αν Oem ΕΞ ΕΣ OG ew Bye Dre's = ΕΣ “Ὁ. AP οεἱ 4.555 ᾿ χω ee hs ΡΩΝ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N, J. PRESENTED BY Est ate of Rev. George G. Smith pias -ς “7,5. ΠῚ Division. La i τ τὰ Section i. ae eh A 7 yw a j a ᾿ igh . 7 ΜΓ ΠΥ i ig } ee ν᾿ ey ᾿ ; ᾿ Δ. ἐν NS ' ͵ ᾿ ee ea fs ‘Ps aie 2 ΤΑΝ 1] ¥ omy Les 7 a’ ve ΜΙ ᾿ Ἵ I Β =| i ab hs Α | a ᾿ CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL )ς OM ps Sa 4 a had ea | Pe AY! COMMENTARY — ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, REVISED TRANSLATION. BY . RT. REV. CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. Muth av Introductory Notice By CALVIN E. STOWE, D. D., PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. BOS TOM:: DRAPD Ri AND SHALL LEDAY. PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, AND CO. CINCINNATI: GEO. S. BLANCHARD AND CO. 18:07- ¥ntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by WARREN F. DRAPER, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. Andover: Electrotyped and Printed by W.F. Draper. INTRODUCTORY NOTICE Vt AME RTO AN eto Pen. THe Commentaries of Professor Ellicott, modest and unas- suming as they are in tone, really mark an epoch in English sacred literature. They are as different from other English commentaries as De Wette’s are from the Germans who pre- ceded him ; and what De Wette has been to German exegesis, Ellicott is and will be to the English. I speak of scholarship and mode of exhibition mainly ; but the remark is also true in another respect, for, as De Wette was in his time the soundest and most favorable type of German rationalism as applied to .the exposition of Scripture, Ellicott now most fitly represents the clear common sense and reverential piety so happily char- acteristic of the best biblical expositors in the English church. Protestant Germany only could have produced a De Wette, and Protestant England only, an Ellicott. It is the professed object of both these writers, by a severe and purely grammatical analysis of the language of the sacred penmen, to ascertain precisely the ideas which they meant to convey ; and: to express the “results of this analysis in the simplest and briefest manner possible, without reference to. _ theological systems, or ecclesiastical prepossessions, or practical inferences. This method must lie at the foundation of all true exegesis, and, to those who receive the Bible as the word of God, must form the basis of all Christian theology. Yet it is a method very seldom followed with any good degree of strict- ness, and it is not a method which is generally particularly ᾿ interesting to theologians and preachers. It differs from the usual style of commentary as pure wheat differs from mer- + Il INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. chantable flour. Though the ascertainable purity of the wheat is acknowledged to be a great advantage, there is the trouble of grinding it before it can be made into bread. Theologizing and sermonizing commentary, though everywhere intermingled with the speculations and prepossessions of the commentator, is generally preferred to a severe and strictly linguistic exege- sis, because, though less pure, it furnishes the material more ready for immediate use. But which method is it that really takes the Bible as the sufficient and only authoritative rule of Christian faith and practice, and follows out to its legitimate results the fundamental principle of Protestantism? There can be but one answer to this question ; and it is this, the only truly biblical and Protestant method of commentary, which Professor Ellicott has conscientiously, consistently, and suc- cessfully pursued. It is the crowning excellence of these commentaries, that they are exactly what they profess to be, critical and gram- matical, and therefore, in the best sense of the term, eze- getical. It is no part of the author’s object to theologize or to sermonize, or to make proof-texts, or to draw inferences or to repel them, but simply to interpret the language of the sacred writers ; and this object he accomplishes. He first, with the utmost care and the most conscientious laboriousness, gives the reader a correct text, by means of a widely extended comparison. of original MSS., ancient translations, and the best editions, ‘The amount of hard work evidently expended on this part of his undertaking is, to one who knows how to appreciate it, almost appalling. His results are worthy of all confidence. He is more careful and reliable than Tischendorf, slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more patiently Jaborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the exception, perhaps, of Tregelles. Having thus ascertained the text, he then goes to work lexically and grammatically upon every word, phrase, and sentence which it offers; and here again is everywhere seen the real labor limae of the untiring and conscientious scholar. Nothing escapes his diligence, noth- ing wears out his patience. His exegetical conclusions are ‘stated briefly and modestly, and with the utmost simplicity. INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. ΠῚ His references to other opinions and other writers, and to all the requisite authorities, are abundantly copious for the purposes of the most thorough study. The marginal indications of the course of thought are exceedingly judicious and helpful ; and the full translations given at the close of each Commentary harmonize with all the other parts of the work. Here the constant marginal quotations from the older translators give the reader the best possible opportunity for an extensive com- parison, which would otherwise, in most cases, be quite impos- sible, for want of access to the books. The reader will be gratified to learn something of the his- tory of the unpretending scholar who has already done so much, and who gives promise of so much more. CHARLES Joun Exticorr is of an old Devonshire family, a branch of which early emigrated to America, and still has descendants here. He was born in 1819, the son of Rev. Charles Spencer Ellicott, Rector of Whitwell in Rutlandshire. He studied at the grammar schools of Oakham and Stamford, and afterwards entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, of which society he be- came a Fellow in 1844. In 1848 he married and took the Rectorship of Pilton, in Rutlandshire, which he held till the beginning of 1856; when, for the sake of having access to large public libraries, he resigned his living and returned to Cambridge. In 1858 he was appointed one of the select preachers before the University, and prepared and published a volume of sermons on the “ Destiny of the Creature’? (Rom. 8:19 ff.). He received the same appointment again the next year, and was also made Hulsean Lecturer. In this capacity he delivered a course of lectures on the connection of the events in the life of Christ, which are now in press, and will soon be published. In 1858, also, he was appointed to succeed Professor Maurice in the professorship of Divinity at King’s College, Loudon, which office he still holds. On the 20th of February, 1860, while on a journey from Cambridge to London, in fulfilment of the duties of his office, he came very near losing his life by a shocking accident on the Eastern Counties Railway. Three persons in the same compartment with him IV INTRODUCTORY NOTICE, were instantly killed, and he had both legs broken, and his arm and head were severely scalded. His life was saved by his throwing himself upon the bottom of the carriage at the moment when the shock was greatest. He has now recoy- ered from his injuries and is pursuing his work with undimin- ished zeal and success. He has already published on all the epistles of Paul, except Corinthians and Romans, and these he has now in hand, and will in due time complete. The American publisher will issue the successive volumes, as rapidly as circumstances will permit, in the same order with the English (the next being the epistle to the Ephesians), till the whole series is in the hands of our scholars. It is to be hoped also that the American publishers of Alford’s work on the Greek Testament will speedily complete that, as the last volume is now in press in England. It is a different kind of commentary from Ellicott’s, though equally useful in its own way. It includes the whole of the New Testament, and has more of what critics call introduction in the shape of extended and elaborate prolegomena to the several books, and is design- edly of as popular a cast as, from the nature of the case, a scholarly commentary on a Greek book can be. The two works cannot at all interfere with each other. Both are an honor to the English theological literature of the present generation ; each in its own sphere supplies an urgent want; and they both ought to be accessible to American students at as cheap a rate as possible. C. E. STOWE. THEOL. SEM., ANDOVER, MA8s. Aug. 30, 1860. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. TuE following commentary is the first part of an attempt to elucidate St. Paul’s Epistles, by systematically applying to the Sacred Text the present principles of grammar and criticism. It is the result of several years’ devotion to the study of biblical Greek, and owes its existence to the conviction that, in this country, the present very advanced state of philology has scarcely been applied with sufficient rigor to the interpretation of the New Testament. Our popular commentaries are too exclusively exegetical,’ and presuppose, in the ordinary student, a greater knowledge of the peculiarities of the language of the New Testament than it is at all probable he possesses: Even the more promising student is sure to meet with two stumbling-blocks in his path, when he first maturely enters upon the study of the Holy Scripture. In the first place, the very systematic exactitude of his former discipline in classical Greek is calculated to mislead him in the study of writers who belonged to an age when change had impaired, and conquest had debased the language in which they wrote ;—his exclusive attention to a single dialect, informed, for the most part, by a single and prevailing spirit, ill pre- pares him for the correct apprehension of writings in which the tinge of na- tionalities, and the admixture of newer and deeper modes of thought are both distinctly recognizable ; — his familiarity with modes of expression, which had arisen from the living wants of a living language, ill prepares him correctly and completely to understand their force when they are reproduced by aliens in kindred and customs, and strangers, and even more than strangers in tongue. Let all these diversities be fairly considered, and then, without enter- ing into any more exact comparisons between biblical and classical Greek, it will be difficult not to admit that the advanced student in Attic Greek is liable to carry with him prejudices, which may, for a time at least, interfere with his full appreciation of the outward form in which the Sacred Oracles 1Imust éxplain the meaning in which, I use this word when in contradistinction to “grammatical.” By a grammatical commentary, I mean one in which the principles of grammar are either exclusively or principally used to elucidate the meaning: by an exeget- tal commentary, one in which other considerations, such as the circumstances or known sentiments of the writer, etc., are also taken into account. I am not quite sure that Iam correct in thus limiting “‘ exegetical,” but I know no other epithets that will serye to con- yey my meaning. VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. are enshrined. No better example of the general truth of these observations could be adduced than that of the illustrious Hermann, who, in his disquisi- tion on the first three chapters of this very epistle, has convincingly shown, how even perceptions as accurate as his, and erudition as profound, may still signally fail, when applied, without previous exercise, to the interpretation of the New Testament. A second stumbling-block that the classical student invariably finds in his study of the New Testament, is the deplorable state in which, till within the last few years, its grammar has been left. It is scarcely possible for any one unacquainted with the history and details of the grammar of the N. T. to form any conception of the aberrant and unnatural meanings that have been assigned to the prepositions and the particles; many of which cling to them in N. T. lexicons to this very day.’ It requires a familiar acquaintance with the received glosses of several important passages to conceive the nature of the burdens hard to be borne, which long-suffering Hebraism —‘ that hidden helper in all need,’ as Liicke ? calls it — has had to sustain ; and how genera- tions of excellent scholars have passed away without ever overcoming their Pharisaical reluctance to touch one of them with the tip of the finger. Then, again, grammatical figures have suffered every species of strain and distor- tion; enallage, hendyadys, metonymy, have been urged with a freedom in the N. T. which would never have been tolerated in any classical author, however ill-cared for, and however obscure. Here and there in past days a few pro- testing voices were raised against the uncritical nature of the current inter- pretations; but it is not, in Germany, till within a very few years, till the days of Fritzsche and Winer, that they have met with any response or recog- nition; and, among ourselves, even now, they have secured only a limited and critical audience. ’ It thus only too often happens, that, when a young man enters, for the first time, seriously upon the study of the N. T., it is with such an irrepressible feeling of repugnance to that laxity of language, which he is led to believe is its prevailing characteristic, that he either loses for the language of inspira- tion that reverence which its mere literary merits alone may justly claim ; or else, under the action of a better though mistaken feeling, he shrinks from applying to it that healthy criticism to which all his previous education had inured his mind. The more difficult the portion of Scripture, the more sen- sibly are these evils felt and recognized. It is under these feelings that I have undertaken a commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, which, by confining itself to the humbler and less ambitious 1 That this language is in no way overstrained may be easily seen by the notices in Winer’s Grammar, on any leading preposition or conjunction. Ἔν is a difficult preposition in the N. T., but it would require a considerable amount of argnment to make us believe it could ever, even in Heb. xiii. 9, bear the meaning of ex! See Winer, Gr. § 52, a, p. 466 (Ed. 5). 2 Liicke, on John iii. 20, vol. iii. p. 241. " ιν PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. vit sphere of grammatical details, may give the student some insight into the language of the New Testament, and enable him with more assured steps, to ascend the difficult heights of exegetical and dogmatical theology. My own studies have irresistibly impelled me to the conviction, that, without making any unnecessary distinctions between grammar and exegesis, we are still to recognize the necessity, — of first endeavoring to find out what the words actually convey, according to the ordinary rules of language ; then, secondly, of observing the peculiar shade of meaning that the context appears to im- part. Too often this process has been reversed; the commentator, on the strength of some ‘ received interpretation’ or some dogmatical bias, has stated what the passage ought to mean, and then has been tempted, by the force of bad example, to coerce the words ‘per Hebraismum,’ or ‘ per enallagen,’ to yield the required sense. This, in many, nay, most cases, I feel certain, has been done to a great degree unconsciously, yet still the evil effects remain. God’s word, though innocently, has been dealt deceitfully with; and God’s word, like His Ark of the Covenant, may not, with impunity, be stayed up by the officiousness of mortal aid. I have, then, in all cases;striven, humbly and reverently, to elicit from the words their simple and primary meaning. Where that has seemed at variance with historical or dogmatical deductions, — where, in fact, exegesis has seemed to range itself on one side, grammar on the other, —I have never failed candidly to state it; where it has confirmed some time-honored inter- pretation, I have joyfully and emphatically cast my small mite into the great treasury of sacred exegesis, and have felt gladdened at being able to yield some passing support to wiser and better men than myself.' This, however, I would fain strive to impress upon my reader, to whatever party of the Church (alas! that there should be parties) he may chance to belong, that, as God is my witness, I have striven to state, in perfect candor and singleness of heart, all the details of interpretation with which I have come in contact. I have sought to support no particular party, I have desired to yield counte- nance to no peculiar views. I will candidly avow that on all the fundamen- tal points of Christian faith and doctrine my mind is fully made up. It is not for me to sit in judgment upon what is called the liberal spirit of the age, but, without evoking controversies into which I have neither the will nor the abil- 1 Amidst all these details, I have, I trust, never forgotten that there is something higher- than mere critical acumen, something more sure than grammatical exgctitude; something which the world calls the *‘ theological sense,” but which more deyout thinkers recognize as the assisting grace of the Eternal Spirit of God. Without this, without also a deeper and more mysterious sympathy with the mind of the sacred writer whom we are presuming to interpret, no mere verbal discussions can ever tend truly to elucidate, no investigation thoroughly to satisfy. I trust, indeed, that I have never been permitted to forget these. golden words of him whom of all commentators I most honor and revere: - οὐδὲ yap δεῖ τὰ ῥήματα γυμνὰ ἐξετάζειν, ἐπεὶ πολλὰ ἕψεται τὰ ἀτοπήματα᾽ οὐδὲ Thy λέξιν Ka ἑαυτὴν. βασανίζειν, ἀλλὰ τῇ διανοίᾳ προσέχειν τοῦ γράφοντος. Chrysost.. tom. x. p. 674 b (ed. Bened.) ὙΠ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, ity to enter, I may be permitted to say, that upon the momentous subject of the inspiration of Seripture, I cannot be so untrue to my own deepest con- victions, or so forgetful of my anxious thoughts and investigations, as to affect a freedom of opinion which I am very far from entertaining. I deeply feel for those whom earth-born mist and vapor still hinder from beholding the full brightness and effulgence of divine truth; I entertain the most lively pity for those who still feel that the fresh fountains of Scripture are, in all the bitter- ness of the prophet’s lamentation, only ‘waters that fail ;’— I feel it and en- tertain it, and I trust that no ungentle word of mine may induce them to cling more tenaciously to their mournful convictions, yet still I am bound to say, to prevent the nature of my candor being misunderstood, that through- out this commentary the full’ inspiration of Scripture has been felt as one of those strong subjective convictions to which every hour of meditation adds | fresh strength and assurance. Yet I have never sought to mask or disguise a difficulty: I have never advanced an explanation of the truth of which I do not, myself at least, feel convinced. I should shrink from being so untrue to myself, I should tremble at being so presumptuous towards God; as if He who sent the dream may not in His own good tame send ‘ the interpretation thereof.’ That there are difficulties in Scripture, — that there are difficul- ties in this deep Epistle, I both know and feel, and I have, in no case, shrunk from pointing them out; but I also know that there is a time, — whether in this world of unrest, or in that rest which remaineth to God’s people, I know not,— when every difficulty will be cleared up, every doubt dispersed: and it is this conviction that has supported me, when I have felt and have been forced to record my conviction, that there are passages where the world’s wis- dom has not yet clearly seen into the depth of the deep things of God. Before I wholly leave this momentous subject, I would fain plead its importance in regard to the method of interpretation which I have endeav- ored to follow. Iam well aware that the current of popular opinion is now steadily setting against grammatical details and investigations. It is thouéht, I believe, that a freer admixture of history, broader generalizations, and more suggestive reflections, may enable the student to catch the spirit of his author, and be borne serenely along without the weed and toil of ordinary travel. Upon the soundness of such theories, in a general point of view, I will not venture to pronounce an opinion; I am not an Athanase, and can- not confront a world; but, in the particular sphere of Holy Scripture, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say, that if we would train our younger students to be reverential thinkers, earnest Christians, and sound divines, we must habit~ uate them to a patient and thoughtful study of the words and language of 1 J avoid using any party expressions. I would not wish, on the one hand, to class myself with such thinkers as Calovius, nor could I subscribe to the Formiuda Consensus Helvetici ; but lam far indeed from recognizing that admixture of human imperfection and even error, which the popular theosophy of the day now finds in the Holy Scripture. 4 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. ΙΧ Seripture, before we allow them to indulge in an exegesis for which they are immature and incompetent. If the Scriptures are divinely inspired, then surely it is a young man’s noblest occupation, patiently and lovingly to note every change of expression, every turn of language, every variety οἵ inflec- tion, to analyze and to investigate, to contrast and to compare, until he has obtained some accurate knowledge of those outward elements which are per- meated by the inward influence and powers of the Holy Spirit of God. As he wearisomely traces out the subtle distinctions that underlie some illative particle, or characterize some doubtful preposition, let him cheer himself with the reflection that every effort of thought he is thus enabled to make, is (with God’s blessing) a step towards the inner shrine, a nearer approach to a recognition of the thoughts of an Apostle, yea, a less dim perception of the mind of Christ. No one who feels deeply upon the subject of inspiration will allow himself to be beguiled into an indifference to the mysterious interest that attaches itself to the very grammar of the New Testament. I will then plead no excuse that I have made my notes so exclusively crit- ical and grammatical. I rejoice rather that the awakening and awakened interest for theology in this country is likely to afford me a plea and a justifi- cation for confining myself to a single province of sacred literature. Al- ready, I believe, theologians are coming to the opinion that the time for compiled commentaries is passing away. Our resources are now too abun- dant for the various details of criticism, lexicography, grammar, exegesis, his- tory, archeology, and doctrine, to be happily or harmoniously blended in one mass. One mind is scarcely sufficiently comprehensive to grasp prop- erly these various subjects; one judgment is scarcely sufficiently discrim- inating to arrive at just conclusions on so many topics. The sagacious critic, the laborious lexicographer, the patient grammarian, the profound exegete, the suggestive historian, and the impartial theologian, are, in the present state of biblical science, never likely to be united in one person. Excel- lence in any one department is now difficult; in all, impossible. I trust, then, that the time is coming when theologians will carry out, especially in the New Testament, the principle of the division of labor, and selecting that sphere of industry for which they are more particularly qualified, will, in others, be content to accept the results arrived at by the labors of their contemporaries.’ 1 In the present Epistle, there are distinct and instructive instances of the application of this principle. Hilgenfeld has published a recent edition of the Epistle to the Galatians, in which distinct prominence is given to historical and chronological investigations. Dr. Brown has lately devoted some expository discourses nearly exclusively to the doctrine and practical teaching of the Epistle; while Mr. Veitch has supplied him with grammatical annotations. Both of these works have their demerits as well as their merits, but, at any rate, they show that their authors had the good sense to confine themselves to those depart- ments of interpretation for which they felt the greatest aptitude. 2 x PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, The most neglected portion of the New Testament literature is its lexicog- raphy; and this is the more inexcusable, as the excellent concordance of Bruder has been now twelve years before the world. I have here suffered greatly from want of sound help; and in addition to having frequently to draw solely from my own scanty resources in this department, and to leave my own more immediate subject to discuss points which 1 should have gladly found done to my hand, I have also had the thankless task of perpetually putting my readers on their guard against the overhasty and inaccurate classifications of Bretschneider and others. I have generally found Bret- schneider’s Lexicon the best; but the pages of my commentary will abun- dantly show how little reliance I have been able to place upon him. I rejoice to say that Dr. Scott, master of Baliol College, is engaged on a Lex; icon to the N. T.; and those who know his eminent qualifications for the task must feel, as I do, the most perfect confidence in the way in which it will be executed. I regret that it was too little advanced to be of any use to me in this commentary. The general lexicon (beside that of Stephens) which I have chiefly used, is the edition of Passow’s Lexicon by Palm and Rost, which I cannot help thinking is by very far the best lexicon, in a mode- rate compass, that we at present possess. ‘I'he prepositions, in particular, are treated remarkably well, and very comprehensively. Tne synonyms of the Greek Testament, a most important subject, have veen greatly neglected. We have now a genial little volume, from one who ulways writes felicitously and attractively upon such subjects; but the agree- «ble author will not, I am sure, be offended when I say that it can scarcely be ‘deemed otherwise than, as he himSelf modestly terms it, a slight contribu- tiun to the subject. We may fairly trust that an author who has begun so weil will continue his labors in a more extended and comprehensive form. As Mr. Trench’s work came too late into my hands, I have principally used the imperfect work of Tittman; but I perfectly agree with Mr. Trench in his estimate of its merits. In the Grammar of the N. T. we are now in a fairly promising state. The very admirable work of Winer has completely rehabilitated the subject. It is a volume that I have studied with the closest attention, and to which I am under profound obligations. Still, it would not be candid if I did not admit that it has its weak points. I do not consider the treatment of the particles (a most important subject in St. Paul’s epistles) at all equal to that of the prepositions, or by any means commensurate with our wants on this portion of grammar; the cases also might, perhaps, be more successfully handled. The great fault of the book is its superabundance of reference to the notes and commentaries on classical authors. In many cases these are of high importance ; but, in a vast quantity of others, as I have often found to my cost, but little information is to be derived from the source to which the reader 15 referred. Mr. Green's Grammar I consider a work of great PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. ΧΙ ability, but too short and unsystematic to be of the use it might otherwise have been to the student. I have, therefore, been obliged to use freely other grammatical subsidies than those which more particularly bear upon the New Testament.!. My object has been throughout to make my references more to grammars and professed repertories of similar information, than to notes or commentaries on classical authors ; for Iam convinced that a good reference to a good grammar, though not a very showy evidence of research, is a truly valuable assistance; while a discursive note in an edition of a classic, from its want of a context, frequently supplies little real information. I have allowed myself greater latitude in references to the notes of commentators on the N. T., for here the similarity of language, and frequently of subject, constitutes a closer bond of union. In particular, I have used Fritzche’s edition of the Romans nearly as a grammar, so full is it and so elaborate in all details of language. As a grammarian, I entertain for him the highest respect; but I confess my sympathy with him as a theologian is not great, nor can I do otherwise than deplore the unjust levity with which he often treats the Greek Fathers, and the tone of bitterness and asperity which he assumes towards the learned and pious Tholuck. It is a sad evidence of an untouched heart and unchastened spirit, when a commentator on the New Testament leaves the written traces of his bitterness on the margins of the Covenant of Love. The same principle that has induced me to refer to repertories and sys- tematic treatises on grammar, has also influenced me whenever I have been led into dogmatical questions. I have sought, in most cases, information from writers who have made the whole subject their study. I have freely used Bishop’s Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica, Waterland’s Works, and such other of our great English divines as I have the good fortune to be ac- quainted with. I have used with profit the recent and popular treatise on St. Paul’s doctrine by Usteri, and that by Neander in his Planting of Chris- tianity; both of which, with, perhaps, some reservations, may be recom- mended t» the student. T regret that I cannot speak with so much freedom of the discussions of the clever and critical Ferdinand Baur in his Apostel Paulus. Ihave referred to him in a few cases, for his unquestionable ability has seemed to demand it, but it has been always cautiously and warily; nor do I at all wish to commend him to the notice of any student except of Ι 1 I have especially used the admirable and (in my opinion) wholly unrivalled syntax of Bernhardy, the good compendious syntax of Madvig, the somewhat heavy treatise on the same subject by Scheuerlein, Jelf’s Grammar, and the small Greek grammar by Dr. Donaldson, which, thoug) unpretei.ding in form and succinct in its nature, will never be consulted. even by the advanced student, without the greatest advantage. Ou the particles, I have principally used the somewhat clumsy though useful work of Hartung, and the very able and voluminous notes of Klotz on Dvarius. This latter work the student will rarely cousult in vain. 1 have also derived some assistance frum Thiersch’s very good dissertation on the Pentateuch. XII PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, advanced knowledge and of fully fixed principles. The other books and authorities which I have cited will sufliciently speak for themselves. I desire briefly, in conclusion, to allude to the general principles which I have adopted in the construction of the text, the compilation of the notes, and the revision of the translation, and to record my many obligations. (1.) The text is substantially that of Tischendorf:' the only deviations from it that I have felt compelled to make form the subject of the critical notes which are, at intervals, appended to the text. Changes have been made in punctuation; but these, generally speaking, have not been such as to require special notice. 1 have here applied the principle of division οὔ labor which I venture to advocate. It has always seemed to me that it is at least a very hazardous, if not a presumptuous undertkaing, for any man, however good a scholar, to construct an original text without eminent qualifi- cations for that task. Years of patient labor must have been devoted to those studies; an unflagging industry in collecting, and a persistent sagacity in sifting evidence, must be united in the biblical critic, or his labors will be worse than useless. Those who have not these advantages will do well to rely upon others, reserving, however, to themselves (if they are honest men and independent thinkers) the task of scrutinizing, testing, and, if need be, of expressing dissent from the results arrived at by those whom they follow. I have humbly endeavored thus to act with regard to the text of the present epistle; where there has seemed reason to depart from Tischendorf (and he is fur from infallible), I have done so, and have in all cases acted on fixed principles which time, and, above all, failures, have taught me. For a novice like myself to obtrude my critical canons on the reader would be only so much aimless presumption. I will only say that I can by no means assent to a blind adherence to external evidence, especially where the preponderance is not marked, and the internal evidence of importance ; still, on the other hand, I regard with the greatest jealousy and suspicion any opposition to the nearly coincident testimony of the uncial MSS., unless the internal evidence be of a most strong and decisive character. I have always endeavored, first, to ascertain the exact nature of the diplomatic evidence ; secondly, that of what I have termed paradiplomatic arguments (I must apologize for coin- ing the word), by which I mean the apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of letters, itacism, and so forth; thirdly and lastly, the internal evidence, whether resting on apparent deviations from the usus 1 Itwas Jong with me a subject of anxious thought whether I should adopt the text of Lachmann (for whose critical abilities Ihave a profound respect), or that of Tischendorf. The latter I consider inferior to Lachmann in talent, scholarship, and critical acumen. Hut asa paleographer he stands infinitely higher, as a man of energy and industry he is unrivalled, and as a critic he has learnt from what he has suffered. Moreover, he is with us, still learning, still gathering, still toiling; while Lachmann’s edition, with all its excel- Jences and all its imperfections, must now remain as he has left it to us. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, ΧΠῚ scribendi of the sacred author, or the propensio, be it critica, dogmatica, or epexegetica, on the part of the copyist. , I have also endeavored to make the critical notes as perspicuous as the nature of the subject will permit, by grouping the separate classes of authorities, uncial manuscripts (MSS.), eur- sive manuscripts (mss.), versions (Vv.), and Fathers (Ff.), Greek and Latin, and in some measure familiarizing the uneducated eye to comprehend these perplexing, yet deeply interesting particulars. The symbols I have used are either those of Tischendorf (to whose cheap and useful edition I refer the reader), or else self-explanatory. I cannot leave this part of the subject without earnestly advising the younger student to acquire, at least in outline, a knowledge of the history and details of sacred criticism, and I can recom- mend him no better general instructor than Dr. Davidson, in the second vol- ume of his excellent treatise on Biblical criticism. CII.) With regard to the notes, I would wish first to remark, that they neither are, nor pretend to be, original. I have consulted all the best modern, and, I believe, the best ancient authorities, wherever they seemed likely to avail me in the line of interpretation I had marked out to myself. But as I have endeavored to confine myself principally to critical and gram- matical details, numerous authors of high position and merit in other prov- inces of interpretation have unavoidably been, though not unconsulted, still not generally cited. Hence, though I entertain a deep reverence for the exegetical abilities of some of the Latin Fathers, I have never been able to place that reliance on their scholarship which I thankfully and admiringly recognize in the great Greek commentators. Many of our popular English expositors I have been obliged, from the same reasons, to pass over; for to quote an author merely to find fault with him, is a process with which I have no sympathy. I have studied to make my citations, in malam partem, on a fixed principle. In the first place, I hope I have always done it with that quick sense of my own weakness, imperfection, and errors, that is the strong- est incentive to charitable judgments, and with that gentleness which befits a commentator on one whose affections were among the warmest and deepest that ever dwelt in mortal breast. In the second place, I have, I trust, rarely done it except where the contrast seemed more distinctly to show out what I conceived the true interpretation ; where, in fact, the shadow was needed to enhance the light. Thirdly, I have sometimes felt that the allegiance I owe to Divine Truth,.and the profound reverence I entertain for the very letter of Scripture, has required me to raise my voice, feeble as it is, against mis- chievous interpretations and rash criticism. The more pleasant duty of quoting in bonam partem has also been regulated by a system; first and fore- most, of endeavoring to give every man his due; secondly, of supporting myself by the judgments and wisdom of others. I have, however, in no case sought to construct those catenez of names, which it seems now the fashion XIV PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. of commentators! to link together in assent or dissent; for whenever I have examined one in detail, I have invariably found that the authors, thus hud- dled together, often introduced such countervailing statements as made their collective opinion anything but unanimous. This easy display of erudition, and of error, cannot be too much reprobated. The portions upon which I have most dwelt are the particles, the cases, the prepositions, and, as far as I have been able, the compound verbs; but on this latter subject I have keenly felt the want of help, and have abundantly regretted that Winer never has completed the work he projected. If in the discussions on the particles I may have seemed wearisome or hypercritical, let me crave the reader’s indulgence, and remind him of the excessive difficul- ties that have ever been felt and acknowledged in the connection of thought in St. Paul’s Epistles. I hope no one will think my pains have here been misplaced. That my notes have visibly overlaid my text will, I fear, be urged against me. This I could have avoided by a more crowded page, or by dis- uniting the text and the notes ; but I prefer bearing the charge to perplexing the reader's eye with close typography, or distracting his attention by refer- ences to an isolated text. The notes have been pared down, in some cases, to the very verge of obscurity; but in so difficult an epistle, after all possible curtailing, they must still be in disproportion to the text. (III.) The last portion I have to notice is the translation. This it seemed desirable to append as a brief but comprehensive summary of the interpre- tations advanced in the notes. The profound respect I entertain for our own noble version would have prevented me, as it did Hammond, from attempting any performance of this nature, if I had not seen that a few corrections, made on a fixed principle, would enable the Authorized Version adequately to reflect the most advanced state of modern scholarship. The Authorized Version has this incalculable advantage, that it is a truly literal translation, —the only form of translation that can properly and reverently be adopted in the case of the holy Scriptures. Of the two other forms of translation, the idiomatic and the paraphrastic, I fully agree with Mr. Kennedy (Preface to Transl. of Demosth.) in the opinion that the former is most suitable for the general run of classical authors; while the latter may possibly be useful in some philosophical or political treatises, where the matter, rather than the manner, is the subject of study. But in the holy Scriptures every peculiar expression, even at the risk of losing an idiomatic turn, must be retained. Many words, especially the prepositions, have a positive dogmatical and theo- logical significance, and to qualify them by a popular turn or dilute them by a paraphrase, is dangerous in the extreme. It is here that the excellence of our Authorized Version is so notably conspicuous ; while it is studiedly close 1 I regret to find that Professor Eadie, in his learned and laborious commentary on the Ephesians, has adopted this method; in some cases, e. g. p. 15, his authorities occupy five full lines of the commentary, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. XV and literal, it also, for the most part, preserves the idiom of our language in the most happy and successful way. It has many of the merits of an idio- matic translation, and none of the demerits of what are popularly called literal translations, though they commonly only deserve the name of un-English metaphrases. A paraphrastic translation, such as that adopted by Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, I cannot but regard as in many ways unfitted for holy Scripture. I have, then, adopted the Authorized Version, and have only permitted myself to depart from it where it appeared to be incorrect, in- exact, insufficient, or obscure, whether from accident or (as is alleged) from design. The citations I have appended from eight other versions will, per- haps, prove interesting, and will show