from that of agency expressed by διά . By οὐχἀπ ʼ … ἀνθρώπου the apostle denies definitely and specifically that either the source or the agency of his apostleship was human. The phrase οὐχἀπ ʼ ἀνθρώπωυ is evidently qualitative, denying human origin in the broadest possible way without of itself directing the mind to any particular persons. Even the generic plural with the article, οἱἄνθρωποι , is used very freely in N. T., not to denote the totality of the race, but in reference to any group of men thought of as actually existing, though unnamed and unidentified. See Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:6:1, Matthew 5:15, Romans 14:13, 1 Corinthians 1:25, Colossians 2:8, Colossians 2:22. But the noun without the article is more clearly and emphatically qualitative, being nearly equivalent in the genitive to the adjective “ human,” or with ἐξ or ἀπό to the phrase “ of human origin.” See Romans 1:13, πᾶσαν … ἀδιχίανἀνθρώπων , “ every form of human iniquity” ; 1 Corinthians 2:5, μὴ … ἐνσοφίᾳἀνθρώπωνἀλλ ʼ ἐνδυνάμειθεοῦ , “ not in human wisdom but in divine power” ; also Philippians 2:7, Matthew 15:9, Matthew 15:21:25, Matthew 15:26. It is in this broad sense that Paul uses the phrase here. Yet vv. 16, 17 leave no doubt that in using it he has especially in mind the primitive apostles, or the Christian church in Jerusalem, in which they were the dominant influence, it being from this source that his opponents would hold that he ought to have derived his apostleship in order to make it valid. In like manner, although the singular is much less commonly used with qualitative force than the plural, οὐδὲδι ʼ ἀνθρώπου is probably to be taken simply as denying human agency, and is better translated “ through man” than “ through a man.” Cf. Acts 17:29, Romans 1:23, Romans 3:5, Galatians 1:11, Galatians 1:12, Galatians 1:2:6. Though it is evidently no part of the apostle’ s purpose in this verse to set forth his conception of the nature or mission of Christ, yet his language indirectly and partially reflects his thought on that subject. The antithesis between οὐδὲδι ʼ ἀνθρώπου and διὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , even though to the latter is joined χαὶθεοῦπατρός , and the very fact of the close association of ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ with θεοῦπατρός after the one preposition διά , combine to indicate that Paul distinguished Jesus Christ from men; not indeed in the sense that he denied that he was man (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:21), but that this term did not state the whole, or even the most important truth about him. Even had Paul believed that his apostleship came from God through his fellow apostles, he could never have written οὐδὲδι ʼ ἀνθρώπου , ἀλλὰδιὰτῶνἀποστόλωνχαὶθεοῦπατρός , or even ἀλλὰδιὰτῶνἀποστόλωνχαὶἀπὸθεοῦπατρός . See detached note on Πατήρ as applied to God, p. 384, and on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, p. 392. The change from the plural, ἀνθρώπων , to the singular, ἀνθρώπου , is probably purely stylistic, it being natural to think of a possible human source of authority as composed of a group of men, and of the agent of its transmission as a single person. The plural may, indeed, be in some measure due to the fact that the source of authority which he had particularly in mind to deny was a group, the apostles. But there is no corresponding explanation of the singular. Zahn interprets οὐδὲδι ʼ ἀνθρώπου as a denial of a charge that he had received his apostleship through a certain unnamed person, most probably Barnabas. But this view overlooks the fact that Paul is here denying, not that he received his apostleship in the way in which they alleged he had, but that he had obtained it as they alleged he (not having been one of the original group) must have received it if it were genuine. They did not say, “ You received your apostleship from men, and through a man, therefore it is not genuine,” but “ You should thus have received it,” and Paul’ s answer is that he received it in a way far above this, which made human source and human agency wholly superfluous. ἀλλὰδιὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦκαὶθεοῦπατρός “ but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Three facts are specially noticeable in reference to this expression: (1) the use of διά rather than ἀπό , indicating that the apostle is speaking not simply of a source of his apostleship between which and himself there intervenes an agent, but of the channel through which it came to him, or of the immediate source of it (see on meanings of διά below); (2) the addition of καὶθεοῦπατρός to ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , showing that he is not thinking simply of the agency through which his apostleship came to him, but also of the source, than which, being ultimate, there can be no higher; (3) the governing of both substantives by the one preposition but once expressed, showing that Jesus Christ and God the Father are not separated in his mind as sustaining different relations to his apostleship, but are conceived of jointly and as sustaining one relation. Taken together, therefore, the whole expression bears the meaning “ directly from Jesus Christ and God the Father.” Had he thought of Christ as the agent and God as the source he must have written διὰἸησοῦΧριστοῦκαὶἀπὸθεοῦπατρός ; if of God and Christ, as jointly source only, ἀπὸἸησοῦΧριστοῦκαὶθεοῦπατρός , which, however, would not have furnished a proper antithesis to δι ʼ ἀνθρώπου , since it would have left open the possibility of a human channel. Διά with the genitive, in addition to its use with reference to spatial and temporal relations, expresses means or instrument, which with a personal object merges into the idea of agency; but in three ways: (a) Expressing mediate agency. This use of the preposition grows naturally and most directly out of the spatial sense of the preposition “ through,” the governed substantive being thought of as standing between the source of power and the person or thing affected, and as transmitting the power. See, e. g., Romans 1:2, Romans 1:5:1, 1 Corinthians 2:10 et freq. (b) The idea of mediateness falling into the background or disappearing, διά is used with a word denoting that which is at the same time source and agent; in such cases, while the preposition itself perhaps expresses only agency, the conception of mediateness implying something behind the agent is lost, and the fact that the agent is also source is separately expressed or implied in the nature of the case. See Th. s. v. A. III 1 and such passages as Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 1:9. (c) The idea of agency merging into that of conditioning cause (viz. that which, though not the instrument of the action, or its ultimate source, is necessary to its accomplishment), διά is used with reference to that which, so to speak, stands behind the action and renders it possible. So, e. g., Acts 1:2, Romans 1:2, Romans 1:15:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:2. In the phrase δι ʼ ἀνθρώπου , διά evidently expresses mediate agency, since source is separately expressed by ἀπ ʼ ἀνθρώπων , and the thought of man as a conditioning cause standing behind and rendering possible the action by which Paul became an apostle is excluded by the obvious nature of the facts. But the διά with ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , though evidently suggested by the use of διά with ἀνθρώπου , is used rather with the second meaning (b). The idea of mediateness is not required by any antithetical ἀπό , and in respect to θεοῦπατρός , which is also governed by this same διά , the idea of mediateness is excluded, since it can not be supposed that the apostle thinks of a more ultimate source than God of which God is the agent.* Nor is it probable that the idea of mediateness is present even in respect to ἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , since neither is ἀπό used with θεοῦπατρός nor is διά even repeated before it; instead the two substantives are closely bound together under the government of one preposition, which probably therefore has the same force with both of them. The whole phrase διὰἸησοῦ … πατρός is accordingly antithetical not to δι ʼ ἀνθρώπου only, but to ἀπ ʼ ἀνθρώπων and δι ʼ ἀνθρώπου , being the positive correlative of the negative οὐκ … ἀνθρώπου . τοῦἐγείραντοςαὐτὸνἐκνεκρῶν , “ who raised him from the dead.” By this characterisation of God Paul reminds his readers, who may have been told that Paul could not be an apostle because he was not a follower of Jesus in the flesh, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that it was the risen Christ who had given him his commission. Of the apostle’ s motive for adding this expression there have been many theories. See a considerable number of them in Sief. That of Wies., who regards the reference to the resurrection as intended to substantiate on the one hand the superhuman nature and divine sonship of Jesus, which is implied in οὐδὲδι ʼ ἀνθρώπου and in the association of Jesus with the Father, and on the other hand the fatherhood of God, intrudes into the sentence a Christological and theological interest which is quite foreign to its purpose. The words οὐδὲ … πατρός undoubtedly reflect incidentally the apostle’ s conception of God and Christ, but they are themselves introduced for the purpose of establishing the main point, Paul’ s independent apostleship, and it is wholly improbable that the added words, τοῦἐγείραντος , etc., were injected to confirm the incidentally reflected thought. Sief. himself, taking in general the same view, goes beyond probability in supposing that the phrase conveys a reference to the resurrection of Christ as that through which God manifested his paternal love to the Son in the highest degree and established him in the full status of Son, this fact being in turn the basis on which Paul’ s call into the apostleship is made possible. The evident emphasis of the sentence upon Paul’ s apostleship, its independence and its validity, makes it improbable that there underlay it, unexpressed, any such elaborate and indirect reasoning. Nor is the fact that τοῦἐγείραντος limits θεοῦπατρός sufficient to set this objection aside. Having, according to his usual custom (enforced in this case by special reasons) joined the names of Christ and God closely together, the only way in which he could then make reference to the fact of the resurrection without inconvenient circumlocution was by a phrase limiting θεοῦπατρός . A similar objection holds against most of the interpretations enumerated by Sief., and against that of Beet, who introduces the thought that the Father, when raising Jesus from the dead, with a view to the proclamation of the gospel throughout the world, was himself taking part personally in the mission of the apostles. The word ἐγείρω is Paul’ s regular term for the raising from the dead. He uses it in this sense 35 times, in 10 instances in the active, in 25 in the passive (exclusive of Eph. and the pastorals), only twice in any other sense (Romans 13:11, Philippians 1:17). He employs ἀνίστημι of rising from the dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:14, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 only. In the gospels and Acts both terms are used with approximately equal frequency, except that Mt. has a decided preference for ἐγείρω (pass.), using ἀνίστημι but once, though it appears as a variant in three other passages also. There is apparently little or no distinction in thought between the two terms. The general usage of ἐγείρω suggests a waking out of sleep, that of ἀνίστημι a rising up from a recumbent position, but this distinction affects the terms as used of the resurrection from the dead at most merely in the outward form of the thought. Both verbs are frequently followed by ἐκνεκρῶν . For ἐγείρω (act.), see Romans 4:24, Romans 4:8:11, Romans 4:10:2; (pass.), Romans 6:4, Romans 6:9, 1 Corinthians 15:12, 1 Corinthians 15:20. Only rarely do ἐκτῶννεκρῶν (see 1 Thessalonians 1:10, where, however, AC omit τῶν and WH. bracket it, and Ephesians 5:14, a quotation from some unidentified source) and ἀπὸτῶννεκρῶν (Matthew 14:2) occur. The omission of the article is probably due to the expression being a fixed prepositional phrase. See Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles, p. 25, Chicago, 1918. 2. καὶοἱσὺνἐμοὶπάντεςἀδελφοί , “ and all the brethren that are with me.” The term “ brethren” is one which according to Paul’ s usage and that of the early Christians generally (1 Thessalonians 1:4, 1 Thessalonians 1:2:1, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 6:5-8, 1 Corinthians 8:12, et freq. in Paul; James 1:2, 1 Peter 5:12, 1 John 3:13, Revelation 12:10; Clem. Romans 1:1; Ign. Philad. 5:1— much less frequent in the early fathers than in N. T.) usually meant “ fellow-Christians.” See below on v. 11. The fact that it is Paul’ s usual habit to join with himself in the address of a letter one or two of his closest companions and fellow-labourers (see esp. 1 Corinthians 1:1 and cf. 16:20; 2 Corinthians 1:1 and cf. 13:11, 12; Philippians 1:1, and cf. 4:21, 22; Colossians 1:1 and cf. 4:10, 12, 14), the distinction which he apparently makes in Philippians 4:21, Philippians 4:22 between “ the brethren with him” and the resident Christians, and the fact that a temporary sojourner in a place would more naturally refer to the residents of the place as “ those with whom I am staying” or more generally as “ the brethren of such a place,” than “ the brethren that are with me,” makes it probable that the phrase here designates not the Christians of the place in general (as Wies., Zahn, and Bous. maintain), but his fellow-missionaries (so Hilg., Ltft., Ell., Sief., Beet). The purpose of this association of his companions with himself in the writing of the letter does not clearly appear. If the persons thus named took any part in the composition of the letter, we are unable now to detect their part, or even that they had any such. Even in 1 Thes. where Paul uses the first person plural in the first two chapters and part of the third (cf. Frame on 1. 1) it is probable that while the pronoun at first includes the companions named at the beginning, they took no actual part in the composition of the letter, being only in the background of his thought, as 2:18 itself shows. But in Gal. the almost uniform use of the first person singular for the author, not only in narrative passages (such as 1:12-19,21, 22, 2:1-14, 4:13-15) and in those in which the pronoun might be supposed to be rhetorically used for the Christian believer as such (2:18-21), but in those in which the writer speaks of himself as such, referring to what he is at the moment saying (1:6, 10, 11, 20, 3:2, 15, 17, 4:1,12, 16-21, 5:2, 3, 10-12, 16, 6:17), practically excludes the possibility of any partnership in the writing of the letter. The first person plural is usually “ we Jews,” or “ we Christians.” Only in 1:3, 9 can it be taken as an epistolary plural referring to Paul himself (see Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus, 1900), and even here more probably (see on those vv.) as a designation of the apostle and his companions. But in 1:9, at least, these are apparently referred to, not as with him at the moment of writing, but when he was preaching in Galatia; and that “ the brethren with me” here referred to were his companions in Galatia is rather improbable, since had those who shared with him in the preaching of the gospel in Galatia been with the apostle at the moment of writing it is likely that, instead of there being no other reference to them in the letter than this obscure one, they would have received at least as much recognition as in 1 Thes. Paul gives to Timothy and Silas. Nor does it seem likely that the brethren here referred to are intended to be understood as indorsing the apostle’ s statements. The mention of them seems rather, as in Paul’ s salutations generally, mainly at least, an act of courtesy, though doubtless carrying with it the implication that the brethren were aware of his writing the letter, and were not averse to being mentioned in it. The question who these brethren were is, of course, inseparably connected with the question where and when the letter was written. If it was written to the churches of southern Galatia from Corinth on the second missionary journey (see Introd., pp. xlvii ff.) we can name none who were more probably included than Silas and Timothy, who were with Paul in Macedonia and Achaia on this journey, his first into that region (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:3:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Acts 17:10, Acts 17:14, Acts 17:18:5). If it was written from Antioch between the second and third journeys, Timothy or Titus was very likely among those referred to. Both were with Paul on the latter journey (2 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 2:13). Titus had been with Paul in Antioch before the writing of this letter (Galatians 2:1), perhaps about three years before, and was sent by him to Corinth in connection with the trouble in the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 2:7:6, 2 Corinthians 2:12:18), probably about three years after the writing of the letter to the Galatians, if it was written at Antioch; but his movements in the interval we can not trace. If it was sent from Ephesus or Macedonia, there is a still wider range of possibilities (1 Corinthians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:11, 16:1 Corinthians 1:10-12, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 2 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 8:16-24. That the Galatians knew who were referred to, or would be informed by those who bore the letter, is rendered probable by the very omission of the names. On the use of the term ἀδελφός , see on 1:11. ταῖςἐκκλησίαιςτῆςΓαλατίας · “ to the churches of Galatia.” On the location of these churches see Introd., p. xxi. On the use of the word ἐκκλησία in N. T. see detached note, p. 417. The most notable characteristic of this salutation is the total lack of such commendatory words as are found in the address of all other Pauline letters (see below). This is commonly and doubtless rightly explained as reflecting the apostle’ s perturbation of mind mingled with indignation against the fickle Galatians. Cf. on θαυμάζω , v. 6. 1 and 2 Thes. are addressed τῆἐκκλησίᾳΘεσσαλονικέωνἐνθεῷπατρὶκαὶκυρίῳἸησοῦΧριστῶ , with ἡμῶν after πατρί in 2 Thes. In 1 and 2 Cor. the address is τῇἐκκλησίᾳτοῦθεοῦτῇοὔσηἐνΚορίνθῳ , the first letter adding ἡγιασμένοιςἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ , κλητοῖςἁγίοις etc., the second adding σὺντοῖςἁγίοιςπᾶσιν , etc. None of the later Pauline letters, from Rom. on, have the term ἐκκλησία in the address, but all those addressed to communities have a phrase designating the members of the community and always including the word ἅγιος . 3. χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνη “ grace to you and peace.” These words form a part of the benediction which in every Pauline letter is included in the opening salutation, usually forming the last words of it. The first word is perhaps connected with the common Greek salutation χαίρειν , with which also the Ep. of Jas. begins (James 1:1, cf. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, pp. 30, 31; Acts 15:23, Acts 23:26), but, if so, is a decidedly Christian version of it. εἰρήνη is the Greek word which represents the Semitic salutation, Hebrew, ש ׁ ָ ל ו ֹ ם , Aramaic, ש ׁ ְ ל ָ ם , used both in personal greeting (Luke 10:6, Luke 24:36) and at the beginning of a letter (Ezra 4:17, Ezra 5:7). Yet this term also takes on a deeper religious significance than it commonly bore as a salutation among the Hebrews. χάρις is a comprehensive term for that favour of God towards men which is the basis of their salvation. It includes the ideas of love, forbearance, desire to save. εἰρήνη denotes the blessed state of well-being into which men are brought and in which they are kept by the divine χάρις . For a fuller discussion, see detached notes, pp. 423 and 424. The words stand without the article because the thought of the sentence calls for a qualitative not an individualising representation of grace and peace. Cf., on the other hand, Galatians 6:18. ἀπὸθεοῦπατρὸςἡμῶνκαὶκυρίουἸησοῦΧριστοῦ , “ from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” These words also, or a phrase but slightly different from them, are found in the salutation of every Pauline letter except 1 Thes. and Col. They are undoubtedly to be taken as limiting both χάρις and εἰρήνη . It is characteristic of the apostle’ s method of thought that he joins together God the Father and Christ the Lord as jointly source of grace and peace. Any attempt to discriminate sharply their respective shares in the bestowment of these blessings would lead us away from the apostle’ s thought. The entire sentence constitutes in effect a prayer for the Galatians that God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ may be gracious to them, may look upon them not in wrath, but in favour that brings salvation, and that (as a consequence) they may be in a state of spiritual well-being. Concerning θεοῦπατρός , see detached note, on Πατήρ as applied to God pp. 384 ff., and on κυρίου as applied to Christ, see detached note on the Titles and Predicates of Jesus, pp. 399 ff. Ἡμὤν stands after πατρός in א AP 33 al plu. 20 fu. demid. Chr. Ambrst.; after κυρίου in BDFGHKL, 31, 1908, Rev_20 fere d e f g Vg. Syr. (psh. harcl. pal.) Arm. Goth. Victorin. Hier.; in Boh. Aeth. in both places. The external evidence is indecisive; the reading of א Ap, etc., may be regarded as non-Western and its rival as Western, or it may be Alexandrian and its rival non-Alexandrian. Intrinsic probability favours the reading of א Ap ; see Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2, Ephesians 1:2, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:2, Philemon 1:3 (contra Ephesians 6:23, 2 Thessalonians 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4), and transcriptional probability is certainly not against it. On the whole the preponderance of probability is slightly on the side of πατρὸςἡμῶν . 4. τοῦδόντοςἑαυτὸνὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν “ who gave himself for our sins.” In itself the expression τὸδοῦναιἑαυτόν may perfectly well refer to a devotion of one’ s self in service, but the general usage of Paul so associates the death of Christ with deliverance from sin as to leave no reasonable doubt that he here refers especially if not exclusively to Jesus’ voluntary surrender of himself in his death. See Romans 5:6, Romans 5:8, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 2:20. Similarly ὑπὲρτ . ἁμ . ἡμ . in itself means (to achieve something) “ in relation to our sins.” But Paul’ s conception of sin and its effects on men and the relation of Jesus’ death to it, as elsewhere expressed, and the following expression, ὅπως … πονηροῦ , leave no doubt that in his thought deliverance from sins is that which is to be achieved in respect to them. Since the apostle elsewhere associates the death of Jesus with deliverance both from the power of sin over one’ s life (Romans 6:1-11) and from the condemnation under which it brings men (chap. 3:13, 14, Romans 3:23-26, Romans 3:5:9, Romans 3:10), either of these aspects of salvation may be in mind here. But as the association of the death with the forensic aspect is somewhat more frequent in Paul, and as it is this phase which is prominent in this epistle, it is probably this that the apostle has chiefly in mind here. On the meaning of ἁμαρτία , see detached note, pp. 436 ff. On the usage of δοῦναιἑαυτόν , see Polyb. 8.18:11: οὕτωςἔφηδώσεινὁΒῶλιςἑαυτὸνεἰςτὴνχρεῖαν : “ So Bolis said he would give himself to the matter” ; 10. 6:10: ἐπὶπράξειςαὑτὸνἔδωκετελέωςπαρὰτοῖςπολλοῖςἀπηλπισμένας : “ He undertook affairs regarded by most as perfectly hopeless” ; 1 Mac. 2:50 f. and exx. from papyri and inscriptions referred to by Nä geli, Wortschatz, p. 50, in none of which does it seem to mean to lay down one’ s life. On the other hand, see Jos. Ant. 2. 144 (6:8). For a discussion of δοῦναιτὴνψυκὴναὐτοῦ in Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:23, and of τὴνψυκὴνθεῖναι in John 10:15, see Burton, Smith, and Smith, Biblical Ideas of Atonement, pp. 114 ff. The preposition ὑπέρ primarily signifies “ over” in a local sense, but it is not so used in N. T. Its common use there is in the sense “ on behalf of,” “ for the benefit of,” followed by a personal term. See, e. g., chap. 2:20, 1 Corinthians 1:13, Romans 5:6 ff. The modification of this meaning which the preposition necessarily undergoes when used with an abstract noun gives it a telic force, “ to accomplish something for, or in respect to,” the thing to be accomplished being in each case implied in the nature of the thing which stands as the object of the preposition. With most abstract nouns the meaning is approximately “ for the promotion of” : thus in John 11:4, ὑπὲρτῆςδόξηςτοῦθεοῦ , “ for the promotion or manifestation of the glory of God” ; 2 Corinthians 1:6, ὑπὲρτῆςἡμῶνπαρακλήσεως , “ for your comfort, that you may be comforted” ; and Philippians 2:13, καὶτὸθέλεινκαὶτὸἐνεργεῖνὑπὲρτῆςεὐδοκίας . “ both the willing and the working for the accomplishment of that which is well pleasing (to God).” Cf. also John 6:51, Romans 15:8, Romans 15:16:4, 2 Corinthians 13:8, Ephesians 6:20, 2 Thessalonians 1:5, Hebrews 13:17. With ὰμαρτιῶν and words of similar import, the meaning “ on behalf of” naturally becomes not “ for the promotion of,” but “ for the deliverance from,” or with the genitive ἡμῶν following, “ to deliver us from our sins.” The possibility that the apostle had in mind a still more definite meaning can for reasons given above neither be excluded nor established. א cBH 33,424:2 al. read ὑπέρ . א *ADFGKLP al. 50 fere read περί . The latter testimony is apparently Western and Syrian. Cf. Introd. p. lxxx. Intrinsic probability is in favour of ὑπέρ ; for though Paul uses both prepositions with both meanings, “ concerning” and “ on behalf of,” he employs περί much more commonly in the former sense and ὑπέρ in the latter. ὅπωςἐξέληταιἡμᾶςἐκτοῦαἰῶνοςτοῦἐνεστῶτοςπονηροῦ “ that he might deliver us out of the present evil age.” On αἰών and ἐνεστώς see detached notes pp. 426, 432. The phrase ὁαἰὼνὁἐνεστώς , here only in N. T., but manifestly the equivalent of the more usual ὁαἰὼνοὗτος , is primarily a phrase of time denoting the (then) present period of the world’ s history as distinguished from the coming age, ὁαἰὼνὁμέλλων . Its evil character is implied in 1 Corinthians 1:20 and Romans 12:2, and apparently always assumed, but here only is the adjective πονηρός directly attached to αἰών . Its position here gives it special emphasis.* ἐξέληται denotes not a removal from, but a rescue from the power of. Cf. Acts 7:10, Acts 7:34, Acts 7:12:11, Acts 7:23:27, Acts 7:26:17, in all which cases the emphasis of the word is upon the idea of rescue. It occurs in Paul’ s epistles here only. Cf. John 17:15. The whole clause expresses the purpose for which the Lord Jesus Christ gave himself for our sins, and thus presents from a different point of view the thought of ὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν . The very presence of these words (v. 4) at this point is itself a significant fact. In all the other Pauline letters the salutation closes with the benediction, though not always in exactly the same form, and the next paragraph is introduced by an expression of thanksgiving or an ascription of praise to God. The addition of this verse with its reference to the death of Christ for the salvation of men is undoubtedly occasioned by the nature of the erroneous teaching which was propagated among the Galatians by the judaising opponents of Paul, and which this letter was written to combat. As in opposition to their personal attack on him he affirmed his independent apostleship (v. 1), so here against their legalistic conception of the value of works of law, he sets forth even in the salutation the divine way of deliverance provided in Christ’ s gift of himself for us according to the will of God. It remains to be considered whether the deliverance here referred to is (a) ethical, having reference to emancipation from the moral influence of this present evil age (cf. Romans 8:2), or (b) present judicial, consisting essentially in justification, through the death of Christ (cf. Romans 5:9 a, Romans 5:10), or (c) eschatological, being deliverance from the wrath of God which will fall upon the wicked at the coming of the Lord (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Romans 5:9b). There is no doubt that Paul held the current Jewish doctrine of the two ages (see detached note on Αἰών , p. 426), and though he never definitely places the coming of the Lord in judgment on the wicked and salvation for believers at the boundary-line between the two ages, his language is most naturally understood as implying this, and there is in any case no doubt that in his thought salvation was achieved in the full sense not before but at the coming of the Lord (cf. Romans 5:9, Romans 13:11 Romans 13:1 Thes. loc. cit.). The associations of the phrase are therefore eschatological. Nor can it be urged against the interpretation of the whole expression as eschatological that the thought of the future salvation distinctly as such is usually associated by Paul not with the death of Jesus but with his resurrection (so Zahn; cf. Romans 5:10, Romans 5:6:5, 1 Corinthians 15:12ff. Philippians 3:10). For though this is true, it is also true that in several of the passages the death is closely associated with the resurrection, and in 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 5:10, the deliverance from wrath at the coming of the Lord (cf. v. 23) is definitely made to result from the death of Christ. There are, however, two valid objections to the supposition that the reference of the phrase is chiefly eschatological. The first is the use of the word ἐξέληται . The present age is to end at the coming of the Lord. Salvation at that time consists not in deliverance from this age, but from the wrath of God. Had the apostle’ s thought at this point been, as it is in Romans 5:10, Romans 5:11, definitely eschatological, he would naturally have written ὅπωςἐξέληταιἡμᾶςἀπὸτῆςὀργῆςτοῦθεοῦἐντῆπαρουσίᾳτοῦκυρίου . The second reason is found in the general atmosphere and purpose of the epistle. Its thought is concentrated on the way of acceptance with God in the present life; eschatological references are few and indirect; it is improbable, therefore, that in the salutation, which bears clear marks of being written under the influence of the controversial situation with which the epistle deals, the idea of the salvation achieved at the coming of the Lord should fill a prominent place. As between the judicial and the ethical conceptions, it is doubtful whether we should exclude either (cf. on ὑπὲρτ . ἁμ . ἡμ . above).* To limit the reference to the ethical phase would be to exclude that aspect of the significance of Christ’ s death which the apostle usually emphasises (see Romans 3:24, Romans 3:25, 5:Romans 3:6-10, Galatians 3:13), and which precisely in this epistle, which deals so largely with justification, we should least expect to be forgotten. But, on the other hand, the appropriateness of the words to describe the ethical aspect, and the absence of any phraseology expressly limiting the thought to the judicial aspect (as, e. g., in Romans 8:1 and Galatians 3:13), seem to forbid the exclusion of the former. That Paul sometimes associated the morally transforming power of Christ with his death clearly appears from Galatians 2:20, Galatians 2:21 and Romans 6:10, Romans 6:11 (cf. also a clear expression of this idea in 1 Peter 1:18, 1 Peter 1:19). Probably, therefore, we must include the judicial aspect, and not exclude the ethical. That the apostle has the law chiefly in mind as an element of the present evil age from which the Christ by his death is to deliver men (see Bous. ad loc.) is improbable, not indeed because the thought itself is un-Pauline (see Romans 10:4), but because the phrase “ present evil age” is too general and inclusive to suggest a single element of that age so little characteristic of it as a whole as was the law. κατὰτὸθέληματοῦθεοῦκαὶπατρὸςἡμῶν , “ according to the will of our God and Father.” Whether these words are to be taken as limiting (a) δόντος or (b) ἐξέληται , or (c), the whole complex idea expressed by τοῦδόντος … πονηροῦ (πονηροῦ alone is manifestly out of the question), can not be decisively determined. Most probably, however, the third construction is the true one. Twice before in this paragraph the apostle has closely associated together Jesus Christ and God the Father, first as the source of his own apostleship (v. 1) and then as the source of grace and peace to those to whom he is writing. The present phrase emphasises once more essentially the same thought, affirming that in the salvation provided for us (the pronouns ἡμῶν and ἡμᾶς in v. 4 include both the apostle and his readers) through Christ’ s gift of himself for us, God our Father also participates, the gift and its purpose being according to his will. Concerning the construction of ἡμῶν and the translation of τοῦθεοῦκαὶπατρὸςἡμῶν , see detached note on Πατήρ as applied to God, pp. 388 f. 5. ᾧἡδόξαεἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων · ἀμήν . “ to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.” An ascription of praise to God for the gift of Christ and the deliverance accomplished through it. δόξα (here only in Gal.) is frequent in Paul, with considerable variation of meaning. See Th. s. v. and Kennedy, St. Paul’ s Conception of the Last Things, pp. 229 ff. Its sense here, “ praise,” comes down from the classic times, and is frequent in N. T. The article, when occurring, seems almost invariably to convey a reference to something which has just been mentioned; in this case, no doubt, the redeeming work of Christ. Cf. Romans 11:36, Romans 16:27, Ephesians 3:21, Philippians 4:20, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21, 1 Peter 4:11. Contrast Luke 2:14 (where, however, the poetic form may rather be the cause of the omission of the article); Romans 15:7, Philippians 2:11. The generic (or intensive) force of the article, such as apparently occurs in Revelation 7:12 and perhaps in 2 Peter 3:18, is possible but less probable than the demonstrative force suggested above. On εἰςτ . αἰ . τ . αἰώνων , see detached note on Αἰών , p. 426. Ἀμήν (Heb. א ָ מ ֵ ן , an adverb derived from א ָ מ ֵ ן “ to be firm,” Hiphil, “ to believe,” “ to trust” ) is carried over into the N. T. vocabulary from the Hebrew. It is used in O. T. as confirming an oath (Numbers 5:22 et al.), as the solemn conclusion and confirmation of a doxology (Nehemiah 8:6, Ps. 41:14, etc.), and otherwise. The Lxx usually translate it by γένοιτο , but occasionally transliterate (1 Chronicles 16:36, Nehemiah 5:13, Nehemiah 5:8:6, Nehemiah 5:1 Esd. 9:47, Tob. 8:8, 14:15), but none of these instances are at the end of a doxology or benediction. This usage, of which 3 Mac. 7:23 (see also 4 Mac. 18:24) apparently furnishes the earliest example, may have arisen from the custom of the congregation responding “ Amen” to the prayer offered by the leader. Cf. Nehemiah 8:6, 1 Corinthians 14:16, and Frame on 1 Thessalonians 3:13, also M. and M. Voc. s. v. On the relation between the salutations of the Pauline and other N. T. letters, and the methods of beginning letters current among Greek, Roman, Jewish, and early Christian writers, see extended and instructive note in Hilgenfeld, Der Galaterbrief, 1852, pp. 99 ff.; also respecting the classical Greek and Latin forms, Fritzsche on Romans 1:1; Wendland, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, III 3, Beilage 15, pp. 411 ff.; Ziemann, De Epistularum graecarum formulis, in Diss. phil. Hal. XVIII 4, 1910. Respecting the evidence of the papyri, see Lietzmann, Griechische Papyri, 1905; Witkowski, Epistulae graecae privatae, 1906, and Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 1910. Cf. Frame on 1 Thessalonians 1:1. See also Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, pp. 30, 31. The following are typical examples: ΠλάτωνἈρχύτᾳΤαραντίνῳεὐπράττειν (Epistle IX, Ed. Hermann, p. 58). M. Cicero salutem dicit P. Lentulo Procos. (Ed. Mueller, IV 1, pp. 1 ff.); ל ְ ד ָ ֽ ר ְ י ָ ֥ ו ֶ ש ׁ מ ֽ ַ ל ְ כ ּ ָ ֖ א ש ׁ ְ ל ָ מ ָ ֥ א כ ֹ ל ּ ָ א (Ezra 5:7); τοῖςἀδελφοῖςτοῖςκατ ʼ ΑἴγυπτονἸουδαίοιςχαίρεινοἱἀδελφοὶοἱἐνἸεροσολύμοιςἸουδαῖοικαὶοἱἐντῆχώρᾳτῆςἸουδαίας , εἰρήνηνἀγαθήν (2 Mal 1:1). καὶοἱἐντῇἸουδαίᾳκαὶἡγερουσίακαὶἸοῦδαςἈριστοβούλῳ … χαίρεινκαὶὑγιαίνειν (2 Mal 1:10). ΚλαύδιοςΛυσίαςτῷκρατίστῳἡγεμόνιΦιλίκιχαίρειν (Acts 23:26; cf. Acts 15:23). ἸωάνηςταῖςἑπτὰἔκκλησίαιςταῖςἐντῆἈσίᾳ . χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνη (Revelation 1:4). Πολύκαρπος … τῇἐκκλησίᾳτοῦθεοῦτῆπαροικούσηΦιλίπποις · ἔλεοςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνηπαρὰθεοῦ (Polyc. Phil.). The following, from Milligan’ s Selections, show the usage of the papyri: Πολυκράτηςτῶιπατρὶχαίρειν . ἈπολλώνιοςΠτολεμαίωιτῶπατρὶχαίρειν . Ἰλαρίων [α ] Ἄλιτιτῆιἀδελφῇιπλεῖσταχαίρειν . ΘέωνΤυράννωιτῶιτιμιωτάτωιπλεῖσταχαίρειν . These and other examples cited by the writers above referred to show (1) that both Greeks and Romans, if not also the Hebrews, frequently began a letter with the writer’ s name; (2) that the naming of the person or persons addressed, usually in the dative, but sometimes in the vocative, was the general custom among Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews; (3) that to these two it was customary among the Hebrews to add the word ש ׁ ָ ל ו ֹ ם , or if writing in Greek, εἰρήνη , among the Greeks χαίρειν , with or without the addition of λέγει , and among the Romans salutem with or without dicit; (4) that the early Christian writers followed in general the usages then current in the Roman world, but in the exercise of that liberty which these usages themselves sanctioned, combined elements derived on the one side from the Greek custom and on the other from the Hebrew, and introduced also distinctly Christian elements. As a result there seems to have been created almost a standard Christian form (note the resemblance between the salutation of the Pauline letters, those ascribed to Peter, 2 and 3 Jn., the salutation of Rev 1:4, and those used by Clem. Rom. and Polycarp), yet one which was freely modified by each writer in adaptation to the particular occasion and persons addressed. Note the variations from the usual form in Jas. and the Ignatian letters, and the lack of salutation in 1 Jn. and Heb., though these latter are perhaps rather literary epistles than letters in the stricter sense. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, chap. 1. In the creation of this general Christian form for beginning letters, the dates of the literature would suggest that Paul exerted a special influence, though there can hardly have been any slavish, perhaps not even a conscious, copying of his form by others. 2. Expression of indignant surprise at the threatened abandonment of his teaching by the Galatians, in which is disclosed the occasion of the letter (1:6-10) In place of the expression of thanksgiving or of praise to God with which in all the letters that bear Paul’ s name, except 1 Tim. and Titus, the paragraph immediately following the address and salutation opens, there stands in this letter an expression of surprise and indignation; surprise that the Galatians are so quickly abandoning the gospel as they had received it from the apostle, and are on the point of accepting from others a perversion of it; indignation at those who are troubling them and seeking to pervert the gospel of the Christ. In this expression there is disclosed, as usually in the second paragraph of the apostle’ s letters, the occasion of the epistle. 6I marvel that ye are so quickly turning away from him who called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel, 7which is not another except in the sense that there are some who are troubling you and desire to pervert the gospel of the Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven shall preach unto you a gospel not in accordance with that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel not in accordance with that which ye received, let him be accursed. 10For am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God? Or am I now seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men I should not be a servant of Christ. 6. ΘαυμάζωὅτιοὕτωςταχέωςμετατίθεσθεἀπὸτοῦκαλέσαντοςὑμᾶςἐνχάριτιΧριστοῦ “ I marvel that ye are so quickly turning away from him who called you in the grace of Christ.” The present tense of the verb μετατίθεσθε indicates clearly that when the apostle wrote the apostasy of the Galatians was as yet only in process. They were, so to speak, on the point, or more exactly in the very act, of turning. The mind of the apostle wavers while he writes between hope and fear as to the outcome (4:20, 5:10). The word ταχέως might conceivably refer to the rapid development of the apostatising movement after it was once begun. But it is equally suitable to the usage of the word to take it in the sense of “ soon” (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:19, Philippians 2:19, Philippians 2:24, Matthew 5:25, Mark 9:39), and it is certainly far more probable that the apostle is here speaking of the brevity of the interval than of the rapidity of the process. The point from which this interval, which seems to the apostle so brief, is reckoned is left unstated, but that of which one most naturally thinks in speaking of an apostasy is the time of the original acceptance of that which is now abandoned— in this case the gospel— and this is also suggested by ἀπὸτοῦκαλέσαντος and εἰςἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον . Little help is afforded by this expression towards the determination of the date of the letter, since such a change as is here spoken of would doubtless seem to the apostle to have been quickly made if it took place at any time within a few years after the conversion of the Galatians. It is grammatically possible to take τοῦκαλέσαντος as limiting Χριστοῦ and so to render “ from the Christ who called you in grace.” On this order of words see BMT 427; Gild. Synt- 622, and cf. Galatians 3:17. The thought thus yielded would moreover be wholly appropriate to this situation, since the apostasy of the Galatians was from Christ and his grace. But Paul’ s general use of the verb καλέω (see below) must be regarded as a decisive objection to referring the phrase to Christ (as is done by Hier. Luth. Calv. Beng. et al.; cf. Wies. and Sief. ad loc.) or to Paul (as by Paulus, cited by Wies.), and as a convincing reason for here referring it to God (so Chrys. Wies. Mey. Sief. Ell. Ltft.). The verb μετατίθημι , meaning in the active, “ to transfer,” “ to remove” (see, e. g., Hebrews 11:5) or “ to alter,” “ to pervert” (Jude 1:4), is used in the middle or pass. with various constructions in the sense “ to change [one’ s opinion]” . Hdt. 7:18: ἐγὼμὲνκαὶαὐτὸςτράπομαικαὶτὴνγνώμηνμετατίθεμαι : “ I myself am changing and altering my opinion;” Plato, Rep. 345 B: φανερῶςμετατίθεσοκαὶἡμᾶςμὴἐξαπάτα : “ Change your mind openly, and do not [attempt to] deceive us.” Followed by ἀπό , as here, in 2 Mac. 7:24, it means “ to turn from,” “ to apostatise from,” μεταθέμενονἀπὸτῶνπατρίων , “ on condition of having apostatised from the ancestral [laws].” With πρός , instead of εἰς as here, “ to turn to” in Polyb. 26. 