Galatians 1:1-5 The introductory greeting. The style of this greeting, compared with those found in St. Paul’s other Epistles, gives indications of his having addressed himself to the composition of the letter under strong perturbation of feeling. This transpires in the abruptness with which, at the very outset, he at once sweeps aside, as it were, out of his path, a slur east upon his apostolic commission, in protesting that he was "apostle, not from man nor through a man." It appears again in that impetuous negligence of exact precision of language, with which the mention of "God the Father" is conjoined with that of "Jesus Christ" under the one preposition "through," as the medium through which his apostleship had been conferred upon him. We cannot help receiving the impression that the apostle had only just before received that intelligence from Galatia which called forth from him the letter, and that he set himself to its composition while the strong emotions which the tidings had produced were still fresh in his mind. That these emotions were those of indignant grief and displeasure is likewise evident. He will not, indeed, withhold the salutation which in all Christian and ministerial courtesy was due from him in addressing what, notwithstanding all, were still Churches of Christ. But all such expressions of affectionate feeling he does withhold, and all such sympathetic reference to matters and individuals of personal interest, as in almost every other Epistle he is seen indulging himself in, and which are not even then found wanting, when, as in the ease of the Corinthians, he has occasion to administer much and strong rebuke. No such sympathetic reference, we observe, is found here. As soon as he has penned the salutation, itself singularly cold in respect to those he is addressing, he at once proceeds, in Galatians 1:6, to assail his readers with words of indignant reproach. Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (Παῦλοςἀπόστολος); Paul, apostle. The designation of "apostle," as here appropriated by St. Paul in explanation of his right to authoritatively address those he was writing to, points to a function with which he was permanently invested, and which placed him in a relation to these Galatian Churches which no other apostle ever occupied. Some years later, indeed, when St. Peter had occasion to address these same Churches, together with others in neighbouring countries, he likewise felt himself authorized to do it on the score of his apostolical character ("Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," 1 Peter 1:1); but there is nothing to show that St. Peter had any personal relations with them at present. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps best in translation to prefix no article at all before "apostle." This designation of himself as "apostle’ St. Paul subjoined to his name in almost all of his Epistles subsequent to the two addressed to the Thessalonians. The only exceptions are those to the Philippians and to Philemon, in writing to whom there was less occasion for introducing it. He had now, in the third of his three great journeys recorded in the Acts, assumed openly in the Church the position of an apostle in the highest sense. In several of these Epistles 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1), to the designation of apostle, St. Paul adds the words," through (διὰ) the will of God;" i.e. by means of an express volition of God explicitly revealed. In what way God had revealed this to be his will is clearly intimated in this letter to the Galatians, in which the words," through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead," which take the place of the formula, "through the will of God," found elsewhere, indicate that it was through Jesus Christ raised from the dead that this particular volition of God was declared and brought to eft;set. The formula referred to, "through the will of God," was apparently introduced with the view of confronting those who were disposed to question his right to claim this supreme form of apostleship, with the aegis of Divine authorization: they had God to reckon with. The like is the purport of the substituted words in 1 Timothy 1:1, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our Hope." Not of men, neither by man (οὐκἀπἀνθρώπωνοὐδὲδἰἀνθρώπου); not from men, neither through a man. The preposition "from" (ἀπὸ) points to the primary fountain of the delegation referred to; "through" (διὰ) to the medium through which it was conveyed. The necessity for this twofold negation arose from the fact that the word "apostle," as I have had occasion fully to set forth elsewhere, was frequently among Christians applied to messengers deputed by Churches, or, probably, even by some important representative officer in the Church, whether on a mission for the propagation of the gospel or for the discharge at some distant place of matters of business connected with the Christian cause. St. Paul had himself frequently served in this lower form of apostleship, both as commissioned by the Church to carry abroad the message of the gospel, and also as deputed to go to and fro between Churches on errands of charity or for the settlement of controversies. In either ease he as well as others acting in the like capacity, would very naturally and properly be spoken of as an "apostle" by others, as we actually find him to have been; as also he would appear to have been ready on this same account so to designate himself,£ That he was an "apostle" in this sense none probably would have been minded to dispute. Why should they? His having, even repeatedly, held this kind of subordinate commission did not of itself give him a greater importance than attached to many ethers who had held the same. Neither did it invest his statements of religious truth with a higher sanction than theirs. This last was the point which, in St. Paul’s own estimation, gave the question of the real nature of his apostleship its whole significance. Was he a commissioned envoy of men, deputed to convey to others a message of theirs? or was he an envoy commissioned immediately by Christ to convey to the world a message which likewise was received immediately from Christ? Those who disputed his statements of religious doctrine might admit that he had been deputed to preach the gospel by Christian Churches or by eminently representative leaders of the Church, while they nevertheless asserted that he had misrepresented, or perhaps misapprehended, the message entrusted to him. At all events, they would be at liberty to affirm that the statements he made in delivering his message were subject to an appeal on the part of his hearers to the human authorities who had delegated him. If he owed alike his commission and his message to (say) the Church of Antioch, or to the Church at Jerusalem, or to the twelve, or to James the Lord’s brother, or to other leaders whomsoever of the venerable mother Church, then it followed that he was to be held amenable to their overruling judgment in the discharge of this apostleship of his. What he taught had no force if this higher court of appeal withheld its sanction. Now, this touched no mere problematical contingency, but was a practical issue which, just at this time, was one of even vital importance. It had an intimate connection with the fierce antagonism of contending parties in the Church, then waged over the dying body of the Levitical Law. St. Paul’s mission as an apostle is most reasonably considered to (late from the time when, as he stated in his defence before King Agrippa (Acts 26:16, Acts 26:17), the Lord Jesus said to him, "To this end have I appeared unto time, to appoint thee a minister and a witness [ὑπηρέτηνκαὶμάρτυρα: comp. αὐτόπταικαὶὑπηρέται, Luke 1:2 and Acts 1:2, Acts 1:3, Acts 1:8, Acts 1:22] both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people [λαοῦ, so. Israel], and from the Gentiles, unto whom I myself send thee [εἰςοὕςἐγὼἀποστέλλωσε: thus L. T. Tr. Rev.; the Textus Receptus reads εἰςοὓςνῦνσεἀποστέλλω]" (comp. Acts 22:14,Acts 22:15; 1 Corinthians 9:1). But though his appointment was in reality coeval with his conversion, it was only in course of time and by slow degrees that his properly apostolic function became signalized to the consciousness of the Church. Nevertheless, there is no reason for doubting that to his own consciousness his vocation as apostle was clearly manifested from the very first. The prompt and independent manner in which he at once set himself to preach the gospel, which itself, he tells the Galatians in this chapter, he had received immediately from heaven, betokens his having this consciousness. The time and the manner in which the fact was to become manifest to others he would seem, in a spirit of compliant obedience, to have left to the ordering of his Master. But by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (ἀλλὰδιὰἸησοῦΞριστοῦκαὶΘεοῦπατρὸςτοῦἐγείραντοςαὐτὸνἐκνεκρῶν); but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. The conjunction "neither" (οὐδὲ), which comes before δἰἀνθρώπου, marks the clause it introduces as containing a distinctly different negation from the preceding, and shows that the preposition "through" is used in contradistinction to the "from" (ἀπὸ) of the foregoing clause in its proper sense of denoting the instrument or medium through which an act is done. St. Paul affirms that there was no human instrumentality or intermediation whatever at work in the act of delegation which constituted him an apostle. This affirmation places him in this respect precisely on a level with the twelve; perhaps in making it he has an eye 1o this. The notion has been frequently broached that the apostleship which St. Paul made claim to was conveyed to him at Antioch through the brethren who there, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, formally set him apart, together with Barnabas, for the missionary enterprise which they forthwith entered upon (Acts 13:1-3). But words could scarcely have been selected which should more decisively negative any such notion than those do which St. Paul here makes use of. One form of apostleship was no doubt then conferred upon Barnabas and Paul; but it was not the apostleship of which he is now thinking. In defining the precise import and bearing of the expression, δἰἀνθρώπου, "through a man," we may compare it with its use in 1 Corinthians 15:21, "Since δἰἀνθρώπου came death, δἰἀνθρώπου came also the resurrection of the dead;" where in the second clause the word "man," employed to recite the Lord Jesus, contemplates that aspect of his twofold being which places him as "the second Man" (1 Corinthians 15:47) in correlation to Adam, "the first Man." Similarly, the parallel with Adam again in Romans 5:12, Romans 5:15 leads the apostle to adopt the expression," the one Man Jesus Christ" (cf. also ibid. 19). In 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, himself Man [or, ’a man’], Christ Jesus," our Lord’s manhood, in accordance with the requirement of the context, is put forward as a bond of connection linking him with every human creature alike. These passages present Christ in the character simply of a human being. But in the passage before us the apostle at first sight appears to imply that, because he was an apostle through the agency of Jesus Christ, he was not an apostle through the agency of a human being; thus negativing, apparently, the manhood of Christ, at least as viewed in his present glorified condition. The inference, however, is plainly contradicted by both 1 Corinthians 15:21 and 1 Timothy 2:5; for the former passage points in "the second Man" to the "Lord from heaven," while the other refers to him as permanent "Mediator between God and men," both, therefore, speaking of Jesus in his present glorified condition. To obviate this difficulty some have proposed to take the "but" (ἀλλά), not as adversative, but as exceptive. But there is no justification for this—not even Mark 9:8 (see Winer’s ’Gram. N. T.,’ 53, 10, 1 b). A less precarious solution is arrived at by gathering out of the context the precise shade of meaning in which the word "man" is here used. Christ is indeed "Man," and his true manhood is the sense required in the two passages above cited; but he is also more than man; and it is those qualities of his being and of his state of existence which distinguish him from mere men, which the context shows to be now present to the apostle’s mind. For the phrase, "through a man," is not contrasted by the words, "through Jesus Christ," alone, but by the whole clause: "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead." That is to say, in penning the former phrase, the apostle indicates by the word "man" one invested with the ordinary qualities of an earthly human condition; whereas the "Jesus Christ" through whom Heaven sent forth Saul as an apostle to the Gentiles was Jesus Christ blended with, inconceivably near to, God the Father, one with him; his oneness with him not veiled, as it was when he was upon earth, though really subsisting even then (John 10:30), but to all the universe manifested—manifested visibly to us upon earth by the resurrection of his body; in the spiritual, as yet now to us invisible world, by that sitting down on the right hand of God which was the implied sequel and climax of his resurrection. The strong sense which the apostle has of the unspeakably intimate conjunction subsisting. since his resurrection, between Jesus Christ viewed in his whole incarnate being and. God the Father, explains how it comes to pass that the two august Names are combined together under one single preposition, "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father." We shall have to notice the same phenomenon in Mark 9:3 in the apostle’s formula of greeting prayer, "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ;" on which see the note. We have the same conception of Christ’s personality consequent upon his resurrection in the apostle’s words relative to his apostolic appointment in Romans 1:4, Romans 1:5; where the Jesus Christ through whom "he had received grace and apostleship," in contrast with his merely human condition as "of the seed of David according to the flesh," is described as "him who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead." The clause, "who raised him from the dead," has a twofold bearing upon the point in hand. 1. It supplies an answer to the objection which may be believed to have been made to Paul’s claim to be regarded as an apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ, by those who said, "You have never seen Christ or been taught by him, like those whom he himself named apostles." The answer is, "You might object so if Jesus were no more than a dead man; but he is not that: he is a living Man raised from the dead by the Father; and as such I have myself seen him (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1); and he it was that in his own person, and through no intervention of human agency, gave me both the commission to preach and the gospel which I was to preach" (see below, Romans 1:11, Romans 1:12). 2. It connects the action of God the Father with that of Jesus Christ in appointing Paul to be an apostle; for the things which Christ did when raised from the dead and glorified with himself (John 17:5) by the Father must obviously have been done from, with, and in God the Father. It would unduly narrow the pragmatism of the clause if we limited it to either of the two purposes above indicated; both were probably in the mind of St. Paul in adding it. The immediate context gives no warrant for our supposing, as many have done, that the apostle has just here other truths in view as involved in the fact of our Lord’s resurrection; such e.g. as he has himself indicated in Romans 4:24, Romans 4:25; Romans 6:1-23.; Colossians 3:1. However cogent and closely relevant some of these inferences might have been with respect to the subjects treated of in this Epistle, the Epistle itself, as a matter of fact, makes no other reference whatever to that great event, whether directly or indirectly. Should δἰἀνθρώπου be rendered "through man," the noun understood generically, as e.g. Psalms 56:1, or "through a man," pointing to one individual being? It is not very material; but perhaps the second rendering is recommended by the consideration that, if the apostle had meant still to write generically, he would have repeated the plural noun already employed. Indeed, it may be thought a preferable rendering in the other passages above cited. The transition from the plural noun to the singular, as is noted by Bishop Lightfoot and others, "suggested itself in anticipation of the clause, ’through Jesus Christ,’ which was to follow." In the expression, "God the Father," the addition of the words, "the Father," was not necessary for the indication of the Person meant, any more than in 1 Peter 1:21, "Believers in God which raised him from the dead," or in numberless other passages where the term "God" regularly designates the First Person in the blessed Trinity. It would be an incomplete paraphrase to explain it either as "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," or as "God our Father." It is rather, "God the primary Author and supreme Orderer of all things," or, as in the Creed, "God the Father Almighty." It is best illustrated by the apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 8:6, "To us there is one God, the Father, of whom [i.e. out of whom, ἐξοὗ] are all things, and we unto him; "and in Romans 11:36," Of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things." The apostle adds the term in order to make the designation of the supreme God, who is the Source of his apostleship, the more august and impressive. Galatians 1:2 and all the brethren which are with me (καὶοἱαὺνἐμοὶπάντεςἀδελφοί); and the brethren which are with me, one and all. The ordinary unaccentuated collocation of πάντες would be, πάντεςοἱσὺνἐμοὶἀδελφοί. Its position here, where, perhaps, it was thrust in by a kind of after-thought, marks it as emphatic; there is not one of those about him who does not feel the like grief and indignation as himself in reference to the news just now received. We have a similar collocation in Romans 16:15. Πάντες would be marked as emphatic also if placed last, as in 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Titus 3:15. Our attention is arrested by the absence of any name. A number of persons are named by St. Luke in the Acts (Acts 18:18-20:5), and by the apostle himself in his Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Romans, as about his person at different times during the latter part of his third journey; and it does not seem very likely that not one was now with him of those who had accompanied him, either in the first or in the second of his two visits in Galatia. The most probable way of explaining the entire suppression of names is by reference to the present mood of the writer; he is too indignant at the behaviour of the Galatian Churchmen to weave into his greeting any such thread of mutual personal interest. It is enough to intimate that all about him felt as he did. Unto the Churches of Galatia (ταῖςἐκκλησίαςτῆςΓαλατίας). The dry coldness of tone with which this is written will be best understood by the reader upon his comparing the apostle’s manner in his other letters, in all of which he is found adding some words marking the high dignity which attached to the communities he is addressing. He is too much displeased to do this now. The plurality of the Galatian Churches, each of them apparently forming a distinct organization, is expressed again in 1 Corinthians 16:1, "As I gave order to the Churches of Galatia;" and agrees very well with what we read in Acts 18:23, "Went through tile region of Galatia and Phrygia in order (καθεξῆς), stablishing all the disciples." The leaven of Judaizing, whether imported by visitants from other regions or originating within these Churches themselves, appears to have been working very extensively among these communities, and not in one or two of them only. If the latter had been the case, the apostle would not have involved the collective Churches in the like censure, but, as in the case of Colossae, compared with the "Ephesians," have singled out for warning those actually peccant. This fact, of the general diffusion among them of one particular taint, warrants the belief that certain persons had been at the pains of going about among these Churches to propagate it. Who these persons were, or where they came from, there is nothing to show. It has, indeed, been assumed by many that, like those disturbers of the Antiochian Church mentioned in Acts 15:1 and Galatians 2:12, they had come from Judaea, or rather Jerusalem. But the Epistle gives no hint of this in respect to the Galatian Churches. What the apostle writes in Galatians 6:12, Galatians 6:13 points rather to the surmise that this particular distraction was caused by some Churchmen of their own, who had given themselves to this heretical proselytizing in order to truckle to non-Christian Jews living in their neighbourhood. Compare tile apostle’s foreboding respecting the future of the Ephesian Church, in Acts 20:30. (See note on Galatians 6:12, Galatians 6:13.) Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace (χάριςὑμῖνκαὶεἰρήνη); grace to you and peace. Here, as often, we have combined the form of salutation prevalent among Greeks, χαίρειν (found in its unaltered form in James 1:1, "wishing joy"), Christianized into χάρις, grace, which denotes the outpouring of Divine benignity in all such spiritual blessings as sinful creatures need; and the Hebrew greeting, shalom, which in its transformation into εἰρήνη may be supposed to have dropped in its Christianized signification some of its originally comprehensive meaning, which comprised all "health and wealth" as well as "peace," and to have generally expressed the more limited idea of that calm sense of reconciliation and that perfect security against evil which constitute the peculiar happiness of a soul which believes in Christ. It is nevertheless conceivable that εἰρήνη, as used in Hellenistic Greek, may at times have widened the sense proper to it in ordinary Greek into the more comprehensive import of the shalom, which it was regularly employed to represent. From God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ (ἀπὸΘεοῦπατρόςκαὶΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ). These words regularly form a part in the apostle’s formula of greeting. With slight variations they are found in all his Epistles, except, perhaps, the First to the Thessalonians, where, though read in the Textus Receptus, they are omitted by recent editors. "Our" is added to "Father" in at least seven of St. Paul’s Epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). This warrants the belief that, when as in 1 Timothy, Titus, and here, he wrote "God the Father," he most probably did so with reference to God’s fatherly relation to the members of Christ’s Church. Tregelles and the margin of the revised Greek text, in fact, read ἡμῶν after πατρὸς here, omitting it after Κυρίου. Uniformly in this formula of greeting we find only one preposition, "from" (ἀπό), before the two names, "God" and "Jesus Christ;" as in the first verse in this Epistle there is only one preposition, "through," before "Jesus Christ" and "God." The apostle, looking upwards, discerns, as St. Stephen did, in the ineffable glory, the supreme God in whom he recognizes "our Father," and with him Jesus Christ, "our Lord;" that is, our Master, Head, Mediator, "through whom are all things, and we through him." Grace and peace coming down from heaven, must come from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the blessings referred to come to us through Christ, though also "from" him; as also that St. Paul’s delegation as apostle, spoken of in the first verse, originated from a volition and appointment of God the Father, as well as was brought about "through" the ordering of his providence. But in each case the preposition used by the apostle preserves its proper force, not to be confused by our thrusting into it another notion not just then in the writer’s view. Galatians 1:4 Who gave himself (τοῦδόντοςἑαυτόν). This is the strongest imaginable description of what Christ did to redeem us. The phrase occurs in 1 Macc. 6:44, with reference to the Eleazar who rushed upon certain death to kill the elephant which was carrying the king, Antiochus: "He gave himself (ἔδωκενἑαυτὸν) to save his people." It is applied to Christ also in Titus 2:14," Who gave himself for us;" and 1 Timothy 2:6, "Who gave himself a ransom for all." In the next chapter, verse 20, the apostle writes, "Who loved me, and gave himself up (πυραδόντοςἑαυτὸν) for me." Similarly, St. Paul writes in Romans 8:32, "He that spared not [i.e. ’kept not back’] his own Son, but gave him up (παρέδωκεναὐτὸν) for us all." The addition, in Matthew 26:45, of the words, "into the hands of sinners," and our Lord’s utterance in Luke 22:53, "This is your hour, and the power of darkness," help to illustrate the exceedingly pregnant expression now before us. For our sins (ὑπέρτῶνἁμαρτιῶνἡμῶν). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus, retained by the Revisers. On the other hand, L. T. Tr., for ὑπέρ, substitute περί. These two prepositions ὑπὲρ and περὶ are, in this relation as well as in some others, used indifferently. If we follow the reading of Rec. L. T. Tr. Rev. (for very often the manuscripts oscillate between the two), we have ὑπὲρ in 1 Corinthians 15:3, "Died for our sins;" Hebrews 7:27, "To offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people;" Hebrews 9:7, "Blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the ignorances of the people." On the other hand, we find in the same authorities περὶ in Romans 8:3, "Sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin;" Hebrews 5:3, "As for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (where, however, the Receptus has ὑπὲρ in the last clause, ("for sins"); Hebrews 10:6, "Whole burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin;" Hebrews 10:18, "No more offering for sin;" 1 John 2:2, 1 John 2:10, "Propitiation for our sins;" 1 Peter 3:16, "Died [or, ’suffered’] for (περὶ) sins, the righteous for (ὑπὲρ) the unrighteous." The last passage (1 Peter 3:18) suggests the remark that ὑπὲρ is the more appropriate word before persons, and περὶ before "sins." We find, however, that, in the Septuagint, in the Pentateuch περὶ is used also before persons as it is in Hebrews 5:3; thus: Leviticus 5:18, "The priest shall make atonement for περὶ him concerning (περὶ) his ignorance;" in both cases rendering the Hebrew ’al. So Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; Numbers 8:12. On the other hand, in Exodus 32:30 we have "I will go up unto the Lord, that I may make atonement for (περί, b’ad) your sin." The truth seems to be that ὑπέρ, which is more properly "on behalf of" often denotes "for," equivalent to "on account of;" as e.g. Psalms 39:11, Septuagint, "rebukes for sin;" Ephesians 5:20, "Giving thanks always for all things;" Romans 15:9, "Glorify God for his mercy." And this sense passes into "concerning," "with reference to;" as 2 Corinthians 1:8, "I would not have you ignorant concerning our affliction;" 2 Corinthians 8:23, "Whether any inquire about Titus." On the other hand, περί, which more properly denotes "concerning," "with reference to," passes into the sense of "on account of;" as Luke 19:37, "Praise God for all the mighty works;" John 10:33, "For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy;" 1 Corinthians 1:4, "I thank my God... concerning you;" 1 Thessalonians 1:2, "We give thanks to God for you all;" Romans 1:8, "I thank my God for [Receptus, ὑπὲρ] you all." The use of περὶ in the verse before us, and in the similar passages above cited, no doubt followed its use in the phrase περὶἁμαρτίας, which in the LXX. so commonly describes the "sin offering" of the Levitical institute. This phrase sometimes represents what in the Hebrew text is the simple noun (chattath) "sin," put for "sin offering;" as e.g. Leviticus 7:37, "This is the law ofthe burnt offering, of the meat offering, and of the sin offering (chattath)," etc. (οὗτοςὁνόμοςτῶνὁλοκαυτωμάτωνκαὶθυσίαςκαὶπερὶἁμαρτίας, etc.). Sometimes it represents the same Hebrew noun preceded by the preposition ’al, for: "For the sin of such or such a one (περὶτῆςἁμαρτίαςτοῦδεῖνα);" as e.g. Leviticus 5:35, where the LXX. has, "The priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he hath sinned (ἐξιλάσεταιπεριαὐτοῦὁἱερεὺςπερὶτῆςἁμαρτίαςἢνἥμαρτε)." The precise force of περὶ in this phrase was probably "on account of sin," or "having reference to sin;" senses of περὶ which, as has been seen, are borne by ὑπὲρ as well. This view of the force of these two prepositions, as employed in this relation, seems to the present writer more satisfactory than that which refers it to the notion of protection, "on behalf of" or "for the good of" some one; though it must unquestionably be allowed that this is a notion which they both of them frequently convey. To this latter notion, indeed, we must in all probability refer the use of ὑπὲρ in Galatians 2:20, "Gave himself up for me," as well as in 1 Peter 3:18, 1 Peter 3:6, for the unrighteous;" Luke 22:19, Luke 22:20, "Given for you," "Poured out for you," and the like; and also that of περὶ in Matthew 26:28, "Shed for many;" John 17:9, "I pray for them;" Colossians 4:3, "Praying for us." The result of this inquiry into the usus loquendi with reference to these prepositions appears to be this: in what manner the death of Christ affected our condition in those respects in which that condition was antecedently qualified by our sins, neither ὑπὲρ nor περὶ as prefixed to the noun "sins" enables us precisely to determine, further than as it recalls for illustration the "sin offering" of the Law. For the more complete development of the idea intended to be conveyed, we must look to other references made in Scripture to the subject, such as e.g. 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:19. Thus much, however, we may confidently assume: both ὑπὲρ and περὶ as so applied do alike warrant us in concluding, not only that it was because of our sins that Christ behoved to die, but also that his death is efficacious for the complete removal of those evils which accrue to us from our sins. That he might deliver us from this present evil world (ὅπωςἐξέληταιἡμᾶςἐκτοῦαἰῶνοςτοῦἐνεστῶτοςπονηροῦ. Such is the reading of L. T. Tr. Rev.; while the Textus Receptus has ὅπωςἐξέληταιἡμᾶςἐκτοῦἐνεστῶτοςαἰῶνοςπονηροῦ); that he might deliver us out of the present world, evil that it is. The verb ἐξαιρέομαι, originally "take out," renders the Hebrew hitztzil in 1 Samuel 4:8 and Jeremiah 1:8 in the sense of "deliver;" it points to "the present state" as one of helpless misery or danger. Compare the use of the verb, Acts 7:10, Acts 7:34; Acts 12:11; it is equivalent to ῥύεσθαι, as found in Colossians 1:13 and Luke 1:74. The participle "present" or "subsisting," ἐνεστώς, is found in explicit contrast with the participle "to come," μέλλων, Romans 8:38," Nor things present nor things to come;" and 1 Corinthians 3:22. We are, therefore, naturally led to suppose that the apostle means to contrast the "world" here referred to with a "world to come;" which latter is mentioned in Hebrews 6:5, and seems synonymous with the "world [literally, ’inhabited earth’] to come," οἰκουμένημέλλουσα, of Hebrews 2:5. Compare our Lord’s words in Matthew 12:32, "Neither in this world nor in that which is to come," and his contrast of "this world" with "that world" in Luke 20:34, Luke 20:35. The Greek word here employed, aion, like kosmos, is used with varying shades of meaning. The two nouns, used interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 3:19 are, however, not altogether equivalent. The former originally denotes a mode of time; the latter, a mode of space. In particular, aion is never used in the Greek Testament to denote "mankind," as kosmos not unfrequently is by all its writers. In the Syriac Version, ’olmo represents both aion and kosmos in all their senses, with a slight variation in its form to represent aion in Ephesians 2:2, "The course (aida) of this world (kosmos)," as if it were "The worldliness of this world." Probably the same word ’olmo, in the Chaldean-Hebrew language current amongst the Palestinian Jews, was the term employed by them in all those connections in which either aion or kosmos would have been used by them if speaking in Hellenistic Greek; for it is to the Hellenistic dialect of the Greek language that both words as so employed belong. We never find aion at all in any of St. John’s writings, except in the phrases, εἰςτὸναἰῶνα or εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας, denoting "for ever." In other significations, when other writers of the New Testament might have used aion, St. John always puts kosmos. The word aion, denoting a cycle of time, is used also to signify a material world, as Hebrews 1:2; and, in particular, the state of things found existing in that cycle of time; and this as viewed in various aspects. In Luke 20:34, Luke 20:35 "this aida" contrasts the present state, as one of mortality and successive reproduction, with "that aion," viewed as one of immortality, in which processes of reproduction are found no more. But in Luke 16:8 "the children of this aion" are those who live after the world-loving, sinful fashion which characterizes mankind in general in contrast with "the children of light," who have been enlightened to recognize their relation to a spiritual world. In St. Paul, "the present αἰὼν" denotes the entire moral and spiritual state of mankind viewed in the aspect in which he contemplated it—a state wrapped in spiritual "darkness," pervaded by ungodliness and general immorality, and dominated by Satan; as Bengel puts it, "tota oeconomia peceati sub potestate Satanae" (Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 4:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4); a state from which Christians ought to study to get wholly weaned in all their moral and spiritual habits (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:22-24). In St. John, the phrases, "the world (kosmos)," or "this world" are frequently employed to express the same idea; as e.g. John 12:31; John 16:11; 1 John 2:15, 1 John 2:16.; 1 John 5:19. Out of this "power, empire, of darkness," in which by nature apart from Christ’s grace all men are hopelessly enthralled; out of the grasp, inextricable by any efforts of their own, with which Satan holds them,—the apostle recognizes Christ as alone able to "rescue" us; and even him only able to "rescue" us by virtue of his atoning sacrifice of himself Thus, in an eminently just application of the verb, he is said to "redeem" (λυτροῦσθαι) them from all iniquity, which expression includes, not only the idea of his paying down a ransom for their emancipation, but also the thought that, by the power of his grace, he makes the ransom effectual for the actual moral and spiritual deliverance, one by one, of those who believe in him: "he purifies them a people of his very own, devoted to good works" (Titus 2:14). The position in the Greek of the epithet "evil," standing in a peculiar manner without the article after "this present world" (τοῦαἰῶνοςτοῦἐνεστῶτοςπονηροῦ), is discussed both by Bishop Ellicott and by Bishop) Lightfoot in their respective Commentaries on the Epistle; the latter of whom takes it as equivalent to "with all its evils." It seems to the present writer that the syntax of the clause groups it with Ephesians 2:11," That which is called circumcision, in the flesh, made [or, ’done’] with hands (τῆςλεγομένηςπεριτομῆςἐνσαρκὶχειροποιητοῦ), where ἐνσαρκὶχειροποιητοῦ has no article, because it is a logical adjunct: the circumcision "which is made in the flesh with hands," is of course no real circumcision (cf. Romans 2:1-29. fin.), and therefore is only one so "called." So in the present passage the epithet "evil" is a logical adjunct: the state of the world being an "evil state," craved Christ’s redemption, and this fact should make that redemption welcome to us. Similarly, in 1 Peter 1:18 the epithet" handed from your fathers (πατροπαραδοτοῦ)," added after "your vain manner of life," is a logical adjunct: the fact that it was ancient and traditional gave it so strong a hold upon them as to crave the intervention of a no ordinary ransom to redeem them from it. With the turn of thought, which according to this view is indicated by the epithet πονηροῦ having been added to the noun without the article, agrees likewise the emphatic position of the verb ἐξέληται at the Lead of the sentence. Christ gave his own very self for this end, that he might deliver us out of this wretched state of things to which we belonged. But the reactionary movement now showing itself among the Galatians would inevitably, the apostle feels (see Galatians 5:4), have the effect of making void this redeeming work of Christ, and of involving them afresh in their original misery. If we adhere to the reading in the Textus Receptus, τοῦἐνεστῶτοςαἰῶνοςπονηροῦ, we had best, perhaps, accept Winer’s proposal (’Gram. N. T.,’ § 20, 1 a), and explain the absence of the article by supposing αἰὼνπονηριὸς as forming one notion, as in the case of βρῶμαπνευματικὸν and πόμαπν. in the Textus Receptus of 1 Corinthians 10:3. But this reading, though grammatically it runs more smoothly than the other, is on that very account the less likely to have been the original one, and seems greatly to blunt the significance of the adjective. May we not detect in this epithet "evil" the sound of a sigh, drawn from the apostle’s heart by this flesh worry and disappointment now cropping up for him and for all who cared for the success of the gospel? His feeling seems to be—Oh the weary evilness of this present state! When will it be brought to an end by the appearing of that blissful hope?. According to the will of God and our Father (κατὰτὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦκαὶπατρὸςἡμῶν); according to the will of our God and Father. It is, perhaps, of no great consequence whether we understand this clause as pointing to the whole preceding sentence, "Who gave himself … world," or to the last clause of it, "That he might deliver … world." But the former is the more probable construction: (1) there is no reason for restricting it to the last words; (2) it is in perfect accordance with the apostle’s usual reference of Christ’s coming into the world and dying for us to the Father’s appointment, that he should here too be understood as referring to this work of delivering grace also. The feeling apparently underlies these words of the apostle, that the Judaizing which he has now before his eyes was both setting itself in opposition to the supreme ordering of "our God"—and his sovereign "will" who of us shall dare to contravene?—and also thwarting the operation of his fatherly loving-kindness. For the lack of filial confidence in God’s love to us, and the slavish ceremonialism which characterized Judaical legalism, were both of them adjuncts of the unspiritual mind still in bondage to "the flesh" (cf. Romans 7:1-25. and 8.), and therefore part and parcel of "this present world." Comp. Galatians 3:3; Galatians 4:3, Galatians 4:8-10; and Colossians 2:20," Why, as living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, Handle not," etc.? As Professor Jowett observes, in this case as well as in the Epistle to the Romans, "The salutation is the proem of the whole Epistle." The expression, "our God and Father," is pathetic; it is an outcome of the deep complacency with which the apostle cherishes the assurance of God’s fatherly love given us in the gospel—a sentiment of complacency stimulated into increased fervency by antagonism to the spiritual mischief confronting him. Of our God and Father. So Revised Version. This rendering appears decidedly preferable to that given by the Authorized Version, "of God and our Father," though grammatically this latter is confessedly not inadmissible. The like remark applies to all the other passages in the New Testament in which ΘεὸςκαὶΠατὴρ is found followed by a genitive; namely, by πάντων (Ephesians 4:6); by ἡμῶν as in the passage before us (1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Philippians 4:20); by τοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ (Romans 15:6; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3); by τοῦΚυρίουἸησοῦ (2 Corinthians 11:31 [L. T. Tr. Rev.; Receptus has τοῦΚυρίουἡμῶνἸησοῦΧριστοῦ]; and by αὐτοῦ (Revelation 1:6). Galatians 1:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (ὧἡδόξαεἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςτῶναἰώνωνἈμήν). This doxology is not introduced as merely a reverential closing up of the greeting, before the writer hastens on to the subsequent words of rebuke. It is rather an indignant tender of homage to the Most High, flashing forth from a loyal, filial heart; confronting and seeking, so far as it thus may, to redress the wrong done to "our God and Father" by the Judaizing spirit uprearing itself among the Galatians. It is similar in tone to the indignant doxology in Romans 1:25. This view of its origin explains the fact that, as connected with a greeting, such doxology is found only in this of all St. Paul’s Epistles. The indignation which pervades the tone of the whole passage favours the suppletion of ἔστω rather than of ἐστίν. Perhaps, indeed ἔστω is in general the more natural suppletion. In 1 Peter 4:11, where ἐστὶν is added by the writer, we have not so much a direct ascription of praise as an affirmation that to God belongs or is due the glory of our performing our several duties with reference to this end. In like manner in the (most probably interpolated) doxology at the close of the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom," etc., the ascription of praise is not so much expressed as implied. Viewed in themselves, the words simply state the truth which constitutes the ground for our addressing to "our Father" our praises and our petitions. The article is most commonly prefixed to δόξα in such ascriptions of praise, whether δόξα stands alone, as Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 2 Peter 3:18; or in conjunction with other nouns, as 1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 7:12. It is wanting in Luke 2:14; Luke 19:38; 1 Timothy 1:17; Jude 25. When the article is added it marks the noun as expressing its notion viewed absolutely, in its entirety or universality: q.d. "Whatever glory is to be ascribed anywhere, be it ascribed to him." Thus ἡδόξα is equivalent to "all glory." For ever and ever; literally, into the aions of the aions; apparently a form of expression adopted to denote intensification ,or superlativeness, like "holy of holies" (cf. Winer, ’Gram. N. T.,’ § 36, 2). It is used where especial intensity is wished to be added to the notion of long undetermined duration; as Revelation 14:11; Revelation 15:7; Revelation 22:5, etc. The same notion is expressed, only with not the same passionate earnestness, by the phrase, "into the aions," in Luke 1:33; Romans 1:25; Romans 9:5; Romans 11:36, etc.; and by "into the aion," in Matthew 21:19; John 6:51, John 6:58, etc. Possibly there is a reference of contrast to" this present aion of Joh 6:4. This, however, is doubtful; for in John 6:4 aion points to a particular condition of affairs subsisting in this aion rather than to a mere mode of duration, which latter is alone in view here. The like observation applies to Ephesians 2:2 compared with Ephesians 2:7. Galatians 1:6 It is unnecessary again to remark on the disturbance of mind indicated by the abruptness with which the apostle plunges into the language of reproof. It cannot fail to strike every careful reader. I marvel (θαυμάζω); I do marvel. The verb is used here with reference to something disappointing, something felt to be painful as well as strange. So Mark 6:6 with reference to the unbelief of the Nazarenes. It is unjust to the apostle to take this "I do marvel" of his as a mere artifice of politic address: though unquestionably, as Chrysostom and Luther have well noted, it does soften his rebuke. The apostle was genuinely surmised; for he had had so much reason for thinking well of them (comp. Galatians 3:1; Galatians 4:14, Galatians 4:15; Galatians 5:7). How could converts, once so cordial and affectionate, have possibly been so misled? As he reflects on the case, whatever feeling of resentment mingled with his surprise turns off upon the pseudo-evangelists misleading them; and accordingly it is upon these that his anathema is pronounced, not upon them at all (cf. Galatians 5:9, Galatians 5:12). They, indeed, by listening to the false teaching, were in danger of falling from grace; but this he rather compassionates than angrily denounces. That ye are so soon removed (ὅτιοὕτωταχέωςμετατίθεσθε); that ye are so quickly falling away. This "quickly" has been taken by many as meaning "so soon after ye were called," and as consequently furnishing some ground for determining the time of the writing of the Epistle. But the comparison of the use of the same adverb (ταχέως) in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, "Be not quickly shaken;" and in 1 Timothy 5:22, "Lay hands hastily on no man," suggests rather the meaning, "so quickly upon being solicited thereto." The verb μετατίθεσθαι, to transfer one’s self to a different course of thinking, acting, partisanship (cf. Liddell and Scott, ’Lexicon’), is used both in an unfavourable and in a good sense. Thus 2 Macc. 7:24, Μεταθέμενονἀπὸτῶνπατρίωννόμων "If he would give over following the laws of his country;" Appian, ’Bell. Mithr.,’ 41: "Falling away, going over, from (ἀπὸ) Archelaus to Sylla;" Jamblich, ’Protrept,’ 17, "Change from (ἀπὸ) a restless and profligate mode of life to an orderly one." The verb, being in the present tense, and not in the aorist or the perfect, suggests the idea of an action in its commencing stage, and not yet fully consummated; as Chrysostom observes: "That is, ’I do not yet believe nor suppose that the delusion has got to be complete’—the language of one who will fain win them back." From him that called you into the grace of Christ (ἀπὸτοῦκαλέσαντοςὑμᾶςἐνχάριτιΧριστοῦ); from him that called you w be in the grace of Christ. The phrase, "he that called you," recites the personality of "our God and Father," spoken of in verses 3, 4. The calling of man into the kingdom of God is habitually ascribed by St. Paul to the First Person in the Trinity (cf. verse 15; Romans 8:30; Romans 9:24, Romans 9:25; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15, 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; 2 Timothy 1:9). God’s name is omitted, as in verse 15 (where it is wanting in the more recent texts), and Galatians 2:8, "For he that wrought for Peter." The apostle impressively, even startlingly, describes their defection from the truth of the gospel as no other than a defection from God himself; similarly to the strain of language pursued in Hebrews 3:12-15. "The grace of Christ" recites the state of acceptance with God into which Christians are brought by Christ through faith in him. So Galatians 5:4. "Fallen away from grace;" Romans 5:2, "Through whom we have also had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand." The genitive, "of Christ," denotes the Author, as in" the peace of God" (Philippians 4:7); "righteousness of God" (Romans 1:17; Romans 3:21, etc.). There is a pathos in the word "grace," as referring to the sweet gentleness of Christ’s yoke as contrasted with the yoke of ceremonial-ism which the Galatians were so foolishly hankering after. The construction, "Called you in the grace of Christ," is similar to "Called us in peace" (1 Corinthians 7:15); "Ye were called in one hope of your calling" (Ephesians 4:4); "Called us... in sanctification" (1 Thessalonians 4:7). The verb "call," implying as it does the bringing into a certain state, suggests the sense here given to the clause, in preference to our taking it as meaning "called you by the grace of Christ." Unto another gospel (εἰςἐτερονεὐαγγέκιον); unto another (or, a new) sort of gospel. The adjective ἕτερον, as contrasted with ἄλλο used in the next verse, appears to intimate the changed quality of the object, its strange new-fangled character. The adjective does sometimes take this shade of meaning. Thus 1 Corinthians 14:21, Ἐνἑτερογλώσσοιςκαὶἐνχείλεσινἑτέροις, "By men of strange tongues, and by lips of strangers;" 2 Corinthians 11:4, Πνεῦμαεπτερον … εὐαγγέλιονἕτερον," Different spirit … different gospel;" 1 Timothy 1:3, Ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, "Teach a different doctrine." The reader will find a brief but instructive description of the difference at times observable between ἕτερος and ἄλλος in Bishop Lightfoot’s note on the passage; who cites the Septuagint rendering in Exodus 1:8 of the Hebrew "new king," which it gives βασιλεὺςἕτερπς: and a passage in Xenophon’s ’Cyclopaedia,’ 8.3, 8, "If you accuse me... another time when I serve you … you will find me (ἑτερῳδιακόνῳ) another sort of attendant.’’ The phrase, "another sort of gospel," so far as giving the new form of doctrine the title of "gospel" at all, is paradoxical and sarcastic. The paradox is corrected in what follows. The substantive, "gospel." is borrowed, not without a tinge of irony, from the pretensions of the innovators; they, of course, would be ready to designate their mangled form of Christian doctrine as still "the gospel." The epithet which the apostle adds gives his own view of its character. Galatians 1:7 Which is not another (ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο). Already, in these very words, the apostle means to assert that essential unalterableness of the gospel, which, with solemn emphasis, he in the two following verses more fully affirms. Thus much seems plain. But, owing probably to the impassioned eagerness of tie moment, he here, as not unfrequently elsewhere from the like cause, expresses himself in language, the grammatical analysis of which is obscure and in some degree uncertain. For (1) the relative "which" may be taken as reciting the term "gospel" only, that is, the gospel which is properly so called; in which case we may read the sentence thus: "But the gospel is not [’never can be] other"—other, i.e. than it is as already preached to you; (2) the relative may recite the "other [or, ’new’] sort of gospel" of Galatians 1:6; and then we should have "But this other-fashioned gospel is not another gospel really," or, "is not the real gospel reappearing in another form." The former method presents undoubtedly, of the two, the harsher way of construing; but constructions as harsh do occasionally present themselves in the apostle’s style when writing under strong emotion. The exact analysis, however, is merely a matter of grammatical nicety; the substance of the thought is quite clear. But there be (εἰμή .. εἰσιν); only there are. This construction, of εἰμὴ followed by a finite verb, is found also in Mark 6:5, Εἰμὴ... ἐθεράπευσε, "Save that … he healed them." The force of εἰμή, "except," in this passage as well as in some others, may be described as partially exceptive; that is, it denotes an exception taken, not to the entire foregoing sentence, but to part of it only. Thus in Luke 4:27, "There were many lepers in Israel... and none of them was cleansed, save Naaman the syrian:" where the pronoun "them" recites the "lepers in Israel," but the "save" refers to "lepers" only; Revelation 9:4, "That they should not hurt the grass, neither any green thing, neither any tree, save the men who," etc.: where the "save" points back only to the words, "that they should not hurt;" so again Revelation 21:27, "Save they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life," points back only to the words, "there shall in no wise enter into it." In all such cases the rendering "only" or "but only" would exhibit just the amount of exception which appears intended. In the present instance the most probable explanation is this: the gospel can never be ether than it is; except that among (i.e. only among) those who proclaim it (i.e. profess to proclaim it) there are some who so misrepresent its import as to completely reverse its character. There be some that trouble you (τινέςεἰσινοἱταράσσοντεςὑμᾶς); there are certain who are disquieting you. The form of expression is the same as in Colossians 2:8, "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you." The sentence as it stands differs from the supposable substitute, "certain persons are disquieting you," by directing attention me, re to the persons referred to than merely to their action viewed in itself; it marks them out as meriting strong censure, or (in Colossians, loc. cit.) as persons to be carefully guarded against. Who these troublers were and where they came from is uncertain (see note on Colossians 2:2). The verb ταράσσειν frequently means "to alarm" or "disquiet," as Matthew 2:3; Matthew 14:26; Luke 1:12; Luke 24:38; John 14:1; 1 Peter 3:14. And this is probably the sense in which it is used here and in the similar passages, Galatians 5:10; Acts 15:24. It describes the action of those who came to believers reposing in a sense of acceptance with God through Christ; and filled their minds with uneasiness and apprehension, by telling them that they were not safe as they were, but must do something else if they wished to really possess the Divine favour. Others, however, connect the verb with the notion of civil disturbance, as in Acts 17:8, and thus with raising seditions and shaking men’s allegiance, in conformity with the metaphor of μετατίθεσθε in Acts 17:6. And would pervert the gospel of Christ (καὶθέλοντεςμεταστρώψαιτὸεὐαγγέλιοντοῦΧριστοῦ); and would fain turn into its clean contrary the gospel of Christ. The verb μεταστρέφειν is an appropriate one to use with reference to such a misrepresentation of the gospel as the one now in the apostle’s view; for this converted it from a doctrine of emancipation into a doctrine of renewed bondage (comp. Acts 5:1-4). So the verb is used in the only other passages in which it is found in the New Testament, Acts 2:20, "The sun shall be turned into darkness;" James 4:9, "Let your laughter be turned into mourning." So in Sirach 11:31, "Turning good things into evil." Liddell and Scott (’Lexicon’) cite μεταστρέψας = "contrariwise," Plato, ’Gorg.,’ 456 E; ’Rep’ 587, D. In the phrase τὸεὐαγγέλιοντοῦΧριστοῦ, the addition of the genitive, "of Christ," with the twofold article, marks the words with a stately emphasis. It was no less than THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST that these men were tampering with. "The gospel of Christ" means here the gospel of which Christ is the Author, as in "the gospel of God" (Romans 1:1). and which he had sent forth his apostles to proclaim. The peculiar emphasis and the connection forbid our taking the genitive as denoting merely the subject-matter. Galatians 1:8 But though we (ἀλλὰκαὶἐὰνἡμεῖς); but even if we ourselves. This "but" (ἀλλὰ) is strongly adversative. What those disturbers of the believer’s peace would have been fain to do was a thing impossible. Heaven’s gospel could not be thus changed. And the attempt to thus change it, being in effect to fight against God, merited God’s curse. In the plural "we" the apostle intends principally his own self. A shrinking from unnecessary self-obtrusion, and tender respectful sympathy with his ministerial brethren, prompt him not unfrequently to veil his own individuality by associating in this way with himself those who were wont to share more or less in his evangelistic labours and sufferings, although in reality what he says may apply principally to himself and only in a very modified measure to them. A signal instance of this is furnished by that whole passage in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which begins with the fourth chapter and goes on down to the eleventh verse of the sixth. Nevertheless, we should in all such cases imperfectly represent the spirit of his words, if we were to substitute the singular pronoun "I." In the present instance individuals of the evangelizing party which were wont to accompany him had, no doubt, been fellow-workers with him also in Galatia, and are therefore hero inclusively referred to. Compare the plural and the singular verbs in the next verse. The introduction of this reference to himself and his fellow-workers, as well as that to "an angel from heaven," seems meant to make his readers feel that this was no question of distinguished personality, as if it mattered who it was that taught a different doctrine; whether (suppose) it were a James or a Cephas, for those revered names were often used to cloak the designs of Judaizers; or whether it was one of the Galatian Churchmen themselves especially looked up to (cf. Galatians 5:10 and note). An anathema was his due, whoever he might be. In the manner of its introduction we cannot fail to recognize an underlying consciousness on the writer’s part of the highly distinguished position which he himself held; but there is present the consciousness too that he was nothing more than the mere organ or channel of Christ’s teaching; from that teaching he himself may not swerve without justly incurring the "woe" which he told the Corinthians he should have to fear in case he preached not the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:16). Or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you (ἢἄγγελοςἐξοὐρανοῦεὐαγγελίζηταιὑμῖνπαρὃεὐηγγελισάμεθαὑμῖν); or if an angel from heaven should set himself to preach unto you a gospel other than that we preached unto you. The construction of the entire sentence displays in the Greek a broken character not quite so apparent in our Authorized Version. The verb "should preach a gospel" is in the singular number (εὐαγγελίζηται); neglecting the "we," it attaches itself to "an angel from heaven," which latter, as being the higher, absorbs the previously named subject altogether, standing as sole subject, both in the hypothetical clause and in the concluding one, "let him be anathema.’’ It is, of course, apparent that, if the sentence of anathema would in the supposed case be the only proper one to pronounce upon "an angel from heaven," it most certainly fastens upon any human being guilty of the same offence. The "angel from heaven" is like the "second man from heaven" in 1 Corinthians 15:47; the phrase," from heaven," denoting both coming down out of heaven and also the higher sphere of being to which the person spoken of appertains. Comp. also John 3:31, "He that is from earth … he that is from heaven." The force of the preposition παρὰ in εὐαγγελίζηταιπαρὃεὐηγγελισάμεθα may he illustrated by its use in 1 Corinthians 3:11, "Other foundation can no man lay than (παρὰ) that which is laid;" where it points to a new foundation, not to be by the side of, but to supersede, the former one. Taken thus, it would seem to follow up the before expressed notion of" another gospel" superseding, setting aside, the true gospel. This sense of the preposition readily passes on to that of "contrary to." which is profusely illustrated by Liddell and Scott (’Lexicon,’ in verb. παρά, c. I. 1 Corinthians 1:4, b), and which we have in Acts 18:13, "Worship God contrary to the Law [of Moses];" Romans 16:17," Causing the divisions … contrary to the doctrine which ye learned;" Romans 1:26, "use which is against nature." It cannot be doubted that the apostle is here thinking of a (pretended) gospel which was incompatible with the true one, and not of merely additional elements of Christian doctrine which should take their place alongside of those which they had already received. Additional information, we may be sure, was quite as necessary or desirable for the Galatians as it was for either the Corinthians or the "Hebrews;" neither of whom had as yet, as was intimated to them (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:1-20. l), been fed with "solid food," but only with "milk," and whom it behoved to "go on to fuller maturity" of knowledge. The point in the apostle’s view was this: what he had himself taught them was, so far, certainly true and to be depended upon, and could not without treason against Christ be set aside or superseded or essentially qualified; whereas the teaching which was now being foisted upon their previous convictions did infringe upon what he had taught them, seriously and even fundamentally. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ In the preceding chapter, St. Paul has been concerned to make clear the position that neither the gospel which he preached nor the commission which he held was derived from the older apostles- the history of the first years of his ministry showed this. The apostle is now addressing himself to a different subject; he wishes to show that his gospel, though not derived from the older apostles, had, however, while recognized as standing on an independent footing, received the sanction of their approval. This being his object, he had no occasion to refer in any way to visits which he may have made to Jerusalem between the one mentioned in Galatians 1:18 and the one here referred to. The tenor of his argument, therefore, so far, does not of itself determine whether this visit was either the one mentioned in Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25, or the one described in Acts 15:1-41., or possibly some other not recorded. That, however, it was in reality that of Act 15:1-41. rather than that of Act 11:1-30., 12., hardly admits of a doubt, if we compare the circumstances here related with those which marked the condition of Church affairs at Jerusalem on the two occasions severally as described by St. Luke. The imprisonment of St. Peter and the whole state of distress presented to us in Acts 12:1-25. make it well-nigh inconceivable that any such incidents should have then occurred as St. Paul here speaks of; while, on the other hand, the question agitated on the occasion described in Acts 15:1-41. corresponds precisely in character with the mutual relations here described as subsisting between St. Paul and the believers of the circumcision with their leaders. What St. Paul here relates fits in very naturally into the circumstances related in Acts 15:1-41., though the situation is looked at from different points of view. "I went up again," he says; not, "I went up a second time." The chapter falls into two sections. Of these, viewed in their leading purport, the first (Acts 15:1-10) exhibits the recognition formally accorded to St. Paul’s gospel and work by the highest authorities of the Church of the circumcision; the second (Acts 15:11-21) displays in a very stalking light the independence and co-ordinateness of his position when standing face to face with the very chiefest of the apostles. But while these seem to be their leading objects, we find the apostle weaving in, after his manner, trenchant references to other matters relevant to the main purpose of the Epistle, and even enlarging upon them. Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after (ἔπειταδιὰδεκατεσσάρωνῤῶν); then after a space of fourteen years. Beckoned from when? Many think from the visit mentioned in Galatians 1:18; others, from the time of his conversion. At first sight, the former seems the more obvious view; but fuller consideration determines for the latter. The apostle lays stress upon the interval being so long; as if it were, "It was not less than fourteen years after, that a conference took place between me and the older apostles relative to the gospel which I preach; during all which time I was preaching it on a footing independent of them." There appears no other motive than this for his specifying the number of years. This being so, the specification would naturally at once include the whole period during which he had been so engaged, and not leave it to the reader to add the two or three years which had elapsed before the visit mentioned Galatians 1:18. I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas (πάλινἀνέβηνεἰςἹεροσόλυμαμετὰΒαρνάβα). It is questionable whether this "again" covers the clause "with Barnabas," or not. We assume with confidence that this visit to Jerusalem is the one described in Acts 15:1-41. We know, therefore, that there had been at least one journey to Jerusalem previously taken by St. Paul in conjunction with Barnabas, viz. that of Act 11:1-30., 12. We know also that he had been in close association with Barnabas in that first visit to Jerusalem mentioned above in Galatians 1:18 (comp. Acts 9:27); it is very possible that they had then come up in company. Now, so affecting was the interest for St. Paul with which both these visits were fraught, the one on his own account, the ether on account of the distress then suffered by the Church, that we may feel certain that, in the careful review he is now taking of the past, both of them would most vividly recur to his recollection; so vividly that it is quite conceivable that he was writing to the Galatians of his "going again to Jerusalem with Barnabas," with allusion to those two former visits, though he has not before named Barnabas’s name in connection with that one which alone he has spoken of. If this view is not admitted, we must suppose a comma present after "Jerusalem" And took Titus with me also; or rather, perhaps, and took in our company also Titus (συμπαραλαβὼνκαὶΤίτον) The σὺν in συμπαραλαβὼν seems to allude to the others whom Paul and Barnabas, as mentioned in Acts 15:2, took with them on that journey. So also in Acts 12:25 and Acts 15:37; for in these two passages we are not to suppose that John Mark is named as being their sole companion, but rather that he is specified only in preparation for what has afterwards to be told concerning him. In Acts 15:39 παραλαβόντα without the σὺν simply indicates that Mark was with Barnabas, without reference to others who may or may not have been with them. The singular number of the participle, συμπαραλαβών, appears to indicate a certain footing of independent action which St. Paul had by this time gained for himself, even when viewed in relation to Barnabas: Paul himself attached Titus to the company, At any rate, it needs to be noted that St. Paul speaks of himself as simply "going up with Barnabas," not as "taking Barnabas with him;" for it would be a misconception alike of the import of the words before us, and of the relative position as yet outwardly obtaining in public action between the two men, to think of Paul as the leader and chief organizer of the accompanying party and of Barnabas as subordinate to him. The higher apostolate of Paul was at that time only in process of manifestation, not as yet fully realized in the Church (see Introduction, Dissertation II.). Nothing is known of the antecedents of Titus, save that he was a "Greek" (verse 3), both his parents apparently being Gentiles, and that St. Paul, in designating him in the Epistle addressed to him (Titus 1:4), as his "true child" (γνήστοντέκνον), seems to mark him out as a convert of his own; while the manner in which he is here named to the Galatians suggests the surmise that he was no stranger to themselves. The apostle may be supposed to have secured his being appointed by the Antiochian Church to be one of the deputation to Jerusalem, both that he might be a representative of the Church of the uncircumcision, and on account of his great moral fitness to take part in the delicate and critical business then on foot. About the time the apostle wrote this letter to the Galatians, he was much employed by him, being entrusted with missions, which, like that earlier one, required especial firmness and discretion tempered with truly Christian sentiment (of. 2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:6, 2 Corinthians 7:13-15; 2 Corinthians 8:16, 2 Corinthians 8:22; 2 Corinthians 12:18. See Mr. Phillott’s article on "Titus" in Smith’s ’Dictionary of the Bible’). Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation; or, and I went up in accordance with a revelation (ἀνέβηνδὲκατὰἀποκάλυτιν). The form of sentence in the Greek is similar to that(e.g.) in John 21:1; Romans 3:22; James 1:6: a word of the preceding context is taken up afresh for the purpose of being qualified or explained. Revelations were frequently made to the apostle, both to communicate important truths (Ephesians 3:3) and to direct or encourage his proceedings. They appear to have been made in different ways: as, through dreams or visions (Acts 16:9, Acts 16:10; Acts 18:9; Acts 22:18-21; Acts 27:23); through prophets (Acts 13:2; Acts 21:11); often, no doubt, through a strong impulse borne in upon his spirit, prompting him to, or debarring him from, some particular line of conduct (Acts 16:6, Acts 16:7). The journey now in question being that recorded by St. Luke (Acts 15:1-41., init.), we have to observe that St. Luke ascribes his going to a decision come to by the brethren at Antioch (Acts 15:2). But there is no discrepancy here. It is an obvious supposition, that the apostle, taking into consideration, perhaps, the prejudice entertained against him at Jerusalem, not only, as Christ had himself intimated to him, by the unbelieving Jews (Acts 22:18), but, as James later on confessed, by even the members of the Church itself (Acts 21:21; comp. on both points, Romans 16:1-27:31), felt at first some hesitation in accepting the commission; was he by going likely to forward their views?—but that his hesitation was overruled by Christ himself, who in some way revealed to him that it was his will that he should go. Similarly, when visiting Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion, his hasty departure from the city is attributed by St. Luke to the care of the disciples for his safety (Acts 9:25); whereas St. Paul, in his speech from the stairs, ascribes it to a" trance," in which the Lord appearing to him bade him to depart thence without delay (Acts 22:17, Acts 22:21) The two accounts in each instance are mutually supplementary, the one viewing the case historically from the outside, the other as an autobiographical reminiscence from within. The apostle’s reason for thus pointedly mentioning the especial direction under which he took this journey, had evidently reference to its being the design of Christ, that thereby, together with other objects to be subserved by it, the doctrine and ministerial work of Paul should be sealed with the recognition of his first apostles and of his earliest Church—a result of prime necessity for the prosperous development of the whole Church; more important, perhaps, than even its more ostensible result as described by St. Luke. And communicated unto them (καὶἀνεθέμηναὐτοῖς); and I laid before them. The verb occurs in the New Testament besides only in Acts 25:14, where it means simply giving the king an account of Paul’s case with the view apparently of getting his opinion upon it. In the present case St. Paul stated his doctrine to the persons referred to, with the view likewise of seeing what they would say; but certainly not with any intention of having it modified by their suggestions (cf. the use of ἀνέθετο in 2 Macc. 3:9, which presents a curiously similar conjunction of particulars). By them, i.e. those there, are obviously meant, not the inhabitants in general, but the Christians of the place, though not immediately before mentioned. We have the like use of the pronoun in Acts 20:2; 2 Corinthians 2:13. That gospel which I preach (τὸεὐαγγέλιονὃκηρύσσω). The present tense of the verb points to the whole period of his ministry up to the time at which he was writing. It is implied that his teaching had been the same all along. Elsewhere he styles it "my gospel" (Romans 2:16; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8). Among the Gentiles (ἐντοῖςἔθνεσι); alluding to the complexion of his doctrine as bearing upon the acceptance of Gentiles before God simply upon their faith in Christ (cf. Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 3:6, Ephesians 3:8). But privately (κατ̓ἰδίανδέ). The phrase, κατ̓ἰδίαν, occurs sixteen times besides in the New Testament, always in the sense of privately, apart. To them which were of reputation (τοῖςδοκοῦσι); them who were of repute; men eminent in repute and position. The phrase, οἱδοκοῦντες, was used in this sense both in classical Greek and in the later "common dialect". There is no reason to suppose that there is any tone of disparagement in the phrase, as if the persons spoken of "seemed" to be more than they really were. The apostle repeats this participle thrice in the following context—once (2 Corinthians 2:6), as here, absolutely; and twice (2 Corinthians 2:6, 2 Corinthians 2:9) with an infinitive. This harping upon δοκοῦντες suggests a surmise that St. Paul’s gainsayers in Galatia had been fond of using the expression to designate the persons referred to in disparagement of himself as a man comparatively of no mark. Compare the almost mocking reiteration of "superlatively chief apostles," in 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 2 Corinthians 11:12. l 1, referring to "pseudo-apostles." In order to determine who were the persons the apostle thus distinguishes, we naturally refer to St. Luke’s account of the circumstances. St. Luke, then, seems to speak of three several meetings held on this occasion. The first (in verse 4) when Paul and Barnabas with their fellow-deputies, were "received by the Church and the apostles and the elders;" when "they [Paul and Barnabas] declared what great things God had done in co-operation with them." It cannot have been then that St. Paul gave this exposition of his gospel. But certain of the Pharisees who had joined the Church began loudly to insist upon the necessity of Gentile converts being circumcised and conforming to the Law. Whether it was at this first meeting itself that this took place, or subsequently, at all events "the apostles and the elders" judged it to be undesirable that the matter should be further discussed in so large an assemblage of the circumcision, before, in the calmer atmosphere of a private conference, they had themselves considered what course it would be best to adopt. Accordingly, St. Luke tells us (verse 6), "the apostles and the elders came together to see about this matter." "After much discussion had taken place," which upon a question so closely touching the Jew’s national sensibilities must even in this more select body have been fraught with no ordinary excitement, the rising passions of controversy were stilled by Peter; he recalled the story of Cornelius, and founding thereupon, he warned his hearers, that by imposing, as many perhaps even of those then present were wishful to do, the intolerable yoke of Mosaism upon the neck of the Gentile disciples, they ran the risk of contravening and provoking God; for after all (he significantly reminded them), their own hope of salvation, as well as the hope of Gentile believers, was that they would be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus. Thereupon the "whole company" (πλῆθος, in verse 12, is used by St. Luke in the same way as in his Gospel (Luke 23:1) when speaking of the Sanhedrin; the eldership of the very large Church of Jerusalem must of itself, without the doubtful addition of elders from Judaean towns, have formed a considerable body) listened with hushed and respectful attention to Paul and Barnabas, while they gave a detailed account of what great signs and wonders God had wrought amongst the Gentiles through them. After this, upon James’s proposition, "the apostles and the elders" came to the resolution that, in conjunction with the whole Church, they would choose and depute certain members of their community to convey to the Gentile brethren a certain letter, which very probably (cf. as to diction, verses 17, 23, with James 2:7; James 1:1) James himself, as presiding in their meeting, with the concurrence of the apostles and the elders, drew up. The words," with the whole Church," coming in here for the first time since verse 4, indicate a third meeting, in which the general body of believers was prevailed upon to concur in the measures before agreed upon in the second more private meeting. According to the more approved reading of verse 23 (omitting the καὶ before ἀδελφοί), the letter issues from "the apostles and the elder brethren" alone, as these also were the persons with whom (verse 2) the deputation from Antioch had been sent to confer. Now, upon the review of all the circumstances as now stated, the second of these three meetings would seem to have presented just such an opportunity as would suit the design which St. Paul had frowned, of expounding his teaching to the leading spirits in Jerusalem. When he and Barnabas were relating those signs and wonders by which the seal of Divine sanction had been put upon their ministry among the Gentiles, it was natural that Paul, here no doubt, as generally "the chief speaker," should tell their hearers with the utmost distinctness what that teaching was which Heaven had thus ratified; most especially that part of it which was so directly relevant to the practical question which was then in debate, and which is so emphatically set forth in the Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans—to wit, that all who believe in Christ are justified and have full peace and sonship with God without any works of Mosaical ceremonialism. This was precisely "the gospel" which here (verse. 2) he speaks of as "preached by him among the Gentiles" "The apostles and the elders" answer perfectly to the description of οἱδοκοῦντες. For there is no reason for supposing that the οἱδοκοῦντες of verses 2 and 6, or the οἱδοκοῦντεςεἶναίτι of verse 6, represent exactly the same persons as the οἱδοκοῦντεςστύλοιεἶναι of verse 9. These last are to be conceived of rather as representative of those larger bodies of men recited in tile former three references—"James" representing the elders (for the present writer makes no question but that this James "the Lord’s brother" was the presiding officer or Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, and not one of the twelve apostles), and "Cephas and John" representing the twelve, who may be believed to have been all of them at Jerusalem at this time, though these two, certainly the leading ones, are the only ones whose names there happened to be occasion for specifying. Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain (μήπωςεἰςκενὸντρέχωἢἔδραμον). The comparison of 1 Thessalonians 3:5 (μήπωςἐπείρασενὑμᾶςὁπειρὰζωνκαὶεἰςκενὸνγένηταιὁκόποςἡμῶν) shows that τρέχω is the subjunctive. The present tense, lest I should be running, points to the time of which he is writing and the time onward therefrom. In classical Greek it would have been τρέχοιμι. The use of the verb τρέχω, "run," "rush on," a favourite word with the apostle, well characterizes the zealous forward, speeding manner of his activity. "In vain;" to an empty result; for no good. He intimates that there had been a danger lest the fruits of his earnest work among the Gentiles, might through some cause get wrecked. That this is what he means is clear from 1 Thessalonians 3:5 just cited; and not that there had been any fear lest he might himself have been somehow mistaking his way; most especially, not lest he had been at all mistaken in the doctrine which he taught, a thing which he does not for one moment imagine. His work would have been in danger of being spoilt if the Gentile Churches as planted by himself had been disowned or discountenanced by the mother Church, or if they had got split up into factious parties by the intervention, e.g. of persons coming "from James," telling them that they were not in a state of salvation. To guard against this danger, he was led by Christ himself to seek a formal recognition of his doctrine by the apostles and the elders of the Jerusalemite Church, and through them by that Church itself. As the rank-and-file of the Jewish believers at Jerusalem were even bigotedly attached to the Mosaic Law, and also regarded St. Paul himself with great suspicion, he might very easily have failed of gaining the recognition he required, if he had at once brought the matter before the general body. If their spiritual leaders had not first come forward in the cause of truth, it was but too probable that some fanatical Mosaists would have gained the ear of the multitude, and hurried them away in a course of headlong opposition to Paul and his teaching, from which it might have been very difficult afterwards to recall them. Galatians 2:3 But ); and yet. "Though I explicitly stated to the leading men in the Church of Jerusalem what I taught respecting the relation of Gentile converts to circumcision and the Mosaic Law, yet in the end they, by their support, enabled us to withstand the pressure which was for a while applied for getting Titus circumcised.’’ Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (οὐδὲΤίτοςὁσὺνἐμοίἝλληνὢνἠναγκάσθηπεριτμηθῆναι); not even was Titus who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised. This, St. Paul intimates, was a crucial case. Titus was a Gentile pure; not (like Timothy) having one parent of Jewish extraction and therefore capable of being identified with the Jewish people, but Gentile-born of both parents. The clause, ’"who was with me," after verse 1, was quite unnecessary for mere definition; in fact, it is not added for definition, but to mark the close association with an uncircumcised Gentile which the apostle openly displayed at Jerusalem. He took him with him, we may suppose, when he came before the Church at its public assemblies; when he appeared before the select meeting of the apostles and elders; when he joined the brethren in the agapae and the Lord’s Supper—occasions of fraternal communion, in which the presence of a "dog," "an uncircumcised Greek," would be tenfold obnoxious. We cannot, by the way, but marvel at St. Paul’s great courage in thus acting. Not only was this paraded fellowship with Titus sure to give deep offence to the vast majority of his Christian brethren, but it might also well expose him to serious personal risks among the highly inflammable populace of the city. At Jerusalem his "soul was among lions." The two clauses, "who was with me, being a Greek," illustrate the "not even." Openly displayed as was Titus’s companionship with St. Paul before the eyes of all the Jews, both believers and unbelievers,and Gentile as he was known to be, yet not even in his case was circumcision persistently insisted upon. The aorist tense of ἠναγκάσθη is significant of the ultimate result; it implies that an attempt was made to get Titus to submit to the rite, but failed. We must observe that St. Paul does not write,"I was not compelled to circumcise Titus," but "Titus was not compelled to be circumcised." This appears to make a material difference. By putting it as he has done, the apostle intimates that it was to Titus himself that the pressure was applied. Titus was plied, we may suppose, with theological argument, with appeals to his brotherly sympathies, with appeals to his prudent care for public peace, with threats of social and religious excommunication, and with stern, indignant remonstrance. But sustained, as he all through knew himself to be, by at least St, Paul, if not also by his fellow-deputies, he through it all maintained his firm stand upon his liberty. The "we" of the εἴχαμεν in verse 5, no doubt, includes at least Titus. The question, however, arises—Who were they that for a while endeavoured to force circumcision upon Titus? The converts from the sect of the Pharisees, mentioned by St. Luke (Acts 15:5), are naturally the first to occur to our minds. But the moulding of the sentence in the next verse discountenances this solution. We cannot help identifying the "false brethren" there spoken of with just those very Pharisean converts—men who had simply thrown the cloak of professed Christian discipleship over the old Pharisean legalism still wholly clung to. But if we suppose this, we cannot imagine that the writer would have said that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised "by reason of those false brethren," if these had been the very persons alluded to as having tried to compel him. It is more probable that the persons alluded to were certain influential members of the Jewish Church, with a strong body, perhaps, of the elders of that Church, having possibly the concurrence even of James and of Cephas. James and the elders, on a later occasion (Acts 21:18-26), urged Paul himself to undertake the performance of certain Mosaical observances, with the view of conciliating the believers of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, quite supposable, at this earlier and as yet immature stage in the development of the practical application of the evangelical doctrine, that Titus was now being dealt with in a somewhat similar manner. But whoever they were that were doing it, it is plain that, in effect, they were working towards the same practical result as the most eager of the Mosaist legalists, only by a different mode of approach. Titus in particular was fastened upon for this assault, apparently because St. Paul had brought him with him as a crucial instance whereupon to try the general question. Galatians 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in (διὰδὲτοὺςπαρεισάκτουςψευδαδέλφους); and that because of the false brethren without warrant brought in. The conjunction δὲ often is not adversative, but only introduces a fresh thought of a qualifying or explanatory character (comp. ἀνέβηνδὲ and κατἰδίαμδὲ of Galatians 2:2). The rendering of our English Version represents the connection with the preceding sentence quite correctly. The designation, "false brethren," after the analogy of "false apostles," "false prophets" (ψευδαπόστολοι, ψευδοπροφῆται, 2 Corinthians 11:13; 2 Peter 2:1), were those who were not really brethren in Christ, but had superinduced the profession of such over a state of mind radically incompatible with it; not children of God through faith in Christ Jesus," but only simulating faith in Christ; outwardly "baptized into Christ," but not inwardly, and therefore not really. The loud demand which those false brethren were making, that all Gentile converts should be circumcised, was distinctly rested by them upon the principle that otherwise those converts were not qualified for sonship in God’s family or for admission to Church fellowship with, at any rate, the believing circumcision. This demand of theirs, made upon this pernicious principle, it was that had raised the present controversy, and had brought Paul and his fellow-deputies to Jerusalem. If, under such circumstances, Titus, with St. Paul’s concurrence, had consented to be circumcised, then, whatever the motive of his consenting, it would have seemed to those false brethren, and not to them only, but indeed to the Church at large, that all had agreed in recognizing the soundness of that principle of theirs that circumcision was indispensable for perfect Divine acceptance. This consideration, we may believe, Titus and St. Paul now urged upon those who, not themselves alleging that principle, nor even allowing it to be true, yet, on other grounds, were recommending and pressing for Titus’s circumcision. And the argument prevailed with them. They withdrew that pressure of theirs, and consented to leave Titus to stand there before the Church and the world, a claimant of full admission to all Christian fellowship while still in uncircumcision. It was those false brethren themselves, then, that made it impossible at the present juncture that those who held fast to the truth of the gospel should accept counsels of compromise or conciliation. In matters of indifference (ἀδιάφορα) there is a time for conciliation—this no one could ever be more ready to see and act upon than St. Paul; but there is also a time for the unbending assertion of truth, and the clamours of the false brethren made the present to be one of the latter kind. In that particular juncture of Church development, the doctrine itself of the absolute justification of men through faith in Christ was at stake. If Titus was not qualified for Christian fellowship by simply his faith in Christ, then neither was he qualified for acceptance with God by simply his faith. Without warrant brought in. In the compound verbal παρεισάκτους, the preposition παρὰ, appears to point, not so much to the manner in which they had been brought in, as e.g. stealthily, craftily, as to the circumstance that they had no business to be brought in at all; they were an alien brood. The Greek glosselogists, Hesychius, Photius, and Suidas, render it ἀλλότριος, i.e. alien. In 2 Peter 1:1, παρεισάξουσιναἱρέσειςἀπωλείας, reference is made to the alien character of the teaching spoken of. The apostle’s feeling is that men who do not accept the truth that through faith in Christ we are justified, and through faith only, have no proper place in the Church of Christ (comp. Galatians 5:4, Galatians 5:5). If the question be asked—Who brought them in? the parable of the tares suggests the answer—The devil. Who came in privily (οἵτινεςπαρεισῆλθον); a set of men who without warrant came in. The preposition παρὰ in the verb has the same force as it has in παρεισάκτους. So also in παριεσέδυσαν (Jude 1:4). To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus (κατασκοπῆσαιτὴνἐλευθερίανἡμῶνἣνἔχομενἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ); to spy out that liberty of ours which, etc. These men had come into the Church prepared to detect and to regard with the keenest dislike anything, either in doctrine or in Church action, which would infringe upon their own legalism, and to wage war upon it. For this notion of hostile intent is strongly suggested by the verb "to spy out" (cf. 2 Kings 10:3; 1 Chronicles 19:3; and κατασκοπεῦσαι in Joshua 2:2). The infinitive (of purpose), viewed in reference to the men themselves, can be understood only of their disposed-ness to make this use of their membership; for they can hardly be supposed to have entered into the Church for that definite object; but the apostle views them as emissaries of the great enemy; Satan’s design thus to wage war with our gospel liberty is by a bold figure ascribed in this infinitive to his instruments. This liberty means the whole spirit of freedom which faith in Christ imparts to the Christian, including, for one thing, his emancipation from the yoke of ceremonialism, but containing also more. That they might bring us into bondage (ἵναἡμᾶςκαταδουλῶσουσιν [Receptus, καταδουλώσωνται], The reading of six of the uncial manuscripts is καταδουλώσουσιν; of three, σωσιν; of one, -σωνται. The variation in the mood of the verb is immaterial; for the construction of ἵνα (of purpose) with an indicative, though strange to the eye of the student of classical Greek, is not foreign to the writers of the New Testament; but the variation in the voice affects the sense. Καταδουλώσωνται would mean "bring into bondage to themselves," which most probably is not the writer’s meaning; he apparently means:rather, "deprive us of our liberty by enslaving us to the Law" (cf. ch. 4:25; 5:1). The simple verb δουλόω, occurs repeatedly; the compound καταδουλόω here and in 2 Corinthians 11:20, intensifies the sense: degrade us into slavery. Galatians 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour (οἷςοὐδὲπρὸςὥρανεἴξαμεν) To whom; i.e. to the false brethren; not the persons immediately referred to in Galatians 2:3 as seeking to compel Titus to be circumcised. These last used advice and persuasion; the false brethren demanded with clamour (δεῖ, Acts 15:5). The phrase rendered for an hour occurs also John 5:35; 2 Corinthians 7:8; Phmon 2 Corinthians 1:15. There seems to be an underlying allusion to those occasions on which the apostle did, as he says, "to the Jews become as a Jew, to the weak, weak" (1 Corinthians 9:20, 1 Corinthians 9:22); but this he would not do when dealing with false brethren, whose aim was in effect to turn gospel freedom into legal slavery. We; I, Barnabas, Titus. The words οἶςοὐδὲ most certainly belong to the original text. Not merely does only one uncial manuscript omit them, but their omission would leave behind a sentence self-convicted of absurdity. For it would run thus: "But because of the false brethren without warrant brought in, a set of men who without warrant came in to spy out our liberty, that they might degrade us into slavery, we yielded for a season with subjection, that the truth of the gospel might lastingly abide with you;"—yielded, i.e. by circumcising Titus; for this is what this reading most probably supposes St. Paul to have done. In this sentence the vituperative description of the false brethren, so extended and so intensely emphatic, instead of being an implied argument in favour of the course of action which the apostle states he adopted, namely, concession to those men, both lacks all motive for its introduction here, and works wholly in favour of the opposite course, of resistance to their wishes. The only suitable and logical description of those for whose sake the concession would have been made would have been that they were brethren meaning well, but weak in the faith, who should, by concession for a season, be won over to more perfect accord with the gospel. By subjection (τῇὑποταγῇ): in the way of subjection. As ὑποταγὴ In the other passages in which it occurs means the habit or spirit of subjection, and never an act of submission (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:13;! Timothy 2 Corinthians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 3:4), it probably denotes here subjection of spirit to those who were so authoritatively laying upon us their injunctions, tie might give way in a point of this kind in a spirit of brotherly concession; but he would bow to no man’s imperative injunction. The article before ὑποταγῇ is the article before an abstract noun, as in τῆςἀγάπης (Galatians 5:13); τῇἐλαφρίᾳ (2 Corinthians 1:17). That the truth of the gospel (ἵναἡἀλήθειατοῦεὐαγγελίου). The truth, the sure unadulterated doctrine, which is embodied in the gospel, and is its very hinge and substance. The same phrase is found in Colossians 1:5. The "truth" is that enunciated in Colossians 1:16, and that it is the very essence of the gospel is declared Romans 1:17. The refusal of Church fellowship to a believer of this gospel except he were circumcised, by just inference vitiated and, indeed, nullified the truth that faith in Christ is the sole and sufficient ground of justification. Might continue with you (διαμείνῃπρὸςὑμᾶς). Might never cease to have its home with you, to be believingly entertained by you. Διαμένω is an intensified form of μένω. The preposition πρὸς is used as in Galatians 1:18, where see note. It is possible that, as Alford observes, the Galatians may not specially have been in St. Paul’s mind at that time, but only the Gentile Churches in general; and that for greater impressiveness he applies to the particular what was only shared by it in the general. It is, however, supposable that the eases of the several Churches which he had then lately founded with Barnabas were much in his thoughts at that time; for, as is shown by his numerous references to his specific intercessory prayer, his spirit was incessantly conversant with "all the Churches" (2 Corinthians 11:28); and he was anxiously cognizant of efforts made from the very first by legalizing Christians to pervert their faith. It is not certain that Acts 16:6 records the first occasion of his visiting the "Galatic country;" he may have been there and founded "the Churches of Galatia" before the occurrences described in Acts 15:1-41.; and the opinion is even held by many that Iconium and Derbe, belonging to the Roman province of Galatia, were two of "the Churches of Galatia". Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat (ἀπὸδὲτῶνδοκούντωνεἶναίτι); now from those who were reputed to be somewhat. The conjunction δὲ does not seem to be adversative here, but simply introductory of a new particular. The writer is about to introduce, which he does in the next five verses (6-10), a fresh illustration of the independent position, which in point both of doctrine and of ministerial footing he held in relation to the first apostles and to the heads of the Jerusalemite Church, and at the same time of the full recognition which in both respects these had accorded to him. The construction of this sentence, as it proceeds, is interrupted and changed. When St. Paul wrote, from those who were reputed to be somewhat, he would seem to have meant to add, "I received nothing fresh either in knowledge of the gospel or in authority as Christ’s minister," or some-tiring to that effect; but in his indignant parenthesis asserting his independence with respect to those whom his gainsayers in Galatia would seem to have pronounced his superiors, both in knowledge and in office, he loses sight of the beginning of the sentence, and begins it afresh in another form with the words (ἐμοὶγὰροἱδοκοῦντες), for they who were of repute, etc. Reputed to be somewhat; that is, thought highly of. The phrase is of frequent occurrence, both in Greek and in Latin authors. It is obvious that he refers to the twelve and the leaders of the mother Church of Jerusalem. Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me (ὁποῖοίποτεἦσανοὐδένμοιδιαφέρει); of what sort they at any time were maketh no matter to me. The ὁποῖοι (of what sort) is suggested by the preceding τι (somewhat), and the ἦσαν (they were) by the δοκούντων (reputed); from those reputed to be somewhat whatever they really were. The comparison of the usage of ὁποῖος in other passages (Acts 26:29; 1 Corinthians 3:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; James 1:24) hardly favours the specific interpretation, "how great." In respect to the ποτέ, in a classical author, as Bishop Light foot observes, we should have no hesitation in taking it as equivalent to cunque. But the word occurs in the New Testament in thirty-one ether places, and in not one is it cunque, but always the adverb of time, either "sometime," "in time past," as above, Galatians 1:13, Galatians 1:23; John 9:13; or "any time," as 1 Corinthians 9:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:5. The latter shade of meaning seems the more appropriate here. The any time, though not to be limited to, would, however, cover the time when the twelve were in personal attendance upon our Lord—a circumstance which St. Paul’s detractors were no doubt wont to hold up as a mark of distinction not possessed by him. It seems best to take of what sort as dependent upon the following words, maketh no matter to me. This last clause is not exactly equivalent to "I care not," as if it were an almost supercilious waving aside of the consideration; it is rather a grave assertion of a matter of fact. Whatever were the gifts of knowledge and spiritual insight which the twelve or other heads of the Jerusalemite Church possessed, or whatever their ministerial privileges or authority, whether derived from personal intercourse with the Lord Jesus when upon earth or in any other way, Paul’s knowledge of the gospel and Paul’s apostolic authority were neither of them at all affected by them. Now, at the time that he is writing this Epistle, he was just the same in respect to the possession of the essential truth of the gospel and to his apostolic authority as if he had had no intercourse with the spiritual rulers of the Jewish Church. God accepteth no man’s person (πρόσωπονΘεὸςἀνθρώπουοὐλαμβάνει). The order of the words in the Greek throws especial emphasis upon "person:" person of man God accepteth not; that is, it is never on account of his person that God accepteth a man. This phrase, "accept a man’s person," is of frequent occurrence in the Bible. In the New Testament it is always used in a bad sense, which in the Old is by no means the case. This difference is due, as Bishop Lightfoot observes, to the secondary sense of actor’s mask attaching to the Greek noun, the actor on the Greek stage, as also on the Roman, being wont to wear a mask suited to the character in which he appeared; whence also πρόσωπον got to signify this character itself. The corresponding technical term among the Romans was persona, a word never used of the natural face, as πρόσωπον was. This explains the adoption of this last term in its Anglicized form by our English translators in the phrase now before us. With the like metaphorical application of the idea as that which was so common among the Romans, the word "person" seemed well fitted to denote the part, or certain accessories of the part, which a man plays on the stage, so to speak, of human life, in contradistinction to his more interior and essential character. The phrase denotes accepting a man, for example, for his worldly rank or position, for his office, for his nationality, even for his Church status (see James 2:1, James 2:9; Acts 10:34; 1 Peter 1:17). The special adjuncts of a man’s person referred to in the present passage are those of the outward call aforetime to be apostles and personal attendants upon the Lord Jesus while upon earth, and, in the case of St. James the Lord’s brother, personal relationship to him. And St. Paul means to intimate that his knowledge of Divine truth and his ministerial fidelity and efficiency might be as real and as great, if God’s will were so, as the knowledge and ministerial fidelity and efficiency of the twelve and St. James, whom his gainsayers were honouring so far above him merely for their person’s sake. God made no such difference between him and them, but wrought with him just as much. For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me (ἐμοὶγὰροἱδοκοῦντεςοὐδὲνπροσανέθεντο); for to me they who were of repute in conference added nothing. The verb προσανέθεντο, as it stands here, appears related to the ἀνεθέμην of verse 2. I laid before them my gospel; they imparted to me nothing fresh (πρός). Thus Chrysostom and Theodoret. In Galatians 1:16, where the same verb occurs (see note), there is nothing to accentuate the πρός, as there is here. The "for" appears related to the foregoing clause. That God does not respect man for his person was evidenced by the fact that Paul’s knowledge of the gospel was already so complete and his work was so honoured by God, that those whose person seemed to many so markedly superior to his, found that all they had to do was to frankly recognize his teaching as already adequate and complete, and his work as standing on a perfectly equal footing with their own. Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise (ἀλλὰτοὐναντίον)l as 2 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Peter 3:9. This "contrariwise" is illustrated by the foregoing note. When they saw (ἰδόντες); when they got to see. This implies that the fact was new to them. A few of them, no doubt, were apprised of it previously, Cephas in particular (see Galatians 1:18 and note); but the majority of that assemblage of apostles and elders knew Paul chiefly by hearsay, and hearsay not always the most friendly to him. The three named in the next verse are to be conceived of as acting as they did in order to give expression to this newly awakened feeling of the general body, and not merely to their own individual judgment. That the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter (ὅτιπεπίστευμαιτὸεὐαγγέλιοντῆςἀκροβυστίαςκαθὼςΠέτροβτῆςπεριτομῆς); that I had been put in trust of the gospel … as Peter of that of, etc. The perfect present πεπίστευμαι, viewed from the time of their seeing it. So the present ὀρθοποδοῦσιν in 1 Peter 3:14, and μέναι in John 1:40. The perfect is used anti not the aorist (cf. Romans 3:2), as marking the then still continuing holding of the trust, and also perhaps, as implying the con-tinning identity of the doctrine preached. Gospel of the uncircumcision. The word "gospel" is frequently used by St. Paul to denote, not so much the substance of its doctrine as the business of proclaiming it (comp. Romans 1:1, Romans 1:9; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 9:14, 1 Corinthians 9:18; 2 Corinthians 2:12); and thus the gospel of the uncircumcision does not indicate any diversity in the doctrine communicated to the uncircumcision from that communicatcd to the Jews, but simply a diversity in the sphere of its proclamation. Ἀκροβυστία denotes the class of the uncircumcised in contrast to περιτομή, that of the circumcised, as in Romans 3:30. As Peter of that of the circumcision. This distinction between the spheres of work entrusted severally to the two apostles held good of them only as viewed in the main in either case; for as St. Peter was, in fact, the first who opened the gospel to the Gentiles, and afterwards, towards the close of Iris work, cared for the welfare of Gentile Christians by writing his two Epistles to them, so also St. Paul everywhere in his ministerial work addressed himself in the first instance to the Jews. Nevertheless, in the main, Peter was the head of the Church of the circumcised, Paul of that of the uncircumcised. But how completely the substance of Peter’s doctrine was one with that of Paul’s is strikingly evinced by his two Epistles (see 1 Peter 5:12). It is difficult to feel that St. Paul could have written as he here does, if he was aware that St. Peter had been constituted by the Lord Jesus to be his own vicar upon earth, supreme over the whole Church and all its ministers. Galatians 2:8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (ὁγὰρἐνεργήσαςΠέτρῳεἰςἀποστολὴντῆςπεριτομῆς); he that had wrought on Peter’s behalf for apostleship of the circumcision. In form, the sentence is an absolute statement of fact; but its bearing in the context would be fairly represented by rendering it relatively, "for that he who," etc.; for it was the perception of the fact here stated which led that assembly to the conviction that Paul had been entrusted with the apostleship of the uncircumcision. The dative Πέτρῳ can scarcely be governed, as the Authorized Version presupposes, by the preposition in ἐνεργήσας, this verb not being a separable compound; it is rather the dativus commodi, as in Proverbs 31:12, Ἐνεργεῖτῷἀνδρὶεἰςἀγαθά. When operation in a subject is meant, the preposition ἐν is added, as Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:2; Galatians 3:5. The worker is God, not Christ. God wrought on Peter’s behalf for apostleship of the circumcision; that is, towards, in furtherance of, his work as their apostle, by constituting him their apostle, by making his ministry effectual in turning their hearts to Christ, and by miracles wrought by his hands, including the impartation through him of miraculous gifts to his converts; for such were "the signs of the apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12). The same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (ἐνήργησεκαὶἐμοὶεἰςτὰἔθνη); had wrought also on my behalf towards the Gentiles. Comp. Acts 15:12, "They hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought (ἐποίησεν) among the Gentiles by them;" where likewise, as here, the aorist tense is used of action they were then looking back upon as past. The absence of Barnabas’s name in this verse, though mentioned in the next, is significant. Barnabas was not an apostle in that highest sense of the term in which Paul was an apostle, and which alone he is now thinking of; although he was associated with Paul, both in ministerial work and in that lower form of apostleship which beth had received from men (comp. Acts 14:4, Acts 14:14; and Dissertation I. in the Introduction). Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me (καὶγνόντεςτὴνχάριντὴνδοθεῖσάνμοιἸάκωβοςκαὶΚηφᾶςκαὶἸωάννηςοἱδοκοῦντεςστύλοιεἶναι); and perceiving of a certainty the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars (gave). This is the order in which the words stand in the Greek, in which the participle γνόντες ("perceiving of a certainty") stands co-ordinate with the participle ἰδόντες ("when they saw") of verse 7, so that this latter participle has "James, Cephas, and John" for its subject equally with the former, and verses 7 and 9 appear as forming one sentence. The expression, "the grace that was given unto me," occurs also 1 Corinthians 3:10; Romans 12:3; Romans 15:15; in which passages, as well as here, it is used with a definite reference to the office of apostle having been conferred upon him together with the qualification and aid for its efficient discharge. This definite reference to a heavenly gift connected with his official character is prominent in the apostle’s use of the word "grace," also in Romans 1:5; 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 12:9. The "grace that was given unto him," therefore, sums up the facts of his having been put in trust of the gospel of the uncircumcision, and of God’s having wrought on his behalf in his discharge of that trust, which are presented in the two preceding verses. There is not much difference in the meaning of the participle γνόντες in this verse as compared with the participle ἰδόντες in 2 Corinthians 12:7; for as we find the verb "seeing" used with reference to objects not discernible by the bodily sense but perceived only through the medium of evidencing facts, as in 2 Corinthians 12:14 of this chapter, and in Luke 9:47; Luke 17:14; Matthew 9:2; Acts 11:23; Acts 14:9; Acts 16:19; so also the verb ἔγνων is sometimes used of perceiving, becoming apprised of, some fact, as Mark 6:38; Mark 8:17; Luke 9:11; John 12:9, when there is no clear intention of emphasizing the idea of certain knowledge. Sometimes, however, it seems as if the writer had such intention, as in Mark 8:17; Mark 15:45; Luke 8:46; Philippians 2:19; and probably it was in this more emphatic sense that the apostle here substituted "knowing" for the foregoing "seeing." "James, and Cephas, and John." This James is, no doubt, the same James as appears in Acts 15:1-41. holding so prominent and apparently presidential a position in the great meeting of Act 15:6-21. The "James" of the old triumvirate of the Gospels, "Peter, James, and John," was now no more. This James, whose personality has been discussed above in note on Galatians 1:19, is named first, before even Cephas and John, though not an apostle, as being the leading "elder" (bishop, as such a functionary soon got to be designated) of the Church of Jerusalem; for in the classification of the component members of that meeting in Acts 15:6, "the apostles and the elders," James must be assigned to the latter category. The twelve had no distinctive official connection with this particular Church more than with other Churches; and, therefore, in meetings held at Jerusalem, the presidential position would naturally be conceded, not to any one of the apostles, but to the man who was statedly recognized as the superior "elder" of this particular community. St. John’s name is not mentioned in Acts 15:1-41; but in other places in St. Luke’s history "Peter and John" are found acting in conjunction, and this in such a manner as to betoken their holding a very prominent place among the apostles (Acts 3:1; Acts 4:13; Acts 8:14). The reason why these three are named, and none but these, is probably that on the occasion referred to these three alone—James as on behalf of the Church of Jerusalem, and Peter and John as on behalf of the twelve—stepped forward at the general request before the meeting, and formally all three clasped hands with Paul and Barnabas in token of their recognizing and ratifying their doctrine and ministry. In reference to the name "Cephas,’ it may be observed that St. Paul finds occasion to name this apostle nine times; in seven of these he writes, according to the best manuscripts, "Cephas’ (1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:9,Galatians 2:14); in two, "Peter" (Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:8). The Judaizers in the Church, whether at Corinth or in Galatia, in their morbid hankering after whatever was distinctively Jewish, were sure to affect the use of the Hebraic form; on which account, probably, St. Paul, in dealing with these men, is seen so frequently using this form himself. Those reputed to be pillars. The apostle’s object in adding this clause is apparently, to indicate why these three, rather than any others, represented the rest in this act of formal proceeding, and at the same time to intimate to his Galatian readers the supreme character of the attestation thus afforded, both to that gospel of his which certain among the Galatians were now tampering with, and to his official character which those same persons were beginning to disparage. "Pillars." The apostle, years after, in writing to Timothy, speaks of its being the proper function of "the Church of the living God" that she should be "a pillar and settled basis (ἑδραίωμα) of the truth," i.e. upholding the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). This suggests to us his meaning in using the same figure here. Those three men were by general consent looked up to as especially steadfast upholders of the truth of the gospel or of the Christian cause. In Revelation 3:12 the "pillar" seems thought of, not so much as upholding a superstructure as of something itself stationary, and also, perhaps, beautiful and glorious. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians (§ 5), borrows the phrase with a more extensive application. The idea couched in the word "Cephas," rock, is so nearly identical with that of "settled basis," that the like affinity of ideas as led the apostle to connect "pillar" with the latter term in 1 Timothy 3:15 may be supposed to have led him now to connect "pillar" with "Cephas" and his two illustrious brethren. They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship (δεξίαςἔδωκανἐμοὶκαὶΒαρνάβακοινωνίας); they each of them clasped each of us by the right hand, in token that they both did then, and would thereafter continue to, regard us, and we also them, as partners with one another in a common work. We meet with the phrases, "give right hands," "receive right hands," in 1 Macc. 11:50, 52; 13:50, with reference, apparently, to the victor conceding, and the vanquished accepting, terms of peace to be ratified by the mutual clasp of right hands. This, however, is not precisely what is meant in the present case; there is no room here for the notion of reconciliation. Neither seems there intended a signification of love, such as the "kiss of love" would have afforded. This hand-clasp simply ratified by a palpable gesture the formal assurance between the two parties that they regarded each other as friendly partners in a common undertaking. That the use of this gesture in ratifying compact has been very common in all ages, is shown by the instances in Liddell and Scott’s ’Lexicon’ (Δεξία), and in Facciolati ("Dextra"), as well as by Bishop Light feet’s note on the present passage. Its use among the Jews is attested, not only by the very phrase employed here and in the Maccabees, but by the phrases, "strike hands" and "give one’s hand," in Job 17:3; Proverbs 6:1; Ezekiel 17:18. Josephus’s remark in ’Ant.,’ 18. Ezekiel 9:3, on the unique inviolability which the Persians, Parthians, and other Oriental nations felt to attach to engagements thus ratified, by no means precludes the supposition that Jews used this gesture of guarantee, but only shows that it was not with them the most sacred of all forms of covenanting: they would, of course, regard an oath by the Name of God as affording a higher sanction. In the case now under consideration there was no "strife" between James, Cephas, and John, and Paul and Barnabas, which needed to be "ended" by "an oath:" the solemn and cordial mutual pressure of the right hand seems just the kind and measure of form appropriate to the circumstances. That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision (ἵναἡμεῖςεἰςτὰἔθνηαὐτοὶδὲεἰςτὴνπεριτομήν); literally, that we unto (or, for) the Gentiles, and themselves unto (or, for) the circumcision, without any verb. We have a very similar ellipsis of the verb in a carefully balanced antithesis, and before the same preposition εἰς, in Romans 5:16 (comp. also 2 Corinthians 8:14). We may read it either thus, "should go unto," as in both the Authorized and the Revised Versions; or, "should be ministers for," taking the εἰς with the like shade of meaning, as in Romans 5:8. This distribution of the several provinces of work is shown by the subsequent practice on both sides (see note on Romans 5:7, subfin.) to have been intended to be geographical rather than national; which understanding is also indicated by the mention in the next verse of "the poor" whom Paul and Barnabas were, notwithstanding this distribution, to bear in mind; they were the poor in Judaea, the province of James, Cephas, and John. Galatians 2:10 Only they would that we should remember the poor (μόνοντῶνπτωχῶνἵναμνημονεύωμεν); only, that we should be mindful of the poor, or perhaps, their poor; for the clause must be understood subjectively, as referred to the standpoint of those who" gave us the right hands of fellowship." If there is the ellipsis of any participle at all which needs to be supplied, which many critics suppose, though Meyer not unplausibly thinks otherwise, perhaps "stipulating" presents itself more readily than either "willing" or "requesting;" for this ἵνα depends as much upon the δεξίαςἔδωκαν as the preceding ἵνα does, and therefore seems to introduce something as much as that a part of the compact. What the apostle means is this: "In one respect only did this mutual compact of equal brotherly partnership leave us who were ministers of the Gentiles unfree in relation to the circumcision and their ministers; we consented to allow ourselves bound to be mindful of the duty of helping their poor. In all other respects, we were to still pursue the same plan of evangelization as we had been pursuing, with no modification of either our doctrine or Church practice; with no such modification, for example, as these false brethren were clamouring for." St. Paul’s methods of work thus received the full sanction of the "pillars," being recognized by them as standing on the same level of truth and heavenly guidance as their own. The same which I also was forward to do (ὃκαὶἐσπούδασααὐτὸτοῦτοποιῆσαι); the very thing this which I was even of myself zealous to do. The as; makes prominent the notion of intense earnestness, which St. Paul is wont to express in the use of σπουδάζω, as well as of σπουδὴ and σπουδαῖος. He did not merely consent to bear in mind the poor of Judaea; apart from such stipulation, apart from regard to any request of James, Cephas, and John, it was a matter which of himself he regarded as one of very great importance, demanding his most earnest attention. The especial force of this verb ἐσπούδασα is evinced by Ephesians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Timothy 2:15; and especially by 2 Corinthians 8:16, 2 Corinthians 8:17, in which the frame of mind it expresses is distinguished, as here, from that of mere willingness to consent to another person’s request. The principal reason for making this matter so prominent lay, no doubt, in the great distress prevailing amongst the poor in Judaea, justifying the application of the principle stated in 2 Corinthians 8:14, 2 Corinthians 8:15 (see Stanley’s note on 1 Corinthians 16:1). But we can hardly err in supposing that, as a subsidiary motive, both the leaders of the Jewish Church and St. Paul himself were greatly influenced by the consideration that such practical manifestation of Christian sympathy would both evince, and help to cement, the unity with each other of the Jewish and Gentile Churches. It was this organic unity which constituted the obligation of rendering such assistance (comp. Romans 15:27 with Romans 11:17, Romans 11:18). How perseveringly and how earnestly the apostle strove to aid the poor of the Jewish Churches both before and after the conference here spoken of, is seen in Acts 11:29, Acts 11:30; 1 Corinthians 16:1 (where reference is made to collections in Galatia); 2 Corinthians 8:1-24., 9.; Romans 15:25-27; Acts 24:17. Since in this last cited passage it is only incidentally that St. Luke is led to mention the collection which St. Paul brought with him in that journey of his to Jerusalem recorded in Acts 21:17, it is quite supposable that he brought collections with him also in that former visit merely glanced at in Acts 18:23. We may surmise that St. Paul has a special purpose in mentioning to the Galatians this particular item of that important compact. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, written at no long interval whether before or after the sending of this letter, he tells them (1 Corinthians 16:1) that he had given order to the Churches of Galatia respecting the manner in which they should collect for this object. It seems the more probable supposition that those directions were not given until this letter had had the happy effect of restoring better relations between himself and them than he was able at present to reckon upon. Meanwhile, however, this historical reference would serve to prepare them in some measure for the appeal, when he should think it prudent to make it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians (ὦἀνόητοιΓαλάται). In thus apostrophizing them, the apostle brands their present behaviour, not any lack of intelligence on their part in general (comp. Luke 24:25). "Foolish"—to allow yourselves to be thus robbed of your happiness. The transporting feeling of elevation and joy with which, in Galatians 2:19-21, the apostle describes himself as crucified with Christ to the Law, and as living in Christ and through Christ, makes him the more keenly sensible of the senseless folly shown by the Galatians in taking up the observance of the Law. Who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truths? (τίςὑμᾶςἐβάσκανε; [Receptus adds, τῇἀληθείᾳμὴπείθεσθαι]); who in his envy did bewitch you? With respect to the Greek text, there is now no doubt amongst editors that the words, τῇἀληθείᾳμὴπείθεσθαι, "that ye should not obey the truth," are not genuine here, being in all probability foisted in from Galatians 3:7. We have, therefore, to omit them and to read ἐβάσκανεν as before οἷς. Ἐβάσκανεν is a remarkable word, and calls for comment. In common Greek, βασκαίνειντινά, to treat one with malignant words, means either to slander, belie, blacken character, or to cast upon him primarily words conveying baleful spells, and then, in later usage very frequently, baleful spells of any kind, and more especially spells from the "evil eye" (Aristotle, Plutarch); in the language of old English superstition, "forelook" or "overlook." Indeed, so closely did this last notion cling to the verb, as to have suggested to Greek grammarians for its etymology, φάεσικαίνειν, "to kill with the eyes." The more scientific etymologists of recent days derive it from βάζωβάσκω, speak; as if it were "to bespeak a man." The nouns βάσκσνοςβασκανία, following the senses of the verb, express the ideas, either of envious detraction or of sorcery (see Schneider; Passow; Liddell and Scott). In the New Testament the word occurs only here. In the Septuagint we meet with it in Deuteronomy 28:54, where, for the words, "His eye shall be evil towards his brother," we have Βασκανεῖτῷὀφθαλμῷαὐτοῦτὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ, meaning apparently, "He shall grudge with his eye his brother;" and so again in Deuteronomy 28:56, the same phrase is used analogously of the tender woman, "She shall grudge with her eye her husband;" Ecclus. 14:6, "There is not a worse man (τοῦβασκαίνοντοςἑαυτόν) than he that grudges his own self;" ibid. verse 8, "Evil is (ὁβασκαίνωνὀφαλμῷ) he that grudgeth with his eye. In Scripture, both in the Old Testament and the New, and in the Apocrypha, the phrases, "the eye being evil," "the evil eye," following the Hebrew, always denote envy, ill nature, niggardliness. Nowhere either in the Scriptures or in the Apocrypha is there any reference to "forelooking," unless perchance the me’ōnen, Deuteronomy 20:10 (Authorized Version, "observer of times"), is etymologically connected with the Hebrew word for "eye," which, however, few critics suppose. Ignatius, ’Ad Romans’, 3, has Οὐδέποτεἐβασκάνατεοὐδέναἄλλουςἐδιδάξατε, "never grudged any man." This Septuagintal use of the verb presents, as the reader will observe, a somewhat different shade of meaning to any of those cited above from the lexicons. Following, however, its guidance, we may understand the apostle as here asking, "Whoso ill-natured jealousy was it that did light upon you?" and as intending to convey these two ideas: (1) the envy of their once happy state which actuated the agent referred to; and, (2) by implication, the baleful effect wrought by the envier upon them. The aorist of the verb seems to point to a decisive result. He had, it is hinted, succeeded in his wish; he had robbed them of the blessedness which had excited his jealousy. In respect to the former idea, elsewhere (Galatians 4:17, "They would fain shut you out") the apostle ascribes the action of their misleaders to sinister designs against their well-being. It is, indeed, this thought that inspires the extreme severity of his language above in Galatians 2:4; the βάσκανος, of whom he here speaks, belonged to, or derived from, them. In short, the pathetic question here before us breathes the like indignation and vexation as that in Galatians 5:7, "Ye were running on well: who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?"—the last words of which passage, though not admissible here in the text, would, however, if there, form a perfectly correct explanatory clause. The more distinctly to mark the effect actually produced by the envier, very many commentators have enwoven into their interpretation of ἐνάσκανεν, besides its Septuagiutal sense, its other sense of blasting with some kind of charm: "The malignity," Chrysostom writes, "of a demon whose spirit [or, ’breath’] had blasted their prosperous estate." Great use has been made, in particular, by many, as, e.g. Jerome and, according to Estius, by Thomas Aquinas, of the superstition of the "evil eye," which, in the countries bordering on the Mediterranean, has in all ages been so rife. Bishop Lightfoot, in his interesting note on the passage, offers the following paraphrase: "Christ’s death in vain? O ye senseless Gauls, what bewitchment is this? I placarded Christ crucified before your eyes. Ye suffered them to wander from this gracious proclamation of your King. They rested on the withering eye of the sorcerer. They yielded to the fascination and were riveted there. And the life of your souls has been drained out of you by that envious gaze." It may, however, be questioned whether the apostle would have recognized his own thought in this thorough-going application of the superstition of the "evil eye." It is doubtful whether he used the verb ἐβάσκανεν with reference to any species of sorcery at all; but if he did, he may have intended no more than this: "What envious ill-wisher has by some strange, inexplicable sorcery so wrought upon you? Or, how can I explain your behaviour, except that you have been acting under some binding spell? Surely such folly is well-nigh inconceivable with men in free possession of their own souls." But (1) each of these two renderings of the passage is open to the objection that St. Paul, in writing ἐβάσκανεν, either might have intended to express by the word "envious grudging," according to its Sep-tuagintal use, or he might have meant some kind of sorcery according to a common acceptation of the term, but could hardly have meant to convey both senses together. (2) The introduction of the supposition is inconvenient, not only because there could not have really been any such ingredient in the actual circumstances of the present case, but also because its mention would serve to excuse the folly of the Galatians, as indeed Chrysostom observes that it does, rather than to enhance its censure, which latter would have been more to the apostle’s purpose. (3) It seems especially improbable that the apostle was thinking of the "evil eye" when we consider the entire absence of its mention in the sacred writings. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (οἷςκατὀφθαλμοὺςἸησοῦςΧριστὸςπροεγράφηἐνὑμῖνἐσταυρωμένος;); to whom, before your very eyes, Jesus Christ had been (literally, was) aforetime (or, openly) set forth crucified (among you)? The genuineness of the words, ἐνὑμῖν, "among you," is very doubtful. The Revised Greek text omits them. The words, κατὀφθαλμούς, "before your very eyes," are very pointed; for the Greek expression, comp. κατὰπρόσωπον (Galatians 2:11), and Aristoph., ’Ran.,’ 625, ἵνασοικατὀφθαλμοὺςλέγῃ, "that he may say it to your very face." The sense of προεγράφη is much disputed. It is not clear whether the πρὸ is the "before" of time or of place. Of the other passages in the New Testament in which this compound verb occurs, in Romans 15:4 twice, and Ephesians 3:3, πρὸ is certainly, and in Jude 1:4 probably, not so certainly, "before" of time. In the present passage a reference to the prophecies of the Old Testament seems out of place. It is far more suitable to the connection to suppose that the apostle is referring to his own preaching. Some commentators, retaining the words, ἐνὑμῖν, connect them with προεγράφη in the sense of "in you," comparing "Christ in you" (Colossians 1:27), and "written in your hearts" (2 Corinthians 3:2); and so render the words thus: "written of, or described, before in you." But such an expression, sufficiently awkward in itself, would further be very unsuitably introduced after the words, "before your very eyes." Supposing we take the πρὸ as of time, there is no satisfactory explanation of the ἐγρὰφη, if understood in the sense of writing, there being no tablet (so to speak) suggested on which the writing could be conceived of as done. Γράφω, it is true, means "describe" in John 1:45 and Romans 10:5; but it is still a description in writing. We are, therefore, driven to assign to the verb the notion of portraying as in a painting, a sense which in Common Greek it certainly does sometimes bear, and which attaches to it in the διαγράφω of Ezekiel 4:1; Ezekiel 8:10. We thus gain the sense, "had before been set forth or por trayed;" before (that is) the envier assailed you. This same sense, of portraying rather than of writing, would be also the best to give to the verb, supposing the πρὸ to be understood as the "before" of place; which conception of the preposition Bishop Lightfoot contends for, urging the use of the verb προγράφειν, and the nouns πρόγραμμα and προγραφή, with reference to the placards on which public notices were given of political or other matters of business. When, how ever, we consider how partial the apostle is to verbs compounded with πρὸ of time, as is seen in his use of προαιτιάομαιπροακούω, προαμαρτάνωπροελπίζωπροενάρχομαιπροεπαγγέλλομαιπροτετοιμάζωπροευαγγελίζομαιπροκαταγγέλλωπροκαταρτίζωπροκυρόομαι, προπάσχω, not a few of which were probably compounded by himself as he wanted them, it appears highly probable that, to serve the present occasion, he here forms the compound προγράφω in the sense of "portraying before," the compound not existing elsewhere in the same sense. He compares, then, the idea of Christ crucified, presented to his hearers in his preaching, to a portraiture, in which the Redeemer had been so vividly and with such striking effect exhibited to his converts, that it ought in all reason have for ever safeguarded their souls against all danger from teaching of an alien character. If the phrase, ἐνὑμῖν, be retained, it appears best, with Chrysostom and many others, to understand it as meaning, that St. Paul had presented Christ crucified in such lively colours to their view, that they had, as it were, seen him hanging on the cross in their very midst. The position of ἐσταυρωμένος, disconnected from ἸησοῦςΧριστὸς and at the end of the sen tence, gives it intense significance. What the idea of Christ crucified was to his own self, the apostle had just before declared; for him it at once had destroyed all spiritual connection with the ceremonial Law, the Law which bade the crucified One away from itself as accursed, and also by the infinite love to himself which he beheld manifested in Christ crucified for him, had bound him to him by spiritual ties both all-constraining and iudissoluble. And such (he means) should have been the effect produced by that idea upon their souls. What envier of their happiness in him could, then, possibly have torn them from him? This same portraiture of "Christ crucified" which he reminds the Galatians he had in those days presented to them, he also, as he tells the, Corinthians (l Corinthians Galatians 1:23; Galatians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:20, 2 Corinthians 5:21), had been intent on holding up before the Greeks of Achaia; while, further, he intimates to the Romans, in his Epistle to them, how eager he was to come and at Rome also hold up Christ as him whom God had set forth to be a Propitiation, through faith, by his blood (Romans 1:15, Romans 1:16; Romans 3:25). Both to the Jew and to the Gentile, both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise, this, emphatically this, was the alone and the sovereign salvation. This picturing forth of the crucified One, however, would hardly from Paul’s lips concern itself much with the outward particulars of the passion; it might have been this, in a far greater degree, in St. Peter’s presentment of it, who had been himself witness of those sufferings; but Paul, with his habits of thought, as we know them from his writings, who knew Christ as in the spirit rather than as in the flesh, would occupy himself more with the spiritual idea of the cross—its embodiment of perfect meekness and gentleness and self-sacrifice, of humility. of obedience to the Father’s will, of love to all mankind, of especial care for his own, and its antagonism to the spirit of Levitical ceremonialism. "Such presentment," remarks Calvin, "as if in a picture, nay, as if actually crucified in the very midst of the hearers themselves, no eloquence, no artifice of rhetoric, can produce, unless that mighty working of the Spirit be assistant of which the apostle speaks in his two Epistles to the Corinthians (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 2:5, 1 Corinthians 2:13, 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 3:3, 2 Corinthians 3:6). If any, therefore, would fain duly discharge the ministry of the gospel, let them learn not so much to apply eloquence and declamation, as to likewise so pierce into men’s consciences that these may truly feet Christ crucified and the dropping upon them of his blood. Where the Church hath painters such as these, she very little needeth any more representations in wood and stone, that is, dead images, very little any paintings; and certainly among Christians the doors of the temples were not open for the reception of images and paintings until the shepherds either had grown dumb and become mere dolls, or else did say in the pulpit no more than just a few words, and these in so cold and perfunctory a manner that the power and efficacy of the gospel ministry was utterly extinct." Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you (τοῦτομόνονθέλωμαθεῖνἀφὑμῶν); this only would I learn from you. I need ask for nothing more to show that the Law is nothing to you, than that you should tell me this. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law? (ἐξἔργωννόμουτὸΠνεῦμαἐλάβετε;); was it in consequence of works of the Law that ye received the Spirit? I came amongst you as an apostle, preaching the gospel, and upon your baptism laying my hands upon you; and the Holy Spirit came down upon you, proving the reality of his presence both by signs and miracles and powers, and also by the love, joy, and peace with which your hearts were filled; sealing at once the truth of my doctrine and your own position individually as recognized heirs of the kingdom of God. You remember that time. Well, how was it then? Had there a word been then spoken touching meats or drinks, or washings of purification (besides your baptism into Christ), or circumcision, or care of ceremonial cleanness? Had you attended to any one point whatever of Levitical ordinance? Had either you or I cast one thought in that direction? The "works of the Law" here referred to must still be works of ceremonial performance, not those of moral obedience; for repentance, the practical breaking off from sin, the surrender of the soul to God and to Christ in faith and loyal obedience, the outward assuming of the character of God’s servants, the purpose and inchoate performance of works meet for repentance,—these dotings of compliance with the moral Law were there. The gift of the Spirit was evidenced by charisms plainly supernatural; but it comprised more than the bestowment of these. Or by the hearing of faith? (ἤἐξἀκοῆςπίστεως;); or was it in consequence of the hearing of faith? The noun ἀκοὴ denotes sometimes (what is heard) "report," "rumour," as Matthew 4:24; Matthew 24:6; Romans 10:16, Romans 10:17; sometimes, especially in the plural, the organs or sense of hearing, as Mark 7:35; Luke 7:1; Acts 17:20; Hebrews 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:3, 2 Timothy 4:4; sometimes the act of hearing, as Matthew 13:14; 1 Samuel 15:22. The last appears more suitable here than the first taken (as some take it) as describing the doctrine or message which they heard respecting faith; standing as ἀκοὴ does in contrast to "works" which would have been an acting of theirs, this likewise was most probably meant by the apostle subjectively of something appearing on their own part. "Were you not at once received into the kingdom of God and filled with joy in the Holy Spirit, immediately upon your believing acceptance of the gospel message?" With exquisite propriety, as Bengel observes, is hereby marked the nature of faith, not working, but receiving. This agrees also best with the illustration which in 1 Samuel 15:6 the apostle gives of the phrase as introduced by him again in 1 Samuel 15:5. Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (οὕτωςἀνόητοίἐστεἐναρξάμενοι, πνεύματινῦνσαρκὶἐπιτελεῖσθε); are ye so foolish? having begun with the Spirit, are y¢ now finishing with the flesh? Πνεύματι, as contrasted with σαρκί, means the element of spiritual existence (comp. the use of πνεῦμα in Romans 1:4; 1 Peter 3:18) into which they had been brought at their conversion by the Holy Spirit’s influence; including the spiritual sensibility and spiritual activity which had at first marked their Christian life, as e.g. joy in God in the sense of pardon, adoption (Galatians 4:6), love to God, affectionate attachment to their spiritual teacher (Galatians 4:14, Galatians 4:15), brotherly love among themselves: at that hour all their soul was praise, joy, love. Σαρκὶ denotes a lower, merely sensuous kind of religiousness, one busying itself with ceremonial performances, observance of days and festivals (Galatians 4:10), distinctions of meats, and other matters of ceremonial prescription; with petty strivings and disputings, of course, about such points, as if they really mattered at all; in which kind of religiousness the former tone of love, joy, sense of adoption, praise, had evaporated, leaving their souls dry, earthly (comp. "weak and beggarly rudiments," Galatians 4:9; and for the use of σάρξ, Hebrews 9:10). Perhaps the apostle includes also in his use of the term the loss of spiritual victory over sin. if in place of surrendering themselves to the leading of the Spirit (comp. Galatians 5:18) they put themselves under the Law, then they fell back again under the power of the "flesh," which the Law could only command them to control, but could of itself give them no power to control (Romans 8:3). The Authorized Version, "begun in," is doubtless faulty, in taking πνεύματι as governed by the ἐν of the compound verb. The two verbs ἐνάρχομαι and ἐπιτελεῖν are balanced against each other in 2 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 1:6. Ἐπιτελεῖσθε may be either a passive, as it is rendered in the Authorized Version, "Are ye made perfect," i.e. "Are ye seeking to be made perfect;" so the Revised Version, "Are ye now perfected;" or a middle verb, as ἐπιτελοῦμαι is often used in other writers, though nowhere in the New Testament or Septuagint. The latter seems the more suitable, with the understood suppletion of "your course" or "your estate," as in our English word "finishing." The apostle is partial to the deponent form of verbs. Galatians 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain (τοσαῦταἐπάθετεεἰκῆεἴγεκαὶεἰκῆ); did ye suffer all those troubles for nought? if indeed really for nought. The ambiguity of τοσαῦτα, which means either "so many" or "so great," is preserved by the rendering all those. The Revisers put so many in the text, and "or so great" in the margin. In respect to ἐπάθετε, the leading of the context in which the verse is embedded might incline us to take the verb in the sense in which it frequently occurs in Greek writers, that of being subjects of such and such treatment, good as well as bad; as, for example, in Josephus, ’Ant.,’ Galatians 3:15, Galatians 3:1, Ὅσαπαθόντεςἐξαὐτοῦκαὶπηλικῶνεὐεργσιῶνμεταλαβόντες, "What treatment having received from him [sc. God], and what huge benefits having partaken of"—the character of the treatment being sufficiently indicated by the context as being that of kindness. But it is a fatal objection to this view of the passage that, in the forty passages or more in which the verb πάσχω is used in the New Testament, it never is used of good treatment, but always of bad; and so also always in the Septuagint. We are, therefore, shut up to the sense of "suffering ills," and must endeavour to find, if we can, some circumstances marking the troubles referred to which might serve to explain the seemingly abrupt mention of them here. And the probable explanation is this: those sufferings were brought upon the Galatian converts, not only through the influence of Jews, but also in consequence of the bitter enmity with which the Jews regarded St. Paul, as bringing converts over from among the Gentiles to the service of the one true God apart from any regard to the ceremonial Law of Moses. That Jews in general did thus regard St. Paul is shown by the suspicion which even Christian Jews felt towards him (Acts 21:21). For this no doubt, it was that the Jews in Asia Minor persecuted him from city to city as they did, their animosity against him extending itself also to these who had attached themselves to him as his disciples. That it did extend itself to his disciples as such appears, as from the nature of the case, so also from Acts 14:22, "That through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God;" as also it is evinced by the strongly indignant tone in which he speaks of the persecuting Jews in his two Epistles to the Thessalonians, written near the very time to which he here alludes (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 1:9)—this indignation being best accounted for by the supposition that it was roused by his sympathy with the similarly originated sufferings of the Macedonian brethren to whom he was writing. That the troubles here referred to emanated from the hostility of Jewish legalists may be further gathered from Galatians 5:11; Galatians 6:12 (on which see Exposition). Those Jewish legalists hated both St. Paul and his converts, because they alike walked in "the Spirit," that is, in the element of Christian spirituality emancipated from the bondage of the Law, and not in "the flesh" of Mosaic ceremonialism. Hence it is that the mention in Galatians 6:3 of the Galatian brethren having "begun with the Spirit," leads him on to the thought of the sufferings which just on that very account had been brought upon them. "For nought." This adverb εἰκῆ sometimes means, prospectively, "to no good," as in Galatians 4:11, "bestowed labour upon you in vain," and probably in 1 Corinthians 15:2; sometimes, retrospectively, "for no just cause," as in Colossians 2:18, "vainly puffed up." The English phrase, "for nought," has just a similar ambiguity. The apostle may, therefore, mean either this—Did ye suffer all these troubles to reap after all no benefit from your suffering them, forfeiting as you do (Galatians 5:4) the reward which you might else have expected from the great Retributor (2 Thessalonians 1:6, 2 Thessalonians 1:7) through your forsaking that ground of faith on which ye then stood, if indeed ye have forsaken it? or this—Did ye provoke all that persecution without just cause?—if, indeed, there was no just cause as ye seem now to think. According to the former view, the Galatians were now nullifying the benefit which might have accrued to them from their former endurance of persecution; according to the latter, they were now stultifying their former conduct in provoking these persecutions. The first seems somewhat the easiest. Εἴγε, as in Colossians 1:23. The concluding clause has been here regarded as a reaching forth of the apostle’s soul towards the hope that better thoughts might yet prevail with the Galatian waverers, so that they would not lose the reward of having suffered for Christ—a hope which he thus glances at, if so be he might thus lure them to its realization. But another view of the words has commended itself to not a few eminent critics, namely, that the apostle glances at the darker prospect; as if he had said, "If it be, indeed, merely for nought, and not for far worse than that! By falling away from the gospel, ye not only lose the crown of confessorship: ye forfeit also your hope of your heavenly inheritance" (cf. Galatians 5:4). The conjunction καὶ is, confessedly, sometimes almost equivalent to "merely," "only," as e.g. in Homer, ’Odyssey,’ 1:58, Ἱέμενοςκαὶκαπνὸνἀποθρώσκοντανοῆσαιἧςγαίης, "Longing if only but to see the smoke leaping upward from his native land." But in the present case εἴγε does not so readily suggest the last proposed suppletion of thought as it does the other. Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you (ὁοὖνἐπιχορηγῶνὑμῖντὸΠνεῦμακαὶἐνεργῶνδυνάμειςἐνὑμῖν); he then that sup-plieth to you the Spirit and worketh powers in you, or, miracles among you. The "then" marks the taking up afresh of the topic brought forward in Galatians 3:2, with especial prominence given here to the miraculous manifestations of the Spirit’s presence. The argumentative treatment of this topic of the gift of the Spirit was interrupted in Galatians 3:3 and Galatians 3:4 by curt, strongly emotional interrogatories, darted forth upon the apostle’s recollecting the animated spirituality which marked those early days of their discipleship. The impassioned desultoriness of his language here, together with its abrupt, niggardly wording, is paralleled by Galatians 4:10-20. Perhaps these features in the form of the composition were in part occasioned by the circumstance that he was writing this Epistle with his own hand and not through an amanuensis; such manual exertion being, it should seem, unusual with him, and from some cause even laborious and painful: and so from time to time he appears, as it were, laying down the pen, to rest, to quell emotion, to reflect. The compound verb ἐπιχορηγεῖν, supply, differs probably from the simple form χορηγεῖν only by indicating profusion in the supply; but this qualification of its meaning is too slight to be representable in translation. Besides 2 Peter 1:5, 2 Peter 1:11, we find it in 2 Corinthians 9:10, "He that supplieth (ὁἐπιχορηγῶν) seed … shall supply (χορηγήσει) and multiply your seed for sowing;" Colossians 2:19, "From whom all the body … being supplied;" 1 Peter 4:11, "As of the strength which God sup-plieth." And with similar application the substantive "supply" (ἐπιχορηγία) in Philippians 1:19, "Supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ;" Ephesians 4:16, "Through every joint of the supply." These passages make it clear that "he that supplieth" is no other than God. And this conclusion is borne out by the comparing of the other clause, "worketh powers in you," with 1 Corinthians 12:6, "It is the same God (ὁἐνεργῶν who worketh all in all" (referring to the charismata)—which passage shows that "powers’ (δυνάμεις) are not "miracles" themselves as in Matthew 7:22 and Matthew 11:20, and often, but power to work miracles, the plural number pointing to the various forms of its manifestation, as in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 12:29. The apostle uses the present participles ἐπιχορηγῶν and ἐνεργῶν as describing an agency which the Almighty was continually putting forth among believers in general, including the Galatian Churches themselves. Doeth he it by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith? (ἐξἔργωννόμουἢἐξἀκοηςπίστεως;) in consequence of works of the Law or of the hearing of faith? With the sparingness of words above noted, the apostle barely jots down, so to speak, the substance of the interrogative dilemma, without filling in the form of the question. The suppletion would naturally be that of our version, "doeth he it." The substance of the argument apparently required no more than, as before, the question—Was it in consequence of works of the Law or of the hearing of faith that the Spirit and his wonder-working powers were received? But instead of putting it so, St. Paul interposes the personality of the great God himself as imparting these great gifts, making his sentence thereby the more stately and impressive: it is with God in the might of his working that these corrupters of the gospel have to reckon. The impartation of the Spirit and the charisms evidenced God’s complacency in the recipients. On what was that complacency founded? on their earning it by ceremonial performances, or on their simply opening their hearts to receive his love? It was a question which the Galatian Churchmen might, if they would, see the answer to in experiences of their own. Among themselves these powers had appeared, and no doubt were still operative. "Well, then," says the apostle, "look and see: are they not operative in those only of you who had received them upon the mere acceptance of righteousness offered them through faith in Christ simply, without having given any heed to Mosaic ceremonialism? Have any of you received them after taking up with such ceremonialism?" The apostle, it will be observed—and the remark is one of no small importance—makes an appeal to simple matters of fact, founded upon his and their own familiar acquaintance with the facts, and defying contradiction. We may be sure, therefore, that the facts were as he indicates, however small the extent may be to which we, with our imperfect knowledge of the circumstances, are ourselves able to verify his statement. In some degree, however, we can. Besides the striking illustration afforded by what occurred in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44), we see that such charismata were bestowed, and in some instances, as, e.g. at Corinth, in exceeding great profusion, in the train of St. Paul’s evangelizing ministrations; and how remote those ministrations were from the inculcation, or even the admission, among Gentile converts of Mosaic ceremonialism we know perfectly. Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness (καθὼςἈβραὰμἐπίστευσετῷΘεῷκαὶἐλογίσθηαὐῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην); was reckoned unto him for righteousness. The answer to the question in the foregoing verse is so obvious that the apostle goes on as if that answer had been given, namely, that it was simply in consequence of the hearing of faith that God conferred on any the Holy Spirit and his powers. This, he now adds, was in exact conformity with what was recorded of Abraham; as soon as Abraham heard the promise made to him, "So shall thy seed be," he believed it, and by the hearing of faith was justified. The mutual correspondence of the two cases lay in this, that in imparting to those believers the Holy Spirit, God showed that they were in his favour, were justified people, simply because of their faith; even as Abraham was shown to be in his favour, having likewise by faith been justified. The apostle weaves into his sentence the very words of Gen 15:6, as they appear in the Septuagint, with scarcely any modification; the Septuagint reading thus: ΚαὶἐπίστευσενΑβραμτῷΘεῷκαὶἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην. But in doing so he both himself feels, and will have his readers feel, that they are words of Scripture from which, as such, reliable conclusions might be drawn, as is shown by the next verse. In the Hebrew, however, the passage runs as in our Authorized Version, "He believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness." The words are quoted with substantially the like agreement with the Septuagint and divergence from the Hebrew also in Romans 4:3, and by St. James in his Epistle (James 2:23) (ἐπίστευσεδὲἈβραὰμ, etc.). "It was reckoned;" in the Hebrew, "he reckoned it;" "it," that is, his believing: God regarded it as imparting to him perfect acceptableness, his sins no longer disqualifying him for being an object of the Divine favour. It is of the greatest importance to take note what the kind of faith was which God reckoned to him for righteousness. It was not simply a persuasion that what God says must be true. As Calvin remarks, Cain might have a hundred times exercised faith in what God had said to him, without thereby receiving righteousness from God. The reason why Abraham was justified by believing was this: a promise had been given him by God of his fatherly goodness towards him; and this word of God’s he embraced as certainty. The faith, therefore, which the apostle is thinking of is the faith which has respect to some word of God which is of such a sort that reliance upon it will enable a man to repose in God’s love to him for time and for eternity. The reference to Abraham’s case which St. Paul makes in such very brief terms he expands in the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans to a considerable length, ending with these words: "Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was reckoned to him [for righteousness]; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our offences, and was raised for our justification." Christ’s death and resurrection are God’s word and guarantee to the whole human race, assuring us of his forgiveness and of his offer to us of eternal life. If we hear this word with faith, committing ourselves to his love, God on that ground at once justifies also us. It is evident that, in the apostle’s view, the word "righteousness," as used in the recited passage of Genesis, does not mean "a righteous act,"—that is, that Abraham’s believing God’s promise was viewed by Heaven with approval; but complete acceptableness investing Abraham himself. In consideration of that exercise of faith God accounted him a righteous man. The Greek phrase, ἐλογίσθηεἰςδικαιοσύνην, "was reckoned for righteousness," i.e. reckoned as being righteousness, is similar to λογισθῆναιεἰςοὐδέν, "reckoned as nought" (Acts 19:27); εἰςπεριτομὴνλογισθήσεται, "reckoned for circumcision" (Romans 2:26); λογίζεταιεἰςσπέρμα, "reckoned for a seed" (Romans 9:8). Are we to lifter from these two verses, 5 and 6, that in the apostle’s view all who received spiritual gifts were thereby proved to be, or to have been, justified persons and in enjoyment of the Divine favour? We can hardly think this. The phenomena disclosed to us in the two Epistles addressed to the Corinthians. as to the moral and spiritual behaviour of some at least of their body, tend to show that individuals possessed of charisms were found in some instances to make a very vainglorious use of them, and needed to be reminded that the thaumaturgic gifts were of a fleeting character and of incomparably less value than qualities of moral goodness. Certainly Christ himself has told us that "many" will at the last be found to have been possessed of such miraculous gifts, whom nevertheless he "never knew." One of the very apostles was a Judas. Perhaps the solution is this: companies of men were dealt with in the diffusion of these gifts according as they were characterized, viewed each as a whole, though there might be individuals in each company imperfectly, very superficially, some perhaps not at all, animated by the sentiment generally prevailing in the body. If a community as a whole was pervaded extensively by a spirit of frank acceptance of the gospel doctrine and of pious devotion, its members brought by baptism into the "body which is Christ," the Holy Spirit made such a community his habitation (1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16), and diffused his gifts among its members diversely and to all appearance Indiscriminately (1 Corinthians 12:13); at all events not in such wise discriminately as that degrees of personal holiness and acceptableness before God could at all be estimated as standing in proportion to the outward brilliancy of thaumaturgie gifts severally possessed. Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore (γινώσκετεἄρα); or, ye perceive then. Critics are divided between the two renderings, the imperative and the indicative, both here and Matthew 24:43; 1 John 2:29. In Luke 10:11 and Hebrews 13:23 γινώσκετε is certainly imperative. The categorical imperative seems of the two the more suited to the apostle’s impetuous temperament. The verb γινώσκω, like the Latin nosco, properly denotes "to come to know," "learn," "perceive," "get apprised;" ἔγνωκα or ἔγνων, like now, having more properly the sense of "knowing." But this distinction does not always hold, as e.g. Romans 7:1. That they which are of faith (ὅτιοἱἐκπίστεως); that the men of faith; that is, who derive their position from faith, belong to faith, are above all things characterized by faith. Compare the expressions, τοῖςἐξἐριθείας, "the men of factiousness, i.e. "factions men" (Romans 2:8); τὸἐκπίστεωςἸησοῦ, "the man of faith in Jesus," taking his stand thereupon (Romans 3:26). Closely affine to this usage of the preposition, if not quite the same, is, ὁὢνἐκτῆςἀληθείας, "that is of the truth" (John 18:37); οἱἐκνόμου, "they which are of the Law" (Romans 4:14); ὅσοιἐξἔργωννόμουεἰσίν, (Romans 7:10 of this chapter). The same are the children of Abraham (οὗτοίεἰσινυἱοὶἈβραάμ); these are sons of Abraham. The form of expression is precisely the same as in Romans 8:14, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God (οὗτοίεἰσινυἱοὶΘεού) these are sons of God." In both cases the absence of the article before viol suggests the feeling that the apostle is simply stating a predicate of the class before defined, but not now affirming that this predicate is confined to that class, although, again in each case, he knew that it was so confined. Just here, what he is concerned to affirm is that the possession of faith is a complete and sufficient qualification for sonship to Abraham. There is, perhaps, a polemical reference to the teaching of certain in Galatia, that, to be sons of Abraham or interested in God’s covenant with his people, it behoved men to be circumcised and to observe the ceremonial Law. This error would be satisfactorily met by the affirmation of the present verse, that the being believers, simply this, constitutes men sons of Abraham. In the tenth verse the apostle goes further, aggressively denying to those who "were of the works of the Law" the possession at all of Abrahamic privilege. The class, "men of faith," did in fact include Jewish believers as well as Gentile; but just hero, as seems probable from what is said in the next verse, the apostle has in view Gentile believers only. The writer’s thoughts are hovering round that promise of God ("So shall thy seed be") which had been on that particular occasion the object of Abraham’s faith. That this was the case we may infer from his citation of the words in Romans 4:18, the explanation of which had been prepared for by him in what he has said before in Romans 4:16, "To the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." It was this that led him to speak of being sons of Abraham. This train of thought is pursued further in the next two verses. Galatians 3:8 The substance of this verse, taken in conjunction with the next, is this: The announcement which the Scripture records as made to Abraham, that "in him all the nations should be blessed," that is, that by being like him in faith all nations should be blessed like him, did thus early preach to Abraham that which is the great cardinal truth of the gospel preached now: it proceeded upon a foresight of the fact now coming to pass, that by faith simply God would justify the Gentiles. As well as the Scripture quoted before from Genesis 15:1-21., so this announcement also ascertains to us the position that they that are of faith, and they alone, are blessed with the believing patriarch. Such appears to be the general scope of the passage; but the verbal details are not free from difficulty. And the Scripture, foreseeing (προΐδοῦσαδὲἡγραφή); and, again, the Scripture, foreseeing. The conjunction δὲ indicates transition to another item of proof, as, e.g. in Romans 9:27, Ἡσαίαςδέ. The word "Scripture" in 2 Peter 1:20, "no prophecy of Scripture," certainly denotes the sacred writings as taken collectively, that is, what is frequently recited by the plural, αἱγραφαί, "the Scriptures.’’ So probably in Acts 8:22, "the passage of Scripture." We are, therefore, war, anted in supposing it possible, and being possible it is here also probable, that this is the sense in which the apostle now uses the term as well as in Acts 8:22, rather than as denoting, either the one particular passage cited or the particular book out of which it is taken. This view better suits the personification under which the Old Testament is hero presented. This personification groups with that in Romans 9:17, "The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up." In both cases the "Scripture" is put in place of the announcement which Scripture records as having been made, the Scripture itself being written after the time of both Abraham and Pharaoh, and not addressed to them. But hero there is the additional feature, of foresight being attributed to Scripture—a foresight, net exactly of the Holy Spirit inspiring the Scripture, but of the Divine Being who, on the occasion referred to, was holding communication with Abraham; although, yet again, "the Scripture’’ seems in the words, "foreseeing that God would justify," etc., distinguished from "God." The sense, however, is clear; Scripture shows that, as early as the time of Abraham, a Divine intimation was given that God would, on the ground of faith simply, justify any human being throughout the world that should believe in him as Abraham did. Rabbinical scholars tell us that in those writings a citation from Scripture is frequently introduced with the words, "What sees the Scripture?" or, "What sees he [or, ’it’]?" That God would justify the heathen through faith (ὅτιἐκπίστεωςδιακαιοῖτὰἔθνηὁΘεός); that by (Greek, out of) faith would God justify the nations. The position of ἐκπίστεως betokens that the apostle’s point here is, not that God would justify the Gentiles, but that it was by faith that he would do so irrespectively of any fulfilment on their part of ceremonial observances. The tense of the present indicative δικαιοῖ is hardly to be explained thus: would justify as we now see he is doing. The usual effect of the oratio obliqua transfers the standpoint of time in δικαιοῖ to the time of the foresight, the present tense being put instead of the future (δικαιώσει), as intimating that God was, so to speak, even now preparing thus to justify, or, in the Divine estimate of spaces of time, was on the eve of thus justifying; analogously with the force of the present tense in the participles "given" and "poured out" (διδόμενἐκχυνόμενον) in Luke 22:19, Luke 22:20. The condition of mankind in the meanwhile is described in Luke 22:22, Luke 22:23—shut up unto the faith that was to be revealed. A question arises as to the exact interpretation of the word ἔθνη as twice occurring in this verse. Does the apostle use it as the correlative to Jews, "Gentiles;" or without any such sense of contradistinction, "nations" including both Jews anti Gentiles? In answer, we observe: (1) The great point in these verses (6-9) is, not the call of the Gentiles, but the efficacy of faith without Levitical ceremonialism, as summed up in the words of Luk 22:9. (2) The original passage which the apostle is now referring to is that in Genesis 12:3, where the Septuagint, conformably with the Hebrew, has Καὶἐνευλογηθήσονταιἐνσοὶπᾶσαιαἱφυλὰιτῆςγῆς: in our Authorized Version," And in thee shall all families [Hebrew, mishpechōth] of the earth be blessed:" only, through some cause or other, instead of "all families," he writes the words, "all nations" (πάντατὰἔθνη), which we find in what was said by the Lord to the two angels (Genesis 18:18), Καὶἐνευλογηθήσονταιἐναὐτῷ [that is, Abraham] πάντατὰἔθνητῆςγῆς: Authorized Version, "all the nations of the earth" (Genesis 22:18, and the promise to Isaac, Genesis 26:4, are irrelevant to the point now under consideration). We, therefore, are warranted in assuming that, as ἔθνη might be used as coextensive with φυλαί ("families"), it really is here employed by the apostle with the same extension of application. We may add that, most certainly, the apostle utterly repudiated the notion that God justifies Gentiles on a different footing from that on which he justifies Jews: whether Jews or Gentiles, they only who are of faith are blessed with Abraham; and, whether Jews or Gentiles all who are of faith are blessed with him. Preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying (προευηγγελίσατοτῷἈβραάμὅτι); preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying. Very striking and animated is the apostle’s use of this word προευηγγελίσατο, a compound verb, minted no doubt for the occasion out of his own ardent thought, though it is found also in his senior contemporary, Philo. It is plainly an allusion to the "gospel" now openly proclaimed to the world as having been "by anticipation" already then announced to Abraham, the Most High himself the herald; signifying also the joy which it brought to the patriarch, and (Chrysostom adds) his great desire for its accomplishment. Tim blessed and glorious gospel of the grace of God has been the thought of God in all ages. May we connect with this the mysterious passage in John 8:1-59:567 In point of construction, the verb εὐαγγελίζομαι is nowhere else followed by ὅτι: but as it is sometimes found governing an accusative of the matter preached (Luke 1:19; Luke 2:10; Acts 5:42; Acts 8:12; Ephesians 2:17), there is no harshness in its construction with ὅτι, which we may here represent in English by "saying." In thee shall all nations be blessed (ἐνευλογηθήσονται [Receptus, εὐλογηθήσονται] ἐνσοὶπάντατὰἔθνη). "In thee" as their type and pattern, in respect both to the "blessing" bestowed upon him and to the faith out of which his blessing sprang. The "blessing" consists of God’s love and all the well-being which can flow from God’s love; the form of well-being varying according to the believer’s circumstances, whether in this life or in the life to come; it receives its consummation with the final utterance, "Come, ye blessed (εὐλογημένοι) of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Into this condition of blessedness the sinful and guilty can only be brought through justification; but justification through Christ does of necessary consequence bring us into it. The compound form of the verb, ἐνευλογηθή, added to ἐνσοὶ, forcibly indicates that moral inherency in Abraham, through our being in faith and obedience his spiritual offspring, whereby alone the blessing is attained and possessed. Chrysostom remarks, "If, then, those were Abraham’s sons, not who were related to him by blood, but who follow his faith, for this is the meaning of the words, ’In thee all nations,’ it is plain that the Gentiles are brought into kindred with him." Augustine explains "in thee," similarly: "To wit, by imitation of his faith by which he was justified even before the sacrament of circumcision." Luther writes "In Abraham are we blessed, but in what Abraham? The believing Abraham, to wit; because if we are not in Abraham, we are under a curse rather, even if we were in Abraham according to the flesh." Calvin likewise: "These words beyond all doubt mean that all must become objects of blessing after Abraham’s fashion; for he is the common pattern, nay rather, rule. But he by faith obtained blessing; therefore faith is for all the means." Galatians 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham (ὥστεοἱἐκπίστεωςεὐλογοῦνταισὺντῷπιστῷἈβραάμ) "Are blessed;" are objects of benediction. The apostle gathers from the words cited in Galatians 3:8 the two particulars, that there are who get to be blessed like Abraham and with him, and that it is by faith like Abraham’s, without works of the Law, that they do so. He seems to have an eye to the sense of Divine benediction which the Galatians had themselves experienced, when upon their simply believing in Christ the Spirit’s gifts had been poured forth upon them. The word "faithful" (πιστῷ) is inserted, ex abundanti almost, to mark the more explicitly and emphatically, the condition on which both Abraham and therefore others in him gain the blessing. This being "in Abraham," which is here predicated of all who gain justification and God’s benediction, is analogous to the image of Gentiles, being by faith "grafted," and by faith abiding, in the "olive tree," which we have in Romans 11:17, Romans 11:20. The verbal πιστὸς is generally passive, "one to be believed or trusted in," and so a man "of fidelity;" but it is also at times active, in the sense of "one who believes," as John 20:27; Acts 10:45; 2 Corinthians 6:15; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 Timothy 5:16; 1 Timothy 6:2 (so in ἄπιστος, John 20:27; ὀλιγόπιστος, Matthew 6:30). In consequence of this use of the term in Scripture, both fidelis in ecclesiastical Latin and "faithful" in English have often this signification. Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse (ὅσοιγὰρἐξἔργωννόμουεἰσίνὐπὸκατάρανεἰσίν); under a curse, or, under cursing. "For." The apostle is now making the clause in the preceding verse, "they who are of faith," the limiting description of those who "are blessed with faithful Abraham;"—I say, they who are of faith; for they who are of the works of the Law are in a very different case. In the phrase, "are of the works of the Law," the preposition "of" (ἐκ) has the same force as has been already noted in the phrase (Galatians 3:9), "they who are of faith;" it signifies dependence upon, belonging to, taking position from; and it marks a moral posture of mind voluntarily assumed. The apostle in laying down the aphorism of the present passage has doubtless an eye to those of the Galatians who were moving for the adoption of circumcision and the ceremonies of the Levitical Law. Withdrawing from the category of those who were of faith, they were preparing to join those who were of the works of the Law. If their taking up with circumcision, and with these or those of the Levitical ordinances, was not mere childish trifling; if in serious and solemn earnest it meant anything, it meant this—that they looked to gain from these observances acceptableness before God, as performing works commanded by his Law given through Moses; but in that view they were bound to take the Law in its entirety, and do every work which it prescribed, ceremonial and moral alike; for all of it came invested with the like authority and as a part of that institution was alike binding (see Galatians 5:3). Let them now consider well how in such circumstances their case would stand. That the "works of the Law" which stand foremost before the apostle’s view in the present discussion are those of a ceremonial character is apparent from the tenor both of verses 12-19 of the preceding chapter and of verses 1-10 of the next. There is, indeed, generally tiffs difference observable between the phase of the Law regarded in this Epistle, as compared with that which engages the apostle’s thoughts when writing to the Romans: in the Romans the prominent notion of the spiritual condition of those under the Law is that they are in a state of guiltiness, condemnation, spiritual inability, unconquered sin; while in the Galatians the prominent notion of their condition is that they are in a state of slavery, that the dispensation they are under is spiritually an enslaving one, a yoke of bondage (Galatians 3:24; Galatians 4:1-3, Galatians 4:9, Galatians 4:24, Galatians 4:31; Galatians 5:1, Galatians 5:13). In the Romans the moral aspect of the Law is mostly in view; in this Epistle its ceremonial aspect. The consideration of these distinctive features marking this Epistle will perhaps prepare us the more readily to apprehend the particular shade of meaning with which the apostle uses the words, "are under cursing." He means, not precisely that a curse has already been definitely pronounced upon them so that they now stand there condemned, but that the threatening of a curse is always sounding in their ears, filling them with uneasiness, with constant apprehension that they shall themselves fall under it. The noun κατάρα is thus used for malediction, cursing, in James 3:9, James 3:10, "Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men;… out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing (εὐλογίακαὶκατάρα);" Deuteronomy 27:13, "These shall stand (ἐπὶτῆςκατάρας) for the cursing upon Mount Ebal"—that is, for the denouncement of the several curses with which they were to threaten different classes of transgressors. As many, says the apostle, as are of the works of the Law are under a black cloud of malediction, which is ready to flash forth in lightning wrath upon every failure in obedience. And what man of them all can hope not to merit that inexorable lighting down of judgment? Supposing them to be ever so exact and punctual in their observance of those ordinances of the flesh which certain of those Galatian Churchmen are hankering after, how will it fare with them in respect to those other weightier precepts of the Law which require spiritual obedience? For one single example, how will they be able to render unfailing obedience to the commandment, Thou shalt not covet? Beyond question, the apostle writes with the sense which he has so fully developed in his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 3:9-20; Romans 7:7-24; Romans 8:3), that no one under the economy of the Law ever did, or ever could, continue in all things which were written in the Law to do them; and that therefore they that forsook the gospel of Christ to look to the Law for acceptance with God would beyond doubt become, nay, taken as they were at any moment had already become, each individual, the specific object of malediction, a child of cursing, a child of wrath (2 Peter 2:14; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 4:15). Nevertheless, his purpose just here may be presumed to be, not to affirm this, but rather to point to the miserable state of apprehensiveness and fear of instant wrath which they who were of the works of the Law must needs be in bondage to. Most commentators, however, understand κατάρα as meaning, not "cursing" or uttering general sentences of cursing (maledictio), but "a curse" (maledictum), that is, a specific curse incurred already by each individual in consequence of his having of a certainty already sinned against some commandment of the Law; if not against some ceremonial commandment, at any rate against some moral precept. Whichever way we understand it, such (the apostle at all events means) was the condition into which those Judaizing Gentile converts were preparing to precipitate themselves. For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them (γέγραπταιγὰρὅτι [Receptus has γὰρ without ὅτι, which conjunction is according to the Greek usage introduced superfluously] Ἐπικατάρατοςπᾶςὃςοὐκἐμμένειἐνπᾶσιτοῖςγεγραμμένοιςἐντῷβιβλίῳτοῦνόμουτοῦποιῆσαιαὐτά). The Septuagint (Deuteronomy 27:26) has Ἐπικατάρατοςπᾶςὁ [this ὁ of doubtful genuineness] ἄνθρωποςὅστιςοὐκἐμμενεῖ [or ἐμμένει] ἐνπᾶσιτοῖςλόγοιςτοῦνόμουτούτουτοῦποιῆσαιαὐτούς. The Hebrew is correctly given in the Authorized Version, "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them." The apostle, quoting the Septuagint apparently from memory, gives the general sense rather than the exact words. He that sins against a commandment, as he does not "continue in" it, but departs from it, so also, he, as far as his action reaches, sets it aside or abrogates it instead of "confirming" it. The word "all," not found in our present Hebrew text, is stated by critics to be in the Samaritan as well as in the Septuagint. This is the last of the twelve several maledictions pronounced from Mount Ebal, and certainly includes in its scope the ceremonial as well as the moral precepts of the Law. But what did this malediction import? Certainly it expressed abhorrence—the Divine Author of the Law, and his ministers and people accepting, pronouncing, and ratifying the denunciation, all join in repudiating the offender, casting him out from among them with loathing: so much is clear. What practical effect was to be given to the malediction, even by men in this life, not to speak of the action of God hereafter in the life to come, is nowhere indicated; but all could see thus much—the offender, if dying unreconciled, would depart hence accursed of both man and God. The notion of guiltiness before God and accursedness incurred by transgression of merely ceremonial precepts has been so greatly effaced from men’s consciousness by the teaching, direct and indirect, of Christ’s gospel, that we find it hard to realize to our minds that there ever existed a posture of the spirit answering to such a notion, or. if such did exist, that it could be other than the fruit of an uninstructed, ill-trained state of the conscience. But it was not this, so long as the economy of Moses was in force. For these positive laws were laws of God, binding during his pleasure upon the conscience of every Israelite; and in proportion as an Israelite’s consciousness of the existence of Jehovah and of his own covenant relation to Jehovah was real and vivid, in that proportion would he be careful, scrupulously careful even, in obeying those positive laws. He had, indeed, to duly estimate the comparative importance and obligation of positive and of moral precepts, especially when in actual practice they came into conflict, according to the principle laid down for example in Hosea 6:6; but it was at his peril that he at any time neglected the former, though still less might he dare to neglect the latter. For every Israelite, as long as the Law continued in force, that which was said by Christ was strictly true, and in both clauses meant to be taken in solemn earnest, "These latter ought he to do, and not to leave the other undone" (Matthew 23:23). It was, for instance, a matter of conscience for the truly conscientious Israelite to carefully purify himself from pollution incurred by contact with the dead, and to abstain from swine’s flesh; he might not neglect such purifications or partake of such meat without breaking a commandment of God’s, without therefore incurring God’s displeasure; and it behoved him to feel that he could not, and in proportion to the sincerity and depth of his religious sentiment he did feel it. Now, even when Israelites lived in a world of their own, comparatively free from the presence of Gentiles, the observance of the Levitical Law must needs have been at times felt to be an irksome or even anxious obligation; but its irksomeness and anxiety must have been greatly increased when Gentiles were not merely brought into close contact with them, but were even their masters. St. Peter confessed how burdensome it was felt to be, when he pronounced it a yoke which neither they nor their fathers had been able to bear. The feeling of relief must therefore have been inexpressibly great when an Israelite could come to be assured that those positive laws had ceased to be obligatory; that even if from habit or from national or social sentiment he continued to observe them, yet his conscience was quite free to disregard them without fear of displeasing God; that God’s covenanted mercy had no longer any reference whatever to such observances, and that he might worship him acceptably, and hold joyful communion with him (say) in the Lord’s Supper, though he had just before been handling a corpse without being since purified, or eating "unclean" meats, or working on the sabbath day. This relief the gospel brought; God’s servants learnt with joy that they were righteous and accepted before him simply through faith in Christ without those "works of the Law." The curse was reversed. Now it ran thus: "Anathema be he who doth not wholly trust in Christ crucified for righteousness! Anathema be he who brings dead ordinances of the Law to darken his brethren’s joy!" Galatians 3:11 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Galatians 4:1 Now I say (λέγωδέ). A form of expression usual with the apostle when introducing a new statement designed either to explain or elucidate something before said (of. Galatians 3:17; Galatians 5:16; Romans 15:8, according to the Received Text; 1 Corinthians 1:12. So τοῦτοδέφημι, 1 Corinthians 7:29; 1 Corinthians 15:50). It is intended apparently to quicken attention: "Now I wish to say this." In the present case the apostle designs to throw further light