the general reader what a “ concordia discors” prevails among all the older English Versions,’ and how closely and how faithfully the contributors to the Authorized Version adhered to their in- structions to consult certain of the older translations, and not to depart from the Standard Version which had last preceded them except distinctly neces- sitated. Thus the Authorized Version is the accumuiation, as well as the last and most perfect form of the theological learning of fully two hundred and thirty years. From such a translation, he must be a bold and confident man who would depart far, without the greatest caution and circumspection. (IV.) Finally, I feel myself bound to specify a few of the commentators to whom I am more specially indebted. Of the older writers I have paid the most unremitting attention to Chrys- ostom and Theodoret: for the former especially, often as a scholar, always as an exegete, I entertain the greatest respect and admiration. Of our older English commentators, Hammond has been of the greatest service to me ; his scholarship is, generally speaking, very accurate, and his erudition profound. The short commentary of Bishop Fell I have never consulted without profit. Bengel’s Gnomon has, of course, never been out of my hands. Of later writers I should wish to specify Dr. Peile, from whose commentary I have derived many valuable suggestions. I frequently differ from him in the ex- planation of νόμος without the article; but I have always found him an accu- rate scholar, and especially useful for his well-selected citations from Calvin. To the late lamented Professor Scholefield’s Hints for a New Translation I have always attended. The translation of Conybeare and Howson has been of some use ; but, as far as my experience goes, it appears the least happily executed portion of their valuable work. Dr. Brown’s Expository Discourses on the Galatians is a book written in an excellent spirit, of great use and value in an exegetical point of view, but not always to be relied upon as a grammatical guide. I cannot pass over Dr. Bloomfield, though he has not been of so much use to me as I could have wished. ΤῸ the recent Ger- 1 I haye also consulted Abp. Newcome’s, and all the later versions of an# celebrity, even the Unitarian, but have derived from them no assistance whatever. XVI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. man commentators I am under the greatest obligations, both in grammar and exegesis, though not in theology. Meyer more as a grammarian, De Wette more as an exegete, command the highest attention and respect; to the for- mer especially, though a little too Atticistic in his prejudices, my fullest ac- knowledgments are due. The commentaries of Winer and Schott are both excellent; to the latter, Meyer seems to have been greatly indebted. Usteri has generally caught most happily the spirit of his author; his scholarship is not profound, but his exegesis is very good. Rickert, more voluminous and more laborious, has always repaid the trouble of perusal. The two works in the best theological spirit are those of Olshausen and Windischmann : the latter, though a Romanist, and by no means uninfluenced by decided preju- dices, always writes in a reverent spirit, and is commonly remarkable for his good sense, and not unfrequently his candor. Baumgarten-Crusius I have found of very little value. Hilgenfeld is very useful in historical questions, but has a bad tone in exegesis, and follows Meyer too closely to be of much use as an independent grammatical expositor. These are not more than one-third of the expositors I have consulted, but are those which, for my own satisfaction, and the guidance of younger stu- dents, I should wish to specify. I have now only to commit this first part of my work, with all its imperfec- tions, faults, and errors, to the chdritable judgment of the reader. I have written it, alone and unassisted, with only a country clergyman’s scanty supply of books, in a neighborhood remote from large libraries and literary institutions ; and though I have done my uttermost to overcome these great disadvantages, I can myself see and feel with deep regret how often I have failed. I commend myself, then, not only to the kind judgment, but I will also venture to add, the kind assistance of my readers; for I shall receive and acknowledge with great thankfulness any rectifications of errors or any suggestions that may be addressed to me at the subjoined direction. I will conclude with earnest prayer to Almighty God, in the name of his ever-blessed Son, that He may so bless-this poor and feeble effort to disclose the outward significance, the jots and tittles of His word, that He may make it a humble instrument of awakening in the hearts of others the desire to look deeper into the inward meaning, to mark, to read, and to understand, and with a lowly and reverent spirit to ponder over the hidden ‘mysteries, the deep warnings, and the exhaustless consolations of the Book of Life. To Him be all honor, all glory, and all praise. + C. J. ELLICOTT. GLaston, UPPINGHAM, SEPTEMBER, 1854. PREFACE Pe ete SOON D HDOLTEON. Tue present edition is but little different from the first in the results - arrived at, and in the statement of the principles on which those results mainly rest; but, in the details and construction of many of the notes, it will be found to involve changes both of diction and arrangement. These changes have been found to be wholly unavoidable. The first edition was not only written with a scanty supply of books, and with a very limited knowledge of the contents of the Ancient Versions, but was constructed on principles which, though since found to be sound and trustworthy, do. not appear in some cases to have been applied with suflicient ease and simplicity, or to have received a sufficiently extended range of application. It is use- less to disguise the fact, that what at first professed to be only purely critical and purely grammatical, has by degrees become also exegetical ; and has so far mtruded into what is dogmatical, as to give systematic references to the leading treatises upon the points or subjects under discussion. The ex- tremely kind reception that the different portions of this series have met with, has led in two ways to these gradual alterations. On the one hand, the not unnatural desire to make each portion more worthy of the approval that had been extended towards its predecessor, has been silently carrying me onward into widening fields of labor; on the other hand, the friendly criticisms that I have received from time to time have led me to retrench what has seemed unedifying, to dwell with somewhat less technicality of lan~ guage on the peculiarities of grammar and construction, and yet at the same time to enter more fully upon all that has seemed to bring out the connection. of thought and sequence of argument. The latter portions of my work have been based on these somewhat remodelled principles, and—if I may trust the opinions of, perhaps, too, partial and friendly judges —so far successfully, that I shall apparently be wise to keep them as the sort of standard to which, if God mercifully grant me life and strength, former portions of the series (wherever they may seem to need it) may be brought up, and future portions conformed. 3 XVII PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION, The present edition, then, is an effort to make my earliest and decidedly most incomplete work as much as possible resemble those which apparently have some greater measures of maturity and completeness. It has involved, and I do not seek to disguise it, very great labor — labor, perhaps, not very much less than writing a new commentary. For though the notes remain substantially what they were before, and though I have found no reason to retract former opinions, except in about four or five debatable and contested passages,! I have still found that the interpolation of new matter, and the introduction of exegetical comments have obliged me, in many cases, to alter the arrangement of the whole note, and occasionally even to face the weary and irksome task of total re-writing, and reconstruc- tion. I rejoice, however, now at length to feel that the reader of the later portions of this series will find no very appreciable difference when he turns back to this edition of the first portion.’ He will now no longer be without those invaluable guides, the Ancient Versions; he will, I trust, find but few links missing in the continuous illustration of the arrangement, scarcely any omission of a comment on important differences of reading, and on points of doctrinal difficulty no serious want of references to the best treatises and sermons of our great English divines. At the same time he will find the mode of interpretation and tenor of grammatical discussions precisely the same. Though the ‘details may be often differently grouped, the principles are left wholly unchanged; and this, not from any undue predilection for former opinions, but simply from having found, by somewhat severe testing and trial, that they do appear to be sound and consistent. For a notice of details, it will be now suflicient to refer to the prefaces to earlier portions of this series, more especially to those prefixed to the third, fourth, and fifth volumes, in which the different component elements of the notes above alluded to will be found noticed and illustrated at some length. “This only may be added, that particular care has been taken to adjust the various references, especially to such authorities of frequent occurrence as ‘Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, to the paging of the latest edition.* ‘Where, from inability to obtain access to the last edition of works previously 1 These changes of opinion will be found noticed in their different places. I believe the -only passages are chap. ii. 6, saat ie iii. 4, ἐπάϑετε; iii, 19 (in part), iv. 17, ἐκκλεῖσαι; vi. 17 (slightly), βαστάζω. 21 have also retained the references to the translation of Neander’s Planting, as published by Mr. Bohn, and of Miiller’s Doctrine of Sin, as published by Messrs. Clark, simply be- cause the presence of these volumes in two justly popular series makes it probable that many readers may have these works, who have not, and, perhaps, may not be in the habit of consulting the originals. The translation of the latter of these works has, I believe, been somewhat severely criticized. I fear I am unable to defend it; but, as the allusions to - Miller in my notes relate more to general principles than to individual passages, I do not think the general reader will suffer much from the inaccuracies or harshness of the transla- stion. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. EX , quoted, this has not been done, the reader will commonly find some allusion to the continued use of the authority in its earlier form." I may also remark that, in deference to the wishes of some of my critics, I have prefixed to the, Epistle a few sentences of introduction, giving a sum- mary account of the results of recent historical criticism. This portion of sacred literature has been so fully treated, both by Dr. Davidson and Dean Alford, and has farther received so much valuable illustration from the excellent Life of Saint Paul by Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, that I feel it now unnecessary to do more than to group together a few remarks for the benefit, not of the critical scholar, but of the general student, to whom these brief notices sometimes prove acceptable and suggestive. I must not conclude without expressing my hearty sense of the value of several commentaries that have appeared since the publication of my first edition. I desire particularly to specify those of my friends, Dean Alford, and Mr. Bagge, and the thoughtful commentary of my kind correspondent, Dr. Turner, of New York. Of the great value of the first of these it is unnecessary for me to speak; my present notes will show how carefully I have considered the interpretations advanced in that excellent work, and how much I rejoice to,observe that the results at which we arrive are not marked by many differences of opinion. The edition of Mr. Bagge will be found very useful in critical details, in the careful and trustworthy references which it supplies to the older standard works of lexicography, and in what may be termed phraseological annotations. The third of these works differs so much from the present in its plan and general construction, as to make the points of contact between us so much fewer than I could wish; but I may venture to express the opinion, that the reader who finds himself more interested in general interpretation than in scholastic detail, will rarely consult the explanatory notes without profit and instruction. The recent edition of Professor Jowett has not been overlooked; but after the careful and minute examination of his Commentary on the Thessalonians, which I made last year, I have been reluctantly forced into the opinion that our systems of interpretation are so radically different, as to make a systematic reference to the works of this clever writer not so necessary as might have been the case if our views on momentous subjects had been more accordant and harmonious. Before I draw these remarks to a close, I must not fail gratefully to return my heartfelt thanks for the numerous kind and important suggestions which I have received from private friends and from public criticism. By 1 In the note on ὀρϑοποδοῦσιν (chap. ii. 14), I have still been unable to verify the refer- ences to Theodorus Studita. The best edition, I believe, is that of Sirmond, and this I have used, as well as one or two others, but without effect. I should be glad if some reader, experienced in Bibliography, could direct me to the edition probably referred to. « XX PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. this aid I have been enabled to correct whatever has seemed doubtful or erroneous; and to these friendly comments the more perfect form in which this commentary now appears before the student is, in many respects, justly due. From my readers, and those who are interested-in these works, I fear I must now claim some indulgence as to the future rate of my progress. While I may presume to offer to them the humble assurance that, while life . and health are spared to me, the onward course of these volumes will not be suspended, I must not suppress the fact, that the duties to which it has now pleased God to call me are such as must necessarily cause the appearance of future commentaries to take place at somewhat longer intervals. Those who are acquainted with studies of this nature, will, I feel sure, agree with me, that it is impossible to hurry such works; nay, more, I am convinced that all sober thinkers will concur in the opinion, that there is no one thing for which a writer will have hereafter to answer before the dread tribunal of God with more terrible strictness, than for having attempted to explain the everlasting Words of Life with haste and precipitation. When we consider only the errors and failures that mark every stage in our most deliberate and most matured progress, even in merely secular subjects, we may well pause before we presume to hurry through the sanctuary of God, with the dust and tur- moil of worldly, self-seeking, and irreverent speed. May the great Father of Lights look down with mercy on this effort to illustrate His word, and overrule it to His glory, His honor, and His praise. CAMBRIDGE, 28TH JANUARY, 1889. EN TE@GDUCTION. THis animated, argumentative, and highly characteristic Epistle would appear to have been written by St. Paul not very long after his journey through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 23), and as the ταχέως (ch. i. 6) seems to suggest (but comp. notes, and see contra, Conyb. and Hows. δὲ. Paul, Vol. τι. p. 164, ed. 2), towards the commencement of the lengthened abode at Ephesus (Autumn 54 or 55 to Pentecost 57 or 58; comp. Acts xix. 10, xx. 31,1 Cor. xvi. 8), forming apparently the first of that series of Epistles (Gal., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Rom.) which intervenes between the Epp. to the Thessalonians and the four Epp. of the first captivity (Col., Eph., Philem., Phil.). It was addressed to the churches of the province of Galatia (ch. i. 2), — a province of which the inhabitants could not only boast a Gallic origin, but also appear to have retained some of the peculiarities of the Gallic character; see notes on ch. i. 6, iii. 1. The Epistle was not improbably encyclical in its character (see Olshaus. on ch. i. 2, and notes on ch. vi. 17), and was called forth by the somewhat rapid lapse of the Galatians into the errors of Judaism, which were now being disseminated by unprincipled and self-seeking teachers (comp. ch. vi. 12, 13) with a dangerous and perhaps malignant activity. Against these errors the Apostle had already solemnly protested (ch. i. 9), but, as this Epistle shows, with at present so little abiding effect, that the Judaizing teachers in Galatia, possibly recruited with fresh emissaries from Jerusalem, were now not only spreading dangerous error, but assailing the very apostolic authority of him who had founded these churches (comp. ch. iv. 13), and who loved them so well (ch. iv. 19, 20). In accordance with this the Epistle naturally divides itself into vo contro- versial portions, and a concluding portion which is more directly hortatory and practical. The first portion (ch. i. 11.) the Apostle devotes to a defence of his office, and especially to a proof of his divine calling and of his inde- pendence of all human authority (ch. 1. 11—ii. 10), — nay, his very opposi- xxx : INTRODUCTION. tion to it in the person of St. Peter, when that Apostle had acted with incon- sisteney (ch. ii. 11—21). In the second, or what may be called the polemical portion (ch. iii. iv.), the Apostle, both by argument (ch. iii. 1, sq.), appeal (ch. iv. 12—20), and illustration (ch. iv. 1—7, 21—30), establishes the truth of the fundamental positions that justification is by faith, and not by the deeds of the law (ch. iii. 5, 6), and that they alone who are of faith are the inheritors of the promise, and the true children of Abraham; ¢omp. notes on ch, iii. 29. The third portion (ch. v. vi.) is devoted to hortatory warning (ch. iv. 31—yv. 6), illustrations of what constitutes a real fulfilment of the law (ch. y. 13—26), practical instructions (ch. vi. 1—10), and a vivid recapitulation (ch. vi. 11—16). The genuineness and authenticity are supported by distinct external testi- mony (Irenwus, Her. 111. 7. 2, Tertull. de Preser. § 6; see Lardner, Credi- bility, Vol. 11. p. 163 sq., Davidson, Introduction, Vol. 11. p. 318 sq.), and, as we might infer from the strikingly characteristic style of the Epistle, have never been doubted by any reputable critic; comp. Meyer Einlew. p. 8. THE EPISTLE TO THE C:ALATIANS. ΟΣ ΤΡ ΕΠ 11. AYAOZ οὐδὲ δι Apostolic address and sal- utation, concluding with a doxology. 1. ἀπόστολος] ‘an Apostle, in the higher and more especial meaning of the word ; and as such (particularly when en- hanced by the succeeding clause), a forci- ble protest against the Judaists, who prob- ably refused to apply it in this particular sense to any out of the sigmificant number of the Twelve; comp. Hilgenf Galater- brief, p. 107. It may be observed (comp. Maurice, Unity of N. T. p. 402) that the question involved more than mere per- sonal slander (τὴν γεγενημένην διαβολήν, Theod.): in asserting the preéminence of the Twelve over St. Paul, they were practically denying Christ’s perpetual tule over His church. With regard to the meaning of ἀπόστολος in St. Paul’s Epp., we may remark that in a few in- stances (6. g. 2 Cor. viii. 23, and most probably Phil. ii. 25, see notes in Joc.), it appears to be used in its simple etymo- logical sense. In 2 Cor. xi. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 6, the meaning may be thought doubt- ful; but in Rom. xvi. 7, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς amoo,éXos (commonly cited in this sense, Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 463), the correct trans- lation appears certainly that of Fritzsche, 5 , » ΕΡι. > , ἄποόστολος, οὐκ ἀπ ἀνδρώπων ἀνὰ ρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ ‘ quippe qui in Apostolorum collegio bene audiant :’ compare Winer, RWB. s. v. Apostel, Vol. 1. p. 69, note 2. ‘The va- rious applications of this word in eccles. writers are noticed by Suicer, Thesau. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 475 sq., Hamm. on Rom. xvi. 7. οὐκ am ἀνδρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνϑδρώπου] ‘not from men nor by man,’ ‘not from men as an ultimate, nor through man as a mediate authority,’ “—the prep. ἀπὸ here correctly denoting the causa remotior (Winer, Gr. § 47. Ὁ, p. 331, Bernhardy, Syntax, v. 12, p. 222), did, the causa medians ; see Winer, § 50. 6, p. 372, Green, Gr. p. 299. ᾿Απὸ is thus not ‘for ὑπό, Brown én Joc. (comp. Riick., Olsh.), as the use of ἀπὸ for iad, especially after passives, though found apparently in some few instances in earlier writers (Poppo, Thucyd. τ. 17, Vol. 1. p. 158), occasionally in later (Bernhardy, Synt. v. 12, p. 224), and frequently in Byzantine Greek, does not appear in St. Paul’s Epistles, nor in any decisive instance in the N. T.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 47. Ὁ, p. 332, note. In all cases the distinction be- tween the prepp. seems sufficiently clear : ὑπὸ points to an action which results from 24 GALATIANS. Cuar. I. 1, Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, a more immediate and active, ἀπὸ to a less immediate and more passive cause ; comp. Herm, Soph. Elect. 65, and see Rom. xiii. 1 (Lachm., Tisch.), where St. Paul's correct use of these prepp. may be contrasted with that of Chrysost. in loc. There are, indeed, few points more char- acteristic of the Apostle’s style than his varied but accurate use of prepp. esp. of two or more in the same or in imme- . diately contiguous clauses (6. g. εἰς... éx(, Rom. iii. 22; @&... 5a... eis, xi. 36; emi... 3a... ev, Eph. iv. 6; &... 8a... es, Col. i. 16), for the purpose of more precise definition or limitation ; comp. Winer, Gr. /. c.. p. 372. δι᾽ &vSpadmrov] ‘through man,’ οὐκ ἀνϑιρώπῳ χρησάμενος ὑπουργῷ, Theod., — not with any studied force in the singu- lar as pointing to any particular individ- ual (Mosheim, Reb. ante Constant. p.70), nor yet for solemnity’s sake, as more ex- clusive (Alf.), but simply as thus forming amore natural antithesis to the following διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός] απὰ God the Father ;’ in no- ticeably close union with "Ine. Xp., both being under the vinculum of the single preposition did; comp. verse 3. We might here not unnaturally have expect- ed καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρός, as forming a more exact antithesis to what precedes, and as also obviating a ref. of διὰ to the causa principalis (Gal. i. 15); comp., however, 1 Cor. i. 9, and see Winer, Gr. § 47. i. p. 339, and the list in Fritz. on Rom. i. 5, Vol. 1. 15, — but exclude from it 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. In the present case the use of διὰ seems due partly to a brev- ity of expression, which is obviously both natural and admissible where it is not necessary to draw strict lines between agency, origin, and medium (comp. Rom. xi. 34, and even Plato, Sympos. p. 186 E, διὰ τοῦ ϑεοῦ κυβερνᾶται), and partly to an instinctive association of the two Persons of the blessed Trinity in his choice and calling as an Apostle. To urge this as a direct evidence for the ὁμοουσία of the Father and the Son (Chrys., Theod.) may perhaps be rightly deemed precarious ; yet still there és something very notice- able in this use of a common preposition with both the first and second Per- sons of the Trinity, by a writer so cumu- lative, and.yet for the most part so ex- act, in his use of prepositions as St. Paul. Θεοῦ πατρός] ‘God the Father ;’ not in the ordinary inclusive reference to all men (De W., Alf.), nor with more par- ticular reference to Christians, scil. ‘our Father’ (Ust. al.), but, as the associated clause seems rather to suggest, with spe- cial and exclusive reference to the pre- ceding subject, our Lord Jesus Christ ; ᾿ > so, perhaps too expressly, Syr. ««σιοα οἱ = a [patrem ejus]; comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. 1. Vol. 1. p. 42, (ed. Burt.). τοῦ ἐγείραντος κ. τ. A.) ‘who raised Him from the dead,’ The addi- tion of this designation has been very differently explained. While there may probably be a remote reference to the fact that it is upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ that our faith rests (1 Cor. xv. 17; comp. Usteri, Paul. Lehrbegr. τι. 1. 1, p. 97, 98), and from it all gifts of grace de- rived (Alf.), the context seems clearly to suggest that the more immediate refer- ence is to the fact that the A postle’s call was received from Christ in His exalted and glorified position (1 Cor. ix. 1, 1 Cor. xv. 8); ‘verax etiam novissimus Apos- tolus qui per Jesum Christum totum jam Deum post resurrectionem ejus missus est,’ August. in loc. ; see Brown, Gala- tians, p. 22. The article with νεκρῶν appears regularly omitted in this and similar phrases, except Eph, v. 14, and (with ἀπὸ) Matth. xiv. 2, xxviii. 7, al. ; see Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 112. Cuar. L 2—4. ~ GALATIANS. 95 2 καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί, Tals ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας. a a \ a Re 8 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ “Χριστοῦ, 2. πάντες] Emphatic: ‘ ceteros qui secum erant omnes commotos adversus eos ostendit,’ Ps. Ambr. St. Paul fre- quently adds to his own name that of one or more of his companions, e. g. Sos- thenes, (1 Cor. i. 1), Timothy, (2 Cor. i. 1, Phil. i, 1, Col. i. 1), Silvanus and Timothy, (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1): here, however, to add weight to his ad- monitions, and to show the unanimity (Chrysost.) that was felt on the subject of the Epistle, he adopts the inclusive term πάντες ἀδελφοί, defining it more closely by of σὺν ἐμοί (Phil. iv. 21),— ‘alP the brethren who are my present companions in my travels and my preach- ing. There is, then, no necessity for re- stricting ἀδελφοὶ to ‘official brethren’ (Brown, comp. Beza), nor for extending οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ to the whole Christian com- munity of the place from which the Epistle was written (Erasm., Jowett) : in this latter case we should certainly have expected ‘ with whom I am,’ rather than ‘who are with me;’ see Usteri tn Joe. Tats ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Tad.] ‘tothe churches of Galatia ; plural, and with a comprehensive reference, (πανταχοῦ γὰρ εἶρψεν νόσος, Theod., comp. Chrys.), the epistle probably being an encyclical letter addressed to the different churches (of Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and other places) throughout the province. The omission of the usual titles of honor or affection seems undoubtedly intentional (Chrys.), for in the only other Epistles where the simple τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ is used, (Corn t2), 2 Cor: is 1, 1 Thess: i. 1,, 2 Thess. i. 1), there is in the two former passages the important and qualifying addition τοῦ Θεοῦ, and in the two latter ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ κ. τ. A. 9, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] ‘Grace 4 ὁ τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως to you and peace :’ not merely a union of two ordinary forms of Jewish saluta- tion (Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. 1. p. 23), or of the Greek χαίρειν, and the Hebrew Ἴ5 city, but a greeting of full spiritual significance; χάρις, as Olsh. obscrves, being the divine love manifesting itself to man, εἰρήνη the state that results from a reception of its The Oriental and Occi- dental forms of salutation are thus blend- ed and spiritualized in the Chmistian greeting ; see notes on Eph. i. 2, and comp. Koch on 1 Thessal. p. 60. καὶ Κυρίον «t.7.A.] ‘and ( from) our Lord Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, Christ is the mediating imparter of grace, God the direct giver; but just as in verse 1, διὰ was applied both to the Father and the Son, so here, in this customary salu- tation see on Phil. i. 4), ἀπὸ is applied both to the Son and the Father. Ols- hausen (on Rom. i. 7) justly remarks that nothing speaks more decisively for the divinity of our Lord than these jux- tapositions with the Father, which per- vade the whole language of Scripture. 4. τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτόν] ‘who gave Himself, scil. to death; more fully ex- pressed 1 Tim. 11. 6, ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυ- tpov, comp. Tit. ii, 14, The participial clause serves at the very outset to specify the active principle of the error of the Galatians. The doctrine of the atoning death of Jesus Christ, and a recurrence to the laws of Moses, were essentially incom~ patible with each other. τῶν ἅμαρτ. ἡμῶν] ‘for our sins,’ scil. to atone for them, Rom. ili. 25, Gal. iii. 18. The reading ὑπὲρ (Ree ) has but little external support, and is, perhaps, due to dogmatical correction, or to that interchange of περὶ and ὑπὲρ (Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 28) of which the MSS. of the περὲ 26 GALATIANS. Cuapv. 1. 4. ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ ϑέλημα Ν T. present so many traces, Strictly speaking, ὑπέρ, in its ethical sense, retains some trace of its local meaning, ‘ bending over to protect’ (μάχεσϑαι ὑπέρ τινος ; Donalds. Gr. Gr. § 480), and thus points more immediately to the action, than to the object or circumstance from which the action is supposed to spring. The latter relation is more correctly defined by wepl, —e. 4. φοβεῖσϑαι περί τινος ; see Winer, Gr. ᾧ 47. 6, p. 334, Schaefer. De- mosth. Vol. 1. p. 189, 190. Περὶ will thus be more naturally used with the thing, ‘sins,’ ὑπὲρ with the person, ‘sinners ;’ and this, with a few exceptions (6. g. 1 Cor. xv. 3, Heb. v. 3), appears the usage of the N. T.; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18, where both forms occur. Still it must be admitted that both in the N. T., and even in classical Greek (Buttm., Ind. ad Mid. p. 188) the distinction between these two prepp. is often scarcely appre- ciable; see notes on Eph. vi. 19, and on Phil.i. 7. ‘in order that he might deliver us ;’ not ‘eximeret,’ Beza, but ‘eriperet,’ Vulg., — the verb ἐξαιρεῖσϑαι (only herein St Paul’s Epp.) deriving from the context the idea of rescuing (δύναμιν σημαίνει τοῦ ῥυσαμέ- vov, Theod. Mops.) as from danger, etc. ; comp. Acts xii. 11, xxiii. 27, and appy. xxvi. 17, and see Elsner. Obs. Vol. 1. p. 170. On the force of ὅπως in the N. T, and its probable distinction from ἵνα, see notes on 2 Thess. i. 12. ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος x.7.A.| ‘out of the pres- ent evil world ;’ not exactly ἐκ τῶν mpd- ἕξεων τῶν πονηρῶν, Chrysost., still less τοῦ παρόντος βίου, Theod., but simply, — ‘ the present evil state of things,’ see notes on Eph. i. 21, where the meaning of αἰών is briefly discussed. It is doubtful whether ὁ ἐνεστὼς αἰὼν is (a) simply equivalent to ὁ viv aidy (2 Tim. iv. 10, Tit ii 12, see notes), and therefore in opposition to ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων (comp. Clem, Cor. στ. 6, ὅπως ἐξέληται. ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ 5 μέλλων δύο ἐχϑροί), or whether (4) it denotes in a more restricted sense ‘the commencing age,’ the age of faithlessness and the de- veloping powers of Antichrist that had already begun; see Meyer in loc. The participle ἐνεστὼς will appy. admit either meaning (comp. Rom, viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22, with 2 Thess. ii, 2, and see exx, in Rost u. Palm, Lez., 8. v. Vol. 1. p. 929, Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.); the order of the words, however,— not τοῦ mov. . αἰῶνος τοῦ éverr., — and the general and undogmatical character of the passage seem decidedly in favor of (a): so dis- o oO ρ͵ tinetly Syr. σὰ Leos {hoe szeculo]; Vulg., Clarom., ‘presenti seculo,’ and sim. the best of the remaining ἦν, In either case the influence of the article appears to extend only to éveor.; αἰῶνος πονηροῦ forming an explanatory apposi- tion, in effect equivalent to a tertiary predication (Donalds, Gr. § 489), ‘an evil age as it is,’ and pointing out either (a) more generally, or (Ὁ) more specifi- cally, the corrupting influences of the world and its works: see esp. Donalds. Journal of Sacr. and Class. Philol. No. i, p. 228. The reading αἰῶνος τοῦ éveor., adopted by Lachm., has but weak external support |AB; 39; Orig. (3), Did. al.|, and is internally suspicious as a grammatical correction. Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὺς ἡμῶν] ‘God and our Father,’ " Dei et patris nostri,’ Vulg, — not ‘ God, even our Facher’ (Brown), καί being only the simple copula; see Middleton, Greek Art. p. 292, 367 (ed. Rose), and comp. notes on 1 Thess. iii. 11, The august title ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ occurs several times in the N. T, both alone (1 Cor, xv, 24, Col. iii 17, James i, 27), and with a dependent genitive, viz. (a) τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἴ. X., Rom. xv. 6, Eph. i, 3, 2 Cor. i. 8, xi, 31, Col. i. 3, Υ Οπά». I. 5, 6. a fol \ fal τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, , αἰώνων : ἀμήν. I marvel at your speedy lapse to another gospel, GALATIANS. 97 - δ Ad 6 80. ’ \ IA a ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. τῶν 5 Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίϑεσιδε which if an angel were to preach, let him be anathema, It is not man but God whom I strive to please. 1 Pet. i. 3, and (δ) ἡμῶν only, as here, Phil. iv. 20, 1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 11, 13, and 2 Thess. ii. 16. “Whether in these latter formule the gen. depends on both, or only on the latter of the two nouns, cannot be positively decided. No gram- matical arguments based on the absence of the article are here applicable, as πατὴρ is anarthrous according to rule (Middl. Gr. Art. ur. 4, ἃ 2, Winer, Gr. § 19, 4, p 116); nor will the most careful inves- tigation of the separate passages afford any sure grounds for deciding on eweget- ical~principles; contr. Fritz Rom. Vol. ur. p. 234. This, however, may be said, that as the term πατὴρ conveys necessa- _ ily a relative idea, which in theological language admits of many applications (see Suicer, Thesawr. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 629 sq.), while Θεὸς conveys only one abso- lute idea, it would not seem improbable that the connection of thought in the mind of the inspired writer might lead him in some passages to add a defining gen. to πατὴρ which he did not intend necessarily to be referred to Θεός. The Greek commentators, whose opinion on such a point would be of great value, do not appear to be unanimous: Theod. Mops. in loc. and Theodorct, on Rom. xvi. 6, refer the gen. to the last nom. ; Chrys. on Eph. i. 3, leaves it doubtful ; see notes on Eph. i. 3. 5. ἡ δόξα] ‘the glory,’ scil. εἴη not ἔστω; see on Eph. i 2. In this and similar forms of doxology, — excepting that of the angels, Luke ii. 14, and of the multitude. Luke xix. 38, — δόξα reg- ularly takes the article when used alone, e.g. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Eph. Tis 21, Phil, iv. 20, 2 Tim. iv 18, Heb. xiii. 21, 9 Pet. iii. 18. When joined with one or more substantives it appears sometimes with the art. (1 Pet. iv. 11, Rey. i. 6, vii. 12), sometimes without it (Rom. ii. 10, 1 Tim. i. 17, Jude 25). It is thus difficult to determine whether we have here (a) the ‘rhetorical’ form of the arti- cle (Bernhardy, Syné. v1. 22, p. 315), ‘the glory which especially and alone belongs to God’ (comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 1, p. 97), or (ὁ) whether δόξα takes the article as an abstract noun (Middl. Gr. Art. v. 1). On the whole, (4) seems the most natural, and best suited to the con- text. αἰῶνας τῶν ai@vwr} ‘the ages of the ages,’ “seecula szeculo- rum,’ Vulg., less precisely Syr. Sea 4 0a ree SS [seeculwm seculorum]; a = semi-Hebraistic expression for a duration of time superlatively (infinitely) long ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 36. 2, p. 220. The same words occur, Phil. iv. 20, 1 Tim. i. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 18, and frequently in the Apocalypse. Occasionally we meet with the singular αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. iii. 21, comp. Dan. vii. 18), and the perhaps more distinctly Hebraistic αἰὼν τοῦ αἰῶνος, Heb. i. 8 (quotation), Psalm cxi. 10, — but with scarcely any appreciable differ- ence of meaning; see notes on Eph. iii. 21. Vorst. (de Hebraismis N. T., p. 325) investigates both this and the similar ex- pression γενεὰς γενεῶν ; but his remarks must be received with caution, as on the subject of Hebraisms he cannot now be considered a safe guide. 6. ϑαυμάζω] “1 marvel ;’ «mani- festatis beneficiis, mirari se dicit quod ab Illo potuerint separari,’ Ps Jerome. The idea of wondering at something *blameworthy is frequently implied in this word: see Rost u. Palm. Lez. s. v., and compare Mark vi. 6, John vii. 21, 1 John iii, 13. ‘The further idea which Chrys. 28 GALATIANS. Cuap. 1. 6. ‘ - - σι ᾽ > f ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, finds in the address, οὐ μόνον ἐντρέπων «+e ὁμοῦ δὲ καὶ δεικνὺς οἵαν ἔχει περὶ αὐτῶν ὑπόνοιαν, ὅτι μεγάλην τινὰ καὶ ἐσ- πουδασμένην, -- does not seem intended. οὕτως ταχέως] ‘so quickly,” After what? In our ignorance of the exact time when the Galatians were converted, as well as the circumstances of their de- fection, this question cannot be satisfacto- rily answered. Of the proposed answers, —(a) their conversion, Mey., Alf.; (4) the Apostle’s last visit, Beng., Flatt; or (c) the entry of the false teachers, Chrys., Theoph., — the first appears the least, and the last the most probable, as the following verse seems to show who; the Apostle had in his thoughts. At any rate the reference of the adverb seems decidedly rather to time than manner (2 Thess. ii. 2, 1 Tim. v. 22, compare Conyb. and Hows. in loc.), however that time be defined. Still all historical de- ductions from such a passage (Wiescler, Chronol, p. 285, Davids. Introduct. Vol. i. p. 297) must obviously be debatable and precarious, Grotius appositely cites, in illustration of the levity of the Gallic character, Caesar, Bell. Gall. iv. 5, ‘sunt (Galli) in consiliis capiendis mobi- les, et novis plerumque rebus student ;’ comp. ἐδ. u. 1, 1. 10, 19: see Elsner, Observ. Sacr. Vol. τι. p. 172. μετατίϑεσϑ ε)] ‘are going over from, are falling away from τ᾿ present (οὐκ εἶπε μετέϑεσϑε, ἀλλά, μετατίϑεσϑε, Chrys., — the defection was still going on), and middle, not passive, as Theod. Mops. (μετάγεσϑε, ὡς ἐπὶ ἀψύχων ; comp. Heb. vii 12), Vulg., Clarom., al. While in earlier writers μετατίϑεμαι is used both with and without an accusative (γνώμην), in the sense of ‘changing an opinion’ (see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v.), it is as frequently used in later writers in the sense ‘ descisco,’ with prepp. εἰς, πρός, ἐπὶ of the party, etc., to whom —e. g. Polyb. ut. 118, 8, μετατίϑεσϑαι πρὸς τοὺς Καρχηδονίους --- and ἐκ, ἀπό (or a simple gen., Diod. Sic. xvi. 31), of the party, etc., from whom the defection has taken place; so Appian, Bell, Mithr. 41, ἀπὸ. ᾿Αρχελάου πρὸς Σύλλαν μετατίϑεσϑαι : comp. 2 Mace. vii. 24, and see iurther exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 273, and in Wetst. in loc, τοῦ καλέ- σαντος] ‘Him who called you,’ scil. God the Father (Chrys., Theod.), to whom the calling of Christians appears regularly ascribed by St. Paul (verse 15, Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, 25, 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, 17, 1 Thess. ii. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 14, 2 Tim. i. 9),— not ‘Christ who called you,’ Syr., Jerome, al., the correct theo- logical distinction being. ἡ μὲν κλῆσίς ἐστι τοῦ Πατρός, τῆς δὲ κλήσεως ἡ αἰτία, τοῦ Υἱοῦ, Chrys.: comp. Rom. y. 15. Brown (p. 39), excepts Rom. i. 7, but scarcely with sufficient reason ; see Fritz. and De W. in loc ,and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 15, Vol. u. p. 144, Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2, 3, p. 269, 279 sq. The passages cited by Alford on Rom. 1. c., viz. John vy. 24, 1 Tim. i. 12, do not seem fully in point. ἐν χάριτι] ‘by the grace of Christ ;’ holy instrument of the divine calling, the prep. ἐν being here used in its instru- mental sense (Eph. ii. 13, vi. 14, al.), and marking not so much the element in which, as the principle by which (imma- nent instrumentality, Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3, comp. notes on Eph. ii. 13) the calling was vouchsafed unto mankind ; see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 3417. De Wette and Meyer both adduce 1 Cor. vii. 15, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεός, but not pertinently, as both there and in the two other pas- sages in which καλεῖν is joined with ἐν, viz., Eph. iv. 4, 1 Thess. iv. 7 (see notes - in loc.), the prep. retains its simple and primary force ‘of permanence in,’ and marks, as it were, the element in which εν Ἐς GALATIANS. 