2:6. For various interpretations of οὕτωςταχέως , see Sief. who himself takes it to mean “ rapidly,” “ swiftly since it began.” In fifteen passages in the letters ascribed to Paul the writer attributes “ calling” to God (Romans 4:17, Romans 4:8:30, Romans 4:9:11, Romans 4:24, 1 Corinthians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 1:7:15, 1 Corinthians 1:17, Galatians 1:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 2:4:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:5:24, 2 Timothy 1:9, using the verb καλέω ; Romans 11:29, 1 Corinthians 1:26, Ephesians 1:18, Philippians 3:14, 2 Timothy 1:9, using κλῆσις ), and never, except in the sense of “ naming” or “ inviting to a feast,” to any one else. The main features of the apostle’ s conception of this divine act appear clearly in the passages cited. It is in execution of his predetermined purpose (Romans 8:28-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:14; cf. 2 Timothy 1:9); an act of grace, not in accordance with men’ s deserts (Galatians 1:15; cf. 2 Timothy 1:9); it is the divine initiative of the Christian life (1 Corinthians 7:17-22), by which God summons men into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:9; cf. Romans 8:29, Romans 8:30), to live in sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:7), and peace (1 Corinthians 7:15, Colossians 3:15), and to attain unto salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:14), God’ s kingdom and glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12; cf. also 1 Timothy 6:12). Though always spoken of as God’ s act, it may take place through the preaching of the gospel by men (2 Thessalonians 2:14), and it is doubtless to the divine call, brought to the Galatians through his own preaching, that the apostle here refers. Paul’ s use of the terms “ call” and “ calling” is in general such as to suggest that he thought of those only as called who obeyed the divine summons (see esp. Romans 8:28-30); of a rejected call at least he never speaks. Yet the present passage evidently speaks of the Galatians as on the point or in the act of turning from him who had called them. This apostasy, moreover, the apostle evidently regarded as a most serious matter, vitally affecting their relation to Christ (see esp. 5:2-4). It can not therefore be unqualifiedly affirmed that Paul always conceived of “ calling” as effectual in the sense that all who were called were surely destined unto eternal life. On the meaning of χάρις . see on v. 3. Modern commentators have generally given to the preposition ἐν either its instrumental force (see Th. ἐν , I 5d), or its causal and basal sense (see Th. 16c). In either case the grace of Christ is that which is manifested in his gift of himself for men, and is conceived of specially in its relation to their entrance into the kingdom of God; in the latter case, it is that on the ground of which, by virtue of which, men are called; in the former case, it is that by which the calling takes place. To these views there is no decisive objection either in the usage of the phrase “ grace of Christ” (see 2 Corinthians 8:9, Romans 5:15) or in the use of the preposition ἐν . But (a) the grace of Christ is more commonly spoken of by Paul in its relation to the Christian in his Christian life (see Romans 16:20, 2 Corinthians 12:9, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Galatians 6:18, Philippians 4:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:28, 2 Thessalonians 3:18; cf. also Romans 5:2, and the benedictions in connection with the salutation of all the letters). (b) In the expression καλέωἐν as used elsewhere by Paul (Romans 9:7 does not properly come into account, being from the Lxx, and καλέω not being used in its special Pauline sense of the divine call into the kingdom), ἐν is never either instrumental or causal, except possibly in 1 Corinthians 7:22, but almost uniformly marks its object as the state or sphere in which the one called is, either (1) when he is called (1 Corinthians 7:18, 1 Corinthians 7:20, 1 Corinthians 7:24), or (2) as the result of his call. In this latter case the phrase is pregnant and bears the meaning “ call to be in” Ephesians 4:4; cf. Th. ἐν 17, and εἰς in 1 Corinthians 1:9, Colossians 3:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:14). Usage evidently favours the metaphorical local sense of the preposition, and, since κάριτι is evidently not the sphere in which the Galatians were when they were called, the pregnant use of the phrase is the more probable. (c) The sense yielded for this passage by taking κάριτι as referring to the state in which the Galatians were called to be is much more suitable to the connection than that given by either of the other constructions. In speaking of a change of position on their part, it is more natural to refer to the state in which by God’ s call they are or should be than to emphasise the basis or instrument of God’ s call. The remarkable and surprising fact about their apostasy was that they were abandoning the position of grace, i. e., the relation towards God which made them the objects of the grace of Christ and participators in its benefits, to put themselves under law, which could only award them their sad deserts. On Paul’ s view of the nature of the change cf. 5:4, 3:10-14. It is a further objection to the view that ἐν is basal that while redemption is conceived of by Paul as based on the work of Christ (Romans 3:24), it is difficult to suppose that he would speak of God’ s call as being on the ground of the grace of Christ. It is rather his thought that the work of Christ has its basis in the love of God. See Romans 5:8ff., Nor is the thought that the call of God is by means of Christ’ s grace materially easier, for the expansion of this into “ the announcement of the grace of Christ” is unwarranted by the language. The absence of the article before χάριτι has the effect, and is doubtless due to the intention, of giving the word qualitative rather than individualising force. This in turn emphasises the folly of the conduct of the Galatians. This shade of meaning can not well be expressed in English (which requires a definite article before “ grace” because of the phrase that follows it) except by some such periphrasis as, “ I marvel that ye are so quickly turning away from grace, that of Christ.” εἰςἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον , “ unto a different gospel.” On the meaning of the word ἕτερον , see detached note, p. 420. On εὐαγγέλιον , see detached note, p. 422. It is evident that in the present passage, as indeed generally in this epistle, it is the doctrinal aspect of the gospel that the apostle has specially in mind. The questions at issue between Paul and his judaistic opponents did not at all concern the historical facts of the life of Jesus, nor did they so far as known have to do with the methods of carrying on the gospel work. They pertained rather to the way of acceptance with God and the significance of the Christ in relation to such acceptance. They were thus distinctly doctrinal questions. The preposition εἰς denotes mental direction (cf. Acts 26:18, Romans 2:4, 1 Timothy 1:6) and in view of the meaning and tense of μετατίθεσθε signifies “ towards, with inclination to accept.” That Paul calls the teaching of his opponents in Galatia a different “ gospel” doubtless reflects the fact that they claimed for it the name “ gospel,” “ good tidings” ; they may even have described it in contrast with Paul’ s preaching, as a different gospel, ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον . In what sense Paul was willing to apply to it the term “ gospel” appears in what follows. 7. ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο , εἰμή “ which is not another except in the sense that.” The relative ὅ should undoubtedly be taken as referring neither to εὐαγγέλιον alone, nor to the whole statement μετατίθεσθε … εὐαγγέλιον (reasons given below), but, as the manifest emphasis upon ἕτερον in the preceding clause and the use of the partly antithetical ἄλλο in this clause suggests, to ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον taken as a single term and designating the erroneous teaching of the judaisers. The clause is thus a qualification of the preceding statement, intended to exclude the possible implication that that which the Galatians were urged to accept was really a gospel which might legitimately be substituted for that which Paul preached. On εἰμή meaning “ except” and introducing not a protasis but an exception, see Th. εἰ , III 8 c; BMT 274, 471. On εἰμή meaning “ except that,” see Mark 6:5, Romans 14:14, and cf. Th. εἰ , III 8 b. Οὐκἄλλοεἰμή is taken in the sense “ nothing else than” by Winer (Com. ad loc.), Grot., Rü ck.. as also by Grimm , ARV. marg., and Ram. (first choice; see also below), ὅ being in this case referred not to ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον , but to the fact related in μετατίθεσθε … εὐαγγέλιον . To this construction there are several objections: (1) It makes the antithesis between ἕτερον and ἄλλο only seeming and accidental, which is in view of Paul’ s usage rather improbable. See below on N. T. usage of these words. (2) It necessitates the supposition that Paul left the application of the term εὐαγγέλιον to the teaching of the judaisers unretracted. (3) The reference of ὅ to the whole preceding sentence is awkward and improbable. Following immediately upon ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον , and agreeing with it in gender and number, ὅ could scarcely be taken by the reader otherwise than as referring to this expression. If Paul had intended ὅ to refer to the entire preceding clause he would naturally have written ἅ (cf. 4:24) or τοῦτογάρἐστιν or τοῦτοδέἐστιν .* (4) It gives to οὐκἄλλοεἰμή the sense “ not other than” (denying qualitative distinction), which is unsustained by usage. See for classical writers Jelf, 773, 5 860. 7; Kü hner-Gerth, 597 m. For this idea the Lxx use οὐκἄλλ ʼ ἤ (Genesis 28:17), τίἅλλοἤ (Malachi 2:15), οὐκεἰμή (Nehemiah 2:2); N. T. writers use οὐκἅλλοςἀλλ ʼ ἤ (2 Corinthians 1:13), οὐκεἰμή (1 Corinthians 10:13), τίςεἰμή (Romans 11:15, Ephesians 4:9), but neither Lxx nor N. T. use οὐκἄλλοςεἰμή .† This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ (e) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from his conduct on a visit to Jerusalem fourteen years after the preceding one (2:1-10) Following, as before, a chronological order, the apostle now narrates the circumstances of a very important occasion on which he came in contact with those who were apostles before him. At the outset he calls attention to the length of his absence from Jerusalem, fourteen years, during which, so it is implied, he had had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles; then to the fact that when he went up it was not at their command, but in obedience to divine revelation; then, indicating that the question at issue was then, as now in Galatia, the circumcision of the Gentiles who had accepted his gospel, he tells how he laid his gospel before the Jerusalem Christians, and in a private session before the pillars of the church, James and Cephas and John, since he recognised that their disapproval of his preaching might render of no avail his future work and undo what he had already done. Though, out of consideration for the opponents of his gospel of freedom from law, who had crept into the Jerusalem church for the purpose of robbing the Christians of their freedom and bringing them into bondage to the law, the apostles urged him to circumcise Titus, a Greek Christian who was with him, he refused to do so; and so far from his yielding to the authority or persuasion of these eminent men, whose eminent past did not weigh with him, as it did not with God, they imparted nothing new to him, but when they perceived that God, who had commissioned Peter to present the gospel to the Jews, had given to Paul also a commission to the Gentiles, these leaders of the church cordially agreed to a division of the territory and of responsibility. Paul and Barnabas were to preach among the Gentiles, Peter among the Jews, and the only additional stipulation was that Paul and Barnabas should remember the poor among the Jewish Christians, which thing, Paul affirms, he gladly did. Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking Titus also along. 2And I went up in accordance with [a] revelation. And I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,— but privately before the men of eminence— lest perchance I should run or had run in vain. 3But not even Titus, who was with me and was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (4now it was because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage [that his circumcision was urged], 5to whom not for an hour did we yield by way of the subjection [demanded]), that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6And from those who were accounted to be something— what they once were matters not to me— God accepts not the person of man— for to me the men of eminence taught nothing new— 7but on the contrary when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter with the gospel to the circumcised— 8for he who wrought for Peter unto an apostleship to the circumcised wrought also for me unto an apostleship to the Gentiles— 9and when, I say, they perceived the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were accounted pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas right hands of fellowship, that we should go among the Gentiles and they among the circumcised, 10provided only that we should remember the poor, which very thing I have also taken pains to do. 1. ἜπειταδιὰδεκατεσσάρωνἐτῶνπάλινἀνέβηνεἰςἸεροσόλυμα “ Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem.” Since for the purposes of his argument that he had not been dependent on the other apostles (cf. 1:12, 17) it is his contacts with them that it is pertinent to mention, the fact that he speaks of these as visits to Jerusalem (cf. 1:18) indicates that throughout the period of which he is speaking Jerusalem was the headquarters of the apostles. And this being the case the denial, by implication, that he had been in Jerusalem is the strongest possible way of denying communication with the Twelve. It follows also that, had there been other visits to Jerusalem in this period, he must have mentioned them, unless indeed they had been made under conditions which excluded communication with the Twelve, and this fact had been well known to his readers. Even in that case he would naturally have spoken of them and appealed to the well-known absence of the apostles or have spoken, not of going to Jerusalem, but of seeing those who were apostles before him. Ἔπειτα , primarily a particle of chronological succession, clearly has this force here, as is suggested by διὰ … ἐτῶν . The ἔπειτα … ἔπειτα … ἔπειτα of 1:18, 21 and the present v. mark the successive steps of a chronological series, and at the same time of the apostle’ s argument, because he is arranging it on a chronological framework; they thus acquire as in some other cases (see 1 Thessalonians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 15:46) a secondary logical force. That διά may mean “ after the lapse of” is clearly shown by Hdt. 3:27; Soph. Ph. 758; Xen. Cyr. 1. 4:28, and other passages cited by L.&S. s. v. A. II 2, and by W. XLVII i. (b) (WM p. 475), and that this use was current in Jewish Greek appears from Deuteronomy 9:11, Mark 2:1, Acts 24:17. That this rather than “ throughout,” the only alternative meaning in chronological expressions, is the meaning here is evident from the unsuitableness of “ throughout” to the verb ἀνέβην . On the question whether the period is to be reckoned from the same starting point as the three years previously named (1:18) or from the end of that period, there is room for difference of opinion. Wies. Ell. Alf. hold the former view; Ltft. Mey. Beet, Sief. Lip. Zahn, Bous. the latter. For the exposition of the apostle’ s thought at this point the question is of little consequence. His purpose is evidently to emphasise the limited amount of his communication with the Twelve as tending to show that he did not receive his gospel from them, and for this purpose it matters little whether the period during which he had no communication with the Twelve was fourteen years or eleven. For the chronology of the life of Paul, however, the question is of more significance. While it is impossible to determine with certainty which view is correct, the balance of probability seems to favour reckoning the fourteen years as subsequent to the three years. The nature of his argument requires him to mention not how long after his conversion he made this visit, but during how long a period he remained without personal communication with the other apostles, which period would be reckoned, of course, from his latest preceding visit. This argument is somewhat strengthened by the use of the preposition διά , which, meaning properly “ through,” and coming to signify “ after” only through the thought of a period passed through, also suggests that the period of fourteen years constitutes a unit in the apostle’ s mind— an unbroken period of non-communication with the apostles. The substitution of τεσσάρων for δεκατεσσάρων (advocated by Grot. Seml. et al., named by Sief. and Zahn ad loc.), resting as it does on no external evidence, calls for no refutation. The supposed difficulties of the chronology of the apostle’ s life based on δεκατεσσάρων are insufficient to justify this purely conjectural emendation of the text. For the doubt whether πάλιν belonged to the original text expressed by Zahn and Bous. there seems slight justification. It is lacking in no ancient ms., though standing in DFG d g Goth. Aeth. after ἀνέβην , and in but one ancient version, the Boh. The quotation of the sentence without it by Mcion. Iren. Ambrst. Chrys. seems insufficient evidence that the original text lacked it. μετὰΒαρνάβα , “ with Barnabas,” i. e., accompanied by him, as in Matthew 16:27, 1 Thessalonians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 1:7, rather than accompanying him, as in Matthew 25:10, Matthew 26:47, Acts 7:45; for the remainder of the narrative, especially the constant use of the first person singular, implies that Paul and not Barnabas was the chief speaker and leader of the party. συνπαραλαβὼνκαὶΤίτον · “ taking Titus also along.” Titus is thus assigned to a distinctly subordinate position as one “ taken along,” and the members of the party evidently ranked in the order, Paul, Barnabas, Titus. The apostle says nothing at this point concerning the reason for taking Titus with him. But the specific mention of the fact and the part that Titus played in the subsequent events (vv. 3-5) suggest that Paul intended to make his a test-case for the whole question of the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Concerning the tense of the participle συνπαραλαβών , see BMT 149, and cf. Acts 12:25. The act denoted by the participle, though coinciding in time with the action of the principal verb, is expressed by an aorist rather than a present participle, because it is conceived of as a simple fact, not as an action in progress, least of all as one within the time of which the action of the principal verb falls. 2. ἀνέβηνδὲκατὰἀποκάλυψιν · “ and I went up in accordance with [a] revelation,” i. e., in obedience to such [a] revelation. The word ἀποκάλυψις evidently has the same meaning here as in 1:12 (see the discussion there and detached note on Ἀποκάλύπτω and Ἀποκάλυψις , p. 433), but refers in this case to a disclosure of the divine will respecting a specific matter, not, as there, to a revelation of the person Jesus in his true character. Concerning the specific method in which the divine will that he should go to Jerusalem was disclosed to him, and whether directly to him or through some other person, the apostle says nothing. Nor can it be determined whether the word is here used indefinitely, referring to a (specific) revelation, or with merely qualitative force, describing revelation as the method by which he obtained his conviction that he ought to go to Jerusalem. On the former point, however, cf. 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff. Acts 13:1, Acts 13:16:7, Acts 13:9, Acts 13:21:11, Acts 13:27:23ff.. For a similar use of the preposition κατά cf. Acts 23:31, Romans 16:26, 2 Thessalonians 3:6. “ In accordance with,” being the more usual and exact meaning of κατά , is to be preferred to the nearly equivalent sense, “ because of.” In Romans 16:25 and Ephesians 3:3, though the phrase is the same, the sense is different. καὶἀνεθέμηναὐτοῖςτὸεὐαγγέλιονὃκηρύσσωἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν , “ And I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles.” The pronoun αὐτοῖς , having no definitely expressed antecedent, is to be taken as referring in general to those whom he visited in Jerusalem, i. e., the Christian community. Concerning the word εὐαγγέλιον , see detached note, p. 422; the use of the term here is doubtless the same as in 1:6. The questions at issue between Paul and those of a different opinion in Jerusalem were not historical, nor practical in the sense that they pertained to the methods of gospel work, but doctrinal, having to do with the significance of the work of Christ, the conditions of salvation, the obligations of believers. The use of the present tense, κηρύσσω , reflects the apostle’ s thought that he is still at the time of writing preaching the same gospel which he had been preaching before he made this visit to Jerusalem. Cf. the similar implication, though with a reverse use of tenses, in 1:11. The use of a past tense, ἐκήρυξεν , would almost have suggested that what he then preached he was now no longer preaching. “ Among the Gentiles,” the apostle says, suggesting that he not only preached to the Gentiles but to the Jews also, so far as they were in Gentile lands. Note the same phrase in 1:16 and εἰςτὰἔθνη in 2:8, all of which indicate that Paul conceived his apostleship to be not simply to the Gentile people but to the people of Gentile lands. Ἀνατίθημι , found from Homer down, is apparently used only in later writers in the sense “ to present” (matter for consideration). See 2 Mal 3:9; Acts 25:14, only N. T. instance, and cf. M. &M. Voc. s. v. κατ ʼ ἰδίανδὲτοῖςδοκοῦσιν , “ but privately before the men of eminence.” Those who are here designated as οἱδοκοῦντες are evidently the same who in v. 6 are called οἱδοκοῦντες and οἱδοκοῦντεςεἶναίτι , and in v. 9 οἱδοκοῦντεςστύλοιεἶναι , and in v. 9 are also identified as James and Cephas and John. See note in fine print below. By these phrases the three men named are described as the influential men, the leaders, of the Christian community in Jerusalem. There is nothing in the present passage or in the usage of the words to indicate that they are used with irony. On the question whether this phrase refers to the same interview spoken of in ἀνεθέμην … ἔθνεσιν , so that τοῖςδοκοῦσιν is merely a more definite designation of αὐτοῖς , or to a different one, so that there was both a public and a private meeting at which Paul set forth his gospel, probability is in favour of the latter; for although an epexegetic limitation may certainly be conjoined to what precedes by δέ , yet it is Paul’ s usual habit in such cases to repeat the word which the added phrase is to limit (cf. ἀνέβην in this v.; Romans 3:22, Romans 3:9:30, 1 Corinthians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 2:6, Philippians 2:8— in 1 Corinthians 3:15 it is otherwise). In this case, moreover, it is difficult to suppose that Paul should have used the very general αὐτοῖς if, indeed, he meant only three men, or to see why if he referred to but one interview he should not have written simply καὶἀνεθέμηντοῖςδοκοῦσιντὸεὐαγγέλιον , etc. Among modern interpreters Wies. Ell. Ltft. Mey. Weizs. Holst. Sief. Lip. Zahn, Bous. et al., understand the language to imply two interviews; Zeller, Neander, Alf. Beet. Vernon Bartlet (in Expositor, Oct., 1899), Emmet, et al., but one. On the use of κατ ʼ ἰδίαν , which can not mean “ especially” (as Bous. et al.) but only “ privately,” cf. Matthew 17:19, Mark 4:34, Mark 9:28 etc.; Ign. Smyrn. 7:2: πρέπονοὖνἐστίν … μήτεκατ ʼ ἰδίανπερὶαὐτῶνλαλεῖνμήτεκοινῇ . The phrase οἱδοκοῦντες , vv. 2, 6b is an example of a usage rare in ancient Greek literature. The participle alone, as here, is found in Eur. Hec. 295 and Troiad. 613, both times in the sense “ men of standing and consequence, men of esteem.” There is no hint of any derogatory flavour in the phrase. In Herodian 6. 1:3, sometimes cited under this head, τοὺςδοκούντας has a predicate in καὶσεμνοτάτουςκαὶ … σωφρονεστάτους following. The meaning is “ those esteemed both most dignified and most sober.” With this cf. οἱδοκοῦντεςστύλοι , v. 9. The expression οἱδοκοῦντεςεἶναίτι which Paul uses in v. 6 a (and from which, as Zahn holds, the shorter form is derived by ellipsis) is found in the same form and meaning in Plato, Gorg. 472 A, where it is synonymous with εὐδοκίμους a few lines above; cf. also Euthyd. 303 C, where the phrase is the same, except that the εἶναίτι is inverted. The same phrase, however, is used also in the sense “ those who think themselves something” ; so Plut. Apophth. lacon. 49, and probably Plato, Apol. 35 A. The meanings of the word δοκεῖν itself as used in these or similar phrases are as follows: 1. “ To be accounted, esteemed” (a) in the indifferent sense of the word. See vv. 6 a, 9; cf. Plato, Apol. 35 A; Plut. Aristid. 1:7; Epictet. Enchir. 13: κἂνδόξῃςτισινεἶναίτις , ἀπίστεισεαυτῷ . 2 Mac. 9:10 (?) Mark 10:42, 1 Corinthians 12:22 (?) (b) in the definitely honourable sense, “ to be highly esteemed,” as in vv. 2, 6 b. 2. “ To account one’ s self,” as in Galatians 6:3, 1 Corinthians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 8:2, 1 Corinthians 10:12, James 1:26, Proverbs 26:12. For an especially close parallel to Galatians 6:3 see Plato, Apol. 41 E. Thus in all of the four instances in the present passage the word has substantially the same meaning, differing only in that in vv. 6 a, 9 the word is colourless, the standing of those referred to being expressed in the predicate, while in vv. 2, 6b, the predicate is omitted and the verb itself carries the idea of high standing. μήπωςεἰςκενὸντρέχωἢἔδραμον . “ lest perchance I should run or had run in vain.” μήπως expresses apprehension (see more fully below). The whole phrase implies that the apostle saw in the existing situation a danger that his work on behalf of the Gentiles, both past and future, might be rendered ineffectual by the opposition of the Jerusalem church, or of certain men in it, and the disapproval of the apostles, and that fearing this, he sought to avert it. The ground of his apprehension is, of course, not a doubt concerning the truth of the gospel which he preached— it would be an impossible incongruity on his part to attribute to himself such a doubt in the very midst of his strenuous insistence upon the truth and divine source of that gospel— but rather, no doubt, the conviction that the disapproval of his work by the leading apostles in Jerusalem would seriously interfere with that work and to a serious degree render it ineffectual. The apostle’ s conduct throughout his career, notably in the matter of the collection for the poor of Jerusalem, and his own last visit to Jerusalem (see 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 1 Corinthians 16:2 Cor. chs. 8, 9, esp. 9:12-15, Romans 15:25-32, esp. v. 31), show clearly that it was to him a matter of the utmost importance, not only to prevent the forcing of the Jewish law upon the Gentiles, but at the same time to maintain the unity of the Christian movement, avoiding any division into a Jewish and a Gentile branch. To this end he was willing to divert energy and time from his work of preaching to the Gentiles in order to raise money for the Jewish Christians, and to delay his journey to the west in order personally to carry this money to Jerusalem. His unshaken confidence in the divine origin and the truth of his own gospel did not prevent his seeing that the rupture which would result from a refusal of the pillar apostles, the leaders of the Jewish part of the church, to recognise the legitimacy of his mission and gospel and so of Gentile Christianity on a non-legal basis, would be disastrous alike to the Jewish and the Gentile parties which would thus be created. Εἰςκενόν found also in Lxx (Leviticus 26:20, Job 39:16, Micah 1:14, Isaiah 29:8, etc.); Jos. Ant. 19. 27 (1:4), 96 (1:13); Bell. 1. 275 (14:1); in late Greek writers (Diod. Sic. 19. 9:5) and in the N. T. by Paul (1 Thessalonians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 6:1, Philippians 2:16) is with him always, as usually in the Lxx, a phrase of result meaning “ uselessly,” “ without effect.” Running, as a figure of speech for effort directed to an end, is not uncommon with Paul (1 Corinthians 9:24, 1 Corinthians 9:26, Galatians 5:7, Philippians 2:16; see also Philippians 3:14, 2 Timothy 4:7). The clause μή … ἔδραμον has been explained: (1) As an indirect question, “ whether perhaps I was running or had run in vain.” τρέχω is in this case a present indicative, retained from the direct form. So Usteri, assuming an ellipsis of “ in order that I might learn from them,” Wies., who assumes an ellipsis of “ in order that they might perceive,” and Sief., who supplies “ to put to test the question,” and emphasises the fact that since μή expects a negative answer the apostle implies no doubt respecting the result of his work, but only the abstract possibility of its fruitlessness. (2) As a final clause, “ that I might not run or have run in vain” (so Frit. Beet). (3) As an object clause after a verb of fearing implied, “ fearing lest I should run or had run in vain.” τρέχω is in that case most probably a pres. subj., referring to a continued (fruitless) effort in the future. A pres. ind. would be possible (GMT 369.1) referring to a then existing situation, but is a much less probable complement and antithesis to ἔδραμον than a pres. subj. referring to the future. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5. So Ltft. Ell. (?), Lip. (though apparently confusing it with the preceding interpretation). To the first of these it is to be objected that it involves a doubtful use of μήπως . Goodwin (GMT 369 fn. 1) distinguishing clearly, as Sief. following Kü hner (II 1037, 1042, but cf. Kü hner-Gerth, II 391 fn., which corrects Kü hner’ s error) fails to do, between the indirect question and the clause of fear, maintains (L.&S. sub. μήπως , however, contra) that μή is never used in classical writers in an indirect question. Sief., indeed, alleges that this indirect interrogative use is common in later Greek, but cites no evidence. μήπως is certainly not so used in Paul, with whom it is always a final particle, occurring in a pure final clause, or in a clause of fear, or in an object clause after verbs of precaution (1 Corinthians 8:9, 1 Corinthians 8:9:27, 2 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Corinthians 9:4, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 4:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:5; it is not used by other N. T. writers) and there is no certain instance of μή so used in N. T.; Luke 11:35, which is generally so taken, is at best a doubtful case. To the second interpretation it is a decisive objection that a past tense of the indicative is used in final clauses only after a hypothetical statement contrary to fact and to express an unattained purpose. Neither of these conditions is fulfilled here. The verb ἀνεθέμην expresses a fact, not what would have been under certain circumstances, and the apostle certainly does not mean to characterise the purpose that he might not run in vain as unattained. The attempt of Frit., approved by W. Lev_2 (b) β (WM. p. 633), to give the sentence a hypothetical character by explaining it, “ that I might not, as might easily have happened if I had not communicated my teaching in Jerusalem, have run in vain,” is not only artificial, but after all fails to make the principal clause ἀνεθέμην , etc., an unreal hypothesis. See GMT 333, 336. The third interpretation is consistent both with general Greek usage and with Paul’ s use of μήπως , and is the only probable one. It involves, of course, the implication of a purpose of the apostle’ s action, viz., to avert what he feared, that his future work should be fruitless, or his past work be undone. But such implication is common in clauses of fear. When the verb of fear is expressed, the μή clause expresses by implication the purpose of an action previously mentioned or about to be mentioned (Acts 23:10, 2 Corinthians 12:20); when the fear is only implied the μή clause, denoting the object of apprehension, conveys by implication the purpose of the immediately preceding verb (2 Corinthians 9:4, 1 Thessalonians 3:5). The use of the aorist indicative following a statement of fact suffices, however, to show that in this case the clause expresses primarily an object of apprehension. The objection of Sief. to this interpretation, that Paul certainly could not have implied that his fear of his past work being rendered fruitless was actually realised, rests upon a misunderstanding of the force of a past tense in such cases. This implies not that the fear has been realised — in this case one would not express fear at all, but regret— but that the event is past, and the outcome, which is the real object of fear, as yet unknown or undetermined. Cf. GMT 369; BMT 227, and see chap. 4:11, where the object clause refers to a past fact, the outcome of which is, however, not only as yet unknown to him, but quite possibly yet to be determined by the course which the Galatians should pursue in response to the letter he was then writing. 3. ἀλλ ʼ οὐδὲΤίτοςὁσὺνἐμοί , Ἕλληνὤν , ἠναγκάσθηπεριτμηθῆναι · “ But not even Titus, who was with me, and was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” In antithesis to the possibility of his work proving fruitless (by reason of the opposition of the Jerusalem church and apostles) Paul here sets forth the fact that on this very occasion and in a test-case his view prevailed. For ἀλλά introducing the evidence disproving a previously suggested hypothesis, see Romans 4:2, 1 Corinthians 2:9. The fact of the presence of Titus with the apostle had already been mentioned in the preceding sentence. Its repetition here in ὁσὺνἐμοί is evidently, therefore, for an argumentative purpose, and doubtless as emphasising the significance of the fact that he was not circumcised. It is upon this element of the sentence especially that οὐδέ “ not even” throws its emphasis. The opponents of Paul, the “ false brethren” desired, of course, the circumcision of all Gentile Christians. But so far were they from carrying through their demand that not even Titus, who was there on the ground at the time, and to whom the demand would first of all apply, was circumcised. The non-circumcision of Titus, therefore, was in reality a decision of the principle. The phrase ὁσὺνἐμοί is thus concessive in effect. See BMT 428. The participial phrase, Ἕλληνὤν , adds a fact, probably like ὁσὺνἐμοί , known to the readers, but necessary to be borne in mind in order to appreciate the significance of the fact about to be stated. Like the preceding phrase it also is concessive (BMT 437), “ though he was a Greek” (and hence uncircumcised; not of course, “ although a Greek and hence under preeminent obligation to be circumcised,” which neither Paul nor his opponents would have claimed). Though the Greek construction is different in the two phrases, the thought is best expressed in English by joining them as in the translation given above. Segond also renders “ qui é tait avec moi et qui é tait Grec.” The term Ἓλλην is doubtless to be taken in its broad sense of “ Gentile,” as in Romans 1:16, Romans 1:2:9, Romans 1:10 et freq., a usage which occurs also in Jos. Ant. 20:262 (11:2), and in the Christian Fathers (Th.). This is the first mention of circumcision in the epistle. The fact so well known to Paul and his readers as to require no explicit mention, but clearly brought out later in the letter, that the legalistic party insisted most strenuously upon circumcision, is here incidentally implied. ἠναγκάσθη is undoubtedly to be taken as a resultative aorist (BMT 42), and οὐδὲἠναγκάσθη denies not the attempt to compel but the success of the attempt. That the attempt was (unsuccessfully) made is clearly implied in the context. The argument of Sief. for his interpretation, making οὐδὲἠναγκάσθη a denial that pressure was brought to bear on Paul, i. e., by the apostles, confuses the distinction between the meaning of the word and the force of its tense. ἀναγκάζω is used consistently throughout N. T. in the present and imperfect with conative force (Acts 26:12, Galatians 2:14, Galatians 6:12), signifying “ to apply pressure,” “ to (seek to) compel” ; in the aorist, on the other hand, consistently with a resultative sense, in the active “ to compel,” in the passive, “ to be forced” (Matthew 14:22, Mark 6:45, Luke 14:23, Acts 28:19, 2 Corinthians 12:11). What, therefore, the aorist with οὐκ denies is simply the result. Whether that result did not ensue because no pressure was applied, or because the pressure was successfully resisted, can be determined only by the connection. The fact, however, that the imperfect with οὐκ would have clearly expressed the thought that no effort was made, and the clear implication in the context that effort was made are practically decisive for the present case. Sief.’ s contention that the context excludes effort on the part of the apostles to have Titus circumcised is unsupported by the context, and involves a misapprehension of Paul’ s contention throughout the passage; this is not that the apostles did not disagree with him, and always approved his position, but that he was independent of them; in this particular matter, that they yielded to him. See esp. v. 7 with its clear implication of a change of front on the part of the apostles. For other interpretations of οὐκ … περιτμηθῆναι , see below on the various constructions ascribed to διὰ … ψευδαδέλφους . 4. διὰδὲτὸυςπαρεισάκτουςψευδαδέλφους , “ now it was because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought in.” The question what this phrase limits, i. e., what it was that was done because of the false brethren, is one of the most difficult of all those raised by the passage. The most probable view is that it is to be associated with the idea of pressure, urgency, implied in οὐδὲἠναγκάσθη . The meaning may then be expressed thus: “ And not even Titus… was compelled to be circumcised, and (what shows more fully the significance of the fact) it was urged because of the false brethren.” If this is correct it follows that there were three parties to the situation under discussion in Jerusalem. There were, first, Paul and Barnabas, who stood for the policy of receiving Gentiles as Christians without circumcision; on the other hand, there were those whom Paul characterises as false brethren, and who contended that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised; and finally there were those who for the sake of the second party urged that Paul should waive his scruples and consent to the circumcision of Titus. This third party evidently consisted of the pillar apostles, with whom Paul held private conference (v. 3) and who because of Paul’ s representations finally themselves yielded and gave assent to Paul’ s view (vv. 7-9). With the second party it does not appear that Paul came into direct contact; they are at least mentioned only as persons for whose sake, not by whom, certain things were done. It is thus clearly implied that they who in person urged the circumcision of Titus did not themselves regard it as necessary except as a matter of expediency, as a concession to the feelings or convictions of those whom Paul designates as false brethren, but who were evidently regarded by the other apostles rather as persons whose prejudices or convictions, however mistaken, it was desirable to consider. On the question whether the apostles carried their conciliatory policy to the extent of urging the circumcision of all Gentile converts, see fn. p. 91. Παρείσακτος , a word not found in extant classical writings, is nevertheless given by the ancient lexicographers, Hesych. Phot. and Suid. Cf. Frit. Opuscula, pp. 181 ff. (Th.); Sief. ad loc., p. 101, fn. In view of the frequent use of the passive of verbs in later Greek in a middle sense, and of the definition of this word by Hesych. Phot. and Suid. by the neutral term ἀλλότριος , it is doubtful whether the passive sense can be insisted upon, as if these false brethren had been brought in by others. The relative clause, οἵτινες etc., distinctly makes the men themselves active in their entrance into the church, which though by no means excluding the thought that some within were interested in bringing them in, throws the emphasis upon their own activity in the matter. Nor is the idea of surreptitiousness, secrecy, at all clearly emphasised. That they are alien to the body into which they have come is what the term both etymologically and by usage suggests. ψευδάδελφος , used elsewhere in N. T. only 2 Corinthians 11:26, evidently means those who profess to be brethren, i. e., to be true members of the Christian body, but are not so in fact. Cf. Paul’ s use of the term ψευδαπόστολος , 2 Corinthians 11:13. These words παρεισάκτουςψευδαδέλφους express, of course, Paul’ s judgment concerning these men when he wrote. That they were so looked upon by the other apostles at the time of the events here referred to does not necessarily follow. The community into which “ the false brethren” had made their way is unnamed. That they had made their influence felt in Antioch, if not also generally among the churches having Gentile members, and that they came from Jerusalem and were in some sense representatives of that church, is implied in the very fact that Paul and Barnabas came up to Jerusalem about the matter. If, therefore, παρεισάκτους and παρεισῆλθον refer to a visit to a church, we should mentally supply with them “ into the church at Antioch,” or “ into the churches among the Gentiles.” But if, as is more probable, these words refer to incorporation into the membership of the body, then the reference is either to the church at Jerusalem, which is favoured by the facts above cited as indicating that they were actually from Jerusalem, or the Christian community in general, which is favoured by the indefiniteness of the language here employed and the fact that the apostle’ s indignation is most naturally explained if he is thinking of these men not as additions to the Jerusalem church in particular, with which he was not directly concerned, but as an element of discord in the Christian community. In either case it is clear that they emanated from Jerusalem and were exerting their influence as a foreign element at Antioch or in general in the churches having Gentile members. See further, par. 12, p. 117. Of the numerous constructions which have been adopted for the phrase διὰ … ψευδαδέλφους the following may be named: 1. Those which make it limit some following word. (a) εἴξαμεν . So, omitting οἵςοὐδέ (in v. 5; cf. textual note below), Tert. et al., and in modern times Zahn. This yields the sense, “ but because of the false brethren… I yielded for a brief space.” This may be dismissed because based on a text insufficiently supported by textual evidence, and giving the impossible sense that Paul yielded by way of the subjection demanded by the false brethren that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Gentiles.