upon the position taken in Galatians 3:24, that God’s people, while under the Law, were under a bondage from which they have now been emancipated. Compare the somewhat similar process of illustration adopted in Romans 7:2-4. In both passages it is not a logical demonstration that is put forward, but an illustratively analogous case in human experience. A metaphor, though not strictly an argument, yet frequently helps the reader to an intuitive perception of the justness of the position laid down. That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all (ἐφὅσονχρόνονὁκληρονόμοςνήπιόςἐστινοὐδὲνδιαφέερειδόλουκύριοςπάντωνὤν); so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is lord of all. The article before κληρονόμος, heir, is the class article, as before μεσίτης, mediator (Galatians 3:20)—"an heir." In the word νήπιος the apostle evidently has in view one who as yet is in his nonage—as in English law phrase, "an infant." In Roman law language, infans is a child under seven, the period of minority reaching to twenty-five. In Attic Greek, the correlate to one registered amongst "men" was a παῖς. It does not appear that the apostle means to use a technical legal expression. He contrasts νήπιος with ἀνὴρ in 1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:13, Ephesians 4:14. "Differeth nothing from a bond-servant;" i.e. is nothing better than a bond-servant, as Matthew 6:26; Matthew 10:31; Matthew 12:12. The verb διαφέρειν seems used only in the sense of your differing from another to your advantage, so that τὰδιαφέροντα are things that are more excellent. "Lord," "proprietor;" the title to the property inheres in him, though he is not yet fit to handle it. Galatians 4:2 But is under tutors and governors (ἀλλὰὑπὸἐπιτρόπουςἐστὶκαὶοἰκονόμους) but is under guardians and stewards. Ἐπίτροπος is, in Greek, the proper designation of a minor’s guardian; as, for example, is shown by Demosthenes’s speeches against Aphobus, who had been his ἐπίτροπος. These speeches also show that the ἐπίτροπος was entrusted with the handling of the property of his ward. Yet, as οἰκονόμος more especially denotes one entrusted with the management of property, it should seem that St. Paul uses the former term with more especial reference to the guardian’s control over the person of his ward. The ward has to do what the ἐπίτροπος, guardian, thinks proper, with no power of ordering his actions according to his own will; while, on the other hand, the youth is not able to appropriate or apply any of his property further than as the "steward" thinks right; between the two he is bound hand and foot to other people’s control. The plural number of the two nouns indicates the rough and general way in which the apostle means to sketch the case; speaking in a general way, one may describe a minor as subject to "guardians and stewards." Until the time appointed of the father (ἄχριτῆςπροθεσμίαςτοῦπατρός). The noun προθεσμία, properly an adjective, ὥρα or ἡμέρα being understood, m used very commonly to denote, either a determined period during which a thing is to be done or forborne, which is its most ordinary sense (see Reiske’s ’Lexicon to Demosthenes’); or the further limit of such a period, whence Symmachus uses it to render the Hebrew word for "end" in Job 28:3; or, lastly, a specified time at which a certain thing was to take place, as, for example, Josephus, ’Ant.,’ Job 7:4, Job 7:7, "When the (προθεσμία) day appointed for the payment came." This last seems to be the meaning of the word here, though it admits of being taken in the second sense, as describing the limit of the child’s period of nonage. The somewhat loosely constructed genitive, τοῦπατρός, "of the father," may be compared either with the διδακτοὶτοῦΘεοῦ, "taught of God" (John 6:45), or, in a somewhat different application, "the chastening and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). In reference to the whole case as stated by the apostle, it has been asked—Is the father to be conceived of as dead, or as only gone out of the country, or how? It is sufficient to reply that "the point of the comparison"—to use Bishop Lightfoot’s words—"lies, not in the circum stances of the father, but of the son;" and, further, that to supplement the description which the apostle gives by additional particulars not relevant for the purpose of the comparison would only tend to cloud our view of its actual import. In fact, any image taken from earthly things to illustrate things spiritual will inevitably, if completely filled out, be found to be in some respects halting. Another inquiry has engaged the attention of commentators, as to how far the particular circumstance, that the period of nonage is made dependent upon the father’s appoint meat, can be shown to agree with actual usage as it then obtained. It would seem that no positive proof has hitherto been alleged that such an hypothesis was in strict conformity with either Greek or Roman or Hebrew law. And hence some have had recourse to the precarious and far-fetched supposition that St. Paul founds his thesis on Galatian usage, arguing that such would have been in accordance with that purely arbitrary control which, according to Caesar (’Bell. Gall.,’ Job 6:19), a paterfamilias exercised over wife and children among the kindred tribes in Gaul. The scruple, how ever, now referred to arises from supposing that we know more about the facts than we really do know. So far as has been shown, we cannot tell what was really the precise rule of procedure which, in the case described by the apostle, prevailed either in Judaea, or in Tarsus, or in Galatia; nor again from what region of actual experience St. Paul drew his illustration. We, therefore, have no possible right to say that the case which he supposes was not fairly supposable. On the contrary, when we reflect how open the apostle’s mind was for taking note of facts about him, and how wide and varied his survey, we may safely rest assured that his supposed case was in reality framed in perfect accordance to the civil usage, to which the Galatians would understand him to refer. At the same time, it must be conceded that, amongst different modes of arranging a minor’s case which actual usage permitted or may be imagined to have permitted, the apostle selected just that particular mode which would best suit his present immediate purpose. Galatians 4:3 Even so we (οὕτωκαὶἡμεῖς); so we also. This "we" represents the same persons as before in Galatians 3:13, Galatians 3:24, Galatians 3:25 (see notes), namely, the people of God; a society preserving a continuous identity through successive stages of development, till now appearing as the Church of Christ. The plural pronoun recites, not individuals, but the community viewed as a whole, having the now subsisting "us" as its present representatives. Individually, Christians in general now, and many of those who then when the apostle wrote belonged to the Church, never were in the state of nonage or bondage here referred to. It is, however, notwithstanding this, quite supposable that St. Paul’s account of the history of the whole society is in some degree tinted by the recollection of his own personal experiences. When we were children (ὅτεἧμεννήπιοι); that is, when we were in our nonage. The phrase is not meant to point to a state of immaturity in personal development, but simply to the period of our being withheld from the full possession of our inheritance. This is all that the course of thought now pursued requires; and we only create for ourselves superfluous embarrassment by carrying further the parallel between the figuring persons and the figured. The spiritual illumination enjoyed by the Christian Church, compared with that of the pre-Christian society, presents as great a contrast as that of a man’s knowledge compared with a child’s; but that is not the point here. Were in bondage under the elements (or, rudiments) of the world (ὑπὸτὰστοιχεῖατοῦκόσμουἦμενδεδουλωμένοι); were held in bond. age under the rudiments of the world; or, were under the rudiments of the world brought into bond-service. This latter way of construing, separating ἦμεν from the participle δεδουλωμένοι to connect it with the words which precede, is recommended by the parallel, which the words, "were under the rudiments of the world," then present to the words," is under guardians and stewards," in Galatians 3:2; while the participle "brought into bond-service" reproduces the notion expressed by the words, "is no better than a bond-servant," of Galatians 3:1. The participle "brought into bond-service," then, stands apart, in the same way as the participle "shut up "does in Galatians 3:23. This, however, is only a question of style; the substantial elements of thought remain the same in either way of construing. The Greek word στοιχεῖα calls for a few remarks, founded upon the illustration of its use given by Schneider in his ’Greek Lexicon.’ From the primary sense of "stakes placed in a row," for example, to fasten nets upon, the term was applied to the letters of the alphabet as placed in rows, and thence to the primary constituents of speech; then to the primary constituents of all objects in nature, as, for example, the four "elements" ; and to the "rudiments" or first "elements" of any branch of knowledge. It is in this last sense that it occurs in Hebrews 5:12, "What are the (στοιχεῖα) rudiments (of the beginning, or) of the first principles of the oracles of God" (on which compare the passage from Galen quoted by Alford at the place). This must be the meaning of the word here; it recites the rudimental instruction of children, as if the apostle had said "under the A, B, C, of the world." This is evidently intended to describe the ceremonial Law; for in Hebrews 5:5 the phrase, "those under the Law," recites the same persons as are here described as "under the rudiments of the world;" as again the "weak and beggarly rudiments," in Hebrews 5:9, are surely the same sort of" rudiments’’ as are illustrated in Hebrews 5:10 by the words, "Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years." Since the Law under which the people of God were placed was God’s own ordinance, we must infer that, when it is here designated as "the A, B, C, of the world," the genitive can neither denote the origin of these rudiments nor yet any qualification of moral pravity, but only the qualification of imperfection and inferiority; that is, it denotes the ceremonial institution s of the Law as appertaining to this earthly material sphere of existence, as contrasted with a higher spiritual sphere. Thus "the A, B, C, of the world" is an expression as nearly as possible identical with that of "carnal ordinances" (literally, ordinances of the flesh), used to describe the external ceremonialism of the Law in Hebrews 9:10; which phrase, like the one before us, is used with a full recognition, in the word "ordinances’’ (δικαιώματα), of the Law as of Divine appointment, while the genitive "of the flesh" marks its comparative imperfection. They were, as Conybeare paraphrases, "their childhood’s elementary lessons of outward things." This designation of Levitical ceremonies as being an "A, B, C," or "rudiments, of the world," appears to have become a set phrase with the apostle, who uses it again twice in the Colossians (Colossians 2:8, Colossians 2:20), where he appears, if we may judge from the context, to have in view a (perhaps mongrel) form of Jewish ceremonialism which, with circumcision (mentioned in verse 11), conjoined other "ordinances" (δόγματα) mentioned in verses 14, 20, relating to meats and drinks and observance of times, illustrated in verses 16, 21. This, he tells the Colossians, might have been all very well if they were still "living in the world" (verse 20); but now they were risen with Christ!—with Christ, who had taken that "bond" (χειρόγραφον, verse 14) out of the way; and therefore were called to care for higher things than such merely earthly ones as these. Some suppose that the apostle has reference to the religious ceremonialisms of the idolatrous Gentiles, as well as those of the Mosaic Law. These former ceremonialisms belonged, indeed, to "the world," beth in the sense above pointed out and as tinged with the moral pravity characterizing the "present evil world’ in general. But these cannot be here intended, forasmuch as it was not to such that God’s people were by his ordinance subjected. The other rendering of στοιχεῖα—"elements"—which the Authorized Version puts into the text, but the Revised Version into the margin, was probably selected in deference to the view of most of the Fathers, who, as Meyer observes, took the Greek word in its physical sense: Augustine referring it to the heathen worship of the heavenly bodies and the other cults of nature; Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ambrose to the new moons and sabbaths of the Jews, viewed as determined by the motions of the sun and moon; Jerome, however, interpreting it rudimenta discipliner. On the other hand, in Colossians 2:8, Colossians 2:20, both of our Versions have "rudiments" in the text and "elements" in the margin; in 2 Peter 3:10, 2 Peter 3:12," elements" only. "Brought into bend-service" (δεδουλωμένοι), namely, by the act of the supreme Father imposing upon us the yoke of his Law. Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come (ὅτεδὲἦλθετὸπλήρωματοῦχρόνου); but when the completion of the term (Greek, time) came. "The completion of the term" is the notion answering to "the time appointed of the father" in Galatians 4:2. The "time" (χρόνος) here most probably corresponds to the period terminated by the προθεσμία: that is, it is the interval which God ordained should first elapse. So Acts 7:23, Ὡςδὲἐπληροῦτοαὐτῷτεσσαρακονταετὴνςχρόνος, "When he was well-nigh forty years old;" literally," When there was being completed to him a time of forty years" (comp. also Acts 7:30; Acts 24:27; Luke 21:24; Luke 1:57). The substantive (πλήρωμα) "completion" occurs in the same sense in Ephesians 1:10, "Dispensation of the completion of the times." The apostle might apparently have written ὡςδὲἐπληρώθηὁχρόνος, "But when the term was completed;" but he prefers to express it in this particular form, as colouring the idea with a certain pathos of solemn joy at the arrival of a time so long expected, so fraught with blessing (compare the use of the verb "came" in Galatians 3:25). Why the supreme Disposer, the Father of his people, chose that particular era in the history of the human race for his children’s passing into their majority is a deeply interesting subject of inquiry. Much has been said, as for example by Neander and Guerieke in their Histories of the Church, and by Schaff in his History of the Apostolic Church, on the preparedness of the world at large at just that juncture for the reception of the gospel. It may, however, be questioned whether the apostle had this in his mind in the reference here made to the Divine prothesmia. So far as appears, his view was fastened upon the history of the development of God’s own people, which up to this time had been under the pedagogic custody of the Mosaic Law. Indeed, in just this context he does not even advert, as he may be supposed to have done in Galatians 3:24, to the effect produced by the Law in preparing God’s own people for the gospel, but speaks only of the negative aspect of the legal economy; that is, of those features of "bondage," "powerlessness," and "poverty" which marked it as a state of oppression and helplessness. The training, probably implied in the reference to its "rudiments," stands back for the present out of view; the only notion which is actually brought prominently forward being the comparatively degraded condition in which the child-proprietor was for that while detained. God sent forth his Son (ἐξαπέστειλενὁΘεὸςτὸνυἱὸναὑτοῦ). The terms here used require to be very closely considered: they arc fraught with the very essence of the gospel. The compound verb ἐξαποστέλλω occurs in nine other places of the New Testament, all of them in St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts. In six of these (Luke 1:53; Luke 20:10, Luke 20:11; Acts 9:30; Acts 17:14; Acts 22:21) the ἐξ is well represented in our English Bible by "away." In the remaining three (Acts 7:12; Acts 11:22; Acts 12:11)—"(Jacob) sent forth our fathers first;" "They sent forth Barnabas as far as to Antioch;" "God hath sent forth his angel")—the preposition represented by "forth" expresses with more or less distinctness the idea that the person sent belonged intimately to the place or the society of the person who sent him. In no one passage is it without its appreciable value. The verb ἀποστέλλω, without this second prepositional adjunct of ἐξ, is used, for example, in John 17:18, both of the Father sending the Son and of Christ sending his apostles" into the world," but without putting forward this indication of previous intimate connection. So the verb πέμπω is used in like manner of God sending his Son in Romans 8:3, and of the mission of the Holy Spirit in John 14:26. It was, no doubt, optional with the writer or speaker whether he would employ a verb denoting this particular shade of meaning present in the ἐξ or not; but we are not, therefore, at liberty to infer that, when he chooses to employ a verb which does denote it, he uses it without a distinct consciousness of its specific force. In the clause before us, therefore, as also in John 14:6, the writer must be assumed to have had in his mind at least the thought of heaven as the sphere of existence from which the Son and the Spirit were sent, as in Acts 12:11 above cited, if not of some yet closer association with the Sender. The reference to a previously subsisting intimacy of being between the Sender and the Sent, which we trace here in the preposition ἐξ of the compound verb, is in Romans 8:3, where the verb employed is πέμψας, indicated in the emphatic reference implied in the pronoun ἑαυτοῦ, "sending his own Son." In endeavouring next to determine the import of the expression," his Son," as here introduced, we are met by the surmise that the apostle may have written it proleptically, or by anticipation; that is, as describing, not what Christ was before he was sent forth, but the glory and acceptableness with the Almighty which marked him as the Messiah after his appearing in the world; for when, for example, in another place the apostle writes," Christ Jesus came into the world to rove sinners," he must be understood as expressing himself proleptically, designating the person who came into the world by the name and office which he bore as among men, and not as he was before he came. A proleptic designation is therefore conceivable. But this interpretation of the apostle’s meaning is resisted by the tendency of the context in the kindred passage in Romans 8:3, "God sending his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin;" for those added words betoken very strongly that Christ was viewed by the apostle as having been God’s Son before he appeared in the flesh. And such is the impression which a reader not preoccupied with other ideas would naturally receive also here. The conviction that this is what the apostle really intended is corroborated by references which he elsewhere makes to Christ’s pro-incarnate existence and work; as, for example, in Philippians 2:5, Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:16; the latter of which passages, by describing "the Son of God’s love" as "the Firstborn of every creature, because by him all things were created" (see Alford, and the ’Speaker’s Commentary’ on the passage), betokens that St. Paul regarded him as having been even then the "Son of God;" and this, too, in the sense of derivation from "the substance of the Father, … begotten" (as the Nicene Creed recites) "of his Father before all worlds." We may, therefore, reason, ably believe that the Apostle Paul, whose views alone are now under consideration, recognized these two senses of the term, namely, the theological and the Christologieal, as inseparably blending into one when thus applied to the Lord Jesus; for we must allow that it appears alien to his manner of sentiment and of representation to suppose that he ever uses it in the purely theological sense only. In the view of the apostle Christ was the "Son of God," not only when appointed to be the Messiah, but also before he was "made to be of a woman." Indeed, it should seem that this conception of his person is just that which forms the basis for the subsequent statement that the object of his coming into the world was to procure the adoption of sons for us. Made of a woman (γενόμενονἐκγυναικός); made to be of a woman. This, indeed, was probably the sense intended by King James’s translators, when they followed Wicklife and the Geneva Bible in rendering "made of a woman;" whilst Tyndale and Cranmer, followed by the Revisers of 1881, give "born of a woman." Just the same divergency of renderings appears in the same English translations in Romans 1:3, "made of the seed of David (γενομένονἐκσπέρματοςΔαβίδ)," except that Tyndale has "begotten" instead of "born." The difference in sense is appreciable and important: "made" implies a previous state of existence, which "born" does not. So far as the present writer can find, wherever in the New Testament the Authorized Version has "born," we have in the Greek either τεχθῆναι or γεννηθῆναι: γενέσθαι never having this sense at all. As in Galatians 3:13 (γενόμενοςὑπὲρἡμῶνκατάρα), "Being made a curse for us," and in John 1:14 (ὁΛόγοςσάρξἐγένετο), "The Word was made flesh;" so here God’s Son is described as "made to be of a woman," the phrase, "of a woman," being nearly identical in import with the word "flesh" in St. John, distinctly implying the fact of the Incarnation. The preposition "of" (ἐκ) denotes derivation of being, as when it is found after the verb "to be" in John 8:47, "He that is of God;" "Ye are not of God," pointing back to the claim which (John 8:41) the Jews had made that they had God for their Father. The construction of γίγνομαι, to come to be, with a preposition occurs frequently, as in Luke 22:44; Acts 22:17; Romans 16:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:7. There can be no doubt that γενόμενον must be taken in the next clause with the same meaning as here. Made under the Law (γενόμενονὑπὸνόμον); that is, made to be under the Law. The "Law" here, as in the clause immediately after "those under the Law," indicates, not Law in general, but that particular law of tutorship and of domination over one as yet in the depressed condition of a minor, which the apostle has just before spoken of; that is, a law of ceremonies and of external cult. The article is wanting in the Greek, as in Romans 2:12, Romans 2:23; Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:11, etc. We cannot be unconscious of a tone of pathos in the apostle’s language, thus declaring that he who had before been no less august a being than God’s Son, should in conformity with his Father’s will have stooped to derive being "from a woman," as well as to become subject to such a Law of servitude as that of Moses was. In the second chapter of the Philip-plans we have a similar account of the Incarnation, in which, with similar pathos, the apostle remarks that he took upon him the form of a "bond-servant" (δοῦλος), being made to be in the like condition to that of men (ἐνὁμοιώματιἀνθρώπωνγένομενος); but in that passage the line of thought does not lead to a definite reference of his being made subject to the ceremonial Law. The apostle probably thinks of Christ as being made subject to the Law by his being circumcised; a child of Israelite parents, so long as he was uncircumcised, was repudiated by the Law as one not in the covenant. With reference to the preceding clause," made of a woman," we are naturally led to inquire why this particular was specified. It does not appear to be essential to his argument, as the next clause certainly is. Probably it was added as marking one of the successive steps down which the Son of God descended to that subjection ("servitude," Galatians 3:3) to the ceremonial Law which the apostle is most particularly concerned with. As in Philippians 2:1-30. he is exhibited, first as emptying himself; next, as taking upon him the form of a bond-servant by being made man; and then at length as brought to "the death of the cross;" so here, more briefly, he appears as "sent forth" from the bosom of the Father; next, as made "the son of a woman;" then as brought under the Law, to the end that (of course by the Crucifixion) he might buy off from under the Law those who were subject thereto. If the apostle intended anything more definite by introducing this first clause, it may have been to glance at that fellowship with the whole human race, with all "born of women" (γεννητοῖςγυναικῶν, Matthew 11:11), into which God’s own Son came by becoming himself "of a woman". To refer to yet another point, we can fearlessly affirm that this sentence of the apostle is perfectly consistent with the belief in the writer’s mind that our Lord was born of a virgin-mother, for a specified reference to this fact did not lie in his way just at present, and therefore is not to be desiderated. The only point for consideration in this respect is whether the expression employed does at all allude to it. Many have thought that it does. But when we consider that "one born of woman." γεννητὸςγυναικός, in Hebrew yelud isshah, was a set phrase to denote a human creature, with no particular reference to the woman except as the medium of our being introduced into the world, it has been with much probability judged by most recent critics that the clause shows no colouring of such allusion. Nevertheless, we distinctly recognize in it the sentiment expressed in the familiar verse of the ancient hymn: "Tu, ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, non horruisti virginis uterum;" else, why did not the apostle write γενόμενονἐνσαρκί or γενόμενονἄνθρωπον? Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the Law (ἵνατοὺςὑπὸνόμονἐξαγοράσῃ); that he might redeem (Greek, buy off) them which were under the Law. In what way Christ bought God’s people off, not only from the curse, but also from the dominion of the Law, has been stated by the apostle above, at Galatians 3:13, "Christ bought us off (Χριστὸςἡμᾶςἐξηγόρασεν) from the curse of the Law by being made on our behalf a curse" (see note). But why, in order to effect this object, was it prerequisite, as it is here implied that it was, that he should be himself "brought under the Law"? The directions which the Law in Deuteronomy 21:22, Deuteronomy 21:23 gave with respect to those "hanged on a tree" were apparently held by Joshua (Joshua 8:29; Joshua 10:26, Joshua 10:27) to apply also to the case of persons so hanged who were not Israelites. If so, does it not follow that Jesus, even if not an Israelite under the Law, would, however, by being crucified, have fallen under the curse of the Law, and thereby annihilated the Law for all who by faith should become partakers with him, whether Jews or Gentiles? why, then, should be have been brought under the Law? The objection is met by the consideration that, in order that Christ might abrogate the Law by becoming subject to its curse, it was necessary that he should himself be perfectly acceptable to God, not only as being the eternal "Son of his love," but also in the entire completeness of his life as a man, and, therefore, by perfect obedience to the will of God as declared in the Law, under which it had pleased God to place his people. The Law, whatever the degradation which its ceremonial institute inferred for "the sons of God" subjected to it, was, nevertheless, for the time, God’s manifest ordinance, to which all who sought to serve him were bound to submit them° selves. They could not be righteous before him unless they walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Luke 1:6). That we might receive the adoption of sons (ἵνατὴνυἱοθεσίανἀπολάβωμεν); that is, that our adoptive sonship might be actually and in full measure made over to us. The" we" recites God’s people; the same persons as those indicated by the preceding phrase, "those which were under the Law," which phrase was not meant to define one particular class among God’s people, but to describe the condition in which God’s people had been placed. Their Father had put them under the Law with the view of their being at his appointed time bought off from the Law and admitted to the full enjoyment of their filial privileges. This purpose of their Father, signified beforehand in the promises to Abraham, explains the article before υἱοθεσίαν: it was the adoptive sonship which had been guaranteed to them. Hence the use here of the verb ἀπολάβωμεν instead of λάβωμεν: for the prepositional prefix of this compound verb has always its force; generally denoting our receiving a thing in some way due to us, answering to its force in the verb ἀποδίδωμι, repay: sometimes our receiving a thing in full measure (comp. Luke 6:34, Luke 6:35; Luke 16:25; Luke 18:30; Luke 23:1-56. 41; Romans 1:27; Colossians 3:24; 2 John 1:8). In Luke 15:27 it is receiving back one lost. The second ἵνα is subordinate to the first; the deliverance of God’s people from the Law was in order to their introduction into their complete state of sonship. The noun υἱοθεσία does not appear to occur in any Greek writer except St. Paul; though θέσθαιυἱόνυἱὸςθετός, υἱόθετοςὁκατὰθέσινπατήρ, are found in various authors. After the analogy of other compound verbal nouns with a similar termination (ὁρκωμοσίαἀγωνοθεσίαθεσμοθεσία, etc.), it means first the act of adoption, as, perhaps, Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:5; and then, quite naturally, the consequent condition of the adopted child, as in Romans 8:15; Romans 9:4; and this seems its more prominent sense here. Romans 9:4 suggests the surmise that the term had been in use before among Palestinian Jews, with reference to Israel’s state under the theocracy, and that St. Paul borrowed it thence with reference to the Christian Church, in which it found a more complete realization. Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons (ὅτιδέἐστευἱοί). The apostle is adducing proof that God’s people had actually received the adoption of sons; it was because it was so, that God had sent into their hearts the Holy Spirit, imparting that vivid consciousness of sonship which they enjoyed. The fact of the adoption must have been there, to qualify them to be recipients of this divinely inspired consciousness. The affirmation in Romans 8:16, "The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God," closely resembles our present passage; but it is not identical. We are not made sons (the apostle intimates) by the Spirit giving us the consciousness of sonship; but, having been previously made sons, the Spirit raises in our spirits sentiments answering to the filial relation already established. The position of the clause introduced by "because" is like that in 1 Corinthians 12:15, 1 Corinthians 12:16. The persons recited by the "ye" are still God’s people; not the Galatian believers in particular, except as a portion of the whole Church of God. The apostle puts the thought in this form to bring the truth more strikingly home to their minds. This he does more closely still in the next verse by "thou." But that he has in view God’s people as a whole is clear, not only from the whole strain of the context, but also from the phrase, "into our hearts," in the next clause. God hath sent forth (ἐξαπέστειλενὁΘεός); God sent forth. The tense indicates that the apostle does not refer to a sending forth of God’s Spirit to each individual believer, parallel to that "sealing" which believers are stated to be subjects of in Ephesians 1:13. This historic aorist, as it does in Ephesians 1:4, points to one particular emission—that by which the Comforter was sent forth to take up his dwelling in the Church as his temple through all time (John 14:16, John 14:17; Acts 1:4, Acts 1:5). The Spirit of his Son. The Spirit which "anointed" Jesus to be the Christ; which throughout animated the God-Man Jesus; which prompted him in full filial consciousness, himself in a certain critical hour with loud outcry (μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶς, Hebrews 5:7) to call out, "Abba, Father!" The phrase, "his Son," is aetiological; by it the apostle intimates that it was only congruous that the Spirit which had animated the whole life of the incarnate Son should be shed forth upon those who by faith become one with him, and should manifest his presence with them, as well as their union with Christ, by outcome of sentiment similar to that which Christ had expressed. Since the sonship of Christ is here spoken of as if it were not merely antecedent, but also in some way preparatory to the sending forth of the Spirit, it best suits the connection to construe it, not, as in Ephesians 1:4, as that belonging to him in his preincarnate state of being, but as that which appertained to him after being "made to be of a woman," and in which his disciples might be considered as standing on a certain footing of parity with him. This harmonizes with the relation which in the Gospels and Acts the sending of the Spirit is represented as holding to his resurrection and ascension. The interpretation above given in one point presupposes the apostle’s knowledge of the story of the agony in the garden, when, according to St. Mark (Mark 14:36), Jesus himself used the words, "Abba. Father." This presupposition is warranted, not only by the probabilities of the case, but also by what we read in Galatians 5:7 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Pauline, certainly, if not actually St. Paul’s. We have to add that the Gospels not only make repeated mention of our Lord as addressing the Supreme Being by the compellative of "Father," but also represent him as constantly speaking of God as bearing that relation both to himself and to his disciples. This mode of designating the Almighty was characteristic in the highest degree of Jesus, and up to that time, so far as appears in the Scriptures, unknown. The manner in which the apostle here speaks of the "sending forth" of the Spirit in close proximity to the mention of the "sending forth" of the Son, strongly favours the belief that he regarded the Spirit, as being also a personal agent. In Psalms 104:30 we have in the Septuagint "Thou wilt send forth (ἐξαποστελεῖς) thy Spirit, and they will be created." In Psalms 43:3 and Psalms 57:3 God is implored to "send forth [ἐξαπόστειλον, Septuagint] his light and his truth," "his mercy and his truth;" these being poetically personified as angelic messengers. Into your hearts (εἰςτὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν). But this reading of the Textus Receptus is, by recent editors, replaced by the reading, εἰςτὰςκαρδίαςἡμῶν, into our hearts, the other reading being regarded as a correction designed to conform this clause with the words, "ye are sons," in the preceding one. In both cases the apostle has in his view the Church of God viewed generally. His putting "our" here instead of "your" was probably an outcome of his feeling of proud gladness in the thought of his own happy experience. A precisely similar change in the pronoun, attributable probably to the same cause, is observable in the remarkably analogous passage in Romans 8:15, "Ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." Crying (κράζον); crying out aloud. The word expressing loud utterance betokens in this case undoubting assurance. No faint whisper this of an inner consciousness, shy, reticent, because afraid to assure itself of so. glorious, so blissful a relation; no hesitating half-hope; it is a strong, unwavering conviction, bold, though humbly bold, to thus address the all-holy Supreme himself. The "cry" is here attributed to the Spirit himself; in Romans 8:15 to believers, these being the Spirit’s organs of utterance; presently after in the Romans, verses 26, 27, the Spirit himself is said to "intercede with groanings which cannot be uttered … according to the will of God." Analogously, in the Gospels, evil spirits in demoniacs at times are said to "cry out", while in other passages the cry is attributed to the possessed person. Abba, Father (ἈββᾶὁΠατήρ). In addition to Romans 8:15, just cited, the same remarkable words are found once only besides, in Mark 14:36, as uttered by our Lord in the garden. St. Luke (Luke 22:42) gives only "Father" (Πάτερ); St. Matthew (Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42), "my Father" (Πάτερμου: in verse 39, however, νου is omitted by Tischendorf, though he retains it in verse 42). St. Matthew, by adding μου to Πάτερ here, which he does not add in Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:26, seems to indicate that the form of address which our Lord then employed bespoke more than usual of fervency or of intimacy of communion. According to Furst (’Concordance’), "Abba," אבָּ), occurs frequently in the Targums "sensu proprio et honorifico;" in the Jerusalem Targum taking the form "Ibba," אבָּאִ. In consequence, we may assume, of ,the "honorific" complexion of this form of the word, it was in Chaldee the form usually employed in compellation, or for the vocative. The hypothesis that either the Divine Sneaker, or the Evangelist Mark, or the Apostle Paul, added ὁΠατὴρ as an explanatory adjunct to the Aramaic "Abba," for the benefit of such as might need the explanation, is resisted (1) by the threefold recurrence of the conjoined phrases in just the same form; (2) by the absence of any such intimation of a translation as we find given in other passages where an Aramaic word is explained, as in Mark 5:41; Mark 7:11, Mark 7:34; John 1:38, John 1:41, John 1:42; John 20:16; Acts 9:36; (3) by the addition of ὁΠατὴρ being made by St. Paul in the Romans, when writing with a glowing ardour of strong feeling wholly repugnant to the didactic calmness of a translational gloss: he does not pause to add such a gloss to "Maranatha" in 1 Corinthians 16:22, where it would seem to be much more called for. The apparently nominatival form of ὁΠατὴρ lends no countenance to this view, as is shown by the comparison of Mat 11:26, ναίὁΠατήρ: Luke 8:54, Luke 8:41 ἡπαῖς, ἔγειρε: and in the Septuagint, Psalms 8:1, Psalms 8:9, ΚύριεὁΚύριοςἡμῶν: Psalms 7:1, ΚύριεὁΘεόςμου. Another hypothesis that the twofold compellative was meant to intimate that God was now Father alike to Jewish believers and to Gentile, is wrecked upon its occurrence in St. Mark. The present writer ventures to surmise that the conjoined phrase originated thus: The Lord Jesus, being wont very commonly to substitute for the name "God" the designation of "Father," may be supposed to have used for this designation the word "Abba" as the honorific form of the Chaldaic noun for "father," in much the same way as the Jews regularly substituted the noun Adonai, an honorific form of Adonim, "lord," or "master," for the unutterable tetragrammaton, הוהי. Instead of Adonai, Christ customarily employed the word "Abba," as an almost proper name of the Supreme Being. When our Lord had occasion to apply the word "Father" as a common noun to God, whether in addressing him or in speaking of him, we may infer firm the Peshito-Syriac Version of Mar 14:36 that he added another form of the same original noun "Abj," or "Obj," instead of or in addition to "Abba." The Πάτερ of Luke 22:42 may have been used to represent "Abba;" St. Matthew’s Πάτερμου to represent "Abj" or "Obj." The use of "Abba, ὁΠατὴρ" by believers, probably quite an exceptional use, was adopted, both as a conscious reminiscence of Christ’s utterance in the garden—they, by conjoining themselves thus with their Lord, pleading, as it were, his Name as their warrant for claiming this filial relation with the Most High—and also as an intensely emphatic description of God’s fatherhood, by conjoining together the almost proper name denoting his general fatherhood by which (supposably) Christ was used to designate God, and the common noun by which Christ’s disciples had by him been taught to address him in prayer, and which embodied their sense of his especial fatherhood to those who serve him. The apostle is not to be understood as intimating that the Holy Spirit does actually produce in every heart in which he dwells the definite consciousness of sonship. It is enough for his purpose that the nisus, the endeavour and tendency of his spiritual operation, is in all cases in that direction, though through slackness on their own part so many Christians fail of conquering for themselves the full possession of their inheritance. But, however, we need not (he implies)go back to Mosaic ceremonialism to seek there for our assured sonship. We have it already here—here, in Christ, and in the indwelling presence of his Spirit. Galatians 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son (ὥστεοὐκἔτιεἷδοῦλοςἀλλυἱός); so then, no longer art thou a bondservant, but a son. "Ωστε, properly "so that," is frequently used by St. Paul for" so then" or "wherefore," to state a final conclusion (cf. Galatians 4:16, below; Galatians 3:24; Romans 7:4, etc.). It here marks the conclusion resulting from the statements of the preceding six verses, viz. of God having sent forth his Son to do away with the Law, subjection to which had marked the nonage of his people, and to raise them to their complete filial position, and of his then sending forth his Spirit into their hearts loudly protesting their sonship. "No longer art thou;" by this individualizing address the apostle strives to awaken each individual believer to the consciousness of the filial position belonging to him in particular. Believe it: in Christ Jesus, thou, thine own very self, art a son! The phrase, "no longer," marks the position of God’s servant new, as compared with what it would have been before Christ had wrought his emancipating work and the Holy Spirit had been sent forth as the Spirit of adoption; then he would have still been a bond-servant; he is not that now. This abrupt singling out one individual as a sample of all the members of a class is an instance of the δεινότης of St. Paul’s style (comp. Romans 11:17; Romans 12:20; Romans 13:4; Romans 14:4; 1 Corinthians 4:7). The individual cited by the "thou" is neither a Gentile convert only nor a Jewish believer only; it is any member of God’s kingdom. "A son," a member of God’s family, an οἰκεῖοςτοῦΘεοῦ (Ephesians 2:19), one free of all law of bondage and in full possession of a son’s privileges; no sinner, now, under his Father’s frown; but accepted, beloved, cherished, honoured with his Father’s confidence. And if a son, then an heir of God through Christ (εἰδὲυἱόςκαὶκληρονόμοςδιὰΘεοῦ [Receptus, κληρονόμοςΘεοῦδιὰΧριστοῦ]; and if a son, an heir also through God. So Romans 8:17, "And if children (τέκνα), heirs also; heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ." The inheritance here meant is the possession of every blessing which the theocratic kingdom entitles its members to look forward to. And the point of this added clause is that no further qualification is needed for our having a vested right in that inheritance, than that which is supplied by faith in Christ, uniting us to him and making us sharers with him; no such qualification, for example, as the Mosaizing reactionaries insisted upon (see Acts 15:1); no observance of ceremonial rites, whether of the Law or of such freaks of heretical" will-worship" as are referred to in Colossians 2:23. Thy faith in Christ (says in effect the apostle) gives thee now for good and all an assured place in whatever inheritance God designs to give his people. The manuscripts ’rod other authorities for the text present considerable variety in the reading of the last words of this clause. The reading adopted by L. T. Tr., Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, and Hort and Westcott, namely, κληρονόμοςδιὰΘεοῦ, is that found in the three oldest uncials, and presents a form of expression which was likely so greatly to surprise the copyist as to set him naturally upon the work of revision; whereas that of the Received Text, κληρονόμοςΘεοῦδιὰΧριστοῦ, would have seemed to him so perfectly natural and easy that he would never have thought of altering it. The words, "heir through God," taken in connection with the foregoing context, insist upon the especial appointment of the supreme God himself; his intervention displayed in the most conspicuous manner conceivable, through the incarnated Son and the sent-forth Spirit. The believer is here said to be a son and an heir "through God," in the same sense as St. Paul affirms himself to be an apostle "through Jesus Christ and God the Father," and "through the will of God" (Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1); for "of him and through him and unto him are all things," and most manifestedly so, the things composing the economy of grace which the gospel announces (Romans 11:36). The apostle has thus brought back his discourse to the same point which it had reached before in Galatians 3:29. The reader will do well to carefully compare this section of the Epistle (Galatians 3:3-7) with Romans 7:25-8:4 and Romans 8:14-17. With great similarity in the forms of expression, the difference of the apostle’s object in the two Epistles is clearly discerned. There he is discoursing the more prominently of the believer’s emancipation from the controlling power of a sinful nature, which, under the Law, viewed under its moral aspect rather than its ceremonial, was rather fretted into yet more aggravated disobedience than quelled or overpowered. Here his subject is more prominently the believer’s emancipation from the thraldom of the Law’s cere-monialism, which in the present Epistle, relative to the troubles in the Galatian Churches, he has more occasion to deal with. Both the one deliverance, however, and the other was necessary for the believer’s full consciousness of adoptive sonship; and each was, in fact, involved in the other. Galatians 4:8 Howbeit (ἀλλά); a strongly adversative conjunction, belonging to the whole sentence comprised in this and the next verse, which are closely welded together by the particles μὲν and δέ. In contravention of God’s work of grace just described, they were renouncing their sonship and making themselves slaves afresh. Then (τότεμέν). The μέν, with its balancing δέ, here, as often is the case, unites together sentences not in their main substance strictly adverse to each other, but only in subordinate details contrasted, of which we have an exemplary instance in Romans 8:17, ΚληρονόμουςμὲνΘεοῦσυγκληρονόμουςδὲΧριστοῦ. In such cases we have often no resource in English but to leave the μὲν untranslated, as our Authorized Version commonly does; "indeed" or "truly," for example, would be more or less misleading. The truth is, the apostle in these two verses is heaping reproach upon the Galatian Judaizers; first, in this verse, for their former (guilty) ignorance of God and their idolatries, and then, in the next verse, for their slighting that blessed friendship with God which they owed only to his preventing grace. In dealing with Gentile Christians the apostle repeatedly is found referring to their former heathenism, for the purpose of enforcing humility or abashing presumption, as for example in Romans 11:17-25; Romans 15:8, Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 12:2; Ephesians 2:11-13, Ephesians 2:17. In the case of the Galatians his indignation prompts him to use a degree of outspoken severity which he was generally disposed to forbear employing. The "then" is not defined, as English readers might perhaps misconstrue the Authorized Version as intending, by the following clause, "not knowing God," which in that version is "when ye knew not God"—a construction of the words which the use of the participle would hardly warrant; rather the time referred to by the adverb is the time of which he has before been speaking, when God’s people were under the pedagogy of the Law. This, though when compared with Christ’s liberty a state of bondage, was, however (the apostle feels), a position of high advancement as compared with that of heathen idolaters. These last were "far off," while the Israelites were "nigh" (compare the passages just now referred to). During that time of legal pedagogy the Galatians and their forefathers, all in the apostle’s view forming one class, were wallowing in the mire of heathenism. When ye knew not God (οὐκεἰδότεςΘεόν); ye knew not God and, etc. "Knowing not God" describes the condition of heathens also in 1 Thessalonians 4:5," Not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles which know not (τὰμὴεἰδότα) God;" 2 Thessalonians 1:8, "Rendering vengeance to them that know not (τοῖςμὴεἰδόσιν) God." Both of these passages favour the view that the apostle does not in the least intend in the present clause to excuse the idolatries which he goes on to speak of, but rather to describe a condition of godlessness which, as being positive rather than merely negative, inferred utter pravity and guiltiness. He uses οὐκ with the participle here, in place of the μὴ in the two passages cited from the Thessalonians, as intending to state an historical fact viewed absolutely—a sense which is made clear in English by substituting an indicative verb for the participle. Ye did service unto (ἐδουλεύσατε); served; devoted yourselves to. The verb is, perhaps, used here in that milder sense in which it frequently occurs; as in Matthew 6:24; Luke 15:29; Luke 16:13; Acts 20:19; Romans 7:6, Romans 7:25; Romans 14:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:9. The Revised Version, however, gives "were in bondage to" in the present instance, but "serve" in the passages now cited. The aorist, instead of an imperfect, describes the form of religious life which they then led as a whole. Them which by nature are no gods (τοῖςφύσειμὴοὗσιθεοῖς). The Textus Receptus has τοῖςμὴφύσειοὖσιθεοῖς, which would apparently mean "which arc not gods by nature, but only in your imagination;" like "There be that are called gods," in 1 Corinthians 8:5—Zeus, Apollo, Here, etc., mere figments of imagination. The more approved reading suggests rather the idea that the objects they worshipped might not be non-existent, but were certainly not of a Divine nature; "by nature," that is, in the kind of being to which they belong (Ephesians 2:3; Wis. 13:1, μάταιοιφύσει). The question may be asked—If they were not gods, what then were they? The apostle would probably have answered, "Demons;" for thus he writes to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 10:20): "The things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils (δαιμονίοις), and not to God." Alford renders, "to gods which by nature exist not," etc.; but the more obvious sense of οὖσιν is that of a copula merely"). Galatians 4:9 But now (νῦνδέ); and now. (See note on "then" in Galatians 4:8). After that ye have known God, or rather are known of God (γνόντεςΘεόνμᾶλλονδὲγνωσθέντεςὐπὸΘεοῦ); after that ye have gotten to know God, or rather to be known of God. Considering the interchangeable use of γνῶναι or ἐγνωκέναι and εἰδωέναι in John 8:55 and 2 Corinthians 5:16, it seems precarious to make much distinction between them as applied to the knowledge of God. The former, however, is the verb more commonly used in this relation; by St. Jn, in his First Epistle, where so much is said of knowing God, exclusively; although in other relations he, both in Epistle and Gospel, uses the two verbs interchangeably. The expression, "to know God," is one of profound pregnancy; denoting nothing less than that divinely imparted intuition of God, that consciousness of his actual being, viewed in his relation to ourselves, which is the result of truly "believing in him." Moreover, as it is knowing a personal Being, between whom and ourselves mutual Action may be looked for, it implies a mutual conversancy between ourselves and him, as the term "acquaintance" (οἱγνῶστοίτινος), as used in Luke 2:44 and Luke 2:23. 