29 ~ τὰ ᾽ ” » μια , , > ς ΄, ete Ἢ ὃ οὐκ ἐστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μὴ τινὲς εἰσὶν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ we are called to move. In the present case, however, the dogmatical considera- tion, that the Grace of Christ, in the sense it here appears used by St. Paul, denotes an active and energizing influ- ence rather than a passive element, seems distinctly to suggest the instrumental sense; comp. Rom. v. 15, and see Meyer and Hilgenf. in A. 2. The usual explanation, according to which ἐν is used ‘in sensu priegnanti’ for εἰς (‘ vo- cavit in gratiam,’ Vulg., Auth.), is more than doubtful, as καλέω implies no idea of motion (comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 4. a, p- 367), while that of Wieseler ( Chronol. p- 285, note), according to which ἐν xdp. = χάριν (ch. iii. 19), is alike inconsistent with the usage of ἐν, and the regular meaning of χάρις Χριστοῦ. ἕτερον] ‘another sort of,’ Fell. If we _ compare the very similar passage, 2 Cor. xi. 4, in which ἕτερος and ἄλλος occur in juxtaposition, and apparently in senses exactly identical with those in the present passage, it will not seem necessary to lay any stress on ἕτερον as implying either (a) ‘bad,’ ‘perverted’ (comp. Plato, Phileb. 13 A, ἕτερον ὄνομα, Pind. Pyth. mr, 34 [60] δαίμων ἕτερος ; see Rost «τι. Palm. Lez. 8. v. Vol. 1. p. 1202, Wetst. on 1 Tim. v. 25), or even (0) ‘strange,’ Scholef. Hints, p. 88 (ed. 3), comp. Jude 7,— as both here and 2 Cor. J. 6. ἕτερος appears only to refer to distinction of kind, ἄλλος of individuality ; ‘ ἕτερος non tantum alium sed diversum significat,’ Tittm. Synon. p. 155; comp. Plato, Sym- pos. 186 B, ἕτερόν τε καὶ ἀνόμοιον. It must be admitted, however, that this distinction is not always kept up in the N. T.; see Matth. xi. 3, 1 Cor. xv. 39. 7. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο εἰ μή κ.τ.λ.} ‘which is Not another, save that,’ etc. The various interpretations of these words turn mainly on the antecedent assigned to 8; this may be (a) the whole sentence, ὅτι ---- εὐαγγέλιον, ‘quod quidem (scil. vos deficere a Christo) non est aliud nisi,’ Winer; (4) the preceding εὐαγγέλιον, ‘which Gospel is, admits of being, no other,’ De W. (compare Syr., Chrys., Theod.), and appy. the majority of ex- positors; (6) the preceding compound expression ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, Meyer, Alf. Of these (c) is clearly to be preferred, as best preserving the natural and gram- matical sequence of the words, and the distinction between ἕτερος and ἄλλος. To prevent the words ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον being misconstrued into the admission that there could really be any other gospel than the one preached to them, St. Paul more fully explains himself, using ἄλλος rather than the ambiguous ἕτερος, and throwing the emphasis on οὐκ : ‘ which (ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον) is not another (a second) GosPEL, except (only in this sense, that) there are some who trouble you,’ z. e., the Judaists bring you another gospel, but it is really no Gosper at all; comp. Hamm. and Meyer in loc. In a word, as Hilgenf. correctly observes, the seeming paradox lies in this fact, that εὐαγγέλιον is understood after ἄλλο in its strictest meaning, but expressed after ἕτερον in one more lax. εἰ μή] ‘save that.’ The gloss εἰ μὴ -ε- ἀλλὰ can be distinctly impugned in even what seem the strongest passages, e. g. Matth. xii. 4 (see Fritz. in loc.), 1 Cor. vii. 17 (see Meyer in doc.) : consult Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι, p. 524, Hartung, Partik. μή, 3. 6, Vol. 1. p. 120, compared with Dindorf in Steph. Thes. Vol. m1. p. 190. The first distinct evidences of this interchange appear only in very late writers. of ταράσσοντες] ‘who are troubling you ;’ ‘qui vos conturbant,’ Vulg. The definite article might at first sight seem inconsistent with the indef. tives: when thus used, however, it serves to particu- larize, and in the present case specifies, 80 GALATIANS. Cuar. 1. 8. ϑέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. " ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἣ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐωγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγε- the τινὲς as those whose characteristic was troubling the Galatians, ‘some who are your troublers;’ comp, Luke xviii. 9, τινὰς τοὺς πεποιϑότας, Col. ii 8, μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν. Winer (Gr. § 18. 3, p. 100) adduces some exx, from classical Greek, and compares the com- mon expression εἰσιν οἱ λέγοντες : see also Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 23, p. 318. We cannot, therefore, with Riickert definitely pronounce this as an instance of Asiatic Hellenism, The article must, of course, be carried on to ϑέλοντες ; see Kiihner’s valuable note on Xen. Mem. τ. 1. 20. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ] It is doubtful whether Χριστοῦ is the gen. subjecti, ‘the Gospel preached by Christ,’ or the gen. objecti, ‘the Gospel of or con- cerning Christ.’ From the fuller expres- sion, Rom. i. 3, ebayyéA. τοῦ Θεοῦ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, we may, perhaps, here decide on the latter interpretation: see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 160. According to Meyer (on Mark i. 1), when the gen. after εὐαγγέλ. iS σωτηρίας. βασιλείας. κτ.λ. it is gen. objecti; when Θεοῦ, gen. sub- Jjecti ; but when Χριστοῦ, gen. objecti or subjecti, to be determined only by the context. 8. καὶ ἐάν ‘even if;’ not, however, necessarily ‘supposing a case which ‘has never occurred’ (AIf.), but, ds usual, conveying the idea of condition with the assumption of objective possibility ; ‘see Herm. de Partic. ἄν, 2.7, p. 95, and esp. the very clear distinctions of Schmalfeld, Synt. ἀκ Gr, Verb. § 93,94. It may be further observed that, as the order shows, καὶ belongs not to ἡμεῖς or to the sentence, but to ἐάν (etiam si), to which it gives force and prominence; see Herm. Viger, No. 307, Hartung, Partic. καί, 3. 3, Vol. 1. p. 141, and notes on Phil. ii. 17. ἡμεῖς) ‘we.’ Though ἡμεῖς here seems to refer mainly to St. Paul, and is fre- quently so used elsewhere, yet, as of σὺν ἐμοὶ π. ἀδελ. may very reasonably be here included (Mey.), it does not seem desira- ble, with De W., Conyb., and others, to limit the term specially to the Apostle, The use of ἡμεῖς, or of the simple plural, must always depend on the context; comp. notes on 1 Thess. i. 2, παρ᾽ &| ‘contrary to that which’ The meaning of the prep. has been the subject of considerable controversy ; the Luther- ans having urged the meaning preter- quam (Vulg., and appy. Chrys.), the Romanists that of contra (Theod., al.). This latter meaning is perfectly correct (opp. to Brown, p. 45; see Donalds. Gr. ᾧ 485, and exx. in Winer, Gr. § 49. g, p. 360, esp. Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 18, where mapa τοὺς νόμους and κατὰ τ. ν. are inv antithesis), and is appy. required by the context and tenor of the argument. The Apostle implies throughout the Epistle that the Judaical gospel was in the striet sense of the words an ἕτερον εὐαγγ., and in its very essence opposed to the true Gospel. avdSepa | ‘accursed ;’ strictly considered, nothing more than the Hellenistic form of the Attic ἀνάϑη- μα, Moeris (cited by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 249), the original meaning of both forms being τὸ ἀφιερωμένον Θεῷ, Thecdoret on Rom. ix. 8. The prevailing use, how- ever, of ἀνάϑεμα in malam partem com- pared with the command, Lev. xvii. 29, seems (esp. in the LXX and the Ν, T.) to have gradually led to a distinction in meaning; ἀνάϑημα being used in the sense of donurium (2 Macc. ix. 16, Luke xxi. 25), ἀνάϑεμα (Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xii. 8, xvi. 22) as ‘aliquid divine ire sacra- tum;" Hesych. ἀνάϑεμα" ἐπικατάρατος, ἀκοινώνητος. ἀνάϑημα" κόσμημα. This distinction, though very generally, is still Cuar. I. 9. , a λισάμεδα ὑμῖν, ἀνάδεμα ἔστω. GALATIANS. 91 ° ὡς προειρήκαμεν, καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐωγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνά- not universally observed : see Theod. and esp. Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3, who, even while he asserts two distinct meanings, seems to regard the forms as interchange- able. In the eccles. writers (see Sui- cer, Thes. Vol. 1. p. 268, Bingham, xvi. 2), ἀνάϑεμα, like the Hebrew πη (see Winer, RWB, Art. Bann) was applied to excommunication ; though even here, it may be observed, accompanied some- times with distinct execration ; see birg- ham, ἐδ. 2. 17. This milder sense has been frequently maintained in the present passage (Hammond in Joc., Waterland, Doct. Trin. ch, 4, Vol. 1. p. 458), but is distinctly opposed to the usage of the N. T.; compare ἐπικατάρατος, ch. iii. 10, κατάρα, ch. iii. 13. For further reff. see the good note of Fritz. Rom. ix. 3, Vol. Il. p. 253 sq. 9. προειρήκαμεν, ‘we have said before.’ ‘To what does πρὸ here refer? Is it (a) solely to the preceding verse, as Chrys., Theod., Jerome (comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. τ. p. 214, Bohn), or (5) to a declaration made at the Apostle’s last visit, as Syr. (appy.), and recently, Ust., De W., Mey., 41.}ὲ Grammatical consid- erations do not contribute to a decision: for neither, on the one hand, can the use of the perfect rather than the aor. προεί- πομεν (ch. v. 21, 1 Thess. iv. 6) be pressed in favor of (a),— εἴρηκα at most only marking the continuing validity of what was said (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, and Winer, Gr. § 40. 4, p. 243), — nor, on the other hand, can the reference to what has just been said be urged as inconsistent with the usage of πρό (Ust.), for see 2 Mace. iii. 7, προειρημένων χρημάτων (where the subject referred to is mentioned no further back than the beginning of the preced- ing verse), 3 Mace. vi. 35, and compare 2 Cor. vii. 8 with 2 Cor. vi. 12. Con- textual reasons, however, viz. the inser- tion of ἄρτι as marking an antithesis to what was distinctly past, and the appar- ent identity of time marked by the two plural verbs εὐαγγελ., προειρ. (Alf.), seem so distinctly in favor of (6), that in this case we do not hesitate to maintain that reference even in opposition to the opin- ion of the Greek expositors ; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2. This passage has been pressed into the controversy relative to the state of the Galatian church at the Apostle’s second visit; see Davidson, Introd. Vol. π. p. 305. kal&pri n.7.Aa,] ‘so now I say again:’ undoubtedly a consecutive sentence. Riickert and B. Crus., by making it part of the antece- dent sentence, retain the more Attic meaning of ἄρτι, but suppose an intoler- ably harsh ellipsis before εἴ τις. “Apru is not used in Attic Greek for purely present time, — comp. Plato, Meno, 89, where ἐν τῷ νῦν is in opp. to ἐν τῷ apt, —but is not uncommonly so used in later Greek ; see esp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18 sq. ei... εὐαγγελίζεται] ‘if any one preacheth ;’ simply and purely conditional (‘et cum indice. nihil significat preter conditionem,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 455), ‘if, as a matter of fact, preaching is a course of action pursued by any one,’ be such an assumption reasonable or the contrary ; see esp. Schmalfeld, Syntaz, § 91, p. 195. This change from the more restricted ἐὰν with subj., verse 8, appears here intentional; comp. Acts v. 38, 39. Still such distinctions must not be overpressed, as there is abundant evi- dence to show that not only in later, but even sometimes in earlier writers, they were not always carefully observed: see Madvig, Gr. § 125. 1. It is certainly noticeable that, in Euclid (6. g. Book 1. Prop. 4), ἐὰν with subj. is nearly always 32 GALATIANS. Cuap. I. 10. Sena ἔστω. ™ ἄρτι yap avSparrous πεΐδω ἢ τὸν Θεόν; ἢ ξητῶ > 4 δ.’ > wv ᾽ , ” ἀνδιρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ETL ἀνδιρώποις ἤρεσκον, οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. used in mathematical hypotheses, where there can be no accessory idea, but where experience must prove the truth or fal- lacy of the supposition: see Winer, Gr. δ 41. 2, p. 260, note. This use of eday- γελίῶμαι with an accus. persone, is an ἅπαξ Aeydu. in St. Paul’s Epp., but oc- curs elsewhere both in the N. T. (Luke iii, 18, Acts vili. 25, 40, xiii. 22, xiv. 14, 21, xvi. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12), and in later writers: comp. Winer, Gr. § 32. 1, p. 199, and Lobeck, Phryn. p. 267 sq. 10. ἄρτι γάρ] ‘For now ;’ not con- trasting his present conduct and former Pharisaism (Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 222 [Bohn], Wieseler, Chronol. p. 178), but emphatically repeating the ἄρτι of the preceding verse, and calling especial attention to his present words ;— ‘Now, —when I am using such unhesitating language.’ The exact force of γὰρ seems more open to question: it may be plausibly taken as in abrupt and ironical reference to the charges of the Judaists ; ‘well! am I now,’ etc. (on this idio- matic use of ydp, see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 245), but is perhaps more naturally regarded as argumentative, — not, however, so much with reff. to the seeming harshness of his previous words (Mey., Alf.), as to their unquestionable truth, the best proof of which lay in his being one who was making God his friend, and not men; see Olsh. and Hil- genf, in loc. 7 melSw)} ‘am I per- suading, ecto om [sum persua- dens] Syr., ‘suadeo,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; scil. ‘am I making friends of ;’ the slight modification of meaning, viz. ‘ persua- dendo mihi concilio,’ as suggested by the latter words of the clause, being easily supplied from the context; see Acts xii. 20, 2 Mace. iv. 45, and comp. πεῖσαι τὸν Χριστοῦ δοῦλος Θεόν (with inf.), Joseph. Antig. rv. 6. 5, vi. 5. 6, vit, 10.3, The usual comment, that πείϑω is here used de conatu (Uste, al.), is very questionable. Of the pas- sages cited in support of this meaning, Acts xxviii. 23, certainly proves nothing, and JElian, Var. Hist. u 6, is not to the point, ‘ attempt’ being implied not by the verb but its tense. The same obs. seems applicable to Xenoph. Hell, v1. 5, 16, Polyb. Hist, τν. 64. 2, cited in Steph. Thess. 8.0. ἢ ζητῶ, κ. τ. Ay ‘or am I seeking to please,’ ete; not merely a different (De W.), but a more general and comprehensive statement of the preceding clause. The student will find a sound sermon on this verse by Farindon, Serm. xx. Vol. 11.’ p. 139 (ed. 1849). ἔτι ἀνϑρ. ἤρεσ- κονῚ ‘were still pleasing men.’ It is not necessary either to press the use of the imperf. de conatu, or to modify the mean- ing of ἀρέσκω, ‘studeo placere,’— a mean+ ing which it never bears ; see Fritz. Rom. xv. 2, Vol. m1. p. 221, note. The apos- tle says, ‘I am not pleasing men; and a clear proof is, that I am Christ’s servant, whose service is incompatible with that of man.’ The emphasis thus rests on ἔτι (Mey., Brown) which is not merely logical (De Wette), but temporal, with ref. to the preceding ἄρτι. The Ree. inserts yap after εἰ, with D'EJK; Syr., and other Vv.; Chrys., Theod., al., — but with but little plausibility, as the authority for the omission is strong [ABD'IFG; 5 mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm. ; Cyr. (3), Dam.], and tha probability of interpolation to assist the argument, by no means slight. ἤμην This form of the imperf., so com- mon in later writers, is found, Xen. Cyr. vi 1. 9, Lysias, mt. 17, but is unequivo- cally condemned by the Atticists, Buttm, Crap. 1 1918. The Gospel I preach is not of man; and I will confirm this by stating my mode of life before my conversion. - ἄνδρωπον'" 11. δέ] Tisch. γάρ. GALATIANS. 33 / \ € a ’ ͵ 4 1 Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ edvayyéduov ’ a ce TO εὐαγγελισὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, OTL οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ 12. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀν ρώπου The external authorities for δὲ are ΑΕ ; many Vv. (-Eth.-Pol. and others omit entirely) ; Chrys., Theod., al.; Ambrst. (Rec., Griesd., Scholz., Lachm , De W., Mey.). For ydp, BD'FG; rom.; Dam, Hier. Aug., al. (Tisch, ; commended by Griesd ). 17. al.... Vulg.; Cla- The permu- tation of δὲ and γὰρ is so common that énéerna/ considerations become here of some importance. The question is, does St. Paul here seem to desire to carry out further his previous remarks, to explain, or to prove them? In the first case we could only have, as Riick observes, δέ; in the second, yap or δέ (δὲ retaining a faint oppositive force, Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 3); in the third, only γάρ. The context seems decisively in favor of the first hy poth., and therefore of δέ, remarks that it is commonly found when in combination with ἄν; this, however, is doubtful; so Lobeck, Phryn. p 152. . ll. γνωρίζω δέ] ‘Now 1 certify, make known unto you ;’ commencement of what may be termed the apologetic portion of the epistle, ch. i. 11—ch. ii. 21. The present formula, Usteri ob- serves, is always used by St. Paul as the prelude of a more deliberate and solemn avowal of his opinion; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1, 1 Cor. xii. 3 (διὸ yv.). Aé is consequently here (see crit. note) what is termed μεταβατικόν, Bekk Anecd. p. 958 (cited by Hartung, Vol. τ. p. 165), i. e., it indicates a transition from what has been already said, to the fresh aspects of the subject which are now introduced. For examples of the very intelligible at- .traction τὸ ebayy..... ὅτι, see Wincr, Gr. 66. 6, p. 551. οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνϑρωπονἾ ‘is not after man,’ i e., ‘is of no human strain: ‘kara complectitur vim prepositionum ἀπὸ (9), διὰ et παρά, Bengel. This remark, if un- derstood exegetically rather than gram- matically, is perfectly correct. ‘after the Kara uvSp., taken per se, implies fashion, after the manner of man’ ( Winer, Gr. § 49. ἃ, p. 358), but in the present context amounts to the more comprehen- sive declaration that the εὐαγγέλιον was not ἀνϑρώπινον, either in its essence or 5 object; οὐχ ὑπὸ ἀνϑρωπίνων σύγκειται λογισμῶν, Theod. : compare Plato, Philed. 12, τὸ δ᾽ ἐμὸν Seds.... ἄνδρ. ; where the true qualitative nature of the expression is shown by the further explanation, ἀλλὰ πέρα τοῦ μεγίστου φό- βου. The different shades of meaning under which this formula appcars in St. Paul’s Epp. (ch. 1. 15, Rom. 5, 1 Cor. iii. 3, ix. 8, xv. 32) must be re- ferred to the context, not to the preposi- see Fritz. Rom. iii. 5, Vol. 1. p. 159 sq. and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 361. > ν x «Οὐκ ἐστι κατα iii. tion ; .οὐδὲ yap ἐγὼ] ‘for neither did 1 receive it, etc. ;’ proof of the preceding assertion. The true force of οὐδὲ has here been frequently misunderstood, but may be properly preserved, if we only οἵ serve (1) that in all such cases as the present (comp. John v. 22, viii. 42, Rom. viii. 7), the particle must receive its ez- act explanation from the context (*ad- sumptd extrinsecus aliqua sententia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 707), and (2) that οὐδὲ γάρ, in negative sentences, stands in strict parallelism and bears corresponding meanings with kal yap in positive sentences; see Hartung, Par- tik. οὐδὲ, 2. B. 2, Vol. 1. p. 211, and comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. Vol. τι p- 21 sq. We may thus correctly trans- late, either (a) nam ne ego quidem, ‘ even, 84 GALATIANS. Cuar. I. 12, παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε edidaySnv, ἀλλὰ δ ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιησοῦ I who so naturally might have been taught of men,’ Hilgenf., Winer in loc., and Gr, § 55. 6, p. 436; or (δ) neque enim ego, ‘I as little as the other Apos- tles’ (Olsh.); or perhaps a little more inclusively, ‘J (distinctly emphatic) — as little as any others, whether Χριστοδί- δακτοι Or ἀνϑρωποδίδακτοι᾽ Of these (4) is to be preferred not only from con- textual but even grammatical reasons; for independently of seeming too con- cessive, (@) would also have been most naturally expressed by οὐδὲ ἐγὼ γάρ, or καὶ yap οὐδ᾽ ἐγώ (Riick). This last ob- jection Meyer considers invalid on ac- count of the normal position of ydp, — but inexactly ; for though ydp generally occupies the 2nd place, yet when the Ist and 2nd words are closely united (which would here be the case) it occu- pies the 3rd: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 251. παρὰ ἀνδιρώπουἾ ‘from man ;’ not synonymous with ἀπό évSpaérou, the distinction between these prepositions after verbs of receiving, etc. (παρὰ more immediate, ἀπὸ more remote source), being appy. regularly main- tained in St. Paul's Epp.: comp. 1 Cor. xi. 23, παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, on which Winer (de Verb. Comp. Fasc. τι. p- 7) rightly observes, ‘non παρὰ τοῦ Ruplov, propterea quod non ipse Christus preesentem docuit ;’ see Schulz, Abendm, p. 218 sq. οὔτε ἐδιδάχϑη»ν] ‘nor was I taught ἐξ, slightly different from the preceding παρέλαβον, the ἐδιδ. pointing more to subjective appropriation, while παρέλ. only marks objective recep- tion (Windischm.): so appy. Beng., ‘al- terum (xapéA.) fit sine labore, alterum cum labore discendi.’ On the sequence οὔδὲ---οὔτε, see Winer, Gr. § δῦ. 6, p. 436, and esp. Hartung, Partik. οὔτε, 1. 9, Vol. 1. p. 201 sq., where this un- usual, but (in cases like the present) de- fensible collocation is fully explained. In all such passages, δὲ refers to the forego- ing words or sentences, so that οὔτε is used as if od or οὐκ had preceded ; δέ, in negative sentences, having often much of the force and functions which καὶ has in affirmative sentences; see especially Wex. Antig. Vol. 1. p. 157, and comp. Klotz. Devar. Vol. τι. p. 711. The read- ing οὐδὲ (Rec. and even Lachm.) is only supported by AD'FG; a few mss.; Eus., Chrys., al., and, as a likely repe- tition of the preceding οὐδέ, or a correc- tion of a supposed solecism, is more than doubtful. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‘from Jesus Christ ;’ gen. subjecti, form- ing an antithesis to the preceding παρά ἀνδρὶ; Christ was the source and author of it (Fell. Hamm.) : comp. 2 Cor. xii. 1; and notes on 1 Thess. 1.6. In ex- pressions ‘similar to the present (comp. εἰρήνη Θεοῦ, evayy. τοῦ Χριστοῦ), it is only from the context that the nature of the gen., whether subjecti or objecti, can be properly determined ; see Winer, Gr. § 30 1, p. 168, and comp. notes on ver. 7. The peculiar revelation here al- luded to may be, as Aquinas supposes, one vouchsafed to the Apostle soon after his conversion, by which he was fitted to become a preacher of the Gospel; comp. Eph. iii, 3, where, however, ἐγνωρίσϑη (Lach., Tisch.) is less decisive than Ree. ἐγνώρισε. It is a subject of contin-_ ual discussion whether the teaching of St. Paul was the result of one single illumination, or of progressive develop- ment; comp. Reuss. T/éol., Chrét. αν. 4, Vol. mu. p. 42, sq. Thiersch, Apost. Age, Vol. 1. p. 110 sq. (Transl.) The most natural opinion would certainly seem to be this; that as, on the one hand, we may reverently presume that all the fundamental truths of the Gos- pel would be fully revealed to St. Paul before he commenced preaching ; so, on the other, it might haye been ordained, Cuap. L 12—14. GALATIANS. < . Oo “Χριστοῦ. ™ ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ ᾽Ιου- ὃ “ lal ev + Wath \ 07 \ » / a a αἱσμῷ, ὃτι Kay ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον THY ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρδουν αὐτήν. 1" that (in accordance with the laws of our spiritual nature) its deepest mysteries and profoundest harmonies should be seen and felt through the practical ex- periences of his apostolical labors. The question is partially entertained by Au- gustine, de Gestis Pelag. ch. xiv. (32), Vol. x. p. 339 sq. (ed. Migne, Par. 1845). 13. ἠκούσατε γάρ] ‘For ye heard,’ historical proof, by an appeal to his former well known (ἢκούσ. emphatic) zeal for Judaism, that it was no hu- man influence or human teaching that could have changed such a character ; οὖ yap ἄν, εἰ μὲ Θεὸς ἦν 6 ἐκκαλύπτων, οὔτως ἀδρόαν ἔσχον μεταβολήν, Chrys. τὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε, κ. τ. A.| ‘my conversation in time past,’ etc. Auth. Vers. These words are taken by most interpreters as simply equivalent to τήν ποτε (προτέραν) ἄναστ. This is not critically exact. As Dr. Donald- son suggests, the position of ποτε is due to the verb included in ἀναστρο- φήν : as St. Paul would have said ἀν- ἐστρεφόμην ποτε, he allows himself to write thy ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε. Meyer aptly cites Plato, Leg. 11. 685 Ὁ, ἡ τῆς Τροίας ἅλωσις τὸ δεύτερον. τῷ Ἰουδαϊΐσμῷ!] ‘the Jews” religion,’ ὃ, 6. § Judaism ;’ see 2 Mace. ii. 21, xiv. 38, 4 Mace. iv. 26. On the specializing force of the art. with abstract nouns, see Scheuerlein, Syntax. § 26. 2. ο, p. 219. ἐπόρϑουν] ‘was destroying it,’ ‘ex- pugnabam,’ Vulg., Clarom.: see Acts ix. 21, 6 πορϑήσας ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους, and comp. Aisch. Sept. 176. Itis not necessary either to mod- ify the meaning of πορϑεῖν with Syr. (Aaoa Djs eram vastans), Copt. (desolabam), and other Vv., or to ex- plain the imperf. as de conatu (σβέσαι \ / ? an? ” na ὁ \ καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ [ουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολ- ἐπεχείρει, Chrys.), with the Greek com- mentators. As Meyer justly observes, St. Paul previous to his conversion was actually engaged in the work of destruc- tion: he was not a Verwiister merely, or a Verstérer, but a Zerstérer : comp. Acts xxii. 4, ἐδίωξα ἄχρι Savdrov. The im- perfects accurately denote the course of the Apostle’s conduct, which commenced and continued during the time of his Judaism, but, owing to his conversion, was never carried out; contrast ἐδίωξα, Acts, ὦ. c., 1 Cor. xv. 9, and see Bern- hardy, Synt. x. 3, p. 872 sq., where the three principal uses of the imperf. (sim- ultaneity, duration, and non-completion) are perspicuously stated, and comp. the more elaborate notice of Schmalfeld, Synt. § 55, pp. 97—111. 14. cuvnAtkidtas] ‘contempora- Συνηλ. is an ἅπαξ Aeydu. in the N. T., and is only found occasionally in a few later writers, e. g. Diod. Sic. 1. 53, Dion. Halic. x. 49; see Wetst. in Joc. and the exx. collected by Dindorf and Hase in Steph. Thesaur. s.v. Vol. vu. Ὁ. 1378. The compound form (compare συμμέτοχος, Eph. iii. 6, v. 7; συγκοινω- νός, 1°Cor. ix. 23) is condemned by the Atticists; Attic writers using only the simple form; see Thomas Mag. p. 208 (ed Bern.), Herodian, p. 433 (ed Koch.) περισσοτ. ζηλωτὴς brapx. | being from the first more exceedingly a zealot or contender ; modal participial clause serving to define more particularly. the peculiar nature of the advance which St. Paul made in Judaism. The com- parison περισσ. is obviously with those just mentioned, the πολλοὶ συνηλ. ἐν τῷ ries.’ γένει μου. τῶν πατρικῶν μοῦ παραδόσεων] ‘for the traditions of my fathers ;’ gen. objecti after ζηλωτής, GALATIANS. Cuar. I. 15, 16. 36 + Aods συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γίνει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων. Iwh firin this by a re- 16 “ » γὼ ς , ee , cltal the places where I Ore be εὐδόκησεν ο Θεός, ο ἀφορ σᾶς με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς aborle, and the countries in which I travelled. The ‘ ᾽ “ 1662 7 ‘ p) > “ χάριτος αὑτοῦ, ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ churches of Judea knew of me only by report. 15. ὁ ϑεὺς] —ADEJK ; mss.; many Vv., but Syr. (Philox.) with ast. ; Orig. (1) Chrys. (1), Theod. (3), al.; Tren. (1), Aug., al. (Rec., Greesd., but om. om , Scholz, |Lachm | Mey.). Tisch, omits these words with BFG ; some mss.; Boern., Vulg., Syr.; Orig. (2), Chrys. (1), Theodoret (2), Iren. (1), Orig. (interp ), Faust. ap. Aug., Ambrst., Hier., al. (De W., approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 47). The acci- dental omission, however, seems probable on paradiplomatic considerations (sce Pref. p. xvi), Θ having O immediately before, and soon after it, — object about which the ζῆλος was dis- played; comp. Acts xxi. 20. xxii. 3, 1 Cor, xiy. 12, Tit ii. 14. The inser- tion of μουν qualifies the more general term πατρικός, making it equivalent to the more special πατροπαράδοτος, and thus certainly seeming here to limit the παραδόσεις to the special ancestral tradi- tions of the sect to which the Apostle belonged (Meyer), i. e., to Pharisaical traditions ; comp. Acts xxiii. 6, Φαρισαῖος, vids Φαρισαίων, and more expressly Acts xxii. 3, κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ϑρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος. 15. ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκ. κ. τ. A] “ But when it pleased God ;’ notice of the time subsequent to his conversion, in which the Apostle might have been thought to have conferred with men, but did not. On the meaning of εὐδοκέω, ---- here marking the free, unconditioned, and gracious will of God, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 8, and on its four constructions in the N. T., notes on Col. i. 19. ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου) ‘from my mother’s womb,’ i.e. *from the moment I was born,’— not as Calv.,‘nondum genitum,’ Jer. i. 5; ἐκ being temporal beth here and Matth. xix. 12, Luke i. 15, Acts iii 2, xiv. 8, and marking the point from which the temporal series is reckoned : see Winer, Gr. § 47. Ὁ, p. 328, The verb &popicas, as Jowett observes, has two meanings, the first physical (Eth,-Pol.), the second and predomi- nant one, ethical and spiritual (* segre- gavit,’ Vulg., Clarom.); comp. Rom. Big καὶ καλέσας κ. τ. λ.] ‘and called me by means of His grace ;’ scil. at the Apostle’s conversion (Acts ix. 3 sq.),— not with any reference to a calling, undefined in time, which de- pended on the counsels of God, as Riick- ert in loc.: compare Rom, viii. 30, where the temporal connection between προώ- pioe and ἐκάλεσε (on the force of the aorists see Fritz. in loc.) is exactly simi- lar to that between ἀφορίσας and καλέσας in the present passage. The κλῆσις in both cases has a distinct origin in time; αὐτόν [Θεὸν] ἄφη καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων προεγνω- κέναι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα κεκληκέναι kad’ ὃν καιρὸν ἐδοκίμασε, Theod.; comp. Us- teri, Lehrb. τι. 2. 2, Ὁ. 269. διὰ τῆς Xap. αὐτοῦ] ‘by means of His grace :’ grace was the ‘causa medians’ of the Apostle’s call; πανταχοῦ τῆς xdp- ιτος εἶναί φησι τὸ πᾶν καὶ τῆς φιλανϑρω- πίας αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀφάτου, Chrys. The moving cause of the call was the Divine εὐδοκία, the mediating cause, the bound- less grace of God, the instrument, the heaven-sent voice; comp. Winer, Gr, § 47, p. 337. 16. ἀποκαλύψαι) ‘to reveal;’ de- pendent on the preceding εὐδόκησεν, not ‘Crap. I. 16. GALATIANS. 7 vw 5 > fal ἐν ἐμοί, iva εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσιν, εὐδέως οὐ Tpoc- . s on theparticiples (Est.),— a connection that would involve the unexampled con- struction (in the N. 7.) εὐδόκ. --- ἵνα evayy-, and would impair the force of ἐν ἐμοί] ‘within me ;’ not ‘per me,’ Grot., ‘in my case,’ Green, or ‘coram me,’ Peile, but simply ‘in me,’ Vulg., ὦ ὁ. fin my soul; Χριστὸν εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ λαλοῦντα, Chrys. It may be admitted, that, owing partly to linguis- tic (see on 1 Thess. ii. 16), and partly to dogmatical reasons (Winer, Gr. καὶ 47. 2. obs., p. 322), there is some difficulty in satisfactorily adjusting all St. Paul’s varied uses of the preposition éy; still, wherever the primary meaning gives a sense which cannot be objected to dog- matically or exegetically, we are bound to abide by it. Here this meaning is especially pertinent. Both subjectively, by deep inward revelations, as well as objectively, by outward manifestations, was the great apostle prepared for the work of the ministry; see Chrysost. zm loc. On the arbitrary meanings as- signed to ἐν in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 348. evayyea- {ζω μαι] Present: the action was still going on. aveséuny] ‘straightway I addressed,’ ete ; the εὐϑέως standing prominently forward and implying that he not only men, but did “ iva. evséews ov προσ- avoided conference with so from the very first; οὐκ εἶπεν ἀπ- A@s, “οὐ προσανεϑέμην, ἀλλ᾽ ‘ evdéws, κι 7. A.’ Chrys. According to the com- mon explanation, εὐθέως is to be con- nected in sense with ἀπῆλϑον, though in immediate structure with προσανεϑέμην ; ‘ Apostolus, — quee fuit ejus alacritas, interponit negativam sententiam que ipse in mentem venit,’ Winer, comp. Jowett, and Alf. It seems more correct to say that εὐϑέως belongs to the whole sentence, from οὐ προσαν. to ’ApaBiav, which, by means of the antithesis be- tween its component negative and af- firmative clauses, in fact expresses one single thought; ‘immediately I avoided all conference and intercourse with man;’ comp. Meyer in doe. οὐ προσ- αν εϑέμη »] “1 addressed no communi- cation to;’ not exactly ‘non acquicvi,’ Vulg., Clarom., nor quite so much as da i) [mon revelavi] Syr., but more simply, οὐκ ἀνεκοινωσάμην, Theod., “1 made no communication to, and held no counsel with,’ ‘non contuli,’ Beza. The prep. πρὸς does not imply that the Apostle ‘did not in addition to that con- fer,’ (comp. Ust ), but, as not uncom- monly in composition, simply indicates direction towards : compare προσανατί- ϑέσϑαι τοῖς μάντεσι (Diod. Sic. xvu. 116) with mpocavapépew τοῖς μάντεσι (ib. ib.), in which latter verb the idea of direction is made more apparent; see Fritz., Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 204. σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι] ‘flesh and blood ;’ a Hebrew circumlocution for man, — generally with the accessory idea of weakness or frailty ; see Hammond and Lightfoot on Matt. xvi. 17. The ex- pression occurs four times in the N. T., apparently under the following modifi- cations of meaning: (a) Man, in his mere corporeal nature, 1 Cor. xv. 40, Heb. ii. 14; (δ) Man in his weak in- tellectual nature, contrasted with God, Mattt. xvi. 17 (contr. Mey.), comp. Chrys. Vol. x. 675 x, ed. Ben.; (e) Man, in his feeble human powers, con- trasted with spiritual natures and agen- cies, Eph. vi, 12. The present passage seems to belong to (2); the apostle took not weak men for his advisers or in- structors, but communed in stillness with God. Chrys., in referring the words to the Apostles, himself seemed 38 avedéunv σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους to feel the application too limited, as he adds, εἰ δὲ καὶ περὶ πάντων ἀνϑρώπων τοῦτό φησιν, οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀντεροῦμεν. 17. οὐδὲ ἀπῆλϑ ον] "πον did I go away,’ scil. from Damascus, — to which place the mention of his conversion naturally leads his thoughts. It does not here seem necessary to press ὀῤδὲ in translation (‘nor yet did I,’ etc., Conyb.), as the context does not seem climactic; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3. (Transi.) In the present case it has appy- only that guasi-conjunctive force (see notes ver. 12), by which it appends one negation to another,— ‘non apte connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu accedentia,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. mu p. 707; see notes on Eph. iv. 27, Winer, Gr. § 55, 6, p. 432, and esp. Francke, de Part. Neg. τι. 2, p. 6. The read- ing ἀνῆλθον [Rec. with AJK; mss; Copt., Syr.-Philox.; Chrys., Theod.] seems obviously a correction, and is re- jected by all the best editors. ἀλλά] The particle has here its usual force after a negation, and implies such an opposition between the negative and affirmative clauses, that the first is, as it were, obliterated and absorbed by the second ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. ἢ. 11, Fritz. Mark, Excurs. 2, p. 773. Schra- der is thus perhaps justified in pressing the opposition between οὐ προσαν. and ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλϑ.» as an evidence that St. Paul went into Arabia for seclusion ; contr. Anger, Rat. Temp. ch. tv. p. 128. In estimating, however, the force of ἀλλὰ in negative sentences, caution must al- ways be used, as οὐκ --- ἀλλὰ (not δὲ) is the regular sequence, like ‘nicht — sondern’ (not ‘aber’) in German; 866 Donalds. Cratyl, § 201. eis ᾿Αραβίαν] ‘into Arabia;’ possibly the Arabian desert in the neighborhood of Damascus, ᾿Αραβία being a term of some- GALATIANS. Cuap. 1. 17. " οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς ἹἹεροσόλυμα ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλδον εἰς ᾿Αραβίαν, καὶ what vague and comprehensive applica- tion; see Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. τ. p. 105, and for the various di- visions of Arabia, Forbiger, A. Geogr. ὁ 102, Vol. u. p. 728 sq. This brief, but circumstantial, recapitulation of St. Paul’s early history is designed to show that, in the early period after his conver- sion he was never in any place where he could have learned anything from the other apostles. A discussion of the ob- Ject (probably religious meditation), and of the duration (probably a large por- tion of three years) of this abode in Arabia, — both, especially the latter, greatly contested points, will be found in Schrader, Paulus, Part 1. p. 54 56.» Wieseler, Chronol. p. 141 sq., Davidson, Introd. Vol. τι. p. 74, 80. Aa- μασ κόὀν) ‘Damascus.’ This most an- cient city certainly existed as early as the days of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 15, xv. 2), and is supposed, even at that remote period, to have had an independent gov- ernment (see L. Miiller, Orig. Regni Damase in Iken, Thesaur, Vol. τ. p. 721 sq.) After being subdued by David (2 Sam. viii 5, 6), it revolted under Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24), formed the seat of a very widely extended govern- ment (comp. 1 Kings xx. 1), was recov- ered by Jeroboam, the son of Joash (2 Kings xiv. 28), united in alliance with the kingdom of Israel, but was after- wards taken by Tiglath Pileser (2 Kings xvi. 9). After falling successively un- der that of the Babylonian, Persian, and Seleucid sway, it passed at last under that of the Romans (8. c. 64; see Diod. Sic. xxxrx. 30), and at the time of the Apostle formed a part of the dependent kingdom of Aretas (2 Cor. xi. 32). For further notices of the history of this ancient city, see Winer, RWB. Vol. 1. p. 244 sq., Pauly, Real-Eneyct, Vol. τι. Cuap. 1. 18. πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Aapackov. GALATIANS. 39 18. ν᾽ \ » Pike ms ΧΑ ETTELTA PETA ETN τρία avnr- eR Ὁ a nr ov εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν Ῥ. 847 sq., Conyb. and Howson, S¢. Paul, Vol. τ. p. 105. 18. ἔτη τρία] ‘three years,’ scil. after his conversion, that being the ob- vious and natural terminus a quo to which all the dates in the narrative are to be referred; see notes on ch. ii. 1. How much of this time was spent in Damascus, and how much in Arabia is completely uncertain. The only note of time in Acts ix. 23, ἡμέραι ἱκαναί, which appears to include this stay in Arabia, has by recent expositors been referred solely to the time of preaching at Damascus, — though appy. with less probability; see Anger, Rat. Temp. p. 122, Wieseler, Chronol. p, 145. ἱστορῆσαι) ‘to visit, to become ac- guainted with; scarcely so little as ‘videre,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., al., but more in the sense of ‘coram cogno- scere,— to visit and make a personal acquaintance with. As the meaning of this verb has been somewhat con- tested, we may remark that it is used by later writers with reference to (a) places, things, —in the sense of “ visit- ing,’ ‘making a journey to see;’ Plu- tarch, Thes. 30, Pomp. 40, Polyb. Hist. ur. 48. 12; comp. Chrysost. ὅπερ of τὰς μεγάλας πόλεις καὶ λαμπρὰς καταμανϑά- νοντες λέγουσιν : (δ) persons—in the sense of ‘seeing,’ ‘making the acquaint- anee of; Joseph. Antig. vit. 2. 5, ἱσ- τορῆσαι ᾿Ἐλεάσαρον ; Bell. vi. 1. 8, ὃν ἐγὼ ἱστόρησα ; somewhat curiously, in reference to the pillar of salt into which Lot’s wifé was changed, Antig. 1. 22, ἱστόρηκα δὲ αὐτήν : sec, also, Clem. Hom. vir. 24 (p. 196, ed. Dressel), ἱστορῆσαι τοὺς τῆς Sepamelas ἐπιτυγχονόντας, ib. 1. 9, p. 32; πῖν! 6, p. 376; and exx. col- lected by Hilgenf. Gal, p 122, note. There is thus no lexical necessity for press- ing the primary meaning (Hesych. ioro- pet, ἐρωτᾷ] advocated by Bagge zn loc. The reading Πέτρον (Rec.), instead of Kepay [A B; a few mss.; Syr., Copt., Sahid., Syr.-Phil. in marg., A%th., al.], is supported by preponderating external authority [DEFGJK; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., al.; many Ff.], but is rightly rejected by most modern editors as a probable explanatory gloss. ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτόν] ‘I tarried with him; comp. chap. ii. 5, διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ; Matth. xxvi. 55, πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκαϑεζόμην (Lachm.); 1 Cor. xvi. 6, πρὸς ὑμὰς δὲ τυχὺν παραμενῶ, ver. 7, ἐπιμεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, al., usually with persons; ‘spe nostri scriptores, ut ip- sorum Greecorum poets passim, πρὸς cum accus., adjecto verbo quietis, sic collocant, ut non sit nisi apud, i. q., παρὰ cum dativo,’ Fritz. Mark i. 18, p. 202. We may compare with this the legal forms, πρὸς διαιτητὴν λαχεῖν, De- mosth. Ὁ. 22. 28 ; δίκας εἶναι πρὸς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ib. 43, 71, etc., where the original notion of ‘going to,’ etc., has passed into that of mere direction. The ἐπὶ in ἐπέμεινα is not per se ‘inten- sive’ (Alf. on Col. i. 23), but appy. denotes rest at a place; see Rost u. Palm, Lees 5. ἡ ἐπι 5, Vole τ 1045. The verb itself has two con-- structions in the N. T., — with a simple dative (Rom vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Col. i. 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16), and with prepp. ἐπί, πρός, ἐν (Acts xxviii. 14, Phil. i. 24);: see notes on Col. i, 23, and Winer, Verb. Comp. τι. p. 11. ἡμέρας δεκ- «πέντε] The reason for this shortness of St. Paul’s stay is mentioned, Acts ix 29. The apostle specifies the exact time of his stay at Jerusalem, to show convincingly how very slight had been his opportunities of receiving instruc- tion from St. Peter or any one else there. 40 GALATIANS. Cuar. I. 19, 20. ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε' ™ ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου. 19, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον) ‘save James,’ i. ¢., no other ἀπόστολον save him. * It may be fairly said, that every principle of grammatical perspicuity requires that, after these words, not merely εἶδον, but εἶδον τὸν ἀπόστολον be supplied ; comp. 1 Cor, i, 14, οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα εἰ μὴ Κρίσπον καὶ Γάϊον. This is distinctly ad- mitted both by Mey , Hilgenf., and the best recent commentators, even though they differ in their deductions: so very clearly Chrys. St. James, then, was an ἀπόστολος (whatever be the meaning as- signed to the word), — a fact somewhat eonfirmed by the use of ἀποστόλους, Acts ix. 28. The additional title, 6 ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου (τὸ σεμνολόγημα, as Chrys. terms it), was probably added (Ust.) to distinguish this James from the son of Zebedee, who was then liv- ing. Whether it follows from this pas- sage, that Jacobus Frater and Jacobus Alphei are identical (by no means such a fiction as Meyer somewhat hastily terms it), and that James was thus one of the Twelve, is a question which falls without the scope of this commentary. This consideration only may be sug- gested ; whether in a passage so circum- stantial as the present, where St. Paul's whole object is to prove that he was no emissary from the Apostles (comp. ver. 17), the use of ἀδελφός, in its less proper sense (Κυρίου ἀνεψιός, Theod.), is not more plausible than the similar one — of ἀπόστολος. The most weighty coun- ter-argument is derived from John vii. 5, οὐδὲ γὰρ of ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον eis αὐτόν ; but it deserves careful consider- ation whether ἐπίστευον really means more than a proper, intelligent, and rightful belief; see even De Wette on John l. c,, and comp. John vi. 64, where od πιστεύειν is predicated of some of the μαϑηταί, and where ver. 67 implies some Ἢ ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώ- doubt even of οἱ δώδεκα. The stu- dent who desires to examine this diffi- cult question, may profitably consult Mill, on the Brethren of our Lord, Schneckenburger, on St, James, p. 144, sq., Arnaud, Recherches sur I’ Epitre de Jude, and the review of it by Deidein in Reuter, Repert. (Aug. 1851), Ne- ander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 351, note (Bohn); Blom’s Disputation, (in Vol- beding, Thvsaur. Comment. Vol. 1.) ; Credner, Einleitung, Vol. t p. 571; Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit, (Part 1. 1842) ; and Milgenf. Galaterbr. p. 219. The most recent monographs are those by Schaff, Berlin, 1842; and Goy, Mont. 1845, 20. ἃ δὲ γράφω κ. τ. A.) ‘but as to what I write unto you; not paren- thetical, but a strong and reiterated as- surance of the little he had received from the Apostles, ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν being an emphatic anacoluthon; comp. Wan- nowski, Constr. Abs. p. 54 sq., where this and similar constructions are fully discussed, ὅτι οὐ ψευδομαι) ‘(I declare) that I lie not ;’ strong con- firmatory asseveration of the truth, — not of ver. 12 sq. (Winer), but of ver. 17, 18. In passages marked with this sort of abruptness and pathos (see Liicke on 1 Joh, iii. 20, p. 245, ed. 2), a verb consonant with the context is commonly supplied before 71; comp. Acts xiv. 22. Accordingly, in the present case, ypdpw (Mey.), λέγω (De W.), ἐστὶ (Riick.), ὄμνυμι (Ust.), have been proposed as suppletory ; the first three are, however, obviously too weak, the last too strong — ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ not being any more than m4n**z£$, a formal oath (Olsh.). If any definite word was in the Apostle’s thoughts, it was perhaps διαμαρτύρομαι (Acts x. 42, with 671); especially as, in three out of the five places in which Crap. I. 21—23. πίον τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας. GALATIANS 41 5 ᾽ \ *l ἔπειτα ἧλον εἰς τὰ κλίματα 22 »” ΠῚ ΄ aA ΄ ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ a ᾿ ΄, a8 ͵ a 5 r a 29 / page) / ταις ἐκκλησίαις ΤῊΣ Ἰουδαίας TALS εν “Χριστῷ, τ μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἐνώπ. τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs, this verb (though in slightly different senses and construc- tions) is found joined with it; see 1 Tim. v. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1. On this use of ὅτι in asseverations, see Fritz. Rom. ix. 2, Vol. ΤῊ p. 242. 21. τὰ κλίματα͵]͵Ἶ ‘the regions ;’ ‘regiones,’ Vulg., ‘partes,’ Clarom.; a word only used in the N. T. by St. Paul, here and Rom. xv. 28, 2 Cor. xi. 10. The primary meaning, as deri- vation indicates, is ‘inclinatio’ or ‘de- clivitas,’ 6. g. κλίματα ὁρῶν. Eustath. p. 1498. 47 (comp. Polyb. Hist. vit. 6. 1), thence with ref. to the inclination of the heavens to the poles, ‘a tract of the sky,’ κλῖμα οὐρανοῦ, Herodian, x1. 8, and lastly, — its most usual meaning, — a tract of the earth, whether of greater (comp. Athen. xm. p. 523 5) or, as in the present case, of more limited ex- tent; comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 44. 6, x, 1. 3. On its accentuation (usually κλίμα, but more correctly κλίμα), see Lobeck, Paralip. p 418. mentioned is appy. identical with that briefly noticed in Acts ix. 30; see Conyb. and Hows. δέ. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 115. Συρία] Not the lower part of Syria, called Phoenice (Winer, Ust, al.), but ‘Syria proper’ (ἡ ἄνω Συρία, Strabo), as St. Paul's object is to show the distance he was from any quarter where he could The journey here have received instruction from the Apos- tles; see Meyer iv loc. In Acts xxi. 8, Συρία is used merely in a general way to denote the Roman province bearing that name: on its divisions, see Forbiger, Handb. Geogr. Vol. 11. p. 640. τῆς Κιλικία 9] Occasionally mentioned in combination with Συρία (Acts xv. 23, 41) as geographicaliy conterminous (Alf), and as serving to define what 6 portion of the larger province is espe- cially alluded to. Jor a general notice of this province, see Strabo, Geogr. xrv. 5, p. 668 sq., Mannert, Geogr. v1. 3, Ῥ. 32 sq., Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. § 67, Vol. 1. p. 271 sq. 22.76 προσώπῳ] ‘in respect of personal appearance,’ 501]. ‘by face ;’ οὐδὲ ard ὄψεως γνώριμος ἦν αὐτοῖς, Chrys. The general limiting nature of the da- tive (Scheuerl. Synt. § 20, Donalds. Gr. § 458) may here be fully recognized: the Apostle was not unknown to the Churches in every sense, but only in regard to his outward appearance. This particular dative, commonly called the dative ‘of reference to,’ must be care- fully distinguished both from the zn- strumental and the modaé dat. (1 Cor. xi. 5), and may be best considered as a local dative ethically used. Here,’ for instance, the Apostle’s appearance was not that by which, but as it were the place in which, their ignorance was evinced; see esp. Scheuerl. Syn. § 22. a, p. 179, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Synt. m1. 8, p 84. τῆς ’lovdatas| The Church of Jeru- salem is, however, to be excepted, as there the Apostle was εἰσπορευόμενος καὶ ἐκπορευόμενος, παῤῥησιαζόμενος ἐν τῷ ὃν- όματι τοῦ Κυρίου, Acts ix, 28, ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ] Not merely a peri- phrasis for the adjective ‘the Christian churches,’ but ‘the churches which are in Christ ;’ ἃ. e., which are incorporated with Him who is the Head: comp, Eph. i, 22, 28. 23. ἀκούοντες ἦσαν] ‘they were hearing ;’ scil. the members of these Churches; see Winer, Gr. § 67. 1, p. 555, This periphrasis, which probably owes its prevalence in the New Testa- 42 . GALATIANS. Cuap. I. 23, 24.—IL. t. ἦσαν ὅτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτὲ νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρδει: * καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν Θεόν. When I went up to Jeru- salem, I communicated Il. "ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν my Gospel both in public and private: I resisted the fulse brethren, and was accredited by the Apostles. ment to the similar formula in Aramaic ’ to Tess (con -α32..) serves exp the idea of duration more distinctly than the simple tense; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 5, p. 311. In the LXX it seems principally limited to those cases in which the participle is used in the original; see Thiersch, de Pent. ui. 11, p. 113. Examples are found in Attic Greek (see Jelf, Gr. § 375. 4), but com- monly under the limitation that the participle expresses some property or quality inherent in the subject; see Stalbaum, Plato, Rep. v1. 492 a. ὅτι ὁ διώκων κ. τ. A.) ‘our former persecutor ; the participle being here, by means of the art., turned into a species of subst., and losing all temporal forse; see the exx. collected by Winer, Gr. § 57, p. 317, and comp. the very bold form, τὸν ἑαυτῆς ἔχοντα, Plato, Phedr. 244, 8, cited by Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 22. obs. p. 316. Ὅτι 1s here not the “ ὅτι recititavum’ (Schott), —a use of the particle not found in St. Paul's Epp., except in citations from the O. T. (Mey.),— but preserves. its usual relatival force, the ‘oratio indi- recta’ which it introduces, passing after- wards into the ‘oratio directa’ in the pronoun, This latter assumption Mey. deems unnecessary, as St. Paul might call himself, being now a Christian, ‘our former persecutor.’ This, however, seems forced and artificial. Thy πίστιν) ‘the faith,’ objectively repre- sented as a rule of life (De W.); comp. ch. iii. 23, 1 Tim. i. 19, iv. 1, al. In the Eccles. writers πίστις is frequently used in the more distinctly objective sense, ‘the Christian doctrine,’ ‘ doc- trina fidem postulans’ (e. g., Ignat. Eph. § 16, πίστιν Θεοῦ ἐν κακῇ διδασκα- ὁ MG φϑείρῃ ; Concil. Laod. can. 46, πίσ- τιν ἐκμανϑάνειν ; see Suicer, Thes. 8. v. πίστις, 2. a), but it seems very doubtful whether this sense ever occurs in the N.T. In Acts vi. 7, ὑπακούειν τῇ aio) vet seems certainly very similar to ὑπα- κούειν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, Rom. x. 16 (see Fritz. Vol. 1. 17), but even there ‘the faith,’ as the inward and outward rule of life (see Meyer in loc.), yields a very satisfactory meaning. On the various uses of πίστις, see Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 2, Ὁ. 91 sq. 24. ἐν ἐμο ‘in me,’ not ‘on account of me’ (Brown), or ‘for what he had done in me’ (Jowett), but simply ‘in me’ Vulg., Clarom.), ‘ut qui in me in- venissent celebrationis materiam,’ Winer in loc.: comp. Exod. xiv. 4, ἐνδοξασϑή- coun ev Φαραῷ. God, as Windisch. ob- serves, was working in St. Paul, and so was praised in him. The prep., in such cases as the present, points to the object as being as it were the sphere in which (Eph. i. 17), or the substratum on which (1 Cor. vii. 14, see Winer, Gr. p. 345; compare Andoc, de Myster. p. 33, ed. Schiller) the action takes place. The transition from this to the common usagé of ἐν in the sense of ‘ dependence on,’ is easy and obvious; see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez, 8. v. A. 2. Ὁ, Vol. 1. p. 909, and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8. b. p. 210. Cuarter IL. 1. διὰ δεκατεσσά- ρων ἐτῶν] ‘after an interval of,’ ‘post,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Armen. ; δεκατεσσάρων παρελϑόντων ἐτῶν, Chrys. : comp. Acts xxiv. 17, δι᾿ ἐτῶν πλειόνων. The meaning of the prep. has here been unduly pressed to suit preconceived his- Crap. II. 1, 2. ἀνέβην εἰς “Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Τίτον" torical views. Διά, in its temporal sense, denotes an action enduring through and out of a period of time; and may thus be translated during, or after, according as the nature of the action makes the idea of duration through the whole of the period (Heb. ii. 15, διὰ παντὸς τοῦ Gjv), or occurrence at the end of the period most prominent. Thus διὰ πολ- Aod χρόνου σε ἑώρακα is correctly ex- plained by Fritz. 163, note), ‘longo temporis spatio de- curso (quo te non vidi) te vidi;’ comp. Herm. on Vig. No. 377, b. This is the correct use of διά. There are, however, (Fritzsch. Opuse. p. a few indisputable instances of a more lax use of the prep. in the N. T., to de note an action which took place within, not during the whole of a period; e. g. Acts v 19, διὰ τῆς νυκτὸς ἤνοιξε, where both the tense and the occurrence preclude the possibility of its being ‘throughout the night’ (contr. Meyer), — so also Acts xvi. 9—xvii. 10 is perhaps doubtful; see Fritz. Opuse. p. 155, Winer, Gr. § 57. i. p. 337. Grammatical considcrations, then, alone are not sufficient to justify Dr. Peile’s paraphrase, ‘not till after ;’ but on exegetical grounds it may be fairly urged that the mention of four- teen years, thus undefined by a termi- nus ad quem as well as a quo, would be singularly at variance with the circum- stantial nature of the narrative. (With regard to the great historical difficulties in which the passage is involved, it can here only briefly be said; (1) The terminus @ guo of the fourteen years, being purely a subjective epoch, does certainly seem that time which must have ever been present to the Apostle’s thoughts, —the time of his conversion (Anger, Wieseler) ; especially as the ἔτη 18, appear (2) Exegetical as well as grammatical τρία, ch. i so reckoned. GALATIANS. 43 Βαρνάβα, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ > ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν, καὶ ἀνεδέμην αὐτοῖς (πάλιν) considerations seem to show it was St. Paul’s second journey ; — for how, when misconstruction was so _pos- sible, could it be passed over? and how can St. Peter’s conduct be explained ἢ But (3) chronolog. arguments, based on historical coincidences, make it impos- sible to doubt that Ireneeus (Her. 11. 13) and Theodorct (ἐγ) doc.) are right in supposing this the journey mentioned Acts xv., and therefore, according to St. Luke’s account, the third. In a com- mentary of this nature it is impossible to allude to the various efforts (even to the invalidaion of an unquestionable text) to reconcile (2) and (3): it may he enongh to say that both chronological and historical deductions seem so certain, that (2) must give way: see the sensi- ble explanation and remarks of Thiersch. Apost. Age, Vol. τ. p. 120 sq. (Transl.). A complete discussion will be found in the chronological works of Anger and Wieseler, Davidson, Introd. Vol. τι. p. 112 sq., Winer, RWB. Art. ‘ Paulus,’ Conyb. and Howson, Sé. Paui, ch. vii.: see also Meyer tm Joc., Alford, Vol. 1. Prolegom. p. 26 συμπαραλ- αβὼν καὶ Titor] ‘having taken with me also Titus ;’ the ascensive καὶ per- haps alluding to his being uncircum- cised; comp. Acts xv. 2, Παῦλον καὶ Βαρνάβαν καὶ τινας ἄλλου ς ἐξ αὐτῶν. St. Paul was now the principal person (συμπαραλα Bay); at the preceding (sec- ond) visit Barnabas seems to have taken the lead ; see Meyer in Joc. 2. ἀνέβην δέ] “1 went up too,’ δὲ haying its ‘vim exponendi’ (Fritz. 2 loc.), or, aS We might perhaps more ex- actly say, its reiterative force (Klotz, Devar, Vol. 1. p. 361, Hartung, Par- tik. δέ, 2. 7, Vol. τ. p. 168), and repeat- ing, not without a slight opposition, the preceding ἀνέβην. The native force of 44 GALATIANS. Cuap. 11, 2. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ESvecw, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς the particle may just be traced in the faint contrast which the explanation and introduction of fresh particulars give rise to. κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν] ‘by, scil. in accordance with, revelation, — not for my own purposes ;’ κατὰ as usual implying the rule, the ‘ norman agendi ν᾿ see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20. Ὁ, p 239, 241. IIermann’s translation ‘ explica- tionis causi" must, on exegetical, and perhaps even on grammatical grounds (see Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 169), certainly be rejected. For (1) ἀποκάλυψις is never used in this lower sense, either by St. Paul or any other of the sacred writers ; and (2) the current of the Apostle’s argument is totally at variance with such an explanation, Tis object is here to show that his visit to Jerusalem was not to satisfy any doubts of his own, nor even any suggestions of his converts, but in obedience to the command of God. The objection, that the current transla- tion would require κατά τινα ἀποκάλυψιν (Herm.), may be neutralized by the ob- servation that κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν 18 in effect uscd nearly adverbially ; see Eyh iii. 3. ἀν εὖ ἐμη ν)] “1 communicated ;* * contuli cum eis,’ Vulg., Clarom., compare Syr. {patefeci] ; ‘ enarravi,’ Fritz. ; ‘ipsa col- latio unam doctrine speciem exclusa omni varietate monstrabat,’ Beza. The meaning assigned by Green (Gramm. N. T. p. 82) ‘to leave altogether in the hands of, or at the pleasure of another,’ is more than doubtful; in the only other place in the N. T. where the word oc- curs, Acts xxv. 4. τῷ βασιλεῖ ἀνέϑετο τὰ κατὰ τὺν Παῦλον, the meaning is clearly, 866 Fritz. Opuse. p. 169, and the exx. in Wetst. an loc, αὐτοῖς] ‘to them,’ scil. to the inhabitants of Ιεροσόλυμα (ver. 1), or rather (as the sense obviously requires a certain limitation), to the Christians residing there, —‘ Christianis gregariis’ as here, ‘communicated :’ (Fritz.), as opp. to τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, the Apostles; comp. Matth. xii. 15, Luke v. 17, and see Winer, Gr. § 22. 3. 1, p. 131, Bernhardy, Synt. vt, 11. Ὁ, p. 288. The reference to the Apostles collectively (Schott, Olsh.), or to the Elders of the Church, is not by any means pro!able. κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ὃ €] ‘but privately,’ i.e. in a private conference ; comp. Mark iv. 34 ; the Apostle communicated his εὐαγγέλιον to the Christians at Jerusalem openly and unreservedly, but κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (between me rg Ὁ σν (OTRO aleaD, Syr.) en- tered probably more into its doctrinal aspects; compare Theod. im loc. The meaning assigned to δὲ (‘I mean’) by Alf., who appy. denies any second and and them, separate communication, seems here very doubtful (see ver 4), and that to κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (‘ preferably,’ ‘specially,’) by Olsh., distinctly untenable, as κατ᾽ ἰδίαν occurs sixteen times in the N. Τ᾿, and in all cases is used in a directly, or (as here) indirectly local sense; see Mark ix. 28, xiii. 3, Luke x. 23, etc., and compare Neand. Plant. Vol. 1. p. 104. (Bohn). τοῖς δοκοῦσιν) ‘to those who were high in reputation,’ Scholef. Iints, p. 88; see Eurip. Hec. 292 (where οἱ δο- κοῦντες is Opp. to οἱ ἀδοξοῦντες). and the exx. collected by Kypke and Elsner, esp. Eur. Troad. 608, and Herodian, vi. 1, τοὺς δυκοῦντας καὶ ἡλικίᾳ σεμνοτά- tovs,— in all of which οἱ δοκ. appears simply equivalent to ἐπίσημοι (Theod.). There is not then, as Olsh. conceives, any shade of blame or irony (Alf.) in the expression, but as Chrys. correctly observes, "τοῖς δοκοῦσι, φησί, μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῆν κοινὴν ἁπάντων λέγων ψῆφον : see CEcum. in loc. μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω, ἢ ἐδραμον) ‘lest I might be running, or have (al- ready) run in vain;’ t, e. ‘lest I might lose my past or present labor’ (Hamm.), σα. ΤΙΝ. 8. 3: GALATIANS. 45 δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω, ἢ ἔδραμον. ὃ ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, “Ἕλλην ὦν, by leaving others to deem that it was fruitless and unaccredited. This passage presents combined grammatical and exe- getical difficulties, both of which must be briefly noticed, (a) τρέχω. By comparing the very similar passage 1 Thess. iii. 5, μήπως ἐπείρασεν ... καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται κ. τ. Δ.» it would certainly seem that τρέχω is pres. subj. (see Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p 448, where both passages are investigated); but there is a diffi- culty both in mood and tense. The former may be explained away by the observable tendency of the New Testa- ment and later writers to lapse from the optat. into the subjunct. (Winer, § 41. Ὁ. 1, p. 258, Green, Gr. p- 72); the latter, either by considering τρέχω a ‘then- present,’ opp. to ἔδραμον, a ‘then-past,’ or as pointing to the continuance of the action. (8) μή πως then, is not num forte (an opinion formerly held by Fritzsche, and still by Green, p. 82, but well refuted by Dr. Peile), but ne forte. (y) ἔδραμον may be explained in two ways; either (with Fritz.) as an indic, after a non-realized etc. hypoth. (Herm. de Partic. ἄν, 1. 10, p. 54); — a structure at which, strange to say, Hilgenf. seems to stumble, — or indic. after μήπως (fear- ing lest), the change of mood implying that the event apprehended had now taken place; see Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p. 446: compare Scheuerl. Synt. § 34. a. p- 364, Matth. Gr. § 520. 8. We have then two possible translations ; (1) Purpose ; avedeunv... μήπως ἔδραμον, 1 communicated .. . that I might not per- chance have run in vain (as I should have done if I had not, ete.) (2) Appre- hension; aveSéunv.. . (φοβούμενος) μή- πως ἔδραμον, I communicated . . being ap- prehensive lest perchance I might really have, ete.; the verb ‘timendi’ being idiomatically omitted; see Gayler, de HvayKaa sn περιτμηϑῆναι: Part. Neg. p. 327, Schmalfeld, Syné. § 152. Of these (2) seems most in ac- cordance with St. Paul’s style; see 1 Thess. 7. c-, and ch. iv. 11. To both translations, however, there are very grave objections; to (1) on logical, to (2) on exegetical grounds: to (1), because it was not on the communica- tion or non-communication of his Gos- pel that St. Paul’s running in vain really hinged, but on the assent or dis- sent of the Apostles: to (2), because it is incredible that he who went up κατ᾽ ἀποκάλυψιν could have felt any doubt about his own course. To escape these difficulties we must adopt one of two explanations (neither wholly free from objections) ; either we must refer the words, objectively, to the danger St. Paul’s converts might have run of be- ing rejected by the Church if he had not communicated; or (which is most probable), subjectively, with the Greek commentators, to the opinions of others ; ἵνα διδάξω τοὺς ταῦτα ὑποπτεύοντας ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κενὸν τρέχω, Chrys.; see Ham- mond: ἐπ Joc. If others deemed St. Paul's past and present course fruit- less, it really must in that respect have amounted to a loss of past and present labor. 8. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ] ‘But (to distinctly prove, ἃ fortiori, that I had not run in vain) not even,’ etc. The emphasis rests on Titos,— Titus, whom the apostles might have required to be circumcised, even while in general terms they ap- proved of St. Paul’s preaching. On this gradational force of ἀλλ᾽ οὐδέ (‘at ne— quidem,’ ‘indicant, silenti y/ blit- terata re leviore, afferri graviorem’), sce Fritz. 7m Joc. (Opuse. p. 178), and comp. Luke xxiii, 15, Acts xix. 2. The true separative force of ἀλλὰ (‘aliud jam esse quod sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. 46 ‘GALATIANS. Cuar. IL. 3, 4. * διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες maperot Sov κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευδερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, Vol. m. p. 2) is here distinctly apparent. “EAAnyv Gv) ‘being a Greek’ scil. in- asmuch as, or though he was a Greek,’ καίτοι “EAAny &v, Theodoret; not ‘and was a Greek,’ Alf., the appended parti- cipial clause not being predicative, but concessive, or suggestive of the reason why the demand was made; compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 305, Gr. 492 sq. jvaykdadn]) ‘was compelled.’ The choice of this word seems clearly to imply that the circumcision of Titus was strongly pressed on St. Paul and St. Barnabas; see Baur, Paulus, p. 121. It does not, however, by any means ap- pear that the Apostles were party to it; in fact, if we assume the identity of this journey with the third, the language of Acts xv. 5 seems distinctly to imply the contrary. 4, διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφου 5] ‘and that, or now it was, because of the false brethren insid- iously brought in,’ scil. οὐκ ἠναγκάσϑη περιτμηϑῆναι ; explanatory statement (δὲ explicative; see below) why Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, viz., because the ψευδάδελφοι were making it a party matter. The construction is not perfectly perspicuous, but it does not appear necessary either to regard it as a positive anacoluthon (Rink, Lueubdr. Crit. p. 171, Hilgenf. in loc.), or an anacol. arising from two blended ‘con- structions (Winer, Gr. § 63, p. 502, still less a connection of ver. 4 with ver. 2 (Bagge, al.). The difficulty, as the Greek expositors seem to have felt, is really in the δέ this, however, is neither περιττός (Theod. compare Theod, M.), nor equivalent to οὐδέ (compare Chrys., Theoph., Gicum.), but simply explica- tive (‘declarat et intendit,’ Beng ), and faintly ratiocinative; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u. p. 362. Alford comp. δέ, ver. 2, but the uses seem clearly different; there the insertion of αὐτοῖς naturally suggests a contrast, while here the naked statement οὐκ ἤναγκ. περιτμ. as naturally prepares us for a restrictive explanation. παρεισάκτου 9] ‘insidiously brought in,’ Scholef. This word appears to have two meanings, (α) advena, adven- titius, ἀλλότριος (Iesych., Suid., Phot.) ; comp. Georg. Al. Vit. Chrys. 40 (cited by Hase, Steph. Thes. Vol. vii. p. 187). παρείσακτε τῆς πόλεως ἡμῶν ; (B) irrep- titius ; compare Prol. Sirach, πρόλογος παρείσακτος, ---- ἃ meaning still further enhanced by rapeto7ASov; compare 2 Pet. ii. 1, Jude 4. ‘The compound ψευδάδελφοι designates those -vho did not acknowledge the great principle of faith in Christ being the only means of sal- vation (Neander, Plant. Vol. τι. p. 114, Bohn), while their intrusive character is well marked by the compounds πα- ρεισῆλδον and παρεισάκτους ; compare Polyb. Hist. τ. 18, 3, παρεισάγεσϑαι καὶ παρεισπίπτειν εἰς τὰς πολιορκουμένας πό- Aes. οἵτιν ε5] ‘men who, ‘a set of men who,’ —not simply equiva- lent to of (Ust.). but specifying the class to which they belonged; see Matth, Gr. § 483, Jelf, Gr. § 816, and notes on ch. iv. 24, where the uses of ὅστις are more fully discussed. The translation of Fritz., ‘quippe qui’ (comp. Herm. Gd. R. 688), is here unduly strong; even in classical Greek, what is commonly termed a causal, may be more correctly considered an ex- plicative sense; see Ellendt, Lex. Soph, s. v. 3, Vol. τι. p. 383. This, too, is the prevailing sense in the later writers; see Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. > - κατασκοπῆσαι "0 8}ὺ out,’ 5 ἢ σα! ‘to spy out, Cade Ls [ut explorarent] Syr., ‘explorare,’ Vulg. ; not ‘ut dolose eripiant libertatem Chris- tianam,’ (Dindorf, Steph. Thes. 8. vy, Cuar. II. 5, 6. GALATIANS. 41 ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν: ὅ οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑπο- Tay), ἵνα ἡ ἀλήδεια τοῦ εὐωγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ° ἀπὸ 5. οἷς οὐδέ] These words are omitted by the first hand of D (Tisch. Cod. Cla- rom. p. 568) E; Irenzeus (p. 200, ed. Bened.), and, according to Jerome, in some Latin manuscripts : ‘Tertullian and Ambrose appear only to have rejected the rela- tive; see adv. Marc. v. 3. It is obvious that such an omission would greatly simplify the structure, but this very fact in a critical point of view makes it sus- picious. When to this we add the immense preponderance of external authority, we can entertain but little doubt that οἷς οὐδέ is genuine; see Bagge im loc., who has well discussed this reading. Ὁ Vol. rv. p. 1232), κατασκοπ. being here used in the same (hostile) sense as κα- τασκοπεῦσαι, Josh. ii. 2; ὁρᾶς πῶς καὶ τῇ τῶν κατασκόπων προσηγορίᾳ ἐδήλωσε τὸν πόλεμον ἐκείνων, Chrys. ἐν Χριστῷ] Not ‘per Christum,’ ἃ mean- ing it may bear (Fritz. p. 184) but in the fuller and deeper sense ‘in Christ,’ see notes on ver. 17. ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν) ‘that they may succeed in enslaving us ;’ the tense point- ing to the result, the compound to the completeness of the act; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20. Although this reading is con- firmed by a decided preponderance of uncial authority [ABCDE], and the improbability of a correction very great, still the instances of ἵνα with a future are so very few (Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 169), and these, too, so reducible in number (Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 631), that we are not justified in saying more than this, that the future appears used to convey the idea of duration (Winer), or perhaps, rather, of issue, sequence (Schmalfeld, Synt. § 142; comp. Alf.), more distinctly than the more usual aorist subj. Though excessively doubt- ful in classical writers (Herm. Partie. ἄν, τι. 18, p. 134), a few instances are found in later authors; see Winer, Gr. § 41, Ὁ. 1, p. 249. 5. τῇ ὑποταγῇ) ‘by yielding them the subjection they claimed ;’ dative of manner; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 7. p. 194, comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. 6, p. 180. The article is not merely the article with abstract nouns (Green, Gr. p. 146), but is used to specify the obedience which the false brethren (not the Apostles, Fritz.) demanded in this particular case, ἡ ἀλήϑεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου) ‘the truth of the Gospel; the true teaching of the Gospel, as opposed to the false teaching of it as propagated by Juda- izets, ὦ, e., as in verse 16, the doctrine of justification by faith. The distinc- tion drawn by Winer (Gr. § 34. 3, p. 211) between such expressions as the present, — where the governing noun is a distinct element pertaining to the gov- erned, and such as πλούτου ἀδηλότης, 1 Tim. vi. 17, καινότης ζωῆς, Rom. vi. 4,— where it is more a rhetorically expressed attribute, though denied by Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 368, seems per- fectly just. A doctrinal import is con- tained in ἡ ἀλήϑεια Tod edayy., Which is entirely lost by explaining it as merely τὸ GANSES εὐαγγέλιον. διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶϑ] ‘might remain steadfast with you,’ ‘permaneat{-eret]’ Vulg., Clarom. ; the διὰ obviously being inten- sive, asin Heb. 1. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 4; comp. Chrys. βαιώσωμεν. on ch, i. 18. 6. ἀπὸ δὲτῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι κι τ. λ.] ‘But from those who were high in reputation ;’ —interrupted de- claration of his independence of the of The meaning of this verse , a... τοῦτο διὰ τῶν ἔργων Be- πρὸς buas] See δοκοῦντες. 48 GALATIANS, Cuap. IT. 6. δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι τι (ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει" πρόσωπον Θεὸς ἀνὰ ρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει) ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες is perfectly clear, but the structure ‘is somewhat difficult. According to the common explanation, ἀπὸ---εἶναί τι is a sentence that would naturally have ter- minated with οὐδὲν ἔλαβον or προσελα- Bouny (not ἐδιδάχϑην, Winer, § 47. p. 331), or more correctly still, οὐδέν μοι προσανετέδη; Owing, however, to the purenthesis ὁποῖοι ---- λαμβάνει, the natu- ral structure is interrupted, and the sen- tence, commenced passively, is concluded actively with ἐμοὶ yap x. τ. A.; see Winer, Gr. § 63.1, 1, p. 502. The real diffi- culty of the sentence, however, lies in the following ydp. That it is (a) merely resumptive, Scholef. (Hints, p 74), Peile, al,, is indemonstrable; as, of the pas- sages usually cited in favor of this force, viz. Acts xvii. 28, 1 Cor. ix. 19, 2 Cor. v. 4, Rom xv, 27, the first three are clearly instances of the argumentative force (see Winer, Gr. § 53. 10. 8, p 403, Meyer on Cor. ll.ce.), while in the fourth the words εὐδόκησαν yap are merely emphatically repeated. That it is (d) argumentative, either as giving a reason for οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει κ. τ. A. (ATf.), or for πρόσωπον Θεὸς x. τ. A. (Mey.), is logically and contextually improbable, as parenthetical and non-parenthetical parts would thus be confused and inter- mingled. If, however, yap be regarded as (6) explicative, the whole seems clear and logical. To avoid the words δοκούν- των εἶναί τι being misunderstood, and supposed to assign an undue preémi- nence to these Apostles, St Paul hastily introduces the parenthetical comment, leaving the former sentence incomplete : then, feeling that its meaning was still so far obvious as to need some justifica- tion, he reverts to it, slightly qualifving it by the emphatic ἐμοί, slightly justify- ing it by the explicative ydp, ‘to me (whatever they might have done for others) it is certainly a fact that,’ ete. On this explicative force of γάρ, see Donalds. Gr, § 618, Klotz, Devar. Vol. uu. p 233 sq., Hartung, Partk. γάρ § 2, and comp. Liicke, John iv. 44. Of the other inverpretations of this difficult passage, none appear to deserve special notice except that of the Greek writers (Chrys.. however, is silent, and Theod. has here a lacuna), who connect ἀπὸ τῶν δοκούντων immediately with οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει in the sense of οὐδεμία μοι φρον- τὶς περὶ τῶν Box. (Theoph.), but thus assign an untenable meaning to ἀπό, and dislocate the almost certain connection of ὁποῖοί ποτ᾽ ἦσαν with what follows. Further details will be found in Meyer, De Wette, and Fritzsche (Opuse. p 201 sq-). The Vv. are for the most part perplexingly literal (comp. Vulg.); the Syr., however, by its change of γὰρ into n~ —? seems certainly in accordance with the general view adopted above, τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι] ‘whowere deemed to be somewhat, te A.s0%09 [qui reputati erant] Syr., ‘qui videban- tur,’ Vulg ; used with reference to the judgment of others (contrast ch. vi. 2), and so, perfectly similar in meaning to τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, ver. 2; comp. Plato, Gorg. 572 a, ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ Box. εἶναί τι; Euthyd. 803 ο, τῶν σεμνῶν καὶ Box. τι εἶναι. ὁπυῖοί ποτε] ‘qual- escumque ;’ ποτε not being temporal, ‘olim,’ Beza (perhaps suggested by the ‘aliquando’ of Vulg.), but connected with ὁποῖοι. which it serves to render more general and inclusive; compare Demosth. Or. de Pace, tv. 15 (p. 60), ὁποία ποτ᾽ ἐστὶν αὕτη, cited by Bloomf. and Fritz. in. loc. ἦσαν may certainly refer to the period of the Apostles’ lives when they were uncon- Cnap. II. 6, 7. οὐδὲν προσανέδεντο, GALATIANS. 49 " ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι ΄πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας Kaas Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς verted, or when they were in attendance on our Lord (a view strongly supported by Hilgenf.) ; it seems, however, far more natural to refer fhe tense to a past, relative to the time of writing the words. οὐδέν μοι διαφ.] “ἐξ maketh no mat- ter to me.’ For examples of this less usual, but fully defensible insertion of the dative, see Lobeck, Phryn. Ὁ. 884, and comp. Wetst. ἐγ) oc. πρόσωπον Θεὸς κ. τ. λ.] ‘God ac- cepteth no man’s person’— πρόσωπον put forward with emphasis, while ϑεὸς and ἀνϑρ. form a suggestive contrast (Mcy.) ; ‘God looketh not to the outward as men do, and judgeth on no partial prin- ciples, and no more did I his servant,’ This and the equiv. expression βλέπειν eis πρόσωπ. ἄνϑρ. are in the N. T. al- ways used with a bad reference; see Matth. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 14, Luke xx. 21. The corresponding expression in the O. T. oo: xv (translated some- times ϑαυμάζειν πρόσωπον ; comp. Jude 16) is used occasionally in a good sense; see Gen. xix. 21, and comp. Fritz. and Schott in Zoe. προσανέϑεντο] ‘communicated nothing,’ ‘addressed no communication to ;’ *contulerunt,’ Vulg., Clarom., and more distinctly ‘dixerunt,’ Auth.-Pol. ‘notum fecerunt,’ Arm.; as in ch. i. 16. In spite of the authority of the Greek expositors (udSovres τὰ ἐμὰ οὐδὲν προσέϑηκαν, οὐδὲν διώρϑωσαν, Chrys.), and appy of Syr. (a2.90] 4 adjecerunt), Copt. [owowah.], Goth. (* an- ainsokun’), al., it still seems more safe to retain the same meaning in both pas- sages. There is weight in the argument urged in ed. 1 (see, too, Wieseler, Chro- nol. p. 195 note), that προσανέϑ. here may seem to specify addition, as in con- trast with aveSéuny ver. 2, still the ten- dency of later Greek to compound forms ἤ (compare notes on ch, iii. 13), and the perfect parallelism of this with the sim- ilarly negative formula in ch. i, 16, are tacit arguments which seem slightly to preponderate. In the passage commonly referred to (Xen. Mem. τι. 1. 8), προσαναϑέσϑαι merely implies ‘etiam sibi adjungere, scil. suscipere’ (see Kiihner im Joc.), and so proves nothing, except that Bretschn.; Olsh., Riick., al., must be incorrect in trans- lating ‘ nihil mihi preeterea imposuerunt,” as this expresses a directly opposite idea. Under any circumstances, there is noth- ing either in this word, or in the whole paragraph, to substantiate the extraor- dinary position of Baur, that the Apos- tles only yielded to St. Paul’s views after a long struggle, 7. ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον] ‘but on the contrary ;’ scil. so far from giving in- structions to me, they practically added the weight of their approval: τὸ évay- τίον τοῦ μέμψασϑαι τὸ ἐπαινέσαι, Chrys. Surely this was not exactly leaving St. Paul ‘to fight his own battle,’ Jowett, Alf. πεπίστευμαι) The prin- cipal instances in the New Testament of this well-known structure will be found, Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p. 204. On the use of the perfect as indicating per- manence, duration, *concreditum mihi habeo,’ see ib. § 40. 4, p. 242. Usteri calls attention to the accurate use of the perf. here, compared with the aorist in Rom, iii 2, ἐπιστεύϑησαν (᾿Ἰουδαίοι) τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ. τῆς ἄκρο- βυστίαΞ] ‘of the uncircumeision,’ 501]. πῶν ἀκροβύστων ; οὐ τὰ πράγματα λέγων αὐτά ἀλλὰ τὰ ἀπὸ τούτων γνωριζόμενα ἔϑνη, Chrys. ; comp. Rom. iii. 30, The derivation of ἄκροβ. (not ἄκρον, Bbw, but an Alexandrian corruption of ἀκροποσ- Sta) is discussed by Fritzsche, Rom. ii. 26, Vol. 1. p. 186. καδὼς Πέ- δ0 GALATIANS. Cuapr. IL. 8, 9. * (ἁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ els ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν κἀμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔδνη), * καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοϑεῖσάν μοι, ᾿Ιάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξ- Tpos k. τ. λ.}] ‘even as Peter was of the St. Peter here appears as the representative of the ‘ Judenapostel ’ (Meyer; comp. Grot.), on the principle that ‘a potiori fit denominatio;’ for though originally chosen out as the first preacher to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7), his subsequent labors appear to have been more among Jews; compare 1 Pet. ὰ ἥν On the use of καϑώς, see notes on ch, iii. 6, and on its most suitable translation, compare notes on 1 Thess. i. ὃ ( Transi.). 8. ὁ yap evepy. x. τ. A.) ‘For He who wrought (effectually) for Peter,’ Le Ew Syr., ‘Petro,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; not ‘in Petro,’ Grot.; historical con- firmation of what precedes, added paren- thetically. There are four constructions of évepyéw in St. Paul’s Epp. ; (a) évep- yew τι, 1 Cor. xii. 11; (b) ἐνεργέω ἔν “τινι, Eph. ii. 2; (6) ἐνεργέω τι ἔν τινι, ch. iii. 5; (4) ἐνεργέω τινι εἴς τι, here; comp. Prov. xxxi. 12. In this latter «case the dative is not governed by évep- -yéw, as the verb is not a pure compound [there is no form épyéw], but is the dat. commodi, Ὁ évepyhoas, it may be observed, is not Christ (Chrys., Aug.), but God (Jerome); for, in the first place, St. Paul always speaks of his Apostleship as given by God (Rom. xy. 15, 1 Cor. xv. 10, Eph. iii. 2) through Christ (Rom. i. 5; compare ib. xv. 18, and ch. i. 1); and secondly, this ἐνεργεῖν is distinctly ascribed to God, 1 Cor. xii. 6, Phil. ii. 13. els ἀποστο- Anv]| ‘for or towards the Apostleship,’ z. e. for the successful performance of it (Hamm.), not merely ‘in respect of it’ (Mey.), — a meaning lexically admissi- ‘ble both in classical writers (Rost ἃ. circumcision.’ Palm, Lez. 8. v. els, v. 2, Vol. 1. p. 804), and in the N. Τὶ (Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354) but here contextually insufficient, as the sense seems almost obviously to require the more definite notion of pur- pose, or contemplated object ; compare 2 Cor. ii. 12, εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (to preach the Gospel), Col. i. 29. The second εἰς is joined with τὰ ἔϑνη by what is called ‘comparatio compendiaria,’ Jelf, Gr. § 781. 9. καὶ γνόντες] ‘and having be- come aware ;’ continuation of the inter- rupted narrative; ἰδόντες (Ver. 7).... καὶ γνόντες. The former participle ap- pears to refer to the mental impression | produced, when the nature and success of St. Paul’s preaching was brought before them; the latter, to the result of the actual information they derived from him; but see notes ch. iv. 9. "IdxwBo6s| ‘James, the Brother of our Lord (ch. i. 9), Bishop of Jerusalem, —and as such placed first in order in the recital of acts that took place in that Church. TIreneus (Haer. m1. 12, ad fin.) in noticing this subject, uses the strong expression ‘qui circa Jacobum Apostoli;’ see Grabe in loc. The reading Πέτρ. καὶ “Ide. has but weak external support [DEFG; Clarom., Goth., Theod. (4), Greg. Nyss., al.], and on internal grounds is highly sus- picious. of δοκοῦντες κ. τ. λ. ‘who have the reputation of being,’ obs πάντες πανταχοῦ περιφέρουσιν, Chrys. ; δοκέω not being pleonastic, but retaining its usual and proper meaning; see exx, in Winer, Gr. § 65. 7, p. 540. The metaphor is illustrated by Suicer Thes. 8. v. στῦλος, Vol. 1. 