* (b) So, retaining οἵςοὐδέ , but assuming that the insertion of οἵς involves an anacoluthon, Wies. p. 110; Philippi; and substantially so Weizs. Ap. Zeit. p. 155. Cf. Butt. p. 385. Paul, it is supposed, having intended at first to make διὰ … ψευδαδ . limit οὐκεἴξαμεν directly, was led by the length of the sentence to insert οἵς , thus changing the thought from an assertion that on their account he did not yield into a denial that he yielded to them, and leaving διὰ … ψευδαδ . without a regimen. The objection of Sief. (ad loc., p. 98) to this interpretation that these two conceptions “ yielded on account of” and “ yielded to” are so different that the one could not be merged in the other is of little force; for certainly Paul might naturally think of a yielding to a demand made for the sake of the false brethren as in effect a yielding to them. Nor can the fact of the anacoluthon itself be urged against this view, since anacolutha are common in Paul, and especially so in this very paragraph. The real objection to this interpretation lies in the difficulty of supposing that Paul could say that he refused to circumcise Titus because it was requested for the sake of the false brethren, or as Wies. in effect makes it, by them. Is it to be supposed that, when the very question at issue was the legitimacy of the gospel which offered itself to the Gentiles without legal requirement, he would have consented to circumcise Titus, if only the request had not been made for the sake of the false brethren? Weizs., indeed, interprets διὰ … ψευδαδ . as giving not the decisive reason, but for the urging of which Titus would have been circumcised, but a contributory reason, which made his course all the more necessary— a meaning which has much to commend it, but which it seems would have necessitated the insertion of some such word as μάλιστα (cf. chap. 6:10). 2. Those which make διὰ … ψευδαδ . limit what precedes, introducing an epexegetic addition to the preceding statement. So Sief., who, joining this verse closely to the words ἠναγκάσθηπεριτμηθῆναι and making οὐκ limit the whole phrase, finds in the sentence the meaning that no attempt was made for the sake of the false brethren to compel Titus to be circumcised. In other words, though the leading men might not unnaturally have urged the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the false brethren, no such compulsion was in fact applied. Aside from the improbable sense given to οὐδὲ … ἠναγκάσθη (see on v. 4), this involves an extremely difficult if not impossible sense of δέ , concerning which see on v. 2. To have yielded this meaning διὰ … ψευδαδ . must have stood in the least prominent position in the midst of the sentence, not subjoined and emphasised by δέ , or if for the sake of making the denial of Titus’ s circumcision— the fact itself— unequivocal, it was necessary that the words διὰ … ψευδαδ . should stand apart, then they must have become a phrase of concession or opposition, expressing the thought, “ though urged by,” or “ in spite of the false brethren,” or have been introduced by οὐδέ , “ and not even for the sake of the false brethren.” Cf. on οὐδέ under 1:12. Mey. also joins this phrase closely to what precedes, but to the whole expression οὐδὲ … περιτμηθῆναι , and finds in it the reason why Titus was not circumcised, i. e., because the false brethren urged it. If this relates to Paul, constituting his reason for refusing to consent to the circumcision of Titus, it is open to the same objection as 1 (b) above, viz., it implies that but for the advocacy of it by the false brethren Paul would have had no objection to the circumcision of Titus. If, on the other hand, the phrase is understood to refer to the motives of the eminent Jerusalem brethren, giving their reason for not asking for or consenting to the circumcision, then we have the representation that the false brethren urged the circumcision of Titus, and that the Jerusalem apostles opposed it not on principle, but because it was being urged by the false brethren; a view which attributes to them a degree of opposition to the legalistic party in the Jewish portion of the church, and of championship of the freedom of the Gentiles, which does not comport with the otherwise known history of the apostolic age, and which would, it would seem, have made this council itself unnecessary. Had the facts, moreover, been what this interpretation makes them, Paul could hardly have failed to bring out with greater distinctness what would have been so much to the advantage of his case, as he has done, e. g., in vv.7-9. The joining of the phrase with ἀνεθέμην , or ἀνέβην , advocated by some of the older modern expositors (see in Sief.), scarcely calls for discussion. These interpretations yield a not unreasonable sense, and avoid many of the difficulties encountered by the other constructions, but it is hardly conceivable that the reader would be expected to supply mentally a word left so far behind. 3. Those which make διὰ … ψευδαδ . limit something supplied from the preceding. (a) οὐκἠναγκάσθηπεριτμηθῆναι (Ell.) or οὐκπεριετμήθη (Frit. cited by Ltft.). This is not materially different from making it limit οὐδέ … περιτμηθῆναι already expressed, as is done by Mey., and is open to the same objections. (b) περιετμήθη , Rü ck. et al.; advocated by Hort. (WH. II app. p. 121). According to this interpretation οὐ throws its whole force on ἠναγκάσθη , only the compulsion, not the circumcision, being denied; δέ is adversative, and introduces the statement of the reason why Titus, though not compelled, was nevertheless circumcised, viz., because of the false brethren. This is perhaps the most improbable of all the proposed interpretations. If the circumcision of Titus was carried through without Paul’ s consent, then how could he have said that it was not compelled? If with his consent and, as he says, because of the false brethren, how could he say that he had not yielded to them for so much as an hour? What was such consent but precisely ἡὑποταγή , the surrender which they demanded (cf. on τῇὑποταγῇ , v. 5)? And with what honesty could he have maintained that he had pursued this course at Jerusalem, “ that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” when in fact he had on that occasion surrendered the very thing which was to him the key to the whole situation so far as concerned the relation of the Gentile to the law and to Christ? Cf. 5:1-4. In fact, any view which assumes that Titus was circumcised involves the conclusion that Paul surrendered his case under compulsion or through wavering, and that in his present argument he made a disingenuous and unsuccessful attempt to prove that he did not surrender it. (c) The thought of (unsuccessful) pressure implied in οὐδὲ … ἠναγκάσθη . This view (set forth in the larger print above), and well advocated by Ltft. pp. 105, 106, yields a clear and consistent account of what took place, showing the Jerusalem apostles standing between the extremists on both sides, advising Paul to consent to the circumcision of Titus for the sake of peace, while Paul, seeing in such a yielding a surrender of vital principle to the false representatives of Christianity, persistently refused; it accounts at the same time for the insertion of the phrase, and for the characterisation of the men referred to as false brethren, etc., showing at the same time the extent to which the Jerusalem apostles could, from Paul’ s point of view, be led astray, so as even to advocate a course dictated by regard for those who were in reality only false brethren, and suggesting a contributory reason for his resistance, that the demand for the circumcision of Titus originated with spies from without, men who had no proper place in the church at all. This view alone brings this portion of the paragraph into line with the apostle’ s general argument by which he aims to show his entire independence, even of the other apostles. If it be judged too harsh and difficult to supply from the preceding language the thought, “ this was urged,” the most reasonable alternative view is that of Wies. et al. (1 (b) above). From a purely linguistic point of view this interpretation is perhaps the easiest of all that have been proposed, and if it could be supposed, with Weizs., that Paul would refer in this unqualified way to a reason which was, after all, only contributory, it would be the most probable interpretation of the passage. οἵτινεςπαρεισῆλθονκατασκοπῆσαιτὴνἐλευθερίανἡμῶν “ who sneaked in to spy out our freedom.” The liberty of which the apostle here speaks is, of course, the freedom of the Christian from bondage to the law, which would have been surrendered in principle if the Gentile Christians had been compelled to be circumcised. Cf. 4:8, 9, 11-31, and esp. 5:1-3, 13. That he calls it “ our freedom” (cf. ὑμᾶς at the end of v.5) shows that although the obligation of the Gentile to be circumcised was the particular question at issue, this was in the apostle’ s mind only a part of a larger question, which concerned both Jewish and Gentile Christians, or else that Paul is for the moment associating himself with the Gentile Christians as those whose case he represents. The Antioch incident (vv. 11-21) shows how closely the question of the freedom of the Jews was connected with that of the liberty of the Gentile Christians, both in fact and in the apostle’ s mind. Yet there is nothing in his narrative to indicate that in the discussion at Jerusalem the freedom of the Gentile was explicitly considered in relation to anything except circumcision. Still less is it to be assumed that the question of the obligation of the Jewish Christians in respect to foods or defilement by association with Gentile Christians was at this time brought up. Rather does the expression “ that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” suggest that at this time the only question raised pertained to the Gentiles, and this is further confirmed by the situation which afterwards arose at Antioch, in which the question of foods and particularly the obligation of the Jews in respect to them appears as one on which an agreement had not been previously reached. Παρεισέρχομαι is a verb not uncommon in later Greek, meaning literally “ to come in alongside,” but usually (not, however, in Romans 5:20) implying stealth. See exx., cited by Th.; and esp. Luc. Asin. 15, εἰλύκοςπαρεισέλθοι (Sief.). κατασκοπέω , “ to spy out,” with the associated idea of hostile intent, purpose to destroy (Grk. writers from Xenophon down, Lxx, here only in N. T.) is here nearly equivalent to “ stealthily to destroy.” ἥνἔχομενἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ , “ which we have in Christ Jesus.” The preposition ἐν is probably used here to mark its object as the causal ground or basis of the freedom which we possess, the person by reason of whom and on the basis of whose work we have this freedom. See Th. ἐν , I 6c, and Acts 13:39, Romans 3:24, Romans 5:9 and note on v.17 below. Others (see Ell., e. g., h. l. and v. 17) take ἐν in the sense “ in mystical union with,” a meaning which the word sometimes has in Paul. But in view of the clear instances of the causal sense both before names of Christ and other words, it is certainly to be preferred here where the so-called mystical sense itself becomes intelligible only by adding to it a causal sense, making it mean “ by virtue of our union with.” ἵναἡμᾶςκαταδουλώσουσιν , “ that they might bring us into bondage,” i. e., to the law, implying an already possessed freedom. Observe the active voice of the verb, excluding the sense to bring into bondage to themselves, and cf. 4:9, 10, 4:21-5:1. Undue stress must not be laid on ἡμᾶς as meaning or including Jewish Christians (cf. on ἐλευθερίανἡμῶν above), yet its obvious reference is to Christians in general, not to Gentile Christians exclusively. The whole phraseology descriptive of these “ false brethren” implies, as Weizs. has well pointed out (Ap. Zeit. pp. 216-222, E. T., I 257-263) that they were distinct and different from the original constituents of the church, a foreign element, introduced at a relatively late date, distinguished not only from the apostles but from the primitive church in general, and this not only personally but in their spirit and aims. By κατασκοπῆσαι and ἵνακαταδουλώσουσιν Paul definitely charges that these men entered the church for a propagandist purpose, that they joined the Christian community in order to make it legalistic, and implies that previous to their coming non-legalistic views were, if not generally held, at least tolerated. Cf. also on 1:24. As concerns the apostle’ s reflection upon the character of these men and the unworthiness of their motive, some allowance must necessarily be made for the heat of controversy; but that fact does not seem to affect the legitimacy of the inferences from his statement as to the state of opinion in the Jewish church and of practice among Gentile Christians. These facts have an important bearing on the question of the relation of Paul’ s narrative in this chapter to that of Acts, chaps. 6, 7, 10, 11. The recent entrance of these men into the church and the implication as to the condition of things before they came suggest that the representation of Acts that the Jerusalem church was in the early days of its history tolerant of non-legalistic views, and not unwilling to look with favour on the acceptance of Gentiles as Christians, is not in itself improbable. It is at least not in conflict with the testimony of this letter. On the use of a future in a pure final clause, see BMT 198 and cf. Luke 14:10, Luke 20:10, Acts 21:24, Acts 28:27, Romans 3:4. 5. οἷςοὐδὲπρὸςὥρανεἲξαμεντῇὑποταγῇ , “ to whom not for an hour did we yield by way of the subjection (demanded).” Though the request that Paul and those with him should yield was made not by, but because of, the false brethren, he clearly saw that to grant the request would be in effect to surrender to the latter. Hence the dative here instead of διὰοὕς , corresponding to διὰτοὺςψευδαδέλφους . The article before ὑποταγῇ is restrictive, showing that the word is used not simply with qualitative force, but refers to the particular obedience which was demanded. The phrase is therefore epexegetic of εἴξαμεν , indicating wherein the yielding would have consisted if it had taken place, and the negative denies the yielding, not simply a certain kind of yielding. This fact excludes any interpretation which supposes that Paul meant simply to deny that he yielded obediently, i. e., to a recognised authority, while tacitly admitting a conciliatory yielding (as is maintained by those who hold that he really circumcised Titus). For this thought he must have used the dative without the article. Cf. Philippians 1:15-18, 1 Thessalonians 4:4, 1 Thessalonians 4:5. On πρὸςὥραν , meaning “ for a short time,” see 2 Corinthians 7:8, 1 Thessalonians 2:17, Philemon 1:15, where, as in the present passage, ὥρα is not a definite measure of time, a twelfth of a day, but merely a (relatively) short time; in the cases cited, some days or weeks; in the present passage rather, as we should say in English, “ a moment,” “ an instant.” Cf., not as exactly similar instances, but as illustrating the flexibility of the word, Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:26:40, 45, 55. Οἷςοὐδὲπρὸςὥραν . The reading at this point has been the subject of extended discussion, especially by Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltexte, pp. 36 ff., Sief. Com. ad loc., and Zahn Com. ad loc. and Excurs. I. The principal evidence may be summarised as follows: πρὸςὥραν : D* d e plur codd. lat. et gr. ap. Victorin. codd. lat. ap. Hier. al. Irenint. Tert. Victorin. Ambrst. Pelag. οὐδὲπρὸςὥραν : codd. gr. et lat. ap. Ambrst., quidam (codd.?) ap. Victorin. Mcion, Syr. (psh.), and (accg. to Sief.) one ms. of Vg. οἶςπρὸςὥραν : Jerome quotes certain persons as asserting: et hoc esse quod in codicibus legatur Latinis, “ quibus ad horam cessimus.” Primasius (XI 209, quoted by Klostermann, p. 83; cf. Plummer, Com. on 2 Corinthians, p. lv) says: Latinus habet: “ quibus ad horam cessimus.” Sedulius: Male in Latinis codicibus legitur: “ quibus ad horam cessimus.” οἶςοὐδὲπρὸςὥραν : א ABCDcorr FGKLP, 33, and Grk. mss. generally, f g Vg. Syr. (psh. harcl.) Boh. Arm. Aeth. codd. gr. ap. Hieron.; also Bas. Epiph. Euthal. Thdrt. Damas. Aug. Ambr. Hier. Klostermann and Zahn adopt the first reading. Tdf. Treg. WH. Ws. RV. and modern interpreters generally, the fourth. The evidence shows clearly that the difficulty of the latter reading was early felt, and that, for whatever reason, a syntactically easier text was current among the Latins. The evidence against οἶςοὐδέ , however, is not sufficient to overcome the strong preponderance in its favour, or the improbability that any one would have introduced the anacoluthic οἷς . But since the reading οἷς without οὐδέ is very weakly attested it remains to accept the reading which has both οἷς and οὐδέ . ἵναἡἀλήθειατοῦεὐαγγελίουδιαμείνῃπρὸςὑμᾶς . “ that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” The clause states the purpose of his refusing to yield. To make it a statement of the purpose of the yielding as Zahn does, omitting οἷςοὐδέ is, especially in view of the τῇ before ὑποταγῇ , to represent Paul as making the absurd statement that, in order that the truth of the gospel that men are free from law might abide with the Gentiles, he yielded to the demand of the legalists and did as they required. It is also to convert a paragraph which is put forth as an evidence that he had always maintained his independence of men into a weak apology for having conceded the authority of the Twelve. The term εὐαγγέλιον evidently has here the same sense as in v. 2 and in 1:7 (cf. the notes on those vv., and note word ἀλήθεια here). The genitive is a possessive genitive, the truth is the truth contained in, and so belonging to, the gospel. Cf. ἡτῶννόμωνἀλήθει [α ], Papyri in Brit. Mus. II p. 280, cited by M. and M. Voc. The effect of the triumph of the view of Paul’ s opponents would have been to rob the Gentiles of the truth of the gospel, leaving them a perverted, false gospel. See 1:7. The verb διαμείνῃ implies that at the time referred to the truth of the gospel, i. e., the gospel in its true form as he preached it, not in the perverted form preached by the judaisers, had already been given to those to whom he refers under ὑμᾶς . Πρός meaning properly “ towards” and then “ with,” usually of persons in company and communication with others (1 Thessalonians 3:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 1:4:18, Galatians 1:20) is here used like μετά in Philippians 4:9, of the presence of an impersonal thing with men. The idea of possession is not in the preposition, but is suggested by the context and the nature of the thing spoken of. ὑμᾶς may refer specifically to the Galatians, to whom he is writing, in which case it is implied that they had already received the gospel at the time of this Jerusalem conference. But the more general interpretation of ὑμᾶς as meaning simply “ you Gentiles” is so easy, and the inclusion of the Galatians with the Gentiles in the class on behalf of whom Paul then took his stand is so natural, even though historically the Galatians only later participated in the benefit of his action, that it would be hazardous to lay any great weight on this word in the determination of chronological questions. The most that can safely be said is that διαμείνῃπρὸςὑμᾶς receives its most obvious interpretation if the Galatians are supposed to have been already in possession of the gospel at the time here referred to. See Introduction, p. xlii. 6. ἀπὸδὲτῶνδοκούντωνεἶναίτι “ And from those who were accounted to be something.” On τῶνδοκούντων , etc., cf. v. 2. The verb which this phrase was to have limited is left unexpressed, the construction being changed when the thought is resumed after the parenthesis οποῖοι , etc. The apostle doubtless had in mind when he began the sentence παρέλαβονοὐδέν (cf. 1:12) or some equivalent expression. The sentence seems not adversative, but continuative; to the statement that when the pillar apostles took up, in a sense, the cause of the false brethren, he did not for a moment yield to the latter, he adds as further evidence of his entire independence of the apostles that (in this discussion) they taught him nothing new. — ὁποῖοίποτεἦσανοὐδένμοιδιαφέρει — “ what they once were matters not to me.” ὁποῖοι , a qualitative word, meaning “ of what kind” (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 3:13, James 1:24), here evidently refers not to personal character but to rank or standing, and doubtless specifically to that standing which the three here referred to had by reason of their personal relation to Jesus while he was in the flesh, in the case of James as his brother, in the case of Peter and John as his personal followers. This fact of their past history was undoubtedly appealed to by the opponents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly superior to any that he could claim. Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:16, 2 Corinthians 10:7. Paul answers here substantially as afterwards to the Corinthians in reply to much the same argument, that facts of this sort do not concern him, have no significance. Apostleship rests on a present relation to the heavenly Christ, a spiritual experience, open to him equally with them. The whole parenthetical sentence, though introduced without a conjunction, serves as a justification of the depreciation of the apostles which he had begun to express in the preceding clause— or perhaps more exactly as an answer in advance to the thought which the apostle foresaw would be raised by that statement when completed, viz.: But if you received nothing from them, that is certainly to your disadvantage; were they not personal companions of Jesus, the original and authoritative bearers of the gospel? What valid commission or message can you have except as you derived it from them? With a verb of past time ποτέ (enclitic) may mean (a) “ ever,” “ at any time” ; (b) “ at some time,” “ once,” “ formerly” ; (c) “ ever,” with intensive force, like the Latin cunque, and the English “ ever” in “ whoever,” “ whatever.” The last meaning is that which is preferred in RV.— “ whatsoever they were.” But this use is unusual in classical Greek, and has no example in N. T. The second meaning, on the other hand, is frequent in N. T., especially in Paul (chap. 1:13, 23, Romans 7:9, etc.), and is appropriate in this connection, directing the thought to a particular (undefined but easily understood) period of past time referred to by ἦσαν . There can therefore be no doubt that it is the meaning here intended. The first meaning is not impossible, but less appropriate because suggesting various possible past periods or points of time, instead of the one, Jesus’ lifetime, which gives point to the sentence. The above interpretation of ποτε and substantially of the sentence is adopted by Wies. Hilg. Ltft. and many others from the Latin Vg. down. Win. and Lip., though taking ποτε in the sense of cunque, by referring ἦσαν to the time of Jesus’ life on earth reach substantially the same interpretation of the clause. Ell. Sief., et al., take ποτε in the sense of cunque, and understand the clause to refer to the esteem in which these men were held at the time of the events spoken of; whatsoever they were, i. e., whatever prestige, standing, they had in Jerusalem at this time. Sief. supplies as subject for διαφέρει the thought “ to obtain authorisation from them” ; making the sentence mean: “ whatever their standing in Jerusalem, it is of no consequence to me to secure their authorisation or commission.” But the clause ὁποῖοίποτεἦσαν (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:13) itself is a suitable subject, and the supplying of a subject unnecessary. — πρόσωπονθεὸςἀνθρώπουοὐλαμβάνει — “ God accepts not the person of man.” To accept the person— literally face— of one is to base one’ s judgment and action on external and irrelevant considerations. Cf. Matthew 22:16, Mark 12:14, Luke 20:21. Such, in the judgment of Paul, were mere natural kinship with Jesus, such as James had, or personal companionship with him during his earthly life, such as the Twelve had. Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:12, where Paul uses ἐνπροσώπῳ with reference to the realm of external things. This second parenthesis in its turn gives a reason justifying the statement of the first. The former advantages of these men signify nothing to me, for God takes no account of such external considerations. Concerning the emphasis on θεός see the textual note. As between θεός and ὁθεός external evidence alone is indecisive. א A P 33, 88, 103, 122,* 442, 463, 1912, Chrys. al. insert the article. BCDFGKL al. pler. Eus. Thdrt. Dam. omit it. Sheer accident would be as likely to operate on one side as on the other. At first sight intrinsic probability seems to make for the genuineness of the article, since the N. T. writers, and Paul in particular, rarely use θεός as subject without the article. Yet the use of θεός without the article, because employed with qualitative force with emphasis upon the divine attributes, especially in contrast with man, is an established usage of which there are numerous examples in Paul (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:2:4, 1 Corinthians 2:5, 1 Corinthians 2:3:9, 1 Corinthians 2:16) and a few in the nominative (1 Thessalonians 2:5, Galatians 6:7, 2 Corinthians 5:19). Inasmuch, therefore, as there is in this passage just such a contrast, it would be in accordance with Pauline usage to omit the article, and the balance of intrinsic probability is apparently on this side. Transcriptional probability is also in its favour, since the scribe would be more likely to convert the unusual θεός into ὁθεός than the reverse. ἐμοὶγὰροἱδοκοῦντεςοὐδὲνπροσανέθεντο , “ for to me the men of eminence taught nothing new.” In these words the apostle evidently says what he began to say in ἀπὸδὲτῶνδοκούντων , giving it now the specific form that the Jerusalem apostles imposed on him no burden (of doctrine or practice), or imparted nothing to him in addition to what he already knew. See discussion of προσανέθεντο below. γάρ may be justificatory, introducing a statement which justifies the seemingly harsh language of the two preceding statements, or explicative, the thought overleaping the parenthetical statements just preceding, and the new clause introduced by γάρ putting in a different form the thought already partly expressed in ἀπὸδὲτῶνδοκούντων . The latter is simpler and for that reason more probable. The uses of the verb προσανατίθεμαι (Mid.) clearly attested outside of the present passage are three: (1) “ To offer or dedicate beside” : Boeckh, C. I. G. 2782. (2) “ To confer with” : Galatians 1:16 (q. v.); Diod. Sic. 17. 116:4; Luc. Jup. Trag. 1. (3) “ To lay upon one’ s self in addition, to undertake besides” : Xen. Mem. 2.1:8. Beside these there have been proposed for the present passage: (4) “ To lay upon in addition” i. e. (3) taken actively instead of with a middle sense. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ III. PORTION OF THE LETTER THE THAT MEN, BOTH JEWS AND , BECOME TO GOD THROUGH FAITH RATHER THAN BY WORKS OF LAW, BY THE OF THE OF THE , AND CHIEFLY BY SHOWING THAT THE “ HEIRS OF ABRAHAM” ARE SUCH BY FAITH, NOT BY WORKS OF LAW (CHAPS. 3, 4). 1. Appeal to the early Christian experience of the Galatians (3:1-5) Leaving the defence of his doctrine through the assertion of his own direct divine commission, the apostle now takes up that defence by refuting the objections to it brought by his opponents, the judaisers. Vv. 1-5 begin that refutation by appealing to the early Christian experience of the Galatians, which, as both they and he well knew, was not in the sphere of law, but of faith. Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was placarded crucified? 2This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? Having begun with Spirit are ye now finishing with flesh? 4Did ye suffer so many things in vain? If it really is to be in vain. 5He therefore that supplied the Spirit richly to you and wrought miracles among you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith? 1. ὮἀνόητοιΓαλάται , τίςὑμᾶςἐβάσκανεν , οἷςκατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοὺςἸησοῦςΧριστὸςπροεγράφηἐσταυρωμένος ; “ Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was placarded crucified?” Returning to the situation in Galatia itself, which he had left behind in 1:9, but still having in mind what he had just said in 2:21 to the effect that the legalistic teaching of the judaisers makes the death of Christ a fact without significance, a useless tragedy, the apostle breaks forth, somewhat as in 1:6, in an expression of surprise touched with indignation that the Galatians were turning away from his gospel of Christ crucified (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 1:2:2). To this great fact, which Paul had set forth before the Galatians with the clearness of a public proclamation on a bulletin-board, and which it should, therefore, have been impossible for them ever to forget, the preaching of the judaisers tends to blind them as by malicious magic. The verb βασκαίνω (see below) is doubtless used tropically with the meaning “ lead astray,” and the question, which is, of course, rhetorical, refers to the same persons who in 1:7 are spoken of as troubling them and seeking to pervert the gospel of the Christ. On the people here designated Galatians, see Introd. pp. xxi-xliv. The addition of τῇἀληθείᾳμὴπείθεσθαι after ἐβάσκανεν by CDcKLP al. pler., is a manifest corruption under the influence of 5:7. Ἀνόητος , a classical word from Sophocles and Herodotus down, is found in N. T., besides here and v. 3, in Luke 24:25, Romans 1:14, 1 Timothy 6:9, Titus 3:2. Properly a passive, “ unthinkable,” it has in N. T., as also ordinarily in classical writers and regularly in the Lxx, the active sense, “ foolish,” “ lacking in the power of perception.” 1 Timothy 6:9 is not a real exception, the word properly describing a person being applied by easy metonymy to his desires. The usage of the word, both classical and biblical, suggests failure to use one’ s powers of perception rather than natural stupidity, and the context, especially v. 3, clearly points to the former sense for the present passage. See Hdt. 1:87 8:24; Xen. An. 2. 1:13; Mem. 1. 3:9; Plat. Protag. 323D; Php_12D; Legg. III 687D; Proverbs 15:21, Proverbs 17:28, Sir. 42:8, 4 Mac. 5:9, 8:17, Luke 24:25, Romans 1:14, 1 Timothy 6:9, Titus 3:3. The verb βασκαίνω , signifying in classical authors, to slander (Dem. 94:19 291:22), “ to envy” (Dem. 464:24), “ to bewitch” (Theocr. 5:13 6:39; Arist. Probl. 20. 34 [926 b:21]; Herodian 2. 4:11) is used in the Lxx and Apocr. (Deuteronomy 28:54, Deuteronomy 28:56, Sir. 14:6, 3) with the meaning, “ to envy,” but very clearly has here, as in Aristot. and Theocr. loc. cit., the meaning “ to bewitch.” For the evidence that the possibility of one person bewitching, exercising a spell upon another was matter of current belief both among Gentiles and Jews, see HDB, arts. “ Magic,” esp. vol. III, p. 208a, and “ Sorcery,” vol. IV, p. 605b; M. and M. Voc. s. v. See also Ltft. ad loc.; Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 253-293; Blau, Das altjü dische Zauberwesen, pp. 23 ff. Concerning the practice of magic arts in general, cf. φαρμακία , chap. 5:20, Acts 19:19, and Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 273 ff., 323 f., 352 ff. It would be over-pressing the facts to infer from Paul’ s use of this word that he necessarily believed in the reality of magical powers, and still more so to assume that he supposed the state of mind of the Galatians to be the result of such arts. It is more probable that the word, while carrying a reference to magical arts, was used by him tropically, as we ourselves use the word “ bewitch,” meaning “ to pervert,” “ to confuse the mind.” On οἶςκατ ʼ ὀφθαλμούς cf. Aristoph. Ran. 625, ἵνασοικατ ʼ ὀφθαλμοὺςλέγη , and chap. 2:11: κατὰπρόσωποναὐτῷἀντέστην . Προγράφω occurs in Greek writers in three senses: (1) “ to write beforehand,” the προ - being temporal (Romans 15:4, Ephesians 3:2); (2) “ to write publicly,” “ to register” (Jude 1:4, but by some assigned to the previous sense); (3) “ to write at the head of the list.” The third meaning does not occur in biblical writers and may be dismissed as wholly inappropriate to the context. To take it in the first sense as referring to O. T. prophecy, though consistent with current usage, is excluded by κατ ʼ ὀφθαλμούς ; to take it in this sense and refer it to Paul’ s own presentation of Christ to the Galatians is forbidden by the inappropriateness of γράφω to describe the apostle’ s viva voce preaching; for if προ - be taken temporally, ἐγράφη alone remains to describe the act itself. Many commentators on this passage give to the word the sense “ to paint publicly,” “ to depict before, or openly.” So Th. Jowett, and Sief., the last-named citing, also, Calv. deW. Holst. Phil. Lips. Zö ckl. et al. The argument for this meaning rests not upon extant instances of προγράφω in this sense, but upon the usage of the simple γράφω in the sense “ to paint” and the appropriateness of the meaning “ to depict publicly” to this context. But in view of the absence of vouchers for this meaning— even the instances of γράφω in the sense “ to paint” are, so far at least as cited by lexicographers or commentators on this passage, much earlier than the N. T. period— and of the fact that taking προεγρ · in the meaning “ to write publicly,” “ to placard,” yields a meaning more suitable to ἐσταυρωμένος (see below), it is best to accept this latter meaning for this passage, and to understand the apostle as describing his preaching to the Galatians under the figure of public announcement or placarding of Jesus before them. Ἐσταυρωμένος means “ having been crucified,” and doubtless in the sense of “ having been put to death on the cross” ; the perfect participle expresses an existing (in this case permanent) result of the past fact of crucifixion. To express the idea “ in the act of being crucified” would require a present participle, if the thought were “ in the act of being affixed to the cross,” and probably if it were “ hanging on the cross.” For while the verb σταυρόω may be used of the affixing to the cross (Matthew 27:35), yet it seems usually to refer to the putting to death on the cross as a whole (Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10, etc.) and the participle ἐσταυρωμένος is used in N. T. of Jesus, not as having been affixed to the cross and hanging there, but invariably of him as one who was put to death on the cross, and thenceforth, though risen from the dead, the crucified one. See Matthew 28:5, Mark 16:6, 1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 2:2. The tense of the participle, therefore, constitutes a strong objection to taking προγράφω in the sense of “ paint before,” and in favour of the meaning “ to placard, to post publicly” ; a picture would doubtless present Jesus on the cross; the crucifixion as an accomplished fact would be matter for public writing, announcement, as it were, on a public bulletin. Σταυρός (root: sta) occurs from Homer down, meaning a stake, used for fencing (Obadiah 1:14:11) or driven into the ground for a foundation (Hdt. 5:16). σταυρόω used in Thuc. 7. 25:7, meaning “ to fence with stakes,” first appears in Polybius with reference to a means of inflicting death (1. 86:4), where it probably means “ to crucify.” Polybius also uses ἀνασταυρόω apparently in the same sense (1. 11:5; 1. 24:6; 1. 79:4), but also with the meaning “ to impale” (a dead body, 5. 54:6; 8. 23:3), which is its meaning in Hdt. 3:125; 6:30; 9:78, etc.; Thuc. 1. 110:3; Plato Gorg. 473C; Xen. An. 3. 1:17. In Esther 7:9, Esther 8:13 line 34 (Swete 16:18) it is used of the hanging of Haman upon a gallows , said in 5:14 to be fifty cubits high. In 7:9 σταυρόω translates ת ּ ָ ל ָ ה , “ to hang,” elsewhere in this book translated with reference to the same event by κρεμάννυμι . Impalement or hanging as a method of inflicting death, or as applied to the dead body of a criminal, was practised by various ancient nations, e. g., the Assyrians (cf the Lexicons of Delitzsch and Muss-Arnolt under Zagapu and Zagipu; Schrader, Keilinschriften des A. T. 3, pp. 387 f.; Code of Hammurabi, Statute 153, in Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, p. 45, or R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, p. 55); the Egyptians (cf. Genesis 40:22 Jos. Ant. 2. 73 [5:3]); the Persians (cf. Ezra 6:11); but it is not possible always to determine precisely what method is referred to. Among the Jews the bodies of certain criminals were after death hanged upon a tree or impaled (Joshua 8:29, Joshua 8:10:26, 2 Samuel 4:12), but there is no sufficient evidence that these methods were used for inflicting death, 2 Samuel 21:6-9 being too obscure to sustain this conclusion. Hanging in the modern sense, of suspension causing immediate death by strangulation, is referred to as a means of committing suicide, Hdt. 2:131; Thuc. 3:81; 2 Samuel 17:23, Tob. 3:10, Matthew 27:5, but was probably unknown in ancient times as a means of inflicting the death penalty. Crucifixion, i. e., the affixing of the body of the criminal, while still living, to an upright post (with or without a crosspiece) to which the body was nailed or otherwise fastened, death resulting from pain and hunger after hours of suffering, was not a Jewish method of punishment; though employed by Alexander Jannæ us, Jos. Bell. 1:17 (4:6), it was inflicted upon Jews, as a rule, only by the Romans. With what nation or in what region this peculiarly cruel form of death penalty originated is not wholly certain. Diod. Sic. 17. 46:4, speaking of Alexander the Great before Tyre, says: ὁδὲβασιλεὺς … τοὺς … νέουςπάντας , ὄνταςοὐχἐλάττουςτῶνδισχιλίων , ἐκρέμασε . Romans of the later days of the republic and early days of the empire ascribed its origin to Punic Carthage, but perhaps without good evidence. Among the Romans crucifixion was for a time (but perhaps not originally) practised only in the case of slaves and the worst of criminals. When the use of it was gradually extended, especially in the provinces (Jos. Ant. 17. 295 [10:10]; Bell. 5. 449-51 [11:1]) to others than these, it retained the idea of special disgrace. The word σταυρός , properly referring to the upright stake, came through its use with reference to the implement of crucifixion to designate what we now know as a cross (in N. T. the word ξύλον is still used, Acts 5:30, Acts 5:10:39, 1 Peter 2:24; cf. Galatians 3:13), and through the fact that it was on the cross that Jesus suffered death, came to be employed by metonymy for the death of Jesus, carrying with it by association the thought of the suffering and the disgrace in the eyes of men which that death involved and of the salvation which through it is achieved for men. See chap. 5:11, 6:14, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Philippians 3:18, Colossians 1:20. On the cross and crucifixion in general, and the crucifixion of Jesus in particular, see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Wö rterb. s. v.; Zö ckler, Das Kreuz Christi; Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung; W. W. Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, esp. the bibliography, pp. XXI-XXX; the articles “ Cross” and “ Hanging” in Encyc. Bibl. and HDB, and those on “ Kreuz” and “ Kreuzigung” in PRE., and in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexikon; Mommsen, Rö misches Strafrecht, pp. 918 ff; Hitzig, art. “ Crux” in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopä die d. klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (with references to literature). On the archæ ology of the cross Zö ckler refers especially to Lipsius, De Cruce, Antwerp, 1595; Zestermann, Die bildliche Darstellung des Kreuzes u. der Kreuzigung Jesu Christi historisch entwickelt, Leipzig, 1867; Degen. Das Kreuz als Strafwerkzeug u. Strafe der Alten, Aachen, 1873; the Code of Hammurabi, Statute 153 (in Winckler or Harper); Birch and Pinches, The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat, London, 1902, Plates B2. D4 and J3. 2. τοῦτομόνονθέλωμαθεῖνἀφ ʼ ὑμῶν , ἐξἔργωννόμουτὸπνεῦμαἐλάβετεἢἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως ; “ This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith?” A forcible appeal to the experience of the Galatians. The implication of μόνον is that an answer to the question about to be asked would itself be a decisive argument. For μανθάνῳ in the general sense here illustrated, “ to ascertain,” “ to find out,” see Acts 23:27, Colossians 1:7. On ἐξἔργωννόμον , see detached note on Νόμος and note on 2:16. ἀκοὴπίστεως is a hearing (of the gospel) accompanied by faith , in other words, a believing-hearing, acceptance, of the gospel. τὸπνεῦμα undoubtedly refers to the Spirit of God (see detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ , and especially III B. 1 (a) in the analysis of meanings on p. 490). The receiving of the Spirit here referred to is evidently that which marked the beginning of their Christian lives; cf. ἐναρξάμενοι v. 3 and see Romans 8:23, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5. That the apostle has especially, though not necessarily exclusively, in mind the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit evidenced by some outward sign, such as speaking with tongues or prophesying, is indicated by the reference to δυνάμεις in v. 5. See also Acts 8:14-17, 10:44-47, Acts 8:11:16, Acts 8:17, 19:Acts 8:1-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. The two contrasted phrases ἐξἔργωννονμου and ἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως express the leading antithesis of the whole epistle, and by this question Paul brings the issue between the two contrasted principles of religious life to the test of experience. The answer which the experience of the Galatians would supply, and which therefore did not require to be expressed, was of course ἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως . The testimony of these vv. that Paul in his preaching in Galatia and doubtless elsewhere, since he more than once in this epistle implicitly claims always to have preached the same gospel (see on 1:11 and 2:2), presented his message to the Gentiles wholly divorced from any insistence upon the acceptance of O. T. teachings as such, is of capital importance, both in defining for us the content of his gospel (cf. also 1 Thessalonians 1:10) and as showing how completely he had early in his career as an apostle, and not simply when forced to it by controversy, repudiated the principle of scripture authority. 