49, naturally does. So that "having gotten to be known of God" is very nearly equivalent to having been by God brought to be, to speak it reverently, on terms of acquaintanceship with him; and this does indeed seem to be meant in 1 Corinthians 8:3. The Galatian believers had in very truth gotten to know God, if they had learnt to cry out unto him, "Abba, Father." And the remembrance of this happy experience of theirs, which he had, we may suppose, himself witnessed in the early days of their discipleship, prompts him to introduce the correction, "or rather to be known of God." Their having attained such a consciousness of sonship had been, as he writes, 1 Corinthians 8:7, "through God;" he it was that had sent forth his Sen that his people might receive the adoption of sons; he that had sent forth his Spirit into their hearts to give them the sense of sonship; he had shown that he knew, recognized them to be his (2 Timothy 2:19), by gifting them with the blissful prerogative of knowing what he was to them. The correction of "knowing" by "being known" is analogous to that of "apprehend" by "being apprehended" in Philippians 3:12. The pragmatic value of this correcting clause is to make the Galatians feel, not only what a wilful self-debasement it was on their part, but also what a slight put upon the Divine favours shown to them, that they should frowardly repudiate their filial standing to adopt afresh that servile standing out of which he had lifted his people. What was this but a high-handed contravening of God’s own work, a frustration of his gospel? And this by them whom only the other day he had rescued from the misery and utter wickedness of idolatry! How turn ye again; or, back (πῶςἐπιστρέφετεπάλιν); how turn ye back again. An abrupt change from the form of sentence which the foregoing words naturally prepared us for; which might have been such as we should have by simply omitting the "how." As if it were, "After having gotten to be known of God, ye are turning back again—how can ye?—to the weak," etc. This "how," as in Galatians 2:14, is simply a question of remonstrance; not expecting an answer, it bids the person addressed consider the amazing unseemliness of his proceeding (so Matthew 22:12; comp. also 1 Timothy 3:5; 1 John 3:17). The verb ἐπιστρέφειν frequently denotes "turning back" (Matthew 10:13; Matthew 12:44; 2 Peter 2:22; Luke 8:55). To the weak and beggarly elements (ἐπὶτὰἀσθενῆκαὶπτωχὰστοιχεῖα); the mere elementary lessons, the A, B, G (see Galatians 2:4, and note), which can do nothing for you and have nothing to give you. The description is relative rather than absolute. The horn-book, useful enough for the mere child, is of no use whatever to the grown-up lad who has left school. In Hebrews 7:18 mention is made of "the weakness and unprofitableness" of the Levitical Law relative to the expiation of sin; which is not precisely the aspect of the Law which is here under view. The word "beggarly" was probably in the writer’s mind contrasted with "the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Ephesians 3:8). Whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage! (οἷςπάλινἄνωθενδουλεύεινθέλετε;); whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? The verb δουλεύειν is here, differently from Hebrews 7:8, contrasted with the condition of a son enjoying his full independence (see Hebrews 7:25 and Galatians 5:1). It would be an insufferable constraint and degradation to the full-grown son to be set to con ever and repeat the lessons of the infant school. Ἄνωθεν, afresh, over again, intensifies πάλιν by adding the notion of making a fresh start from the commencing-point of the course indicated. The application of these words, together especially with the phrase, "turn back again," in the preceding clause, to the case of the Galatian converts from idolatrous heathenism, has suggested to many minds the idea that St. Paul groups the ceremonialism of heathen worship with that of the Mosaic Law. Bishop Lightfoot in particular has here a valuable note, in which, with his usual learning and breadth of view, he shows how the former might in its ritualistic element have subserved the purpose of a disciplinary training for a better religion. Such a view might be regarded as not altogether out of harmony with the apostle’s spirit as evinced in his discourses to the Lyeaonians and the Athenians (Acts 14:15-17; Acts 17:22-31). But though in his wide sympatheticalness he might, if discoursing with heathens, have sought thus to win them to a better faith, he is hardly just now in a mood for any such sympathetic tolerance. He is much too indignant at the behaviour of these Galatian revolters to allow that their former religious ceremonies could have been good enough to be admitted to group with those of the Law of Moses: he has just before adverted to their former heathenism for the very purpose of (so to speak) setting them down—a purpose which would be a good deal defeated by his referring to that cult of theirs as in any respect standing on a level with the cult of the Hebrews. Indeed, it may be doubted whether, at the utmost limit to which he would at any time have allowed himself to go, in the "economy" which he unquestionably was used to employ in dealing with souls, he would, however, have gone so far as to class the divinely appointed ordinances of Israel, the training-school of God’s own children, with the ritual of demon-inspired worships. It is much easier to suppose that the apostle identifies the Galatian Churchmen with God’s own people, with whom they were now in fact σύμφυψοι, blended in corporal identity with them. God’s children had heretofore been in bondage to the A, B, C, of the Law, but were so no longer; if any of those who were now God’s children took it in hand to observe that Law, then were they, though not in their individual identity, yet in their corporate identity, turning back again to the A, B, C, from which they had been emancipated. The former experience of Israel was their experience, as the "fathers" of Israel were their fathers (1 Corinthians 10:1); which experience they were now setting themselves to renew. Galatians 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years (ἡμέραςπαρατηρεῖσθε, καὶμῆναςκαὶκαιρούςκαὶἐνιαυτούς); days ye are intent on observing, and months, and seasons, and years. In the compound verb παρατηρεῖν, the prepositional prefix, which often denotes "amiss," seems rather, from the sense of "at one’s side," to give the verb the shade of close, intent observation. This may be shown by the circumstances to be of an insidious character; thus the active παρατηρεῖν in Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7; Luke 14:1; Acts 9:24, and the middle παρατηροῦμαι, with no apparent difference of sense, in Luke 20:20. Josephus uses the verb of "keeping the sabbath days" (’Ant.,’ Luke 3:5, Luke 3:8), and the noun παρατήρησιςτῶννομίμων, for "observance of the things which are according to the laws" (’Ant.,’ Luke 8:3, Luke 8:9). The accumulation of nouns with the reiterated "and," furnishing another example of the δεινότης of St. Paul’s style, betokens a scornfully impatient mimesis. These reactionaries were full of festival-observing pedantry—"days," "new moons," "festivals," "holy years," being always on their lips. The meaning of the first three of the nouns is partially suggested by Colossians 2:16, "Let no man judge you … in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day (ἑορτῆςνουμηνίας, σαββάτων);" in which passage, we may observe, there is a similar tone of half-mocking mimesis; where the same ideas are apparently presented, but in a reverse order. Comp. also 2 Chronicles 8:13, Offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles." The "days," then, in the present passage, we may suppose, are the sabbath days, together perhaps with the two fast days every week which the Jewish tradition prescribed (Luke 18:12). The "months" point to the new moons, the observance of which might occasion to these Gentiles considerable scope for discussion in adjusting themselves to the Jewish calendar, different no doubt from the calendar they had been hitherto used to. The "seasons" would be the annual festivals and fasts of the Jews, not only the three prescribed by the Levitical Law, but also certain others added by tradition, as the Feasts of Purim and of Dedication. So far we appear to be on tolerably sure ground. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Galatians 5:1 Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you (ἴδε, ἐγὼΠαῦλοςλώγωὑμῖν); lo, I Paul say unto you. The adverbial exclamation ἴδε, found in St. Paul’s writings only here (in Romans 2:17 it should be εἰδὲ), seems to be more abrupt than ἰδού, pointing to the immense importance and yet possibly unexpected character of what follows. The Galatians might be surprised to hear it; but that which they seemed disposed to take in hand was fraught with utter ruin. "I, Paul:" he thus puts forward his personality, as solemnly gaging his whole credit and responsibility upon the truth of that which he is about to affirm. The turn of thought is somewhat different in 2 Corinthians 10:1 and Ephesians 3:1. There is no reason to suppose that he is glancing at the use which might have already been made or might be made of the fact of his having himself circumcised Timothy. That if ye be circumcised (ὅτιἐὰνπεριτέμνησθε); that if ye set about having yourselves circumcised. The present tense is used also in the next verse and in Galatians 6:12, Galatians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 7:18. Compare the present tense, δικαιοῦσθε, in 1 Corinthians 7:4. In Acts 15:1 the πωειτέμνηαθε of the Textus Receptus is replaced by recent editors by περιτμηθῆτε, which is better suited to the posture of mind of those Pharisee Christians who had in view the abhorrent uncleanness attaching, as they considered, to those described as ἀκροβυστίανἔχοντες (Acts 11:3); upon whom themselves the Jews fastened the epithet of ἀκροβυστία, not as a mere colourless antitheton to περιτομή, but as a selected term of reproach as objects of offence and disgust. The apostle, on the other hand, is here not thinking of outward corporeal condition; for he presently (Acts 15:6) affirms that in Christ Jesus it mattered nothing whether a man were in περιτομὴ or in ἀκροβυστία, as indeed he proved to be his feeling by circumcising Timothy (Acts 16:3). It is the posture of mind that the apostle-is thinking of exclusively. What was this? The very warning of this verse shows, that, in wishing for circumcision, these Galatians did not intend to withdraw from Christ; and it appears from the next verse that they did not, either, contemplate the doing of the whole Law. But then, too, the fourth verse, in which apparently the apostle means to explain and justify the assertion of this second verse, indicates that they sought circumcision with the view of being justified by the Law; not, as has just been remarked, by obeying the whole Law, but by submitting themselves to the Law so far as undergoing this one rite prescribed by it. The conclusion to be drawn from these premisses is that what the apostle means is this: If ye have yourselves circumcised with the view of thereby obtaining righteousness before God, ye forfeit all hope of receiving benefit from Christ (see note on Galatians 4:10). In comparing the present passage with Galatians 6:12,Galatians 6:13, we observe that, while here he is dealing with those who sought circumcision with the view of assuring their righteousness before God, he is there referring to persons actuated by an altogether different set of motives. Christ shall profit you nothing (Χριστὸςὑμᾶςοὐδὲνὠφωλήσει). "The future tense marks the certain result of their being circumcised: ’Christ (as you will find) will never profit you anything’" (Bishop Ellicott). The future time is not, in particular, for example, the time of Christ’s second coming; but that which follows upon their receiving circumcision—the hour in which their distrust in Christ eventuated in the overt act of having themselves circumcised for the purpose of gaining righteousness thereby, would decisively cut them off from Christ. Their circumcision would be for them the sacrament of excision from Christ. We may compare with this the awful passage referring to the consequences accruing to Jewish Christians from their relapsing to Judaism, in Hebrews 10:26-30. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this passage, in determining the relation between trust in Christ’s atonement and participation in the benefits of that atonement. It is at his extreme peril that a Christian allows himself in misgivings as to whether Christ’s mediation is all-sufficient for the securing of his peace with God and his part in God’s kingdom. It is by reliance upon Christ’s work that his salvation through Christ is secured; by distrust in it his salvation is brought into peril; by definite unbelief his salvation is forfeited. This is in perfect accordance with the apostolic doctrine in general; but rarely is it so strongly and incisively asserted as it is here. Galatians 5:3 For I testify again (μαρτύρομαιδὲπάλιν); I protest again. In using the word μαρτύρομαι, pro teste loquor, "I speak in the presence of a witness," the apostle intimates that he is making his affirmation with a definite sense of the Lord being his Witness (cf. Ephesians 4:17, "This I say and testify in the Lord"). The original construction and force of the verb are shown in Judith 7:28, Μαρτύρομαιὑμῖντὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴνγῆν. The apostle is wont to use it with a distinct sense of its emphatic import (see Acts 20:26; 1 Thessalonians 2:11). The word "again" points, not to the substance of the subsequent affirmation, as if it were a repetition of that mode in the preceding verse, which in fact it does not appear to be, but to the solemnity with which he makes this fresh affirmation. For the phrase, "I Paul say unto you," was one form of solemn affirmation which in effect gaged his personality as Christ’s apostle and as acting in his name; and this "I protest" is another of equally solemn import. To every man that is circumcised (παντὶἀνθρώπῳπεριτεμνομένῳ); to every man that is having himself circumcised. St. Paul’s statements elsewhere, and his own proceeding in circumcising Timothy, as well as the present context, make it certain that, however absolute and universal his affirmation at first sight seems to be, it is nevertheless meant to be taken as made with reference to certain understood conditions. Thus: "I protest to any one of you Gentiles, who, being already baptized into Christ, has himself circumcised with the view of winning righteousness and favour with God, by obeying this one prescription of the Law—that," etc. The conjunction δὲ is most probably the δὲ of transition (metabatic), introducing a fresh particular merely; and in this instance, as often, it needs not to be represented in translation at all. Certainly ,s for" is not its meaning. Possibly, as De Wette supposes, it points back, as an adversative, to the words," Christ shall profit you nothing," as if it were "but on the contrary." That he is a debtor to do the whole Law (ὅτιὀφειλέτηςἐστὶνὅλοντὸννόμονποιῆσαι); that he is under obligation (Greek, is a debtor) to do the whole Law. By having himself circumcised, he adopts the token of the Lord’s covenant (Genesis 17:11, Genesis 17:13) made with those who were his people after the flesh; he enrolls himself with them to share with them their obligations. And to them the Lord had given the Law of Mount Sinai to be their appointed pedagogue till the Christ should come. "By being circumcised" (he means) "you of your own accord put yourself back afresh under this pedagogue, and just his bidding you must do. And for what? All the ordinances and ceremonies he puts you upon observing will leave you as far off as ever from remission of sins and justification with God! And this self-surrender to the pedagogue God has not asked for at your hands; while what he does require, that you withhold, even faith in him whom he hath sent: nay, not merely withhold your belief, but by open act and deed testify your disbelief in him." Under all that the apostle is here writing there appears to lie the principle, which, however, he has not distinctly stored, but which we see to be true, that circumcision was the peculiar badge of "Israel after the flesh," appertaining to them alone and not to be meddled with by any who did not mean to become naturalized as fellow-citizens with them. (For the use of ὀφειλέτηςἰστίν, comp. Romans 8:14.) The noun more commonly points to a debt incurred, or guiltiness; but here it simply denotes obligation. Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you (κατηργήθητεἀπὸτοῦΧριστοῦ); or, ye have disconnected yourselves from Christ. The verb καταργεῖν is a favourite word with St. Paul, occurring twenty-seven times in his Epistles, including twice in the Hebrews, whilst in the rest of the New Testament it occurs only once, and that in the Pauline St. Luke (Luke 13:7). Its proper meaning is "to make inoperative," "make of no effect," as above (Galatians 3:17). The phrase, καταργεῖσθαιἀπό, etc., occurs Romans 7:2, "If the husband die (κατήργηταιἀπό), she is discharged from the law of the husband;" it ceases to have any effect upon her; so ibid., Romans 7:6, "Now we have been discharged from the Law (κατηργήθημενἀπὸτοῦνόμον);" it has ceased to have any operation towards us. The phrase combines the two ideas—separation suggested by the ἀπό (comp. Romans 9:3), and the cessation of a work (ἔργον) or an effect till then wrought by one upon the other of the two parties: the two parties have nothing more to do with each other. The sense given in the Authorized Version is perfectly justifiable; only, perhaps, here the passive takes, as it sometimes does, the reflective sense of the middle verb; but it may be that the apostle means simply to express the result which has accrued. The aorist tense of κατηργήθητε, as well as of the ἐξεπέσατε, expresses the certainty and promptness with which the result followed upon the (supposed) act. Whosoever of you are justified by the Law (οἵτινεςἐννόμῳδικαιοῦσθε); such of you as go about to be justified by the Law. "By the Law;" literally, in the Law; seek to find in the Law the means of justification (cf. Galatians 3:11, and note). The present tense is the present of design or endeavour; the result in this case being, in fact, unattainable (Galatians 3:10, Galatians 3:21). Ye are fallen from grace (τῆςχάριτοςἐξεπέσατε); ye have fallen from the state of grace. "Grace" denotes the condition of acceptance with God into which faith in Christ brings us. Cf. Romans 5:2: "Through whom we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand." The verb ἐκπίπτω is used as in 2 Peter 3:17, "Lest—ye fall from (ἐκτέσητε) your own steadfastness." So πίπτω, Revelation 2:5, "Remember whence thou hast fallen [πέπτωκας: Receptus, ἐκπέπτωκας]." In classical Greek the verb was frequently used as a set term to describe those who, in the alternating success of adverse factions in the several independent cities of Greece, were compelled by a more powerful adverse party to submit to exile; its correlative verb being ἐκβάλλω. This fact leads Bishop Lightfoot, having an eye to the ἔκβαλε of Galatians 4:30, to render ἐξεπέσατε here, "are driven forth and banished with Hagar your mother." But this very idiomatic colour of meaning it seems very precarious to give to the word in the Greek of St. Paul. The more general signification of the term is amply sustained by its use in Plutarch as cited by Wetstein. Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit (ἡμεῖςγὰρπνεύματι); for we for our parts by the Spirit. "We" who abide in Christ, and continue steadfast in the grace into which Christ has brought us; that is, we believers in Christ, as such. Not, "I and those who go along with me," as e.g. in Philippians 3:17. "By the Spirit." Πνεῦμα can hardly here mean, as in Galatians 3:3, the element of spiritual life; but much more probably the personal Spirit of God, referred to as inspiring and prompting the action of the believer’s mind. The presence of this Spirit has been a]ready described as the distinguishing blessing of believers in Christ (Galatians 3:2-5, Galatians 3:14; Galatians 4:6); while presently after (Galatians 3:18, πνεύματι: 22-25) the apostle dwells on the work of the same Divine Agent in regulating the Christian’s habits of feeling and action (the dative as in Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:18; Romans 8:13). It is here referred to as evincing the Divine sanction which attaches to the particular action of faith and hope now to be described (comp. Romans 8:15-17; Ephesians 1:13). Wait for the hope of righteousness by faith (ἐκπίστεωςἐλπίδαδικαιοσύνηςἐπεκδεχόμεθα); from the ground of faith do wait for the hope of righteousness. The term which has the principal accent in this clause is ἐκπίστεως, "from the ground of faith." This appears, both from the preceding context, in which the opposed idea of "justification by the Law" holds the foremost place, requiring here the confronting mention of "faith," and also from the next verse, which substantiates the statement before us by affirming the all-importance of "faith." In point of construction, ἐκπίστεως does not appear to qualify "righteousness," although, from the classical text Habakkuk 2:4, it is so often connected with δίκαιος and δικαιοῦσθαι: but rather the whole clause, "wait for the hope of righteousness." What the apostle is now concerned to say is that it is by virtue of our faith that we look forward to hereafter receiving the hope of righteousness. This, of course, includes our being by faith justified. The word "hope" here designates the object hoped for, and not the sentiment itself. So Romans 8:24, "hope that is seen;" Colossians 1:5, "the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens;" Titus 2:13, "looking for the blissful hope." The genitive, "of righteousness," may be (1) the "genitive of apposition," the hope which is, or which consists of, righteousness, similar to the genitives in the phrases, "the earnest of the Spirit," "the sign of circumcision,’ ’ "the leaven of malice," "the recompense of the inheritance," "the peaceable fruit of righteousness" (2 Corinthians 5:5; Romans 4:11; 1 Corinthians 5:8; Colossians 3:24; Hebrews 12:11); or (2) "the hope of righteousness" may mean the hope that appertains unto righteousness, which would be the "inheritance" spoken of in Galatians 3:18, Galatians 3:22, as accruing, not "from the Law," but to those who are justified by faith. The apostle is not wont to speak of justification as a blessing to be received at the day of final decision, to which he evidently here refers, but as a blessing received at once by those who believe in Christ as the fruit even here of their faith. Thus Romans 5:1, "Being justified (δικαιωθέντες) by faith, we have peace with God;" ibid., Romans 5:11, "We have now received the reconciliation." Thus also in this Epistle (Galatians 3:24-27) it is declared that, in consequence of being justified by faith, we are clothed with Christ and God’s adopted sons (see also Galatians 4:6, Galatians 4:7). There can surely be no question of the already received justification of those in whom the Spirit testifies that they are sons. Nor does Philippians 3:9 speak a different language: he aspires (he there says) to be in that final judgment found in possession of a righteousness which he had received in this life through the faith which he had in this life exercised. As Bengel here observes, "Paul, in mentioning things beyond, includes and confirms things present." Of Judaical legalism it was true that it did not think itself already possessed of righteousness, but with an ever-unappeased conscience was always still striving after it; whereas it is the privilege and glory of faith that it can enjoy the assurance of being even now justified and at peace with, "at one" with, God. Most certainly, what the apostle here calls "hope" is not the sentiment which we so often thus name when we intend thereby an imperfectly assured expectation of some probably coming good. In the apostle’s vocabulary it denotes a confident anticipation unclouded by doubt (comp. Romans 8:23-25; Hebrews 11:1). In fine, this is what the apostle means: We Christians, as led by the Spirit of adoption, do rest in the confident anticipation of receiving the inheritance which is the future award of the righteous, on the ground of our faith in the Lord Jesus. The verb ἀπεκδέχομαι, in all the six other passages in which it is found, is used with reference to objects or events pertaining to the close of the present dispensation: Romans 8:19, Romans 8:23, Romans 8:25; 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 9:28. The proposition ἀπὸ in this compound verb is probably intensive, expressing thorough-goingness; an entirely assured, steadfast expectation, persistent to the end. Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ (ἐνγὰρΧριστῷἸησοῦ); for in Christ Jesus. "For;" to prove that it is from the ground of faith that we look for the final awards due to righteousness, and not from obedience to any ceremonial law. "In Christ Jesus" means more than in Christ’s religion. We had the phrase above, Galatians 3:28, "All ye are one man in Christ Jesus." It occurs frequently in St. Paul’s writings; remarkable instances are supplied in Romans 16:17, "who were in Christ before me;" ibid., 11, "which are in the Lord;" 1 Corinthians 1:30, "of him [i.e. of God] are ye in Christ Jesus." It is, perhaps, best illustrated by our Lord’s own parable of the vine in John 15:1-4. The spiritual union with Christ therein portrayed is maintained and operative through the action of the soul habitually cleaving to and depending upon him, and constantly receiving from him responsive gifts of spiritual vitality and power. Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which Worketh by love (οὔτεπεριτομήτιἰσχύειοὔτεἀκροβυστίαἀλλὰπίστιςδἰἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη); neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith operative through love. In two other passages the apostle makes a very similar statement. One is below, Galatians 6:15, "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." The other Isaiah 1 Corinthians 7:19, which with its context runs thus: "Was any one called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised (μὴἐπισπάσθω). Hath any been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God." The comparison of these three passages suggests: (1) That the "availeth not anything" now before us is tantamount to the "neither is anything" and to the "is nothing" of the other two passages; and that the meaning in each case is that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any effect for good; for since the anti-thetic affirmation in all three cases states what is effectual for good, it is obvious to infer that it was of a beneficial effect only that the apostle was thinking in the foregoing statement. (2) This leads to the question why "uncircumcision" should be thus repeatedly affirmed, twice to the Galatians, to be of no beneficial effect. More must be meant than a mere completing of the sentence by adding to the mention of "circumcision" the mention of its opposite. It is clear that there were those who imagined that uncircumcision made a favourable difference in men’s religious condition, just as there were others, like these Galatian reactionaries, who imagined that circumcision did. That there were persons to be found in the Church who held the former view is put beyond doubt by the exhortation," Let him not become uncircumcised," which immediately precedes 1 Corinthians 7:19, now under review with the passage immediately before us; with reference to which exhortation comp. 1 Macc. 1:15; Josephus, ’ Ant,,’ 12:5. I. It was in no such ways, the apostle tells them, that the Divine approval was to be either gained or secured; and only mischief would result from entering upon them. (3) The antithetic affirmation of what really is effectual for our spiritual well-being varies in the three passages; but it is natural to infer that that which in all three is declared to be the thing of vital importance, either is at bottom one and the same thing, or at least necessarily involves it. "Faith operative through love" must be identical with, or involve, "the keeping of the commandments of God," and "a new creature." A close examination of the first of these three sentences will show that it is so. The participle ἐνεργουμένη cannot be a passive, as Estius maintained; who even asserted a passive sense for the verb ἐνεργεῖσθαι in all the eight other passages in which it is found (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). In perhaps not one of these passages is a passive meaning probable; while in some of them, as Ephesians 3:20; Colossians 1:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, it is palpably inadmissible. In the case before us, if a passive sense were admitted, we should have the expression, "faith wrought in us by love;" an account of the genesis of faith which must be judged to be in the strictest sense of the word preposterous. Faith does indeed grow and become perfected through love; but it is not in the first instance wrought in us by love, except indeed it be God’s love to us (Ephesians 2:4). In those passages of the New Testament in which the verb ’ ἐνεργεῖν occurs in the active voice, the subject of the verb is a personal agent, or one which, as in Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:4, is probably spoken of as such. It is most commonly followed by an accusative of the thing wrought, which, however, is sometimes left to the reader to supply. The middle voice appears in St. Paul always to have for its subject an impersonal agent (Winer, ’ Gram. N. T.,’ § 38, 6); and such an agent is said ἐνεργεῖσθαι in the sense always of "proving, acting out, its vitality and power," and never of simply "doing" such and such things. It is nowhere followed by an accusative. It is thus distinguished from ἐργάζομαι, which either is followed by an accusative of the work done or is used absolutely of "doing work," as in Matthew 21:28; Romans 4:4, Romans 4:5; 1 Corinthians 4:12. The apostle, therefore, by the words, πίστιςδἰἀγάπηςἐνεργουμένη means not, "faith through love doing works of beneficence,’ ’but "faith evincing its vitality and power through the love which it begets in us;" "faith by love operative and influential.’ ’Love is not contemplated as a separate acting of the Spirit, added on to faith as it were by an extrinsic effort of the soul, but as a product of faith itself, by which faith exerts its own internal energy. The apostle’s meaning becomes clearer if we consider the object on which the justifying faith of the Christian fastens. This the apostle describes in this Epistle as Christ, "who gave himself for our sins;" "who loved me and gave himself for me" (Galatians 1:4; Galatians 2:20). When this marvellous exhibition of Divine compassion and love is through faith in very deed caught sight of and realized, it naturally becomes a truth-power, exercising over the man an influence imperative and supreme. This was the apostle’s own experience; so much so that he seems to struggle with language while compelling it to describe the intensity of self-devotion with which it animated him. In this Epistle we may cite the passages Galatians 2:20; Galatians 6:14. And in other Epistles he writes in a similar strain. Let it suffice to cite 2 Corinthians 5:14, 2 Corinthians 5:15: "The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again;" adding, in 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature;… all things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ"—words which show what he meant by the "new creature" mentioned below, Galatians 6:15. Thus the apostle evinces how in his own case faith through love became operative and influential. Christ’s love to himself, on being realized by him, awakened in his soul a sentiment of grateful affection to his Redeemer, which was so strong and influential as thenceforward to sway and regulate the whole of his life. To complete, however, our estimate of the apostle’s view of this matter, we must not forget to take account of the words "by the Spirit" in the preceding verse. The Spirit alone can make even the love of Christ thus influential with our souls, which but for his quickening grace remain, even in sight of the cross, still numbed and cold. The accordance of the notion of "faith through love operative and influential" with that of a "new creature" has been already indicated; and no other principle than this can enable us for the "keeping of the commandments of God;" and this does, and even constrains the soul to keep them. "But," it may be asked, "does the ordinary experience of Christian men and women as we see them bear out this representation? Is faith in their case thus operative and influential?" It would be foolish to say that it is; with the average, even of those Christians who make a religious life their most serious concern, it is not. And the case was no doubt the same with the average of Christian believers in the apostle’s own time. But this we can affirm: in proportion as our faith in Christ’s being our reconciling Redeemer is vivid and real, in that proportion is it energizing and transforming. It is in its own nature essentially love-inspiring and consecrating. It argues a miserable defect in our faith when we have to supplement, as we so often must, its vitalizing power by injunctions and restraints of "the letter" and "the Law;" so far as it is so with us, so far we live as "bondmen" and not as "free." If "the Son makes us free, then are we free indeed;" and this is how he makes us free—he imparts to us the gift of love to himself; and that makes obedience to be no longer a constrained service, but a very instinct of our nature. Galatians 5:7-12 In these verses the language is remarkably curt and disjointed. Their style seems to betoken, either the mind of the writer musing in painful embarrassment, uncertain how best to grapple with the case before him through imperfect knowledge of the circumstances ; or, possibly, the painful effort which it cost the apostle to "write with his own hand." In Galatians 5:13 he at length takes up a line of thought which he is able to follow on with fulness and fluency. Galatians 5:7 Ye did run well (ἐτρέχετεκαλῶς); full well ye were running. "To run" is a favourite figure with St. Paul, drawn from the foot-races of the Isthmian Games or other public games common throughout the Roman empire, and applied above (Galatians 2:2) to his own course of apostolic service, but here, as in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Timothy 4:17; and Philippians 3:14, in a wider reference to the course of general Christian obedience. In Philippians 3:5, Philippians 3:6 the apostle has indicated the proper character of a Christian believer’s life, as one which is animated by a faith energizing through love, and by the anticipation of attaining hereafter the awards to be rendered to the justified. Compare the general strain of thought, strikingly similar to that in the present context, pursued in Philippians 3:12-15. Obviously, one Important element in the comparison is the Christian’s forward advance in self-improvement, as well as his continuing prosecution of work for Christ’s cause. These characteristics had, and not long before, marked the manner of life of the Galatian Christians. Upon the recurrence of this recollection, here again, as in Galatians 3:1-4; Galatians 4:13-16, the apostle bewails the change that had taken place. They had been so full of joy and of love in believing (Galatians 4:14, Galatians 4:15). But now an incipient relinquishment of their hope in Christ had left them cheerless, and, in consequence, ready to look abroad in quest of other grounds of assured confidence; while also the thence ensuing conflicts of controversy and faction had marred their once happy mutual concord (Galatians 4:15). The form of Christian life which the Galatian Churchmen had in those days presented to view was apparently similar to that which at an earlier date he had described as marking the Thessalonian Church (1 Thessalonians 1:3), and at a later time applauds in the Colossian (Colossians 1:4-6, Colossians 1:8). Who aid hinder you; or, who did drive you back (τίςὑμᾶςἐνέκοψε [Receptus, ἀνέκοψε]). The ἀνέκοψε of the Textus Receptus would mean, as in the margin of our English Bibles, "Who has driven [or, beaten, struck] you back," and would be illustrated by the use of the verb in Wis. 18:23, "Standing between, he beat back the wrath," as Aaron did. But ἐνέκοψε is the reading of all recent editors. The precise meaning of ἐγκόπτω does not seem to be, as some suppose, "to stop," but rather "to hamper, shackle, impede." It occurs Acts 24:4, "be tedious;" 1 Thessalonians 2:18, "Satan hindered;" Romans 15:22 and 1 Peter 3:7, "hindered." So the substantive ἐγκοπή, 1 Corinthians 9:12, "That we may cause no hindrance to [clog the success of] the gospel." Possibly this sense is derived from the hindrance caused to the traveller by the road being "cut into" or cut up before he goes over it. But it is more probably connected with the use of κόπτω in the sense of "worry," as in Demosthenes, ’Olynth.,’ it. p. 22, "Worried from time to time by these expeditions up and down." So here, "Who was it that clogged your steps in running your race?" Not positively "arrested your steps:" this disastrous result, it was to be hoped, was not yet brought about; they were only as yet lagging in their course. This interrogation "who" does not so much demand that the evil worker shall be named and brought to light, as express the pity of it, that any one should have been able to work them so much mischief; as in Galatians 3:1. Nevertheless, the author of the mischief had cause to tremble (see Galatians 3:12, and note). That ye should not obey the truth? (τῇἀληθείᾳ [T. Tr., Lightfoot, omit the τῇ] μὴπείθεσθαι;); that ye should not be hearkening unto the truth (or, unto truth)? "The truth" directly cites the gospel; that is, the gospel which proclaims righteousness as theirs who believe in Christ apart from works of the ceremonial law; comp. Galatians 3:5, "That the truth of the gospel might continue with you," the particular phase of the gospel there intended being clearly evinced from the circumstances referred to. "Truth," without the article, denoting "that which is true," cites the same by implication. The verb πείθομαι, frequently rendered in the Authorized Version by "obey," as Romans 2:8 and Hebrews 13:17, properly means to lend a compliant ear to advice or persuasion; "to hearken," as Acts 5:36, Acts 5:37, Acts 5:40; Acts 23:1-35. 