1044, Wetst. in loc., and (from Rabbinical writers) by Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. τ. p. 728, 729, Cuap. IL 9, 10. GALATIANS. δ1 ν \ »” > \ \ a las ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ κοινωνίας: ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ éSvn, >? \ \ > \ “- a αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς THY περιτομήν' " μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύω- a \ a an μεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι. The most apposite quotations are per- haps, Clem. Rom. 1. 5, of δικαιότατοι ᾿ στῦλοι, Euseb. Hist. vi. 41, στεῤῥοὶ καὶ μοκάριοι στῦλοι. δεξιὰς. .««κοι- νωνία 5] ‘right hands of fellowship,’ 501]. in the Apostolic office of teaching and preaching; comp. Schulz, Abendm. p. 190 sq. The remark of Fritzs. (Opusc. p. 220, comp. Mey.),— ‘articulum τὰς δεξιὰς τῆς κοινωνίας non desiderabit, qui det. κοιν. dextras sociales, t.e. dex- tras ejusmodi, quibus societas confletur valere reputaverit,’ is scarcely necessary. As δεξιὰς in the phrase δεξιὰς διδόναι (1 Mace. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50) is usually anarthrous, the principle of correlation (Middleton, Gr. Art. m1. 33) causes it to be omitted with kowwvias; compare Winer, Gr. § 18. 2. 6, p. 142. The sep- ‘aration of the gen. from the subst. on which it depends occurs occasionally in St. Paul’s Epistles, and is usually due either to explanatory specification (Phil. ii. 10), correction (1 Thess. ii. 13), em- phasis (1 Tim. iii. 6), or, as appy. here, merely structural reasons, — the natural union of δεξιὰς and ἔδωκαν, and of ἔδω- kay and its dative; comp. Winer, Gr. 30. 3. 2, p. 172. ἵνα ἡμ. εἰς τὰ ἔϑνη)] *that we—to the Gentiles,’ not εὐαγγελιζώμεϑα (Winer, Gr. p. 518), as this verb is not found with εἰς in St. Paul’s Epp. (Mey.), but either simply πορευδῶμεν, or perhaps better ἀπόστο- λοι γενώμεϑα, ‘apostulatu fungeremur,’ Beza. It is scarcely necessary to add that this compact was intended to be rather general than specific, and that the terms ἔϑνη and περιτομὴ have more of a geographical than a merely personal reference. St. Paul knew himself to be the Apostle of the Gentiles (comp, Rom. xi. 13); but this did not prevent him (κατὰ τὸ εἰωϑός, Acts xvii. 2), while in Gentile lands, preaching jirst to the Jews; see Acts xvii. 10, xviii. 5, xix. 8. The insertion of μὲν after ἡμεῖς [with ACDE; more than thirty mss.; Copt., Syr.-Philox. ; Chrys. al.] seems certainly a grammatical insertion. 10. μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν κ. τ. λ. ‘only that we should remember the poor ;’ limiting clause dependent on δεξιὰς ἔδω- kay and expressive of the condition at- tached to the general compact: ‘we were to go to the Gentiles, they to the circumcision, with this stipulation only, that we were not to forget the poor in Judea ;’ comp. Rom. xv. 26, 27, 1 Cor. xvi. 3. There is thus no ellipsis of αἰτοῦντες, παρακαλοῦντες, ΟΣ indeed of any verb; the μόνον carries its own ex- planation ; ‘imperium ipsa voce μόνον adsignificatum, ut id sit quod καὶ παρ- ἠγγειλαν, Fritzsche, Matth. Excurs. 1. p. 839. ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κι το λ.] ‘which very thing I was also forward to do,’ literally ‘ which, namely, this very thing, I was also,’ ete.; αὐτὸ m oO = τοῦτο ( lon #61 Syr.) not being redun- dantly joined with ὅ, ‘ per Hebraismum’ (Riick., B. Crus., and even Conyb.), but simply forming an emphatic epexegesis of the preceding relative; see Winer, Gr. § 22. 4, p. 184. Occasionally in the N. T. (Mark i. 7, vii. 25, Rev. vii. 2 al., and (as might be conceived) not uncommonly in the LXX., there seem to be clear instances of a Hebraistic re- dundancy of the simple αὐτός, but appy. never of this stronger form αὐτὸς οὗτος ; see Winer, Gr. J. c., and comp. Bornem. Schol. Luc. p. ταν. ‘I was forward, “1 evinced omovih;’ with an appended object-infin. ; comp, ἐσπούδασαϊ δῶ When Peter dissembled, I withstood and rebuked him, GALATIANS. Cuapr. I. 11. U"Ore δὲ HASev Κηφᾶς εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν, urging that to observe the law as a justifying principle is to make void the grace of God. Eph. iv. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 17. The aor. is here correctly used, not for the perfect (Conyb.), nor even for the pluperf., nor yet exactly as expressing the habit (com- pare Alf.), — this usage being somewhat doubtful in the N. T. (see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. 1, p. 248, and notes on Eph, i. 3),— but simply an historical fact that belongs to the past, without its being affirméd or denied that it may nvt con- tinue to the present; See Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17, and on 1 Thess. ii. 16. The passages usually adduced (Rom. xv. 27, 1 Cor. xvi. 1 8q., 2 Cor. viii. 1 sq., compare Acts xi. 17 sq., xxiv. 17) illustrate the practice, but not the tense, being subsequent to the probable date of this Epistle, All historical deductions from this passage, except, perhaps, that Barnabas had recently left St. Paul (hence the sing.; see Winer, in loc.), seem very precarious. ll. ὅτε δὲ HASEev Knogas] ‘But when Cephas came,’ ete. Still further proof of the Apostle’s independence by an historical notice of his opposition to, and even reproval of St. Peter’s incon- sistent conduct at Antioch: see some good remarks on this subject in Thiersch. History of Church, Vol. τ. p. 123 sq. (Transl.). The reading Πέτρος ( Rec.) is fairly supported [DEFGJK; Demid., Goth.; mss.; Chrys., al.], but still even in external authority inferior to Κηφᾶς, |Lachm., Tisch., with ABCH; a few iss. ; Syr., Copt., Sahid.; Clem., al.], not to mention the high probability of Πέτρος having been an explanatory change. κατὰ πρόσωπον]Ϊ ‘to the face, Auth. ‘in faciem,’ Vulg., “masbo [in fa- = 4 4 ciem ejus] Syr.,— not ‘coram omnibus, aperto Marte’ (Elsn., Conyb., al.), this being specified in ἔμπροσϑεν πάντων, ver. 14: comp. Acts xxv. 16, and perhaps ib. iii. 13, κατὰ πρόσωπον Πιλάτου, ‘tothe face of Pilate.’ The preposition has here its secondary local meaning, ‘e regione ;’ the primary idea of horizontal direction (Donalds. Gr, § 479) passing naturally into that of local opposition. This may be very clearly traced in the descriptions of the positions of troops, εἴο., by the later military writers; 6. g. Polyb. Hist. 1. 34.5, of κατὰ τοὺς ἐλέφαντας ταχϑέν- τες; ἴδ. ib. 9, οἱ κατὰ τὸ λαιόν; with πρόσωπον, ἰδ. it. 65, 6, χι. 14. 6: see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20, b, p. 240, Do- bree, Advers. Vol. 1. p. 114. The gloss κατὰ σχῆμα (in appearance, — not in reality) adopted by Chrys., Jerome, and several early writers, is wholly un- tenable, and due only to an innocent though mistaken effort to salve’ the authority of St. Peter, appy. first sug- gested by Origen [Strom. Book x.]: see Jerome, Epist. 86-—97, esp. 90, the appy. unanswerable objections of Augus- tine (Epist. 8—19), the sensible remarks of Bede in loc., and for much curious information on the whole subject, Dey- ling, Obs. Sacr. Vol. τι. p. 520: 5ᾳ. (No. 45). ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος iv] ‘because he had been condemned ;’ not ‘reprehensibilis,’ Wulg., nor even ‘reprehensionem incurrerat,’ Winer, but simply ‘reprehensus erat,’ Clarom., Goth., Syr.-Phil. (Syr. paraphrases), al. As this clause has been much encum- bered with glosses, it will be best to notice separately both the meaning of the verb and the force of the participle. (1) Καταγιγνώσκειν (generally with τινός τι, more rarely, τινά τινος) has two prin- cipal meanings ; (a) ‘to note accurately ry usually in a bad sense, 6. 7., ‘ detect,’ Proy. xxviii. 11 (Aquil. ἐξιχνιάσει) ‘think ill of,’ Xen. Mem, τ. 3, 10: (8) ‘to note judicially,’ — either in the lighter sense of accuse (probably 1 John iii. 20; see Crap. II, 11, 12. GALATIANS. 53 \ , > a > “ Ὁ ͵ ’ 5 ‘ κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, OTL κατεγνωσμένος ἣν. Y πρὸ col \ AS - > N is / Ν al 5 a / Tov yap edSety τινας ἀπὸ ‘laxwBov peta τῶν ἐδνῶν συνήσδιεν' μή 4 ε ‘ / ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν Kal ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ Liicke én 06.}, or the graver of condemn (the more usual meaning). (2) The perf. part. pass. cannot be used as a pure verbal adjective. ‘The examples adduced by Elsner zm Zoc. will all bear a different explanation; and even those in which the use of the participle seems to ap- proach that of the Hebrew part. (Gesen. Gr. § 131. 1), such as Rev. xxi. 8 (perf. part.), Jude 12 (aor.), or Heb xii. 18 (pres.), can all be explained grammat- ically ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 307. The only tenable translations, then, are (a) ‘he had been accused,’ or (b) ‘he had been condemned ;’ and of these (6) seems obviously most in accordance with the context and the nature of the case. As St. Peter’s conduct had been condemned, not merely by himself (Alf), but, as seems “more natural, generally by the sounder body of Christians at Antioch, St. Paul, as the representative of the anti-Judaical party, feels himself author- ized to rebuke him, and that too (ver. 14), publicly, 12. τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβον may be connected together, and grammati- cally translated, ‘some of the followers of James;’ see Jelf, Gr. 620. 3, Bern- hardy, Syné. v.12, p. 222. As, how- ever, in the New Testament, this mode of periphrasis (of ἀπὸ κ. 7. A.) appears mainly confined to places (Mark xiii. 22, Acts vi. 9, xxvii. 24, al.), or abstract substantives (Acts xv. 5), it will seem most exact to connect ἀπὸ Ἰακ. with ἐλϑεῖν. So distinctly Ath.-Pol., omit- ting, however, the τινές : the other Vv. mainly preserve the order of the Greek. We certainly cannot deduce from this that they were ‘ sent by James’ (Theoph., Mey., Alf.), for though this use of ἀπὸ does occur (comp. Matth. xxvi. 47 with Mark xv. 43, and see Fritz, Matth. Vol. I. p. 779), yet the common meaning of the prep. in such constructions is Jocal rather than ethical, — separation rather than mission from; compare Knapp, Script. Var. Argum. Ὁ. 510. The men in question probably represented therm- selves as rigid followers of St. James, and are thus briefly noticed as having come ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβου, rather than ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων. συνήσϑιεν]) ‘was eating with them, ὃ. ὁ. again followed that course which in the case of Cor- nelius similarly called forth the censure of of ἐκ περιτομῆς (Acts xiii. 3), but was then nobly vindicated. Of the two following verbs ὑπέστ. and apap. (both governing ἑαυτήν), the first does not mark the secret, the second the open course (Matth.), but simply the snitial . and more completed acts, respectively ; the second was the result of the first, De Wette tn loc. The reading ἦλ- Sev (Lachm.) has insufficient external authority [BDIFG; 2 mss.; Clarom.], and is a not improbable confirmation to the sing. which follows. φο- ‘ fearing,’ he ο > feared, lon ΝΣ δ το [quia timebat]; causal participle explaining the feeling which led to the preceding acts; ‘timens ne culparetur ab illis,’ Treneus, Her. 11. 12 (ad fin.). The Greek commentators [there is a lacuna in Theod.] and others (see Poli Synops. in loc.) have endeavored to modify the application of this word, but without lexical authority. As on a different oc- casion (Matth. xiv. 30),so here again the apostle drew back from a course into which his first and best feelings had hastily led him. ‘Some strongly-ex- Botpevos' ‘ because GALATIANS. Cuap. 11, 13, 14. 54 περιτομῆς ™“ καὶ συνυπεκρίΐδησαν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρνώβας συναπήχϑη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. " ἀλλ᾽ 14. ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς Gs] This order is maintained by ABCFG; 37. 73. 80; Boern., Am., Demid. (three other mss.), Amit.; Or., Phil. (Carp.); many Lat, Ff. (but kal οὐκ Ἴουδ. omitted in Clarom., Sang., Ambrst. Sedul., Agap.): so Lachm., Meyer. Tisch, reads é3v. (75 καὶ οὐκ Ἴουδ., with DEJK ; nearly all mss. ; majority of Vv.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., Theophyl., Gicum., (Rec., Scholz, Alf.) External authority thus appears decidedly in favor of the text, and is but little mollified by internal arguments, for a correction of the perspicuity (é3v. (js) is quite as probable as the assumed one ‘ for elegance.’ (A/f.) . pressed remarks on this subject will be found in South, Serm. xxvu1. Vol. τ. p. 476 (Tegg). 13. συνυπεκρ. αὖτ @] ‘joined with him in dissimulation ;’ result of the bad example, — the secession of the rest of the Jewish Christians at Antioch from social communion with the Gentile con- verts, The meaning of συνυπεκρ. is softened down by Syr. (subjecerunt se cum illo) Clarom. (‘consenserunt cum illo’), al., but without reason ; these very Christians of Antioch were the first who knew and rejoiced at (Acts xv. 31) the practically contrary decision of the Coun- cil. A good ‘prelectio’ on this text will be found in Sanderson, Works, Vol. τύ. p. 44 (ed. Jacobs). bare] ‘so that,’,—as a simple matter of fact. In this form of the consecutive sentence the distinction between ὥστε with the indic. and the infin. can scarcely be maintained in translation. The latter (the odjective form, as it is termed by Schmalfeld), is used when the result is a necessary and logical consequence of what has previously been enunciated; the former, when it is stated by the writer (the subjective form) as a simple and unconditioned fact; see Klotz, De- var, Vol. u. p. 772, and esp, Schmal- feld, Synt. § 155 sq., and Ellendt, Lez. Soph. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 1101 sq., where the uses of this particle are well dis- eussed, Here, for example, St. Paul a@s| It is difficult to imagine notices the lapse of Barnabas as a fact, without implying that it was a neces- sary consequence of the behavior of the others. This distinction, however, is appy. not always observed in the N. T., nor indeed always in classical writers ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 5. 1, p. 269. συναπήχϑη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρί- σει] ‘was carried away with them by their dissimulation,’ scil. into dissimu- lation: ‘cum dativo persone συναπάγ. simul cum aliquo abduci,’ etc., declarat ; cum dativo rei, simul per rem abduci, etc., significat,’ Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 1. p. 88 sq. Σὺν thus refers to the companions in the τὸ ἀπάγεσϑαι; ὑπο- κρίσει to the instrument by which, — not ‘rei ad quam’ (Bretsch., comp. Alf.), a questionable construction even in poetry (Bernhardy, Synt., m1. 12, p. 95),— and, by obvious inference, the state into which they were carried away; see 2 Pet. iii. 17. Fritzsche cites Zosim. Hist. v. 6, καὶ αὐτή δὲ ἡ Σπάρτη συναπή- γετο τῇ κοινῇ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀλώσει κ. τ. λ.: add Clem. Alex. Strom. τ. p. 311, τῇ ἡδονῇ συναπαγόμενος. Ὑπόκρισις is well paraphrased by Wieseler (Chro- nol, p. 197), as ‘a practical denial of their better [spiritual] insight,’ — and (we add) of their better feelings and knowledge; see above, on συνυπεκρ. 14. ὀρϑοποδοῦσιν͵ ‘walk up- rightly ;° an ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the N. T., and very rare elsewhere; Dindorf and Cuap. IT. 14. GALATIANS. 55 Ὁ Ss Φ a ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρδοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήϑειαν τοῦ εὐωγγελίου, 3 a a lal εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσϑεν πάντων Ei σὺ ᾿Ιουδαῖος trrapSwv éS- νικῶς καὶ οὐκ ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶς Shs, πῶς τὰ ἔδνη ἀναγκάζεις ᾿Ιουδαΐξειν; why Tisch. rejected this reading, supported as it is by ABCDEFG; mss. ; major- ity of Vv.; Or., Dam., and Lat. Ff. (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm., De Wette, Meyer, approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 123.) For τί, which scems very much like an interp., the authorities are JK; great majority of mss.; Syr.-Phil., al.; Chrys. Theod., Theophyl., GEcum. (Rec., Tisch.) Jacobs in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. cite a few instances from later writers, 6. 4. Theodor. Stud. p. 308 8, 443 ν, 473 Ὁ, 509 p, 575 ©; but I have not succeeded in verifying the quotations. The mean- ing, however, is sufficiently obvious, and rightly expressed by the ‘ recte ambulare’ of Vulg., Syr., and the best Vv.: comp. ὀρϑόπους (Soph. Antig. 972), the similar verb ὀρϑοτομεῖν, 2 Tim. ii. 15, and notes On the idiomatic use of the present in the narration of a past event, when ‘continuance’ or £ process’ is im- plied, see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. ¢, p. 299, and esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 6, p. 96. πρὸς τὴν ἀλήϑ.] “αο- cording to the truth,’ ὁ. e. ‘according to the rule of;’ the prep. here seeming to mark not so much the aim or direction (Hamm., Mey., Alf.), as the rule or measure of the ὀρϑοποδεῖν ; comp. 2 Cor. in loc. v. 10, κομίσηται, . . .« . πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. h, p. 961, The objection of Meyer, that St. Paul always expresses ‘rule,’ ‘measure,’ etc., after verbs eundi by κατά, not πρός, does not here fully apply ; as motion is much more obscurely expressed in ὀρϑοποδεῖν than περιπατεῖν (St. Paul’s favorite verb of moral motion), which appears in all the instances that Meyer has adduced, viz. Rom. viii. 4, xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 3. ἔμπροσϑεν ‘before all men ;’ *publicum scandalum non pote- rat private curari,’ Jerome; compare Teli vy. 20. The speech which follows (ver. 14—21) is appy. rightly regarded as the substance of what was πάντων) ? said by the Apostle on this important oceasion ; see on ver. 15. ἐϑνι- κῶς (ῇ 5] ‘livest after a Gentile fashion,’ scil. in thy general and habitual way of living. The tense must not be over- pressed. St. Peter was not at that exact moment living ἐϑνικῶς ; his former con- duct, however (μετὰ τῶν ἐδνῶν συνήσ-- Stev, ver. 12), is justly assumed by St.. Paul as his regular and proper course of living (comp. Neand. Planting, Vol. τι. p 83, Bohn), and specified as such to give a greater force to the reproof; see Usteri in loc. ‘constrainest thou ; avayKkacers] not ‘invitas exem- plo,’ Grot., nor even ‘ wouldest thou con- strain,’ Conyb., but simply and plainly ‘cogis,’ Vulg., το Syr., with reference Ὁ to the moral influence and practical constraint (Ilamm., Fell) which the authority and example of an Apostle like St. Peter could not fail to have exercised on the Christians at Antioch. To suppose that the Apostle joined with of ἀπὸ Ἴακ. in actual outward coercion (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198), is neither required by the word (see remarks in Sturz, Lex. Xenoph. Vol. 1. p. 186) nor in any way to be inferred from the con- text. Ἰουδαΐζειν] ‘to Judaize,’ ‘Judaizare, Vulg., Clarom., ‘ iudaivis-. kon,’ Goth.; not merely synonymous with Ἰουδαϊκῶς Civ (Schott, comp. Syr.); but probably a little more definite and’ inclusive, and carrying with it the idea of a more studied imitation and obe-. dience; compare Esth, viii. 17, > 56 GALATIANS. % Cuapr. IL. 15, 16. "ἡμεῖς φύσει ᾿Ιουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐδνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί ™ εἰδότες δὲ 16. πίστεως Χριστοῦ] Tisch. omits Χριστοῦ, with FG; Boern.; Tert. Theod. (1),— but here again on insufficient external authority, and not without the omis- sion seeming to be intentional, to avoid the thrice-repeated Xp. in one verse. In favor of the text are ABCDE; mss.; Clarom., Vulg., al.; Chrys. (2), (Ree., Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., De W.). 15. ἡμεῖς x. τ᾿ A.) ‘We,’ scil ‘you and I, and others like us;’ κοινοποιεῖ τὸ λεγόμενον, Chrys. St. Paul here begins, as Meyer observes, with a concessive Statement: ‘ We, I admit, have this ad- vantage, that by birth we are Jews, not Gentiles, and consequently {καὶ consecu- tive, comp. notes on 1 Thess. iv., 1 and Klotz, Devar, Vol. 1. p. 107) as such, sinners.’ In the very admission, how- ever, there seems a gentle irony; ‘born Jews — yes, and nothing more — sinners of the Jews at best ;’ comp. Stier, Ephes. Vol. 1. p. 257. With regard to the construction, it seems best with [erm. to supply ἐσμὲν to this verse, which thus constitutes a concessive protasis, ver. 16 (εἰδότες δὲ x. τ. A.) Supplying the apo- dosis, It is now scarcely necessary to add, that in sentences of this nature there is no ellipsis of μέν : ‘recte autem ibi non ponitur {μὲν} ubi aut non sequi- tur membrum oppositum, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum constitue- rant, aut loquentes alterius membri op- positionem quicunque de causi non indixerunt,’ Fritz. Rom. x. 19, Vol. τι. p- 423; compare Jelf, Gr. § 770, and Buttmann, Mid. (Excurs. x1.) p. 148. This verse and what follows have been deemed as addressed to the Galatians either directly (Calv. Grot.), or indirectly, in the form of meditative musings (Jow- ett), — but with but little plausibility. The speech seems clearly continued to the end of the chapter (Chrys., Theod., Jerome), and to be the substance of what was said: it is not, however, unnatural also to suppose that it may here be ex- pressed in a slightly altered form, and in a shape calculated to be more intcl- ligible, and more immediately applicable to the Apostle’s present readers. For a paraphrase, see notes to Tyans/., and also Usteri, Lehrb. τι, 1. 2, p. 161. φύσει! ‘dy nature ;’ not merely by habit and custom as the proselytes; ἐκ γένους Kal οὐ προσήλυτοι, Theod. Mops. This passage is important as serving to fix the meaning of φύσις in loci dogmat- ici, such as Eph. ii. 3: see esp, Stier, Ephes. Vol. 1. p. 257. ἁμαρτω- λοί] The point of view from which a Jew must naturally consider them (Eph, ii. 12); perhaps with slight irony (Stier, Red. Jes. Vol. vt. p. 307). That they were so regarded needs no other proof than such expressions as τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοί ; comp. Tobit xiii. 6. 16. εἰδότες δέ] ‘but as we know,’ es? Ἂ ἦτ [quia novimus] Syr.; causal participle (Jelf, Gr. § 697, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207) attached to ἐπιστεύσαμεν, and introducing the apo- dosis to the concessive sentence. sideration seems still to show that of the many explanations of this difficult passage, this is appy. the simplest. Ac- cording to the common interpret., εἰδ, δὲ . ... Χριστοῦ forms an interposed sen- tence between ver. 15 and the latter part of ver, 16; but here δὲ is a serious ob- stacle, as its proper force can only be brought out by supplying although (De W.) to ver. 15, unless, indeed, with Alf. we venture on the somewhat doubtful translation ‘nevertheless,’ or fall back [with AD8K; some Vv.; Greck Ff. (Ree.)] on the still more doubtful omis- Recon- Cnap. II. 16. GALATIANS. 5T ὅτι ov δικαιοῦται ἄνδρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίσ- tews ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐπιστεύ- sion. δικαιοῦται) ‘ts justified,’ ‘Deo probatus redditur ;’ τὸ δικαιοῦσϑαι being in antithesis to τὸ εὑρίσκεσϑαι ἁμαρτωλόν, ver. 17; see Schott ἐγ Joc., where the different meanings of δικαιοῦσ - Sa: are explained with great perspicuity. The broad distinction to be observed is between (a) the absolute use of the verb, whether with regard to God (Luke vii. 29), Christ (1 Tim. iii. 16), or men (Rom. iv. 2, James ii. 21); and (δ) the relative use (‘ratione habita vel contro- versie, cui obnoxius fuerit, vel peccato- rum, que vere commiserit’). In this latter division we must again distinguish between the purely judicial meaning (Matth. xii. 37) and the far wider dog- maticul meaning, which involves the idea not only of forgiveness of past sins (Rom. vi. 7), but also of a spiritual change of heart through the in- working power of faith. See more in Schott zn loc., and in Bull, Harm. Apost. Ch. 1. § 2 (with Grabe’s notes), and on the whole subject consult Homily on Salv. ur. 1, Jackson, Creed, Book iv. 6, 7, Waterland on Justif. Vol. νι. p. 1 sq. and esp. the admirable explanations and distinctions of Hooker, Serm. τι. Vol. ur. p. 609 sq. (ed. Keble). ἔργων νόμου] ‘by the works of the law ;’ as the cause of the δικαιοῦσϑαι ; comp. Bull, Harm. Apost. Ch. 1. καὶ 8, with the notes of Grabe, p. 16 (ed. Burt.). With regard to the exact force of ἐκ, it may be observed that in its primary ethical sense it denotes (a) ογὲς- gin (more immediate, ἀπὸ more remote) ; from which it passes through the inter- mediate ideas of (8) result from, and (y) consequence of, to that of (δ) nearly direct causality (Rost u. Palm, Lew. ἐκ, tv. 1), thus closely approximating to ὑπὸ with a gen. (a common use in 8 26 Es Herod.) and διὰ with a gen. (Fritz, Rom. v. 16, Vol. 1. p. 332). In many cases it is hard to decide between these different shades of meaning, especially in a writer so varied in his use of prepp. as St. Paul: here, however, we are guided both by the context and by the analogy of Scripture. From both it seems clear that ἐκ is here in its simple causal sense ; the whole object of the speech being to show that the works of the law have no ‘causalis évépyeia’ in man’s justification, On the contrary, in the antithetical pas- sage in St. James (ch. 11. 24) just as δικαιοῦσϑαι has a slightly different (more inclusive) meaning (see Hooker, Serm. τι. 20), so also has the prep., — which proportionately recedes from ideas of more direct, to those of more remote causality (causa sine qua non); comp. Hamm., Pract. Catech. p. 78 (A. C. L.). νόμου] Gen. objectt : ‘deeds by which the requisitions of the law are fulfilled,’ “corum prvestationem que lex priecipit’ (Beza),— the tr-n4nn trys of the Rabbinical writers, and the directly antithetical expression to ἁμαρτήματα νόμου, Wisdom ii. 12 (Mey.); see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 167.. The νόμος here, it need scarcely be said, is not merely the ceremonial (Theod., al.), but the whole law, — the Mosaic law in its widest significance; see Fritz. Rom. ut. 20, Vol. 1. p. 179. ἐὰν μή] Two constructions here seem to be blended, οὐ dix. ἄνϑρ. ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, and ov dik. ἄνϑρ. ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως “I. Χ. The two particles, though apparently equivalent in meaning to ἀλλά, never lose their proper exceptive force: sce Fritz. Rom. xiv. 14, Vol. m1. p. 199, and notes on ch. i. 7. διὰ πίσ- τεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] “ὃν faith in or on Jesus Christ ;’ ‘per fidem in Jesu 58 GALATIANS. Crap. IT. 16. σαμεν, iva δικαιωδῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωδήσεται πᾶσα σαρξ. Christo collocatam,’ Rom, iii. 52, Stier (Ephes. Vol. τ. p. 447) explains πίστ. "Ino. Xp. both here and (esp.) ch. iii. 22, in a deeper sense, ‘ faith which belongs to, has its foundation in Christ’ (comp. Mark xi. 22, Ephes. iii. 12), the gen. "Ino. Xp. being the gen. sudjecti. This view may deserve consideration in other places, but here certainly the context and preceding antithesis seem decidedly in favor of the more simple gen. odjecti. It may be observed that διὰ here closely approximates in meaning to ἐκ below, the same idea of causality being (as Meyer suggests) expressed under two general forms, origin and means. We must be careful, then, not to press un- duly the distinction between the prepp. : the antithesis is here not so much be- tween the modes of operation, as between the very nature and essence of the prin- ciples themselves. As to the doctrinal import of διὰ πίστεως, Waterland (on Justif. p. 22) well remarks, that ‘faith is not the mean by which grace is wrought or conferred, but the mean whereby it is accepted or received ;’ it is ‘the only hand,’ as Hooker appropriately says, ‘which putteth on Christ to justifi- cation,’ Serm. τι, 31: consult also Forbes, Consid, Mod. Book 1. 3. 10—13. The order Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is adopted by Lachm., but on external authority [AB ; Aug.] that cannot be deemed sufficient. καὶ ἡμεῖς] ‘we also; *nos etiam quanquam natalibus Judai, legi Mosis obnoxii,’ Schott. ἐπιστεύσα- μεν εἰς Xp. Ἰησ.} ‘put our faith in Jesus Christ ;’ not ‘have become be- lievers,’ Peile, but simply aoristic, the tense pointing to the particular time when this act of faith was first man- ifested; see Windischm. in loc. In the formula πιστεύειν eis with acc., — less usual in St. Paul’s Epp. (Rom. x. 14, i. 29), but very common in St. John, — the preposition retains its proper force, and marks not the mere direc- tion of the belief (or object toward which), but the more strictly theological ideas of union and incorporation with; compare notes on ch. iii. 27, Winer, Gr. § 31. 5, p. 191, and for the various construc- tions of πιστεύω in the New Testament, notes on 1 Tim. i. 17, and Reuss, Théol. Chret. tv. 14, Vol. τι. p. 129. ‘The dis- tinction drawn by Alf. between Xp. "Ina. in this clause and "Ina. Xp. above seems very precarious, esp. in a passage where there is so much diff. of reading. διότι) ‘because that,’ *propter quod, Vulg., jie Syr.; scarcely ‘ for’ (it is an axiom that), Alf.,—for though διότι [properly guam ob rem, and then quoniam] is often used by later writers in a sense little, if at all, differing from ὅτι (see Fritz. Rom. i. 19, Vol. 1. 57), it does not also appear to be interchangeable with ydp, but always to retain some trace of its proper causal force; comp. notes on 1 Thess. ii. 8. The reading is doubtful, The text is supported by CD°8EJK; very many mss., Vv., and Ff., — and is perhaps to be preferred, as ὅτι [Lachm. with ABD!IFG; δ᾽ mss.] seems more probably a correction of the longer διότι, than the reverse. ov δικαιωϑήσεται κ. τ. A. * shall nor be justified,’ ‘non justificabitur om- nis caro,’ Vulg.; Rom. iii. 20, comp. Psalm exliii. 2, οὐ δικαιωϑήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου mas (ay: a somewhat expressive 116- braism (see Ewald, Gr. p. 657), accord- ing to which οὐ is to be closely associated with the verb, and the predication re- garded as comprehensively and em- phatically negative; non-justification is * Oye. IL) 7. GALATIANS. 59 Ve, δὲ ξητοῦντες δικαιωδῆναι ἐν Χριστῳ εὑρέδημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ predicated of all flesh; see Winer, Gr. § 26. 1, p. 155, Vorst, de Hebraismis, Ὁ. 519, Fritz. Rom. iii. 20, Vol. 1. p. 179, and comp. Thol. Bettriége, No. 16, p. 79. The future is here ethical, 7. ὁ. it indicates not so much mere futurity as moral possibility, — and with οὐ, some- thing that neither can nor will ever happen: see esp. Thiersch, de Pent, 111, 11, p. 148 sq., where this and similar uses of the future are well illustrated ; comp. Bernhardy, Syné¢. x. 5, p. 377, Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 261. On the doctrinal distinctions in St. Paul’s Epp. between the pres., perf., and fut. of δικαιοῦσϑαι with πίστις, see Ustcri, Lehrb, 11.1. 1, p. 90; compare Peile, Append. Vol. 11. note p. The order οὐ dix. ἐξ ἔργων vou. (Rec.) is only found in JK; mss.; Goth., al.; Theod. (1), al., and is rejected by all recent critics. 17. εἰ δέ] + But ἐξ, in accordance with these premises of thine, assuming the truth of these thy retrogressive principles ; Theod. tes — inventi sumus ;’ nervosum antithe- ton, Beng. ἐν Χριστῷ] ‘in Christ ;’ not ‘through Christ,’ (Peile), but “ὧν Christ,,—in mystical union with him; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346, note. It is right to notice that this distinction between ἔν tive and διὰ τινος συλλογίζεται τὰ εἰρημένα, ζητοῦντες) ‘queren- « is strongly opposed by Fritz. (Opuse. p. 184, note), and considered merely gram- matically, his objections deserve consid- eration; but here, as only too often (comp. Rom. Vol: 11. p. 82 sq.), he puts out of sight the theological meaning which appears regularly attached to ἐν In the present passage the meaning is practically the same, which- ever translation be adopted; but in the one the deep significance of the formula (union, fellowship, with Christ) is kept in view, in the other it is obscured and Χριστῷ. lost sight οὖ; comp. notes on Eph. i. 3, ii. 6. εὑρέϑημ εν] ‘were found to be, after all our seeking ;’ not either a Hebraism, or a periphrasis of the verb substantive (Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 2). The verb edpiox. has always in the N. T. its proper force, and indicates not merely the existence of a thing, but the man- ifestation or acknowledgment of that existence ; ‘if we are fouhd (deprehendi- tour), in the eyes of God and men, to be sinners ;’ comp. Matth. i. 18, Luke xvii. 18, Acts viii. 40, Rom. vii. 10, al., and see esp. Winer, tn oc., and Gr. § 65. 8, p. 642. also,’ as much as those whom we proudly καὶ αὐτοί] ‘ourselves regard only as Gentiles and sinners. ἄρα] ‘ergone’? ‘are we to say, as we must on such premises?’ ironical and interrogative: — not ἄρα (Chrys., Ust. al.) ; for though in two out of the three passages in which dpa occurs (Luke xviii. 8, Acts viii. 38) it anticipates a negative, and not as here, an affirmative answer, it must still be retained in the present case, as μὴ γένοιτο in St. Paul’s Epp. is never found except after a question. The par- ticle has here probably an zroniead force, ‘are we to say pray,’ ὃ. 6. in effect, ‘we are to say, I suppose,’ see Jelf, Gr. 873. 2. Itis thus not for ap’ ob — at all times a very questionable position, as in most if not all of such cases, it will be found that there is a faint irony or politcly as- sumed hesitation, which seems to have suggested the use of the dubitative dpa, even though it is obvious that an affirm- ative answer is fully expected. ‘he same may be said of ‘ne’ for ‘nonne:’ see «sp. Kiihner, Xen. Mem. ur. 6, and ib. Tuseu/. Disput. τι. 11, 26; compare ἴα]. Plato, Rep. vu. 566 a. The original identity of apa and ἄρα (Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 180) is impugned (appy.with doubtful success) by Dunbar, Class. Musewn, Vol. v. p. 102 sq., see Shepherd, ἐδ. Vol. v. p. 470 sq. 00 GALATIANS. * Cuap. 1|. 17, 18. ἁμαρτωλοί, dpa Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος ; μὴ γένοιτο. " εἰ \ “ κ᾿ yap ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν ἁμαρτίας διάκονο 5] ‘a minister of sin;’ scil., in effect, a promoter, a fur- therer of it (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15), one engaged in its service ; ἁμαρτία being al- most personified, and, as its position sug- gests, emphatically echoing the preceding ἁμαρτωλοί, --- ‘of sin (not of righteous- ness), — of a dispensation which not only leaves us where we were before, but causes us, when we exclusively follow it,-to be for this very reason accounted sinners?’ El δὲ ὅτι τὸν νόμον καταλιπόντες τῷ Χριστῷ προσεληλύϑαμεν... .. παράβασις [or rather, ἁμαρτία] τοῦτο νενόμισται, εἰς αὐτὸν ἡ αἰτία χωρήσει τὸν δεσπότην Χρισ- τόν, Theod.; comp. Chrys. in loc. The argument is in fact a reductio ad absur- dum : it seeking for justification in Christ is only to lead us to be accounted sinners, —not merely as being without law and in the light of Gentiles (Mey.), but as having wilfully neglected an appointed means of salvation, — then Christ, who was the cause of our neglecting it, must needs be, not only negatively but posi- tively, a minister of sin; see De Wette , in loe. μὴ γένοιτο) ‘be tt not so,’ ‘far be it,’ ‘absit,’ Vulg., coos ° [propitius fuit; compare Matth. xvi. 22 Syr., z. e. in effect (esp. in a context like the present), ‘ God forbid,” Auth. This expressive formula, though not uncom- mon in later writers (see exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. τι. p. 249, compare Sturz. Dial. Maced. p. 204), only occurs in the N T. in St. Paul’s Epp.; viz. Rom. iii. 4,:6,.31, γε, ἃ, 16, vil..7, 13, ix: 14,25 1, 11, 1 Cor. vi. 15, Gal. iii, 21. In all these cases it is interjectional, and in all, exeept the last, rebuts (as Conyb. has remarked) an inference drawn from St. The nature of the inference makes the revul- Paul's doctrine by an adversary. οἰκοδομῶ, πὰραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν sion of thought (ταχέως ἀποπηδᾷ, Dam.) either more or less apparent, and will usually suggest the best mode of trans- lation. 18. ef yap] ‘For if;’ direct con- firmation of the immediately preceding μὴ γένοιτο (Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 2, p. 162, note), and indirect and allusive ex- pansion of the εὑρέϑημεν ἁμαμτωλοί: ‘1 say μὴ γένοιτο in ref. to Christ, for it is not in seeking to be justified in Him, but in seeking to rebuild the same structure that I have destroyed (though nobler materials now lie around) that my sin, my transgression of the law's own prin- ciples really lies. In the change to the Jirst person sing. there may be a delicate application to St. Peter personally, which ‘clementiz causa’ is expressed in this rather than in the second person (Alf., Mey.); it must not be forgotten, how- ever, that the fervor as well as the intro- spective character of St. Paul’s writings leads him frequently to adopt this μετ- ασχηματισμὺς eis ἑαυτόν, see esp. Rom, vii. 7 sq-; so also 1 Cor. iii. 5 sq. iv. 3 sq. vi. 12, x. 29, 30, xiii. 11, 12, ete. : comp. Knapp, Seripta Var. Argum. No. 12, p. 431, 437. ταῦτα) ‘these —and nothing better in their place,’ Meyer. The emphasis rests on ταῦτα, not on ἐμαυτόν (Olsh.), the position of which [ rapa. ἐμαυτόν. not ἐμαυτ. παραβ. } shows it clearly to be unemphatic. rapaBar7 nv! ‘a transgressor,’ scil. τοῦ νόμου; Lzoas VL pos {trans- gressor mandati] Syr. But in what particular manner? Surely not, ‘in having formerly neglected what I now reassert’ (De W., Alf.),— a somewhat weak and anticlimactie reference to εὑρέϑημεν ἁμαρτωλοί, --- but, as the following ydp, and the unfolding argu- Ὁ παν. II. 18, 19. GALATIANS, 61 συνιστάνω. ™ ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέϑανον ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω. ment seem clearly to require, ‘in recon- structing what I ought to perceive is only temporary and preparative. Re- construction of the same materials is, in respect of the law, not only a tacit avowal of an ἁμαρτία (εὑρέϑ. auapt.) in having pulled it down, but is a real and definite παράβασις of all its deeper principles. So, very distinctly, Chrys., ἐκεῖνοι δεῖξαι ἐβούλοντο, ὅτι ὃ μὴ τηρῶν τὸν νόμον mapaBarns: οὗτος εἰς τοὐναντίον περιέτρεψε τὸν λόγον, δεικνὺς ὅτι ὁ τηρῶν τὸν νόμον, παραβάτης, οὐ τῆς πίστεως ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νόμου. The counter-argument that the J of ver, 18 has ‘given up’ faith in Christ, and so could never consider the law as prepara- tive (Alf.), is of no real force; for in the first place the ἐγὼ had not given it up, but had only added to it, and in the next place, even had he done 80, he might equally show himself a real though unconscious παραβάτην. ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω])ὔ ‘set myself forward,’ ‘demonstrate myself to be:’ Hesych. συνιστάνειν: ἐπαινεῖν, pave- ροῦν, βεβαιοῦν, παρατιϑέναι. This mean- ing, ‘sinceris Atticis ignotum,’ Fritz, Rom. iii. 5, Vol. 1. p. 159, deduces from the primary notion componendi ; ‘ut esset συνίστημί τι, compositis collec- tisque que rem contineant argumentis aliquid doceo :᾿ see exx. in Wetst. Rom. iii. 5, Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s.v. The form συνίστημι (Rec.), only found in D?(E?)JK; mss. and Ff, seems a mere grammatical gloss. 19. ἐγὼ γὰρ] ‘For I truly: ex- planatory confirmation of the preceding assertion; the explicative yap showing how this rehabilitation of the law actually amounts to a transgression of its true principles, while.the emphatic ἐγὼ adds the force and vitality of personal experi- ence. In the retrospective reference of παραβάτης adopted by De W. and Alf. (see above), the yap loses all its force; it must either be referred, most awkwardly, to μὴ γένοιτο (1). W.), or, still worse, be regarded as merely transitional. διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέδαν ον] ‘through the law died to the law.’ Of the many explanations of these obscure words the following (derived mainly from Chrys. ) appears by far the most tenable and satisfactory. The result may be summed up in the following positions : — (1) Νό- pos in each case has the same meaning, (2) That meaning, as the context re- quires, must be the Mosaic law (ver. 16), no grammatical arguments founded on the absence of the article (Middleton in loc.) having any real validity ; comp. exx. in Winer, Gr. § 19, p. 112. (3) The law is regarded under the same aspect as in Rom. vii. 6—13, a passage in strictest analogy with the present. (4) Διὰ νόμου must not be confounded with διὰ νόμον or κατὰ νόμον ; it was through the instrumentality of the law (διὰ τ. ἐντολῆς, Rom. vii. 8) that the sinful principle worked within and brought death upon all. (5) ᾿Απέϑανον is not merely ‘legi valedixi’ (comp. κατηργή- Snv ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου). but expresses gener- ally what is afterwards more specifically expressed in ver. 20 by συνεσταύρωμαι. (6) Néuw is not merely the dative ‘of reference to,’ but a species of dative ‘commodi;’ the expressions (jy tw and ἄποϑαν τινι having a wide application ; see Fritz. Rom. xiv. 7, Vol. m1. p. 176; —‘J died not only as concerns the law, but as the law required.’ The whole clause then may thus be para- phrased: ‘I, through the law, owing to sin, was brought under its curse; but having undergone this, with, and in the person of Christ (ch. iii. 13, compare 2 Cor. v. 14), I died to the law in the full- est and deepest sense, — being both free from its claims, and having satisfied its 62 GALATIANS. Cuap. II. 19, 20. Ὁ Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι: ba δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χρισ- ͵ τος. curse.’ The difference between this and the common interpretations lies princi- pally in the fuller meaning assigned to ᾿ ἀπέϑανον, and its reference to σύυνεστ. A careful investigation will be found in Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 2, p. 164 sq. ζή ow] ‘may live ;’ not a future (Alf.), —an anomalous usage (see notes on ver, 4) that it is surely unnecessary to ob- trude on the present passage — but the regular aor. sul. (1 Thess. v. 10), the tense of the dependent clause being in idiomatic accordance with that of the leading member; compare Schmalfeld, Synt. § 144. 