3. οὔτωςἀνόητοίἐστε ; ἐναρξάμενοιπνεύματινῦνσαρκὶἐπιτελεῖσθε ; “ Are ye so foolish? having begun with Spirit, are ye now finishing with flesh?” The antithesis is twofold: beginning … completing; spirit … flesh. ἐναρξάμενοιπν . recalls ἐλαβ . πν ., but instead of following up their assumed mental answer to his question, viz.: “ we received the Spirit by a hearing of faith,” in which faith would have been the emphatic term, the apostle transfers the emphasis to πνεῦμα , which his previous question took for granted, as an element in their early Christian experience. Apparently it seems to him that the antithesis “ spirit” and “ flesh” is at this point a more effective one for his purpose than “ faith” and “ works of law.” On the meaning of the words πνεῦμα and σάρξ , see detached note, pp. 486 ff., especially the discussion of the use of these terms in antithesis, p. 494. πνεύματι doubtless refers, as does τὸπνεῦμα above, to the Spirit of God, and σαρκί is used in a purely material sense, meaning “ flesh” or “ body,” as that which is circumcised. That the antithesis between πνεῦμα and σάρξ is quite different in chap. 5 is no objection to this interpretation here; for in view of the fact that the precise aim of the judaisers was to induce the Galatians to be circumcised, a reference to the flesh would be naturally taken by them as referring to this, and no other meaning would be likely to occur to them. That σαρκί has a relation to ἔργανόμου in that circumcision falls in the category of “ works of law” is, of course, obvious, but σαρκί is not, therefore, to be taken as equivalent to that phrase or as denoting the natural powers of men apart from the divine Spirit, (1) because ἔργανόμου does not in the preceding sentence stand in antithesis with πνεῦμα , and (2) because there is nothing in the context to suggest the introduction of this meaning of σάρξ . The absence of the article with both πν . and σαρ . gives them a qualitative force, and heightens the contrast between the two possible agencies of salvation: (divine) Spirit, and (material) flesh. That πνεῦμα is to be taken in a wider sense, as including both the divine Spirit which operates and the human spirit as the sphere of operation, is possible, but improbable in view of the nearness of τὸπνεῦμα with its express reference to the divine Spirit. πνεύματι and σαρκί are doubtless instrumental datives, which is, however, no objection to taking the latter as referring to the flesh, in the material sense, for though the flesh is, strictly speaking, passive in circumcision, that aspect of the fact is a matter of indifference for the purpose of the argument. On ἐναρξ . and ἐπιτελ . cf. Philippians 1:6. ἐπιτελ . occurs elsewhere in N. T. in the active (Romans 15:28, 2 Corinthians 7:1, 2 Corinthians 7:8:6, 2 Corinthians 7:11, Philippians 1:6, Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 9:6) in the sense “ to accomplish,” “ to complete,” and in 1 Peter 5:9 in the form ἐπιτελεῖσθαι , which is probably to be taken as a middle (see Bigg ad loc.). The Lxx use the word in active and passive, not in middle. But the existence of a middle usage in Greek writers (Plat. Php_27C; Xen. Mem. 4.8:8; Polyb. 1. 40:16; 2. 58:10; 5. 108:9 cited by Sief.) and the antithesis of ἐναρξ . a word of active force, favours taking ἐπιτελ . also as a middle form with active sense, “ to finish, to complete.” 4. τοσαῦταἐπάθετεεἰκῇεἴγεκαὶεἰκῇ . “ Did ye suffer so great things in vain? If it really is to be in vain.” A reference to the great experiences through which the Galatians had already passed in their life as Christians, and in effect an appeal to them not to let these experiences be of no avail. The word ἐπάθετε is, so far as our evidence enables us to decide, a neutral term, not defining whether the experiences referred to were painful or otherwise. εἴγεκαὶεἰκῇ shows that the question whether these experiences are to be in vain is still in doubt, depending on whether the Galatians actually yield to the persuasion of the judaisers or not. Cf., as illustrating the alternation of hope and fear in the apostle’ s mind, 4:11, 20, 5:10. γέ emphasises the contingency and suggests that the condition need not be fulfilled. The verb πάσχω is in itself of neutral significance, “ to experience,” εὗπάσχειν meaning “ to be well off,” “ to receive benefits,” and κακῶς or κακὰπάσχειν , “ to suffer ills” ; yet πάσχω has in usage so far a predilection for use in reference to ills that πάσχειν alone signifies “ to suffer” (ills), and to express the idea “ to experience” (good) requires as a rule the addition of εὖ or an equivalent indication in the context. There is indeed nothing in the immediate limitations of the word in Jos. Ant. 3. 312 (15:1): τὸνθεὸνὑπομνῆσαιμέν , ὅσαπαθόντεςἐξαὐτοῦκαὶπηλίκωνεὐεργεσιῶνμεταλαβόντεςἀχάριστοιπρὸςαὐτὸνγένοιντο , to indicate that it is employed in a good sense, but it is relieved of its ambiguity by the closely following πηλίκωνεὐεργεσιῶν , if not, indeed, in part by ἐξαὐτοῦ . Since there is nothing in the context of the Galatian passage distinctly to suggest a beneficial meaning, the presumption is in favour of the more usual adverse meaning; and this would undoubtedly be the meaning conveyed to the Galatians if they had in fact been exposed to severe sufferings in connection with their acceptance of the gospel. On the other hand, if they had suffered no such things this meaning would evidently be excluded, and the word would refer to the benefits spoken of in vv. 1, 2. If we adopt the opinion that the letter was addressed to people of southern Galatia, we may find in Acts 14:22 an intimation of persecutions or other like sufferings to which the present passage might refer; but no evidence that they were of sufficient severity to merit the term τοσαῦτα . If the churches were in northern Galatia we are unable to say whether they had suffered or not. For lack of knowledge of the circumstances, therefore, we must probably forego a decision of the question whether the experiences were pleasant or painful, and for this very reason understand the term πάθετε in a neutral sense, or, more exactly, recognise that the term is for us ambiguous, though it could hardly have been so to Paul and the Galatians. This leaves the meaning of εἰκῇ also somewhat in doubt. If the τοσαῦτα are the preaching of the gospel and the gift of the Spirit, then εἰκῇ means “ without effect” (as in 4:11); if the reference is to persecutions it probably means “ needlessly,” “ without good cause” (Colossians 2:18), the implication being that if they give up the gospel which Paul preached they will have abandoned Christ (5:2-4) and might just as well have remained as they were (note the implication of 4:11); or if the persecutions were instigated by the Jews, that they might have escaped them by accepting Judaism, with its legalism, which they are now on the point of taking on. Τοσαῦτα in a large preponderance of cases means in the plural “ so many” (see L.&S., Th.) and, with the possible exception of Joh 12:37, always has that meaning elsewhere in N. T. The meaning “ so great” is, however, possible (see Preusch: s. v.), and in view of the fact that it is manifestly more natural for Paul to appeal to the greatness than simply to the number of the experiences of the Galatians is perhaps to be adopted here. So Wies. and Preusch. Sief. finds in εἰ … εἰκῇ a reason for taking τοσαῦτα … εἰκῇ not as a question but an exclamation, which is, of course, possible, but not necessary because of the conditional clause; for this is, in any case, not a true protasis of a preceding apodosis, but is to be mentally attached to some such supplied clause as, “ which I am justified in saying.” The dictum that εἴγε introduces an assumption that the writer believes to be true (Vigerus, ed. Hermann, p. 831, cited by Th.), is not regarded by recent authorities as true for classical Greek (see L.&S. sub. γέ 3, Kü hner-Gerth, II 1, pp. 177 f.), and certainly does not correspond to the usage of N. T. writers. Where the assumption is one that is regarded as fulfilled (Romans 5:6, 2 Corinthians 5:3, Ephesians 4:21), it is the context that conveys the implication. In Colossians 1:23 there is no such implication, and perhaps not in Ephesians 3:2. See WM. p. 561, fn. 6, and Ell. Ltft. Sief. In the present passage the conditional clause must be understood without implication as to its fulfilment, since the context, indeed the whole letter, shows that while the apostle fears that the Galatians are about to turn back and so prove themselves τοσαῦταπαθεῖνεἰκῇ , yet he hoped, and was in this very appeal seeking, to avert this disaster. See esp. 4:11, 5:7-10. 5. ὁοὖνἐπιχορηγῶνὑμῖντὸπνεῦμακαὶἐνεργῶνδυνάμειςἐνὑμῖνἐξἔργωννόμουἢἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως ; “ He therefore that supplied the Spirit richly to you, and wrought miracles among you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith?” This sentence in effect repeats the question of v. 2, and, like that, is doubtless to be understood as referring to the experiences of the Galatians in connection with and shortly after their conversion. The two participles, ἐπιχορηγῶν and ἐνεργῶν , limited by one article evidently refer to the same person, and describe related activities affecting the same persons . It is obvious, therefore, that the two parts of the phrase are to be regarded as mutually interpretative. This, in turn, implies that the apostle has in mind chiefly the charismatic manifestation of the Spirit (see detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ , I D III B. 1 (a), p. 490), which attests itself in δυνάμεις and other kindred manifestations (see 1 Corinthians 12:10, 2 Corinthians 12:12, and for the use of the word δύναμις Mark 6:2, Luke 10:13, Acts 2:22, etc.). Yet it must also be borne in mind that in the view of the apostle it was one Spirit that produced alike the outward χαρίσματα and the inward moral fruit of the Spirit (chap. 5:22, 23), and hence that the latter though not included in δυνάμεις is not necessarily excluded from the thought expressed by ἐπιχορηγῶνὑμῖντὸπνεῦμα ; the words ἐνεργῶν … ὑμῖν may be narrower in scope than the preceding phrase. The whole phrase ὁοὖν … ἐνὑμῖν is a designation of God (cf. chap. 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 1:22, and especially Romans 5:5, where the idea of abundant supply, here expressed by ἐπιχορηγῶν , is conveyed by ἐκκέχυται ). θεός is omitted and left to be supplied in thought as in 2:8 and probably in 1:15 also. δυνάμεις referring to outward deeds, ἐνὑμῖν naturally takes the meaning “ among you” (cf. on ἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν , 1:16, 2:2); yet in view of the dative ὑμῖν after ἐπιχορηγῶν the δυνάμεις must be supposed to have been wrought not principally by Paul but by the Galatians themselves, as 1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 12:29 imply was the case among the Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 12:12 indeed suggests that such things were signs of the apostle, yet probably not in the sense that he only wrought them, but that the δυνάμεις of the apostle were in some way more notable, or that they constituted a part of the evidence of his apostleship. The phrases ἐξἔργωννόμου and ἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως are, of course, to be taken as in the similar question in v. 2. Ἐπιχορ · , comp. of ἐπί and χορηγέω , expresses strongly the idea “ to supply abundantly.” The simple verb means to defray the expense of providing a “ chorus” at the public feast. In view of 2 Peter 1:5, ἐπιχορηγήσατεἐντῇπίστειὑμῶντὴνἀρετήν , and Philippians 1:19 ἐπιχορηγίαςτοῦπνεύματος , the preposition ἐπί is to be interpreted not as directive (so Ell. Beet, Sief.), but, with Ltft., as additive and hence in effect intensive, and, therefore, as still further emphasising the idea of abundance. Cf. 2 Corinthians 9:10, Colossians 2:19, 2 Peter 1:5, 2 Peter 1:11. From these participles, ἐπιχορ · and ἐνεργ · , the unexpressed verbs of the sentence are to be supplied, but they afford no clue to the tense of such verbs. To this the only guide is the fact that the apostle is still apparently speaking of the initial Christian experience of the Galatians and, in effect, repeating here the question of v. 2. This would suggest aorists here also, ἐπεχορήγησε and ἐνήργησε . The participles may be either general presents (BMT 123), in effect equivalent to nouns, “ the supplier,” “ the worker,” or progressive presents, and in that case participles of identical action, since they refer to the same action as the unexpressed principal verbs (BMT 120). The choice of the present tense rather than the aorist shows that the apostle has in mind an experience extended enough to be thought of as in progress, but not that it is in progress at the time of writing (Beet), or that the participle is an imperfect participle (Sief.; cf. BMT 127). 2. Argument from the faith of Abraham, refuting the contention of his opponents that only through conformity to law could men become sons of Abraham (3:6-9) Passing abruptly, in a subordinate clause, from the early experience of the Galatians to the case of Abraham, the argument of the apostle revolves, from this point to the end of chap. 4, mainly around the subject of the blessing to Abraham and the conditions on which men may participate in it. In these verses he affirms at the outset his fundamental contention that Abraham was justified by faith, and that so also must all they be justified who would inherit the blessing promised to his seed. 6As “ Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” 7Know, therefore, that the men of faith, these are sons of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “ In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” 9So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful (believing) Abraham. 6. καθὼς “ Ἀβραὰμἐπίστευσεντῷθεῷ , καὶἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην .” “ as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” The apostle assumes that to his question of v. 5 his readers will, in accordance with the historic facts, answer: ἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως . To this answer he attaches a comparison between the faith of the Galatians and that of Abraham. The next two chapters, in which the argument revolves largely around Abraham and Abraham’ s sons (see 3:7, 8, 14, 16, 18, 29, 4:22-31), show that this is no mere incidental illustration, but fills a vital place in his argument. The fact itself suggests, what an examination of the argument confirms, that Paul is here replying to an argument of his opponents. This argument, we may safely conjecture, was based on Gen. chaps. 12 and 17, especially 17:10-14, and most especially v. 14, and was to the effect that according to O. T. no one could participate in the blessings of God’ s covenant with Abraham, and so in the messianic salvation that is inseparably associated with it, who was not circumcised. Neither the usage of δικαιοσύνη (see detached note on Δίκαιος , Δικαιοσύνη and Δικαιόω , pp. 469 ff.), nor that of λογίζεταιεἰς (see below), is decisive as between the two meanings: (1) “ it was attributed to him as right conduct,” i. e., “ he was accounted to have acted righteously,” and (2) “ it was reckoned to him as ground of acceptance.” The general context, however, dealing predominantly with righteousness in the forensic aspect, acceptance with God, decides for the latter meaning. Against the argument probably advanced by his opponents in Galatia to the effect that under the covenant with Abraham no one is acceptable to God who is not circumcised (Genesis 17:14; cf. Jub. chap. 15, esp. v. 26.), Paul points out that, according to the scripture, to Abraham himself it was his faith that was accounted as ground of acceptance. Λογίζομαι is used in Greek writers frequently and in a variety of applications of the general meaning “ to reckon, to calculate, to deem, to consider.” To express the idea “ to credit or charge something to one’ s account, to put it to his account,” the Greeks used λογ · τινι · (Dem. 264:16; Leviticus 7:8(18). According to Cremer, “ to account a thing as being this or that, or having a certain value,” was expressed by λογ · with two accusatives . In the Lxx λογίζομαι is the translation of ח ָ ש ׁ ַ ב , “ to reckon,” “ to account.” In N. T. it is used with much the same variation of meanings as in cl. Gr., and the idea “ to credit or charge to one” is expressed in the same way. (Romans 4:4, Romans 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19; cf. Proverbs 17:28). “ To reckon a thing or person to be this or that,” or “ to account a thing as having a certain value,” is expressed as it is in the Lxx, who translate the Heb. ח ָ ש ׁ ַ ב ל ְ by λογ · εἰς . The examples show that this form of expression may have either of the above-named meanings; “ to think (one) to be this or that,” or “ to count as having the value of this or that.” Thus in 1 Samuel 1:13: ἐλογίσατοαὐτὴνἩλὶεἰςμεθύουσαν , it clearly bears the former meaning; so also Romans 9:8, τὰτέκνατῆςἐπαγγελίαςλογίζεταιεἰςσπέρμα . But in Acts 19:27: κινδυνεύει … ἱερὸνεἰςοὐθὲνλογισθῆναι , and in Romans 2:26: οὐχἡἀκροβυστίααὐτοῦεἰςπεριτομὴνλογισθήσεται , the latter is apparently the meaning. See also Genesis 15:16, Psa_105 (106) 31, Isaiah 29:17, Isaiah 32:15, Isaiah 40:17, Lamentations 4:2, Hosea 8:12, Wisd. 2:16, 3:17, 9:6, James 2:23. Even in this second class of cases, however, the word itself conveys no implication of a reckoning above or contrary to real value, as Cremer maintains. If this thought is conveyed it must be by the limitations of the word, not by the word itself. There being in the present passage no such limitations, the idea of estimation contrary to fact can not legitimately be discovered in the passage. Nor can it be imported into this passage from Romans 4:1-6, concerning which see in detached note on Δικαιοσύνη , p. 470. 7. Γινώσκετεἄραὅτιοἱἐκπίστεως , οὗτοιυἱοίεἰσινἈβραάμ . “ Know therefore that the men of faith, these are sons of Abraham.” πίστις is here not specifically faith in Jesus Christ, but, as the absence of the article suggests, and the context with its reference on the one hand to Abraham’ s faith in God and on the other to the faith of believers in Jesus clearly indicates, faith qualitatively thought of and in a sense broad enough to include both these forms of it. Here, as in Romans 3:31ff., Paul distinctly implies the essential oneness of faith, towards whatever expression or revelation of God it is directed. The preposition ἐκ describes source, yet not source of being— they do not owe their existence to faith— but source of character and standing, existence after a certain manner. The expression οἱἐκπίστεως , therefore, means “ those who believe and whose standing and character are determined by that faith” ; men of faith in the sense of those of whose life faith is the determinative factor. Here appears for the first time the expression “ sons of Abraham,” which with its synonyme, “ seed of Abraham,” is, as pointed out above, the centre of the argument in chaps. 3 and 4. ἄρα marks this statement as a logical consequence of the preceding. Abraham believed God, and was on that ground accepted by God; therefore, the sons of Abraham are men of faith. The sentence itself shows that “ sons of Abraham” is not to be taken in a genealogical, but, in the broad use of the term, an ethical sense. The context indicates clearly that by it Paul means those who are heirs of the promise made to Abraham, and to be fulfilled to his seed (vv. 16, 29). The unexpressed premise of this argument is that men become acceptable to God and heirs of the promise on the same basis on which Abraham himself was accepted. The ground of this premise in Paul’ s mind was doubtless his conviction that God deals with all men on the same moral basis; in other words, that there is no respect of persons with God (chap. 2:6; cf. Romans 2:11, Romans 2:3:29, 30, Sir. 35:12). The expressed premise, derived from scripture, is that this basis was faith. Those who put forth the argument to which this was an answer would have accepted the apostle’ s definition of sons (or seed) of Abraham, and would probably not have directly contradicted either the expressed or the unexpressed premise of his argument, but would practically have denied the expressed premise. They had probably reached their conclusion, that to be sons of Abraham men must be circumcised, by ignoring faith as the basis of Abraham’ s justification, and appealing to the express assertion of scripture that the seed of Abraham must be circumcised, and that he who will not be circumcised shall be cut off from God’ s people, having broken his covenant (Genesis 17:9-14). The apostle in turn ignores their evidence, and appeals to Genesis 15:6. In fact the whole passage, Gen. chaps. 12-17, furnishes a basis for both lines of argument. The difference between Paul and his opponent is not in that one appealed to scripture and the other rejected it, but that each selected his scripture according to the bent of his own prejudice or experience, and ignored that which was contrary to it. Ramsay’ s explanation of v. 7 as grounded in Greek customs and usages respecting adoption, and as meaning that because among the Gentiles is found the property of Abraham, viz., his faith, therefore they must be his sons, since only a son can inherit property, ignores all the evidence that Paul is here answering judaistic arguments, and is, therefore, moving in the atmosphere not of Greek but of Old Testament thought, and goes far afield to import into the passage the farfetched notion of faith as an inheritable property of Abraham. See his Com. on Gal. pp. 338 ff. SONS OF ABRAHAM It has been suggested above that in the employment of this phrase Paul is turning against his judaising opponents a weapon which they have first endeavoured to use against him, rather than himself introducing the term to the Galatians and founding on it an argument intended to appeal to their unprejudiced minds. It is in favour of this view that the evidence that has been left us does not indicate that it was Paul’ s habit to commend Christ to the Gentiles either on O. T. grounds in general or in particular on the ground that through the acceptance of Jesus they would become members of the Jewish nation. See, e. g., the reports of his speeches in Acts, 1 Thes., esp. 1:2-10, 1 Corinthians 2:2, Philippians 3:2-9. There is, indeed, an approximation to this form of argument in Rom. chaps. 4 and 11. But in both these chapters the apostle is rebutting an argument put forth (or anticipated as likely to be put forth) from the side of the judaisers; chap. 4 contending that in the case of Abraham there is nothing to disprove, but on the contrary much to establish, the principle of the justification of uncircumcised Gentiles through faith, and chap. 11 maintaining that the purpose of God does not come to nought because of the rejection of Israel from its place of peculiar privilege, but finds fulfilment in the elect people, whether Jews or Gentiles. Moreover, precisely in respect to the Galatians do the testimonies of vv. 1-5 and 28, 26 of this chapter, and 5:2-4, indicate with special clearness that Paul’ s preaching to them and their acceptance of Christ had been on an independently Christian basis— Christ crucified, faith in him, Christian baptism, the gift of the Spirit manifested in charismatic powers. An examination of chaps. 3 and 4, moreover, reveals that Paul’ s argument here is mainly of the nature of rebuttal. Thus the recurrent expressions, “ sons of Abraham” (3:7), “ blessed with faithful Abraham” (3:9), “ blessing of Abraham” (3:14), “ the covenant” and “ the seed” (3:15-17), “ Abraham’ s seed” (3:29), all of which have their basis in Gen_12 and 17 (cf. Genesis 12:3, Genesis 17:2-10), and the express quotation in 3:8 of the words of Gen 12:3, all combine to indicate that the O. T. background of the discussion is largely that furnished by Gen. chaps. 12, 17. But if we turn to these chapters it is at once clear not only that they furnish no natural basis for a direct argument to the effect that the Gentiles may participate in the blessing of the Abrahamic salvation without first becoming attached to the race of his lineal descendants, but that they furnish the premises for a strong argument for the position which Paul is here combating. Thus in Genesis 17:2-9 there is repeated mention of a covenant between God and Abraham, an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed throughout their generations, a covenant of blessing on God’ s part and obligation on their part, which he and his seed after him are to keep throughout their generation, and it is said: “ This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you shall be circumcised” (v. 10) … “ and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt you and me” (v. 11). V. 12, moreover, states that this shall apply both to him that is born in the house and to him that is bought with money of any foreigner, and v. 14 declares that “ the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people— he hath broken my covenant.” In 12:3, indeed, it is stated that in Abraham all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (so Paul interprets the sentence), yet there is nothing in this to intimate that they are to receive this blessing apart from a racial relation to Abraham, and chap. 17 seems to exclude such a thought. Indeed, it requires neither perversity nor rabbinic exegesis, but only a reasonable adherence to the obvious meaning of the passage, to find in these chapters the doctrine that God’ s covenant of blessing was with Abraham and his seed, that none could be included in that covenant save those who being of the blood of Abraham were sealed as his seed by circumcision, or who being adopted into the nation from without also received the seal of circumcision, and that any who refused thus to receive circumcision could have no part in the people of God or the blessing to Abraham’ s seed, since they had “ broken God’ s covenant.” “ The covenant with Abraham,” “ the seed of Abraham,” “ blessed with faithful Abraham” (cf. Jub. 17:18, 19:8, 9), “ in Abraham shall all the nations of the world be blessed” — these are apparently the premises and stock phrases of the judaiser’ s argument— to which was doubtless added, as we can see from Galatians 5:1 ff., the obvious inference that to enjoy these blessings one must be circumcised, as Genesis 17:1 ff. says. To the judaiser, whose arguments Paul is answering, “ seed of Abraham” meant, as to the Pharisaic author of the book of Jubilees (see chap. 15, esp. v. 26), the circumcised descendant of Abraham, with whom might also be included the circumcised proselyte; and to these he limited the blessing of the covenant with Abraham, and so in effect the blessing of God. That all this would be directly contrary to Paul’ s position is also evident (cf. 5:1-6). It is scarcely less evident that in this third chapter, confronted by substantially such an argument as this, he was aiming to refute it from the same source from which it was drawn. This he does by appeal to Genesis 15:6, “ Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” which though it lay between the two passages which they had used, we may be sure the judaisers had not quoted. On the basis of this passage he puts into their favourite phrases, “ seed of Abraham,” “ blessed with Abraham,” a different content from that which they had given to them, and finds for the blessing with which all the nations were to be blessed a different ground and condition. The substitution of “ sons of Abraham” for “ seed of Abraham” contributes somewhat to that end, even if the former phrase, which is not in Genesis, is not original with Paul (cf. Jub. 15:30). Affirming on the basis of Gen 15:6 that the characteristic thing about Abraham is his faith, and taking the expression “ sons of Abraham” in a sense by no means foreign to Semitic use of the term “ son” as meaning those who walk in his footsteps (Romans 4:12), those who are like him (cf. sons of God in Matthew 5:45, Romans 8:14), he maintains that the men of faith are sons of Abraham. The various arguments by which the apostle endeavours to substantiate this ethical definition of sons of Abraham as against the physical definition of the judaiser, and in general to show that men obtain God’ s blessing not by works of law, but by faith, are to be found in this and the following chapter. As concerns the apostle’ s method of refuting the argument of his opponents, it is clear that he does not resort to a grammatico-historical exegesis of Genesis, chap. 17. Aside from the fact that on such a basis his opponents must have won, such an argument would scarcely have appealed to his Galatian readers. Instead, while retaining the terminology of the Abrahamic narrative of Genesis, as the exigencies of the situation and the necessity of answering the arguments of his opponents compelled him to do, he makes his appeal to the assertions of Gen 15:6 that it was faith that was accounted by God as righteousness, and to the teaching of O. T. as a whole concerning the basis of acceptance with God. Circumcision, which was the chief point of contention, he does not mention, perhaps because the argument of his opponents on this point could not be directly answered. Instead he discusses the larger and underlying question, what is the real nature of God’ s demands on men and the basis of acceptance with him, contending that not by the fulfilment of legal statutes but by faith does a man become acceptable to God. How he would have dealt with one who admitting this central position should still have asked, “ But is not circumcision nevertheless required by God?” these chapters do not show. That despite the explicit teaching of Gen_17, he nevertheless did maintain not only that it is faith that justifies, but that circumcision was no longer required or, indeed, permissible among Gentiles, and even went further than this and denied the authority of the O. T. statutes as such, shows that he had found some means of discovering on the basis of experience what portions of O. T. were still of value for the religious life. But what kind of experience he conceived to be necessary for this purpose, and whether that kind of experience specifically called by him revelation was requisite, is not by this passage indicated. 8. προϊδοῦσαδὲἡγραφὴὅτιἐκπίστεωςδικαιοῖτὰἔθνηὁθεὸςπροευηγγελίσατοτῷἈβραὰμὅτι “ Ἐνευλογηθήσονταιἐνσοὶπάντατὰἔθνη .” “ And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” This is doubtless Paul’ s answer to an argument put forth by the judaisers to the effect that inasmuch as it is in Abraham that all the nations are to be blessed, the Gentiles to be blessed must be in Abraham, i. e., incorporated in his descendants by circumcision. Appealing to the fact that Abraham was justified by faith (the particle δέ connects this v. with v. 7, itself deduced from v. 6), he finds the ground and explanation of the promise that the Gentiles would be blessed in Abraham in the foreseen fact of their justification by faith after the pattern of his justification. He thus converts the very oracle which his opponents have cited (Genesis 12:3) into an announcement, in advance, of his own doctrine that God will justify the Gentiles by faith. This is obviously an interpretation after the fact. For the nature of the reasoning, see fine print below. Ἡγραφή (sing.), usually at least, denotes a particular passage of scripture (see Luke 4:21, 2 Timothy 3:16 and cf. note on 3:22), and there is no reason to depart from this usage here. The passage referred to is Genesis 12:3 (cf. 18:18). The participle is causal, “ because the scripture foresaw.” Attributing foresight to the scripture is, of course, a figure of speech for the thought that the divine foresight is expressed in the scripture in question. Cf. Philo. Leg. alleg. III 118 (40), εἰδὼςγοῦνὁἱερὸςλόγος . On ἐκπίστεωςδικαιοῖ , see detached notes on Πίστις and Δικαιόω and notes on 2:14 ff., δικαιοῖ is a present for a future in indirect discourse. The choice of the present may be due in a measure to the feeling that what is here stated as then future is, in fact, a general principle, God’ s rule of action in all time. τὰἔθνη is clearly “ the Gentiles,” not “ the nations” inclusively, since it is the former whose justification is under discussion. Had he meant to employ an inclusive phrase covering the Gentiles, he must have taken over the full phrase πάντατὰἔθνη from the quotation, where it has the more inclusive sense, ἔθνη meaning “ nations.” προευηγγελίσατο , found neither elsewhere in N. T. nor in the Lxx or Apocr., but in Philo, Opif. mund. 34 (9); Mutat. nom. 158 (29); Schol. Soph. Trach. 335 (cf. Th. s. v., and Sief. ad loc.), is probably to be taken here specifically in the sense “ announced the gospel” ; this meaning accords with the usual N. T. usage of εὑαγγέλιον and its cognates, and with the fact that what Paul here represents as fore-announced, ὅτι , etc., is that which was to him the distinctive and central message of the εὐαγγέλιον . The quotation follows the Lxx of Gen 12:3, but for πᾶσαιαἱφυλαί substitutes πάντατὰἔθνη of Genesis 18:18, doubtless for the purpose of bringing in the word ἔθνη , which Paul desires because of its current use in the sense of Gentiles. For a similar reason τῆςγῆς found in both passages is omitted. No violence is, however, thereby done to the meaning of the passage, since what is true of all the families (or nations) of the earth is, of course, true of the Gentiles. But in following the Lxx with the passive ἐνευλογηθήσονται the apostle has probably missed the meaning of the Hebrew, which is, “ In thee shall all the families of the earth bless themselves,” i. e., shall make thee the standard of blessing, saying, “ May God bless us as he blessed Abraham.” He doubtless takes ἐν in its causal, basal sense, meaning “ on the basis of what he is or has done,” and interprets it as having reference to his faith. By virtue of his faith and the establishment in connection with it of the principle of justification by faith a blessing is conferred on all the Gentiles, since to them also faith is possible. Whether the apostle has specifically in mind here the fact that Abraham, when he believed and had his faith accounted as righteousness, was himself uncircumcised and, therefore, himself a “ Gentile” (as in Romans 4:10, Romans 4:11) is doubtful. There is no reference to that aspect of the matter. Paul’ s discovery in the language of Gen 12:3 of the fact that God will justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, and that, therefore, this statement is a pre-evangelic announcement of the gospel (of justification by faith) is not, of course, based on a verbal exegesis of the sentence as it stands either in Heb. or Lxx. The language itself and alone will sustain neither his view nor that which we have above supposed the judaisers to have found in it. But the effort to discover a more definite meaning than the words themselves conveyed was on both sides legitimate. The passage meant to the original author more than its words simply as words expressed. The phrase ἐνσοί , in particular, is a condensed and ambiguous expression which calls for closer definition. The judaiser doubtless found the basis of his view in a genealogical sense of ἐν , reinforced by Genesis 17:9-14. Paul may have based his interpretation in part on the context of Gen 12:3. In its reference to Abraham’ s response to the divine command to leave his father’ s house and go out into another land (see Hebrews 11:8 for é vidence that this act of Abraham was in Paul’ s day accounted one of faith and cf. v. 9 for evidence that Paul had that phase of it in mind here) he may have found ground for interpreting ἐνσοί as meaning, “ in thee, because by this exercise of faith in God thou hast given occasion to the establishment and announcement of the principle that God’ s approval and blessing are upon those that believe.” If this principle is established in Abraham’ s case it follows not only that the blessing that the Gentiles are to receive is divine acceptance, but that such acceptance is on ground of faith. Secondly, he may have found in the fact that the blessing was extended to all the nations evidence of the fact that it was not to be bestowed on the basis of the law, since the Gentiles were not under the law. Yet this reasoning would be precarious, since it was easy to reply that Gen_17 made it clear that the nations could partake in the Abrahamic blessing only in case they joined the seed of Abraham by circumcision. Thirdly, he may have reasoned that the oracle ought to be interpreted in view of the fact, to him well established by his own observation, that God was accepting Gentiles on the basis of faith without works of law in general or circumcision in particular. This consideration doubtless had great weight with him, and was probably the decisive one. It must be remembered, of course, that he is not so much proving by original argument that his doctrine is sustained by scripture as refuting the argument of his opponents that the scripture sustains their view. 9. ὥστεοἱἐκπίστεωςεὐλογοῦνταισὺντῷἈβραάμ . “ So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful (believing) Abraham.” A definite statement of what Paul wishes to prove by his previous argument. The emphasis is on οἱἐκπίστεως as against οἱπεριτετμημένοι , or οἱἐξἔργωννόμου , of whom the judaisers affirmed that they only could inherit the blessings of the promise made to Abraham. That he here says “ blessed with … Abraham” instead of “ justified” is doubtless due to the fact that he is still using the language of his opponents. Note the similarity of this verse to v. 7 and compare notes on that v. “ Blessed with Abraham” is clearly equivalent to “ sons of Abraham.” By the addition of the word πιστῷ (cf. Jub. 17:18, 19:8,9) the apostle reminds his readers that the important thing about Abraham is the fact of his faith. No undue stress must be laid on the use of σύν instead of the ἐν of the quotation. It may have been his opponents’ form of expression; but it was, in any case, congenial to his own thought. It is his constant contention that they who inherit the blessing promised to Abraham must do so on the same basis on which he was blessed, viz., faith, and in that sense “ with” him. A reference to the fact that all who should afterwards exercise faith were in the blessing of Abraham proleptically blessed, εὐλογοῦνται being in that case a historical present, is less probable because εὐλογ seems obviously to refer to the same fact as ἐνευλογ . of the quotation, and because to express this thought unambiguously would have required an aorist. The adjective πιστῷ is manifestly to be taken in its active sense, as is required by ἐπίστευσεν of v. 6. See Th. s. v. 2 and esp. Ephesians 1:1. The English word “ believing” would more exactly express its meaning, but would obscure the relation between this word and ἐκπίστεως . The translation, “ Those that believe are blessed with believing Abraham,” is in some respects better but does not do full justice to οἱἐκπίστεως . See note on v. 7. 3. Counter-argument that those whose standing is fixed by works of law are by the logic of the legalists under a curse, the curse of the law; yet that their logic is perverse, for O. T. teaches that men are justified by faith, and from the curse of the law Christ redeemed us when he died on the cross (3:10-14) The apostle now carries his attack directly into the camp of the enemy, contending on the basis of passages from Deut. and Lev. that those who claim on the basis of scripture that justification is by law must on the same basis admit that the actual sentence of law is one of condemnation; but maintaining that their contention is unjustified, since the scripture itself affirms that the righteous man shall live by faith, and declaring that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, in order that on the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham (not by law but by faith). 10For as many as are of works of law are under a curse. For it is written, “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” 11And that no man is justified in law before God, is evident, because, “ The righteous man shall live by faith” ; 12and the law is not of faith; but, “ He that doeth them shall live in them.” ; 13Christ delivered us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us, because it is written, “ Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” ; 14that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 10. Ὅσοιγὰρἐξἔργωννόμουεἰσὶνὑπὸκατάρανεἰσίν , “ For as many as are of works of law are under a curse.” By this sentence the apostle introduces a new weapon for the refutation of his opponents, an argument e contrario by which he seeks to prove that instead of men being blessed by coming under law they must, according to their own premises, come under a curse. There might have been prefixed to it the words of 4:21: “ Tell me, ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear the law?” The word νόμου is, as always in the phrase ἔργανόμου , used in its legalistic sense (see on 2:16), and ὅσοιἐξἔργωννόμου are not οἱποιηταὶνόμου , of whom Paul says in Romans 2:13 that they will be justified, but men whose standing and character proceed from works of legalistic obedience to statutes. ὑπὸκατάραν is a qualitative phrase, equivalent to [ἐπι ]κατάρατος . While this sentence undoubtedly represents the apostle’ s real conviction, in the sense that a man who has only works of law and not faith to commend him to God will actually fail of the divine approval (cf. 2:16), yet it is most important for the purposes of its interpretation to notice that this is not what it is intended to affirm, but rather that the principle of legalism (which he contends is not the basis of God’ s actual judgment of men) leads logically to universal condemnation, by bringing all under the condemnation of the law. This appears clearly from the fact that the sentence by which he supports the assertion (see below) is one which does not express the apostle’ s own conviction as to the basis of God’ s judgment of men, but the verdict of the law. The curse of which the verse speaks is not the curse of God, but as Paul expressly calls it in v. 13, the curse of the law. γέγραπταιγὰρὅτι “ Ἐπικατάρατοςπᾶςὃςοὐκἐμμένειπᾶσιντοῖςγεγραμμένοιςἐντῷβιβλίῳτοῦνόμουτοῦποιῆσαιαὐτά .” “ For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” The quotation is from Deuteronomy 27:26, with variations that do not materially affect the sense, viz., the omission of ἂνθρωπος after πᾶς , and of ἐν (which, however, many Western and Syrian authorities insert) before πᾶσιν and the substitution of γεγραμμένοιςἐντῷβιβλίῳτοῦνόμου for λόγοιςτοῦνόμουτούτου , and of αὐτά for αὐτούς . The unexpressed premise of the argument, necessary to make this passage prove the preceding proposition, is that no one does, in fact, continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them. This is not quite identical with the expressed proposition of Rom 3:9, this being a legalistic, that an ethical, affirmation; but the failure which the apostle here assumes may nevertheless be precisely in the moral requirements of the law. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ 7. Continuation of the argument for the inferiority of the condition under law, with the use of the illustration of guardianship (4:1-7) Still pursuing his purpose of persuading the Galatians that they would lose, not gain, by putting themselves under the law, Paul compares the condition under law to that of an heir who is placed under a guardian for a period fixed by the father and in that time has no freedom of action, and describes it as a bondage under the elements of the world. Over against this he sets forth the condition into which they are brought by Christ as that of sons of God, living in filial and joyous fellowship with God. 1Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is lord of all, 2but is under guardians and stewards until the time set by the father. 3So also we, when we were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world. 4But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, made subject to law, 5that he might deliver those that were under law, that we might receive the adoption. 