21; Acts 27:11. The apostle means that they were turning their ears away from the truth to listen to pernicious counsels or teaching. The verb is in the present tense with reference to the continued attention which they ought to be now giving to the gospel. Galatians 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you (ἡπεισμονὴοὐκἐκτοῦκαλοῦντοςὑμᾶς); this persuasion, or the mind to hearken to this doctrine, is not from him that calleth you. The exact force of the word πεισμονή, which so far as has been noted does not occur in any earlier writer, is disputed. We may group it with ἐπιλησμονή, forgetfulness; φεισμονή (sparinguess), clemency; πλησμονή, fulness, satiety; which are likewise verbal nouns formed from the perfect passive (ἐπιλέλησμαι, etc.). And the comparison favours the conclusion that πεισμονή denotes the disposition, state, or habit of mind evinced in being persuaded in the way now thought of. So the Greek commentators (Ecumenius and Theophylact understand it of their having been persuaded to Judaize. The explanation of the noun as an active verbal, as if it were the persuasion which was soliciting them from without, does not seem to be so well berne out by its etymological formation, but appears nevertheless to be that accepted by Chrysostom. This noun, seemingly not often used, appears to have been selected by the apostle to brand the belief in the truth of Judaizing views which the Galatians were imbibing as being in nature diverse from the positive faith, which realizes the truth of the gospel; it is the product of over-persuasion, of cozenage even, rather than an acceptance of the plain setting forth of the simple truth, while "faith" is "the gift of God" (Ephesians 1:19, Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:5, Ephesians 2:8). As Chrysostom observes, " It was not men’s persuasion (πεισμονὴἀνθρωπίνη), but the power of God, which persuaded the souls of these who believe." By "him that calleth you" is plainly meant God. "The present participle is preferred here to the aorist, because the stress is laid on the person rather than the act" (Bishop Lightfoot). That persuasibleness of the Galatians was not from God; at the best it was from the world (comp. Colossians 2:20); but was it not, rather, from Satan, whose emissaries those false teachers were? The apostle makes this assertion categorically, knowing it to be true. The gospel which he had brought to them had been sealed by the gifts of the Spirit accompanying its reception; while the doctrine they were now in danger of listening to was another thing altogether (Galatians 1:6)—a thing with an anathema upon it. Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (μικρὰζύμηὅλοντὸφύραμαζυμοῖ); a little leaven leaveneth the whole kneading. This proverb is cited again in precisely the same words in 1 Corinthians 5:6, with the words prefixed, "know ye not that." In both passages the leaven is an element of evil, and so also in Matthew 16:11; but our Lord applied it also to an element of good, which was to penetrate (apparently) the whole mass of humanity (Matthew 13:33). What has the apostle precisely in his view as the leaven in the present instance? In 1 Corinthians 5:6 it is unchastity, which, if once tolerated in a Church, especially amid so licentious a population as that of Corinth, would be but too likely to impregnate balefully the sentiment of the whole community. And here likewise, as there, the leaven does not appear to denote, as some have supposed, the individuals in whom some noxious element was conspicuous, but that noxious element itself; namely, to judge from the colouring of the immediate context, the "readiness to hearken" to" another gospel," which was promising comfort and sense of acceptance, more or less, in the practice of at least some of the outward ordinances of Judaism. This leaven had already begun to work, embodying itself in the observance, pedantically and ostentatiously, of the days and feasts of the Jewish calendar (Galatians 4:10). Now, a movement of mind manifesting itself in some form of external religionism, when once it begins to show itself in a Christian community, has a great tendency to spread. For always, in every Church, there are unstable souls, too often not a few, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; which have never truly discerned Christ’s all-sufficiency for their spiritual needs, or have lost any superficial persuasion of it once enjoyed; and which, consciously unsatisfied with what they as yet possess, and nevertheless only toying with spiritual things, are ready to adopt almost any novelty of religious behaviour offering itself for their acceptance. The particular form in which the external religionism of seekers after another gospel clothes itself varies according to varying tastes or circumstances. Among the Galatian Christians such persons were now beginning to feel attracted by that venerable kind of outward piety exhibited by devout or professedly devout Jews; but in their own practice committing the fatal blunder of mistaking the external shows of saintliness for the reality of saintliness, and but too willing to make the former serve in lieu of the latter. The danger of the leaven spreading was, in the present case, increased by the instability of character and the quick impulsiveness belonging to the Celtic temperament. The true antidote to this "leaven" is in every age the same; namely, that which the apostle in this Epistle strives to administer—the gospel of the righteousness and Spirit of Christ crucified. Galatians 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord (ἐγὼτέποιθαεἰςὑμᾶςἐνΚυρίῳ); I for my own part have confidence with respect to you in the Lord. The pronoun ἐγὼ prefixed to the verb, perhaps, distinguishes the writer from some about him, particularly those who had just before brought that un-favourable report of the state of affairs in Galatia which had prompted the writing of this letter. The apostle has himself a vivid remembrance of their warm-hearted acceptance of his message (Galatians 4:13-15), and of their sufferings in the good cause (Galatians 3:4). "Have confidence with respect to you." The preposition εἰς is used as in 2 Colossians 8:22, equivalently with ἐπὶ in 2 Col 2:3 and 2 Thessalonians 3:4; in which last passage , as well as in Philippians 2:24 , the phrase, "in the Lord," expresses, not the object of trust, but the sphere of consciousness in which he is able to feel this confidence. So also here, in the realized presence of the Lord Jesus, the apostle feels that his care for his people, and his faithfulness towards these in whom "he has begun a good work" so conspicuously as in their case, warrant him in entertaining a strong assurance that, after all, they would not disappoint his hopes (comp. Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:24). This expression of confidence implies, of course, a measure of underlying apprehension; while it is also in effect an admonition, couched in an affectionate form, designed to rally them back to their true allegiance. The phrase, "with respect to you," separates their case from that of any who were "troubling them;" kindly implying that, in the main, they were still unperverted. That ye will be none otherwise minded (ὅτιοὐδὲνἄλλοφρονήσετε); that is, that your sentiments will continue, or will be found to be, such as I have been setting forth as those inspired by the gospel, and such as you once manifestly entertained. The future tense of the verb seems to point forward to the time when his appeal should have reached them, and have led them to bethink themselves as to what, in spite of perhaps some momentary superficial wavering, their sentiments at bottom really were. (For the sense of the verb φρονεῖν, comp. Acts 28:22; Philippians 3:15.) But he that troubleth you (ὁδὲταράσσωνὑμᾶς); but he that is troubling you. "But;" indicating that, even if such a person’s machinations proved abortive, through their steady adherence to the gospel, that man should receive his deserts none the less. In Galatians 1:7 we had "There are some that trouble you," Comparing the two expressions, the one in the singular number, the other in the plural, we may conclude, either that the phrase ὁταράσσων designates any one who shall be found falling under the description of a παράσσων, i.e. any one of those referred to in the plural number; or that it points to one particular individual on whom the apostle had his eye as the prime ringleader of the rest. If we adopt the first view, the clause, "whosoever he be," appears to mark the absoluteness of the resolve expressed by the apostle, while leaving in indefiniteness the individual to whom it would apply. With the second view, the same clause would affirm that no circumstances attaching to the offender, such as (suppose) a mission from leading Churchmen in Jerusalem, or official eminence in a Galatian Church, or any other, should shield him, as he or others might suppose that it would, from the effect of the sentence to be pronounced upon him. The second seems the more probable view; and, in unison with it, it appears supposable that the hypothetical case stated in Galatians 1:7 had an eye to the eminent position held by the person here alluded to. This individualization of the threatening would make it the more telling when the letter should arrive—a thunder-clap bursting forth upon the head of that arch-troubler. Shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be (βαστάσειτὸκρίμα, ὕστιςἂνᾖ). With the phrase, βαστάζεινκρίμα, compare λαμβάνεινκρίμα in Luke 20:47; Romans 13:2; James 3:1. "Shall bear," as a heavy burden (comp. Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:5). The κρίμα a shall be laid upon him, and carry it he shall, whether he will or no. The κρίμα judgment, is the "sentence;" the decision of the judge upon his conduct, and the consequent punishment. The apostle threatens that he will bring into exercise the "power" which, as he says in 2 Corinthians 13:10, the Lord had given him for the edification of his people, and the use of which would be accompanied by consequences proving that "Christ was speaking in him" (ibid., 2, 3). Instances of its exercise are seen in 1 Corinthians 5:4, 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20; Acts 13:11. How grievous was this offender’s guilt has been strongly declared by the "anathema" of Galatians 1:7-9. Galatians 5:11 And I, brethren (ἐγὼδέἀδελφοί); but in respect to myself, brethren. The personal pronoun is again accentuated. It seems that it had been affirmed by some one, most probably that individual "troubler" of the preceding verse (on which account the point is just here mentioned), that the apostle did himself "preach circumcision." The compellation "brethren" has a tone of pathos in it: it appeals, not merely to their knowledge of his experience of persecution, but to their sympathy with him under it, He is grappling to himself, as it were, the better-minded of those he is writing to. If I yet preach circumcision (εἰπεριτομὴνἔτικηρύσσω); if I am still preaching circumcision. The phrase, "preach circumcision," is like that of "preaching the baptism of repentance" in Mark 1:4; it denotes openly declaring that men should be circumcised The force of ἔτι is best explained by supposing that the apostle is quoting the assertion of this gainsayer—"Why, Paul himself up to this hour still preaches circumcision, just as he did when he followed Judaism." And taking it thus, we may discern a shade of irony in the apostle’s repeating the ἔτι in his reply: "Why, then, am I still persecuted up to this hour?" He had begun to be the object of persecution as soon as he began to preach Christ, as he pathetically reminds the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:32; cf. Acts 9:24). In trying to imagine how this gainsayer could have given the least colour of probability to so audacious an assertion, we may suppose that he would point to St. Paul’s behaviour at Jerusalem, and no doubt elsewhere, when he "to the Jews became as a Jew; to those under the Law as under the Law" (1 Corinthians 9:20); and in all probability, as Chrysostom and others have observed, cited the well-known fact of his circumcising Timothy; and there doubtless were other facts of a similar complexion, all which, with a little distortion, might enable an unscrupulous or a merely very eager opponent to dress up a statement like that before us with a certain amount of plausibleness. Why do I yet suffer persecution? (τίἔτιδιώκομαι;); why am I still persecuted? The apostle distinctly implies (1) that his persecutions were mainly occasioned by the hostility of the Jews; and (2) that the hostility of the Jews mainly originated in his teaching the doctrine that the cross of Christ put circumcision, together with the observance of the Law of Moses, aside as terms of acceptance with God. The first point is fully borne out by the history of the Acts and various allusions in the Epistles, showing that the fact was so, both before and after the time when this letter was written. The second is perfectly consistent with the history, and alone fully explains it. Then is the offence of the cross ceased (ἄρακατήργηταιτὸσκάνδαλοντοῦσταυροῦ); then the stumbling-block of the cross hath been done away. The stumbling-block of the cross is that which makes the cross a stumbling-block. In 1 Corinthians 1:23 "Christ crucified" is designated as "to the Jews a stumbling-block;" while to Gentiles it simply seemed "folly." "Then" follows up an argument ex absurdo, as in 1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:18. The apostle means that the cross would not be to Jews the stumbling-block that it was if it had been preached in conjunction with the obligatoriness of circumcision together with the observance of the ceremonial law, upon those who believed in Christ. If, then, he had preached Christ crucified thus, he could not have been so offensive to the Jews. But it was all otherwise. It has been supposed that the notion of a crucified Messiah was offensive to Jewish feeling, merely because it ran counter to their conception of the Christ as a secular king and conqueror. St. Paul’s words show that this was not the case. That preconception of the Jews no doubt made it difficult to them to believe in the Jesus whose worldly career had been closed by an early violent death; even as before our Lord’s passion it had made it difficult to the apostles to believe that he was thus to die. But after the question whether the Christ was predestined to be a suffering Christ (Acts 26:23) had been discussed, and it had been shown from the Old Testament that the Messiah was to suffer before he should reign, it had yet to be determined in what relation the particular form of Jesus’ death stood with respect to the Mosaic Law. Gentiles would naturally think of the cress chiefly, indeed solely, as a sign of extremest ignominy; they thought scorn of the Christians who looked for life from "this Master of theirs, who was crucified" (Lucian). But to Jews, with the habits of feeling to which they had been trained in the school of Moses’ Law, the cross was more than a sign of extremest ignominy—to them it was a sign also of extremest pollutedness. Now, to the Apostle Paul it had been given to see, with more distinctness than the general body of believers at Jerusalem appear to have seen it, the inference to which the finger of Divine providence pointed in the particular form of death which, in the counsels of God, had been selected for the Christ to suffer (cf. John 18:32). He had seen that faith in the crucified Saviour, by just consequence and in the Divine purpose, disconnected those, who embraced it as the supreme element of spiritual life, from all obligation to the ceremonial law as viewed in relation to their acceptance with God (Galatians 2:19, and note). And because he held forth this truth, and insisted upon its vital importance in determining the mutual relations of Jew and Gentile in the Christian Church, therefore it was that he drew upon himself the peculiar unrelenting enmity with which the Jews pursued him. They could manage to live on terms of peace with their fellow-Jews at Jerusalem who held that the Christ predicted in the Old Testament was to be, in the first instance, a suffering Christ, and trusted in Jesus as fulfilling those predictions; for they saw that they, while believing in Jesus, continued, as St. James told St. Paul all of them did, to Observe and to be zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20); they were able, therefore, in some degree to tolerate their "heresy." But St. Paul was led by the Saviour of all the world to adopt a different line. The truth, which lay wrapped up in the manner of Christ’s death, and which at Jerusalem was left, so to speak, in its latency, it became necessary for the welfare of mankind that Paul should bring forth into view, and apply for the doing of the work which it was designed to accomplish. The cross annihilated the obligatoriness upon God’s people of the Law of Moses. And, by teaching this, this apostle revived against himself the animosity which had flamed forth so fiercely upon St. Stephen, who was charged with saying that "Jesus the Nazarene was to change the customs which Moses had delivered unto them." It illustrates the economy which marks the Holy Spirit’s development of revealed truth in the consciousness of the Church, that this consequence of the crucifixion of our Lord was for a while left so much in abeyance in the mother Church in Judaea. The fact stands on the same footing as the development of the doctrine of the essential Godhead of the Lord Jesus; for this too would seem to have been not at once and by an abrupt illumination brought distinctly home to the consciousness of the Hebrew Church, but to have been deposited like a seed in its bosom to unfold itself gradually. It seemed meet to the Divine Wisdom to cradle the infant faith tenderly, that it should not be exposed to too great risks through want of sympathy on the part of its first nursing mother towards these two of its most important elements. By-and-bye, when circumstances allowed, the same great apostle, who in his Epistle develops the doctrine of the cross in relation to Mosaism, could with advantage address the Hebrew Church, either himself or through another whom he inspired with his thoughts, that Epistle, in which the Godhead of Jesus is proclaimed with as much clearness and emphasis as the dissolution of the Mosaic institute in face of the new spiritual economy. The Epistle to the Hebrews, however, in proving that the new covenant was superseding the old, does not lay the chief stress of the argument upon the Crucifixion, but upon the utter unavailingness of the Mosaic priestly functions for the clearing of the conscience as compared with the efficacy of Christ’s one offering. Nevertheless,the other point is not altogether neglected; at least, a kindred argument is suggested in Hebrews 13:10-13, in which passage contact with Christ as suffering without the camp is spoken of as inferring a pollution which was incompatible with "serving the tabernacle." The "Cross" is definitely named only once, and that with relation to extreme" shame" attaching to it (Hebrews 12:2). In other Epistles which are certainly of St. Paul’s own composition, the "cross" ]s mentioned in connection with the abrogation of the ceremonial law, in Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:20; Colossians 2:14; but the manner in which it brought about this result is nowhere so plainly indicated as in this Epistle to the Galatians, in which "the cross" is the very key-note of the whole discussion. The flashing out of resentful feeling which we read in the next verse was probably in part evoked by the clear glimpse which the apostle this moment caught of the conscious insincerity of those seducers, shown in their making or adopting such an assertion respecting himself as he here rebuts, which facts proved to be so glaringly false. Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you (ὄφελονκαὶἀποκόψονταιοἱἀναστατοῦντεςὑμᾶς); would to God they would make themselves even as the apocopi of Cybele (Greek, would even mutilate themselves), who are casting you out of country and home! The word ὄφελον, originally a verb, had got, thus stripped of its augment, to be a mere particle of wishing. Its sense with an indicative aorist is seen 1 Corinthians 4:8, Ὄφελόνγεἐβασιλεύσατε, "Would to God ye had come to your kingship [which is far from being really the case yet!];" Exodus 16:3; Numbers 14:2; Numbers 20:3, Ὄφελονἀπεθάνομεν, "Would to God we had died!" with an indicative imperfect, 2 Corinthians 11:1, Ὄφελονἀνείχεσθέμονμικρὸνἀφροσύνης, "Would to God ye were [i.e. could be] tolerant of a little foolishness of mine! [might I hope for it?];" Revelation 3:15, Ὄφελονψυχρὸςἦς, etc., "Would that thou wert cold," etc. With an indicative future (an extremely rare combination), it may still be regarded as expressing a longing that something might be looked forward to, which in reality is not to be anticipated; different from a simple desire that a thing may be, unaccompanied by the feeling that it cannot be, which is its three with an optative, as in Psalms 119:5. The tone of especially fervid aspiration, the vivacity, which usually marks wishes introduced by ὄφελον, is perhaps unduly tamed down by the rendering "I would that." In respect to the verb ἀποκόψονται, Greek scholars are pretty well agreed that the passive rendering of our Authorized Version, "were cut off," cannot be defended. There is no certain instance (Bishop Ellicott remarks) of a similar interchange of the middle ,voice with the passive. The sense of the verb is shown by the Septuagint rendering of Deu 23:1-25. 1, ΟὐκεἰσελεύσεταιθλαδίαςκαὶἀποκεκομμένοςεἰςἐκκλησίανΘεοῦ: where the word ’ to the ἀποκεκομμένος answers Hebrew keruth shophkah, rightly rendered in the Vulgate and in our English Bible (cf. Gesenius’s ’ Thesaurus,’ and Furst, under shophkah). "This meaning is assigned to ἀποκόψονται," observes Bishop Lightfoot, "by all the Greek commentators, I believe, without exception (the Latin Fathers, who read ’ abseimtantur’ in their text had more latitude), and seems alone tenable." This interpretation gives its full force to καί ("not only circumcise, but even," etc.): it explains the form of the aspiration as one not likely to be realized; whereas the excision flora the Church of these extremely aberrant members, falling nearly if not quite under the anathema of the first chapter, was a thing quite within the apostle’s own power: it harmonizes with the intense resentment which colours the phrase, οἱἀναστατοῦντεςἡμᾶς (see below). The sentiment, it is true, seems one which it would be impossible for a public speaker, or even a writer, amongst ourselves to give such open expression to. Nevertheless, when viewed as framed in amid the surroundings which environed it at the time, it wears none of that aspect of coarseness which would confessedly be felt to attach to it under the conditions of modern life. That the worship of Cybele at Pessinus, one of the principal cities of Galatia, was deformed by the practice of such self-mutilation on the part of some of its devotees, was a matter of universal notoriety, and we may confidently assume that the apostle, when in the neighbourhood, heard frequent mention of those apocopi as they were called, and thus was led now to allude to it as he seems to do in this malediction. For it is a malediction, as Chrysostom describes it; a malediction, however, which in severity falls far short of the anathema which has been previously pronounced. Good were it (he means) for the Church, and even perhaps themselves, if they would have the rashness to go a little further with what they call "circumcision," which in their case is mere concision (Philippians 3:2), and make it clear to all men how purely senseless and unchristian their action in this matter is. "Casting you out of country and home." The verb ἀναστατοῦν occurs besides only in Acts 17:6 and Acts 21:38 . It is not found in classical Greek, in which we have in its stead ἀναστάτουςποιεῖν or τιθέναι: the verbal adjective ἀνάστατος, when it is applied, as it frequently is, to populations, meaning, "made to rise up and depart," "driven from house and home;" applied to cities, "ruined," "laid waste" (Liddell and Scott). Chrysostom observes, "Well does he say, ἀναστατοῦντεςὑμᾶς: for they compelled them to abandon their own proper country and liberty and heavenly kindred, and to seek an alien and strange one; casting them out of ’ Jerusalem which is above and free,’ and forcing them to wander abroad as captives and perforce emigrants." The present tense of the participle points to the action of these perverters as one which. if successful, would have this result; which (Acts 21:10) the apostle hopes to defeat. The selection of this particular verb, which goes far beyond the ταράσσοντες before used, and which the word "unsettle" adopted here by the Revisers, does not, as commonly used, completely represent, betokens the apostle’s intense feeling of the ruinous consequences of the proposed Judaizing reaction. It shows that he adds the words aetiologically, that is, to justify his strong words, ὄφελονἀποκόψονται. The energy of both expressions suggests the feeling that probably the apostle would not have written as he has here done except for his burning resentment on behalf of Christ’s people threatened with so great a hurt. In 1 Car. Acts 6:4 indignant feeling carries him away beyond himself to an utterance which in the next verse he virtually retracts, remarking, "I say it to move you to shame." Perhaps we have here something of the same kind. Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty (ὑμεῖςγὰρἐπἐλευθερίᾳἐκλήθητεἀδελφοί); for ye, brethren, were called unto (Greek, for) freedom. The "for" points back to the closing words of the preceding verse, which implied a settled state of well-being from which those troublers were driving his readers; that happy state (the apostle says) was the very glory and essence of their "calling." This, of course, was that condition of free men described at the end of the foregoing chapter, and summarized in the first verse of this chapter. This is again, even more briefly, recapitulated in the first clause of the present verse. As the summary in the first verse supplied a starting-point for the warnings against the Judaizers which have taken up the foregoing twelve verses, so this new summary furnishes the starting-point for exhortations designed to guard the evangelical doctrine against antinomian perversion, by insisting upon the moral behaviour required of those who enjoy the freedom which Christ gives. These exhortations occupy the remainder of this chapter and a part of the next. "Ye," being what ye are, believers baptized into Christ. The verb "were called" expresses a complete idea, meaning of itself without any adjunct, "called by God to be people of his own" (cf. "calleth," Galatians 5:8, and the passages there cited). The words, "unto," or "for, freedom," supply an adjunct notion; as in Ephesians 4:4, the clause, "in one hope of your calling," does to the same verb. So again 1 Thessalonians 4:7," For God called us, not unto [or, ’for’ ] uncleanness, but in sanctification.’ ’The preposition ἐπί, both in the passage last cited and in the present verse, denotes the condition or understanding upon which God had called them: they were "called" upon the understanding that they should be in a state of liberty. So Ephesians 2:10, "Created in Christ Jesus unto [’Greek,’ for] good works." God calls us in Christ to be free in these three respects: (1) free from condemnation and conscience of guiltiness; (2) free from pupil-age to a ceremonial institute of positive, carnal ordinances, and from bondage to a letter-Law; (3) free, as consciously his children, knit to him by his adopting Spirit, which makes us partakers of his nature. Only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh (μόνονμὴτὴνἐλευθερίανεἰςἀφορμὴντῆςσαρκός); only, no freedom which shall be an occasion to the flesh! or, only, make not your freedom into an occasion for the flesh. The noun ἐλευθερίαν, being in the accusative, cannot be taken as simply a resumption of the ἐλευθερίᾳ immediately before. In his eagerness to at once bar the antinomian’s abuse of the gospel, the apostle omits the verb which should account for this accusative; and the result is a sentence which may be taken as grouping with various passages in classical Greek authors, being in fact quite a natural way of speaking in any language; such as in Demosthenes, ’ Philippians,’ 1. p. 45, "No ten thousand mercenaries for me! (μήμοιμυριόυς... ξένους);" Sophocles, ’ Ant.,’ 573, "No more loiterings! but … (μὴτριβὰςἔτἀλλά…); "Aristophanes, ’ Ach.,’ 326," "No false pretences for me, but … (μήμοιπρόφασινἀλλα …)." In such cases it simply weakens the vivacity of the style, if we supply any verb. The alternative rendering supplies δῶτε, which is in fact found in two uncial manuscripts, F, G, or ἀποχρήσησθε, proposed by OEcumenius. In the former way of construing we have in thought to supply a second τὴν after ἐλευθερίαν, as in 1 Corinthians 10:18, ΒλέπετετὸνἸσραὴλκατὰσάρκα: 2 Corinthians 7:7; Colossians 1:8; Ephesians 2:15. The preposition εἰς is need as Romans 11:9; 1 Corinthians 14:22, etc. The sense of the noun ἀφορμή, starting-point, is well illustrated by its use, in the military language of Greece, for a "basis of operations" (cf. Romans 7:8, Romans 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:14). Reflection at once shows us that a "freedom" which allows a man to obey the behests of his lower nature is only by a false use of the term capable of being grouped with that freedom wherewith Christ makes us free. It adopts out of the latter the single element of emancipation from ceremonial law and letter-Law, and lets go altogether the concomitant notions of spiritual emancipation which are of its very essence. Such an emancipation hands its victim clean over to the thraldom of sin (John 8:34; 2 Peter 2:18, 2 Peter 2:19). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if (or, although) a man be overtaken in a fault (ἀδελφοίἐὰνκαὶπροληφθῇἄνθρωποςἔντινιπαραπτέματι); brethren’, if even a man hath been overtaken in some trespass. "Brethren;" the compellation so introduced betokens a somewhat pathetic urgency: el. above, Galatians 3:15; Galatians 4:31; Galatians 5:11. But Philippians 3:13, Philippians 3:17 suffice to show that its occurrence at the beginning of a sentence does not necessarily indicate the commencement of a new section of discourse—to which notion we, perhaps. owe the division of chapters here made. In fact, this paragraph is most closely connected with the preceding; the apostle’s object being to point out that not even a moral delinquency into which a brother has fallen should lead us to indulge ourselves in any feeling of superiority in dealing with him, or to vaunt even to our own selves (see Philippians 3:4) our greater consistency. In short, he is enforcing by a strong instance the exhortation in verse 26, "Let us not be vain-glorious." "If even a man hath been overtaken." The apostle supposes the case as one which might very well present itself; the form of expression (ἐὰν, not ει)), however, not pointing to such a case having already occurred. How possible the supposed case was, was plain enough from the enumeration of the "works of the flesh" above given, so many and so multiform. Some critics have embarrassed themselves by supposing that the καὶ ("even") must, Of course, emphasize the first succeeding word προληφθῇ, "hath been overtaken." But it may just as probably be meant to emphasize the whole clause, "a man hath been overtaken in some trespass." This is proved by a number of other instances: thus: Luke 11:8, "if (καὶ) even he will not give them unto him because he is a friend;" 1 Corinthians 7:21. "but if even thou art able to become free;" 2 Corinthians 4:3; 2 Corinthians 11:6. The verb προλαμβάνω occurs besides in the New Testament in Mark 14:8, "she hath come beforehand to anoint [’or, ’she hath anticipated the anointing of "my body;" and 1 Corinthians 11:21, "taketh before other his own supper." A more helpful illustration, however, is furnished by Wis. 17:17, where, speaking of the horrible darkness falling quite suddenly upon the Egyptians, the writer says, "Whether he were husbandman or shepherd or labourer in the field, he was overtaken and endured (προληφθεὶςἔμενεν) the ill-avoidable necessity;" the πρὸ in the compound verb meaning before he could help himself in any way. So here, προληφθῇ means be surprised, overtaken, before he’ is well aware what it really is that he is doing. "Surprised;’’ but by whom or what? Not by a person detecting the offender in the very act; as if it were equivalent to καταληφθῇἐπαυτοφώρῳ (John 8:4); for the apostle is not at all concerned with the evidence for the delinquency, which is the important consideration in John 8:4, but simply with the fact. Rather, overtaken by the force of temptation; as the verb "taken" is used with "temptation" in 1 Corinthians 10:13; hence the words which follow," lest thou also be tempted." The writer thus commends the delinquent to sympathetic commiseration. But there is no palliation indicated by the word "fault" or "trespass." Not once in the fifteen other passages in the New Testament in which the noun παράπτωμα occurs is there any token of such palliation being intended. The petition, "forgive us our trespasses," is sufficient to exemplify this statement. The trespass may be nothing less than one of the works of the flesh before specified. The preposition ἐν—"in," not "by"—points to the unhappy condition in which the delinquent is supposed to be, out of which it is the business of Christian charity to extricate him. Compare the expressions, "die in your sins;" "dead in trespasses;" and the imagery of a "snare of the devil," in 2 Timothy 2:26. Ye which are spiritual, restore such a one (ὑμεῖςοἱπνευματικοὶκαταρτίζετετὸντοιοῦτον). The apostle intimates that the business of recovering a fallen brother is one which those Christians are not qualified to undertake who, by reason of the strong tincture of the flesh still existing in their moral character, may themselves be justly styled "carnal" not to stand aloof, as if it were not their concern, or as ff the delinquent were to be treated as an enemy or outcast, far less to indulge themselves in taking pleasure in his inconsistency as illustrating their own spirituality, but to come forward to his assistance. Others, who might justly feel less qualified to act in the case themselves, might, however, take from the apostle’s direction the hint that at least they should lend their sympathy to the work of their more capable brethren, desire and pray for their erring brother’s recovery, and not exult over his fault. The verb καταρτίζειν, "to make a thing fit, even, just that which it properly should be," is used in Matthew 4:21 of repairing nets; 1 Corinthians 1:10 of a Christian community restored to its proper condition of unanimity; 1 Thessalonians 3:10 of making good any lacking of faith. It is used also (Liddel; and Scott) of setting a broken limb. But there is nothing to show that the apostle has any one particular image of disorder in view. The present tense of the imperative seems to mean, "apply yourselves to restore him;" the actual achievement (καταρτίσατε) may not be in their power, In the spirit of meekness (ἐνπνεύματιπρᾳότητος); in a spirit of meekness. We have the same phrase in 1 Corinthians 4:21, "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?’ The term "spirit" seems as it were to hover between the sense of the Holy Spirit and of that particular condition of our own spirit which is produced by his influence (compare "spirit of adoption," Romans 8:15). But the latter seems here the one more immediately intended. It is not identical, however, with the phrase, "meek spirit," which we have in 1 Peter 3:4. The meekness or tenderness meant is that of one who, humbly conscious of human infirmity in general, his own infirmity included, is prepared to be very considerate and gentle towards the ignorant and those out of the way; loth to use the "rod." Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted (σκοπῶνσεαυτόνμὴκαὶσὺπειρασθῇς); looking to thine own self, lest thou also be tempted. The change from the plural to the singular makes the warning more impressive and searching. The verb σκοπεῖν in the New Testament always denotes looking intently: sometimes on something to be guarded against, as Luke 11:35 and Romans 16:17; at other times, at something to be aimed at or imitated (2 Corinthians 4:18; Philippians 2:4; Philippians 3:17). The former is meant here. The Christian is to be on his guard against his own weak and corrupt nature; lest he withhold help, or adequate help; lest in helping he get betrayed into the sin of Pharisaic self-righteousness—the sin of harshness, censoriousness. The clause is to be viewed in conjunction with the thought of the unceasing conflict between the flesh and the Spirit mentioned in Romans 5:17. "Tempted," so as to fall (1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Matthew 6:13). Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens (ἀλλήλωντὰβάρηβαστάζετε); carry ye, or, be ready to carry, the heavy loads of one another. The position of ἀλλήλων gives it especial prominence; as it stands here it seems pregnant with the exhortation, look not every man only at his own griefs, but at the griefs also of others" (cf. Philippians 2:4). The word βάρος, weight, points to an excessive weight, such as it is a toil to carry. Matthew 20:12, "who have borne the burden (βαστάσασιτο, βάρος) and heat of the day." So in Acts 15:28. In 2 Corinthians 4:17, "weight of glory," the phrase, suggested by the double sense of the Hebrew word kabhod, indicates the enormous greatness of the future glory. The supposition that the apostle was glancing at the burden of Mosaical observances, superseded as a matter for care on our part by the burdens of our brethren, seems far-fetched. These "heavy loads" are those which a man brings upon himself by acts of transgression: such as an uneasy conscience; difficulties in his domestic, social, or Church relations; pecuniary embarrassments; or other. But the precept seems to go beyond the requirements of the particular case of a peccant brother which has suggested it, and to take in all the needs, spiritual or secular, which we are subject to. (For βαστάζειν of carrying a toilsome burden, comp. Matthew 8:17; John 19:17; Acts 15:10.) And so fulfil the law of Christ (καὶὅτωςἀναπληρώσατε [or, ἀναπληρώσετε] τὸννόμοντοῦΧριστοῦ); and so fulfil (or, ye shall fulfil) the law of Christ. The sense comes to much the same, whether in the Greek we read the future indicative or the aorist imperative. If the imperative be retained, it yet adds no new element of precept to the foregoing; the clause so read prescribes the fulfilment of Christ’s law in the particular form of bearing one another’s burdens. If we read the future, the clause affirms that in so doing we shall fulfil his law; which in the other case is implied. Many have supposed the word "law" to be here used for a specific commandment; as for example Christ’s new commandment that we should love one another, So St. James (it. 8) writes of the "royal law." St. Paul, however, never uses the term in this sense in his own writing, though in the Epistle to the Hebrews (viii. 10; 10:16), the plural "laws" occurs in citation from Jeremiah. It seems better to take it of the whole moral institution of Christ, whether conveyed in distinct precept or in his example and spirit of action. Compare with the present passage the advice which St. Paul gives the "strong" (Romans 15:1-4), that they should bear (βαστάζειν, as here, "carry") the infirmities of the weak, and not wish to please themselves; after Christ’s pattern set forth in prophetical Scripture, of old time written in order to instruct us how we should act. It has been often observed that the phrase, "the law of Christ," was selected with allusion to the stir now being made among the Galatians respecting the Law of Moses. "Satisfy ye the requirements of the Law—not of Moses which some are prating about, but the law of Christ, a more perfect law than that other, and more our proper con-corn." Possibly the words τοῦΧριστοῦ were added as a pointed surprise of style—παρὑπόνοιαν, as the scholiasts on Aristophanes are wont to express it—"and thus fulfil the law—of Christ!" Galatians 6:3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself (εἰγὰρδοκεῖτιςεἶναίτιμηδὲνὤνφρεεναπατᾷἑαυτόν [Receptus, ἑαυτὸνφρεναπατᾷ); for if a man is nothing and thinketh himself to be something, he is deceiving his own soul. The conjunction "for" points back to the practical direction just given to the "spiritual;" meaning that for those who wished to be, and also perhaps to be thought to be, fulfilling Christ’s law, this was the behaviour which they were to carry out, and without which their claim was mere self-delusion. The phrase, δοκεῖεἶναίτιμηδὲνὤν, is well illustrated by the passage cited by critics from Plato’s ’Apologia,’ p. 41, E: Ἐὰνδοκῶσίτιεἶναιμηδὲνὄντεςὀνειδίζετεαὐτοῖς … ὅτι,… οἴονταίτιεἶναιὄντεςοὐδενὸςἄξιοι "Something" is, by a common meiosis, put for "something considerable" (cf. Galatians 2:6). The especial form of eminence, the claim to which is here referred to, is eminence in spirituality and consistency as a servant of Christ. Possibly the apostle has in his eye certain individuals among the Galatians that he had heard of, who, professing much, were, however, self-complacently bitter and contemptuous towards brethren who had gone wrong in moral conduct or who differed from themselves in the disputes then rife in those Churches. The phrase, μηδὲνὤν, "being nothing," is a part of the hypothesis relative to the individual case spoken of, not a statement putting forth the aphorism that no one is really anything. The passage quoted above from Plato shows, that in the latter case we should have had οὐδὲν and not μηδέν. Some men, by the grace of God, are "something;" but these persons only fancy themselves to be so. Whether any man is really "something" or not is determined by his practical conduct—his "work" as the apostle expresses it in the next verse. The verb φρεναπατᾷν occurs in the New Testament only here, though we have the substantive φρεναπάτης, deceivers, in Titus 1:10. St. James (James 1:26) speaks of a man "deceiving his heart ’ in seemingly just the same sense. In both passages it appears to be meant that a man palms off upon his own mind fancies as if they were just apprehensions of real facts; in both also these fancies are but illusive notions of one’s own religious character—here, as being "spiritual;" in James, as being "religious" or "devout" (θρῆσκος)—the activity of practical benevolence being in both cases wanting; for "the bridling not his tongue" in verse 26 is proved by the contrasted behaviour spoken of in the next verse to refer to those sins of the tongue which are implicitly condemned in vers. 19-21. Galatians 6:4 But let every man prove his own work (τὸδὲἔργονἑαυτοπῦδοκιμαζέτωἕκαστος); but his own work let each man bringing to the proof. "His own work;" his own actual conduct. Both "work" and "his own" are weighted with emphasis; "work," as practical behaviour contrasted with professions or self-illusions; "his own," as contrasted with these others with whom one is comparing himself to find matter for self-commendation. "Be bringing to the proof;" that is, testing his actual life by the touchstone of God’s law, especially of "Christ’s law," with the honest purpose of bringing it into accordance therewith. In other words, "Let each man be endeavouring in a spirit of self-watch-fulness to walk orderly according to the Spirit." This notion of practical self-improving attaches to the verb δοκιμάζω ("prove" or" examine") also in Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 11:28; Ephesians 3:10. And then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone (καὶτότεεἰςἑαυτὸνμόνοντὸκαύχημαἕξει); and then in regard to himself alone shall he have whereof to glory. The preposition εἰς is used as in Matthew 14:31, Εἰςτίἐδίστασας; "What didst thou look at that thou didst doubt?" Acts 2:25, "concerning him;" Ephesians 5:32; Romans 4:20; Romans 13:14; Romans 16:19. It depends upon the whole phrase, "shall have his ground of glorying," and not upon the word rendered "ground of glorying" alone. The distinction which ordinarily obtains between verbals of the form of πρᾶγμα and those of the form of πρᾶξις appears to hold good also in respect to καύχημα and καύχησις. Compare the use of καύχησις in 2 Corinthians 7:4 and James 4:16, with that of καύχημα in Romans 4:2, ἔχεικαύχημα, "hath whereof to glory;" 1 Corinthians 9:16, οὐκἔστιμοικαύχημα, "I have nothing to glory of." In 1 Corinthians 5:6, οὐκαλὸντὸκαύχημαὑμῶν, the substantive seems to mean "boast," that is, what is said in boasting, as distinguished from καύχησις, the action of uttering a beast. The verb καυχῶμαι, with its derivatives—a favourite term with St. Paul—often appears to mean "rejoicing" rather than" boasting" (cf. Romans 5:2; Hebrews 3:6); but it seems desirable as a rule to render it by "glorying," with the understanding that the writer has frequently the joyous state of feeling more prominently in his view than the utterance of self-gratulation. What the apostle meant by "having one’s ground of glorying in regard to one’s own self alone," is well illustrated by what he says respecting himself in 2 Corinthians 1:12, "Our glorying