1, p. 296. 20. Χριστῷ συνεστ. ‘I have been and am crucified with Christ ;’ more exact specification of the preceding ἀπέ- Savoy. This συνεσταύρ. it need scarcely be said, did not consist merely in the crucifixion of the lusts (ch, v. 24, Grot.), but in that union with Christ according to which the believer shares the death of his crucified Lord; ἐπείδη ἐντῷ βαπ- τίσματι Tov Te ϑανάτου καὶ τῆς ἀνασ- τάσεως τύπον ἐπλήρουν, σψσταυροῦσϑαι ἐλέγοντο τῷ Χριστῷ, Theod. Mops. in loc. ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ] “1 live however no longer myself, ἃ. e. my old self; see Rom. vi. 6, and compare Neand. Plant., Vol. 1. p. 422 (Bohn). The familiar but erroneous punctuation of this clause (ζῶ δέ, οὐκέτι ἐγώ, (ῇ δὲ κι τ. A.) has been rightly rejected by all recent editors except Scholz. The only passing difficulty is in the use of δέ: it does not simply continue (Riick., Peile), or expand (Ust.) the meaning of Xp. συνεστ. but reverts with its proper ad- versative force to ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω, συνεστ., being ποῖ so much a link in the chain of thought, as a rapid and almost paren- thetical epexegesis of ἀπέϑανον. (7 δὲ) The δὲ does not introduce any ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, opposition to the preceding negative clause (it would then be ἀλλά), but simply marks the emphatic repetition of the same verb (Hartung, Partik. δέ, 2, 17, Vol. τ. p. 168), just retaining, however, that sub-adversative force which is so common when a clause is added, expressing a new, though not a dissimilar thought; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. um. p. 361. On the doctrinal import of (ῇ ἐν ἐμοὶ Xp. (‘Christ and His Spirit dwelling in them, and as the soul of their souls moving them unto such both inward and outward actions, as in the sight of God are acceptable’), see Hooker, Serm. m1, 1, Vol. τα, p. 764 sq. (ed. Keble.) ὃ δὲ viv ζῶ] ‘ yes, the life which now I live ;’ explan- atory and partially concessive clause, obviating the possible objection arising from the seeming incompatibility of the assertion ¢j ἐν ἐμοὶ Xp. with the fact of the actual ζῆν ἐν σαρκί: ‘it is true,’ says the Apostle, ‘Ido yet live in the flesh, an earthly atmosphere is still around me, du¢ even thus I live and breathe in the pure element of faith, — faith in him who loved me, yea and (καὶ) gave such proofs of his love.’ With regard to the construction it is only necessary to observe that ὃ is not ‘quod attinet ad id quod’ (Winer), but simply the accus. objecti after ζῶ, scil. τὴν δὲ ζωήν ἣν νῦν ζῶ : comp. Rom. vi. 10, ὃ γὰρ ἀπέϑανε, and see Fritz. in loc., Vol. 1. p. 393. δὲ is thus not merely continuative (De W.), but serves both to limit and explain the preceding words (comp. 1 Cor. i. 16, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 7. Ὁ, p. 393), its true opposi- tive force being sufficiently clear when the suppressed thought (see below) is properly supplied; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 366. ν ὃν] The refer- Cuap. II. 20, 21. A > Ve , \ 80 « \ ς Ν > a 21 του ἀγαπήσαντος μὲ καὶ παρα OVTOS E€AUTOV ὕπερ εμου. GALATIANS. 63 ᾽ ουκ > an \ / a a ? \ \ , iA ” ἀδετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ: εἰ yap διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέδανεν. ence of this particle is doubtful. It may specify the period since the Apostle’s conversion, but is much more plausibly referred by Chrys., Theod., al. to the present life in the flesh, ‘hc vita mea terrestris;’ see Phil. i. 22. In the former case the qualitative and tacitly contrasting ἐν σαρκὶ (‘ earthly existence,’ ‘life in the phenomenal world,’ αἰσϑητὴ ζωή, Chrys.; comp. Miiller, on Sin, Vol. 1. p. 453, Clark) would seem wholly superfluous. ἐν πίστει, Sin faith. The instrumental sense, ‘dy faith,’ adopted by Theodoret, and seve- ral ancient as well as modern expositors, is, though inexact, not grammatically untenable. The deeper meaning of the words is, however, thus completely lost. On this ‘Zife in faith’ see the middle _ and latter portion of a profound paper, ‘Bemerk. zum Begriffe der Religion,’ by Lechler, Stud. u. Kritik. for 1851, Part Iv. τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘namely that of the Son of God,’ distinctive, and with solemn emphasis, —the insertion of the article serving both to specify and enhance, ‘in fide, edque Filii dei’ (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 18, and on 2 Tim. i. 13), while the august title, by intimating the true fountain of life (John v. 26) tends to add confirmation and assurance; ὅταν περὶ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ νοεῖν ἐδέλης, μαϑὼν τίνα ἐστὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ Πατρί ταῦτα καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὑἱῷ εἶναι πίστευε, Athan. on Matth. xi. 27, Vol. 1. p. 153, (ed. Bened.). The reading of Lachm. τῇ τοῦ ϑεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ay. is supported by BD!IFG ; Clarom., — but has every appearance of being a gloss; see Meyer (critical notes), p- 29. kal παραδόντος k.T.A.] ‘and (as a proof of his love) gave Him- self,’ etc. ; the καὶ being ἐξηγητικόν, and illustratively subjoining the practical proof; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. τι. p- 339, and on this and other uses of καί, notes on Phiil. iv. 12. ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ] ‘for me, ‘pro me,’ Vulg.; to atone for me and to save me, On the dogmatical meaning of this prep., see notes on ch, iii. 13, 21. οὐκ ἀϑετῶ) “1 do not make void,’ ‘nullify ;’ not ‘ abjicio,’ Vulg,, still less ἀτιμάζω, Theod., — but ‘non irratam facio,’ scil. ‘ut dicam per legem esse justitiam,’ Aug.: compare 1 Cor. i. 19, τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀϑετήσω; Ch. iii. 15, ἀϑετεῖ (διαϑήκην) ; so 1 Mace. Xv. 27, ἠϑδέτησε πάντα ὅσα συνέϑετο αὐτῷ ; and frequently in Polyb., see Schweigh. Lex. s. v. The verb is sometimes found in the milder sense of ‘despising,’ ‘ re- jecting.’ ete. — with persons (Luke x. 16, John xii. 48, 1 Thess. iv. 8); but this obviously falls short of the meaning in the present context. τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the grace of God,’ as shown in the death of Christ, and our justification by faith in Him; not ‘the Gospel,’ as Hamm. on Heb. xiii. 9. In our justification, as it is well said in the Homities, there are three things which go together, —on God’s part His grace and mercy; upon*Christ’s part the satisfaction of God’s justice; and upon our part true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, on Salvat. Part 1. yap explains and jus- tities the preceding declaration; ‘I say οὐκ ἀϑδετῶ, for it is an immediate in- ference that if the law could have been the medium of δικαιοσ., Christ’s death would have been purposeless.’ ‘ διὰ νόμου] ‘by means of the law,’ as a medium of δικαιοσύνη : emphatic, as the position shows, and antithetical to 64 Ὁ foolish Galatiano, is not the Spirit which ye have GALATIANS. Cuap. JI. 21—III. 1. IIL. Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσ- received an evidence that justification is by faith, and not by the works of the law? Χριστὸς in the succeeding clause, In the present verse it is in effect asserted that the νόμος is not a medium οἵ δικαιοσύνη (els κτῆσιν δικαιοσύνης ἀρκεῖ, Theod.) ; in ch. iii. 11, it is asserted not to be the sphere of it, and in ch. iii. 21, not the origin. δικαιοσύνη) ‘right- eousness,’ | 2: Syr., ‘justitia,’ Vulg.; not equivalent to δικαίωσις (Whately, Dangers, etc., § 4) nor yet, strictly considered, the result of it, but appy. in the most inclusive meaning of the term — righteousness, whether im- puted, by which we are accounted δί- «aot, or infused and inherent, by which we could be found so; see Hooker, Serm. π. 3, 21, where the distinction between justifying and sanctifying righteousness is drawn out with admirable perspicuity. On the meaning of the word, see An- drewes, Serm. v. Vol. v. p. 114 (A.C. L.), Waterland, Justif. Vol. νι. p. 4, and for some acute remarks on its lexical as- pects, Knox, Remains, Vol. τι. p. 276. ἄρ αἱ ‘then,’ i. e. ‘the obvious inference is.’ On the meaning of ἄρα, see notes, ch. v. 11. δωρεάν) ‘for nought, without cause ;’ not here ‘frustra’ (Grot.), ‘sine effectu,’— but ‘sine justd causd,’ Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 1615 περιττὸς ὃ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Sdvaros, Chrys., ‘superflue mor- tuus est Chr.,4 Jerome: comp. John xv. 25, ἐμίσησάν με δωρεάν; Psalm xxxiv. (XXXv.) 7, δωρεὰν ἔκρυψάν μοι διαφϑοράν (Symm, ἀναιτίως). So osm, which the LXX frequently translate by δωρεάν, has the meaning ‘in nullum bonum finem,’ as well as ‘ gratis’ and ‘frustra:’ comp. Gesen. Lex. s. v., Vorst, de Hebraism. vit. 6, p. 228, 229. Cuarter IIL. 1. ἀνόητοι Tad.) ‘ foolish Galatians ;’ fervid and indig- nant application of the results of the . preceding demonstration to the case of his readers. The epithet ἀνόητος is used in three other passages by St. Paul, — Rom. i. 14, opp. to σοφός; 1 Tim. vi. 9, joined with βλαβερός ; Tit. ili. 3, with ἀπειϑὴς and πλανώμενος, --- and in all seems to mark not so much a dulness in (‘insensati,’ Vulg.), as a deficiency in, or rather an insufficient application of, Ve the νοῦς ; comp. Syr. μι... jie [destituti mente], and Luke xxiv. 15, where while βραδὺς τῇ καρδίᾳ denotes . the defect in heart, ἀνόητος seems to mark the defect in head; comp. Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 144, where this word is de- fined somewhat artificially, but rightly distinguished from ἄφρων and ἀσύνετος which seem to point respectively rather to ‘senselessness’ and ‘slowness of under- standing.’ It cannot then be as- serted (Brown) that the Galatians were : proverbially stupid; compare Callim. H. Del. 184, ἄφρονι φύλῳ. Themistius, who himself spent some time in the (then extended Forbig. Geogr. Vol. τι. p- 364) province, gives a very different character: of δὲ ἄνδρες ἴστε ὅτι ὀξεῖς Kad ἀγχίνοι καὶ εὐμαϑέστεροι τῶν ἄγαν Ἑλλή- νων: καὶ τριβωνίου mapapavevtos ἐκκρέ- μαντι εὐδύς, ὥσπερ τῆς λίϑου τὰ σιδήρια, Orat. 23, ad fin. p. 299 (ed. Harduin). Versatility and inconstancy, as the Epis- tle shows (comp. notes on ch. i. 6), were the true characteristics of the Galatian. Foolishness must have been often, as in the present case, not an unnatural con- comitant. ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκαν εν] ‘did bewitch you,’ " fascinavit vos,’ Vulg , Clarom. The verb Backalyw is derived from βάζω, βάσκω (Pott. Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 271), and perhaps signified originally ‘malA lingué nocere;’ comp. Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 104. Here, however, the reference appears rather to ᾿ ΟΑἸΑ ΤΊΙΑΝΕ. Crap. IIT. 1, 2. 65 κανεν, οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφϑαλμοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος; * τοῦτο μόνον ϑέλω μαδεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, ἐξ the bewitching influence of the evil eye (compare Ecclus. xiv. 8, βασκαίνων op- ϑαλμῷ, and see Elsner, ἐγ Joc., Winer, RWB. Art. ‘Zauberei’) though not necessarily ‘ the evil eye of envy,’ (Chrys. ; comp. Syr. δῷ Ὁ δ) as in this latter sense ἘΠ 5 Back. is commonly with a dat. (but in Ecclus. xiv. 6, Ignat. Rom. 3, with accus.); see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 462, Pierson, Herodian, p. 470. The addition, τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ μὴ πείϑεσϑαι [ Rec. with CD°E7JK; mss.; Vulg. (but not all mss.), Aith.-Pol., al.; Ath., Theod.}, is rightly rejected by most modern edi- tors, both as deficient in external author- ity [omitted in ABDIEIFG; 2*mss. ; Syr., and nearly all Vy.j, and as an apparent gloss from ch. v. 7. mpoeypapn] ‘was openly set forth,’ ᾿ €proscriptus est,’ Vulg., Clarom. The meaning of this word has been much discussed, The ancient (comp. Syr.) aud popular gloss is ἐζωγραφήϑη (The- oph., Gicum., and appy. Chrys., Theod.), but without any lexical authority: for common as is the use of γράφω in a pic- torial sense, there appears no certain in- stance of προ γράφω being ever so used ; see Rettig, Stud. wu. Krit. 1830, p. 96 sq. We can then only safely translate προε- γράφη either (a) ‘antea scriptus est,’ or (B) ‘palam scriptus est.’ Between these it is difficult to decide. Considered /ex- ically (a) seems the most probable; for though (8) is appy. the more common meaning in Hellenic writers (Plutarch, Camilli, § 11, comp. Polyb. Hist. xxx. 21. 12, al.), yet in the three other pas- sages in the N. T. in which προγράφω occurs, viz., Rom. xv. 4, Eph. iii. 3, Jude 4, it is used in the former sense. Both meanings occur in-the LXX: (a) in 1 Esdr, vi. 32 (Ald. * (8) in 1 Mace. 9 x. 86. Contextual considerations seem, however, in favor of (8); as not only does this meaning harmonize best with the prominent and purely local kar’ ὀφϑαλμούς (compare κατ᾽ ὄμματα, Soph. Antig. 756), but also best illustrate the peculiar and suggestive ἐβάσκανεν, -- which thus gains great force and point ; ‘who could have bewitched you by his gaze, when you had only to fix your eyes on Christ to escape the fascination ;’ comp. Numb. xxi. 9. ἐν ὑμῖν] not a Hebraistic pleonasm (‘construi debet ἐν οἷς ὑμῖν, Grot.), but a regular local predicate appended to προε- γράφη, and appy. intended to enhance the preceding ofs kar ope. by a still more studied specification of place: not only had the truth been presented to them, but preached among them, with every circumstance of individual and local exhibition. According to the usual connection ἐν ὑμῖν is joined with ἐσταυρ. (comp. Chrys.), but in that case both perspicuity and emphasis would have required the order ἐσταυρ. ἐν ὑμῖν, while in the present the isolation of ἐσταυρ. is in accordance with the natural order, and adds greatly to the pathos and em- phasis; see 1 Cor. i. 28, and compare 1 Cor. ii. 2. On the force of the perf- part. as implying the permanent charac- ter of the action, see Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 305, Green, Gr. p. 308. It may be observed that Lachm. (Griesb. om. om.) omits ἐν ὑμῖν with ABC; 10 mss.; Amit., Tol., Syr., al., — but with but little probability, as the omission of such a seemingly superfluous clause can. easily be accounted for, but not the insertion. “among you ; 2. τοῦτο μόνον] ‘this only,’ — not to mention other arguments which might be derived from your own admissions; 66 GALATIANS. Cuap. III. 2, 3. ἔργων νόμου τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; * οὕτως ἀνόητοί ‘de eo quod promptum est sciscitor,’ Jerome. μαϑεῖν ag’ ὑμῶν] ‘to learn of you,’ Auth, Ver.; not for παρὰ ὑμῶν (Riick.) which would imply a more immediate and direct communi- cation, but with the proper force of ἀπό, which, as a general rule (Col. i, 7, seems an exception), indicates a source less ac- tive and more remote; contrast 2 Tim. iii. 14, and see Winer, Gr. § 47, ἀπό, p. 331 note; comp. notes also on ch. i. 12. For exx. of this use of μαϑεῖν, not ‘to learn as a disciple,’ with an ironical reference (Luth., Beng.), but simply ‘to arrive at a knowledge,’ see exx. in Rost u. Palm, Lez. 5. v., and compare Acts xxiii. 27. τὸ Πνεῦμα] ‘the Spirit,’ τὴν τοσαύτην ἰσχύν, Chrys.; ‘de Spiritu miraculorum loqui hie apostolum patet,’ Bull, Harm. Ap. Part τι. 11. 8. ‘Is it not, however, necessary to under- stand this as the exclusive meaning, much less to explain it, with Baur, Apost. Paulus, p. 515, as ‘das Christ- liche Bewusstseyn :’ see next verse. ἀκοῆς πίστεως may be translated, either (a) ‘the hearing of faith,’ 7. e. the reception of the Gospel (Brown), or (8) ‘ the report or message of faith,’ i. ὁ. the ‘preaching which related to, had as its subject πίστις (gen. objecti), according as ἀκοὴ is taken in an active or passive sense. The former might seem to pre- serve a better antithesis to ἔργων νόμου, —‘hearing the doctrine of faith, opp. to doing the works of the law’ (Schott, Peile; comp. A2th.), but is open to the decided /erical objection that ἀκοὴ ap- pears always used in the N, Τὶ in a pas- sive sense (so both in Rom. x. 17 [see Fritz.j, and in 1 Thess. ii. 13, where see notes), and to the contextual objection that the real opposition is not between the doing and the hearing, but between the two principles, faith and the law, — “the question in effect being, 6 νόμος ὑμῖν ἔδωκεν τοῦ Selov Πνεύματος ἐνέργειαν, ἢ μόνη ἡ ἐπὶ τὸν Κύριον πίστις, Theod, We may, then, with some confidence, adopt (8) ; so Goth. (* gahauseins’), Arm., and recently De Wette, Meyer, and the best modern commentators. 3. οὕτως ἀνόητοι] ‘to 80 high a degree, so very foolish,’— with reference to what follows: ‘quum οὕτως cum ad- jectivo nomini aut adverbio copulatur, reddes non solum ‘ita,’ ‘adeo,’ verum etiam ‘usque adeo,’’ Steph. Thesaur. s. v. Vol: v. p. 2433, where several exx. are cited; e. g. Isoc. Paneg. 43 νυν, οὕτω μεγάλας, Xen. Cyr. 11. 216, οὕτω πολέ- évaptdpevoil ‘after having begun ;’ temporal participle re- ferring to the previous fact of their first entrance into Christian life, On the temporal force of the participle, see notes on Eph. iv. 8, but reverse the accident- ally transposed ‘subsequent to’ and ‘preceding ;’ and on the force of the compound (more directly concentrated action), see notes on Phil. i. 6. Πνεύματι] ‘with the Spirit ;’ dat. of the manner (modal dat.) in which the action took place; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Synt. ur. 14, p. 100, Jelf, Gr. § 603. The meaning of πνεῦμα and σὰρξ in this verse has been the subject of considerable discussion. Of the earlier expositors, Theodoret par- aphrases mv. by ἡ χάρις, σὰρξ by ἡ κατὰ νόμον πολιτεία (so Waterl. Distinct. of Sacr. τι. § 10, Vol. v. p. 262), while Chrys. finds in σὰρξ a definite allusion to the circumcision; comp. Eph. ii. 11, Alii alia. The most satisfactory view is that taken by Miiller, Doct. of Sin, ch. 2, Vol. τ. 355 sq. (Clark), — viz., that when πνεῦμα is thus in ethical con- trast with σάρξ, it is to be understood of the Holy Spirit, regarded as the govern- ing and directing principle in man, σάρξ, on the contrary, as the worldly tendency μιον. Cuap. III. 8,4. GALATIANS. 67 ΕῚ Ε > a \ a Ν a ἐστε; ἐναρξάμενοι Πνεύματι viv σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσϑε; * τοσαῦτα of human life, ‘the life and movement of man in things of the phenomenal world.’ If this be correct my. and σὰρξ are here used, not to denote Christianity and Judaism per se, but as it were the essence and active principle of each. ἐπιτελεῖσϑ εἾ ‘are ye brought to com- pletion?’ Not middle, as often in Hel- lenic Greek (see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.), but pass. ( Vulg., Clarom., Chrys.), as in 1 Pet. ν. 9, comp. Phil. i. 6. The meaning of the compound must not be neglected; it does not merely imply ‘finishing’ (Ust., Peile), as opposed to ‘beginning,’ but appears always to in- volve the idea of bringing to a complete and perfect end; comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, ἄρξομαι καὶ emireAcow; see further exx, in Bretsch. Lez. s. v., and the good col- lection in Rost ἃ. Palm. Lez. 8. v. Vol. I. p. 1123, — the most definite of which seems, Herod. 1x. 64, ἡ δίκη τοῦ φόνου ἐκ Μαρδονίου ἐπετελέετο. 4, ἔπάϑετε) ‘Did ye suffer,’ “ passi hate > Z - estis,’ Vulg., Clarom., 2 apo [sus- tinuistis] Syr., 4th. (both). The mean- ing of this word has been much discussed. The apparent tenor of the argument, as alluding rather to benefits than to suf- ferings, has led Kypke ( Ods. Vol. τι. p. 277, compare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 731) and others to endeavor to substan- tiate by exx. that πάσχειν is not only a word of neutral meaning, but, even without εὖ or ἀγαϑόν, actually signifies ‘ beneficiis affici,) — a usage, however, of which Steph. ( Thes. 5. v.) rightly says ‘exemplum desidero.” For the neutral meaning (‘experienced,’ ed. 1), as in- cluding a reference to all the spiritual dispensations, whether sufferings or blessings, which had happened to (Arm.), or had been vouchsafed to the Galatians, much may be said, both lexically and contextually, — still, on the one hand, the absence of any direct instance in the N. T. [even in Mark vy. 26, there is an idea of suffering in the background], and, on the other, the authority of the ancient Vv. and Greck expositors lead us now to revert to the regular meaning, suffered, and to refer it to the labors (Copt.), and persecutions which, in one form or other, must have certainly tried the early converts of Ga- latia; see Chrys., Jerome, and the good note of Alford zm Joc. All these suffer- ings were a genuine evidence of the évapt- άμενοι Πνεύματι, and would be regarded and alluded to by the Apostle as blessed tokens of the Spirit’s influence; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 13 sq., and the remarks of August. in A. 1. εἴγε καὶ εἰκῆ] ‘if indeed,’ or, ‘tf at least, it really be in vain.’ ‘The sense of this clause has been obscured by not attending to the true force of εἴγε and καί. εἴγε must not be confounded with εἴπερ (Tholuck, Bettrége, p. 146): the latter, in accordance with the extensive, or perhaps rather intensive force of περ (Donalds. Crat. § 178, compare Klotz. Devar. Vol. τι. p. 723), implies ‘si om- nino ;’ the former (εἴγε), in accordance with the restrictive γέ, is “δὲ quidem,’ and if resolved, tum certe, si; (‘ve ita tantummodo ad tollendam conditionem facit, quia tum certe, si quid fiat, aliud esse significat, non ut ipsam conditionem confirmet,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 308), comp. p. 528. No inference, however, of the Apostle’s real opinion can be drawn merely from the ye (εἴγε ‘usur- patur de re que jure sumpta,’ Herm. Vig. No. 310), as it is the sentence and not the particle which determines the rectitude of the assumption. καὶ must closely be joined with εἰκῆ, and either (a), with its usual ascensive force (‘quasi ascensionem ad eam rem quo pertineat particula ;’ Klotz, Devar. - 08 GALATIANS. Cuar. IT. 5, 6. ἐπάϑετε εἰκῆ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῆ. " ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; As Abraham was justified by faith; so shall his spir- itual children be justified, and share his blessing. Vol. 11. p. 638), gives to the clause the meaning, ‘if at least it amount to, @. 6. be really in vain,’ or (5), with what may be termed its descensive force (Odyss. 1. 58, see Hartung, Partik. καί, § 2. 8, Vol. 1. p. 136), serves to imply, ‘if at least it be only in vain, 7. 6. has not proceeded to a more dangerous length, ‘videndum ne ad perniciem valeat,’ August., Cocceius. Of these (5) is the most emphatic and pungent (so Mey.; De W.), but (a) most characteristic of the large heart of the Apostle, and of the spirit of love and tenderness to his converts (ch. iv. 19), which is blended even with the rebukes of this Epistle ; so Chrys., and the Greek expositors ; comp. Brown, p. 112. 5. ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν] ‘He then who is bestowing,’ οἷο, : resumption by means of the reflexive οὖν (see below, and notes on Phil. ii. 1) of the subject of ver. 2; ver. 3 and 4 being in effect parenthetical. The subject of this verse is not St. Paul (Lomb. Erasm., al.), but, as the context, the meaning of δυνάμεις, the nature of the action specified (ém- χορηγῶν), and the permanence of the action implied by the tense pres. ἐπιχο- ρηγῶν (comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 304, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 202, p. 405), all obviously suggest, — God: ὃ Θεός, φησιν, ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμὶν τὸ Πνεῦμα, Theoph. The force of ἐπὶ in ἐπιχορ. does not ap- pear additive, but directive (see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v., and ib. 5. v. ἐπί, C. 3. ec), any idea of the freedom or ample nature of the gift (Winer, Peile), being due solely to the primary meaning of the simple verb; see notes on Col. ii. 19, and compare 2 Cor. ix. 10, where both χορηγέω and ἐπιχορηγέω occur in the same verse, and appy. in the same sense ° Kaas ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ quantitatively considered. For exx. of the use of ἐπιχορ. in later writers see the collection of Hase, in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. m. p. 1902. On the present resumptive use of οὖν after a (logical) parenthesis, which has been incorrectly pronounced rare in Attic writers, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. π΄. p. 718, Hartung, Partik. οὖν, 3. δ, Vol. u. p. 22. It may be remarked that, as a general rule, οὖν is continuative and retrospective rather than illative, and is in this respect to be distinguished from ἄρα (Donalds. Gr. § 604), but it must not also be forgotten that as in the New Testament the use of οὖν is to that of ἄρα nearly as ‘11 to 1, the force of the former particle must not be unduly re- stricted. In St. Paul’s Epp. where the proportion is not quite 4 to 1, the true distinction between the two particles may be more safely maintained; see, however, notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1 ( Transi.) Ihe [virtutes] Syr., ‘virtutes,’ Vulg., Cla- rom. This more restricted meaning, which may be supported by 1 Cor. xii. 28, and probably Matth xiv. 2, seems best to accord with the context. Kai is then ἐξηγητικόν, and ἐν ὑμῖν retains its natural meaning with évepyéw, ‘in you,’ ‘within you ;’ comp. Matth, 2. 6. ai δυνά- pets ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ. ἐξ ἐρ- γῶν νόμου] ‘from the works of the law ;’ not exactly ‘as following upon,’ Alf. 2,— but, in more strict accordance with the primary force of the prep. ‘from,’ ‘out of’ (‘ex,’ Vulg.), as the originating or moving cause of the ἐπιχορήγησις ; compare notes on Gal. ii. 16. 6. καϑ ὦ 9] ‘ Even as.’ δυνάμει 5] ‘miraculous powers,’ The answer Crap. III. 6, 7. ἐλογίσϑη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. is so obvious, that St. Paul proceeds as if it had been expressed. The com- pound particle καϑὼς is not found in the purer Attic writers, though sufficiently common in later writers; see exx. col- lected by Lobeck, Piryn. p. 426. Em. Moschop., the Byzantine Grammarian, cited by Fabricius, Bibl. Greca, Vol. vi. Ρ. 191 (ed. Harles), remarks that this is an Alexandrian usage; τὸ καδ ὰ οἱ ᾿Αττικοὶ χρῶνται, τὸ δὲ καὃ᾽ ὦ ς οὐδέ- ποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τῶν ᾿Αλεξανδρέων διάλεκτος Kad’ ἣν ἡ Sela γραφὴ γέγραπται : see esp. Sturz de Dialecto Maced. § 9, 5. v. (Steph. Thes. ed. Valpy, p. clxx.) On the most suitable translation, compare notes on 1 Thess. i. 5 (Transi.). γίσϑη αὐτῷ δικαιοσύνη ν] ‘it was accounted for to him,’ or ‘was reckoned to him, as righteousness,’ scil. τὸ πιστεῦσαι; see Winer, Gr. ᾧ 49. 2, p- 427 (ed δ). The phrase λογίζεταί τι eis τι, Acts xix. 27, Rom. ii. 26, iv. 3, ix. 8, is explained by Fritzsche (Rom. Vol. 1. p. 137), as equivalent to λογίζεταί τι eis τὸ εἶναί τι, Sita res wstimatur ut res sit,’ ἢ. 6. ‘ut pro re valeat ;’ hence ‘tribuitur alicui rei vis ac pondus rei.’ In such cases, the mote exact idea con- veyed by eis, of destination for any object or thing (Rost ἃ. Palm, Lez. s. v. eis, V. 1), is blended with that of sim- ple predication of it. In later writers this extended so far that εἰς, is often used as a mere index of the accus., hav- ing lost all its prepositional force; 6. g. ἄγειν εἰς γυναῖκα : see Bernh. Synt. v. 11, Ὁ. 2, p. 219. With the present semi-Hebraistic use of λογίζ. εἰς, it is instructive to contrast Xen. Cyr. ut. 1. ἐλο- > eis 33, χρήματα εἰς ἀργύριον λογισϑέντα, where εἰς has its primary ethical mean- ing of measure, accordance to. On the doctrinal meaning of ἐλογίσϑη k. τ. A., see Bull, Harm. Apost, τι. 12, 22, GALATIANS. 69 7 , ΝΜ ῳ a / γινώσκετε αρα OTL οἱ EK πισ- and for an able comparison of the faith of Abraham with that of Christians, Hammond, Pract, Catech. Book 1. 8. 7. γινώσκετε ἄρα) ‘Know ye therefore,’ ails [cognoscite] Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Armen., —not indicative, as Jerome, Ps, Ambr., al., and most re- cently Alf.: the dmper. is not only more animated, but more logically correct, for the declaration in the verse is really one of the points which the Apostle is laboring to prove; ἐν κεφαλαίῳ διδάσκει τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωϑέντα, καὶ τοὺς τροφίμους τῆς πίστεως υἱοὺς τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ χρηματίζοντας, Theod.; see Olsh. in loc. The objections of Riick., and even of Alf. to the use of ἄρα with the imper. are distinctly invalid; not only is the union of theimperative with ἄρα logically admissible, and borne out by usage (comp. Hom. Ji. x. 249), but further, in perfect harmony with the true lexical force of the particle: ‘redus ita comparatis (Abraham’s faith being reckoned to him as righteousness) cog- noscite, etc.; see Klotz. Devar. Vol. u. 167. of ἐκ πίστεως] ‘they who are of faith, not ‘they who rest on faith’ (Green, Gr. p. 288), but, in accordance with the primary mean- ing of origin, ‘they who are spiritually descended from, whose source of spir- itual life is— πίστις : comp. Rom. ii. 8, οἱ ἐξ ἐριϑείας, ‘qui a malarum fraudum machinatione originem ducunt,’ ‘qui malitiam tanquam parentem habent,’ Fritz. in loc., Vol. 1. p. 105. οὕτοι] ‘these (and none other than these ),’ ‘exclusis ceteris Abrahamo na- tis,’ Beng.; see Jamesi. 25. This retro- spective and emphatic use of the pro- noun is illustrated by Winer, Gr. § 23. 4, p. 144; see also Bernhardy, Synt. v1. 8. ἃ, p. 283, Jelf, Gr. § 658. 70 Tews, οὗτοί εἰσιν υἱοὶ ᾿Αβραάμ. GALATIANS. Cuar. IIT. 8, 9. * προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔδνη ὁ Θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ “ ᾿ , > ‘ ΄ \ 9 “ e , ὅτι ἐνευλογηϑήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔδνη. * ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίσ- τεως, εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ ᾿Αβραάμ. 8. προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφή] ‘More- over the Scripture foreseeing :’ further statement that the faithful, who have already been shown to be the true chil- dren of Abraham, are also the only and proper participators in his blessing. This sort of personification is noticed by Schoettg. (Hor. Hebr. Vol. τ. p. 732) as a ‘formula Judeis admodum solemnis,’ 6. 5.» BADD AN τὸ ‘Quid vidit scrip- tura?’ sam msn πὸ ‘Quid vidit 1116, A. 6. quidnam ipsi in mentem venit?’ see also Surenhus. B/BA. Καταλλ. p. 6, sq. In such cases ἡ γραφὴ stands obvi- ously for the Author of the Scriptures — God, by whose inspiration they were written; compare Syr., where [qi] σΟυδ [Aloha] is actually adopted in the trans- lation. δὲ appears to be here μεταβατικόν, i. 6. indicative of transition (Hartung, Partik. δέ, 2. 3, Vol. 1. p. 165, Winer, Gr. § 53. 7. Ὁ, p. 393); it does not merely connect this verse with the preceding (Auth. Ver., Peile, Co- nyb., al.), but implies a further consid- eration of the subject under another aspect; “δὲ eam ipsam vim habet ut abducat nos ab eA re que proposita est, transferatque ad id, quod, missd ill priore re, jam pro vero ponendum esse videatur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 353. The exact force of δέ, which is never simply connective (Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 163) and never loses all shades of its true oppositive character, deserves almost more attentive consider- ation in these Epp. than any other par- ticle, and will often be found to supply the only true clue to the sequence and evolution of the argument. δικαιοῖ] ‘justifieth ;’ not “ would jus- tify,’ Auth. (‘presens pro futuro,’ Grot.), nor present with ref. to what is now taking place (De W.), but what is termed the ethical present, with sig- nificant reference to the eternal and immutable counsels of God; ἄνωθεν ταῦτα καὶ ὥρισε καὶ προηγόρευσεν ὃ Θεός, Theod.; comp. Matth. xxvi. 2, παραδί- dora; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237, and for the rationale of this usage, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 54. 2, p. 91. προευηγγελίσατοΊ ‘made known the glad tidings beforehund ;’ compare Gen. xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18. The com- pound zpoevayy. is somewhat rare; it occurs in Schol. Soph, Trach. 335, Philo, de Opif. § 9. Vol. τ. p. 7, de Mut. Nom, § 29, Vol. 1. p. 602 (ed. Mang.) and the eccles. writers. ὅτι ἐνευλογΎ.} ‘shall be blessed in;’ quo- tation, by means of the usual ὅτι reci- tativum, from Gen. xii. 3 (compare ch. xviii. 18, xxii, 18), though not in the exact words; the here more apposite but practically synonymous πάντα τὰ %3vn being used (perhaps from ch. xviii. 18) instead of the πᾶσαι af φύλαι τῆς γῆς of the LXX: compare Surenhus. Βιβλ. Καταλλ. p. 567. The simple form εὐλογηδ. is adopted by Elz. (not Steph.), but only with FG and cursive mss. ἐν σοί] ‘in thee,’ as the spiritual father of all the faithful; not ‘ per te,’ Schott, but simply and plainly ‘in te,’ Vulg., Clarom., — the prep. with its usual force specifying Abraham as the substratum, foundation, on which, and in which, the blessing rests; compare 1 Cor. vii. 14, and Winer, Gr. § 48. a, Ρ. 345. 9. ὥστε ‘So then,’ ‘Consequently,’ see notes on ch, ii. 13. Ὥστε states the Cuap. III. 9, 10. They who are of the works of the Law lie under a curse, from which Christ has freed us; having en- sured to all in Himself the blessing of Abraham. result from the emphatic évevAoy. (συλ- λογιζόμενος ἐπήγαγεν, Chrys.) : it is from the fact of the blessing having been promised to Abraham and his chil; dren, that of ἐκ πίστεως share it, inas- much as they are true children (ver. 7) of Abraham; εὐλογημένοι εἰσὶν of... τῇ πίστει προσιόντες, ὥσπερ καὶ ὃ πιστὸς "ABp. ηὐλόγητο, Theoph. σύν) ‘together with ;’ not ‘similiter,’ Grot., —but, in accordance with the regular meaning of the prep., ‘with,’ ‘in asso- ciation with’ (Winer, Gr. § 48. b, p. 349), the πιστῷ serving to hint (Mey., Alf.) at that to which this association is truly to be referred; εἴ tis τοίνυν τῆς ἐκείνου συγγενείας ἀξιωϑῆναι ποϑεῖ, τὴν ἐκείνου πίστιν (ηλούτω, Theod. The change of prep. introduces a correspond- ing change in the aspect in which Abra- ham is regarded : under ἐν he is regarded as the Patriarch, the spiritual ancestor in whom,— under σὺν he is regarded as the illustriously faithful individual with whom, all of é« πίστ. share the blessing ; see Windischm. im doe. Schott cites a similar use of μετά (with Gen.) Psalm ev. 6, ἡμάρτομεν μετὰ τῶν πατέρων; Eccles. ii. 16, ἀποϑανεῖται 6 σοφὸς μετὰ τοῦ ἄφρονος ; but in both cases a simi- larity of lot rather than a strict commu- nity and fellowship in it, seems implied ; as a general rule, μετά τινος implies rather coéxistence, σύν tim, coherence ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 13. 1, and comp. notes on Eph. vi. 23. 10. ὅσοι yap κ.Ῥ. τ. λ.] Proof of the justice of the conclusion in ver. 9 with regard to οἱ ἐκ πίστεως ; γὰρ intro- ducing e contrario — a confirmatory no- tice of the acknowledged state of the other class, of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου : not only are they not blessed with Abraham, but GALATIANS. τι ΝΜ , "Ooor yap ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ Ν κατάραν εἰσίν: γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις they are actually under a curse. St, Paul’s love of proving all his assertions has been often noticed; comp. David- son, Introd. Vol. τι. p. 145. οἱ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου] ‘they who are of, ἃ. 6. appertain to, rest upon, the works of the law,’ ‘qui in lege justitiam que- runt,’ Bull, Harm. Ap. τι. 7. 12; the primary force of ἐκ, owing to the nature of the expression, being here slightly less obvious than in ver. 8, and suggest- ing more the secondary and derivative idea of dependence on than of direct origination from ; see Winer én /oc., and comp. 1 Cor, xii, 16, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. ὑπὸ κατάραν] ‘un- der a curse ,᾽ not * under the curse,’ but almost simply and generally, ‘under curse’ = ἐπικατάρατος ; comp. ὑφ᾽ ἅμαρ- τίαν, Rom. iii. 9: the proof drawn from the O. T. becomes thus more cogent. Ὑπὸ, it may be remarked, has appy. here no quasi-physical sense (κατάρα being viewed in the light of a burden, Riick., Windschm.), but its common ethical sense of ‘subjection to;’ see Winer, Gr. § 49. k, p. 362. With regard to the argument, it is only neces- sary to observe that the whole obviously rests on the admission, which it was im- possible not to make, that no one of οἱ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου can fulfil all the requisi- ' tions of the law; see esp. Bull, Harm. Apost. τι. 7. 11, and comp. with it Us- teri, Lehrb. τ. 4. B, p. 60. γέ- γὙραπται γάρ] Confirmation from Scripture of the preceding words. The quotation is from Deut. xxvii. 26, though not in the exact words either of the Heb. or LX X}; comp. Surenhus. Βίβλος Καταλλ., p. 569, and Bagge in loc. The following ὅτι is omitted by- Ree., but only with JK; mss.. and some 72 GALATIANS. Cuar. III. 10, 11. ἐν τῷ Βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου, τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. ™ ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως, Ff. τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά] ‘to do them,’ ‘ut faciat ea,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; purpose contemplated and involved in the ἐμμένει. This use of the infin, to denote design, intention, is (with the exception of a few instances from the other writers in the N. Τ᾿, Mark iv. 3 [Rec.], James v. 17) confined to St. Paul and St. Luke; see Fritz. Matth, Excurs. τι. p. 485, Winer, Gr. ὁ 46. 4. Ὁ, p. 377. The construction is not, properly considered, Hebraistic, but be- longs to later Greek, and may be cor- rectly explained as an amplification of the use of the gen., which serves first to mark the result or product (6. g. Il. β. 397, κύματα παντοίων ἀνέμων, Scheuerl. Synt.§ u. 1, p. 79), then further, the purpose of the working object, and lastly (e. σι in LXX, where the Hebr. idiom would naturally cause this development) becomes little more than explanatory and definitive ; comp. Gen. iii. 6, ὡραῖόν ἐστι τοῦ κατανοῆσαι, Exod. ii. 18, éraxtvare τοῦ παραγενέσϑαι. In this latter case the first verb commonly marks a more general action, the second, one more limiting and special; comp. Gen. xxxiv. 17, εἰσακούειν ἡμῶν τοῦ περιτεμέσϑαι, and sce esp. Thiersch, de Pent, ut, 12, p. 173 sq., where this usage is well inves- tigated. The progress of this structure ες in classical Greek is briefly noticed by Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. 2, p. 357. 11, ὅτι δὲ κ. τ. λ.] ‘But (further) that in the law,’ etc.:’ continuation of the reasoning ; δὲ subjoining to the “ ar- gumentum e contrario,’ — that those of the law are under the curse (ver. 10), —the supplementary argument derived from Scripture that no one under any circumstances is justified by the law. The oppositive force of δὲ may thus be felt in the incidental reply which the verse affords to a deduction that might have been obviously made from ver. 10; ‘but — lest any one should imagine that if a man did so ἐμμένειν x. τ. A. he would be blessed —let me add,’ ete. ; ‘compare De Wette in loc. ἐν vdu@] ‘under the law; ἃ. 6. in the sphere and domain of the law; Acts ΧΙ, 39, Rom. ii. 12, iii, 19. The in- strumental meaning is grammatically tenable (object existing in the means, Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 18), and even contextually plausible, owing to the prominence of ἐν νόμῳ and its apparent opposition to Χριστός, ver. 13 (see Meyer): as, however, owing to the inversion of the syllogism, the op- position between the clauses is much obscyred, the simpler and more usual meaning is here to be preferred: comp. notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3. The more in- clusive ἐν is thus perhaps chosen design- edly, as the Apostle’s object is appy. to show that the idea of justification falls wholly out of the domain of the law, and is incompatible with its very nature and character. παρὰ τῷ Ocgl ‘in the sight of ;’ ἐς e. εἴπ the judgment of God’ (Rom. ii. 18, xii. 16, 1 Pet. ii. 20), the idea of locality suggested by the prep. being still retained in that of judgment at a tribunal; see notes on 2 Thess.i. 6. This usage is sufficiently common in classical writers; see Bern- hardy, Synt. v. 17. Ὁ, p. 257, and exx, in Palm u. Rost, Lez. s. v. παρά, τι. 2, Vol. 11. p. 667. κι τ. A.] ‘ because, The just shall live by faith,’ Habak. ii, 4, again cited in Rom, i. 17, Heb. x. 88, — this second ὅτι be- ing causal, the first simply declarative, It is extremely difficult to decide whether ἐκ πίστ. is to be joined with ὁ dix. (‘the just by faith’), or with the verb, The ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος Cnar. III. 12, 18. , ζήσεται: ΟΝ ’ > > a αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. former is perfectly correct in point of grammar, though doubted by Bp. Middl. (see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123), and is adopted by Hammond, Meyer, and other careful expositors. As, however, it seems certain (opp. to Baumg.-Crus.) that the original Hebrew (see Hitzig in loc., Kt. Prophet. p. 263, 264) does not bear this meaning,—as St. Paul is quoting the words in the order in which they stand in the LXX, not in that (6 ἐκ πίστ. Sik.) most favorable to such a transl.,— as the argument seems best sustained by the other construction (see Middl. tn foc., and comp. Bull, Exam. Cens, Animadvy. 111. 5), — and lastly, as ζήσεται ἐκ πίστ. thus stands in more ex- act opposition to (jo. ἐν αὐτοῖς, it seems best with Copt., Arm. (appy.), Chrys. (appy.), and the bulk of the older ex- positors, to connect ἐκ πίστεως with ζήσεται. 12. ὁ δὲ νόμος κ. τ. A.) ‘but the law is not of faith,’ scil. does not spring from it, has no connection with it in point of principle or origin; propositio minor of the syllogism; ὁ dik. ἐκ πίστ. (ho. being the prop. major, ἐν vdu. οὐδ. dix. the conclusion. The Auth. Vers. by translating δὲ ‘and’ obscures the argumentation. ὁ ποιήσας αὐτά] ‘he who hath done them,’ scil. τὰ προστάγματα and τὰ κρίματα, mentioned in the former part of the verse here re- ferred to, — Lev. xviii. 