6And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7So that thou art no longer a slave but a son, and if son, then heir through God. 1. Λέγωδέ , ἐφ ʼ ὄσονχρόνονὁκληρονόμοςνήπιόςἐστιν , οὐδὲνδιαφέρειδούλουκύριοςπάντωνὤν , 2. ἀλλὰὑπὸἐπιτρόπουςἐστὶκαὶοἰκονόμουςἄχριτῆςπροθεσμίαςτοῦπατρός . “ Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is lord of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time set by the father.” Though the argument introduced in 3:23 was brought to a conclusion in v. 29 with a reversion to the thought of 3:7, the apostle now takes up again the thought of the inferiority of the condition under law (note the resumptive λέγωδέ ; cf. on 3:17 and 5:16); availing himself of the familiar custom of guardianship and of current laws or usages concerning it, he compares the condition of those under law to that of an heir who in his youth and till a time appointed by his father, though prospective owner of the whole estate, is subject to guardians, and characterises it as practical slavery. The sting of the argument is in νήπιος , δοῦλος , and ὑπὸἐπιτρόπουςκαὶοἰκονόμους , which he employs to describe the condition of those under law; its persuasive element is in ἄχρι … πατρός which suggests that the time of slavery has gone by, and men ought now to be free. The term κληρονόμος , “ heir,” suggests that the illustration is taken from the law or custom of inheritance, the son inheriting from a deceased father under the will of the latter. Nor does this element of the illustration create serious incongruity between illustration and thing illustrated. For an illustration is not necessarily perfect at every point, and there is no decisive reason why the apostle should not illustrate the condition of the Jewish nation or of the human race in the period of law by that of a son who is under guardians awaiting an appointed time to take possession of the property left him by his father’ s will; the point of the illustration lying not in the condition of the father, but in the relation of the son to his guardians. But neither does κληρονόμος necessarily imply that in the illustration, still less in the thing illustrated, the father is dead in the period of the guardianship; since a guardianship may be created during the lifetime of the father, and the term κληρονόμος may be used proleptically simply to describe the son as the one who is eventually to possess the property. Cf. κύριοςπάντωνὤν , and see detached note on Διαθήκη , p. 496. Νήπιος , properly “ one without understanding,” is used by Greek writers and in the Lxx both in this sense and with the meaning “ child” ; in N. T. apparently in the latter sense (1 Corinthians 13:11, Ephesians 4:14) with the added implication of immaturity, intellectual or moral. No instance has been pointed out of its use as a technical term for a minor, a child not possessed of manhood’ s rights, but it is evidently this characteristic of a child that the apostle here has specially in mind. κύριος is used in the sense, rather infrequent in N. T., of “ owner,” with the added idea of control. Cf. Matthew 20:8, Matthew 21:40. The participle ὤν is, of course, concessive. See BMT 437.8. The phrase ἐπιτρόπουςκαὶοἰκονόμους has given rise to much discussion as to the precise meaning of the words and the law which the apostle has in mind. The difficulty, however, pertains not to ἐπίτροπος . This is a frequent word for the guardian of a minor orphan. See Plato, Legg. VI 766 C: καὶἐὰνὀρφανῶνἐπίτροποςτελευτήσητις . Dem. 988:2: τούτωνἈρίσταιχμοςἐπίτροποςκαὶκηδεμὼνἐγένεθ ʼ ἑκκαίδεκαἔτη . Xen. Mem. 1. 2:40: λέγεταιγὰρἈλκιβιάδην , πρὶνεἴκοσινἐτῶνεἶναι , Περικλεῖἐπιτρόπῳμὲνὄντιἑαυτοῦπροστάτῃδὲτῆςπόλεωςτοιάδεδιαλεκθἤναιπερὶνόμων . Arius Did. quoted in Mullach, Frag. Phil. Gr. II 87:2-5: ἀπὸταύτηςγοῦντῆςφιλοστοργίαςκαὶδιαθήκαςτελευτᾶνμέλλονταςδιατίθεσθαι , καὶτῶνἔτικυοφορουμένωνφροντίζειν , ἐπιτρόπουςἀπολιπόνταςκαὶκηδεμόνας , καὶτοῖςφιλτάτοιςπαρατιθεμένους , καὶπαρακαλοῦνταςἐπικουρεῖναὐτοῖς . οἰκονόμος , on the other hand, usually denotes a slave acting as house-steward for his master, or an employed steward acting as agent for his principal, or a treasurer. See 1 Kings 4:6, 1 Kings 4:18:3, 1 Kings 4:1 Esd. 4:47, Luke 12:42, Luke 16:1, Romans 16:23. Paul also uses it in a figurative sense of those to whom the gospel is entrusted, 1 Corinthians 4:1, 1 Corinthians 4:2. There is no clear instance of its use with reference to one who has charge of the person or estate of a minor heir, and in particular no other instance of the use of the two terms ἐπίτροπος and οἰκονόμος together. Under Roman law indeed (of a period a little later than that of Paul— see Sief. ad loc., p. 234) the minor was under a tutor till his fourteenth year, and thereafter under a curator until his twenty-fifth year. But against the supposition that it was this usage that Paul had in mind is the fact that he adds ἂχριτῆςπροθεσμίαςτοῦπατρός , whereas Roman law itself fixed the time during which the child was under the tutor and curator respectively. On προθεσμίας , a frequent legal term, see Dem. 952:19; Plato, Legg. XII 954 D,* etc. Cf. Job 28:3, Daniel 9:20 (Sym.). It is not found in Lxx and occurs here only in N. T. Ramsay holds that Paul refers to the law followed in Greco-Phrygian cities, and cites the Syrian law book of the fifth century A. D., according to which the practice was the same as under the Roman law except that whereas under Roman law the father appointed only the tutor, and could not appoint the curator, under the Syrian law the father appointed both the ἐπίτροπος who, like the Roman tutor, had charge of the child till he reached the age of fourteen, and the curator who had the management of the property till the son was twenty-five years old. * But aside from the fact that it is precarious to assume that the law found in a Syrian law book of the fifth century was in force in Phrygian cities in the first century, Ram. overlooks the fact that this usage is equally at variance with the language of Paul, who says nothing about who appoints the ἐπίτροπος and οἰκονόμος but does indicate that the father fixes the time at which the son passes from under their control. In Greek, e. g., Athenian, law there was, so far as has been pointed out, no such distinction between tutor and curator or ἐπίτροπος and οἰκονόμος . But the use of ἐπίτροποςκαὶκηδεμών in Dem. 988:2 as a double title of one person (see the passage above) suggests that we should not seek to distinguish between the functions of the ἐπίτροπος and those of the οἰκονόμος , but regard οἰκονόμος as Paul’ s synonym for κηδεμών and, like that word, a further description of the ἐπίτροπος . Cf., also, Seneca, De Beneficiis, Lib. IV, chap. XXVII, ad fin.: quomodo dementissime testabitur, qui tutorem filio reliquerit pupillorum spoliatorem: “ As he makes a most mad will who leaves as tutor to his son one who has been a spoiler of orphans.” There remains, however, the difficulty that we have no knowledge of a guardianship the period of which is fixed by the father. If, therefore, the apostle is speaking of inheritance of property from a deceased father, dying while the son is still a child, he must apparently be speaking in terms of some usage not otherwise definitely known to us. In view of this fact, recourse may be had to a guardianship established for special reasons during the lifetime of the father, such as is illustrated in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son, Antiochus Eupator. In 1 Mac. 3:32, 33 it is stated that Antiochus Epiphanes, being about to go on a military expedition into Persia, left Lysias ἐπὶτῶνπραγμάτωντοῦβασιλέως … καὶτρέφεινἈντίοχοντὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦἕωςτοῦἐπιστρέψαιαὐτόν . In 1 Mac. 6:17 it is said that when Lysias knew that the king was dead he set up Antiochus, his son, to reign in his stead, whom he had brought up . From these two passages it appears that Antiochus, the father, appointed Lysias to be steward of the affairs of the kingdom and guardian of his son until a specified time, in effect directing that such stewardship and guardianship terminate by the resumption of authority by the father on his return, or by succession of his son on the father’ s death. While, therefore, the precise terms used by Paul do not occur, equivalents of all three of them are found in the passage in 1 Mac. This equivalence is, moreover, somewhat confirmed by certain passages in 2 Mac. In 10:11 it is stated that Antiochus Eupator, παραλαβὼντὴνβασιλείαν , ἀνέδειξενἐπὶτῶνπραγμάτωνΛυσίαν , and thereafter, in 2 Mac. 11:1 and 13:2 (cf. also 14:2), Lysias is referred to as ἐπίτροποςτοῦβασιλέωςκαὶἐπὶτῶνπραγμάτων , “ guardian of the king and chancellor or steward.” Thus the son, on acquiring his throne, re-established for himself the relation which his father had created, and the author of 2 Mac. employs to designate the office of Lysias ἐπίτροποςκαὶἐπὶτῶνπραγμάτων , which are evidently nearly or quite the equivalent of Paul’ s ἐπίτροποςκαὶοἰκονόμος . If it may be supposed that these passages were before the apostle’ s mind, or that he had in mind such a case as that of Antiochus Ep phanes and his son, his language would become entirely clear, as referring to the case of a father who during his life placed his son for special reasons under the care of one who was at the same time ἐπίτροπος and οἰκονόμος and who was to hold that office for a period the limit of which was indicated by the father. The two terms would not then designate different persons, but two functions of one person, and the plural would be a qualitative plural. It is, perhaps, also in favour of this understanding of the passage that the situations compared are alike even in the fact that the father, corresponding to God, is still alive in the period of the stewardship. Yet reference to an ordinary guardianship of a minor orphan, in the terms of some existing legal usage not definitely known to us, remains a possibility. Fortunately the application of the illustration to the condition of men under law is but little affected by any uncertainty respecting the source of the illustration 3. οὕτωςκαὶἡμεῖς , ὅτεἦμεννήπιοι , ὑπὸτὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμουἤμεθαδεδουλωμένοι · “ So also we, when we were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world.” ἡμεῖς is best understood as referring to Christians generally, the predicates of the sentence describing their pre-Christian condition. For, though the language of vv. 3-5 is specially appropriate to Jewish Christians and was probably written with them specially in mind, as that in v. 6 was probably written with the Gentile Galatians especially in mind, yet the use of the same or the equivalent expressions with reference to those who are included under the first person, ἡμεῖς , and those who are addressed (in the second person), together with the change in pronoun or the person of the verb when there is no antithesis but, on the contrary, continuity of reference is required by the argument, shows that these grammatical changes do not mark a substantial change of persons denoted. Cf. ἡμοῖς … δεδουλωμένοι of v. 3 with οὐκέτιεἶδοῦλος of v. 6 (notice especially the implication of οὐκέτι that the persons addressed — the Galatians— had previously been in bondage), and observe that in v. 5 τοὺςὑπὸνόμον (third person) are evidently the same who constitute the subject of ὑπολάβωμεν , that in v. 6 ἡμῶν is used of those who are the subject of the verb ἐστέ , and that it is scarcely less clear from the nature of the argument that there is no real change of persons referred to (other than the change of emphasis above mentioned) in passing from v. 5 to v. 6. A comparison of ὑπὸτὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμουἤμεθαδεδουλωμένοι of this verse with πῶςἐπιστρέφετεπάλινἐπὶτὰ … στοιχεῖαοἶςπάλινἄνωθενδουλεύεινθέλετε of v. 9 points in the same direction, v. 9 clearly implying that the previous condition of the Galatians, as well as that to which they are now in danger of turning, was a bondage to the στοιχεῖα , while v. 8 as distinctly marks them as having previously been worshippers of idols, and 3:1-6 shows that they had come to faith in Christ not through judaism as proselytes, but directly from their worship of idols. On the bearing of the phrase ὑπὸνόμον on the inclusiveness of ἡμεῖς , see on v. 4. For a change of person similar to that which takes place in passing from v. 5 to v. 6, cf. 3:26 and notes there. Jews and Gentiles are therefore classed together as being before the coming of Christ in the childhood of the race, and in bondage, and the knowledge of religion which the Jews possessed in the law is classed with that which the Gentiles possessed without it under the common title, “ the elements of the world,” τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου . On the meaning of this phrase, see detached note, p. 510. For a direct assertion of what is here implied as to the common standing of Jews and Gentiles as concerns possession of truth (but without reference to its inferiority to the Christian revelation), see Romans 2:14, Romans 2:15. א D*F G 33, 442, 463 read ἤμεθαδεδουλ .; ABCDb et cKL. most cursives Clem. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. read ἦμεν . Despite the weightier external evidence for ἦμεν the strong improbability that for the common ἦμεν the unusual ἤμεθα would be substituted is decisive for the latter. 4. ὅτεδὲἦλθεντὸπλήρωματοῦχρόνου , ἐξαπέστειλενὁθεὸςτὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ , γενόμενονἐκγυναικός , γενόμενονὑπὸνόμον , “ But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, made subject to law.” That the time of all important events, and so pre-eminently that of the coming of the Christ, was fixed in the purpose of God, was probably a common thought of early Christianity (Mark 1:14, John 2:4, John 2:7:8, 30, etc. Acts 17:26, Ephesians 1:10; cf. Tob. 14:5). It was evidently shared by the apostle (Romans 3:26, Romans 5:6). Whether he thought of the time as fixed by the necessity that certain things must first be accomplished, or that the world reach a certain condition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3ff.), or as appointed to occur after the lapse of a certain definite period (cf. Daniel 9:24ff.) is not here or elsewhere in the epistles clearly indicated. Cf. Bous. Rel. d. Jude 1:2, pp. 278 ff. That it was associated in his mind with the two ages (cf. on 1:4) is probable, yet the fulness of the time did not mark the beginning of the new age, since the former was past, the latter still future. The words ἐξαπέστειλενὁθεὸςτὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ , though in themselves capable of referring to the sending of Jesus as God’ s Son out among men from the seclusion of his private life (cf. Acts 9:30, Acts 11:22, John 1:6) must yet, in view of the apostle’ s belief in the pre-existence of Jesus, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:6ff. Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:16, and of the parallelism of v. 6, be interpreted as having reference to the sending of the Son from his pre-existent state (ἐνμορφῇθεοῦ , Philippians 2:6) into the world. This is also confirmed by the two expressions that follow, both of which (see below) are evidently added to indicate the humiliation (cf. Philippians 2:7, Philippians 2:8) to which the Son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent to the level of those whom he came to redeem. For if ἐξαπέστειλεν referred simply to a sending forth among men, as a prophet is sent forth under divine commission, these expressions would mark his condition previous to that sending forth, and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, rather, the contrary. Yet on the other hand, ἐξαπέστειλεν need not, probably should not, be limited to the entrance into the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood as extending to, and including, the appearance of Jesus among men as one sent from God. On the expression τὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ , equivalent to τὸνυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ , see detached note on Titles and Predicates of Jesus, V D, p. 408, for discussion of the evidence that the phrase here refers to the pre-existent Son and that it has special reference to the Son as the object of divine love, in the enjoyment of filial fellowship with God. Cf. also vv. 6, 7. The phrase γενόμενονἐκγυναικός can not be interpreted as excluding human paternity, as some interpreters, both ancient and modern, have maintained (cf. Sief. and Zahn ad loc.). See, e. g., Job 14:1, βροτὸςγεννητοςγυναικός . Matthew 11:11, ἐνγεννητοῖςγυναικῶν . It could be reasonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted the dogma or narrative that Jesus was so born, and not even then would it be certain that this phrase was intended to refer to this aspect of Jesus’ birth. But of such knowledge or acceptance the writings of the apostle give no hint. γυναικός is probably, like νόμου in the following phrase, not indefinite, but qualitative, and the phrase is best translated “ born of woman.” On ὑπὸνόμον , cf. 3:23. There is no occasion to take it here in any other sense than that which it has there, “ under law as a system of legalism.” See note on 3:13. It was from this subjection that Christ came to deliver men. See 5:18 and cf. 5:13, 14, as showing that those who are in Christ still remain under law as an ethical principle. Cf. also 1 Corinthians 9:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 6:15. In applying this phrase to Jesus the passage resembles Philippians 2:8, but differs in that there it is to God and here to law that he is said to be subject. That Paul carried his conception of Jesus’ subjection to law to the point of supposing that he was in his own thinking a legalist is wholly improbable; the subjection to law was, doubtless, rather in the fact of his living under legalistic judaism, obliged to keep its rules and conform to its usages. The motive for the insertion of the phrase is doubtless to emphasise the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9. Τὸπλήρωμα is evidently used in the active sense, “ that which fills,” τοῦχρόνου being an objective genitive; the whole period which must elapse before the event being incomplete till its last increment is added, the last moment, which fills it, is called πλήρωμα . It is, in the language of the illustration, ἡπροθεσμίατοῦπατρός (v.2). The words γενόμενονὐπὸνόμον should probably be taken in the sense “ made subject to law” rather than “ born under law,” for, though γενόμενονἐχγυναιχός evidently refers to birth, that reference is neither conveyed by, nor imparted to, the participle, but lies wholly in the limiting phrase. This idea is, therefore, not of necessity carried over into the second phrase. Had the apostle desired to express the idea “ born” in both phrases, he could have done so unambiguously by the use of γεννηθέντα . Concerning the time of the subjection to law, whether at birth or subsequently, γενόμενον says nothing decisive. Both participles are best understood as attributive participles used substantively (BMT 423) in apposition, therefore, with τὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ , the omission of the article giving to each phrase a qualitative force which may be expressed in English by translating “ his Son, one born of woman, one made subject to law.” The employment of the aorist presents the birth and the subjection to law as in each case a simple fact, and leaves the temporal relation to ἐξαπέστειλεν to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to (BMT 142, 143). The thought is not very different if the participles be taken as adverbial participles of attendant circumstances (BMT 449, 450). But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterise the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission. 5. ἵνατοὺςὑπονόμονἐξαγοράσῃ , “ that he might deliver those that were under law.” The phrase ὑπὸνόμον is, doubtless, to be taken in the same sense as in v. 4 and 3:23, viz.: “ under law” legalistically understood. But while in those cases the context shows that the law actually referred to is the O. T. law, the context here (see above on the inclusiveness of ἡμεῖς in v. 3 and note the second person in v. 6, with its unambiguous inclusion of the Galatian Gentiles) implies that τοὺςὑπὸνόμον includes both Jews and Gentiles. That Paul conceived the Gentiles to possess a law, and that of divine origin, appears from Romans 2:14, Romans 2:15 (cf. 1:19, 20); and though the phrase ὑπὸνόμον is usually employed with reference to the legalism that grew up on Jewish soil, yet that Paul was aware that the law whose work is written in the heart might also be externalised and made legalistic is intrinsically probable and is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 9:20, where τοῖςὑπὸνόμον , standing as a middle term between Ἰουδαίις and τοῖςἀνόμοις , seems to designate those, whether Jew or Gentile, who were living under a system of legalism. On the use of ἐξαγοράζω , see on 3:13, p. 168. That the deliverance referred to is from the law, is implied in τοὺςὑπὸνόμον and the absence of any other phrase to suggest another enslaving power. That it is from subjection to law, i. e., (a) from the obligation to obey legal ordinances, and (b) from the conception of God which legalism implies, is shown as respects the former (a) by v. 10 and 5:1-4, and as respects the latter (b) by the following clause and vv. 6, 7. The whole clause expresses the purpose not of the participle γενόμενον only and probably not of ἐξαπέστειλεν only, but of the whole assertion ἐξαπέστειλεν , with its modifiers, wherein is implied that his human birth and subjection to law were contributory to the achievement of the redemption. And this in turn conveys an intimation that Paul already had a thought akin to that expressed in Hebrews 5:7-9 with reference to the relation between the limitations of the earthly life of Jesus and his redemptive work. Yet how he conceived that the deliverance was accomplished, whether as in 3:13 through his death, or through his life experience reaching its climax in his death (cf. Philippians 2:7, Philippians 2:8), this verse in no way decides. That the apostle conceived that Jesus himself had passed through an experience like that of Paul, referred to by him in 2:19, in that he also had discovered that one does not come into the enjoyment of a filial relation to God through obedience to statutes, and that this was embodied in the teaching of Jesus, is not in itself improbable, but is not intimated either here or elsewhere in his letters. ἵνατὴνυἱοθεσίανἀπολάβωμεν . “ that we might receive the adoption.” υἱοθεσία , found in inscriptions in the phrase καθ ʼ υἱοθεσίαν and rarely in Greek literature (Diog. Laert. IV 9 (53), νεανίσκωντινῶνυἱοθεσίαςποιεῖσθαι ), does not occur in the Lxx and appears in N. T. only in the Pauline epistles. In Romans 9:4 it denotes the choice of Israel to be sons of God (cf. Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy 14:1, Deuteronomy 14:2, Hosea 11:1). In Romans 8:14, Romans 8:15 they are said to be υἱοὶθεοῦ who are led by God’ s Spirit, and it is added: “ For ye have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received a spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” In Romans 8:23 ἡυἱοθεσία is defined as consisting in the redemption of the body, doubtless because in Paul’ s thought only through the resurrection and the clothing of the spirit in the spiritual body does man enter into the fulness of fellowship with God (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:13, 1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:44). In Ephesians 1:5 adoption is spoken of as that which men are foreordained of God to obtain through Jesus Christ. ἡυἱοθεσία is, therefore, for Paul, God’ s reception of men into the relation to him of sons, objects of his love and enjoying his fellowship, the ultimate issue of which is the future life wherein they are reclothed with a spiritual body; but the word may be used of different stages and aspects of this one inclusive experience. The article τήν is, doubtless, restrictive, pointing to the thought of vv. 1, 2 that at the time appointed of the father the child is released from subjection to tutors and governors, and comes into direct relation to the father as a mature son— an intimation more fully developed in v. 6. The meaning “ sonship” would satisfy most of the passages in which υἱοθεσία occurs, but there is no occasion to depart from the etymological sense, “ installation as a son.” This does not, however, justify reading back into v. 1 the idea of adoption, and from this again carrying it back through χληρονόμος into the διαθήχη of 3:15, for Paul is not careful to maintain the consistency of his illustrations. He employs here his usual term because he is speaking of the establishment of those who have previously not had the privileges of a son in the full enjoyment of them. Whether ἴνα … ἀπολάβ . expresses the purpose of ἐξαγοράσῃ , or, co-ordinately with that clause, expresses the purpose of ἐξαπέστειλεν is impossible to say with certainty; nor is the distinction important. 6. Ὅτιδέἐστευἱοί , ἐξαπέστειλενὁθεὸςτὸπνεῦματοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦεἰςτὰςκαρδίαςἡμῶν , “ And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.” The clause ὅτι … υἱοί is naturally interpreted as causal, giving the reason in the divine mind for the act ἐξαπέστειλεν … ἡμῶν , there being no verb of saying or the like for it to depend upon as an object clause. Nor is there any sufficient reason for departing from this obvious interpretation. It follows, however, that the sonship here spoken of being antecedent to and the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit is not the full, achieved fact, nor the consciousness of a filial relation, but the first and objective stage which the preceding context has emphasised, viz.: release from bondage to law, figuratively described as a pedagogue or guardians and stewards. It is involved in this relation of sonship and the possession of the Spirit that from the consciousness of the latter one may infer the former, and it is doubtless to induce the Galatians to draw this inference from their consciousness of possessing the Spirit (cf. 3:3-5) that this sentence was written. But the direct affirmation of the sentence is that the sonship is the cause of the experience of the Spirit. To take ὅτι as meaning “ that,” making ὅτι … υἱοί the proposition to be established, and then to supply after it “ is proved by the fact” (Philippi, following ancient interpreters), or to take ὅτι in the sense of quod, “ as respects the fact that” (Wies.), introduces unwarranted complication into a sentence which is on its face complete and simple. That in Romans 8:14, Romans 8:15 sonship is apparently proved by possession of the Spirit does not forbid our interpreting this passage as making the sonship the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit; for not only is the language of Rom 8:14, Romans 8:15 open to interpretation as an argument from effect to cause, in which case there also adoption precedes possession of the Spirit, but if the reverse is true there, antecedence of sonship to the bestowal of the Spirit, clearly indicated in this passage, is explicable by the fact that υἱοθεσία (see on v. 5) is used by the apostle of different stages of the process by which men come to the full possession of the relationship of sons to God, and that the context implies that it is the first and objective stage of which he is here speaking. Precisely the phrase τὸπνεῦματοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ does not occur elsewhere in N. T., but in Philippians 1:19 Paul uses τὸπνεῦμαἸησοῦΧριστοῦ and in Romans 8:9c πνεῦμαΧριστοῦ (cf. also 2 Corinthians 3:17, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 1:11, Hebrews 9:14 Revelation 19:10). Particularly instructive is Romans 8:9, Romans 8:10, where (a) πνεῦμαθεοῦἐνὑμῖν , (b) πνεῦμαΧριστοῦἔχειν , and (c) Χριστὸςἐνὑμῖν all express the same fact of experience. It is manifestly also the same experience for which Paul employs in Galatians 2:20 the phrase ζῂ͂ἐνἐμοὶΧριστός and in 5:25 ζῶμενπνεύματι . Historically speaking, the sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit are distinguished in early Christian thought, most markedly so in the fourth gospel (John 3:17, John 3:7:39, John 3:16:7; but note also that the coming of the Spirit is practically identified with the return of the Son), but also in Paul (cf. the ἐξαπέστειλεν of v. 4 with the same verb in this v.). The two terminologies, that of the Christ and that of the Spirit, have also a different origin, both, indeed, having their roots largely in O. T., but being there and in later Jewish thought quite distinct. But in the experience of the early Christians the Christ who by his resurrection had become a spirit active in their lives, and the Spirit of God similarly active, could not be distinguished. Cf. Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, p. 189. Precisely to what extent this experiential identification of the heavenly Christ and the Spirit of God has caused a numerical identification of them as personalities is difficult to say. Apparently the apostle Paul, while clearly distinguishing Christ from God the Father (see 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:6-8, etc.) and less sharply distinguishing the Spirit from God (Romans 5:5, Romans 5:8:7, Romans 5:8, Romans 5:9, Romans 5:14, Romans 5:15), is not careful to distinguish the Spirit and Christ, yet never explicitly identifies them. Cf. Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, pp. 229-231. The choice of τὸπνεῦματοῦὑ̓οῦαὐτοῦ for this passage in preference to any of its equivalents is due, on the one side to the necessity of distinguishing the fact referred to from the historic coming of the Christ (4:4), which excludes τὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ and Χριστόν , and on the other to the desire to connect this experience closely with the gift of Christ, which excludes τὸπνεῦμα or τὸπνεῦματοῦθεοῦ . On εἰςτὰςχαρδίαςἡμῶν , added to emphasise the transition from the objective sonship to the subjective experience, see Romans 5:5, Romans 5:1 Cor. 2:22, Ephesians 3:17. It is in the heart, as the seat of intellectual and spiritual life in general (1 Corinthians 2:9, Romans 9:2, Romans 10:1, etc.) and in particular of the moral and spiritual life (2 Corinthians 4:6, Romans 1:12, Romans 1:24), that the Spirit of God operates. The use of the expression here shows that ἐξαπέστειλεν refers (not as the same word in v. 4 does) to a single historic fact (the day of Pentecost, e. g.), but to the successive bestowals of the Spirit on individuals (cf. 3:3), the aor. being, therefore, a collective historical aor. (BMT 39). On the translation of an aor. in such a case, see BMT 46, 52. On ἡμῶν , undoubtedly to be preferred to ὑμῶν , a Western and Syrian reading, see on v. 3. κράζονἈββάὁπατήρ . “ crying, Abba, Father.” The recognition of God as Father is the distinguishing mark of the filial spirit. The participle κράζον agreeing with πνεῦμα ascribes the cry to the Spirit of God’ s Son; yet it is undoubtedly the apostle’ s thought that it is the expression of the believer’ s attitude also. For the Spirit that dwells in us dominates our lives. See chap. 2:20, 5:25, and cf. Romans 8:15: ἐλάβετεπνεῦμαυἱοθεσίας , ἐνᾧκράζομενἈββάὁπατήρ . The use of κράζον , usually employed of a loud or earnest cry (Matthew 9:27, Acts 14:14, Romans 9:27) or of a public announcement (John 7:28, John 7:37), in the Lxx often of prayer addressed to God (Psalms 3:5, Psalms 107:13), emphasises the earnestness and intensity of the utterance of the Spirit within us. Though the word κράζον itself conveys no suggestion of joy, it can hardly be doubted that the intensity which the word reflects is in this case to be conceived of as the intensity of joy. Though to be free from law is to obtain adoption, sonship in its full realisation is more than mere freedom from law. The significance of such freedom lies, indeed, precisely in the fact that it makes it possible that a truly filial relation and attitude of man to God shall displace the legal relation that law creates, that instead of our looking upon God as lawgiver in the spirit of bondage and fear (Romans 8:15) he becomes to us Father with whom we live in fellowship as his sons. See detached note on Πατήρ as applied to God, p. 391. Ὁπατήρ , Greek equivalent of the Aramaic Ἀββά , א ִ ב ּ ָ א , is a nominative form with vocative force. Cf. Romans 8:15, Mark 14:36, Matthew 11:26, John 20:28; Bl. D. 147.3. The repetition of the idea in Aramaic and Greek form gives added solemnity to the expression, and doubtless reflects a more or less common usage of the early church (see Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15). On the origin of this usage, see Th. s. v. Ἀββά , Ltft. ad loc., Sief. ad loc. It is quite likely that the use of the Aramaic word was derived from Jesus, being taken up into the vocabulary of Greek-speaking Christians through the medium of those who, knowing both Aramaic and Greek, in reporting in Greek the words of Jesus used this word with a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself had used to express an idea of capital importance in his teaching. This is more probable than that it was taken over into the Christian vocabulary from that of the Jewish synagogue in which the idea of God as Father had so much less prominent place than in the thought and teaching of Jesus. See Bous. Rel. d. Jude 1:2 pp. 432-3, 434; Dal. WJ. p. 192. The attachment of the Greek translation ὁπατήρ to the Aramaic word would naturally take place on the passage of the term into Greek-speaking circles. 7. ὥστεοὐκέτιεἶδοῦλοςἀλλὰυἱός · “ So that thou art no longer a slave, but a son.” In the possession of the Spirit of God’ s Son, assumed to be known as a fact of the experience of the readers (cf. 3:2), the apostle finds confirmation of the ἐστὲυἱοί of v. 6, as there the sonship is said to be the ground for the bestowal of the Spirit. That the emphasis of sonship is still upon the fact of freedom from bondage to law is shown in the insertion of the negative οὐκέτιδοῦλος , and that those addressed were formerly in this bondage is implied in οὐκέτι . The change from plural to singular has the effect of bringing the matter home to each individual reader; the persons designated remaining, of course, unchanged. Cf. 6:1, and for classical examples, see Kü hner-Gerth, 371.5, b. εἰδὲυἱός , καὶκληρονόμοςδιὰθεοῦ , “ and if son, then heir through God.” That here as throughout the passage υἱός means υἱὸςθεοῦ needs no specific proof; it is sufficiently indicated in the expression τοῦυἱοῦαὐτοῦ in vv. 4, 6, and the relation of this expression to υἱός . This obviously suggests that κληρονόμος means κληρονόμοςθεοῦ . Cf. Romans 8:17: εἰδὲτέκνα , καὶκληρονόμοι · κληρονόμοιμὲνθεοῦ , συνκληρονόμοιδὲΧριστοῦ . To this conception the phrase διὰθεοῦ adds the thought, “ made so by God,” thus equivalent to κατὰθέλημαθεοῦ ; cf. 3:29, κληρονόμοικατ ʼ ἐπαγγελίαν . The purpose of the addition is perhaps to remind the Galatians that their position as heirs is due to divine grace, not one of right or desert, but more probably to emphasise the certainty of their possession of it. The absence of the article before θεοῦ makes the noun not indefinite but qualitative, emphasising the divineness of the one through whom they were made heir. Cf. on θεόν , v. 7. The reversion to the thought of the κληρονομία expressed in 3:18, 29 shows that the apostle has not lost sight of his main purpose throughout this and the preceding chapter, viz., to convince the Galatians that it was not through law but through the retention of their freedom from it that they could obtain the blessings promised to the sons of Abraham, which the judaisers had held before their eyes as a prize greatly to be desired but obtainable only through circumcision. The appeal of the apostle is to retain the status they already possess. Cf. v.6, “ ye are sons,” and v. 9, “ how turn ye back?” That he should not here employ the term υἱοὶἈβραάμ , as in 3:7, but κληρονόμοι , as in 3:29, is natural, not only because κληρονόμοι more distinctly suggests the idea of the blessing to be received, but also because after υἱοί , meaning sons of God, sons of Abraham would have the effect of an anticlimax. κληρονόμοι should, therefore, be taken here in the sense, heirs of God, and as such recipients of the blessing promised to Abraham’ s seed; this blessing has already been defined as justification, acceptance with God, possession of the Spirit. Cf. 3:7-14. It is, moreover, as present possessors of the κληρονομία that they are κληρονόμοι . That other blessings are in store for them is undoubtedly a Pauline thought (Romans 5:11, Romans 8:17-23), and that the conception of the κληρονόμος easily lends itself to the presentation of this phase of the matter, that which has been received being thought of as simply the earnest and first-fruit of the full blessing (see Romans 8:17-23, Ephesians 1:14) is also true. But the Galatians already possess the promised Spirit, and the emphasis in this context is upon that which is already possessed, with no clear indication that the thought goes beyond that. Against the supposition— at first sight most natural— that the term as here used is intended to carry the thought back specifically to κληρονόμος in v. 1, is the fact that κληρονόμος is there applied to one who not having yet entered into possession of his κληρονομία is in the position of νήπιος and δοῦλος , precisely that position, therefore, which it is the purpose of this v. to deny; and, though the title κληρονόμος carries with it the idea of future release from the status of δοῦλος , the contention of the apostle is here not that the Galatians will be, but already are, sons and no longer slaves. It is more probable, therefore, that by this word he reverts for the moment to the idea of κληρονόμοι in 3:29 (cf., also, 3:18), heirs according to the promise made to Abraham, i. e., possessors of the blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed. This is not to take κληρονόμος as meaning heir of Abraham, a predicate which the apostle never applies to Christians. They are indeed called “ sons of Abraham,” because it is to the seed of Abraham that the promise applies, but it is God who established the διαθήκη and makes the ἐπαγγελία , and they to whom the promise is fulfilled are his κληρονόμοι . Cf. on 3:15 and detached note on Διαθήκη , p. 496. This also makes it evident that the term κληρονόμος is not used in its strict sense of heir, i. e., recipient of the property of another who has died, or prospective recipient of the property of another when he shall have died, but, tropically, possessor of a promised possession. The fact that κληρονόμοι here means heirs of God, and the deduction of heirship from sonship, itself inferred from an act of adoption, υἱοθεσία , gives a certain colour of support to Ramsay’ s view that the διαθήκη of 3:15ff. is not a covenant but a will, and specifically a will involving the adoption of a son. If the language of 3:15ff. were harmonious with these suggestions of the present passage, the latter would fall in with that passage as part of an illustration consistently carried through the whole passage. But (1) the possibility of interpreting this phrase in the way above suggested is not sufficient ground for setting aside the strong counter-evidence that by διαθήκη he means not a will, but a covenant. Even if the expression here employed could be shown to involve the idea of adoption by will and inheritance as an adopted son, this would only show that the apostle is now illustrating the spiritual relations which are the real subject of his thought by a different group of facts of common life from those which he employed in 3:15ff. But (2) it is improbable that it is specifically an adoptive sonship that the apostle has in mind in εἰδὲυἱός . For, though he represents the son-ship of the Galatians in common with other believers as acquired by adoption, yet the fact of adoption is nowhere emphasised, and in the actual spiritual realm that which is illustratively called adoption carries with it, as a consequence, the bestowal of the Spirit of God’ s Son, by which, it is implied, those who are sons come into like relation to God with that which the Son himself sustains. The conception of adoption, accordingly, falls into the background, leaving simply that of sonship. 8. Description of the former condition of the Galatians as one of bondage to gods not really such, and exhortation to them not to return to that state (4:8-11) Again directly addressing the Galatians as in 3:1, and as in v. 1 characterising their former condition as one of enslavement, the apostle describes them as in bondage to gods that were not in reality such, and appeals to them, now that they have come into fellowship with God, not, as they threaten to do by their adoption of the Jewish cycle of feasts and fasts, to return to those weak and beggarly rudimentary teachings under which they formerly were, and expresses his fear that he has laboured over them to no purpose. 8But at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to the gods that are not such by nature. 9But now having come to know God, or rather having become known by God, how is it that ye are turning back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which ye wish to be in bondage again? 10Ye are observing days and months and seasons and years. 11I fear that in vain have I spent my labour on you. 8. Ἀλλὰτότεμὲνοὐκεἰδότεςθεὸνἐδουλεύσατετοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσιθεοῖς · “ But at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to the gods that are not such by nature.” Doubling, so to speak, upon his course, the apostle reverts to the condition of the Galatians before they received his message, and in antithesis to the description of them in v. 7 as heirs through God, describes them as having been in that former time ignorant of God who is in reality such, and in bondage to the gods that by nature are not gods. The purpose of this v. appears in v. 9, where he again dissuades them from returning to the state of bondage. That Paul conceived of the deities whom the Galatians formerly worshipped as real existences, is neither proved nor disproved by this sentence, in which he denies to them deity, θειότης , but neither affirms nor denies existence; nor by the phrase ἐπιτρόποιςκαὶοἰκονόμοις in v. 2, since that may be used only by way of rhetorical personification of the law and have no reference to the gods of the Gentiles (cf. on τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου , v. 3); but that he did so conceive of them is rendered probable by the evidence of 1 Corinthians 8:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 8:10:19, 20, Colossians 2:15. Cf. also Deuteronomy 4:19 and see literature cited in special note on Τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου , p. 510. Τότε refers to the past time implied in οὐκέτι (v. 7), when the Galatian Christians were still δοῦλοι ; note the ἐδουλεύσατε of this sentence. Εἰδότες is a perfect participle of existing state, μὴεἰδότες meaning “ not possessing knowledge.” How this state of ignorance came about is not here discussed, or whether it was partial or absolute. Cf. Romans 1:18ff. The omission of the article with θεόν makes the word not indefinite (as in Acts 12:22, 1 Corinthians 8:4), but, as in v. 7 and very often, qualitative, referring definitely to the one God, but with an emphasis on his attributes as God, which is lacking when he is called ὁθεός . For a similar use of θεός , with strong emphasis on the qualities of deity, see John 1:18, θεὸνοὐδεὶςἐώρακενπώποτε , where the contrast, however, is not between one in reality God, as compared with those not really such, but between God in the absolute sense, incapable of being directly known, and God as revealed in the person of the Son. For other examples of this indubitable, though often overlooked, qualitative use of personal appellations without the article, see Romans 1:21: γνόντεςτὸνθεὸνοὐχὡςθεὸνἐδόδοξαν . Romans 8:33, Galatians 3:26, Galatians 4:14, Galatians 5:21, Philippians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:9: ἐπεστρέψατεπρὸςτὸνθεὸνἀπὸτῶνεἰδώλωνδουλεύεινθεῷζῶντικαὶἀληθινῷ . 