is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom, but in the grace of God, we behaved ourselves in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward." he had been himself in the habit of testing his conduct and spirit by the standard of Christ’s law; and this was the fruit. And not in another (καὶοὐκεἰςτὸνἕτερον); and not in regard to that neighbour of his. The article probably points to that neighbour with whom he has been comparing himself; and so, perhaps, also in Romans 2:1. But it may be simply "his neighbour;" "the man who is other than himself;" as it is in 1 Corinthians 6:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:24, in neither of which passages has any particular "other person" been before referred to. Galatians 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden (ἕκαστοςγὰρτὸἴδιονφορτίονβαστάσει); for each man shall carry his own pack. A man’s business is with his own pack; and all depends upon his carrying that, not putting it down. This "pack" (φορτίον) is the whole of the duties for the discharge of which each man is responsible. It is thus that the image is employed by our Lord (Matthew 11:30), "My yoke is easy, and my pack is light." So also in Matthew 23:4, "For they tie up packs heavy and hard to carry, and lay them upon men’s shoulders." The phrase, τὸἴδιονφορτίον, "the pack which is individually his own," implies that men’s responsibilities vary, each one having such as are peculiar to himself. This "pack" is to be carefully distinguished from the "heavy loads" (βάρη) of Matthew 23:2, Our Christian obligations Christ makes, to them who serve him well, light; but our burdens of remorse, shame, grief, loss, which are of our own wilful procuring, these may be, must needs be, heavy. One part of our "pack" of obligation is to help each other in bearing these "heavy loads;" and we shall find our joy and crown of glorying in doing so; not only in the approval of our own consciences and in the consciousness of Christ’s approval, but also in the manifold refreshments of mutual Christian sympathy. On the other hand, our Christian responsibilities, including these of mutual sympathy and succour, we must not attempt to evade. One man is able to do more for others than another man can; the truly "spiritual" man, for example, can do that which others may not even attempt to touch: each one has his own part and duty. And Christ’s mot d’ordre to all his workmen, or possibly the apostle means to all his soldiers, is this: "Every man carry his own pack!" The future tense of the verb "shall carry" does not point to some future time, but to the absoluteness of the law for all time; as in Galatians 2:16. The varying turn given to the same general image of carrying burdens in Galatians 2:2 and here is quite in St. Paul’s manner. Compare, for example, in 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. the varying turn given to the images of "epistle" and "veil." Galatians 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things (κοινωνείτωδὲὁκατηχούμενοςτὸνλόγοντῷκατηχοῦντιἐνπᾶσινἀγαθοῖς); let him that is receiving instruction in the Word share with him that instructeth in all good things. The Authorized Version appears to have exercised sound discretion in leaving the particle δὲ untranslated. It is, in fact, here merely a conjunction of transition: not in any degree adversative; for the exhortation to liberality towards our teachers is perfectly germane to the preceding topics of carrying one another’s loads, and so carrying our own pack. The verb κατηχεῖν, etymologically "to fill with sound," thence signifies "to din a thing into another person’s mind with inculcation or constant repetition," in which sense it occurs in Acts 21:21, Acts 21:24, of the persistent repetition of a slanderous report. So early as in Hippocrates (Liddell and Scott) the verbal substantive κατήχησις is used for "instruction;" and the verb, though not occurring in Attic writers, seems to have continued in use in other dialects, to reappear at length in the Common Dialect of Greek. Accordingly, it is found in the sense of "instruct" in Luke 1:4; Acts 18:25; Romans 2:18; 1 Corinthians 14:19. It does not denote instruction by question and answer in particular, but simply the inculcating of knowledge. Recently as the Galatian Churches had been founded, it appears from this passage that there were already persons among them whose particular business it was to give religious instruction to their fellow-Christians; so much their business, that they were on this ground entitled to receive from those they taught liberal help in temporal things. Such persons were doubtless included among the "elders" whom Paul and Barnabas appointed in the several Churches which they planted (Acts 14:23). It is noticeable, further, that the order of men alone singled out as entitled to such secular assistance is characterized as a teaching order; so characterized, per-hops, because teaching religious truth was the most prominent and characteristic of their functions. In his First Epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:17), written, probably, some years later, "the elders who labour in Word and teaching (διδασκαλία)" are particularized as those among the "presiding elders" who are the "most especially" entitled to liberal payment; the form of expression, however, implying that elders whose function lay in other duties than that of teaching were likewise entitled to liberal consideration. The teaching elders would require, more than other Church officers, leisure from worldly avocations for the study of God’s Word and his truth, and for the actual discharge of their especial work in private as well as in public (comp. Acts 6:4; Acts 20:20). The direction here given would apply, as to the case of resident teachers, so also to that of persons who travelled about in the dissemination of the faith; as we learn from 1 Corinthians 9:4-14; 2 Corinthians 11:7-12. In 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:13 the apostle commends to the "high estimation" of the disciples "those who laboured among them, and were ever them in the Lord, and admonished them (κοπιῶνταςπροΐσταμένουςνουθετοῦντας); The expression "the Word" is used without any further qualification to designate the Christian doctrine, as in Mark 2:2; Mark 4:14; Acts 8:4; Acts 11:19; Philippians 1:14. So the Christian religion is styled "the Way" in Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9. "Share;’ the verb κοινωνεῖν and its derivatives are frequently used with reference to that kind of "fellowship" or "partnership" which is evinced by our liberally sharing with the object of it in our worldly means. If we "count a minister our partner (κοινενόν)," as St. Paul writes to Philemon (Philemon 1:17), we shall not begrudge him frank and generous help in any direction. Thus Romans 12:13, "Communicating to the necessities of saints," is properly "sharing with them in generous sympathy." So Philippians 4:14, "had fellowship with (συγκοιήσαντες) my affliction" points to liberal temporal assistance. Similarly, generous sympathy embodied in money gifts is styled "communion," or "partnership," in Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 1:5; Hebrews 13:16; as also κοινωνικός, "ready to communicate," expresses one ready to show such sympathy, in 1 Timothy 6:18. The apostle regards, and would have others regard, such offices of kindness with a fine delicate feeling, not as giving as if from a higher level of condition, but as sharing with brothers, with whom all things are held in common. Chrysostom and others consider the word to point to an interchange or barter of goods, spiritual and temporal, referring to 1 Corinthians 9:11. "In all good things;" in all good things of this life which he himself possesses. "Good things" as in Luke 12:18, Luke 12:19 ("my goods"); Luke 16:25; the preposition "in," as in Matthew 23:1-39. 30, "partakers in the blood of the prophets." The exact import of this clause, which has been variously interpreted, is best appreciated by our taking account of the warmth of indignant feeling with which the apostle is writing. This clearly transpires both from the words, "be not deceived," and from the assurance, "God is not mocked." The apostle had evidently in his eye a certain course of conduct which he indignantly denounces as a "sneering at God." This feeling prompts him to accentuate his exhortation addressed to the cold-hearted, niggardly Christians whom he has in view, by adding this clause, which is in effect, "in every possible way;" namely, by giving them respect and good will as well as maintenance. To no other Church does he address such direct admonition respecting the liberal treatment of its teachers, though, perhaps, indirect admonition may be detected in 1 Corinthians 9:7-11. No doubt the news he had just heard from Galatia made him feel the necessity of dealing with them roundly on this point. Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived (μὴπλανᾶσθε). So 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33. Let nothing lead you astray from the conviction, that in the conformity of your real aims and actual practice with the dictates of God’s Spirit, and in that alone, can you hope for eternal life. God is not mocked (Θεὸςοὐμυκτηρίζεται); God is not derided. The verb μυκτηρίζειν, to writhe the nostrils (μυκτῆρας) at one in scorn, to sneer at him, occurs frequently in the Septuagint, rendering different Hebrew words, which denote disdain; as nāatz ("despise"), Proverbs 1:30; bazah ("despise"), Proverbs 15:20; lā’ag, "laugh (in derision)," Psalms 80:6. St. Luke uses it in his Gospel twice (Luke 16:14; Luke 23:1-56. 35), where it is rendered "deride," "scoff at." It is, in effect, a "derision" of God when we meet his requirements of real piety and of practical obedience by the presentation of lip-professions and outward shows of religiousness. But the derision will not last long; it cannot hold good, Whatever in our hypocrisy we may pretend, or even after a fashion believe, as to ourselves, the eternal principles of Divine government are sure to work out their accomplishment. Bishop Lightfoot, founding upon the use of the verb μυκτηρίζειν in Greek authors on rhetoric—with whom it denotes a kind of fine irony, in which a feeling of contempt is thinly veiled by a polite show of respect—proposes to apply this sense here; and it would well suit the tenor of the passage; but as employed by so Hellenistic a writer as St. Paul it appears safer to interpret the verb simply In the light thrown upon it by the usage of the Septuagint. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (ὃγὰρἐὰνσπείρῃἄνθρωποςτοῦτοκαὶθερίσει). The word σπείρῃ may be either an aorist, as in Ephesians 6:8," whatsoever good thing each one doeth (ποιήσῃ);" or a present. The latter seems to agree better with the ὁσπείρω of the next verse, and the more pointedly directs attention to one’s present immediate behaviour. The reaping-time is either the future life or its starting-point in the" day of the Lord" which determines its future complexion, as in Romans 2:5-16; 2 Corinthians 5:10. The axiom here stated holds good, no doubt, in much that befalls us in the present life, as is forcibly evinced by the late Fred. Robertson’s sermon on this text; but this application of it hardly lies in the apostle’s present field of view. All human activity is here recited under this image of "sowing," with reference to the consequences which in the day of retribution will infallibly accrue from every part of it. In 2 Corinthians 9:6, however ("He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly," etc.), the idea is applied to pecuniary gifts. Such an application seems to possess a peculiar propriety, founded on the benefits that the giving of money—which, viewed as gold, silver, or copper coins is in itself a dry and useless thing—would be the means of effecting (see vers. 12-15 of the same chapter). But this does not warrant our limiting the application of the word here to the bestowment of money gifts, though this in the context furnishes the occasion for its introduction; the next verse proves the wider application which the apostle’s mind is making of it, not, however, losing sight (vers. 9, 10) of this specific reference. "Whatsoever he is sowing, that shall he reap;" the quality of the harvest (its quantity does not seem from the next verse to be particularly thought of, as in 2 Corinthians 9:6) is determined by the quality of the seed sown. In the form of expression, the deed which is done is said to be itself received back—received back, that is, in its corresponding reward or punishment. In a similar manner the apostle expresses himself in Ephesians 6:8, "Whatsoever good thing each man doeth, this shall he receive again (κομιεῖται) from the Lord." So of evil doings in Colossians 3:25, "He that doeth wrong shall receive again the wrong which he did;" and of both good and bad in 2 Corinthians 5:10. These last-cited passages, together with others which will readily occur to the reader, appear to contemplate a reference to be made in the day of judgment to each several action, with an award assigned to each; which view is likewise presented by such utterances of Christ himself as we read in Matthew 10:42; Matthew 25:35, Matthew 25:36, Matthew 25:42, Matthew 25:43. On the other hand, in the passage now before us, the "eternal life," and probably also the "corruption" mentioned in Matthew 25:8, seem to point to the general award, of life or of destruction, which each man shall receive, founded on the review of his whole behaviour (see Revelation 20:12, Revelation 20:15). This is a somewhat different view of the future retribution from the former. Considering such passages in the light of moral exhortation, we are reminded that in each several action we are taking a step towards either a happy or a disastrous end—a step which, if pursued onward in the same direction, will infallibly conduct us to either that happy or that disastrous end. In regard to the relation between the two somewhat differing views of the future retribution above stated, when considered as subjects of speculative inquiry, a few observations may not be out of place here. We need find no difficulty at all in this diversity of representation so far as relates to the good actions of those who shall then be accepted or to the evil actions of those who shall be rejected. But a difficulty does seem to present itself with respect to the evil deeds done, if not before yet after their conversion, by the ultimately accepted, and also with respect to the good deeds done by the ultimately lost. Will the righteous receive the award of their evil deeds? Will the lost receive the award of their good deeds? For there is no righteous man who hath not sinned; as also neither is there an unrighteous man whose life does not show good and laudable actions. A reference to the actual experience of souls in this life suggests, not indeed a complete solution of the difficulty which the nature of the case probably makes impossible to us at devise, but a consideration which helps to lessen our sense of it. It is this in Christians who have a well-grounded consciousness of perfect reconciliation with God, assured to them even by the seal of the Spirit of adoption, this happy consciousness is, however, perfectly compatible with a vivid remembrance of wrong things done in the past. And this remembrance is perpetually suggestive of sentiments of self-loathing—self-loathing the more bitter in proportion as the soul, by its growing purification through the Spirit, is enabled the more truly to estimate the evil character of those evil deeds. This is exemplified by St. Paul’s wailing recollection, near the very end of his course, of those heinous sins of his, committed long years before, against Christ and his Church (1 Timothy 1:15). Now, we cannot conceive of a continuous existence of the soul apart from a continued remembrance of its past experiences. The redeemed, then, in their perfected state after the resurrection, can never become oblivions of those foul blots in their spiritual history; the recollection of them can never cease at once to abase them in their own consciousness and to glorify the grace which has redeemed them. The Divine Spirit itself will still, we may believe, quicken these remembrances; and the infinite benefactions of God, in that state of felicity experienced, will be still heaping fresh coals of fire upon their heads. Their felicity will be no offspring of blindness or misconception in reference to the past; on the contrary, they will know the truth in respect to their own lives in respect to every part of them, with a clearness unattainable in the present state; but they will know the truth too in respect to the intensity of the Divine love. God’s love, it is true, cannot shed the light of approval upon those dark spots of their earthly history; cannot shed upon them those felicitating beams of "Well done, good and faithful servant," which will most assuredly flow down upon the acceptable portions of their conduct; that love itself cannot deal with his servants otherwise than according to truth. But the love of God will be clearly seen, cancelling, for Christ’s sake, the penal consequences which but for Christ those several wickednesses would have incurred: in those very instances of sinfulness magnifying in each saved one’s consciousness the infinite benignity of his Father, which loved him even then, in those very hours of his extremest ill-deserving. If these speculations appear not unreasonable, then they will serve to explain in what way the sinful doings even of those finally accepted will, however, not fail of receiving their award; the award will be there, both in that sense of loss—loss of Divine commendation, which will necessarily accompany the recollection of them; and also in the sense of their debt of punishment, though cancelled. Be we sure our sin will find us out. Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption (ὅτιὁσπείρωνεἰςτὴνσάρκαἑαυτοῦἐκτῆςσαρκὸςθερίσειφθοράν); for he that soweth unto his own flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption. "Fort" the causal force of the particle ὅτι, properly "because," is here greatly attenuated, being employed to introduce a sentence commending to acceptance the foregoing one, simply by a detailed exposition of particulars illustrating its meaning. This is the case also in 1 Thessalonians 2:14: 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Ephesians 2:18; Philippians 4:16. In regard to the connection of this first half of the eighth verse with the preceding context, we must take note of the sternly monitory tone which marks Philippians 4:7. This shows that in the sentence, "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," the apostle has more immediately in view the terrible harvest to be reaped by those who acted as if they thought that God might be overreached. We may infer from this that this first clause of Php 4:8 is mainly the thought which up to here the writer had it on his mind to inculcate—the "corruption" which a man would reap from a life of self-indulgence. But, after completing the statement of this thought, his tone forthwith changes; the frown clearing away from his countenance, he adds, to the threatening admonition of the first clause, the cheering promise of the second, while a more genial tone marks his further remarks on the subject in vers. 9 and 10. The second limb of the verse thus appears introduced in the same way as the second does in Romans 8:13; and in both cases with the conjunction δέ. "Sowing unto his own flesh." Many critics render, "into his own flesh," as if, with a shifting of the image, which is certainly not uncommon with St. Paul, the flesh were now the ground into which the seed is cast. This relation, however, to the verb "sow" (see Alford and Ellicott) is in the New Testament expressed differently, by ἐν, in, or by ἐπί, upon; while εἰς in Matthew 13:22 denotes "among." It is more obvious to take εἰς as "unto," "denoting the immediate object of the action, that to which it tends, that in which it terminates" (Webster and Wilkinson, ’Commentary’). This way of construing suits better in the phrase, εἰςτὸΠνεῦμα, which follows. Applying the image of sowing generally, the apostle in Matthew 13:7 speaks of the quality of the sowing (not precisely the quality of the seed) as determining the quality of the harvest; and here, of one kind of sowing being "unto the flesh," the other "unto the Spirit." "He that soweth unto his own flesh;" that is, he whose general action in life is referred to his own personal gratification in his lower nature—to his own profit, pleasure, honour. The addition of ἑαυτοῦ ("his own") has a marked reference to the topic which led to this general statement: the apostle has in his view a man’s gratifying his own merely worldly inclinations, to the disregard of the well-being, even the physical well-being, of other men. To sow unto the flesh of our brethren, in one sense, namely, for the promotion of their physical well-being, would bear a different aspect from sowing unto oar own flesh. "Shall from the flesh reap corruption." This by some commentators has been interpreted thus: In the harvest of That Day, nought will be found with him of all those things on which his heart has been set—nought save, at the best, mere rottenness, disappointment, and illusion. This would be analogous to the moral with which our Lord pointed his parable of the rich fool, to whom God said, "Whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?" "So is he," added Christ, "that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:20, Luke 12:21). The word φθορά, corruption, involves at least as much as this; but this view alone would furnish an inadequate antitheten to "eternal life," as also it gives less force to the word itself than it appears from its ordinary use to convey. One essential element of this verbal noun φθορὰ is the notion of decay, or the condition of being impaired, spoilt, wasted away (cf. Colossians 2:20; Romans 8:21), It is used of corruption in our moral nature in 2 Peter 1:1-21, 4; 2 Peter 2:12, 2 Peter 2:19; as φθείρω and διαφθείρω are likewise applied in 2 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 6:5. But the clear presentment of its sense, when connected as it is here with "flesh," is afforded by its antithesis, with respect to the "body" or "flesh," to ἀφθαρσία in 1 Corinthians 15:42, "It is sown in corruption., it is raised in incorruption," and 1 Corinthians 15:50," Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption;" and by the opposed adjectives "corruptible" and "incorruptible ’ (φθαρτός and ἄφθαρτος) in 1 Corinthians 15:53, 1 Corinthians 15:54, as well as by the use of διαφθορὰ of the rotting away of a dead body, in Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31; Acts 13:34-37. That the apostle uses the word "corruption" with a direct reference to "flesh," and therefore as alluding to or rather expressing a certain qualification of the flesh’s condition, is shown by his inserting the words, ἐκτῆςσαρκός, "of the flesh." Strictly speaking those words are not necessary for the completeness of the sentence. To all appearance they are added aetiologically, to make prominent the thought that what is sown unto the flesh may be expected to issue in corruption, because corruption is the natural end of flesh itself. For an analogous reason, "of the Spirit" is inserted in the antithetic statement; the Spirit being essentially not only living, but vivific. The words, then, seem to mean this’ "shall from the flesh reap that corruption which the flesh, un-quickened by the Spirit of God [for comp. Romans 8:11], must itself issue in." In endeavouring more exactly to determine the sense of these words, it is well in the first instance to confine our view to the conceptions relative to this subject presented by St. Paul. In reviewing these, we observe that St. Paul never predicates ἀφθαρσία ("incorruption," "incorruptible-ness") of the future bodily condition of "those who perish (οἱἀπολλύμενοι)." On the contrary, in 1 Corinthians 15:42-54 he clearly restricts this conception of bodily being to the case of those whose body shall be assimilated to that of the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, as indeed it is only to them that the entire discourse (vers. 20-58) relates. So again in Philippians 3:21, the "fashioning anew of the body of our humiliation into conformity with the body of his glory" is evidently limited to those whoso end is not "perdition (ἀπώλεια)." Again, in 2 Corinthians 5:1-21. I the "house not made with hands, eternal," appears to be an exclusive designation of the resurrection-body of the accepted believer. Once more, in Romans 2:7 the words, "to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption (ἀφθαρσίαν)," imply that incorruption is an attribute exclusively pertaining to the happiness after which true Christians aspire. All that we meet with elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings fits in perfectly with his holding the view that, while "there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust," as he stated to Felix (Acts 24:15)—a resurrection surely he meant in the body—the bodies of the accepted alone wilt be incorruptible, the bodies of the lost being, for all that appears in his teaching, left in some sense subject to corruption. In what way the apostle in his own mind connected this conception, of in-corruption being a quality exclusively pertaining to the future condition of the just. with that of the "eternal destruction (αἰώνιοςὄλεθρος)" awaiting them who know not God (2 Thessalonians 1:9), we shall, perhaps, do wisely in not attempting to determine. We can, it is true, imagine ways of conjoining the two notions; ’but it will be best not to positively affirm that this or that that was St. Paul’s manner of viewing the subject. Possibly the Spirit had not revealed this to him. if so, he might feel it incumbent upon him to forbear from giving forth definite statements on matters not really disclosed to his view, and, therefore, not intended to form a part of revealed truth. This, however, should not keep us back from accepting what appears to be the only probable view of the sense of the present passage, namely, that they who live a life of selfishness and carnal self-indulgence will reap the final award of having a body with flesh, in some most real and important sense, subject to corruption. The consideration that the apostle is thinking of the awards of the day of judgment, at once meets the objection that corruption is predicable of the Christian’s body also. It is obvious to reply that, though the body of a believer is sown in corruption even as the body of an unrighteous man, it is revealed to us that it will be raised in incorruption; which it is nowhere said that the body of him who dies in his sins will be. As applied to objects lying on the other side of the veil which parts the spiritual world from that visible world whence all our images of thought are derived, this term "corruption" must be understood as describing a condition of bodily being, not necessarily identical with, but very conceivably only in some respects analogous to, that which it describes in relation to a corpse in our present state. The resurrection stale, with all that pertains to it, inscrutably blending, as the story, of the forty days commencing with Christ s resurrection exemplifies, spiritual phenomena with corporeal, is one which we are wholly unable to understand or to realize. This may be thought a very superfluous observation. But it is not so. The attempts intellectually to realize the events which we are hereafter to witness and to be the subjects of, and the dogmatic affirmations relating to them, made, not merely in past ages, but in the very present, render it necessary that we should distinctly keep this truth in view. The physical theory of that future state, and the eventual history which is to be evolved in it, we not merely do not know, but are absolutely incapable of forecasting. We dare not say one syllable about them beyond what is distinctly told us; and what is told us, we are to remember, is through the very nature of the case no other than images, presented in a dark dim mirror, which shows them so obscurely, that to our intellective perception they seem riddles rather than revelations: Ἄρτιγὰρβλέπομενδἰἐσόπτρουἐναἰνίγματι, (1 Corinthians 13:12). It is, in fact, not our intellect, but our moral sense, that the revelations of the future state are designed to inform. Next, looking out from the field of purely Pauline doctrine upon the teaching presented in other parts of the New Testament, we are reminded at once of that awful and repeated word of our Lord concerning the "Gehenna of fire"—"where their worm (σκώληξ) dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:43-48). It is known that, before our Lord appeared upon earth, this conception of Gehenna, the terms of which beyond question were borrowed from the closing verses of Isaiah, had already become current in the eschatological views of the Jews. This is evidenced by Judith 16:17; Ecclesiastes 7:17. This imagery our Lord adopted, recognizing, it should seem, in this portion of rabbinical teaching a just evolution of ideas which had been presented in the inspired volumes of the Old Testament—a development of them which we may fairly attribute to the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit promised to God’s restored people, as e.g, in Ezekiel 36:24-28. We cannot doubt that the "worm" which our Lord spoke of means the worm which preys upon rotting flesh. The image, therefore, exactly accords with the word "corruption" as interpreted above. Whether the apostle glanced at that discourse of Christ, or was even aware of it, is uncertain; but that he both knew of it and even inferred from it in using this word "corruption," is by no means unlikely. One other reference to "corruption" as the future doom of at least certain of the lost, is found in 2 Peter 2:12, which, according to the now approved reading of the Greek text, runs thus: "But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed—shall in their destroying be destroyed [or, ’in their corruption shall even rot away’] (ἐντῇφθορᾷαὐτῶνκαὶφθαρήσονται)." Possibly the word φθορά, taken as "corruption," points here to moral corruption; but the verb φθαρήσονται may very well point to the miserable doom of rotting away by which they shall judicially perish, moral corruption working physical corruption. But the exact sense is doubtful. With the clause before us we must group Romans 8:13, "If ye live after the flesh, ye are certain to die;" whilst the sentence which follows, "But if by the Spirit ye put to death the doings of the body, ye shall live," answers to the closing sentence of the present verse; as also does "death" as "the wages of sin," balanced against the "eternal life" which is "the gift of God," in Romans 6:1-23:25. The contrasted thoughts in Philippians 3:19, Philippians 3:20 likewise closely touch those here presented to us. But he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting (ὁδὲσπείρωνεἰςτὸΠνεῦμαἐκτοῦΠνεύματοςθερίσειζωὴναἰώνιον); but he that soweth unto the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life eternal. That is, he that expends thought, time, effort, money, upon the furthering, in himself and in others, of the fruits of the Spirit, shall receive, from that Holy Spirit to whose guidance dwelling within him he resigns himself, that quickening of his whole being, body, soul, and spirit, for an everlasting existence in glory, which it is the proper work of that Divine Agent to effect. For the latter clause, comp. Romans 8:11, "If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you [as the guiding, animating influence in your lives], he that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit dwelling within you;" in which passage the aetiologleal clause, "by reason of his Spirit dwelling in you," corresponds exactly with the aetiological clause, "of the Spirit," in the words before us. The two verses which follow show that one specific form of sowing unto the Spirit which the apostle has definitely in view, while enforcing the general idea, is that of Christian beneficence. How closely the practice of Christian beneficence was in the apostle’s mind, in conformity with Christ’s own teaching (Matthew 25:1-46. etc.), connected with the securing of the future blissful immortality, is markedly shown in 1 Timothy 6:18, 1 Timothy 6:19;—not the less so if we adopt the now approved reading, ἵναἐκιλάβωνταιτοῦὄντωςζωῆς, "that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed." Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well-doing (τὸδὲκαλὸνποιοῦντεςμὴἐγκακῶμεν [Textus Receptus, ἐκκακῶμεν]); but in doing that which is good, let us not flag. That is, some sow unto their own flesh, some unto the Spirit; let us be of those who do that which is commendable; and not that only; let us do it with an unflagging spirit. Such seems to be the swaying of thought in the sentence; hence the position of the participial phrase before the verb: the participle is not a mere qualification of the verb, as it is in the rendering, "Let us not be weary in well-doing," and as it is in 2 Thessalonians 3:13; but, with an implied exhortation that such should be the case, it supposes that we are of the better class, and founds upon the supposition the exhortation not to flag. "That which is commendable (τὸκαλόν)" recites, not works of beneficence only, but every species of moral excellence, comprising in brief the enumeration given in Philippians 4:8, all of which is included in "sowing unto the Spirit," The verb ἐγκακεῖν occurs in five other places of the New Testament—Luke 18:1; 2 Corinthians 4:1, 2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 3:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:13. In every one of these six passages some of the manuscripts present the variant reading of ἐκκακεῖν, which in all is adopted in the Textus Receptus, but is in all replaced with the general consent of recent editors by ἐγκακεῖν. It is, indeed, questioned whether ἐκκακεῖν is ever used by any Greek author. The difference in meaning is material: ἐγκακεῖν is to be bad in doing a thing; while ἐκκακεῖν, would probably mean to be so bad at a course of action as to leave it off altogether. In the first four of the above-cited passages it is tendered in the Authorized Version by "faint;" whilst in 2 Thessalonians 3:13 and here it is rendered "be weary," that is, "flag." In all the notion of flagging appears the most suitable, and in 2 Corinthians 4:1, 2 Corinthians 4:16 necessary. In the present passage the course of thought requires us to understand it as not so strong a word as ἐκλύεσθαι. Critics point attention to the play of phrase in connecting the expression, doing that which is commendable or good, with the verb denoting being bad at doing it. So in 2 Thessalonians 3:13, μὴἐγκακήσητεκαλοποιοῦντες. The epigrammatic combination would seem to have been a favourite one with St. Paul, occurring as it does in two letters written several years apart. Such playfulness is not foreign to his style. The use of the first person plural may be merely cohortative, as above in Galatians 5:24. But it may also he a real self-exhortation as well. In the long, long, weary, arduous conflict which St. Paul was waging throughout his Christian career, the flesh must often have felt weak, and have required the application of this goad. And this tone of personal feeling may, perhaps, be further discerned in the use of the phrase, "in due season;" the blessed reaping of joy may seem to us at times long in coming; but God’s time for its coming will be the best time; let us, therefore, be resigned to wait for that. This seems to be the tone of the καιροῖςἰδίοις, "in its own times," of 1 Timothy 6:15. For in due season we shall reap, if we faint not (καιρῷγὰρἰδίῳθερίσομενμὴἐκλυόμενοι). for at its own season we shall reap, if we faint not. Καιρὸςἴδιος is the season assigned to an event in the counsels of God; as in 2 Thessalonians 2:6, ἐντῷαὐτοῦκαῖρῳ, "in his season," of the revelation of the "man of lawlessness." Καιροῖςἰδίοις is used in 1 Timothy 6:15 with reference, as here, to the day of judgment; and in 1 Timothy 2:6 and Titus 1:3, of the manifestation of the gospel. In every case the phrase appears to intimate that the season appointed by God, though not what man might have anticipated or wished, was, however, to be acquiesced in as wisest and best (see last note). The reaping is the same as that referred to in the previous two verses. "If we faint not." The verb ἐκλύεσθαι in Matthew 15:32 and Mark 8:2 is to faint physically from exhaustion. In Hebrews 12:3, Hebrews 12:5 it is used of succumbing, giving in, morally; not merely feeling weak, but in consequence of weakness giving up all further effort. In this hitter sense it occurs in the Septuagint of Jos 18:3 and in 1 Macc. 9:8. And this last is its meaning here. It expresses more than the flagging of spirit before mentioned; for that would not forfeit the reward of past achievement, unless it led to the actual relinquishment of further endeavour; this last would forfeit it (comp. Revelation 3:11 and 2 John 1:8). Taking it thus, there is no occasion for understanding this phrase, "not fainting," as several of the Greek commentators do, including apparently Chrysostom, as if it meant thus: "We shall reap without any fear of fainting or becoming weary any more;" which surely, as Alford observes, gives a vapid turn to the sentence. Galatians 6:10 As we have therefore opportunity (ἄραοὖνὡςκαιρὸνἔχιμεν); so then, while (or, as) we have a season for so doing. Ἄραοὖν: this combination of particles is frequently found in St. Paul’s writings, being so far as appears (cf. Winer, ’Gram. N.T.,’ § 53, 8a) peculiar to him (1 Thessalonians 5:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; Romans 5:18; Romans 7:3, Romans 7:25; Romans 8:12; Romans 9:16,Romans 9:18; Romans 14:12, Romans 14:19; Ephesians 2:19). In every instance it marks a certain pause after a statement of premisses; in several, following a citation from the Old Testament; the writer, after waiting, so to speak, for the reader duly to Lake into his mind what has been already said, proceeds to draw his inference. The ἄρα seems to point backward to the premisses; the οὖν to introduce the inference. "Well, then," or "so, then," appears a fairly equivalent rendering. In 1 Thessalonians 5:6 and Romans 14:19 ἄραοὖν introduces a cohortative verb, as here; in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, an imperative. The words Which follow seem to be commonly understood as meaning "whenever opportunity offers." But this fails short of recognizing the solemn consideration of the proprieties of the present sowing-time, which the previous context prepares us to expect to find here; the term "season," as Meyer remarks, having its proper reference already fixed by the antithetical season of reaping referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:9. Moreover, instead of for, would not the apostle, if he had meant "whenever," have used the intensified form καθώς? Chrysostom gives the sense well thus: "As it is not always in our power to sow, so neither is it to show mercy; when we have been borne hence, though we may desire it a thousand times, we shall be able to effect nothing." Indeed it is questionable whether the sense now pleaded for is not that which was intended by the rendering in the Authorized Version. The particle ώς probably means "while," as it does in Luke 12:58 and in John 12:35, John 12:36, where it should replace the ἕως of the Textus Receptus; but this needs not to be insisted upon. Anyway, we are reminded of the uncertain tenure by which we hold the season for doing that which, if done, will have so blessed a consequence. Let us do good unto all men (ἐργαζώμεθατὸἀγαθὸνπρὸςπάντας); let us be workers of that which is good towards all men. The verbs ἐργάζομαι and ποιῶ appear used inter-changeably in Colossians 3:23 and 3 John 1:5; but the former seems to suggest, more vividly than the other, either the concrete action, the ἔργον, which is wrought; or else the part enacted by the agent as being a worker of such or such a description—as if, here, it were "let us be benefactors." The adjective "good" (ἀγαθός) is often, perhaps most commonly, used to designate what is morally excellent in general; thus, e.g., in Romans 2:10, "the worker of that which is go,d" is contrasted with "the worker-out of that which is evil," as a description of a man’s moral character in general. But on the other hand, this adjective frequently takes the sense of "benevolent," "beneficent;’’ as e.g. in Matthew 20:15, "Is thine eye evil, because I am good?" 1 Peter 2:18, "masters, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward;" Titus 2:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Timothy 6:18; Romans 12:21. In the remarkable contrast between the righteous man and the good man in Romans 5:7, the latter term appears distinctly intended in the conception of virtuousness to make especially prominent the idea of beneficence. Naturally, this sense attaches to it, when it describes an action done to another, as the opposite to the "working ill to one’s neighbour," mentioned in Romans 13:10; "good" in such a relation, denoting what is beneficent in effect, denotes what is also benevolent in intention (see 1 Thessalonians 5:15). Indeed, that the present clause points to works of beneficence’’ is made certain by that which is added, "and especially," etc.; for our behaviour should be in no greater degree marked by general moral excellence in dealing with one class of men than in dealing with any others; though one particular branch of virtuous action may be called into varying degrees of activity in different relations of human intercourse. "Towards all men;" πρός, towards, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:14; Ephesians 6:9. The spirit of universal philanthropy which the apostle inculcates here as in other passages, as e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:15, is one which flows naturally from the proper influence upon the mind of the great facts stated in 1 Timothy 2:3-7, as also it was a spirit which in a most eminent degree animated the apostle’s own life. Witness that noble outburst of universal benevolence which we read of in Acts 26:29. Such an escape from bigotry and particularism was quite novel to the Gentile world, and scarcely heard of in the Jewish, though beautifully pointed forward to in the teaching of the Book of Jonah. Espescially unto them who are of the household of faith (μάλισταδὲπρὸςτοὺςοἰκείουςτῆςπίστεως); but especially towards them that are of the household of faith. The adjective οἰκεῖος occurs in the New Testament only in St. Paul’s Epistles—twice besides here, namely, in Ephesians 2:19, "fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household (οἰκεῖοι)of God;" and in 1 Timothy 5:8, "if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household (οἰκείων)." In the last-cited passage, the adjective, denoting as it plainly is meant to do, a closer relation than "his own (ἰδίων)" must mean members of his household or family; and we can hardly err in supposing that in Ephesians 2:19 likewise the phrase, οἰκεῖοιτοῦΘεοῦ denotes those whom God has admitted into his family as children. So the word also signifies in the Septuagint of Isa 3:5; Isaiah 58:7; and Revelation 18:6, Revelation 18:12, Revelation 18:13. It is, therefore, an unnecessary dilution of its force here to render it, "those who belong to the faith," though such a rendering of it might be justified if found in an ordinary Greek author. The meaning of τῆςπίστεως is illustrated by the strong personification used before by the apostle in Galatians 3:23, Galatians 3:25, "before faith came;" "shut up for the faith which was yet to be revealed;" "now that faith is come." The apostle surely here is not thinking of "the Christian doctrine," but of that principle of believing acceptance of God’s promises which he has been insisting upon all through the Epistle. This principle, again personified, is here the patron or guardian of God’s people afore-time under a pedagogue: "of the household of faith," not "of the faith." The apostle is thinking of those who sympathized with the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ without legal observances; and very possibly is glancing in particular at the teachers under whose care the apostle had left the Galatian Churches. At first, we may believe, the Galatian Churchmen, in the fervour of their affection to the apostle himself, had been willing enough to help those teachers in every way. But when relaxing their hold upon the fundamental principles of the gospel, they had also declined in their affectionate maintenance of the teachers who upheld those doctrines. He now commends these, belonging to faith’s own household, to their especial regard (comp. Philippians 3:17). "Especially;" this qualification in an intensified form of the precept of universal beneficence, is the outcome of no cold calculation of relative duties, but of fervent love towards those who are truly brethren in Christ. That to these an especial affection is due above all others is a sentiment commended and inculcated in almost all St. Paul’s Epistles; as it is also by St. Peter, as e.g. in 1 Peter 1:22, etc.; and again by St. John. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/