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Other examples more or less clear, but together clearly establishing the usage, are very numerous. See note on chap. 2:6, pp. 88 ff., detached note on Πατήρ as applied to God, p. 384, and Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles, pp. 64-68. Ἐδουλεύσατε is a simple historical aorist, not inceptive, referring not to a point of time but to a period, BMT 38, 39, 41 Rem. Φύσις , from φύω , is properly that which belongs to a person or thing by virtue of its origin; then its essential character; used thus even of the divine nature, which is without origin, 2 Peter 1:4. φύσειμὴοὖσι may be an adjective element limiting θεοῖς , or οὖσι may be an adjective participle used substantively, with θεοῖς as a predicate after it. In the former case the beings referred to are characterised as gods, but with the qualification that they are not so by nature, i. e., in reality; in the latter case they are not called θεοί at all, but are characterised negatively only, as beings that by nature are not gods. Grammatically and contextually there is no ground of decisive choice between these, but 1 Corinthians 8:5, showing that Paul could apply the term θεοί to the gods of the Gentiles, though denying that it really belonged to them, favours the first interpretation. The comparison of Plato, Legg. X 904 A, οἱκατὰνόμονὄντεςθεοί , perhaps suggests what the positive element of the apostle’ s thought was. He was speaking of “ the gods of popular opinion,” as Jowett translates Plato’ s phrase, Cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5, λεγόμενοιθεοί . On οὐ with εἱδότες and μή with οὖσι , see BMT 485; the choice of negatives, though doubtless unconscious, probably reflects the feeling that οὐκεἰδότες expressed a fact, τοῖςφύσειμὴοὖσινθεοῖς a conception, a description of a class, but without implication of its existence or non-existence. The few instances in which Paul uses οὐ with an attributive participle are quotations from the Lxx, his otherwise regular habit being to use μή with such participles and with adverbial participles not involving a direct assertion (Romans 1:28, Romans 2:14, Romans 4:17, Galatians 6:9). οὐ , with the possible exception of Col 2:19, in effect negatives an assertion (1 Corinthians 4:14, 1 Corinthians 4:9:26, 2 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 12:4). 9. νῦνδὲγνόντεςθεόν , μᾶλλονδὲγνωσθέντεςὑπὸθεοῦ , “ But now having come to know God, or rather to be known by God.” Their coming to know God is manifestly through the apostle’ s preaching. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9: πῶςἐπεστρέψατεπρὸςτὸνθεὸνἀπὸτῶνεἰδώλωνδουλεύεινθεῷζῶντι , language which, as the evidence of this epistle shows, might have been addressed to the Galatians also. That γνωσθέντες as here used can not refer simply to knowledge in a purely theoretic or intellectual sense is evident, since the apostle must have regarded such knowledge as always, not simply now , possessed by God. For the meaning required here, “ having become objects of his favourable attention,” cf. Psalms 1:6, Nahum 1:7, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Matthew 7:23, and on the thought of God receiving the Gentiles into a favour not previously enjoyed by them, see Romans 9:25f., Romans 11:30. This fact respecting Gentiles in general the apostle conceived to be realised in respect to the Galatians in particular through his preaching the gospel to them in accordance with his commission as apostle to the Gentiles. The purpose of this added phrase, in a sense displacing the previous γνόντες , etc., is doubtless to remind the Galatians that it is not to themselves but to God that they owe their knowledge of him and escape from idolatry (cf. chap. 1:6: μετατίθεσθεἀπὸτοῦκαλέσαντοςὑμᾶςἐνχάριτιΧριστοῦ , and Ephesians 2:8), and so to emphasise the folly and wrong of abandoning this advantage through another ἐπιστρέφειν . Though γινώσκω does not always retain its inchoative force (see Th. s. v.) even in the aorist, yet this is often clearly discernible (cf. Luke 24:18, 1 Corinthians 1:21), and the aorist participle in particular always, apparently, retains this meaning, signifying either “ having learned, having come to know,” or “ knowing” (result of having come to know), not “ having known.” See Matthew 16:8, Matthew 22:18, Matthew 26:10, Mark 6:38, Mark 15:45, Luke 9:11, John 5:6, Acts 23:6, Romans 1:21, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 2:9. By γνόντες there is, therefore, affirmed the acquisition of that knowledge the former possession of which is denied in οὐκεἰδότες . Of any other distinction between εἰδότες and γνόντες , as, e. g., that the former denotes an external knowledge that God is, the latter an inner recognition of God, there is no basis in usage or warrant in the context. The absence of the article with θεόν is not without significance , being doubtless due to the same cause that led to the omission of the article in v. 8 (q. v.), viz., emphasis upon the qualities of deity in antithesis to the φύσειμὴὄντεςθεοί . Cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9 quoted above, noting τὸνθεόν in the first mention of God, and θεῷ without the article when the word follows the mention of the idols and with emphasis on the qualities of true deity. One might imperfectly reproduce the effect in English by reading with strong emphasis on the word God. But now having come to know [a] God (not those that are no real gods). Μᾶλλονδέ , following a negative phrase, introduces and emphasises its positive correlate (Ephesians 4:28, Ephesians 5:11); following a positive expression it introduces an additional and more important fact or aspect of the matter, not thereby retracting what precedes (probably not even in Wisd. 8:20, certainly not in Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 14:2 Mac. 6:23), but so transferring the emphasis to the added fact or aspect as being of superior significance as in effect to displace the preceding thought. So clearly here, as in Romans 8:34, etc. πῶςἐπιστρέφετεπάλινἐπὶτὰἀσθενῆκαὶπτωχὰστοιχεῖα , οἷςπάλινἄνωθενδουλεύεινθελετε ; “ how is it that ye are turning back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which ye wish to be in bondage again?” The question is rhetorical, intended to set forth the absurdity of the action referred to. On the use of πῶς in such questions, meaning “ how is it possible that,” see chap. 2:14, Romans 3:6, Romans 6:2, Matthew 7:4, Matthew 7:12:26, Matthew 7:29, et freq. The present tense presents the action as already in progress. (Observe that in the examples cited, when a theoretical possibility is spoken of the tense is a future or a form referring to the future, but in chap. 2:14 it is a present, referring, as in this case, to something in progress.) This corresponds with the representation of the situation in Galatia given in 1:6: θαυμάζωὅτι … μετατίθεσθε . Cf. also θέλετε in next clause. The phrase τὰάσθενῆκαὶπτωχὰστοιχεῖα manifestly refers to what v. 3 calls τὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου ; see on that v., and detached note, p. 510. The present expression emphasises the ineffectualness and poverty of the old religious systems in contrast with the power and richness of the gospel. See chap. 5:6, 16-24, Romans 1:17, Romans 1:8:3, Romans 1:4. It is, of course, that to which they were now turning that is specially in mind, yet the former heathenism, included under the στοιχεῖα by implication of the repeated πάλιν , is also thereby stigmatised as ἀσθενῆκαὶπτωχά . Both were at bottom legalistic, without clear perception of ethical principles and destitute of dynamic to make possible the realisation of them in life. What the apostle says in Romans 8:3 of the law, ὁνόμος , is affirmed of it, not because of anything peculiar to it as distinguished from the still more imperfect ethnic systems, but because of that which was common to them both, and his usual term for the displaced system is not ὁνόμος , but νόμος (see, e. g., chap. 3:2, 10, 11.Romans 3:20, Romans 3:21a. etc.). The word θέλετε in the appended relative clause expresses forcibly the inclination of the Galatians to abandon the Pauline gospel. Cf. θέλοντες , v. 21. Δουλεῦσαι is attested by א B only; all other authorities apparently read δουλέυειν . The former is quite certainly a modification of the original text under the influence of πάλινἄνωθεν , which naturally calls for an inceptive form. The scribe missing the reference of the present to a second period of enslavement, substitutes the aorist to express the idea of a return to bondage. πάλινἄνωθενδουλεῦσαι would have furnished no temptation to change it. Πάλιν originally meaning “ back” (return to a previous position; cf. L.&S. and Th. s. v. and reff. there) but more commonly, in later Greek, “ again” (repetition of a previous action) is often used when the repetition involves return to a previous state or position (Mark 2:1, Mark 3:1); but also when the action is a return to a previous state through reversal, not, strictly speaking, repetition. So in chap. 1:17, John 10:18, Romans 11:23. So also here, since there had been no previous ἐπιστρέφεινἐπὶτὰ … στοιχεῖα , but only an εἷναιὑπὸτὰστοιχεῖα , and the contemplated ἐπιστρέφειν was not a repetition of a previous act but a reversal of the ἐπιστρέφεινπρὸςτὸνθεόν (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9), here described in γνόντεςθεόν . Wieseler’ s statement, “ Das πάλιν , welches hier wiederum, nicht rü ckwä rts, heisst, weist auf eine frü here Bekehrung hin, nä mlich auf die ihrem, v. 8 erwä hnten Heidenthume gegenü ber in dem νῦνδέ u. s. w. angedeutete Bekehrung von den Gö tzen zu Gott in Christo,” escapes self-contradiction only by the expedient of supposing πάλιν to apply to ἐπιστρέφετε only, not to ἐπιστρέφετεἐπὶ … στοιχεῖα , an interpretation which would require us to read: “ How turn ye again, this time to the weak and beggarly rudiments?” The view, moreover, in support of which he resorts to this difficult expedient, viz., that Paul does not include the former heathenism of the Galatians under τὰ … στοιχεῖα compels him further to limit the effect of πάλινἄνωθεν in the next clause to δουλεύειν , reading in effect, “ to which ye desire to be in bondage, this constituting for you a second bondage.” Such a harsh severance of verb and adverb in two successive clauses is not demanded by the usage of πάλιν and is, in fact, self-refuting. The obvious and unescapable implication of the language is that the conversion to τὰ … στοιχεῖα is a return to a state generically the same as the idol-worship under which they formerly were. Against this it is irrelevant to point out that ἐπιστρέφειν does not mean “ return” but only “ turn,” since the idea of reversal is expressed in the adverb. The expression πάλινἄνωθενδουλεύειν is pregnant, the adverb suggesting a renewed enslavement and the present tense of the infinitive a continued state; hence in effect again to become enslaved and to continue so, or to endure a second period of enslavement. δουλεῦσαι would probably be inceptive. πάλιν , then, in this case expresses repetition rather than, as in the preceding clause, reversal, though, as in many other cases (Mark 2:1, Mark 3:1, etc.), the repetition involves also return to a former position. Cf. 5:1. It is enforced by the nearly synonymous ἄνωθεν “ anew.” It is probably an overrefinement to find in this use of the two words (cf. Wisd. 19:6) anything more than emphasis, such as is often expressed in Greek writers by αὖθις , ἄνωθεν , etc. 10. ἡμέραςπαρατηρεῖσθεκαὶμῆναςκαὶκαιροὺςκαὶἐνιαυτούς . “ Ye are observing days and months and seasons and years.” That the days, etc., referred to are those which the Jewish law required to be observed is made certain by the unquestioned character of the influence to which the Galatians were yielding. See esp. v. 21. Compared with 5:1ff., in which it appears that the question of adopting circumcision was still pending, and 5:3, which indicates that the Galatians had not yet been asked to adopt the whole law, this sentence indicates that the judaisers had pursued the adroit course of presenting to them at first a part only of the requirements of the Jewish law and had begun with those things that would be least repulsive. Having secured the adoption of the festivals, and perhaps the fast-days, of the Jewish cycle, they were now urging circumcision. Whether, however, the feasts and fasts were all that the Galatians had adopted as yet, is not made clear, since the apostle may have mentioned these only as examples of their subjection to the law. But the silence of the letter about any statute of the law except circumcision, which they had not yet adopted, and the fasts and feasts, which they had, there being, for example, no mention in connection with the situation in Galatia of the law of foods, leaves no positive ground for supposing that any points except these had been raised. On παρατηρεῖσθε , “ ye observe, keep religiously,” cf. Jos. Ant. 3. 91 (5:5): παρατηρεῖντὰςἐβδομάδας . 14. 264 (10:25), παρατηρεῖντὴντῶνσαββάτωνἡμέραν . Contra Ap. 2. 282 (39, Whiston 40): οὐδὲἓνἔθνοςἔνθα … πολλὰτῶνεἰςβρῶσινἡμἴνοὐνενομισμένωνπαρατετήρηται . Nowhere in the Lxx does the word appear with this meaning, and in non-biblical writers instances have been observed only in Dion Cassius, 38. 13, τὰἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦγιγνόμεναπαρατηρεῖν . It occurs here only in N. T. in this sense, τηρεῖν being used in Matthew 19:17, John 8:51, Acts 15:5, etc.; φυλάσσειν in Matthew 19:20, Luke 11:28, Acts 7:53, Romans 2:26, Galatians 6:13, etc. Ἡμέρας probably refers primarily to the sabbath days, but includes also the feasts, which are observed each on a single day. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ IV. PORTION OF THE LETTER (5:1-6:10) 1. Exhortations directly connected with the doctrine of the letter (5:1-6:5) (a) Appeal to the Galatians to stand fast in their freedom in Christ (5:1-12) Having in 1:11-2:21 defended his own independent right to preach the gospel to the Gentiles uncontrolled by any others, even those who were apostles before him, and in chaps. 3, 4 having answered the arguments of his opponents in favour of the imposition of legalism upon Gentile Christians, the apostle now passes to fervent exhortation of his readers not to surrender the freedom which they have in Christ Jesus. 1With this freedom Christ set us free: stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if ye shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound to do the whole law. 4Ye have severed your relation to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law. Ye have fallen away from grace. 5For we, by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a hoped-for righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. 7Ye were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth? 8This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. 9A little leaven is leavening the whole lump. 10I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be. 11And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Then is the stumbling-block of the cross done away with. 12I would that they who are disturbing you would even have themselves mutilated. 1. τῇἐλευθερίᾳἡμᾶςΧριστὸςἠλευθέρωσεν · στήκετεοὖνκαὶμὴπάλινζυγῷδουλείαςἐνέχεσθε . “ With this freedom Christ set us free: stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” With this reading of the text (see textual note below) these words are not to be attached to 4:31 , but constitute an independent sentence in which, the allegory of 4:21-31 being left behind, the apostle expresses himself in language akin to that of 4:4-11. The sentence, without connective particle οὖν or γάρ to mark its relation to what precedes, constitutes a transition paragraph of itself, on the one side a summary of 4:21-31 (but without its allegorical terminology) if not also of chaps. 3, 4 as a whole, and on the other an introduction to the exhortations of chap. 5. The article before ἐλευθερίᾳ is restrictive, referring to that freedom from the law with which the whole epistle from 2:1 on has dealt; see esp. 3:23-25, 4:9, 31. On Χριστὸςἠλευθέρωσεν cf. for substance of thought 3:13, 4:4. The sentence is, in fact, an epitome of the contention of the whole letter. The variations of the textual evidence are so complex as to make clear exposition of them difficult. The chief variations may be set forth as follows: I. Respecting the words immediately accompanying ἐλευθερίᾳ : 1. τῇἐλευθερίᾇ (without ᾗ following): א ABCD*HP 31, 33, 442, al. Sah. Arm. Syr. (harcl.) Euthal. Thrdt. Dam.; τῇγὰρἐλ .: Boh.; ἐντῇ : Chr. 2. τῇἐλευθερίᾳᾗ : Db et cKL, the great body of cursives, Syr. (psh. et harcl.) Marc. Chr. Cyr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. al. 3. ᾗἐλευθερίᾳ : FG d f g Vg. Goth. Tert. Or. Victorin. Hier. Ambrst. Aug. II. Respecting the position of ἡμᾶς : 1. ἐλευθερ . ἡμᾶςΧρ .: א *ABDFGP 31, 33, 327, 2125, some mss. of the Vulg. Goth. Cyr. Dam. 2. ἐλευθερ . Χρ . ἡμᾶς .: א cCKL, most of the cursives, Chr. Thrdt. Tert. Victorin. Hier. 3. Χρ . ἠλευθέρωσενἡμᾶς : Thphyl. (so Ltft.). III. Respecting οὖν : 1. After ἐλευθερίᾳ : CcKL and many cursives, Marc. Dam. Thphyl. Oec. 2. After στήκετε : א ABCFGP 33, 104, 336, 424**, 442, 1912, f g Goth. Boh. Sah. Eth. Arm. Bas. Cyr. Orint. Victorin. Aug. 3. Omit in both places: D d 263, 1908, Vg. Syr. (harcl.) Thdrt. Chr. Dam. The weight of external evidence thus strongly favours τῇἐλευθερίᾳἡμᾶςΧριστὸςἠλευθέρωσεν · στήκετεοὖν , and the originality of this reading is confirmed by the fact that it accounts for all the rest. It is adopted by Ln. Tdf. Alf. WH. Sief. Those who have preferred another reading have done so on the ground of the syntactical difficulty of τῇἐλευθερίᾳ as a limitation of ἠλευθέρωσεν . But this construction, though unusual, does not seem to be impossible (see exegetical notes). On the other hand, Hort’ s suggestion that τῇ is a primitive error for ἐπ ʼ has much to commend it. The only choice is between τῆἐλ . ὴμ ., etc., which is undoubtedly the parent of all the other existing readings, and ἐπ ʼ ἐλ . ἡμ . as the unattested original of the former. The dative τῆἐλευθερίᾳ is to be explained as a dative of instrument (not intensive as in Luke 22:15, ἐπιθυμίᾳἐπεθύμησα , and James 5:17, προσευχῆπροσεύξατο , in which case the noun, being qualitative, would be without the article), but descriptive, “ by (bestowing) the freedom (spoken of above) Christ made us free” ; cf. John 12:33, ποίῳθανάτῳἤμελλενἀποθνήσκειν . To this view the article is no objection: cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:9, πάσῃτῇχαρᾷᾗχαίρομεν , where the relative ᾗ limiting χαίρομεν has all the definiteness of τᾔχαρᾷ . Or it may be a dative of destination (cf. Acts 22:25: προέτειναναὐτὸντοῖςἱμᾶσιν : “ They stretched him out for the thongs” with which he was to be scourged). The meaning would then be: “ For the freedom (above spoken of) Christ set us free.” The latter interpretation is favoured somewhat by v. 13, and perhaps by the absence of any exact parallel to such a use of verb and cognate noun with the article as the former view supposes; while against it is the unusualness of such a dative as it supposes (even Acts 22:25 is not quite certain) and the probability that Paul would have expressed this idea by εἰςἐλευθερίαν (cf. Romans 5:2). On the whole the former construction is the more probable, if τῇ be the correct reading. It is, perhaps, still more likely that Paul wrote ἐπ ʼ (see textual note above), in which case the meaning would be substantially that of the dative denoting destination. Στήκω , a post-classical word, derived from ἒστηκα , has with Paul the meaning not simply “ to stand” (as in the gospels), but with intensive force, “ to stand firm.” Cf. 1 Corinthians 16:13, Philippians 1:27, Philippians 4:1, etc. πάλιν recalls the fact that as Gentiles they had been in slavery, and classes the burden of Jewish legalism with that of heathenism. Cf. 4:9 and notes there. The omission of the article with ζυγῷδουλείας gives to the phrase a qualitative force, and though the reference is clearly to the yoke of legalism, is appropriate after πάλιν because the new yoke which he would have them avoid is not identical with that previously borne. Ἐνέχεσθε — a frequent classical word, “ to be held in,” “ to be ensnared,” is in the present tense, denoting action in progress, not probably because Paul thinks of them as already entangled , but because he is thinking about and warning them against not only the putting of their necks into the yoke, but the continuous state of subjection which would result therefrom. 2. ἼδεἐγὼΠαῦλοςλέγωὑμῖνὅτιἐὰνπεριτέμνησθεΧριστὸςὑμᾶςοὐδὲνὠφελήσει . “ Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if ye shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” The acceptance of circumcision is, under the circumstances then existing in the Galatian churches, the acceptance of the principle of legalism, the committal of the Galatians to a relation to God wholly determined by conformity to statutes and leaving no place for Christ or the development of spiritual life through faith in him and spiritual fellowship with him. This is the position which the apostle has taken throughout the letter (cf. 2:18ff. 3:12). The possibility of any compromise between the two conceptions of religion he does not consider, but points out the logical outcome of the adoption of the principle of legalism, which he conceives to be involved in the acceptance of circumcision. Though circumcision is mentioned here for the first time in direct relation to the Galatians, the manner in which it is spoken of in this paragraph and in 6:11-13 (confirmed by the implications of chap. 3) makes it certain that it was this rite especially that the opponents of Paul were urging the Galatians to adopt, or at least that on this the contest was at this moment concentrated. Though the sentence is introduced without γάρ , the purpose of it is evidently to enforce the exhortation of v. 1. Its separation from that v. in a distinct paragraph is justified only by the double relation which it sustains on the one hand to 4:21, 31, and on the other to this and the following sentences. The first three words of this sentence, none of them strictly necessary to the thought, serve to give emphasis to the whole statement that follows. As an exclamation Paul elsewhere employs not ἴδε , but ἰδού ; see 1 Corinthians 15:51, Galatians 1:20, et al.; ἴδε in Romans 11:22 and ἴδετε in Galatians 6:11 are proper imperatives with limiting object. For other instances of ἐγώ , emphatic, see 1:12, 2:19, 20, 4:12, 5:10, 11, 6:17 et freq. For ἐγὼΠαῦλος , see 1 Thessalonians 2:18, 2 Corinthians 10:1, Ephesians 3:1, Colossians 1:23; see also Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:17. The intent of the words here is doubtless, as in most of the above instances, to give to what he is about to say all the weight of his personal influence. The form of the conditional clause ἐὰνπεριτέμνησθε , referring to a future possibility, reflects the fact that the question whether they will be circumcised is still pending. Cf. 1:6. The use of the present tense, at first thought surprising, indicates that the apostle is not thinking of circumcision as a simple (possible future) fact, or result accomplished, but of the attempt or decision to be circumcised, the verb being substantially conative in force; see note on ἤρεσκον in 1:10. What the apostle says is not that to be or to have been, as a matter of fact, circumcised would render Christ of no avail to them (see the contrary stated in v. 6), but that their seeking or receiving circumcision under the circumstances under which it is being urged upon them would do so. Observe the use of the present tense, also, in v. 3, 6:12, 13, 1 Corinthians 7:18. The aorist in 2:3, on the other hand, was necessary because of the resultative force of the whole phrase. The view of Alford, that the present tense “ implies the continuance of a habit, ‘ if you will go on being circumcised,’ ” though grammatically unobjectionable, is excluded by the fact that circumcision could be thought of as a habit, not in respect to individuals, but only as concerns the community; in which case it would follow that Paul’ s thought was that if the community continued the already existing practice of circumcision, the community would have no benefit from Christ; whereas, on the contrary, v 33, confirmed by the apostle’ s constant teaching concerning justification, shows that relation to Christ pertains to the individual, not to the community. Alford’ s explanation, moreover, fails to account for the present tense in περιτεμνομένῳ , and is, therefore, probably not applicable to περιτέμνησθε . The language, therefore, furnishes no basis for the conclusion that the Galatians had already begun the practice of circumcision. On οὐδὲνὠφελήσει , cf. John 6:63, Romans 2:25, 1 Corinthians 13:3. There is no ground for assuming an exclusive reference to any specific point of future time, as to the parousia or the judgment. The absence of any specific reference to these events, such as is expressed in Romans 2:13, Romans 2:16, or implied in Romans 14:10-12, makes it natural to assume that the future dates from the time indicated in the subordinate clause; and this is confirmed by the use of the aorists κατηργήθητε and ἐξεπέσατε in v. 4, which see. 3. μαρτύρομαιδὲπάλινπαντὶἀνθρώπῳπεριτεμνομένῳὅτιὀφειλέτηςἐστὶνὅλοντὸννόμονποιῆσαι . “ And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound to do the whole law.” Joined to v. 2 by δέ , this sentence supplements that one by a further reason why the Galatians should not receive circumcision. Not only do they thereby lose any advantage which the relation to Christ would confer, but they assume a heavy burden. The acceptance of circumcision is in principle the acceptance of the whole legalistic scheme. The reasons that can be urged in favour of circumcision apply equally to every statute of the law. That Paul points out this logical consequence of circumcision implies that the judaisers had not done so. They were now urging the Galatians to accept circumcision as the rite by which they could become sons of Abraham and participators in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. chap. 3 passim); they had already persuaded them to adopt the cycle of Jewish festivals (4:10), perhaps as serving to mark them off from their heathen compatriots, perhaps because of the appeal which these observances would make to the Galatians. On the question whether the judaisers had imposed or endeavoured to impose upon their consciences any other requirements of the law, see on 4:10. It is certain only that the Galatians had adopted the festival cycle, that they were undecided concerning circumcision, and that the judaisers had not proposed to them to undertake to keep the whole law. Μαρτύρομαι without obj. acc. signifies, not “ to call to witness” (so with obj. acc. in Soph. Eur. et al.), but “ to affirm,” “ to protest” (Plato, Php_47C.; Jos. Bell. 3. 354 (8:3); Acts 20:26, Acts 26:22, Ephesians 4:17), differing from μαρτυρέω in that it denotes a strong asseveration, not simple testimony. Πάλιν , “ again,” can not be understood as referring either to the content of v. 2, of which this is regarded as a repetition (Ltft.), for the two verses, though related, are not identical in thought; or to any previous passage in this epistle, since there is none in which this statement is made; nor can it be taken as marking this verse as a second μαρτυρία , of different content from the former one, for in that case it would have preceded the verb, as in Matthew 4:7, Matthew 5:33, Romans 15:10, Romans 15:12. It must, therefore, refer to a statement previously made to the Galatians, and in that case probably to a statement made on the occasion referred to in 4:16 and 1:9. Cf. notes on these passages and 5:21. The present passage thus furnishes some confirmatory evidence that Paul had either visited the Galatians or written to them since the visit spoken of in 4:13; since definitely anti-legalistic instruction at that time before the legalistic influence had been exerted among them is improbable, though not, indeed, impossible. The words παντὶἀνθρώπῳπεριτεμνομένῳ mean not, “ to every one who has been circumcised” , but “ to every man that receives circumcision.” Cf. BMT 124. The warning is addressed not to the man who has already been circumcised but (like ἐὰνπεριτέμνησθε , v. 2) to the one who is contemplating circumcision. Ὀφειλέτης is one who is under obligation, one who is bound, ὀφείλει , to do a certain thing; here in effect one who binds himself; for the obligation is, as the context shows, one which he ought not to assume. Cf. contra Romans 1:14. Ὅλοντὸννόμον refers to the whole body of O. T. statutes, legalistically interpreted. See detached note on Νόμος , V 2. (c), p. 457. For a Gentile to receive circumcision is to commit himself logically to the whole legalistic system. The clear implication of the sentence is that the believer in Christ is under no such obligation. The freedom of the believer in Christ is not simply from the law’ s condemnation of him who does not obey its statutes, or from the law as a means of justification, but from the obligation to render obedience to these statutes. The Galatians are not simply not to seek justification by circumcision; they are not to be circumcised; they are not to do the whole law. 4. κατηργήθητεἀπὸΧριστοῦοἵτινεςἐννόμῳδικαιοῦσθε , “ Ye have severed your relation to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law.” κατηργήθητεἀπὸΧριστοῦ repeats in effect the Χριστὸςὑμᾶςοὐδὲνὠφελήσει of v. 2, and like that verse expresses forcibly the apostle’ s thought that the adoption of legalism is the repudiation of Christ. The two methods of obtaining righteousness are incompatible. He who turns to one foregoes the other. Notice the direct address to the Galatians, much more impressive than a statement of a general principle. Some Syrian authorities and Boh. read τοῦΧριστοῦ , but Χριστοῦ is sustained by practically all pre-Syrian evidence, א BCD al. On Paul’ s usage of Χριστός and ὁΧριστός , cf. detached note on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, p. 395. Ἐννόμῳ evidently has the same meaning as in 3:11 (q. v.), “ in the sphere of” “ legal obedience to statutes,” thus equivalent to ἐξἔργωννόμου in 2:16, etc. δικαιοῦσθε is conative. The present can not mean “ are (i. e., have been) justified” ; and a progressive present proper, “ are in the process of being justified” is excluded by the fact that Paul thinks of justification not as a process but an act, and more decisively by his repeated assertion that no man is actually justified in law (chap. 3:11, Romans 3:20). There is no reason to regard the assertion of this sentence as hypothetical; it must rather be understood as referring to persons among the Galatians who, having accepted the legalistic principle, were seeking justification in law (cf. 4:10). Only, in view of 1:6, 5:1, 10, etc., it can not be supposed to designate the Galatians as a whole, or in view of v. 2, be understood as necessarily implying that they have carried their legalism to the extent of being circumcised. Wherever in the epistle the apostle speaks of circumcision, it is as of a future possibility to be prevented. This excludes not the possibility of some having already been circumcised, but the general adoption of circumcision; but there is no positive indication that any have accepted it. Καταργέω , properly meaning “ to make ineffective,” is used in Romans 7:2, Romans 7:6, and here in the passive with ἀπό , meaning “ to be without effect from,” “ to be unaffected by,” “ to be without effective relation to.” The explanation of the idiom as a brachylogical expression for κατηργήθητεκαὶἐχωρίσθητε (Ltft., Sief., et al.), and the comparison of Rom 9:3 and 2 Corinthians 11:3 as analogous examples, are scarcely defensible; for while in these latter instances the expressed predicate applies to the subject independently of the phrase introduced by ἀπό , and the verb denoting separation is simply left to be supplied in thought, this is not the case with καταργεῖσθαιἀπό . The idiom is rather to be explained as a case of rhetorical inversion, such as occurs in Romans 7:4, ἐθανατώθητετῷνόμῳ , where consistency with both preceding and following context would require ὁνόμοςἐθανατώθηὑμῖν . Cf. the English expression, “ He was presented with a gift,” for “ A gift was presented to him.” The use of the aorist tense, denoting a past event viewed as a simple fact, has, in contrast with the present δικαιοῦσθε a certain rhetorical force; as if the apostle would say: “ Your justification in law, which is but an attempt, has already resulted in separation from Christ as a fact.” The English perfect best expresses the force of an aorist in such cases as this, when the event belongs to the immediate past (cf. BMT 46, 52). τῆςχάριτοςἐξεπέσατε . “ Ye have fallen away from grace.” The article with χάριτος marks the word as referring specifically to that grace of God or of Christ which was the distinctive element of the gospel which Paul had preached to the Galatians. Cf. 1:6, and special note on Χάρις . Grace, by virtue of which God accepts as righteous those who have faith, itself excludes, and is excluded by, the principle of legalism, according to which the deeds of righteousness which one has performed are accredited to him as something which he has earned. Cf. 3:12, Romans 4:5, Romans 11:6. They, therefore, who are seeking justification by the way of legalism have fallen away from, abandoned, the divine grace. Logically viewed, the one conception excludes the other; experientially the one experience destroys the other. One can not with intellectual consistency conceive of God as the bookkeeping God of legalism and at the same time the gracious God of the Pauline gospel, who accepts men because of their faith. One can not live the life of devotion to the keeping of statutes, which legalism calls for, and at the same time a life of faith in Jesus Christ and filial trust in the God of grace. This strong conviction of the incompatibility of the two conceptions, experientially as well as logically, is doubtless grounded in the apostle’ s own experience. Cf. 2:19. The verb ἐκπίπτω in classical writers from Homer down, signifying “ to fall out of,” with various derived significations, is probably used here, as usually when limited by a genitive without a preposition, with the meaning, “ to fail of,” “ to lose one’ s hold upon” (τῆςχάριτος being a genitive of separation), not, however, here in the sense that the divine grace has been taken from them (as in Jos. Antiq. 7. 203 (9:2), ὡςἂνβασιλείαςἐκπεσών ), but that they have abandoned it. Cf. 2 Peter 3:17: φυλάσσεσθεἵναμὴ … ἐκπέσητετοῦἰδίουστηριγμοῦ . For to affirm that their seeking justification in law involved as an immediate consequence the penal withdrawal of the divine grace (note the force of the aorist in relation to the present δικαιοῦσθε ; cf. above on κατηργήθητε ) involves a wholly improbable harshness of conception. On the form ἐξεπέσατε cf. Win.-Schm. XIII 12. 5. ἡμεῖςγὰρπνεύματιἐκπίστεωςἐλπίδαδικαιοσύνηςἀπεκδεχόμεθα . “ For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a hoped-for righteousness.” ἡμεῖς is emphatic, we in contrast with all who hold to legalism. πνεύματι is used without the article, hence qualitatively, but undoubtedly with reference to the Spirit of God. Cf. the similar usage in 3:3, 5:16, 18, 25, and see special note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ , p. 491. The contrast with the flesh which in 5:16, 18, 25 is expressed is probably here latent. He who seeks divine acceptance by law is in reality relying upon the flesh. See Romans 7:18-9. We, on the other hand, depend not on flesh but on the Spirit. The word δικαιοσύνη is best understood in its inclusive sense, having reference both to ethical character and to forensic standing. It is this which is the object of the Christian’ s hope and expectation (Philippians 3:9, Philippians 3:10). Cf. detached note on Δίκαιος , etc., VI B. 2, p. 471, and the discussion there of this passage. Observe also the expression δι ʼ ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη in v. 6 as indicating that the apostle is here including the ethical aspect of righteousness. The whole sentence introduced by γάρ is an argument e contrario, confirming the assertion of v. 4 by pointing out that we, i. e., we who hold the gospel of grace, look for the realisation of our hope of righteousness, not in law, ἐννόμῳ , but on the one side by the Spirit of God and on the other through faith. Πνεύματι is probably a dative of means, limiting ἀπεκδεχόμεθα , or, to speak more exactly, the verb of attaining implied in ἀπεκδεχόμεθα , the thought being, “ By the Spirit we expect to attain,” etc. ἐκπίστεως also denotes means, the phrase being complementary to πνεύματι , and expressing the subjective condition of attaining ἐλπ . δικ ., as πνεύματι denotes the objective power by which it is achieved. Ἀπεκδέχομαι , used only in N. T. (Paul, Heb. and 1 Pet.) and in considerably later writers (cf. Nä geli, Wortschatz, p. 43; M. and M. Voc., s. v.) signifies “ to await with eagerness,” ἀπό apparently intensifying the force given to the simple verb by ἐκ , “ to be receiving from a distance,” hence “ to be intently awaiting.” The interpretation, “ by a Spirit which is received by faith,” the phrase πνεύματιἐκπίστεως thus qualitatively designating the Spirit of God, is neither grammatically impossible (cf. Romans 8:15, πνεῦμαυἱοθεσίας . Ephesians 1:17, πνεῦμασοφίαςκαὶἀποκαλύψεως . Romans 3:25, ἱλαστήριονδιὰπίστεως , none of which are, however, quite parallel cases), nor un-Pauline in thought . Yet the nature of the relation which this interpretation assumes between πνεύματι and ἐκπίστεως is such as would probably call for πνεύματιτῷἐκπίστεως , while, on the other hand, the succession of co-ordinate limitations is not uncharacteristic of the apostle; cf. Romans 3:25. Ἐλπίδα , as is required by ἀπεκδεχόμεθα , is used by metonymy for that which is hoped for. Cf. Colossians 1:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 6:18. The genitive δικαιοσύνης may be considered as an objective genitive, if the whole phrase be supposed to be taken by metonymy— “ a hope of righteousness,” standing for “ a hoped-for righteousness,” or a genitive of description (appositional genitive) if the metonymy be thought of as affecting the word ἐλπίδα alone. In either case it is the righteousness which is the object both of hope and expectation. On the combination ἐλπ . ἀπεκδεχ . cf. Titus 2:13, προσδεχόμενοιτὴνμακαρίανἐλπίδα . Eur. Alcest. 130: νῦνδὲβίουτίν ʼ ἔτ ʼ ἐλπίδαπροσδέχωμαι . Polyb. 8. 21:7, ταῖςπροσδεχωμέναιςἐλπίσιν (cited by Alf. ad loc.). 6. ἐνγὰρΧριστῷἸησοῦοὔτεπεριτομήτιἰσχύειοὔτεἀκροβυστία , ἀλλὰπίστιςδι · ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη . “ For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love.” For the disclosure of the apostle’ s fundamental idea of the nature of religion, there is no more important sentence in the whole epistle, if, indeed, in any of Paul’ s epistles. Each term and construction of the sentence is significant. ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ (the bracketing of Ἰησοῦ by WH., because of its omission by B. Clem., seems scarcely justified) limits ἰσχύει . It is not precisely equivalent to τοῖςἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ , but means, rather, “ on that basis which is created by Christ Jesus” ; nearly equal, therefore, in modern phrase, to “ in Christianity,” “ on the Christian basis.” With ἰσχύει is to be supplied, not δικαιοῦν (“ is able to justify” ; cf. Acts 6:10), which would be to limit the thought more narrowly than the context would warrant, but εἰςδικαιοσύνην , as suggested by the preceding sentence, and in the inclusive sense of the term as there used. By the omission of the article with περιτομή and all the following nominatives, these nouns are given a qualitative force, with emphasis upon the quality and character of the acts. This might be expressed, though also exaggerated, by some such expression as, “ by their very nature circumcision,” etc. The phrase δι ʼ ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη furnishes a most significant addition to the word πίστις , which has filled so large a place in the epistle thus far. For not only has he not previously in this epistle used the word ἀγάπη , but, though often using each alone in other epistles (for πίστις , see Romans 1:17, Romans 3:22, etc.; and for ἀγάπη , see esp. 1 Cor., chap. 13) he has nowhere else in any of his letters brought the two words into immediate connection. The relation between the two terms, which is here expressed but not perfectly defined by ἐνεργουμένηδιά , “ operative, effective through,” “ coming to effective expression in,” is made clearer by a consideration of the nature of the two respectively, as Paul has indicated that nature elsewhere. Faith is for Paul, in its distinctively Christian expression, a committal of one’ s self to Christ, issuing in a vital fellowship with him, by which Christ becomes the controlling force in the moral life of the believer. See esp. 2:20 and cf. detached note on Πίστις and Πιστεύω , V B. 2. (e), p. 482. But the principle of Christ’ s life is love (see 2:20, τοῦἀγαπήσαντος , etc.; Romans 5:5-8, Romans 8:35-39). Faith in Christ, therefore, generates love, and through it becomes effective in conduct. See also v. 22, where first among the elements which life by the Spirit (which, as v. 5 indicates, is the life of faith) produces is love; and on the moral effect and expression of love, see especially 1 Cor., chap. 13. On the meaning of ἀγάπη , see on v. 14. That the apostle added the words δι ʼ ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη instead of writing πίστις or ἡπίστις alone is probably due to his having in mind, even here, that phase of the matter which he discusses more fully in vv. 13 ff.; cf. Romans 3:1-4, and 3:30 for similar brief anticipations of matters to be more fully discussed later. Anticipating the objection that freedom from law leaves the life without moral dynamic, he answers in a brief phrase that faith begets love and through it becomes operative in conduct. The whole sentence affirming the valuelessness alike of circumcision and of uncircumcision for the Christian life, and ascribing value to faith and love, shows how fully Paul had ethicised and spiritualised his conception of religion. That he says not simply περιτομὴοὐδὲνἰσχύει , but οὔτεπεριτομὴ … οὔτεἀκροβυστία naturally implies not only that he is opposed to the imposition of circumcision upon the Gentiles, but that he repudiates every conception of religion which makes physical conditions of any kind essential to it. The sentence, therefore, in no way contradicts vv. 2, 3, since the latter declare to the Galatians that if they accept a physical rite as religiously essential, they thereby repudiate the principle of the religion of Christ. He could have said the same thing about uncircumcision had he been addressing men who were in danger of adopting this as essential to religion. Indeed, this he does say in 1 Corinthians 7:18, 1 Corinthians 7:19: περιτετμημένοςτιςἐκλήθη ; μὴἐπισπάσθω . The doctrine of that passage as a whole is identical with the teaching in this letter. For though in v. 19 τήρησιςἐντολῶνθεοῦ , “ a keeping of divine commandments,” fills the place occupied here by πίστιςδι ʼ ἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη , v. 14 here shows that these two expressions are at bottom not antithetical but in effect equivalent. Ἰσχύω , from Æ schylus down, in the sense “ to have strength,” “ to be able,” “ to avail” is rare in Paul, but not infrequent in other N. T. writers. It is used as here in the third of the above-named senses in Hebrews 9:17, and with similar meaning in Matthew 5:13. Note the construction there. Ἐνεργουμένη is to be taken, in accordance with the regular usage of ἐνεργεῖσθαι in Paul, as middle, not passive, and as meaning “ operative,” “ effective” : Romans 7:5, 2 Corinthians 1:6, 2 Corinthians 4:12, Ephesians 3:20, Colossians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, James 5:16; see also Polyb. 1. 13:5; Jos. Ant. 15. 145 (5:3). The active, on the other hand, is used of persons: 1 Corinthians 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 2:8, Galatians 3:5, Ephesians 1:11, Ephesians 1:20, Ephesians 1:2:2. That the preposition διά denotes not antecedent cause but mediate agency, the object of the preposition being that through which the πίστις becomes effective, is made practically certain not on grammatical grounds, but because of the nature of the two attitudes expressed by πίστις and ἀγάπη as conceived of by the apostle. See above in the larger print. See note on διά under 1:1 and cf. 2 Corinthians 1:6, where a similar relation is expressed by ἐν . Since πίστις is without the article, the participle, though anarthrous, may be attributive, “ which works” ; but 2:20 suggests that to express this thought Paul would have written πίστιςἡἐνεργουμένη , and makes it likely that ἐνεργουμένη is adverbial, expressing means or cause. 7. Ἐτρέχετεκαλῶς · τίςὑμᾶςἐνέκοψενἀληθείᾳμὴπείθεσθαι ; “ Ye were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth?” As in 4:12, the apostle breaks off argument to make an appeal to the feelings of his readers by reminiscence of the former conduct of the Galatians before they fell under the influence of the judaisers. It is to this time obviously that the imperfect ἐτρέχετε refers. τίςὑμᾶς , etc., is not a question for information but of appeal. On the use of running as a figure for effort looking to the achievement of a result, see 2:2, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 9:24-26, Philippians 2:16, Philippians 2:3:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:1. It is probable that in all cases the apostle has in mind the figure of running a race, as expressly in 1 Corinthians 9:24-26. ἐνκόπτω is used by Hippocrates in the sense “ to make an incision,” but with the meaning “ to hinder” first in Polybius. Here, if the figure is that of a race, the word suggests a breaking into the course, getting in the way, or possibly a breaking up of the road. That Paul uses the aorist (resultative) rather than the present (conative) indicates that he is thinking of what his opponents have already accomplished in their obstructive work. The present infinitive, πείθεσθαι , on the other hand, is progressive, so that the meaning of the whole expression is, “ who has succeeded in preventing you from continuing to obey truth?” and the implication is that, though they have not fully adopted the views of Paul’ s opponents, they have ceased to hold firmly to that which Paul taught them. πείθεσθαι is difficult to render exactly into English. “ Believe” expresses rather less, “ obey” rather more, than its meaning. It denotes not merely intellectual assent, but acceptance which carries with it control of action; cf. Acts 5:36, Acts 5:37, Acts 5:40; Romans 2:8. On the construction of πείθεσθαι (inf. with μή after verbs of hindering), see BMT 402, 483; Bl.-D. 429. The omission of the article with ἀληθείᾳ gives to it a qualitative force, and shows that, though what the apostle has in mind is doubtless the same that in 2:5 and 2:14 he calls ἡἀλήθειατοῦεὐαγγελίου , he desires to emphasise the quality of his message as truth, thus conveying the implication that they are turning from something that is true to something that is false. Cf. for similar anarthrous use of ἀλήθεια Romans 9:1, 2 Corinthians 6:7, Ephesians 4:21. Some authorities insert the article here (omitted by א *AB). Evidently some scribe, recognising that the reference was to the truth of the gospel, stumbled at the qualitativeness of the expression. 8. ἡπεισμονὴοὐκἐκτοῦκαλοῦντοςὑμᾶς . “ This persuasion is not from him that calleth you.” The restrictive article with πειςμονή makes it refer definitely to that persuasion just spoken of, viz., the persuasion no longer to hold (his message which is) truth. By τοῦκαλοῦντος Paul means God. On the meaning of the term and its reference to God, see on 1:6; and on the omission of θεοῦ , see on 2:8, 3:5. The negative statement carries with it the positive intimation that the influence which is affecting them is one that is hostile to God, an intimation which is definitely expressed in v. 9. Πεισμονή may be either active (Chrys. on 1 Thessalonians 1:3; Just. Mart. Apol. 53:1) or passive (Ign. Romans 3:3 Iren. Haer. 4, 33:7), and it is impossible to tell in which sense Paul thought of it here. The passive sense involves the thought of a persuasion actually accomplished, the active an effort. It was, of course, the latter, but ἐνέκοψεν shows that in Paul’ s thought it was in a sense the former, also. On the tense and modal force of καλοῦντος (general present; adjective participle used substantively), see BMT 123, 124, 423, and cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:24. 9. μικρὰζύμηὅλοντὸφύραμαζυμοῖ . “ A little leaven is leavening the whole lump.” The occurrence of exactly the same words in 1 Corinthians 5:6 and the way in which they are there used indicate that they were a proverbial saying, referring to the tendency of an influence seemingly small to spread until it dominates the whole situation. In 1 Cor. ζυμή refers to the immoral conduct and influence of the incestuous man, and φύραμα represents the Corinthian church, whose whole moral life was in danger of being corrupted. Here, over against the negative statement of v. 8, this verse states the true explanation of the situation, viz., that the doctrine of the necessity of circumcision, insidiously presented by a few, is permeating and threatening to pervert the whole religious life of the Galatian churches. ζυμοῖ is probably not to be taken as a general present (as in 1 Cor.) but as a present of action in progress. It agrees with all the other evidence of the epistle in indicating that the anti-Pauline movement had as yet made but little, though alarming, progress. On τὸφύραμαζυμοῖ , cf. Exodus 12:34, and on leaven as a symbol of an evil influence (of good, however, in Matthew 13:33, Luke 13:20, Luke 13:21), see Ltft. 10. ἐγὼπέποιθαεἰςὑμᾶςἐνκυρίῳὅτιοὐδὲνἄλλοφρονήσετε · “ I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this.” With the abruptness which characterises the whole passage, the apostle turns suddenly from the discouraging aspects of the situation to an expression of hopeful confidence. The use of ἐγώ emphasises the personal, subjective character of the confidence. “ I, at least, whatever others think.” εἰςὑμᾶς designates the persons in reference to whom (Th. εἰς B. II 2 a) the confidence is felt; ἐνκυρίῳ defines the Lord, i. e., Christ, not precisely as the object of trust but as the one who constitutes the basis or ground of confidence (Th. ἐν , I 6 c.; cf. 2:4 and 2:17 and notes on these passages). The whole passage is marked by such abruptness of expression and sudden changes of thought that the words οὐδὲνἄλλο may mean in general no other view of the true nature of religion or the true interpretation of the gospel than that which Paul had taught them. Most probably they refer directly to the opinion just expressed by Paul in v. 9. In that case the sentence is an expression of confidence that the Galatians will share his conviction that the influence exerted by the judaisers is, in fact, a leaven (of evil) coming not from God but from men, and threatening the religious life of the whole community of Galatian Christians. The constructions employed by Paul after πέποιθα are various: (a) ἐπί , with a personal object (2 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Corinthians 1:2:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:4), and ἐν with an impersonal object (Philippians 3:3, Philippians 3:4), designating the object of confidence, that which one trusts; (b) ἐν with a personal object (Philippians 2:24, 2 Thessalonians 3:4 and the present passage) designating the ground on which confidence rests; (c) εἰς with the accusative occurring in the present passage, without parallel elsewhere; in accordance with the not infrequent use of εἰς in other connections, the preposition is to be explained, as above, as meaning “ in respect to.” To take εἰςὑμᾶς as denoting the object of faith (Butt. p. 175) is without the support of other examples with this verb, or of the preposition as used with other verbs; for while the accusative after πιστεύωεἰς denotes the object of faith, this construction is practically restricted to use in respect to Christ (cf. detached note on Πιστεύω , p. 480), and furnishes no ground for thinking that πέποιθαεἰς would be used with similar force in respect to other persons. 2 Corinthians 8:22, πεποιθήσειπολλῇτῇεἰςὑμᾶς , is indecisive both because it contains not the verb but the noun, and because it shares the ambiguity of the present passage. The expression ἐνκυρίῳ occurs in the Pauline epistles approximately forty times. That it means “ in Christ,” not “ in God,” is rendered practically certain by these considerations: (a) of ἐνΧριστῷ or ἐντῷΧριστῷ , or ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ there are about eighty instances, and in many of these the connection of thought is closely similar to those in which ἐνκυρίῳ is employed. (b) In seven cases (Romans 6:22, Romans 6:14:14, 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:4:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:12) κυρίῳ after ἐν is defined by a preceding or following Ἰησοῦ , Χριστῷ , or both together, as referring to Christ, and in these instances, also, the connection of thought is similar to that in which ἐνκυρίῳ alone occurs. (c) ἐνθεῷ and ἐντῷθεῷ occur but rarely in Paul (Romans 2:17, Romans 5:11, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 3:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:2:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:1), and in two of these instances (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1), with θεῷ is joined κυρίῳ in such ways as to show that ἐνκυρίῳ refers to Christ. Against these strong considerations there is only the fact that in general κύριος without the article refers to God, ὁκύριος to Christ. But the force of this general rule is diminished by the further fact that in set phrases, especially prepositional phrases, the article is frequently omitted without modification of meaning. Cf. detached note on Πατήρ as applied to God, p. 387. On οὐδεὶςἄλλος cf. John 15:24, Acts 4:12. ὁδὲταράσσωνὑμᾶςβαστάσειτὸκρίμα , ὅστιςἐὰνᾖ . “ but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be.” In itself ὁταράσσων might refer to a particular individual identified or unidentified, and the troubling might be present, past, or future. But the indefinite relative clause, ὅστιςἐὰνᾖ , referring to the future (BMT 303, 304; a present general supposition is excluded by the future βαστάσει , and a present particular by the subjunctive ᾖ ) requires us to take ὁταράσσων as designating not a particular individual mentally identified, but as referring to any one who hereafter may disturb them. The article is distributive generic, as in 3:12, 14, John 3:18. Doubtless this is but another way of referring to those who are spoken of in 1:6, τινέςεἰσινοἱταράσσοντεςὑμᾶς , καὶθέλοντεςμεταστρέψαιτὸεὐαγγέλιοντοῦχριστοῦ , and in v. 12 as οἱἀναστατοῦντεςὑμᾶς . Only their conduct is, for rhetorical effect, referred to not as a fact but as a future possibility, as in 1:8, and an indefinite singular takes the place of a definite plural. τὸκρίμα undoubtedly refers to the judgment of God, which carries with it by implication the consequent punishment. Cf. Romans 2:2, Romans 2:3, Romans 2:3:8, and esp. Romans 13:2. How or when the punishment will be experienced the sentence does not indicate; there is nothing to show that the apostle has especially or exclusively in mind the messianic judgment (Romans 2:16). Βαστάζω , used by classical writers from Homer down, occurs also in the Lxx, Apocr., and Pat. Ap. It is found in N. T. twenty-seven times. In all periods, apparently, it is employed both in a literal sense of bearing a burden (Mark 14:13, John 19:17) and other similar senses, and metaphorically of mental processes. In N. T. it occurs several times in the sense “ to endure” : John 16:12, Acts 15:10, Romans 15:1. Cf. also Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:5, Galatians 6:17. Of bearing punishment it occurs here only in N. T., but also in 2 Kings 18:14. 11. Ἐγὼδέ , ἀδελφοί , εἰπεριτομὴνἔτικηρύσσω , τίἔτιδιώκομαι ; “ And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?” Still another abrupt sentence, probably occasioned by the fact that they who were troubling the Galatians were using as one of their weapons a charge that the apostle was still, when it suited his purpose, preaching circumcision. As evidence of the falsity of the charge, Paul appeals to the fact that he is being persecuted, implying that it was for anti-legalism. The use of ἔτι with κηρύσσω implies that there was a time when he preached circumcision. The reference is doubtless to his pre-Christian life, since we have no information that he ever advocated circumcision after he became a Christian. On the reasons for holding that 1:10 furnishes no evidence of a period of conformity to the views of the judaisers in the matter, see notes on that passage. What basis there was for the charge that he was still advising circumcision, and whether the charges referred to the circumcision of Gentiles or of Jews— doubtless there was something to give colour to it— may perhaps be inferred from 1 Corinthians 7:18, if we may assume that even before writing Galatians he had said or written things similar to that passage. On Acts 16:3, see below. The conditional clause εἰ … κηρύσσω , though having the form of a simple present supposition, evidently expresses an unfulfilled condition (BMT 245; cf. 2:21, 3:18, Romans 4:2 John 18:23), while the apodosis takes the form of a rhetorical question, meaning, “ I should not be persecuted.” On the possible uses of ἔτι , cf. on 1:10. Despite the seeming parallelism, the two words ἔτι can hardly both be temporal. To make both mean “ still as in my pre-Christian days,” is forbidden by the fact that he was not in those days persecuted for preaching circumcision. To make both mean “ still as in my early Christian days,” is forbidden by the improbability that he was then preaching circumcision and the certainty (implied in the sentence itself) that if he had been he would not have been persecuted. If both are temporal, the meaning can only be, If I am still as in my pre-Christian days, preaching circumcision, why do they, having learned this, continue that persecution which they began supposing that I was opposed to circumcision? Simpler and more probable than this is the interpretation of the first ἔτι as temporal, and the second as denoting logical opposition; cf., e. g., Romans 3:7. The sentence then means: “ If I am still preaching circumcision, why am I despite this fact persecuted?” The bearing of this passage on the historicity of the statement of Act 16:3 with reference to the circumcision of Timothy belongs, rather, to the interpretation of Acts than here. If the event occurred as there narrated and became the occasion for the charge to which Paul here refers, why he made no further reply than to deny the charge, and that only by implication, can only be conjectured. Perhaps knowing that the Galatians and his critics both knew that he had never objected to the circumcision of Jews, and that the only question really at issue was the circumcision of Gentiles who accepted the gospel, he judged it unnecessary to make any reply other than an appeal to the fact that they were persecuting him. ἄρακατήργηταιτὸσκάνδαλοντοῦσταυροῦ . “ Then is the stumbling-block of the cross done away with.” i. e., if circumcision may be maintained, the cross of Christ has ceased to be a stumbling-block. τὸσκάνδαλοντοῦσταυροῦ is that element or accompaniment of the death of Christ on the cross that makes it offensive (1 Corinthians 1:23), viz., to the Jews, deterring them from accepting Jesus as the Christ. This offensiveness, the apostle implies, lay in the doctrine of the freedom of believers in Christ from the law. Whatever else there may have been in the fact of Jesus’ death on the cross to make the doctrine of his messiahship offensive to the Jews, that which above all else made it such was the doctrine that men may obtain divine acceptance and a share in the messianic blessings through faith in Jesus, without circumcision or obedience to the statutes of Moses.* It is natural and reasonable to suppose that this sentence reflects Paul’ s own pre-Christian attitude, when his own zeal for the law made him a persecutor of Christians (1:13, 14, Philippians 3:6). Had it been something else than its anti-legalism that chiefly made the Christian movement offensive to him, he could not have made this statement, since in that case the removal of this element would have left the doctrine of the cross offensive to those who still occupied the position which he maintained in his pre-Christian days. And this fact in turn confirms the evidence of the Acts that even in its early days the Christian movement had an anti-legalistic element. The implication of the sentence is that, in his judgment, had Christianity been content to remain Jewish-legalistic, it might have won the Jews, or at least have maintained a respected standing among Jewish sects. The conflict between the Christianity of Paul and that of the ultra-legalists, was radical. The former sought to reach the nations at the risk of becoming offensive to the Jews; the latter would win the Jews at the sacrifice of all other nations. With this view of Paul the testimony of the book of Acts is in harmony, both in its indication of the large number of Jews who attached themselves to the legalistic Christianity of James and the Jerusalem church, and in the bitter offensiveness to them of the anti-legalism of Paul. See esp. Acts, chaps. 15 and 21:15-22. Ltft. understands the sentence as ironical (cf. 4:16), meaning: “ Then I have adopted their mode of preaching, and I am silent about the cross.” But this ascribes to κατήργηται an improbable meaning, and to the whole sentence a more personal reference than the language warrants. On the use of ἄρα with the indicative without ἄν in an apodosis shown by the context to be contrary to fact, cf. 2:21, 1 Corinthians 15:14, where the protasis is expressed and the condition is in form that of a simple supposition, and 1 Corinthians 15:18, where as here the protasis is implied in the preceding sentence. 12. Ὄφελονκαὶἀποκόψονταιοἱἀναστατοῦντεςὑμᾶς . “ I would that they who are disturbing you would even have themselves mutilated.” οἱἀναστατοῦντες are evidently the same who are directly referred to in 1:6 as οἱταράσσοντεςὑμᾶς , and hypothetically in ὁταράσσων of v. 10. ἀποκόψονται is clearly shown by usage (see exx. below) and the context to refer not, except quite indirectly (see below), to a withdrawal from the Christian community, or any other like act, but to bodily mutilation. In the bitterness of his feeling, the apostle expresses the wish that his opponents would not stop with circumcision, but would go on to emasculation. There is possibly a tacit reference to the emasculation of the priests of Cybele, with which the Galatians would doubtless be familiar and, quite possibly, in the apostle’ s mind, at least, though he could hardly have expected his Galatian readers to think of it, to the language of Deu 23:1 (see below). The whole expression is most significant as showing that to Paul circumcision had become not only a purely physical act without religious significance, but a positive mutilation, like that which carried with it exclusion from the congregation of the Lord. It is not improbable that he has this consequence in mind: “ I wish that they who advocate this physical act would follow it out to the logical conclusion and by a further act of mutilation exclude themselves from the congregation of the Lord.” Cf. Philippians 3:2, where he applies to circumcision as a physical act the derogatory term κατατομή , “ mutilation.” To get the full significance of such language in the mouth of a Jew, or as heard by Jewish Christians, we must imagine a modern Christian speaking of baptism and the Lord’ s Supper as if they were merely physical acts without spiritual significance; yet even this would lack the element of deep disgust which the language of Paul suggests. On ἀναστατόω , meaning “ to disturb,” see M. and M. Voc. s. v. ὄφελον , a shortened aorist indicative for ὤφελον , “ I ought,” has in N. T. the force of an interjection, “ would that.” Used by classical writers generally with the infinitive, it occurs in Callimachus (260 B. C.) with a past tense of the indicative; so also in the Lxx (Exodus 16:3, Numbers 14:3, etc.) and elsewhere in N. T. (1 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 11:1, Revelation 3:15) of a wish probably conceived of as unattainable. It occurs with the future here only, probably with the intent of presenting the wish rhetorically as attainable, though it can hardly have been actually thought of as such. BMT 27. Rem. 1:2. Ἀποκόπτεσθαι with an accusative of specification, τὰγεννητικά , expressed, or unexpressed but to be supplied mentally, refers to a form of emasculation said to be still common in the East. See Deuteronomy 23:2 (1): οὐκεἰσελεύσονταιθλαδίαςοὐδὲἀποκεκομμένοςεἰςἐκκλησίανΚυρίου . Epict. Diss. 2. 20:19: οἱἀποκεκομμένοιτάςγεπροθυμίαςτὰςτῶνἀνδρῶνἀποκόψασθαιοὐδύνανται . Philo, Sacrif. 325 (13); Leg. alleg. III 8 (3); Dion. Cass. 79:11. Cf. Keil and Delitzsch on Deuteronomy 23:2: “ ב ּ צ ו ּ ע ַ ־ ד ַ ב ּ ָ ה [Lxx θλαδίας ] literally ‘ wounded by crushing,’ denotes one who is mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis testiculis. כ ּ ְ ר ו ּ ת ש ׁ ָ פ ְ ב ָ ה [Lxx ἀποκεκομμένος ] is one whose sexual member was cut off; Vulg. abscisso veretro. According to Mishnah Jebam. VI 2, ‘ contusus ד ּ ַ כ ּ ָ ה est omnis, cuius testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel certe unus eorum; exsectus , cujus membrum virile praecisum. est.’ In the modern East emasculation is generally performed in this way. (See Tournefort, Reise, ii, p. 259 [The Levant, 1718, 2:7] and Burckhardt, Nubien, pp. 450, 451.)” (b) Exhortation not to convert their liberty in Christ into an occasion for yielding to the impulse of the flesh (5:13-26) In this paragraph the apostle deals with a new phase of the subject, connected, indeed, with the main theme of the letter, but not previously touched upon. Aware that on the one side it will probably be urged against his doctrine of freedom from law that it removes the restraints that keep men from immorality, and certainly on the other that those who accept it are in danger of misinterpreting it as if this were the case, he fervently exhorts the Galatians not to fall into this error, but, instead, through love to serve one another. This exhortation he enforces by the assurance that thus they will fulfil the full requirement of the law, that they will not fulfil the desire of the flesh, nor be under law, and by impressive lists, on the one hand of the works of the flesh, and on the other of the products of the Spirit in the soul. 13For ye were called for freedom, brethren. Only convert not your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants one of another. 14For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15But if ye are biting and devouring one another, take heed lest ye be consumed by one another. 16But I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye will not fulfil the desire of the flesh. 17For the desire of the flesh is against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against that of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that whatsoever ye will ye may not do. 18But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, wantonness; 20idolatry, witchcraft; enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, self-seekings, parties, divisions, 21envyings; drunkenness, carousings, and the things like these; respecting which I tell you beforehand, as I have (already) told you in advance, that they who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24And they that belong to the Christ, Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its disposition and its desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk. 26Let us not become vain-minded, provoking one another, envying one another. 13. Ὑμεῖςγὰρἐπ ʼ ἐλευθερίᾳἐκλήθητε , ἀδελφοί · “ For ye were called for freedom, brethren.” Like v. 1 this sentence is transitional. It belongs with what precedes in that it gives a reason (γάρ is causal) for v. 12, but even more significantly in that it is an epitome of the whole preceding argument of the epistle in behalf of the freedom of the Gentile. But it belongs with what follows in that it serves to introduce a wholly new aspect of the matter, the exposition of which begins with μόνον . ὑμεῖς , immediately following ὑμᾶς of v. 12, is emphatic. “ Ye, whom they are disturbing, for freedom were called.” On ἐπί , expressing destination, see Th. B. 2 a ζ ; 1 Thessalonians 4:7, Philippians 4:10. ἐλευθερίᾳ manifestly refers to the same freedom that is spoken of in v. 1, but being without the article is qualitative. On ἐκλήθητε , cf. on τοῦκαλοῦντος v. 8 and more fully on 1:6. On ἀδελφοί , see on 1:11. μόνονμὴτὴνἐλευθερίανεἰςἀφορμὴντῇσαρκί , “ Only convert not your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.” μόνον , used also in 1:23, 2:10, Philippians 1:27, to call attention not to an exception to a preceding statement, but to an important addition to it, here introduces a most significant element of the apostle’ s teaching concerning freedom, which has not been previously mentioned, and which occupies his thought throughout the remainder of this chapter. On this word, as on a hinge, the thought of the epistle turns from freedom to a sharply contrasted aspect of the matter, the danger of abusing freedom. So far he has strenuously defended the view that the Gentile is not under obligation to keep the statutes of the law, and though he has not referred specifically to any statute except those that pertain to circumcision, food, and the observance of days and seasons, he has constantly spoken simply of law, or the law, without indicating that his thought was limited to any portion or aspect of it. To men who have been accustomed to think of law as the only obstacle to free self-indulgence, or to those who, on the other hand, have not been accustomed to high ethical standards, such language is (despite the contrary teaching of vv. 5, 6) easily taken to mean that for the Christian there is nothing to stand in the way of the unrestrained indulgence of his own impulses. Of this danger Paul is well aware (cf. Romans 6:1ff. Philippians 3:17ff. Colossians 3:1ff.), and beginning with this v. addresses himself vigorously to meeting and averting it. The word σάρξ , previously in this epistle a purely physical term, is used here and throughout this chapter (see vv. 16, 17, 20, 24) in a definitely ethical sense, “ that element of man’ s nature which is opposed to goodness, and makes for evil,” in which it appears also in Rom., chap. 8; see detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ II 7, p. 493, and the discussion following 7. For fuller treatment, see Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, chap. VI, pp. 186, 191 ff. Of any physical association with this ethical sense of the term there is no trace in this passage. The article before ἐλευθερίαν is demonstrative, referring to ἐλευθερία of the preceding clause, and through it to that of 5:1 and the implication of the whole context. On the omission of the verb with μή , cf. μὴ ʼ μοίγεμύθους , Aristoph. Vesp. 1179; μὴτριβὰςἔτι , Soph. Antig. 575; μήμοιμυρίους , Dem. 45:13 (cited by Alf.); Hartung, Partikeln II 153; Devarius, De Particulis, Ed. Klotz, II 669; W. LXIV 6; Mark 14:2. Note also the omission of the verb after μόνον , in 2:10. What verb is to be supplied, whether ἔχετε , ποιεῖτε , τρέπετε (cf. Sief. Ell. et al.), στρέφετε or μεταστρέφετε (Revelation 11:6, Acts 2:19, Acts 2:20), or some other, is not wholly clear. The thought is probably not “ use not this freedom for, in the interest of,” but “ convert not this freedom into.” On the use of είς , cf. John 16:20: ἡλυπὴὑμῶνεἰςχαρὰνγενήσεται , and Acts 2:19, Acts 2:20. ἀφορμή , properly the place from which an attack is made (Thucydides, Polybius), is used also figuratively by Xenophon, et al., with the meaning, “ incentive,” “ opportunity,” “ occasion.” In N. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/ (c) Exhortation to restore those who fall, and to bear one another’ s burdens (6:1-5) Mindful of the danger that not all those who purpose to live by the Spirit will always live thus, the apostle appends to the injunction of 5:25 an exhortation to those who live by the Spirit to restore any who fall, adds exhortations to mutual burden-bearing, and reminds them that each man has a burden of his own. 1Brethren, if a man be nevertheless overtaken in a transgression, do ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another’ s burdens, and so fulfil the law of the Christ. 3For if any one thinketh himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4And let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have his ground of glorying in respect to himself, and not in respect to his fellow. 5For each man shall bear his own burden. 1. Ἀδελφοί , ἐὰνκαὶπρολημφθῇἄνθρωποςἔντινιπαραπτώματι , ὑμεῖςοἱπνευματικοὶκαταρτίζετετὸντοιοῦτονἐνπνεύματιπραΰτητος , σκοπῶνσεαυτόν , μὴκαὶσὺπειρασθῇς . “ Brethren, if a man be nevertheless overtaken in a transgression, do ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted.” This sentence is closely connected with the thought of chap. 5. Recognising the possibility, too sadly proved by experience, that one who has chosen the life by the Spirit may nevertheless fall into sin, the apostle exhorts those members of the community who have not thus fallen to care for him who has. Despite the use of ἄνθρωπος instead of ἀδελφός (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11) the reference is clearly not to an outsider but to a member of the Christian community. Zahn, following Hofmann, connects ἀδελφοί with 5:26. So also Ws. ἀδελφοί at the end of a sentence is not impossible (see v. 18) and at the very beginning of a sentence is rather infrequent (3:15, Romans 10:1, 1 Corinthians 14:20, Philippians 3:13), a position near the beginning being much more common than either (1:11, 4:12, 5:11, et freq.). But a position at the end of such a sentence as 5:26, remote from any pronoun referring to the persons addressed (cf. 6:18; Philemon 1:7; also Galatians 4:12), and after a series of distinct phrases, is extremely awkward, and unparalleled in Paul. It is safe to affirm that if ἀδελφοί had been intended to form a part of v. 26 it would have stood before ἀλλήλους , and that standing where it does it must be taken with what follows it, as in 3:15 and other examples above. Ἐάνκαί may be used either (a) to introduce a concessive clause , i. e., a condition unfavourable to the fulfilment of the apodosis, in spite of which the apodosis is or will be fulfilled; or (b) when a second hypothesis similar to a preceding one is introduced, and καί therefore means “ also” ; cf. Luke 11:18, 2 Corinthians 11:15; or (c) when καί is intensive, putting emphasis on the immediately following word (Luke 14:34), or suggesting that the hypothesis is in some sense extreme; thus in 1 Corinthians 7:11, 1 Corinthians 7:28 it stands in a protasis referring to a condition which the apostle has in a preceding sentence said ought never to occur; its force may be reproduced in English by an emphatic form (if she do depart, 1 Corinthians 7:11; if thou dost marry, 7:28). Cf. also 1 Peter 3:14. The first use is excluded in the present case by the fact that the clause as a whole is not oppositional; without the παράπτωμα there would be no occasion for a καταρτίζειν . The second is excluded by the fact that there is no preceding similar supposition, to which this could be additional. The third possibility alone remains, and the intensive force of καί is doubtless intended to apply to the whole clause. The meaning thus yielded perfectly fits the context and constitutes an almost perfect parallel to the use of εἰκαί in 1 Corinthians 7:11. As there the apostle, having forbidden the wife to depart from her husband, goes on to say: but if (nevertheless) she do depart ; so here, having in 5:25 bidden his readers walk by the Spirit and in 5:26 enforced this exhortation by negative injunctions, he now deals with the case of one who should nevertheless fail to obey this injunction, saying in effect: “ If now one shall nevertheless disregard the injunction to walk by the Spirit and be overtaken in a fault, it is for those who have obeyed the injunction to restore such a one.” Προλαμβάνω , used by classical writers from Sophocles down in a variety of meanings, does not occur in the Lxx, and in Apocr. is found only in Wisd. 17:17 and as v. l. in 17:11. In the latter it means “ to anticipate, to forecast.” In 17:17, εἴτεγὰργεωργὸςἦντις … προλημφθεὶς [sc. αἰφνιδίῳκαὶἀπροσδοκήτῳφόβῳ — cf. v. 15] τὴνδυσάλυκτονἔμενενἀνάγκην , it means “ to overtake,” “ to come upon,” or “ to take unawares” . See also Jos. Bell. 5. 79 (2:4): διὸκαὶτότεπροληφθέντεςοἱῬωμαῖοιταῖςἐμβολαῖςεἶκον (cited by Sief.), where the passive clearly means “ to be taken by surprise.” In N. T. it occurs in 1 Corinthians 11:21, where it means “ to take beforehand” ; in Mark 14:8, where it means “ to anticipate, to forestall” (cf. also Ign. Ephesians 3:2, the only instance in Patr. Ap.); and in the present passage, for which no meaning is so probable as that which is vouched for Wisd. 17:17; Jos. Bell. 5.79 (2:4), viz., “ to take by surprise,” “ to seize unawares” (so Sief.)* If the word “ overtake” be employed in translation it should be understood in that sense. The meaning “ to detect, to discover one in an act” (Ell. Alf. Ltft. Th. and not a few others), though not an improbable derivative from the meaning “ to take by surprise,” is not attested by any observed instance and is not required by this context. When with this interpretation of προλ . is combined the view that καί throws its emphasis on προλ ., giving the meaning, “ If one be even detected in a fault, etc.,” it yields a thought wholly inharmonious with the context. See above on εἰκαί . Παράπτωμα , a late word meaning literally “ a fall beside,” but used by Polybius, in whom the first observed instances occur, in a figurative sense, “ a false step, a blunder,” is used in the Lxx for various words meaning “ sin,” and with similar force in Apocr. In N. T. it is used in the synoptic gospels in speaking of forgiveness, and in the Pauline epistles, Romans 4:25, Romans 5:15, Romans 5:16, etc. Between biblical and non-biblical usage there seems little difference, except that in the biblical writers it has a more strictly ethical sense. The exx. in Paul show that the word retained for him the suggestion of its etymological sense, “ a falling beside, a failure to achieve” (see esp. Romans 11:11, Romans 11:12), and it is, therefore, probable that in the present passage there is an intended antithesis to στοιχῶμεν “ walk in a straight line, conform to a standard.” ἐν is figuratively spatial, meaning “ in the midst of,” “ in the act of.” Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:2 and Th. s. v. I. 5. Οἱπνευματικοί here evidently refers to those who in obedience to the instructions of vv. 16-26, live by the Spirit, walk by the Spirit, as against those who, failing to do so, are still following the ἐπιθυμίατῆςσαρκός , or as against both the latter and those who are living ὑπὸνόμον (cf. 4:18). On πνευματικός in general, see Th. s. v. and Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, p. 204. Καταρτίζω , found in classical authors from Herodotus down, and not infrequently in the Lxx, Apocr., and Patr. Ap., has in general three meanings: (1) “ to repair,” “ to restore” (to a former good condition): Mark 1:19; (2) “ to prepare,” “ to fit out” : Hebrews 10:5; (3) “ to perfect” : Hebrews 13:21. Here evidently used in the first sense, ethically understood. On τὸντοιοῦτον (this man, being such), cf. on τὰτοιαῦτα , 5:21. Of the phrase ἐνπνεύματιπραΰτητος two interpretations are possible: (a) πνεῦμα may refer to the Holy Spirit qualitatively spoken of as in vv. 16, 18, 25; in that case πραύτητος is a genitive of connection denoting the effect of the presence of the Spirit (cf. πνεῦμαυἱοθεσίας , Romans 8:15), and ἐν marks its object as the sphere in which the action takes place and by which its character is determined, as in 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Corinthians 12:3 et freq. Cf. 4:6, and note that πραΰτης is named in 5:23 among those qualities which are the fruit of the Spirit. Observe, also, the connection in that case with πνευματικοί , the intimation being that those who possess the Spirit shall by virtue of that possession and the gentleness which it creates, restore the offender. (b) πνεῦμαπραὒτητος may denote a human spirit, characterised by gentleness, πραὒτητος being a genitive of characteristic, and ἐν marking its object as that with which one is furnished and under the influence of which the action takes place. See Romans 7:6, ἐνκαινότητιπνεύματος , but esp. 1 Corinthians 4:21: ἐνῥάβδῳἔλθωπρὸςὑμᾶςἢἐνἀγάπῃπνεύματίτεπραὒτητος ; in view of these passages, the latter of which is so closely parallel to the present, the second interpretation is probably to be preferred. On the meaning of πραὒτητος , see on 5:23. The emphasis is here evidently upon the quality of considerateness. Σκοπέω , a classical word from Homer down, signifying “ to look at,” “ to observe,” is used in N. T. in Luke 11:35, meaning “ to take heed,” and by Paul in Romans 16:17, 2 Corinthians 4:18, Philippians 2:4, Philippians 3:17, always with a direct object in the accusative and in the sense “ to consider,” “ to observe,” “ to give heed to” ; for what purpose, whether to avoid, or to promote, or to honour, lies entirely in the context. Cf. Esther 8:13, Esther 8:2 Malachi 4:5; Clem. Rom. 51:1; Mar. Pol. 1:2. The change to the singular after the plural ἀδελφοί , common also in classical writers (Kü hner-Gerth, 371. 5 b) serves to make the exhortation more pointed. Cf. the similar change of number in 4:6, 7. Μὴκαὶσὺπειρασθῇς may be (a) a clause of purpose after σκοπῶνσεαυτόν (Butt. p. 242), or (b) an object clause after σκοπῶν as a verb of effort (BMT 206), σεαυτόν being in that case proleptic and pleonastic (see 1 Corinthians 16:15), or (c) a clause of fear, the verb of fearing to be supplied in thought (BMT 225). The last is the most probable, for it is against (a) that the purpose of σκοπῶν as here referred to is manifestly not so much to avoid falling into temptation as to render one considerate in dealing with those who do so fall; and against (b) that Paul elsewhere constantly uses σκοπέω , not as a verb of effort, but in the sense “ to consider, observe.” Πειράζω (from Homer down; occurring frequently in the Lxx, Apocr., and occasionally in Patr. Ap.), meaning properly “ to try,” “ to test,” in whatever way or for whatever purpose, is often used in N. T. (not so in the Lxx or Apocr.) in the sense “ to solicit to sin” (note especially the title of Satan, ὁπειράζων : Matthew 4:3, 1 Thessalonians 3:5; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:5), and sometimes pregnantly carrying with it the implication of yielding, also. So in 1 Corinthians 7:5, and so here also, since that which is feared is manifestly not temptation, but the sin which is likely to result from it. 2. Ἁλλήλωντὰβάρηβαστάζετε , καὶοὕτωςἀναπληρώσατετὸννόμοντοῦχριστοῦ . “ Bear ye one another`s burdens, and so fulfil the law of the Christ.” The reference of τὰβάρη is clearly to that especially which is spoken of in the preceding verse, viz., the burden of temptation and possible ensuing sin. This burden they are to share, each bearing the other’ s. Yet the principle that underlies the injunction, and so in a sense the injunction itself, applies to burdens of any kind. The position of ἀλλήλων makes it emphatic. On the force of νόμον , see detached note Νόμος , V. 2. (d), p. 459. On τοῦχριστοῦ , see detached note on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, P. 395, and concluding discussion under B, p. 398. See also 1:7, Colossians 3:16. By “ the law of the Christ” Paul undoubtedly means the law of God as enunciated by the Christ; just as the law of Moses (Luke 2:23, Acts 13:39) is the law of God as put forth by Moses. By the use of the official term τοῦχριστοῦ in preference to Ἱησοῦ or even Χριστοῦ , the authoritative character of the promulgation is suggested. It is clear also that the apostle conceived of the law put forth by the Christ as consisting not in a body of statutes, but in the central and all-inclusive principle of love; though whether in his present reference to that law he had in mind its content, or thought simply of the law of God set forth by the Christ, can not be decided with certainty. Whether he is here thinking of this law as having been promulgated by Jesus while on earth and known to him, Paul, through the medium of those who followed Jesus before his death, or as communicated through his Spirit, there is likewise no wholly decisive indication. If, as seems probable, the former is the case, this is one of the few passages in which the apostle refers to teaching of Jesus transmitted to him through the Twelve or their companions. Cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Corinthians 7:9:14, 1 Corinthians 7:11:23, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (?) 5:2 (?). WH. read ἀναπληρώσατε with א ACDKLNP al. pler. Syr. (harcl.) Arm. Clem. Bas. Ephr. Didym. Ath. Chr. Euthal. Thdrt. Dam. Following BFG d f g Vg. Syr. (psh.) Boh. Eth. Goth. Procl. Marc. Thdrt. cod. Tert. Cyp. Victorin. Hier. Aug. Ambrst. al. Tdf. adopts ἀναπληρώσετε . Neither external nor internal evidence is decisive, but the preponderance of the latter seems in favour of — σατε . The fut. is probably due to the natural tendency to convert the second imperative into a promissory apodosis. The words βάρος and βαστάζω are common, both in classical and later Greek. βάρος is used in a great variety of applications, both literally and metaphorically; in N. T. always metaphorically, and either of what is desirable (2 Corinthians 4:17), or of what is hard to be borne (Acts 15:28, Revelation 2:24), the context alone indicating the specific nature of that which is referred to. On βαστάζω , see on 5:10. The reference here is evidently not simply to endurance (enforced and reluctant, as in 5:10), but to a willing, helpful, sympathetic sharing of the burden (cf. Romans 15:1), the element of willingness, etc., lying, however, in the context rather than in the word itself. Ἁναπληρόω , found in classical writers from Euripides down, is used in the Lxx and N. T. as a somewhat stronger term for πληρόω , both literally and tropicaly. Cf. note on πληρόω , 5:14. Here, evidently, with a force similar to that in Matthew 13:14, it means “ to satisfy the requirements of.” See ex. of its use with reference to a contract in M. and M. Voc. s. v. On οὕτως , meaning “ in this way, by the conduct just enjoined,” cf. Matthew 3:15. But there must be supplied in thought some such expression as “ in the matter of another’ s burden,” since mutual burden-bearing is evidently not the full content of the law of the Christ. 3. εἰγὰρδοκεῖτιςεἶναίτιμηδὲνὤν , φρεναπατᾷἑαυτόν · “ For if any one thinketh himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.” Introduced by γάρ this sentence gives a reason for the injunction of v. 2b, ἀλλήλωντὰβάρηβαστάζετε , and implies that conceit, thinking one’ s self to be something more than one really is, tends to make one unwilling to share another’ s burden. Conceiving ourselves to have no faults, we have no sympathy with those who have faults and refuse to make their shortcomings any concern of ours. On the expression δοκεῖνεἶναίτι , cf. on 2:2, 6. Of the two meanings with which usage shows the expression to have been used, the context makes it evident that it bears one in 2:6 and the other here, meaning there “ to be esteemed of importance (by others),” here “ to esteem one’ s self to be of importance.” Note the bearing of φρεναπατᾷἑαυτόν . On the use of μηδὲνὤν with δοκεῖνεἶναίτι , cf. Plato, Rev_41E, ἐὰνδοκῶσίτιεἶναι , μηδὲνὂντες . The participle ὤν is concessive, expressing a condition which is adverse to δοκεῖ , etc., equivalent to εἰμηδένἐστι . Otherwise stated, the conditional clause and the participial phrase together are equivalent to εἰδοκεῖτιςεἶναίτικαὶμηδένἐστι , in which the combination of the two elements is causal-conditional. On the combination of causal and concessive conditional elements, see comment on 1:3. In such cases μή is the regular negative, both in classical and later Greek. BMT 485. Against the connection of ὤν , as a causal participle, with the apodosis φρεναπατᾷ (Zahn) the negative μή is not decisive, but the implied affirmation that no man is anything and that any man who thinks himself to be something deceives himself, imports into the sentence a harshness of judgment that is not warranted by the context or the apostle’ s other utterances. Cf. esp. Romans 12:3ff. Philippians 2:3ff. Φρεναπατάω appears here for the first time in extant Greek literature and here only in N. T. It is not found in the Lxx, Apocr. or Patr. Ap., but first after Paul, so far as noted, in Galen, Hesych. (L.&S.) and eccles. and Byzant. writers (Th.). φρεναπάτης is found in Titus 1:10, ματαιολόγοικαὶφρεναπάται , “ vain talkers and deceivers,” which is quoted in the longer recension of Ign. Trall. 6. This noun appears also in a papyrus (Grenfell, An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment, Oxford, 1896, p. 2) said by Grenfell to be not later than 100 a. d. The Greek of the passage is obscure,* but the word φρεναπάτης applied by a woman to her former lover seems clearly to mean “ deceiver,” not as Blass affirms (Bl.-D.. 119. 2), “ one who deceives his own mind,” “ conceited.” The noun is not found in the Lxx, Apocr. or Patr. Ap. On the meaning of the verb, cf. James 1:26, ἀπατῶνκαρδίανἑαυτοῦ and such compounds as φρενοθελγής (heart-charming). φρενοκλόπος † (heart-stealing, deceiving), νομοδιδάσκαλος , ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν , εἰδωλολατρίαεἰδωλολατρεῖν (Hermas, cited by Bl.-D. 119. 2), which indicate that it means to deceive the mind, and that it differs from ἀπατάω in that it is more intensive, as ἀπατᾷνκαρδίανἑαυτοῦ is a stronger expression for self-deception than ἀπατῶνἑαυτόν . There is the less reason for taking the verb as itself reflexive in that it is here accompanied by ἑαυτόν . 4. τὸδὲἔργονἑαυτοῦδοκιμαζέτωἕκαστος , καὶτότεεἰςἑαυτὸνμόνοντὸκαύχημαἕξεικαὶοὐκεἰςτὸνἕτερον , “ And let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have his ground of glorying in respect to himself and not in respect to his fellow.” This sentence being, like v. 2, a command, δέ joins it not to v. 3 (οὖν would in that case have been the appropriate particle), but to v. 2, or, better, to vv. 2, 3 taken together. The self-deceived man may boast of his superiority to the man who has fallen into a fault, not perceiving his own real condition. He has in reality ground of glorying only in respect to his fellow and his shortcomings. But the man who tests himself has his ground of glorying, whatever that be, in respect to himself. Cf. Matthew 7:1-5. WH. bracket ἕκαστος on the basis of its omission by B Sah. But the omission is so easily explainable as in both cases a wholly inadvertent error, that even the measure of doubt expressed by the bracket seems hardly justifiable. On the use of ἔργον , meaning “ what one achieves, the result of one’ s effort,” cf. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. ἑαυτοῦ is here, as usually in N. T., emphatic. Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:5, 2 Corinthians 10:12. Δοκιμάζω , a frequent word in classical writers from Herodotus down, in the Lxx, and in N. T., occurs in Paul in the three senses: (a) “ to test,” “ to discriminate” : 1 Thessalonians 2:4b, 1 Thessalonians 2:5:21; (b) “ to approve” : Romans 14:22; ) “ to think best” : “ to choose” : Romans 1:28 (so also Jos. Ant. 2. 176[7:4]). Here clearly in the first sense. Cf. esp. 1 Corinthians 3:13ff. 1 Corinthians 3:11:28. Τότε , though doubtless temporal, “ then, when he shall have tested his own work,” has nearly the force of ἄρα , as in 5:11. Cf. 1 Corinthians 4:5. A protasis may be mentally supplied, “ if his work shall be proved good,” or τὸκαύχημα may mean in effect, “ his ground of glorying, whatever that be,” the implication in such case being that he who examines himself will not fail to find something of good in himself. On εἰς , meaning “ in respect to,” see Romans 4:20, 2 Corinthians 10:16 (cf. vv. 15, 17, where ἐν is used in a similar relation, but expressing strictly basis or ground of boasting) Philippians 1:5. Note the emphatic position of εἰςἑαυτὸνμόνον at the beginning of the sentence with its correlative εἰςτὸνἕτερον . Καύχημα , found in Pindar, but not observed elsewhere in classical writers, occurs not infrequently in the Lxx and Apocr., but not in Ps. Sol.; in N. T. in Hebrews 3:6 and ten times in Paul; in Patr. Ap. in Clem. Rom. 34:5 only, probably under the influence of Heb 3:6. It is in itself a less opprobrious term than the English word “ boast,” referring rather to exultation, gratulation, without the implication of the English word that it is excessive or unjustified. Though sometimes used in the active sense, “ boasting, glorying” (thus in the proper sense of καύχησις , as καύχησις in turn is used in the sense of καύχημα in 2 Corinthians 1:12 and probably in Romans 15:17), as, for example, in 2 Corinthians 5:12, and probably in 1 Corinthians 5:6, Philippians 1:26 (contra Mey. Ell., who maintain that καύχημα never has this sense), yet in the present passage standing as the object of ἕξει , it naturally demands the more common and proper meaning, “ ground of glorying.” Cf. Romans 4:2, 2 Corinthians 1:14, etc. The use of εἰςἑαυτόν in preference to ἐνἑαυτῷ favours, indeed, the meaning “ glorying,” since εἰςἑαυτόν can, strictly speaking, limit only the element of glorying, καύχησις , which is involved in καύχημα , “ ground of glorying.” Yet such a limitation of an element of a word of complex meaning is, of course, possible, and there is, therefore, no sufficient reason for departing from the proper sense of καύχημα , especially as ἕξει also calls for the thought, “ ground of glorying.” The article with καύχημα is restrictive, “ his ground of glorying.” It emphasises the idea expressed by μόνον . He is to have, not “ a ground of glorying in respect to himself,” but “ his (only) ground in respect to himself alone.” Τὸνἕτερον is understood by Ell. as meaning “ the other one with whom he is contrasting himself” ; and this interpretation, making the article restrictive, but only as designating the individual who belongs to an imaginary situation presented to the mind, not one definitely named in the context, is not impossible (cf. Luke 11:11, Luke 11:15:8, Luke 11:9, John 16:21). But Romans 2:1, Romans 2:13:8, 1 Corinthians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 4:6:1, 1 Corinthians 4:10:24, 29, 1 Corinthians 4:14:17, Philippians 2:4 show clearly that ὁἕτερος was used in the sense of “ fellow, neighbour” (cf. the similar use of τὸνπλησίον in Mark 12:33, Acts 7:27, Romans 13:10, James 4:12). On the other hand, in quotations from the Lxx of Lev 19:18, σου is always present, Mark 12:31, etc., the article having the generic indefinite force, i. e., making the noun refer not to the whole class (as, e. g., in Mark 2:27), but to any member whatever of the class. See illustrations of this latter use in the cases of τὸνπλησίον without σου cited above, and in Matthew 15:1, Acts 10:25, Galatians 4:1, et freq. The two interpretations differ only in that if the article is restrictive the reference is to the particular imagined wrong-doer with whom one compares himself; if it is generic the statement is more general; one’ s glorying pertains to himself, not to his (i. e., any) fellow. The usage of ὁἕτερος and ὁπλησίον , a synonym of ὁἕτερος , favours the latter view. 5. ἕκαστοςγὰρτὸἴδιονφορτίονβαστάσει . “ For each man shall bear his own burden.” Between φορτίον (used by Greek writers from Aristotle down, in the Lxx, Apocr. and in N. T.; in Acts 27:10 of a ship’ s cargo; elsewhere, Matthew 11:30, Matthew 23:4, Luke 11:46 and here, figuratively of a task to be accomplished or a burden borne by the mind) and βάρη (v. 2) no sharp distinction can be drawn. Starting with the exhortation to bear one another’ s burdens (of sin), the apostle, having enforced this by the warning against self-deception through conceiving that it is only the other man that has such burdens to bear, and having bidden each one test himself, now argues for the necessity of such testing by the affirmation that every man has his own burden, i. e., of weakness and sin. The paradoxical antithesis to v. 2a is doubtless conscious and intentional. Cf. Philippians 2:12, Philippians 2:13. It is the man who knows he has a burden of his own that is willing to bear his fellow’ s burden. On ἴδιος as an emphatic possessive instead of ἑαυτοῦ or οἰκεῖος , see Bl.-D. 286; MNTG 87 ff. βαστάσει is a gnomic future; BMT 69. 2. Exhortations having a less direct relation to the principal subject of the epistle (6:6-10) Having dealt with the several aspects of the situation which the judaisers had created in Galatia by their criticism of the gospel as preached by Paul, the apostle now, as in most of his epistles, but more briefly than usually, adds exhortations having to do with the general moral and religious life of the churches. Dealing first with the support of teachers, which he urges on fundamental grounds, he exhorts them to persistence in doing good work, and specifically in doing good to their fellows, especially their fellow-Christians. 6And let him that is taught in the word share with him that teacheth in all good things. 7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap; 8because he that soweth to his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the Spirit reap life eternal. 9And let us not be weary in doing that which is good; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10As therefore we have opportunity, let us do that which is good towards all, but especially towards those who are of the household of the faith. 6. Κοινωνείτωδὲὁκατηχούμενοςτὸνλόγοντῷκατηχοῦντιἐνπᾶσινἀγαθοῖς . “ And let him that is taught in the word share with him that teacheth in all good things.” The thought of mutual burden bearing, more or less present throughout vv. 2-5, perhaps suggests the theme of this v., but no more than suggests it; the subject is new, having no direct relation to the topic of the epistle as a whole. Cf. for a similar example of passage to a new division of the subject, yet with superficial connection with what immediately precedes, Romans 6:1ff. On the use of δέ at the beginning of a new division of the subject, see Romans 11:13, Romans 11:16:17, Romans 11:25, 1 Corinthians 7:25, 1 Corinthians 8:1. The expressions ὁκατηχούμενος and τῷκατηχοῦντι , occurring in a letter so early in the apostolic age as this one, furnish interesting and instructive evidence how soon religious teaching became an element of the life of the Christian community. The fact that those who receive instruction are called upon to contribute to the support of the teacher shows that such teaching in all probability was not undertaken merely as a voluntary and relatively light avocation (comparable to the work of a modern Bible-class teacher) but occupied in preparation for it and the work itself, if not the teacher’ s whole time, yet enough so that it was necessary to compensate him for the loss of income which he thus sustained. In short, it is a class of paid teachers to which this verse refers. The article with both κατηχούμενος and with κατηχοῦντι is, of course, generic indefinite, designating any member of the class; cf. on τὸνἕτερον , v. 4. On the teaching class in the early church, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 5:17. On its existence in the second century, see Dobschü tz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, pp. 345 f.; Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, pp. 333-366. On the subject of such teaching, see below on τὸνλόγον . Ell. Ltft. Zahn, Tdf. Weizs. ERV and ARV dissociate this verse from the preceding by a paragraph at this point, and connect it with the following. Stage, Bous. and Segond put v. 6 by itself. WH. join v. 6 with what precedes, making a half paragraph at the end of v. 6; Weymouth a full paragraph. The last-named view makes this sentence an appended remark on a subject not closely connected with what precedes; the second isolates it both from what precedes and what follows. Neither view is so probable as that which finds the suggestion of the sentence in what precedes and its further enforcement in vv. 7, 8. Thus interpreted, the whole passage becomes continuous and intelligible. See below on vv. 7, 8. Κοινωνέω , used by classical writers from Euripides down, in the Lxx, Apocr. N. T. and Patr. Ap., means in general “ to share,” i. e., “ to be a partner in” (a thing) or “ with” (a person). The name of the person with whom one shares is in the dative, if expressed; the thing in the genitive, in the dative, or after a preposition. See, e. g., Plato, Rep. 453A, κοινωνεῖντινιεἰςἅπαντα , “ to be a partner with one in respect to everything” ; Polyb. 31.26:6, κοινωνεῖντινιπερίτινος . Sir. 13:1: ὁκοινωνῶνὑπερηφάνῳὁμοιωθήσεταιαὐτῷ . Most commonly the emphasis is upon the receptive side of the partnership or fellowship, i. e., the subject is chiefly receptive. Thus in Romans 15:27, εἰγὰρτοῖςπνευματικοῖςαὐτῶνἐκοινώνησαντὰἔθνη , 1 Timothy 5:22, Hebrews 2:14, 1 Peter 4:13, 2 John 1:11. Yet the active aspect may also be emphasised, as in Romans 12:13, ταῖςχρείαιςτῶνἁγίωνκοινωνοῦντες . Barn. 19:3 κοινωνήσειςἐνπᾶσιντῷπλησίονσου , καὶοὐκἐρεῖςἴδιαεἶναι · εἰγὰρἐντῷἀφθάρτῳκοινωνοίἐστε , πόσῳμᾶλλονἐντοῖςφθαρτοῖς , with which cf. Did. 4:8. In Philippians 4:15 the verb itself is clearly mutual or neutral in meaning, though with the emphasis on the side of giving: οὐδεμίαμοιἐκκλησίαἐκοινώνησενεἰςλόγονδόσεωςκαὶλήμψεωςεἰμὴὑμεῖςμόνοι . It seems probable, indeed, that the word itself is always, strictly speaking, neutral in meaning, as is the English verb, “ share,” and the noun, “ partner.” It is the context alone that indicates which aspect of the partnership is specially in mind. In the present passage the chief determinative element is the phrase ἐνπᾶσινἀγαθοῖς . If this referred exclusively to spiritual goods, κοινωνείτω would have reference to the receptive side, if to material goods, to impartation. Since it is apparently an inclusive term (see below) referring to both spiritual and material good, χοινωνείτω is best taken as in Philippians 4:15 as referring to a mutual, reciprocal sharing, wherein he that was taught received instruction and gave of his property. Yet in view of the context, it must be supposed that here, as also in Romans 14:15; Philippians 4:15; Barn. 19:8, the emphasis is upon the impartation (of material good). See esp. the extended argument in Wies. Though taking the verb as intransitive, Ell. Alf. Ltft. suppose the reference here to be exclusively to the element of giving. Zahn takes a similar view. Mey. and after him Sief., on the other hand, suppose receiving only to be referred to. Κατηχέω occurs first in extant literature in Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 198 (30), κατήχηταιδὲὅτι , “ he was informed that” ; then in N. T. Luke 1:4, Acts 18:25, Acts 18:21:21, Acts 18:24, Romans 2:18, 1 Corinthians 14:19 et h.l.; in Jos. Vit. 366 (65): καὶαὐτόςσεπολλὰκατηχήσωτῶνἀγνοουμένων : “ I will myself inform you of many things hitherto unknown” ; and in later writers, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, Diogenes Laertius, Lucian, Porphyry; see Wetstein on Luke 1:4. But the simple verb ἠχέω , “ to sound” (intrans. and trans.), is found in Hesiod, Herodotus, Euripides, etc.; and this fact, together with the existence in the Philo passage of the meaning “ to inform,” which must have been developed from the literal sense “ to sound down,” and the use of the noun κατήχησις in the sense of “ instruction” at least as early as the third century B. C. make it probable that κατηχέω is much older than the earliest extant example. The clue to its meaning is found in the use of κατήχησις , which appears in Hippocr. 28:25 (L.&S.) in the expression κατήχησιςἰδιωτέων , with reference to the oral admonition of the physician to his patient (so Cremer); and in a passage of Chrysippus (240 B. C.) preserved in Diog. Laert. VII 1. 53 (89) (quoted by Wetstein on Luke 1:4): διαστρέφεσθαιδὲτὸλογικὸνζῶον , ποτὲμὲνδιὰτὰςτῶνἔξωθενπραγματειῶνπιθανότητας · ποτὲδὲδιὰτὴνκατήχησιντῶνσυνόντων : “ And if a reasoning creature is astray, this is sometimes because of the allurements of external things, sometimes because of the teaching of his companions.” Here the word clearly means “ instruction,” or “ expression of opinion.” Cicero also uses it in ad Att. XV 12 (quoted by Cremer): Sed quid aetati credendum sit, quid nomini, quid hereditati, quid κατηχήσει , magni consilii est. In N. T. the verb has the two meanings: (a) “ to inform” : Acts 21:21, Acts 21:24; (b) “ to teach” : Acts 18:25, Romans 2:18, etc. The primary meaning of the word and its usage, though not wholly decisive, suggest that it referred chiefly, if not exclusively, to oral instruction. Cf. the derivative English words “ catechism” and “ catechetical.” Concerning the history of the word, especially its later ecclesiastical usage, see v. Zezschwitz, System der christl. Katechetik. Τὸνλόγον , an accusative of content, denotes the substance of the instruction communicated by the teacher. Paul uses ὁλόγος (absol.) of his own message in 1 Thessalonians 1:6, Colossians 4:3, but more commonly characterises it as a message of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13, Colossians 1:25, Philippians 1:14), or according to its content (1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 1:2:4, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Ephesians 1:13). It is undoubtedly to be taken here as an inclusive term for the Christian message. It is in the nature of the case that the instruction given by the local teachers must have been in large part that which Paul had communicated to them. The elements that entered into this body of teaching can not be defined accurately and exhaustively, but probably included: (a) the doctrine of a living and true God as against the worship of idols (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Galatians 4:8, Galatians 4:14); (b) those narratives of the life of Jesus and those elements of his teaching which were to Paul of central significance, especially his death, resurrection, and return (1 Corinthians 11:23ff. 15:1 Corinthians 11:1-8, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:1ff.); with which was joined (c) the teaching concerning the way of salvation which had its basis in these facts (see the passages cited above); (d) the fundamental principles of Christian ethics (1 Thessalonians 4:1ff. 1 Thessalonians 4:9ff.). To what extent the O. T. scriptures (in the Lxx version) were put into the hands of the converts or their teachers and made the basis of their instruction, is more difficult to determine with accuracy. That the apostle did not refer them to these scriptures as throughout an authoritative guide for the Christian life is clear from the fact that his own teaching respecting the law, in particular respecting circumcision, unclean foods, and the Sabbath, was not in accordance with the statutes of the O. T. law. Yet, on the other hand, the early acceptance of O. T. in the Christian church as sacred scripture, and the apostle’ s own frequent use of it and reference to it in writing to his churches (Romans 1:2 et freq.), makes it evident that in his own day O. T. was already an important factor in the life of most of the churches founded by him. The fact that there are no express quotations from O. T. in 1 and 2 Thes. suggests the possibility that the use of O. T. in Gentile churches was due to judaising influence rather than to the apostle. Yet the evident connection between his fundamental idea of God (1 Thessalonians 1:9) and O. T., and the favourable attitude which, despite his practical rejection of its authority, he assumes towards O. T. in general (cf. Romans 7:12, Romans 9:6, et freq.), and his frequent use of it in argument, make it probable that while his message was distinctly Christian, having its authority not in the book but in his interpretation of historical facts as learned through human experience, yet he saw in O. T. an invaluable aid to the development of religious life, and as such commended it to his converts. If, then, the λόγος of the teachers was based on that of Paul, it contained elements derived from O. T., yet was distinctly Christian in content, including historic fact, Christian doctrine, and Christian ethics. Ἐνπᾶσινἀγαθοῖς is probably to be taken as referring to both spiritual and material good. Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:11, Romans 15:27; Barn. 19:8; Did. 4:3. For ἀγαθά , meaning material good, see Luke 12:18, Luke 12:16:25; spiritual good, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 12:35, the latter a particularly instructive example, since it refers not precisely to good conduct but to good thoughts and words, as does the present passage if it designates that which the teacher imparts. The idea of good conduct Paul usually expressed by the singular τὸἀγαθόν (Romans 2:10, Romans 2:12:9, Romans 2:21, Romans 2:13:3b, Romans 2:14:16, Romans 2:16:19, 1 Thessalonians 5:15; cf. the similar use of τὸκαλόν in 5:21 and in v. 9 below) or ἔργονἀγαθόν (Romans 2:7, Romans 2:13:3, 2 Corinthians 9:8, Philippians 1:6). The neuter plural occurs in the Pauline letters in the phrase ἔργαἀγαθά in Ephesians 2:10, 1 Timothy 2:10, and without ἔργα , but with the article in Romans 3:8 only, where it signifies things that are (spiritually) advantageous. The Pauline usage, therefore, furnishes no decisive or weighty evidence for or against either the material or the spiritual sense here; and in view of the common Greek usage illustrated in the passages from the gospels quoted above, the word πᾶσιν , and the inclusive, mutual sense of κοινωνέω , it seems probable that the phrase is intended to cover both the spiritual good which the teacher has to impart and the material good which he is to receive. The thought is then akin to that of Rom 15:27, the exhortation being to those that are taught to be partners with their teachers in all goods, giving to those who teach them of that which they themselves possess, as they receive what the teachers have to impart. See esp. Wieseler’ s full discussion. Consistently with their respective interpretations of κοινωνείτω Ell. Alf Ltft. Zahn take it of material good only, Mey. and Sief. of spiritual good. 7. μὴπλανᾶσθε , θεοςοὐμυκτηρίζεται · ὃγὰρἐὰνσπείρῃἄνθρωπος , τοῦτοκαὶθερίσει . 8. ὅτιὁσπείρωνεἰςτὴνσάρκαἑαυτοῦἐκτῆςσαρκοςθερίσειφθοράν , ὁδὲσπείρωνεἰςτοπνεῦμαἐκτοῦπνευματοςθερίσειζωὴναἰώνιον . “ Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap; because he that soweth to his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the Spirit reap life eternal.” With μὴπλανᾶσθε (cf. similar use of these words in 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 15:33* James 1:16) the apostle introduces the statement of a general principle, which serves primarily to enforce the exhortation of v. 6 by bringing the specific matter there referred to under a great general law. To the apostle’ s thought the attitude of the Galatians towards their teachers is but a specific example of their attitude towards life in general. If they are unreceptive to spiritual teaching, and, undervaluing it, are unwilling to support their teachers, preferring to spend their money on themselves, they are sowing to (for the benefit of) their own fleshly natures, and the harvest will be corruption. If, on the other hand, recognising their need of teaching and its value, they are of receptive mind towards those who are able to instruct them and willingly contribute of their goods that such teaching may continue, they are sowing to (for the benefit of) the spirit, and the harvest will be eternal life. For similar instances of a seeming disparity in importance between the duty enjoined and the consideration appealed to to enforce it, see Philippians 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 11:31-33. Yet these verses are probably not simply for the enforcement of v. 6. The apostle may also have desired to bring this principle before his readers for its own sake. Having in vv. 1-6. brought before his readers certain specific applications of the teaching of 5:13-26, thus narrowing the horizon from the general contrast between life according to the flesh and life by the Spirit, he now, reversing the process, restores the broader view with which he began. Πλανάω , a classical word, used from Homer down in a literal sense, (a) active, “ to cause to wander,” passive, “ to wander,” “ to go astray,” and (b) in various figurative senses, is used in the Lxx, Apocr. and N. T. both literally and figuratively, but most commonly in an intellectual and moral sense, “ to turn aside from truth,” “ to deceive,” “ to lead into sin.” In Paul it always means “ to deceive” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:15:33; cf. 2 Timothy 3:13, Titus 3:3). It is somewhat frequent in Patr. Ap.: Ign. Eph. 16:1: μὴπλανᾶσθε , ἀδελφοίμου · οἱοἰκοφθόροιβασιλείανθεοῦοὐκληρονομήσουσιν . See also Mag. 8:1; Philad. 3:3. Θεός without the article, though infrequent as subject nominative, sometimes occurs. It is always (see 2:6 and textual note there), as in oblique cases also, qualitative, emphasising the divine attributes, and designating not simply the being God, but God as divine. This is undoubtedly the force here. God, because he is God, not man, is not mocked. Μυκτηρίζω (cf. μυκτήρ , nose), though not found in the extant texts of classical writers, is shown by a passage in Poll. Onom. 2:78 to have been used by Lysias. μυκτηρισμός is also found in Menand. Incert. 402. Both verb and noun are frequent in the Lxx, and occur in the Apocr. In N. T. the verb alone occurs and in this passage only. If taken in its usual sense, “ to turn up the nose,” “ to ridicule,” or in the tropical meaning, “ to ignore” (as perhaps in Proverbs 15:5), it is necessary to supply “ with impunity” (Ell.). But even with this addition the meaning thus obtained is not appropriate to the context. That of which the apostle speaks is not a ridicule of God which he will not leave unpunished, but an outwitting of God, an evasion of his laws which men think to accomplish, but, in fact, can not. It seems necessary, therefore, to suppose here an easy metonymy (he who is outwitted being thereby made ridiculous) for “ outwit, evade.” Cf. for a similar, though not identical, metonymy (cited by Elsner, ad loc.), Cicero, Ep. ad Diversos, XV 19:4: Scis quam se semper a nobis derisum putet. Vereor, ne nos rustice gladio velit ἀντιμυκτηρίσαι . The present is gnomic, and the implication is that what does not happen can not happen. The application of the statement is in what follows: It is vain to expect to outwit God by reaping a harvest different from that which one has sown. Cf. Polyc. Phil. 5. 1: εἰδότες , οὖν , ὅτιθεὸςοὐμυκτηρίζεται . ὀφείλομενἀξίωςτῆςἐντολῆςαὐτοῦκαὶδόξηςπεριπατεῖν . The figure of sowing and reaping for conduct and its results is a frequent one, occurring in Plato, Phaedr. 260C, Arist. Rhet. 3. 3:4 (1406 b. 10); (cf also Dem. 280:27f: ὁγὰρτὸσπέρμαπαρασχών , οὗτοςτῶνφύντωναἵτιος : “ For he that furnished the seed is responsible for what grows” ; Proverbs 22:8, Hosea 8:7, Hosea 10:12f. Job 4:8; Sir. 7:3; Test. XII Pat. Leviticus 13:6; Philo, Conf. ling. 21 (7); Luke 19:21, 1 Corinthians 9:11, 2 Corinthians 9:6. Note esp. the last two passages. ὁσπείρων is best taken as a general present participle, referring to any member of the class described by the participle. On the use of the article, cf. on τὸνἕτερον v. 4 and ὁκατηχούμενος v. 6. Though the antithesis between σάρξ and πνεῦμα recalls, probably intentionally, the same terms used antithetically in 5:13-24, the words are probably not used here in precisely the same sense as there. Had the apostle wished to reproduce the idea of the earlier passage, he must have written simply εἰςσάρκα or εἰςτὴνσάρκα . The addition of ἑαυτοῦ , the force of εἰς marking the σάρξ as the end, that unto which the action takes place (see below), not, as in 5:13-19, that from which the tendency to evil proceeds, and the connection with v. 6, all indicate that σάρξ is here not “ that in man which makes for evil” (cf. on 5:13), but has reference to the body, the physical element of man. Cf. chap. 3:3, Romans 2:28, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 7:1, where σάρξ in this physical sense stands in antithesis to πνεῦμα , and chap. 4:14, 2 Corinthians 4:11, Ephesians 2:15, Ephesians 5:29, Colossians 1:22, where limited by a possessive genitive it has this sense. He who will not share his goods with the religious teacher, withholds them, it is assumed, that he may spend the more on the gratification of bodily appetites in food, drink, and the like. Thus he sows unto his own flesh, spends effort for the (supposed) benefit or gratification of it. The position of ἑαυτοῦ is emphatic (Bl.-D. 283) and the word itself conveys an essential element of the thought; to seek the physical well-being of others would be an act of quite different moral quality and effect from devotion to the gratification of one’ s own physical desires. The sentence is not, then, a repetition of the self-evident proposition of v. 7 in the specific form that if one sow evil he will reap evil, but the assertion that if one devote himself to the things of his body (which is not in itself evil) rather than to those of the spirit, if he prefer the lower to the higher, such a course issues in corruption Ltft. interprets εἰς as meaning “ into,” thus making the σάρξ the soil in which one sows seed. This is not seriously to be objected to on the ground urged by Ell. that N. T. usage would in this case require ἐν or ἐπί ; for all his exx. are from the gospels, and Mark 4:18, though not precisely parallel, shows the possibility of using εἰς . The real objection lies in the thought which this parabolic interpretation yields. What would be meant by casting seed into one’ s own flesh? What by “ reaping corruption” in that literal sense which a parabolic interpretation requires as the basis of the spiritual sense? It is evident that the apostle is not constructing a condensed parable consistent throughout (like that of Mar 4:26ff.), but employing individual terms “ sow” and “ reap” in a figurative sense, and that εἰς is not, therefore, to be taken spatially but tropically. The meaning of σάρξ in ἐκτῆςσαρκός is doubtless the same as in εἰςτὴνσάρκαἑαυτοῦ : the body, or, by metonymy, the bodily desires. The article may be generic, the later clause widening the horizon of the former, but is more probably restrictive, by implication carrying an αὐτοῦ with it. (On this use of the article, cf. on 5:24.) Φθορά (a classical word in use from Æ schylus down, meaning “ decay,” “ destruction,” “ death,” used also in the Lxx, Apocr. Ps. Sol. Patr. Ap.) interpreted solely by the clause in which it stands, would naturally mean “ corruption,” “ decay” (cf. Colossians 2:22) perhaps inclusive of a physical (cf. Ps. Son 4:6 [7]) and a moral sense, but probably referring particularly to moral corruption (Wisd. 14:12, 2 Peter 1:4; 2Pe_2 Clem. 6:4; cf. the use of φθείρω in 1 Corinthians 15:33, 2 Corinthians 7:2, 2 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 4:22). Nor is it impossible that this is the apostle’ s meaning, for to such a thought, eternal life, ζωὴαἰώνιος , is not an impossible antithesis. Yet in view of the Pauline use of φθορά (Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 15:42, 1 Corinthians 15:50), the reference to the flesh in the immediate context, and the antithesis of eternal life in the second member of the sentence, it seems probable that by φθοράν Paul means that corruption and death of the body, from which, for those who have not lived according to the spirit, there is no rising to eternal life. See Romans 6:19-23, Romans 8:8-17, esp. 13: εἰγὰρκατὰσάρκαζῆτεμέλλετεἀποθνήσκειν , εἰδὲπνεύματιτὰςπράξειςτοῦσώματοςθανατοῦτεζήσεσθε , where, to be sure, σάρξ is used in a distinctly ethical, not as here in a physical sense, but τὰςπράξειςτοῦσώματος conveys very nearly the idea here expressed by σπείρωνεἰςτὴνσάρκαἑαυτοῦ . In other words Paul here affirms that devotion of one’ s self to the material, bodily side of life, brings physical death unrelieved by the Christian hope of resurrection which rests upon the indwelling of the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead. Εἰςτὸπνεῦμα , ἐκτοῦπνεύματος is in form a perfect antithesis to εἰςτὴνσάρκα , ἐκτῆςσαρκός . Yet πνεῦμα and πνεύματος are probably not used in precisely the same sense. The πνεῦμα unto which one sows is primarily one’ s own πνεῦμα , the non-material, intellectual, spiritual side of man’ s being, which is the seat of the religious life, and that which survives the cataclysmic experience of physical death or the day of the Lord. See detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ , III A 2, p. 490, and cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 7:34, Romans 1:4, Romans 1:2:29, Romans 1:7:6, Romans 1:8:5, Romans 1:16, Philippians 4:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:23. εἰς signifies, as in εἰςτὴνσάρκαἑαυτοῦ , “ unto,” “ for the benefit of,” and the whole expression σπείρωνεἰςτὸπνεῦμα refers to devotion of energy and resources to the enrichment of the life of the spirit, in particular through the reception of the instruction of the κατηχῶντὸνλόγον . Cf. Colossians 1:9. That ἑαυτοῦ is not added to πνεῦμα , as to σάρκα , signifies not that τὸπνεῦμα refers to the spiritual life of the whole community, but that the explicit narrowing of the reference to the spirit of the individual would have been incongruous, suggesting a certain (spiritual) self-centredness. ἐκτοῦπνεύματος probably signifies from the Spirit of God, which dwelling in man is the cause of resurrection, and the earnest of eternal life (Romans 8:11, 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:14). The transition to this meaning from πνεῦμα referring to the human spirit, is easy because it is the human spirit as engaged in the things of the Spirit of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 2:15) to which τὸπνεῦμα refers (cf. Romans 8:16). Ζωὴαἰώνιος , here for the first time in Paul, occurs in his epistles much less frequently than in the Johannine literature. See Romans 2:7, Romans 2:5:21, Romans 2:6:22, Romans 2:23; cf. 1 Timothy 1:16, 1 Timothy 6:12, Titus 1:3, Titus 3:7. The earliest appearance of this phrase is in the Greek of Dan 12:2, translating ח ַ י ּ ִ ֣ י ע ו ֹ ל ָ ֔ ם , then in Ps. Sol. 3:16: οἱδὲφοβούμενοικύριονἀναστήσονταιεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον . 1 Enoch (Syn. and Giz.) 10:10: ἐλπίζουσιζῆσαιζωὴναἰώνιον , καὶὅτιζήσεταιἕκαστοςαὐτῶνἔτηπεντακόσια . So doubtless in 37:4, 40:9, though these passages are not extant in Greek. Cf. also 2 Mac. 7:9, 4 Mac. 15:3. ζωή (in classical writers from Homer down) is used by Paul of (a) physical life, the antithesis of death (Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 3:22, Philippians 1:20, etc.); accompanied by αὕτη , meaning the period of existence in the body (1 Corinthians 15:19, cf. 1 Timothy 4:3), in contrast with that which is after the resurrection; but more commonly (b), as constantly in John, in a moral-qualitative sense, denoting “ existence according to the ideal of existence for moral beings,” in which ideal are included righteousness, the divine approval, blessedness (Romans 6:4, Romans 6:7:10, Romans 6:8:2, Romans 6:6). Such life, possessed by God (Colossians 3:3; cf. Ephesians 4:18) and by Christ (Romans 5:10, 2 Corinthians 4:10), belongs by virtue of his relation to God in Christ to the believer in Christ, both while still in the body (Romans 6:4, 2 Corinthians 4:10) and after the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:4), and is not infrequently spoken of without limitation to either period of its possession (2 Corinthians 2:16, Philippians 2:16). Accompanied by αἰώνιος this ζωή is characterised as “ eternal.” αἰώνιος appears first in Plato, meaning “ perpetual” (Rep. 363D: ἡγησάμενοικάλλιστονἀρετῆςμισθὸνμέθηναἰώνιον , “ esteeming perpetual drunkenness the finest reward of virtue” ); “ everlasting” (Tim. 37, 38C; Legg. X 904A), being clearly associated with αἰών , signifying an indefinitely long period (cf. detached note on Αἰών , p. 431); see esp. Tim. 37, 38C. As used in later Greek and in particular in the Lxx, Apocr. Ps. Sol. N. T., and Patr. Ap., it retains this sense and association with αἰών in the sense just referred to. The supposition that it means “ æ onian,” i. e., “ pertaining to the coming æ on,” is insufficiently supported by 1 Enoch 10:10, and is definitely disproved by the evidence as a whole; as is also the suggestion of Brooke, International Critical Commentary on 1 John (1:2) that it may be properly translated “ spiritual.” 9. τὸδὲκαλὸνποιοῦντεςμὴἐνκακῶμεν , καιρῷγὰρἰδίῳθερίσομενμὴἐκλυόμενοι . “ And let us not be weary in doing that which is good; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” The thought of reaping, i. e., of obtaining result from one’ s efforts, forms the link of connection between the preceding verses and this, in which, nevertheless, the apostle passes still further away from the thought that vv. 7, 8 were introduced to enforce (viz., the support of teachers), to speak of persistence in well-doing in general and its reward. On τὸκαλόν as a general term for the morally good (it is scarcely used at all in N. T. in an æ sthetic sense), see 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Romans 7:18, Romans 7:21, and cf. on ἐνπᾶσινἀγαθοῖς , v. 6, and on τὸἀγαθόν , v. 10. As between the two readings ἐνκακῶμεν and ἐκκακῶμεν , the former is undoubtedly the original. BD read ἐνκ . א AB3 31, 33, 326 ἐγκ . against CDcKLP al. pler. Clem. Chrys. Thdrt. which read ἐκκ . . There is no sufficient evidence of the existence in N. T. times of the word ἐκκακέω , which apparently came into N. T. mss. from the usage of a later time. Ἐνκακέω (from which ἐκκακέω apparently differs in form, but not in meaning; see Tdf. Ed. viii maj. 2 Corinthians 4:1) appears first in Polybius and belongs, therefore, to the vocabulary of the post-classical literary language. See Nä geli, Wortschatz des Ap. Paulus, p. 32. It is not found in the Lxx or, so far as observed, in other Jewish writers before N. T. In N. T. it is found in Luke 18:1, 2 Corinthians 4:1, 2 Corinthians 4:16, Ephesians 3:13, 2 Thessalonians 3:13 et h.l.; also in 2 Clem. 2:2; Herm. Mand. 9:8, and in Symm. (200 A. D.) in Genesis 27:46, Numbers 21:5, Proverbs 3:11, Isaiah 7:16. In Polyb. 4. 19:10: ἐνεκάκησαντὸπέμπειν : “ They neglected to send” ; and in 2 Clem. 2:2: τὰςπροσευχὰςἡμῶνἁπλῶςἀναφέρεινπρὸςτὸνθεὸνμὴ … ἐγκακῶμεν , it is in effect transitive, meaning “ to neglect” and taking an object infinitive (or, if one prefers, is a verb of incomplete predication, requiring an infinitive or other equivalent form of expression to complete its meaning). In Philo, Conf. ling 51, (13), οὐκἐκκακούμενοςἐκνάμφθην in 2 Thessalonians 3:13, μὴἐνκακήσητεκαλοποιοῦντες , and in the present passage the meaning of the verb is, apparently, “ to grow weary.” In these two N. T. passages the predication of the verb is completed by a participle in agreement with the subject. Cf. also Herm. Mand. 9:8: σὺοὖνμὴδιαλίπῃςαἰτούμενοςτὸαἴτηματῆςψυχῆςσου , καὶλήψηαὐτό · ἐὰνδὲἐκκακήσηςκαὶδιψυχήσηςαἰτούμενος , σεαυτὸναἰτιῶκαὶμὴτὸνδιδόντασοι . Cf. Matthew 11:1, and for the grammatical usage BMT 457, 459. In the remaining N. T. instances the verb may likewise be transitive, the subject being supplied from the context (so esp. Luke 18:1, 2 Corinthians 4:1) or intransitive “ to be neglectful, slothful” (2 Corinthians 4:16, Ephesians 3:13). Καιρῷἰδίῳ is paralleled, in N. T. at least, only in 1 Timothy 2:6, 1 Timothy 6:15, and even then the plural is used. Yet the use of the separate words is not at all exceptional. On ἴδιος , meaning “ appropriate, due,” cf. 1 Corinthians 3:3, 1 Corinthians 15:23, Acts 1:25. The participle ἐκλυόμενοι is conditional (BMT 436). ἐκλύω , used by classical writers from Homer down in a variety of meanings derived from the etymological sense “ to loose,” “ set free,” and in the Lxx and Apocr., occurs in N. T. in the passive only and with the meaning “ to faint” : (1) “ to become exhausted physically” (Matthew 15:32, Mark 8:3), (2) “ to relax effort” (Hebrews 12:3, Hebrews 12:5 et h.l.). 10. Ἄραοὗνὡςκαιρὸνἔχωμεν , ἐργαζώμεθατὸἀγαθὸνπρὸςπάντας , μάλισταδὲπρὸςτοὺςοἰκείουςτῆςπίστεως . “ As therefore we have opportunity, let us do that which is good towards all, but especially towards those who are of the household of the faith.” With this v. the exhortations of the paragraph reach the utmost point of generality. Because of the certainty of the result of their efforts (v. 9 b), therefore , the Galatians are exhorted, whenever they have opportunity, to do good to their fellow men in general, but with special care for the welfare of their fellow-Christians. א B* 31, 33, 102, al. read ἔχωμεν ; AB3CDFGKLP al. pler. read ἔχομεν . The rarity of ὡς with the subjunctive without ἄν probably led to the change to the easier indicative. Transcriptional probability and the high authority of א B therefore both point to the subjunctive as the original. Ἐργαζώμεθα is the reading of א BCDFG al.; AB3LP 31, 104, 234, 326, 1908, al. read — ομεθα . Intrinsic probability favours the subjunctive following the subjunctive in v. 9. The weight of documentary authority is on the same side. Transcriptional probability, though on the side of the indicative, is not strong enough to outweigh the contrary evidence, especially in view of the frequency of itacistic changes. Cf. on θερίσομεν in v. 9. Ὡςἔχωμεν is a conditional relative clause, ἄν being omitted as in a few other cases; BMT 307. On τὸἀγαθόν cf. on τοῖςἀγαθοῖς v. 6, but for τὸἀγαθόν , meaning “ that which is advantageous,” see Romans 7:13, Romans 15:2. Cf. on ἀγαθωσύνη , 5:23. The expression is not quite identical with τὸκαλόν , v. 2, signifying, rather, what is beneficial to another than what is morally right. There is no decisive reason to limit the expression to either the spiritually or the materially beneficial; so far at least as concerns the principal statement ending with πάντας the language seems to be wholly general; on its use in relation to the phrase μάλιστα etc., see below. πρὸςπάντας may be taken as limiting either ἀγαθόν , and meaning “ in respect to” (cf. Ephesians 4:29) or the whole expression ἐργαζώμεθατὸἀγαθόν and meaning “ towards,” as in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, Ephesians 6:9 (Ell). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/iccnt/