5. Ποιήσας is emphatic (‘praecepta legis non sunt de credendis, sed de faciendis,’ Aquin.), and is prefaced by the adversative ἀλλ᾽ as expressing a sentiment directly oppo- site to what has preceded. There is thus no ellipse of γέγραπται (Schott) or λέγει (Bagge); comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. IL. p. 284, The insertion of ἄνϑρω- wos after αὐτὰ ( Rec.) has only the author- 10 GALATIANS. 73 yw ¢ 58 t > " ᾽ ἢ ᾽ TF , ὃ O€ νόμος οὐκ ἐστιν EK πίστεως, UNX ὁ ποιῆσας 13 \ Charan 2 / > a Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς ity of D?EJK and mss., and is rightly rejected by most modern editors. ἐν αὐτοῖς) ‘in them,’ ὁ, e., as Winer paraphrases, ‘ ut in his legibus, vite fons quasi insit. 18. Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς x.7.A.] ‘Christ ransomed us,’ cte.; vivid and studiedly abrupt contrast to the declaration in- volved in the two preceding verses; the law condemned us, Christ ransomed us; - ‘non dissimile asyndeton, Col. iii. 4, ubi item de Christo,’ Beng. ἡμᾷᾶ5] Jews; not Jews and heathens; ‘Judeos preecipue pressit maledictio,’ Beng., compare Chrys. For (1) the whole context implies that the law is the Mosaic law: see Usteri ἐπ Joc. (2) This law had, strictly speaking, no force over the Gentiles, but was, in fact, the μεσότοιχος between the Jews and Gen- tiles: Eph. ii. 14, 15. For a further discussion of this, consult Meyer and Usteri in Joc., and Brown Galat, p. 129 sq. The doctrinal deductions made from this and similar passages, though perfectly just and true (comp. Neand. Plant. Vol. 1. p. 438, Bohn), cannot be urged against the more limited meaning which the context, seems obviously to require. ἐξηγόρασεν) ‘ran- somed, ‘redeemed.’ Christ ransomed the Jews from the curse of the law, by having taken it upon Himself for their sakes and in their stead. An accurate explanation of this, and the cognate idea ἀπολύτρωσις, will be found in Ust, Lehrd. τὸς 1. 1, p. 107, and m. 1. 3, Ὁ. 202. The force of the preposition (ἐκ) need not be very. strongly pressed, e. g. ‘emtione nos inde eruit,’ Beng.: see Polyb. Hist. m1. 42. 2, ἐξηγόρασε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τά τε μονόξυλα πλοῖα K. τ. Avy where the prep. has no marked mean- ing. This tendency to use verbs com- Ten | GALATIANS. Cnap. III. 13, 14. κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται ᾽ ‘ a e / 4 | 4 uu Y ᾽ \ gy e Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, " iva εἰς τὰ ἔϑνη ἡ pounded with prepp. without any obvious increase of meaning, is one of the char- acteristics of later Greek ; Thiersch, de Pentat, Vers. Alex. τι. 1, Ὁ. 88. γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατιΊ “ὃν having become a curse for us ;’ dependent participle expressing the manner of the action, which again is more distinctly elucidated in the quotation; λέγει δὲ καὶ τὸν τρόπον, Theod, The abstract κατάρα (not, ‘an accursed thing,’ Peile, — which dilutes the antithesis) is proba- bly chosen, as Meyer suggests, instead of the concrete, to express with more force the completeness of the satisfaction which Christ made to the law. On the doc- trinal import of the expression (κατάρα ἤκουσε Bt ἐμέ, ὃ τὴν ἐμὴν λύων κατάραν, Greg. Naz.) see the quotations in Suicer, Thes, 8. Υ. κατάρα, Vol. τι. p. 57 sq., and for a few words of great force and elo- quence on the ‘ maledictum crucis,’ An- drewes, Serm. 11. Vol. τι. p. 174 (A. C. Libr. ). ὑπὲρ ἡ μῶν] ‘forus,’ ‘salu- tis nostra reparande causa,’ Schott. In this and similar passages the exact mean- ing of the prep. has been much contested. Is it (a) ‘in commodum (alicujus),’ or (B) ‘in loco (alicujus)?’ The following seems the most simple answer. ‘Yrép, in its ethical sense, has principally and primarily (see note, ch. 1, 4) the jirst meaning, especially in doctrinal passages, where the atoning death of Christ is al- luded to, 6. g. 2 Cor, v. 21, τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐποίησεν ἁμαρτίαν. But as there are general passages in the N. T. where ὑπὲρ has eminently the sec- ond meaning, 6. g. Philem. 13, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ (comp. Plato, Gorg. 515 C, ἐγὼ ὑπὲρ σοῦ ἀποκρινοῦμαι), ---- 80 are there doctrinal passages (as here) where ὑπὲρ may admit the second meaning united with the first, when the context (6. g. in 1 Cor. xv. 3 it would be inad- missible), and nature of the argument seem to require it, though probably never (Winer Gr. § 48.1, p. 342) the second exclusively : see Magee, Atonement, No. 80, Vol. τ. p. 245 sq., and Usteri, Lehrb, m1. 1, p. 115 sq., where the meaning of the prep. is briefly discussed, ὅτι γέγραπται) ‘forasmuch as it is written ;’ parenthetical confirmation of the assertion involved in the preceding participial clause, yevdu. x. 7. A. The passage in Deut. (ch, xxi. 23) here ad- duced does not allude to crucifying, but to exposure after death on stakes or crosses (Josh. x. 26), but is fully per- tinent as specifying the ‘ignominious particularity to which the legal curse belonged,’ and which our Redeemer by hanging dead on the cross formally fulfilled ; see esp. Pearson, Creed, Art. tv. Vol. 1. p. 248 sq. (Burt.). It is in- teresting to notice that the dead body was not hanged by the neck, but by the hands, and not on a tree, but on a piece of wood (‘non ex arbore sed ligno,’ Dassov.) ; see the treatise of Dassovius in Thesaur. Theolog.-Philol. Vol. τι. p. 614, Jahn, Archeol, § 258, and Bahr, Stud, τι, Krit. for 1849, p. 924 sq. The reading of Rec., γέγραπται γάρ, has only the support of D®°EJK; mss, ; Syr. (both) Copt., al., and bears every appearance of a confirmation to the more usual mode of citation, ver. 10. 14. ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔϑνη) ‘in order that unto the Gentiles :’ divine purpose involved in the ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας κι τι A. The first purpose was the ran- som of the Jews from the curse; the second, which was involved in the first (ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐστί, John iv. 22), was the extension of Abra- ham’s blessing to the Gentiles, but that, te παν. IIL 14, 15. GALATIANS. wi io an? a an εὐλογία τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγε- λίαν τοῦ Πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Even the customs of men must show that the prom- 1 Adedgoi, κατὰ avSpwrrov eyo" ὅμως ise of God to Abraham cannot be annulled by the law which was so long afterwards. not through the law but in Jesus Christ. Els with accus. is here neither simply identical with dat. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 31. 5, p. 191), nor in its more lax sense of ‘in reference to’ (Piele; comp. Bern. Synt. v. 11, p. 219), but retains its proper Jucal meaning, with refer- ence to the metaphorical arrival of the εὐλογία ; see Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ ᾿᾽Αβρ.] ‘the blessing of Abraham,’ scil. the blessing announced to and vouchsafed to Abraham (ver. 8), ἡ εὐλογία ἡ ἐκ πίστεως, Theoph.; the gen, being the gen. οὐγοοέξ ; comp. Rom. xy. 8, τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων, and see Winer, Gr. § 80. 1. p. 167 sq. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47.7, 1 sq. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησ.] ‘in Christ Jesus,’ ‘in Christo Jesu,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm.; not ‘propter,’ Aith., or for διά, Grot. (comp. Chrys.), as this instru- mental use of ἐν with persons, though found in a few passages (comp. Matth. ix. 34, ἐν Τῷ ἄρχοντι, --- he was the causa efficiens), is here certainly not necessary. It was ‘in Christ,’ in the knowledge of Him and in His death, that the Gentiles received the blessing. ἵνα τὴν KT. A.J] ‘im order that we might receive; second statement of purpose, not subordinated to, but co- ordinate with the preceding one. Meyer cites as instances of a similar parallel- ism of ἵνα, Rom. vii. 13, 2 Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 19. The Apostle advances with his subject, till at last under AdBw- μεν he includes all; ‘os, omnium gen- tium homines, sive Judi, sive Barbari.’ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ ΠπΠνεύματοϑϑ) ‘the promise of the Spirit ;’ not merely τὸ ἐπαγγελϑὲν Πνεῦμα (Fritz. Rom. vi. 4, Vol. τ. p. 368), but ‘the realization of the promise of the Spirit,’ ἐπαγγ. being taken in a partially concrete sense 5 comp. Luke xxiv. 49, Heb. x. 36, and see Winer, Gr. § 34. 8, p. 211. Gram- matically considered, τοῦ Πνεύμ. may be a gen. subjecti, sc. “ promissionem a Spiritu profectam,’ or a gen. objecti, as above. Doctrinally considered, how- ever, the latter is distinctly to be pre- ferred; the Spirit being usually’ repre- sented by the Apostle as not so much the source, as the pledge of the fulfil- ment of the promise; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1, 2, p. 174 note. After a won- drous chain of arguments, expressed with equal force, brevity, and profund- ity, the Apostle comes back to the sub- ject of ver.2; the gift of the Holy Ghost came through faith in Jesus Christ. 15: ἀδελφοὶ x. 7. λ.] Proof that the promise was not abrogated by the law : οὕτω δείξας τὴν πίστιν πρεσβυτέραν τοῦ νόμου. διδάσκει πάλιν ὥς ὁ νόμος ἐμποδών οὐ δύναται γενέσϑαι ταῖς Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελί- ais, Lheod. ‘after the manner of men;’ ἐξ avSpwrt- κατὰ avspwtor| νων "παραδειγμάτων, Chrys., avSpwmivors πράγμασι κέχρημαι, Theod.; see notes, ch. i. 11. With this expression the Apostle here introduces an argument which rests on mere human analogies, and which he uses as men might (‘ tan- quam inter homines,’ Syr.), one to another: ‘affero exemplum ex hominum vita depromptum,’ Fritz. Rem. ili. 5, Vol. 1. 160, — where the various mean- ings of this formula will be found briefly noticed. ὅμως avapamov κι T. A.] ‘though it be but a man’s cove- nant, yet when confirmed,’ ete. : logically inexact, but not idiomatically uncommon 76 * GALATIANS. Cuapr. IIL. 15, 16. ἀνδρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαδήκην οὐδεὶς dete? ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. "ὁ τῷ δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐῤῥέδησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, καὶ τῷ σπέρματι transposition of ὅμως, Which, as the sense shows, really belongs to οὐδείς. Both ὅμως and other adverbs (e. g. ἀεί, moAAd- «ts, ἔτι), are occasionally thus, as it were, attracted out of their logical or- der, when the meaning is otherwise distinct ; see Winer, Gr. § 61. 4, p. 488, and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. ὅμως, who observes that this transposition is most frequently found with participles; ‘ ὅμως cum participio ita componitur, ut inclu- sum protasi tamen ad apodosin pertineat,’ Vol. τι. p. 318: compare Plato, Phedo, 91 ο. φοβεῖται μὴ ἡ ψυχὴ ὅμως καὶ ϑειότε- ρον καὶ κάλλιον ὃν τοῦ σώματος προαπολ- λύηται, and see Stalbaum, zn loc. διαδήκην)] ‘a covenant.’ It may be true, doctrinally considered, that it is not of much moment whether dia3. be interpreted ‘ contractum an testamentum’ (Calv.); considered however exegeti- cally, it is obvious that (@) the order of the words, and (δ) the comparison be- tween the διαϑήκη Of man and the δια- ϑήκη of God (ver. 17), tacitly instituted by the emphatic position of ἀνθρώπου (sing. to make the antithesis more ap- parent), both require exclusively the former meaning; so Auth. (kidan), and appy- Theoph. διαϑήκην καὶ συμφωνίαν : the other Vv. either adopt διαϑήκη (Syr., Copt.), or are ambiguous. A paper on the uses of this word in the N. Τὶ will be found in the Classical Museum, Vol. vit. p. 299; see also Bagge in loc, ἐπιδιατάσσεται) ‘adds new condi- tions,’ ‘superordinat,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘novas addit constitutiones,’ Bretsch. Lez. s. v., or, in effect, as it is neatly paraphrased by Herm., ‘additamentis vitiat ; comp. Joseph. Antig. xvu. 9, 4, and esp. Bell. Jud. τι. 2. 3, ἀξιῶν τῆς ἐπιδιαϑήκης τὴν διαδήκην εἶναι κυριωτέ- ραν. 16. τῷ δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ]) ‘Now to Abra- ham ;’ parenthetical argument designed to make the application of this particu- lar example to the general case perfectly distinct, and to obviate every misappre- hension. The Apostle seems to say; ‘this, however, is not a case merely of a διαϑήκη, but of an ἐπαγγελία, ---- yea, of ἐπαγγελίαι; nor was it made merely to a man Abraham (43. 6ia3.), but to Christ. According to the usual inter- pretation, δὲ introduces the prop. minor of a syllogism, which is interrupted by the parenthetical comment οὐ λέγει... Χριστός, but resumed in ver. 17, ‘ atqui Abraamo et semini,’ etc., Herm. To this, however, the objection of Meyer seems very just, that in that case St. Paul would have undoubtedly given a greater logical prominence to the divine nature of the promises to Abraham by some such term as Θεὸς δὲ τῷ ’ABp. k. τ᾿ A.; see also Alf. in loc. αἱ ἐπαγγελία ι ‘the promises ;" plural, as being several times repeated (Est.), and couched in different forms of ex- pression; comp, Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14. They in- volved, as Bengel well observes, not only earthly but heavenly blessings, ‘ terra Canaan et mundi, et divinorum bonorum omnium. The latter were more dis- tinctly future, the former paulo-post- future. On the exact spiritual nature of these promises, see Hengstenberg, Christol. Vol. 1. p. 38 (Clark). The so-called Ionic form ἐῤῥέϑησαν has the support of the best uncial MSS., and is adopted by most of the recent editors; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 447. kal τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ) ‘and to his seed;’ emphatic, as pointing to Christ, and forming as it were the ful- crum of the argument which follows, Cuap. III. 16. > fol > / αὐτοῦ. οὐ δλέγει GALATIANS. Καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, W ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν, GN ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνός Καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός. The passages of Scripture referred to are here appy. Gen. xiii. 15, and xvii. 8, but not Gen. xxii. 18; so Iren. v. 32, Origen on Rom. iv. Vol. v. p. 276 (ed. Lomm.). We may here pause to make a brief remark on the great free- dom with which so many commentators have allowed themselves to characterize St. Paul’s argument as either artificial («Schulkunst,’ Ewald) or Rabbinical (Mey. ; comp. Surenhus. BiBA. Καταλλ. p- 84), or, as Baur, Apost. Paul. p. 665, has even ventured to assert, ‘ plainly arbitrary and incorrect.’ It may be true that similar arguments occur in Rab- binical writers (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p. 736); it may be true that σπέρμα (like 7) is a collective noun, and that when the plural is used, as in Dan. i. 12, ‘grains of seed’ are implied. All this may be so, — nevertheless, we have here an interpretation which the Apos- tle, writing under the illumirfation of the Holy Ghost has deliberately pro- pounded, and which, therefore (whatever difficulties may at first appear in it), is profoundly and indisputably true. We hold, therefore, that there is as certainly a mystical meaning in the use of yy, in Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, as there is an ar- gument for the resurrection in Exod. iii. 6, though in neither case was the writer necessarily aware of it. As yf in its simple meaning generally (except Gen, iv. 25,1 Sam.i. 11) denotes not the mere progeny of a man, but his ‘posterity viewed as one organically-con- nected whole; so here in its mystical meaning it denotes not merely the spir- itual posterity of Abraham, but Him in whom that posterity is all organically united, the πλήρωμα, the κεφαλή, even Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly to convey to his Greek readers by the use of σπέρμα and σπέρματα : see Olsh. and Windischm. in loc., both of whom may be consulted with profit. οὐ λέγει ‘He saith not ;’ not ἣ γραφή (Bos, Ellips, p. 54), as in Rom, xv. 10, — where this subst. is supplied from γέγραπται, ver. 9,—or τὸ πνεῦμα (Riick., Winer, Gr. § 39. 1), which appears ar- bitrary, but the natural subject ὁ Θεός, as in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, and (φησὶ) 1 Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5. So appy. Syr., which here inserts @X, [illi] after λέγει. ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν] ‘as (speaking) of many,’ Apparently a solitary instance in the N. T. of this meaning of ἐπὶ with gen. after verbs ‘dicendi,’ etc. (2 Cor. vii. 14 [Riick.], is not in point, as ἐπὶ Τίτου is there ‘coram Tito’), though not uncommon in classical Greek ; compare Plato, Charm. 155 D, ἐπὶ τοῦ καλοῦ λέ- yov παιδός, and ib. Gorg. 453 Ἐ, πάλιν δ᾽ εἰ ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν τεχνῶν λέγομεν. In this use of ἐπί, a trace of the local mean- ing (superposition, Donalds. Gr. ὁ 483) may be distinctly perceived, the gen. representing as it were the substratum on which the action rests; comp. John vi. 2; and see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 28, p- 248, Winer, Gr. § 47. g, p. 335, and for a comprehensive notice of this prep., Wittmann, de Naturd ete. ἐπί (Schweinf. 1846). ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός) ᾽ ‘Christ (Jesus),’ not Christ and his Church, as Hammond zn Joc.: this ap- pears evident from the emphasis which St. Paul lays on the use of the singu- lar; σπέρμα δὲ αὐτοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ἐστὶν ὃ Χριστός, Chrys. Some useful remarks on this passage will be found in the Theol, Critic, No. rv. p. 494 sq. GALATIANS. 78 Cuar. ΠῚ. 17. " τοῦτο δὲ λέγω: διαϑδήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ [εἰς Χριστὸν] ὁ μετὰ τετρακύσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ 17. εἰς Χριστόν] ‘ for Christ,’ i. e., to be fulfilled in Christ : not ‘ usque δᾶ tem- pora Christi,’ or ‘in reference to Christ’ (Peile), but as in ver. 24. These words are omitted by ABC; 17. 23". 0755. 80; Vulg., Copt., Ath. (both); Cyr. (2), Dam.; Jerome, Aug. (often), Pel., Bed. (Lachm., Tisch., Mey.),— and it must be fairly owned have some appearance of being a gloss, still the authority for the insertion, — viz, DEFGJK; most mss.; Syr. (both), Clarom., Arm. [correct Griesb.|; Chrys., Theod., Theoph., (Ecum. ( Rec., Scholz), is so strong that we seem justified in an insertion in brackets. See Bagge in loc, (p. 95), who has argued with ability in favor of the Received Text. 17. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω] ‘This, how- ever, I say,’ ‘hoc autem dico,’ Vulg., Clarom. Instead of using the collective οὖν, which might obscure the exact posi- tion which ver. 16 holds in the argument, St. Paul uses the explanatory formula τοῦτο δὲ λέγω. The δὲ thus serves to re- sume the argument (σαφηνείας χάριν ava- λαμβάνει τὸν λόγον, CEcum.) after the short digression, κατ᾽ avdp. λέγω — τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, and also to mark the application of the particular case to the general prin- ciple. ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια κι τ. A.] ‘which came (so long a time as) four hundred and thirty years after- wards ;’ μετὰ πλεῖστον χρόνον, Theod, The chronological difficulty involved in this passage, when compared with Gen. xv. 13, Exod. xii. 40, and Acts vii. 6, can only be briefly noticed. Here the period from the promise to the exodus is stated to be 430 years; but in Exod. J. ὁ. the same period, and in Gen. and Acts J. ὁ. the round number 400 is assigned to the sojourn in Egypt alone. The ancient mode of explanation seems perfectly sat- isfactory, —viz., that the 430 years in- clude the sojourn in Canaan (about 215 years) as well as that in Egypt ; the whole period of abode ἐν γῇ οὐκ ἰδίᾳ (Gen. xv. 13); comp. August. Quest. in Heptat. τι, 47 (Vol. 11. p. 611, Migne), Usher, Chro- nol, Sacr. ch, 8. This is confirmed by the addition of the words καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν (Exod. 2, c.) in the LXX, and Samar, Pent.: see Petav. Rat. Temp. u. Book 2,4, Vol. u. p. 71, Hales, Chron. Vol. mu. p. 168 (ed. 1811). It may be ob- served that the records of the family of Levi appear to render so long a so- journ in Egypt as 430 years impossible. Amram, grandson of Leyi, marries his father’s sister Jochebed (Exod. vi. 20; comp. Exod. ii. 1, Numb. xxvi. 49). Now, as it appears probable by a com- parison of dates that Levi was born when Jacob was about 87, Levi would have been 43 when he came into Egypt ; there he lives 94 years (Exod. vi. 16). Assuming, then, even that Jochebed was born in the last year of Levi’s life, she must at least have been 256 years old when Moses was born, if the sojourn in Egypt be 430 years: see Windischm. in loc. The transposition ἔτη τετρακ. κι τ᾿ A. (Rec.) has against it the author- ity of all the uncial MSS. except J K, and is certainly to be rejected. eis τὸ καταργῆσαι x.7.A,] ‘that it should render the promise of none effect,’ ad evacuandam promissionem,’ Vulg., Clarom. (compare A®th., Syr.- Philox) ; εἰς τὸ with the infinitive here retaining its usual primary force of object or intention: τὸ καταργΎ. Wus the object aimed at by the invalida- tion. It may be remarked that as the prep. alone may point to consequence as Cnap. III. 18, 19. GALATIANS. 79 > a 4 na ἀκυροῖ, εἰς TO καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπωγγελίαν. ™ εἰ yap ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας: τῷ δὲ ᾿Αβραὰμ δι’ ἐπαγγελίας , ε ἢ κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός. The law was to bring the conviction of sin (positive © Ti οὖν 6 νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων answer): and was not against {116 promises of God (negative answer), to which it was a preparative institu- tien. well as intention (see exx. in Rost. u. Palm, Lex. 8. v. ἐπὶ v. 1), we must not abruptly deny what is termed the ‘ec- batic’ force of εἰς τό : still usage seems to show that in St. Paul’s Epp. the final eis τὸ so much predominates (opp. to Jelf, Gr. § 625, 3. a), that even in pas- sages like 2 Cor. viii. 6, we must not conceive all idea of purpose wholly ob- literated ; compare Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p- 294 sq., and see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12. 18. εἰ yap ἐκ νόμου] Confirm- atory expansion of the preceding words ; ‘I say advisedly, εἰς τὸ καταργ. k. τ. A. 5 for if the inheritance be of the law, the promise must plainly be reduced to in- operativeness and invalidity ; see Theoph. in loc, The prep. ἐκ here preserves its primary meaning of ortgin under the slight modification of result or conse- quence ; sce notes on ch. ii. 16. h κληρονομία] ‘the inheritance ;’ here used by the Apostle in its higher meaning to denote that inheritance of the blessings of the Messiah’s kingdom, —the inheritance of the heavenly Ca- naan, which was typified by the lower and primary meaning, the inheritance of the earthly Canaan; comp. Acts vii. 5, Heb. xi. 4, and see Brown p. 147. οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελία] ‘it ts no more of promise ;’ the latter supposition is excluded by the former ; comp. Rom, vii. 20, xi. 6, and see Winer, Gr. § 66. 10, p. 545. Οὐκέτι is thus used in its simple /ogical sense without any tempo- ral reference. δι᾽ Atas| ‘by means of promise ; the form of a promise’ (Peile, Riick.), ἐπαγγε- ἢ not ‘in nor as uniting with κεχάρ. as a mere equivalent to ἐπηγγείλατο (Aath., both), but simply and plainly ‘per promis- sionem,’ Beza, ‘by virtue and by means of promise.’ The enjoyment of the in- heritance depended on no conditions, came through no other medium, save that of promise, κεχάρισται) ‘hath freely given tt, ‘gratis dedit,’ Copt.; ‘notanda est emphasis in voce kex. αι a χάρις deducitur, adeoque a Beza (?) recte vertitur gratificatus est, confer Rom. iv. 13, 14, 15,’ Bull, Harm. Ap. τι. 5.5. Kexap. may be translated intransitively, ‘Abrahamo grata fecit Deus’ (Schott, Olsh., Bretsch.) ; but as the verb is nearly always used transi- tively in the N. T., and as logical per- spicuity requires that the subject of the first member of the conditional syllo- gism (Beng.) should be supplied in the second, it appears most natural to tacitly supply κληρονομίαν as the obvious object- accusative. With the present use of the perf., implying the duration of the χάρις, contrast Phil. ii. 9, ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ ὄνομα, where the action is represented as a simple historical fact. 19. τί οὖν ὃ νόμος] “ What then is the law,’ i. e. ‘what is the meaning, the object of the law?’ Answer to the not unnatural objection, — that the Law must according to the Apostle’s reason- ing, be deemed a useless institution (περιττῶς ἐτέϑη, Theod.), — by a state- ment of its real use, office, characteris- tics, and relation to the covenant of grace: ἵνα μή τις νομίσῃ περιττὸν τὸν νόμον, καὶ τοῦτο διορϑοῦται τὸ μέρος, δεικ- vos ὅτι οὐκ εἰκῆ, ἀλλὰ πανὺ χρησίμως 80 χάριν προσετέδη, ἄχρις οὗ ἐδόϑη, Chrys. Ti is not for διὰ τί (Schott, Brown), but is the idiomatic neuter expressive of the abstract nature, etc., of the subject; see Bernhardy, Synt. vu. 4, p. 336, and comp. Madvig, Synt. § 97, note. Meyer cites 1 Cor. iii. 5, τί οὖν ἐστιν ᾿Απολλώς, but the MSS. evidence [CDEFGJ opp. to AB] seems there fairly in favor of τίς. τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν ‘on ac- count of, ‘because of, the transgres- sions,’ ‘propter transgressiones,’ Vulg., > 1 Holes Vise [propter trans- gressionem} Syr., Copt. (ethbe), and appy- Arm. (vasn),—scil. to manifest, awaken a conviction of, and give as it were a distinctive existence to the trans- gressions of it (which existed but were not properly recognized as such), whether previous or subsequent to its introduc- tion; comp. Rom. v. 13, ἄχρι yap νόμου ἁμαρτία ἣν ἐν κόσμῳ, the more generic ἁμαρτία being there used, as sin is not contemplated (as here) specially in the light of a transgression of a fixed or- dinance. Owing to the various shades of meaning that have been assigned to χάριν, the exact significance of these words is somewhat debatable. Of the many interpretations that have been proposed, three deserve consideration, (a) ‘ad coercendas transgressiones ;’ as Chrys. (ἀντὶ χαλινοῦ ὁ νόμος), Theoph. (cum., Jerome, and most of the older expositors : (8) ‘transgressionum gratia,’ scil. to call them forth, to multiply them, and, as it were, bring them to a head,. Rom. v. 20, vii. 7; so appy. Clarom., ‘factorum (?) gratid,’ very distinctly 4Eth. (both), ‘ut multiplicarent pec- cata,’ and some modern expositors, Meyer, Alf., al.: (γ) ‘¢transgressionum causa,’ i, 6. ‘ut transgressiones palam faceret, eoque modo homines cogeret ad agnitionem sui reatus,’ Caly.; Rom, iii. GALATIANS. Cuyp. 11. 19. ἔλϑῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγ’ 20; so appy. Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., Ang., Beza, Winer (appy.), and also in part Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. m. 2, p. 48) who objects both to (a) and the ex- treme view of (8). Of these in- terpretations we must, in spite of the authority of the Greek commentators, plainly reject (a) on lexical grounds, as no satisfactory exx. (Soph. Gd. Col. 443 [see Herm.] is not to the point, nor 1 John iii. 12, nor even Clem. Hom. xt. 16, τῶν παραπτωμάτων χάριν ἡ τιμωρία ἕπεται) have as yet been adduced of such a practically reversed meaning of χάριν. The second (β) is more plausi- ble, but still open to the grave objection, that in a comparatively undogmatical passage it ascribes a purpose directly to God (contrast Rom. v. 20, νόμος παρεισ- ἤλϑεν ἵνα κ. τ. A.), Which would have certainly needed a fuller explanation. We may retain, therefore, with some confidence (y), which is both lexically defensible (see below), and yields a good and pertinent sense. The office of the law was to make transgressions palpable, to awaken a conviction of sin in the heart (τὸ πεῖσαι εἰδέναι τὰ οἰκεῖα ἁμαρτή- ματα, Chrys.), and make man feel his need of a Saviour. It was thus also necessarily temporary (ἄχρις οὗ K. τ. A.), for when the Seed did come, higher influences began to work within. It only remains briefly to answer the lexical objection of Meyer, by stating that χάριν (esp. in later writers) does not always mean ‘in gratiam,’ but in- cludes all shades of meaning, from in gratiam to causé and propter, just as those of ἕνεκα range from causa to quod attinet ad; see Bernh. Synt. v. 16, p. 233, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. χάριν, and comp. exx, in Ast, Lex. Plat, and Rost. u. Palm, Lez. 8. v. A discussion of this passage and the general scope of the law will be found in Petav. de Cuap. III. 19. γέλται, διαταγεὶς δι᾿ Predest. x. 25.1, Vol. 1. p. 461; com- pare also Bull, Exam. Cens. xix. 6, and more recently Baur, Apost, Pau. m1. 5, Ῥ. 581 sq., but observe that all these writers adopt the negative meaning of χάριν. προσετέ ὃ ἡ] ‘was su- peradded,’ ‘super-addita est,’ Herm.; it was, however, as Meyer observes, no ἐπιδιαϑήκη, but a totally fresh institu- tion. The reason is given by Gicum., ἵνα δείξῃ τὸν νόμον μὴ ὄντα πρωτότυπον The present reading is supported by ABCDs EJK; most mss.; Theod. (2), Dam., Theoph., G&cum., and is distinctly to be preferred to ἐτέϑη (Ree.), which has both less external authority [DIFG; 5 mss. ( Vulg.,-Clarom., appy., — but in such cases Vy. can hardly be cited) Clem., Orig., Euseb.], and also seems to have been a very natural substitution for a more difficult word. ἄχρις οὗ ἔλχλϑῃ] ‘until the seed shall have come ;’ ‘terminus ad quem’ of the duration of the newly introduced in- stitution (Mey.), involving the obvious ὥσπερ af ἐπαγγελίαι εἰσίν. query, τί περαιτέρω καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν αὐτὸν ἕλκεις, Chrys. This use of the sub- junct. after an aor. in temporal sen- tences, can be fully defended on the recognized principle, that the past is contemplated by the writer as a present, from which, as it were, he is taking his survey of what would be then future, though now past; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 41. 1, p. 257 sq., comp. Schmalf, Synt. § 128. 2, Klotz. Devar, Vol. 1. p- 618. It must, however, be applied with caution both in the N, T. and in later Greek, owing to the gradual dis- use of the opt. and the tendency of the subj. to take its place. Meyer calls at- tention to the omission of ἂν as evincing the idea in St. Paul’s of ~all absence of obstacles; see Herm. de Partic. ἄν; τι. 9, p. 110, Klotz, Devar. 11 mind GALATIANS. ἀγγέλων, 81 ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου. Vol. π᾿. p. 568, Schmalf. Syné. § 121. ᾧ ἐπήγγελται] ‘to whom the prom- tse has been made ;’ περὶ Χριστοῦ λέγων, Chrys. ; comp. ver. 16, ἐῤῥέϑησαν ----τῷ σπέρματι. It does not seem desirable to destroy the parallelism of these two . clauses by translating ἐπήγ.» sc. ὁ Θεός, actively. διαταγεί:5] ‘ordained ;’ not ‘promulgated,’ Ust., Winer, but simply ‘ordinata,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘dis- posita,’ Clarom.; see Philo, Op. Mund. 1. 1, διατεταγμένων ὑπὸ τῶν νομοϑετῶν, and comp. Hesiod, Op. 274, νόμον διέ- tate Κρονίων. where one Scholiast (Pro- clus) paraphrases it by the simple verb. The participial clause serves to add — accessory details and distinctions to mpogeT., and is not prior to, but con- temporancous with the action described by the finite verb; comp. Col. ii. 15, and see notes im Joc. On the union of the part. with the finite verb. see the brief but pertinent remarks of Bern- hardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, and the more elaborate notice of Schmalfeld, Synt. § 205 sq. It would certainly seem that, esp. in later Greek writers, the part. is often associated with the finite verb, where two verbs united with a copula would have seemed more natural and. even more intelligible; see the exx. im Herm. Viger, No. 224. On the best mode of translating these sort of partici- ples, see notes on Phil. ii. 30 ( Transl.) δ ἀγγέλω ν] ‘through angels, per angelos,’ Vulg., Clarom., Ἰ5211:0 pS) w 4 4 Jin manu angelorum] Syr., scil. ἀγγέλων" ὑπουργούντων, Theod,: third character- istic of the law (see next note) serving. to show the distinction, in point of man- ner and circumstance, between. its en- actment and the giving of the Promise : ‘per angelos, in manu mediatoris, du- pliciter mediate,’ Beng. ; comp. Baur, Paulus, p. 582. There is thus no reason. 82 whatever for modifying this meaning of διά; it points simply and plainly to the media and intervenient actors, by whose ministry the law was enacted; see Joseph. Antig. xv. 5, 3, ἡμῶν τὰ κάλ- λιστα τῶν δογμάτων Kal Ta ὁσιώτατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις δ᾽ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαϑόντων, Deut. xxxiii. 2 (LXX), and see Winer, Gr. § 47. 1, p. 339, note. ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου] ‘in the hand of a mediator,’ ‘in manu mediatoris,’ Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm. : fourth and most important distinction (see below) between the law and the _ Promise, and to which the argument of ver. 20 specially refers. The ἐν is not instrumental ‘by the hand,’ Mey. (on the ground that Moses received the law from God, and gave it to the people; comp. Baur, Apost. Paul. p. 583), but, as the use of the singular, and the Ara- maic idiom both suggest, combines with χειρὶ as = 722, scil. ‘ ministerio (media- toris) ;’ τῇ τούτου 'ϑέσει Μωυσέως διακο- νοῦντος, Vheodoret ; see 2 Chron, xxxiii. 8, Josh. xiv. 2, Wisdom xi. 1. “That Moses is the mediator here referred to (Deut. v. 5), seems now so generally admitted, that we may reasonably won- «der how the early expositors (Basil and ‘Theodoret are exceptions) could have so generally coincided in the perplexing view of Origen (Vol. v. p. 273, ed. Lomm.), that the μεσίτης here men- tioned was Christ. Great difference of opinion, however, exists as to St. Paul’s object in recounting these details. If it was to prove the dowliness of the law, such a recital would in several parts rather seem to convey the contrary. If it was to show the glorious nature (Mey.), such an object would appear seriously at variance with the context. The more natural view is, that it was to mark the fundamental differences be- ‘tween the law and the Gospel, and GALATIANS. Cuar. IIL. 19, 20, ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν. thence, as a natural result of the contrast, the transitory and provisional nature of the former. The law was an institution (1), τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν, restricted and conditioned; (2), ἄχρις οὗ κ. τ. A., temporary and provisional ; (3), διαταγείς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων mediately (not immediately) given by God; (4) ἐν χειρὶ μεσ., medi- ately (but not immediately) received from God: see Olsh. and Windischm. in loc. 20. ὁ δὲ μεσίτη5] ‘Now every mediator,’ or, according to our English idiom, ‘a mediator ;’ the δὲ being ¢ransi- tional (μεταβατικόν, see notes on ch. iii. 8), and the article referring, not to the mediator previously mentioned, ‘this mediator’ (Brown), but to the generic idea of a mediator; “ articulus definit indefinita, idque duobus modis, aut de- signando certo de multis, aut que multa sunt, cunctis in unum colligendis,’ Herm. Iph. Aul. p. xv. (Pref.); see Winer, Gr. δ 18. 15.9297. ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔσ- τιν] ‘appertains not unto one,’ ‘does not belong to any single one, — any one who stands isolated and by himself, but implies two parties ;’ so Copt. and Arm., both of which throw that slight em- phasis on the évos, which the Greek seems both to require and suggest; con- trast Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. τι. 2, p. 48, who, appy. without any just ground, asserts the contrary. This idea of sin- gleness and isolation is really our only clew. With regard to this and the remaining words it is necessary to pre- mise that all idea of the verse being a gloss (Michaelis, Liicke, Stud. u. Krit. for 1828, p. 83 sq.) must be summarily dismissed, as there is no variation found in the MSS. or mss., either in the words or their order. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστίν) ‘but Gop is one;’ «Gop (not without slight emphasis, comp. ver. 21), the direct and personal giver of the παρ. IIT. 20. Promise, does stand single and isolated, —dealt singly with Abraham (τῷ δὲ "ABp. δι ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός, ver. 18), — and, by consequence, is (in the promise) mediatorless ;’ prop. minor of a syllogism, of which the conclusion, being obvious, is omitted; see below. Out of the mass of interpretations of this terse sentence (said positively to exceed 400), Schleiermacher, Winer, and Meyer best deserve attention. A brief notice of these will serve to illus- trate the precise nature of the difficul- ties. In the first part of the verse all are agreed; ‘now every mediator in- volves the idea of more than one:’ in the concluding clause they thus differ. (1) Schleiermacher, adopted by Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 2, p. 179; “but God is one’ — in reference to His promises, free, unfettered by conditions. (2) Winer; ‘but God is one’ — one part only (com- pare A&th.-Pol., ‘unus est duorum’) ; ‘the people of Israel must be the other part: hence they are bound to the law.’ (8) Meyer; ‘but God (on the contrary) is one’ — and one only (ein Einziger) ; there is then a fundamental difference in the number of parties concerned in the law and the promise. Schl. and Win. thus connect ver. 20 with ver. 19 as an epexegesis; Mey. joins it with ver. 21, making it St. Paul’s own statement of a difficulty that might arise in a read- er’s mind. Meyer’s interpretation has this advantage over Schleicrmacher’s, that it preserves the numerical idea which plainly belongs to εἷς ; and this over Winer’s, that 6 Θεός, which is clearly the subject, is not practically turned into the predicate. In the under stress, however, which it places on the idea of unity as opposed to that of plu- rality, and more esp. in the assumption that ὁ δὲ Θεὸς κ. τ. A. is in fact a mono- theistic ‘locus communis’ (comp. Jow- ett), it cannot be pronounced wholly satisfactory, Perhaps the following GALATIANS: 83 simple explanation is less open to objec- tions. The context states briefly the four distinctive features of the law (see above) with tacit reference to the ἐπαγ- γελία. Three of these are passed over ; the ἰαϑέ as the most important, is no- ticed ; ‘the law was with, the promise was without a mediator.’ Ver. 20 thus appears a syllogism of which the con- clusion is omitted: ‘Now a mediator does not appertain to one (standing or acting alone); διέ (in the promise) God ts one (does stand and act alone): THEREFORE (in the promise) A MEDIATOR DOES NOT APPERTAIN To Gop. Js then the law (a dispensation which, besides other distinctions, involved a mediator) opposed to the promises which rested on Gop (and involved no mediator)? God forbid” According to this view the only real difficulty is narrowed to the propositio minor. How was God one? And the answer seems, — not because He is essentially unity (comp. De W.), nor because he is one by Himself, and Abraham is one by himself (Baur. Paud. p- 583), nor yet because he is both the giver, the Father, and the receiver, the Son, united (ed. 1, Windischm.; an interpr. too devoid of simplicity and too expressly theological), but, with the as- pect that the last clause of ver. 18 puts on the whole reasoning, — because He dealt with Abraham singly and directly, stood alone, and used no mediator. The almost obvious objection to this ex- planation is, that it implies and involves a limitation (‘in the promise’) in a clause which seems a mere ‘locus com- munis:’ but the answer does not seem unreasonable, that even assuming that the minor was really suggested to the Apostle, as being a general axiomatic statement, his previous declaration of God’s having dealt with Abraham with no other medium than his own gracious promise (δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας) showed what he really regarded as the present verifi- 84 GALATIANS. Cuap. ITI. 21. Ἵ ὁ οὗν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ; μὴ γένοιτο. > \ > , e ΄ a » “ a el yap ἐδόδη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἣν cation of it. The reader who de- sires to examine some of the other inter- pretations may consult, for the earlier, Bonitz, Plur. de Gai. iii. 20 Sentent. Examinate, Lips. 1800; for the later, Winer’s Excursus, and Meyer in oc. 21. ὁ οὖν νόμος x. τ. λ.] ‘Is the law then against the promises of God ;’ the οὖν with its full collective force (Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 717), gather- ing up the previous reasoning and im- mediately applying its obvious though omitted result ; ‘does then a confessedly distinctive, ceremonial, and mediator ial system stand in opposition with the promises which God gave to Abraham without a mediator and without any distinctive ceremonies δ᾽ Θεοῦ is not without emphasis: ‘the promises which rest immediately on God, and were attested by no mediator.’ The plural ai ἐπαγγελ. is used, as in ver. 16, in ref. to different repetitions of the promise, and to hint at the various ways of fulfilment which it contem- plated. Lachm. places τοῦ Θεοῦ in brackets, in consequence of its omission in Β, Clarom. Sangerm.,— but on au- thority almost obviously insufficient. εἰ yap 25637) ‘For 1 there had been given ;’ proof of the justice of the fore- TOU going -declaration μὴ γένοιτο; πρῶτον μὲν ἀπαγορεύει εἰπών, μὴ γένοιτο" ἔπειτα καὶ κατασκευάζει, Chrys. On the use of μὴ γένοιτο see notes on ch. ii. 17. νόμος ὁ Suvduevos] ‘a law (as the principle) which could have,’ ete. This is one out of many instances, both in the N. T. and elsewhere, in which, to give prominence to the defining clause, the anarthrous noun is followed and defined by the article attached to a par- ticiple, e. g- Rom. ii. 14, ἔϑνη τὰ μὴ γόμον ἔχοντα : see further exx. in Winer, Gr. § 20, 4, p. 126, Ellendt, Lex. Soph, s. v. 6, Vol. 1. p. 241. ζω o- ποιῆσαι, ‘to give life (and. blessed- ness) ;’ ‘ vivificare, sive vitam dare, idem est quod dare κληρονομίαν, heereditatem vite celestis atque etern,’ Bull, Lxam. Cens. x1x. 6; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, and comp. Ust, Lehrb, τ. 4. § B, p. 61. So also in ver. 12, ζήσεται (= ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἕξει, Olsh. on Rom. i. 17) similarly in- volves the ideas of life and blessedness. ὄντως K.7.A.] ‘verily,’ ete.; ‘ap- prime notanda est emphasis egregia in adverbio ὄντως, vere,’ Bull, Exam. Cens. xix, 6. It has been asked whether St. Paul is here reasoning (a) from the effect (ζωοπ.) to the cause (δικαιοσ.) ; or, conversely (δ), from the cause ((wor., assumed to mean a new moral life) to the effect (δικαιοσ.) ; compare Neander, Plant, Vol. 1. p. 418 (Bohn). Cer- tainly the former; δικαιοσ. is really, as Ust. properly observes, the middle mem- ber of between νόμος and ζωή, without which the law could not have given life. St. Paul, however, thus states his argument: ‘lex vitam dare non potest, proinde neque veram justificationem,’ Bull, Ex. Cens. 1. ο. The order adopted in Rec. ὄντως ἂν ἐκ νόμου ἦν, has only the support of D°EJK; mss. ; Chrys., Theod., al., and is rejected by most critical editors. ἐκ νόμου] ‘would have resulted from the law,’ ‘would have come from the law as its origin,’ not ‘ would have been suspended on law’ (Peile),— a meaning which usually arises from the associated verb, δεῖν, ἀρτᾶσϑαι, etc., and does not appear to be very common out of Herodot. ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 13, p. 227. The order in Rec., ἂν ἐκ νόμου ἦν, with D°EJK; mss.; Chrys., Theod., al.], has not sufficient authority, though, Cuap. III. 99, GALATIANS. 85 ἡ δικαιοσύνη: “ ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ. τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρ- ͵ ~/ « > / ΩΣ Ve. ’ fa) a a a tiav, iva ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοδῇ τοῖς it must be admitted that, owing to the variations in the leading MSS. (Β ἐν νόμῳ, D om. ἄν, FG om. ἄν ἦν), the text is not wholly free from suspicion, 22. ἀλλα) ‘But on the contrary ;’ not δέ, as there is a marked adversative re- lation between the clauses, and as a statement in ref. to the law is about to be made exactly contrary to the result of the foregoing assumption; see Klotz, ‘Devar: Vol. τι. p. 2, 3. In Latin, this distinction can usually be maintained by the more distinctly adversative sed (Vulg., Clarom.), not the more simply oppositive autem, in which the latter particle, ‘discrimen proprie indicatur, non diversitas,’ Hand, Twsell. Vol. 1. p. 555, comp. Klotz, Vol. 1. p. 361. συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφ ἢ] ‘the Scrip- ture shut up; not equivalent to ὁ νόμος (Jowett, al.), but with a kind of per- sonification, 7 Seta γραφή (Theod.), the Scripture of the Old Test. as the repre- sentative of Him by whom it was in- spired; comp. ver. 8. With regard to the meaning of συγκλείειν (“ concludi sub peccato is dicitur, qui peccati reatu adhuc obstrictus tenetur,’ Bull, Ez. Ceas. x1x. 6), it may be observed (1) that the declaratory sense (‘ conclusos declaravit,’ Bull, comp. Baur, Paulus, p. 581), does not lie in the verb (see Rom. xi. 32, where the act is ascribed to God), but in the context ; and (2) that the prep. συν does not imply the similarity of situation of all (Beng.), but simply the idea of contraction (Mey.), ‘ab omni parte clausit,’ Schott 2; comp. συμπιέ- (ew, συμπνίγειν :- see Fritz, Rom. xi. 32, Vol. um. p. 545, and exx. in Rost ἃ. Palm, Lez. 5. v. Vol. 1. p. 1395, where instances are cited of συγκλ. being used in reference to a single person. On this text and on the general relation of the law to sin, see the weighty sermon of Usher, Serm. v. Vol. x1rt. p 60 sq. (ed. Elringt.). τὰ πάντα] “αἰ The neuter cannot safely be pressed (non modo onmes sed omnia Beng.), as if it were specially chosen to include not only men, but all their actions, ete., ‘humana omnia,’ Jowett (comp. Alf., Windise.); this being neither required by the context (comp. ver. 23), nor justified by St. Paul’s usus loquendi : see Rom. xi. 32, where, in a passage exactly similar, the masc. is used, and comp. Theodoret zz loc., who divides the τὰ πάντα into τοὺς mpd νόμου, and τοὺς ἐν νόμῳ. ὙΠῸ exact difference between τοὺς πάντας and τὰ πάντα is, perhaps, here no greater than between ‘all men’ and ‘all mankind’ (see Ust.): the neu- ter is idiomatically and instinctively chosen, as best suiting the generality of the declaration; compare Winer, Gr. § 27. 5, p. 160, Seidler on Eur. Troad, 426. ἵνα ἣ ἐπαγγ.} ‘in order that the promise ;’ object and intent, — not the mere recognized consequence (‘quo appareat dari,’ Winer) of the σύγκλεισι5, on the part of ἡ γραφὴ and God its author. ‘The abstract ἐπαγγελία is here, as the context suggests, practi- cally equivalent to the concrete ‘res promissa’ (Schott), scil. κληρονομία ; see ver. 18, Heb. x. 36, xi. 39, and comp. Test. xu. Patr. p. 725, 6 Θεὸς εἰσάξει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν (cited by Bretsch. Lex. 8. v.), where this concrete notion is taken in its widest extent as = 7 γῆ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ; SO κληρονομία, 2 Macc, ii. 4. ἐκ πίστεως I. Χ.] “ὃν faith in Jesus Christ, ‘resulting from faith as its source and origin (notes, ch. ii. 16); ἐκ rior. being in close union, — not with 5037 (Riick., Conyb.), but with ἐπαγγελία (compare Winer, Gr. § 20, 2, 86 74 3 TLOTEVOVO LY. GALATIANS. Cuap. III. 23. πρὸ Tod δὲ ἐλϑεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρου- ρούμεδα συγκεκλεισμένοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφδϑῆ- Ῥ. 123, notes on Eph. i. 16), and forming a retrospective antithesis to ἐκ νόμου, ver. 21. The genitive "Ino. Xp. is perhaps here to be taken in its most comprehen- sive sense; not only ‘faith on Christ’ (gen. odjecti), but ‘faith as given by Him’ (gen. sudjecti); comp. notes on ch. ii 16. In the N. T. especially, the connection of the nom. and gen. must often be explained solely from exegetical considerations ; see Winer, Gr. § 30, 1, p. 168 τοῖς πιστεύουσιν) ‘to them that δοῖϊουθ; not ‘qui erant credituri’ (Grot. Peile), but ‘eis qui credunt,’ Clarom., al., ‘credentibus,’ Vulg., the apparent tautology not being intended merely as emphatic (Winer), but as suitably echoing the ἐκ πίστεως above. The Galatians were ready to admit that those who believed would be saved, but they doubted whether faith alone was sufficient; hence the apostle interposes the limitation in ref. to the thing promised (ἢ ἐπαγγ. ἐκ mior.), and virtually repeats it in ref. to the recipients. The promise was of faith not of the law; the receivers were not doers of the law, but believers; comp. Meyer in loc. 23. πρὸ τοῦ δὲ κ. τ. λ. ‘But be- fore Faith (above mentioned) came ;’ further account of the relation in which the law stood to faith, δὲ not being here distinctly oppositive, but with some tinge of its primary enumerative force (see Donalds. Crat. § 155), adding a further explanation, though in that ex- planation serving to introduce a con- trast; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 362. With regard to the position of the par- ticle, it may be remarked that there is nothing unusual (opp. to Riick.), in δὲ thus occupying the ¢hird place after a prep. and its case; see exx. in Hartung, Partik. δέ, 1. 6, Vol. 1. p. 190. The common-sense principle is, that δὲ does not necessarily occupy the second place, but the jirst possible place which the internal connection of the sentence will admit of; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 378. ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουροΐύ- μεϑα κ. τ. A.) ‘we were kept in ward shut up under the law ;’ συγκεκλ. being joined, not with εἰς πίστιν (see follow- ing note), but, in a construction similar to that of the preceding verse, with ὑπὸ νόμον (Arm., al.); the law, in fact, is here (as ἁμαρτία in ver. 22) represented as a kind of gaoler into whose custody we were delivered; see Késter, Stud. ἃ. Krit. 1854, p. 316. The meaning of φρουρεῖσϑαι is thus not merely ‘asser- vari’ (Winer, Schott), much less ‘ ob- stringi ad obedientiam’ (Bretsch.), but, as the definite expression συγκεκλ. dis- tinctly requires, ‘ custodiri,’ Vulg., Cla- rom., Copt., 2th.), ὥσπερ ἐν τειχίῳ τινὶ κατέχεσϑαι, Chrys.; compare Wisdom xvii. 15, ἐφρουρεῖτο eis τὴν ἀσίδηρον εἰρκτὴν κατακλεισϑείς. The perf. part., it may be observed, correctly expresses the permanent, completed staie of the ~ captivity, and is thus not only on criti- cal but exegetical grounds to be pre- ferred to the pres. συγκλειόμενοι | Lachm., with B(Mai)D1FG; 2 mss.; Clem. (1), Cyr. (3), Dam.], which was not im- probably a conformation to the imperf. ἐφρουρ. : so rightly De W., Mey., and the majority of recent critics. eis τὴν μέλλουσαν κ. τ. A.] ‘for the faith about to be revealed ;’ object contemplated in the action of φρούρησις, εἰς not being temporal, ‘usque ad’ (Riick., Ust., comp. Copt., Ath ),—a meaning comparatively rare in the New Test. (compare John xiii. 1), and here certainly superfluous after the predica- Crap. III. 94, 25. GALATIANS. 87 4. ὦ ae ς a vat. “ ὥστε ὁ νόμος παϊδωγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα > / » ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωδῶμεν': By faith in Christ we have become freed from Ὁ Ελϑούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ the pedagogy of the law, and are thus all children of God, Abraham's seed, and heirs of the promise. tion of time in mpd rod éASeiv, — but in its usual ethical meaning of “ destination for’ (‘in fidem,’ Vulg., Clarom.) ; com- pare Winer, Gr, § 49. a, p. 353. The clause is thus naturally connected with the finite verb, not with συγκλ. (‘ con- clusi, adeoque adacti ad,’ Beng.),—a construction certainly admissible (see exx. in Schweigh. Lex. Polyd. 5. v. συγκλ., or Raphel, Annot. Vol. 1. p. 440 sq.), but open to this serious exe- getical objection, that faith is not yet represented as existing; see Meyer in loc. μέλλουσαν πίστ. ἀποκ. The unusual order seems in- tended to give prominence to μέλλουσαν, and to present more forcibly the contrast between former captivity and subsequent freedom ; comp. Rom. viii. 18, πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφϑῆναι, where the future glories are set in strong con- trast to present calamities; see Fritz. in loc., Vol. τι. p. 148. 24. ὥστε] ‘So then,’ ‘itaque,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; consequence from the preceding statement; see notes, ch. ii. 13. παιδαγωγό 9] ‘pedagogue ;’ “ pedago- gus proprie notat eum qui puerum manu prehensum ad magistrum ducit,’ Schoett. (Hor. Vol. τ. p. 741), who remarks, how- ever, that the word was adopted by Rab- binical writers, but with some additional notions of care and guardianship: even among the Greek and Latin writers the idea of guardianship and also of sérict- ness and severity is distinctly prominent ; see esp. the exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. Ῥ. 186. The mere idea of leading to Christ (‘ vie dux' [shau-mdit], Copt., ‘ductor,’ Eth.) must not, then, be re- tained to the exclusion of those of actual teaching (Arm., Auth.), tutelage, and disciplinary restraint. This pedagogic function of the law was displayed posi- tively, in warnings and threatenings ; negatively (the prevailing idea in this place), in awakening the conscience, and bringing a conviction of sin; compare Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 5, p. 66. The patristic comments will be found in Suicer, The- saur, 8. Vv. νόμος, Vol. 11. p. 921; see also Petav. de Predest. x. 26. 1 sq. Vol. 1.p. 464. " eis Χριστόν] ‘for Christ ; not temporal (ἄχρις ob ἔλϑῃ Xp. see ver. 23), still less Joca?, ‘to Christ’ as ἃ διδάσκαλος (πρὸς τὸν Xp. ἀπῆγε, Theoph., comp. Chrys.), as Christ would thus be represented under éwo offices, Teacher and (iva ἐκ πίστ. dix.) Atoner, in the same verse. If any trace of a local meaning be retained in translation, e.g. ‘unto,’ Auth. Ver., it must be un- derstood of an ethical arrival (compare: 2 Cor. x. 14), as eis with persons is not simply equivalent to πρός, but involves the idea of mingling with and associa- tion; comp. Rom. v. 12, and see Winer, . Gr. § 49. a, p. 353. ἵνα eK: πίστ. δικαιωϑ.} ‘to the intent that: we might be justified by faith ;’ more: distinct and specific explanation of the preceding εἰς Χριστόν, the emphatic ἐκ πίστεως serving to suggest and enhance the contrast with the non-justifying and merely pedagogic νόμος. On the proper: force of the δικαιοῦν ἐκ, See notes on ch, ii. 16. : 25. €ASovons ὃ ἢ ‘but now that (this) faith is come.’ contrast between the present freedom and the past ped- agogy ; ἐλϑούσης, φησί, τῆς πίστεως, TIS: τέλειον ἄνδρα ποιούσης, οὐκ ἄν ἔτι εἴημεν ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν, Theoph. The connec- tion is so close throughout this latter- 88 παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν. ™ τεως ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ: “ἴ portion of the chapter, that it is difficult to subdivide it into paragraphs. Meyer, Conyb., al. place a paragraph after ver. 22: it seems, however, more natural here, as ver, 23, 24, carry out the idea expressed in συνέκλεισεν, ver. 22, ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν] ‘under a peda- gogue.’ The article is not here latent after the prep. (comp. Winer, Gr. καὶ 19. 2 ὃ, p. 114), but appears studiously omitted (so rightly Copt.), the words being in fact equivalent to ‘ under tute- lage, ‘unter Pidagogengewalt,’ Meyer. 26. πάντες γάρ] ‘For ye all ;’ con- firmation, e contrario, of the truth of the foregoing words; they were now not παῖδες, but viol (‘filii emancipati, remoto custode,’ Beng.), and that too not sons of Abraham merely (comp. ver. 7), but sons of God; πρότερον ἔδειξεν ὅτι υἱοὺς ἐποίει [ἣ πίστις τοῦ] “ABp.... νῦν δὲ ἀποφαίνει ὅτι καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Chrys. The υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, as Theod. Mops. well observes, includes the idea of τελειότης, which the preceding metaphor might serve to suggest. The reading ἅπαντες adopted by Lachm. is not im- probable, but not supported by AB. τῆς πίστ. ἐν Xp. Ἰησ.Ἶ ‘through the faith in Jesus Christ; so rightly Syr., Arm. (ed. Zohr.), Syr.-Philox., and Chrys. (ed. Field), Several com- mentators (Ust., ἃ]. : see Hofm. Schriftd. Vol. τι. 2, p. 152) join ἐν Xp. "Inc. with viol Θ. ἐστέ, on the ground that the words would be a superfluous addition to πίστις, and that ver. 27 contains the amplification of the expression. But, independently of the awkwardness of adding a second modal clause to υἱοί ἐστε, the recurrence of the formula πίστις ἐν Xp. “Ino. (Eph. i. 15, Col. i. 4) its grammatical accuracy (Winer, Gr, § 20. 2, p. 123, notes on Eph. i. 15), GALATIANS. ‘ Cuap. III. 26, 27. , ‘ ts a 3 : 4 “ ͵ πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστὲ διὰ τῆς πίσ- “Ψ \ > b ‘ ’ U ὅσοι yap εἰς Χριστὸν ¢Lantiante, and the natural coherence of the words, all seem distinctly to suggest the simpler and less dislocated construction If the article had been inserted, we should then have two ideas conveyed, the latter of which would be explanatory of the former; ‘per fidem, eamgue in Chr. Jes. collocatam,’ see Fritz. Rom. ui. 25, Vol. 1. p. 195. ᾿ , ‘27. ὅσοι yap] ‘for as many as ;" proof and confirmatory explanation of the preceding assertion. ‘The force of the particle is best explained by the Greek commentators, who refer it to viol Θεοῦ, and base the argument on the fact that Christ was the Son of God: ἐνεδύ- σασϑε thy Xp. τὸν ἀληδϑῶς υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐκείνον δὲ ἐνδεδυμένοι εἰκότως υἱοὶ Θευῦ χρηματίζετε, Theodoret ; see also Chrys. in loe. eis Χριστόν] ‘into Christ ;* not ‘in Christo,’ Vulg., Cla- rom., but ‘in Christum,’ Beza (compare Copt. pichr); scil. «ut Christo addicti essetis, Schott, or more strictly, into communion with Him, and incorpora- tion in His. mystical body. The mean- ing of eis with Barzi(w appears twofold ; (a) ‘unto,’ object, purpose: Matth. iii, 11, Acts ii. 38, see Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p- 354, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11. Ὁ. 3, p. 220; (8) ‘into,’ union and communion with: the context always showing whether it be of the most complete and most mystical nature, as here and Rom. vi. 3 (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13), or, as in 1 Cor. x. 2, necessarily less compre- hensive and significant. We may, in conclusion, observe that the expression Barr. εἰς τὸ ὄνομα (Matth. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, al.) is not identi- cal in meaning with Barr. ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. (Tholuck, Beitriige, No. 8, p. 49 sq.), but ever implies a spiritual and mystical union with Him in whose name the Cuar. IIL. 27, 28. GALATIANS. 89 Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασϑε. * οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ “Ἰύλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύδϑερος, οὐκ ἔνι sacrament was administered; see esp. Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. vi. p. 899. The meaning of βαπτίζειν τινὰ εἴς τινα (εἴς τι) and βαπτ. εἰς τὸ ὄνομά τινος is discussed at length by Fritz. (Rom. vi. 8, Vol. τ. p. 359 sq.), in opp. to Bindseil, Stud. τι. Krit. 1832, p. 410 sq., — but by no means satisfactorily, as he regards eis as only implying ethical direction (¢ali- quem aque ita immergere ut ‘ejus cogi- tationes in aliquem dirigas’), instead of that mystical incorporation which the passage seems certainly to convey. The patristic comments on this expression will be found in Suicer, Thes. Vol. 1. p. 624 sq., but are not sufficiently ex- act. Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασϑ εἸ ‘ye put on Christ,’ scil. at your baptism ; boot yap εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσϑητε ek τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήϑητε, Chrys. There appears here no allusion to Heathen (toga virilis), Jewish (whether at the High Priest’s inauguration, Deyling, Ods., Vol. ut. p. 406 sq., No. 42, or in a cabalistic sense, comp. Schoettg. on Rom. xiii. 14, Vol. 1. p. 571), or, even, though very plausible, Christian customs (at baptism, Bingham, Antig. Book xu. 4. 1 sq.). From the instances Wetst. has collected on Rom, xiii. 14, it would appear that ἐνδύεσϑαί twa is a strong expression, denoting the complete assumption of the nature, etc.,.of another; e. g. Dion. Halicar. A. R. xt. 15.5 (τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον ἐνδυόμ.), Lac. Ann. xvi. 28. Thus ἐνδ. Χριστόν implies a union with Christ of so true and so complete a nature, that we are brought εἰς μίαν συγγένειαν kal μίαν ἰδέαν (Chrys.) with Him, and, as it is beautifully paraphrased by Calv., ~*coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi geramus, atque in Ipso magis quam nobis- met Ipsis censeamur:’ comp. Bp. Barlow, cited by Waterl. Works, Vol. tv. p. 604, 12 ” \ a / \ ig lal ἄρσεν καὶ Yiu πάντες yap ὑμεῖς and see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. évd., Vol. ‘. p. 1112. For a good sermon on this text, see Donne, Serm. Lxxxvut. Vol. rv. p- 102 (ed. Alf.), and for a notice of the perversion of this text by heretics, Forbes, Instruct. x. 111. 32 sq., p. 448. 28. οὐκ ἔνι κ. τ. λ] ‘There is among (such) neither Jew nor Greek ;" digres- sive statement of the practical result of the Xp. éved.: the new and holy ‘habitus’ causes all other distinctions, whether of nation (compare Rom. x. 12), condition, or even sex, to be wholly lost sight of and forgotten. The form ἔνι is not for ἔνεστι, but according to Buttm. (see Winer, Gr. § 14. 2, p. 74), is the lengthened form of the adverbi- alized prep., to which the requisite person of the auxiliary verb must be supplied. This explanation has in its favor the similar use of πάρα, which can scarcely be called a contraction for πάρ- εστι; but against it those exx. where ἐν and ἔνι are used in the same sentence, e.g. Plat Phed. 77 τ, ἴσως ἔνι καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν Theet. 186 pv, and, according to best reading, 1 Cor. vi. 5. In such cases, however, ἔνι would seem to mean little more than ἐστί (ἔνι: ἐστίν, ὑπάρχει, Zonar. Lex. Vol. τ. p. 748), the prepo- sitional force being wholly lost; comp. Col. iii. 11. In either case the explana- tion of the present passage remains the same ; ἐπὶ πλεῖον διηγεῖται Thy ἀγαϑότητα τοῦ Θευῦ ὕπου γε πᾶσι τὴν ἴσην δέδωκε δωρεάν, Damasc. Deyling illustrates this by reference to the various personal, etc., distinctions among the Jews; Obs. Sacr, Vol. τ p. 312 sq., No. 64; Elsner (im loc.) notices also the customary exclu- sion of slaves from certain Heathen rites . and temples, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 187. ἄρσεν καὶ & Av] ‘male and female ;’ ‘masculus et femina,’ Clarom., but not 90 εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. * GALATIANS. Crap. III. 29.—IV. 1. εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, dpa τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμσι. As every heir is under tutelage, so before Christ IV. Aéyw δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον 6 κληρονό- came we all were under bondage, but now have become free sons and inheritors, Vulg., Goth., Copt., al., which do not preserve the slight change of particle, While the alterable political and sociable distinctions are contrasted by οὐδέ, the unalterable human one of sex is ex- pressed by καί; Mark x. 6, ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ δῆλυν ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, compare 1 Tim. ii. 13. This latter dis- tinction is of course noticed not in its mere physical, but its ethical aspect, — the subordination of the wife to the husband (Olsh.). This, though an un- changeable law of our species when considered κατὰ σάρκα, Eph. v. 22, al., is lost sight of in this éyyurépa πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν ἕνωσις, Chrys. πάντες γάρ] ‘for ye all;’ proof of the preceding statement; τῷ ἕνα τύπον καὶ μίαν μορφὴν ἐνδεδύσϑαι, τὴν τοῦ Χρ., GEcum. The reading ἅπαντ. (Lachm.) seems an early gloss. εἷς] ‘one,’ ὁ. e. one per- son; τὸ εἷς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν σῶμα, Theodoret : compare Lucian, Torar. 46 (cited by Wetst.), εἷς ἄνϑρωπος ὄντες οὕτω βιοῦμεν. The concluding words ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ obviate all mistakes by defining in whom, and in whom alone, this uition was fully realized. 29. εἰ δὲ buwets} ‘But tf ye;’ re- sumption of the argument after the short digression of ver. 28, the empha- sis resting slightly on ὑμεῖς : ‘as ye, to whom I am speaking, and who have felt such doubts on the subject, have put on Christ, ye must be what He is (ver. 16), the seed of Abraham.’ The reading εἷς ἐστε ἐν X. Inc. instead of Χριστοῦ, though found in DIEFG; Clarom..... Ambrst. is clearly an ex- egetical gloss. τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ σπέρμα) ‘Abraham's seed ;’ τοῦ ’ABp. being put forward with a slight empha- sis, and standing in correlation to Χρισ- τοῦ to give force and perspicuity to the conclusion; εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ Χριστοῦ μορφὴ καὶ σῶμα, εἰκότως τοῦ ᾽Αβρ. ἐστὲ σπέρμα, (ἔουμι. ; comp. Theod. in loc., and esp. Theod. Mops. (p. 126, ed. Fritz.) who has well elucidated the ar- gument. κατ᾿ éwayy. KAn- ρονόμοι] ‘heirs according to, or by way of promise ;’ not by any legal ob- servances, The κληρονομία is now stated absolutely; they were κληρονόμοι, not merely of Abraham, nor even τῆς ἐπαγ- γελίας (Theod. Mops.), but simply of all that which was involved in it, salva- tion and the kingdom of Christ; comp. Meyer im loc, The declaration of ver. 7 is now at length substantiated and expanded by 22 verses of the deepest, most varied, and most comprehensive reasoning that exists in the whole com- pass of the great Apostle’s writings. The καὶ before κατ. érayy., adopted by Rec. with FGJK ; mss.; Syr. (both), Goth, /&th.; Chrys., Theod., is now rightly omitted by most critical editors, Cuapter IV. 1. λέγω δέ] ‘Now I say ;᾿ further and more explanatory proof of the assertion that we are heirs, suggested .by the term κληρονόμοι (ch. iii.29), and the comparisons it involves ; comp. ch. v. 16, Rom. xv. 8, where the use of λέγω δὲ in introducing a con- tinued explanatory argument rather tHan merely elucidating a statement or ex- pression that had preceded (comp. ch. iii. 17, τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, 1 Cor. i. 12, λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, 1 Cor. vii. 29, τοῦτο δέ φημι), seems analogous to the present. ὁ κληρονόμοϑ) ‘the heir,’ i. e. every heir ;’ compare 6 μεσίτης, ch. iii, 20, Crip. TV. 1; 3: GALATIANS. 91 pos νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου, κύριος πάντων ὦν, 2 > Ν ς \ > / > \ \ > , »” a ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προϑδεσ- Winer, Gr. § 18. 1, p. 97. There are some exegetical difficulties in this and the following verse, arising from the fact, uhat, while the nature of the com- parison (see Brown), as well as the words ἄχρι τῆς mpodeculas τοῦ πάτρος, would seem to imply that the father was alive, the expression κύριος πάντων ὥν, and the term ἐπίτροπους (but see be- low) might be thought to imply that he was dead, The latter view is taken by Theodoret and the majority of ancient (silet Chrys.), with several modern com- mentators ; the former is ably advocated by Neubour, Bibl. Brem. Class. Vol. v. p- 40 (cited by Wolf), and also many recent expositors. Grotius endeavors to escape the difficulty by representing the father absent on travel; comp. A®lian, Var. Hist. ut. 26, cited below in note ver. 2. The question, however, is really of little moment: St. Paul is engaged so entirely in the simple comparison of the circumstances of the nonage of the earthly κληρονόμος, with those of the nonage of believers who lived under the law (ver. 3), that the subordinate quts- tion of the life, death, or absence of the father of the κληρονόμος passes wholly out of sight; comp. Alf, én doc. yhmos| ‘an infant, a minor ;’ avnBos, as opposed to ἔφηβος, the technical term for one who had attained his majority ; see Smith, Dict. Antiq. s. v. ἔφηβ., and Reff. in Rost. u. Palm, Lex. Vol. 1. p. 1282. There does not seem any suf- ficient reason for departing from this usual view of νήπιος (opp. to Bagge in loc.), or with Chrys., al., for introducing any reference to the ethical meaning of weakness of understanding. οὐδὲν διαφέρει δοῦλου] ‘differs in nothing from a bond. servant ; “ imo =tvo [παιδαγωγῷ] subjectus est,’ Erasm. \ The very apposite quotation from Dio Chrys., xv. p. 240, adduced by Wetst. in loc., is too long for citation, but is worth referring to. κύριος πάντων ὥν] ‘though he be lord of all ;’ concessive use of the participle; comp. Donalds. Gr § 621, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 13. 1 sq. It does not seem neces- sary for the sake of preserving the image of a living father to understand these words as prospective; the heir was the κύριος (τοῦ. compares the use of ‘ herus mimor’ in Lat. comedy), in right of birth and condition. 2. ἐπιτρόπου 5) ‘ overlookers, guar- dians.’ The latter is the usual meaning of the word in relation to children) (comp. Iswus, Her. Cleonym. § 10, Ῥ. 4 (ed. Schom.), τὸν ἔχϑιστον τῶν οἰκείων ἐπίτροπον καταλιπεῖν ; ib. Her. Dice. § 10; Plut. Lycurg. § 3, τοὺς τῶν ὀρφανῶν βασιλέων ἐπιτρόπους), and that in which it appears to have been adopted by He- brew writers; compare Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. in loc., Selden, de Success. ch. 9, Vol. τι. p. 25. It seems here, however, better to adopt the more general mean- ing ‘overlooker, one entrusted with the charge of anything’ (comp. ‘Aristoph. Eccl, 212, ἐπιτρόποις καὶ ταμίαισι, Xen. con xt. 2, 6 ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς ἐπίτροποςῚ, and not to embarrass the passage with terms which might bring in irrelevant considerations (the father’s being alive or dead) into the present simple com- parison. suitably comp. AZlian, Var. Hist. ut. 16, We may, however, not un- ἐπίτρ. καὶ τοῦ παιδός, Kal τῶν χρημάτων, where the context distinctly shows that the father was alive, though absent. aD? 4 a 0 | Pe [dominos domus] Syr., ‘ acto- w οἰκονόμου 5] ‘ stewards,’ 92 GALATIANS. Cuapr. IV. 2, 3. μίας τοῦ πατρός. * οὕτως Kal ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἣμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ res,’ Vulg., Clarom. [compare Plin. Ep. ru. 19], less accurately, Goth. fauragag- gam |Vorsteher] ; managers of the prop- erty of the κληρονόμος, and standing in the same relation to his estate as the ἐπί- τρόποι did to his education and general bringing up; comp. Plutarch, Edue. § 7, . τοὺς δὲ οἰκονόμους, τοὺς δὲ δα- νειστάς. Most commentators not inaptly cite the case of Eliezer, Gen. xv. 2, comp. xxiv. 2; illustrations from Roman law (Bagge, al.) do not seem here in point, as the comparison is simple and general. τῆς προδεσμίαΞ7) ‘the time appointed (beforehand), ‘prefinitum tempus,’ Vulg. The term προϑεσμία, scil. Spa or ἥμερα (for the distinction between these, see Bagge in loc.), is properly the term limited for bringing actions or prosecu- tions, the time fited by the statute of limitations, ‘Tag der Verjiihrung :’ see Smith, Dict. of Antig. s. v., and exx, in Rost. u. Palm, Lez. s. v.; — thence, any pre-appointed time or day ; see the numerous exx. in Wetst. in loc., Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 279, Krebs. Obs. p. 322. In eccles. writers, tpodecu. is sometimes used for the time assigned for repentance before excommunication ; see Bingham, Antiq. xvi. 2. 7. It may be ob- served that as the termination of nonage was fixed in Hebrew (13 years and a day for males; 12 years and a day for fe- males, Selden, de Success. ch. 9, Vol. It. p. 25), as well as Greek and Roman law, the dependence of the 7 προϑεσμία on the father, must be explained, — either (a) by the very reasonable as- sumption that St. Paul is here speaking δούλων... theologically rather than juridically, — or (Ὁ) less probably, by the supposition that he was here referring, with techni- cal exactness, to an extended parental authority which the Galatians appear to have possessed; see Gottl. Gesch. d. Rom, Staatsverf. p. 109, 517 (cited by B. Crus.), and comp, Cvesar, Bell. Gall. vr. 19. 3. οὕτως καὶ jmets] ‘So we also; application of the preceding statements ; καί, as usual in comparative sentences, bringing into prominence and throwing a slight emphasis on the contrasted member of the comparison; see notes on Eph. v. 23. It has been doubted whether the ἡμεῖς are Jews (Chrys., Theod.), Gentiles (Aug.), or both equally (Win., Mey.). The most nat- ural reference seems to be (a) to Jews, primarily and principally, as the nature of the preceding argument seems dis- tinctly to require; but also (b) seconda- rily, Gentiles, in accordance with the nature of the succeeding argument. τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου) ‘the rudiments of the world.’ It is very difficult to decide on the exact mean- ing of these words. Taken separately, στοιχεῖον is used in the N. T., both in a physical (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12) and an ethical sense (Heb. v. 12). Κόσμος, again, has, practically at least, three meanings; physical (Matth. xxv. 34), collective (mankind, Joh. iii. 16), and ethical (1 Cor. ii. 12). From the com- bination of both words, a great variety of interpretations have arisen, all, how- ever, separable into two general classes, (1) Physical; elementa mundi, either, (a) festivals of Judaism, Chrysost. ; (4) Zabianism, August. ; or (c) abstractedly, religion in sensible forms, Neand. Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 465, Bohn. (2) Ethical ; rudimenta mundi, first, but not neces- sarily erroneous (comp. “th.), princi- ples of religious knowledge among men, whether (a) Jews (De W.); or (4) Jews and heathens (Meyer). Grammatical considerations seem in favor of (1); for στοικεῖα, in a sense rudimenta, would Cuap. IV. 8, 4. GALATIANS. 93 στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἣμεν δεδουλωμένοι: “ ὅτε δὲ ἦλϑεν τὸ πλή- ρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον appear to require, as in Heb. v. 12, a gen. objecti, and not as here a gen, sub- jecti (see Neander 7. 6.) ; still κόσμου need not be considered a pure gen. subj. the connection between the nom. and gen. being often somewhat lax; see Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 214 sq. Exe- getical considerations must be also ex- tended to ver. 9, and to Col. ii. 8, 20, where the same words occur. ‘These we can only briefly notice. In Col. ii. 8, the parallelism with παράδοσις τῶν ἀνϑρώπων, seems so distinct, and so palpably in fa- vor of (2), as to outweigh the argument drawn by Schneckenb. from the sup- posed physical use of κόσμος in ver. 20. The use of the term φιλοσοφία seems also there to point slightly more to heathen rudiments (see notes 7 Joc.), while on the contrary in Col. ii. 20, and below, ver. 9, the reference seems mainly to Jewish rudiments. All these conflicting views being considered, we seem here justified in deciding in favor of (2) generally ; assigning, however, to the words (as both ἡμεῖς and the nature of the argument require) a primary, but by no means exclusive reference to the Jews. For further notices of this doubtful expression, see Baur, Paulus, p- 594 sq., and for a defence of the physical meaning, Schneckenburg. in Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 444 sq., and Hilgenf. Galat. p. 68 sq. The applica- tion to the ceremonial law will be found, Petav. de Predest. x. 23. 12, Vol. 1. p. 456. δεδουλωμένοι ‘in a state of slavery ;’ the perf. pass. part. marking the permanent nature and con- tinuance of the δουλεία ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45.1, p. 305. The verb juev may be regarded either as in union with δεδουλ. and as forming a compound tense, or as in more immediate con- nection with ὑπὸ τὰ στ. : the latter is most probable, as forming the best par- allel to ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστίν ; so dis- tinctly Copt., and perhaps Vulg., Clarom., ‘sub elementa eramus servi- entes ;’ see Meyer τη Joc. 4. τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ‘the fulness of the time,’ i. 6. the mo- ment which makes the time complete, answering to the ἄχρι τῆς mpodeoulas τοῦ πατρός, ver. 2; see Stier, Ephes. Vol. I. p. 203, and compare Usteri, Lehr. τι. 1, p. 83:. These words have been the subject of considerable discussion. Taken in its most general view πλήρωμα has two meanings; (1) Active; τὸ πλήρη ποιεῖν, implendi actio, not id quod implet, as Fritz. (on Rom. xi. 12) has satisfacto- rily proved against Storr, Opuse. τ. p. 144, (2) Passive; either in the less usual sense (a) 2d quod impletum est, or the more common and regular sense (8), id quo res impletur ; compare 1 Cor. x. 26, Mark viii. 20. Hence τὸ πλή- ρωμα τοῦ xp. will seem to be ‘id quo temporis spatium impletur, sc. eapletur ;” the idea being rather that of a temporal space (so to speak) filled up, as it were, by the flowing in of time; see Olsh. in loc., and comp. Herod. 111. 22, ὀγδώκοντα δ᾽ ἔτεα Céns πλήρωμα ἀνδρὶ μακρότατον. Fritz., on the contrary, but with less probability, regards πλήρωμα as the ab- stract notion of the concrete idea πλή- pns, ‘temporis plenitas,’ i. 4. ‘plenum tempus ;’ see, however, his very valua-. ble note, Rom. J. ὁ. Vol. m. p. 469 sq. The doctrinal meaning of this term is investigated at length in Hall, Bampt. Lect. for 1797, esp. Serm. vit. p. 211 sq.; see also the good sermons on this text by Andrewes, Serm. vi. Vol. 1. p. 49, and Donne, Serm. 11. Vol. 1. p. 39 (ed, Alf.). ἐξαπέστειλεν 94 GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 4, 5. ᾿ Ld Ul e ἈΝ Ul 5 7 \ ¢ 4 / ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, * ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγο- ‘sent forth,’ ‘emisit, ex coelo a sese,’ Beng. ; comp. Acts vii. 12, xi. 22, xvii. 14. On the doctrinal questions con- nected with this word, see Petav. Trin. vu. 1. 10. γενόμ. ἐκ γυ- ναικός] ‘born of a woman ;’ defining participial clause added to attest the pure manhood of Christ, and to obviate any misconception of the meaning of the clause that follows; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2.4, p. 311 sq. No doctrinal stress is thus to be laid either on γυναικός (‘absque virili semine,’ Est.), or on the prep. (τὸ δὲ ἐκ ἔμελλε... τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς φύσεως τοῦ τικτομένου mpos τὴν γεννήσασαν, Basil, de Sp. Sanct. vy. 12; compare Theophyl. Qicum.) ; γυναικός being only used to mark our Lord’s true humanity, and ἐκ having only its usual and natural ref. to the circumstances of birth; compare Matth. i. 16, John iii. 6, and see Rost. u. Palm. Lez. s. v. 1. 2, Vol. 1, p. 818, Winer, Gr. § 47. Ὁ, p. 327, 328. For a sound and striking sermon on this verse, and on the general relation of woman to man, see Jackson, Creed, Vol. vi. p. 226 (Oxf. 1844). The reading γεννώ- μενον, (found in some cursive mss., Ath., Theod., al.), has every appearance of being an explanatory gloss. γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον] ‘born un- der the law,’ ‘natum inter Judeos legi Mos, obnoxios,’ Schott ; second defining clause added to show that not only was Christ truly man (γεν. ἔκ yuv.), but also a true member of the Jewish nation (γεν. ὑπὸ vdu.), and standing in the same religious relations as all other Israelites; see Olshaus. and Turner in loc., and comp. Andrewes, Serm. 1. Vol. 1. p. 13 (A.C.L.). On the most suita- ble rendering of γενόμενον, see notes to Transl. + παραδηλοῦν ὃ. ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγ.] ‘in order that He might ransom those under the law ;’ first gracious purpose of God's having sent forth his Son thus γενόμ. ἐκ γυναικ. and thus yevdu. ὑπὸ vduov, —the ransom of those who were under the same religious obligations as those under which our Lord vouchsafed to be born. The redemption was, as De W. (after Beng.) rightly maintains, not merely from the curse, but from the bondage of the law; comp. ver. 3. On the meaning of ἐξαγορ. see notes on ch, ili. 13. ἵνα τὴν υΐοϑεσ. &moX.] ‘in order that we might receive the adoption of sons,’ second graciots purpose of God, resulting from the first, — the adoption of sons not only of Jews, but of all men (ἡμεῖς), of all those whose nature our Lord vouchsafed to assume. The first ἵνα thus, by a kind of χιασμὸς (Jelf, Gr. § 904. 3) found occasionally elsewhere in the Apostle’s writings (comp. Philem. 6), refers to the second participial member γενόμ. ὑπὸ νόμον, while the second ἵνα refers to the first and less circumscribed yevdu. ἐκ -yuvai- «és. For examples of a double ἵνα thus appended to a single finite verb, comp. ch. iii, 14, Eph. v. 26. τὴν υἱοϑεσίανὔ ‘the adoption of sons ;’ comp. Rom. viii, 15, 23, ix. 4, Eph. i. 5. The interpretation, ‘conditio filiorum,’ ‘sonship,’ adopted by several commenta- tors (see Ust. in loc. and Lehrb. τι. 1. 2, p. 186, note), both here and Rom viii. 15, has been convincingly refuted by Fritz. Rom. 1. δ... Vol. u. p. 137 sq. We were formerly in the light of ser- vants, but now have been adopted and are free sons. Neander traces a three- fold gradation in this adoption; (a) as existing but not appropriated; (δ) as appropriated through faith in Christ; (6) as perfected by a full communion in his blessedness and glory; Planting, Caap. IV. ὅ; 6. GALATIANS. 95 - ράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν vioSeciav ἀπολάβωμεν. 5 ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξα- πέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας Vol. τ. p. 477 (Bohn). ἀπολά- βωμεν] ‘might receive.’ The special force of the prep. has been somewhat differently explained. Of the two more ancient interpretations (a), that of Chrys., καλῶς εἶπεν ἀπολ. δεικνὺς ὀφειλομένην, though lexically admissible (see Win., de Verb. Comp. Fasc. rv. p. 13), does not harmonize with the context, as the viodecta is not here alluded to as the sub- ject of promise; again (6), that of Aug., ‘non dixit accipiamus sed recipiamus,’ though equally admissible on lexical grounds (opp. to Meyer; comp. Herod. 1. 61. and see Rost u. Palm, Lez. s. v. ἀπό, B, and ib. s. v. ἀπολαμβ. 2. a.) is more than doubtful in point of doctrine, as the correct dogmatical statement, ‘ ut quod perdideramus in Adam . . . hoc in Christo reciperemus’ (Iren.; see Bull, State of Man, p. 492, Oxf. 1844) can only be applied to what Adam had before his fall, and not to a gracious gift which was not bestowed on him. It seems best then to fall back on the general local meaning of ἀπό, and to regard the verb as hinting at receiving from an imaginary place where the things given might be conceived as having been laid up in store; " ἀπολαμβ. dicuntur imprimis illi, qui, que ipsis destinata et quasi reposita sunt, accipi- unt, Col. iii. 24, 2 Joh. 8,’ Winer, ὦ, δ. ; add Luke xvi. 25, ἀπέλαβες τὰ ἀγαϑά gov, which the context shows could scarcely receive any other interpretation. 6, ὅτι δὲ κ. τ. λ.] ‘and as a proof that ye are sons,’ ‘quemadmodum au- tem’ [kamasa}, th., the δὲ introducing with a faintly oppositive force the dem- onstration of the assertion. It is dif- ficult to decide whether ὅτι is here causal (‘quoniam,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr.- Philox.) or, more probably, demonstra- tive (πόϑεν δῆλον ὅτι, Chrys., Theoph., (Ecum., and by obvious inference Theod. and Theod. Mops.). Independently of the authority of the Greek commentators, which in such cases is very great, we seem justified by the context in adopting the latter view, as, on the one hand, the causal interpretation seems to interfere with the easy transition from the declaration of ver. 4, 5, to the consequence in ver. 7 ; and, on the other hand, the demonstra- tive ὅτι seems to accord better with the emphatic position and the tense of ἐστέ. The sentence is thus what is called brachylogical, ‘and as a proof that ye really are sons,’— a construction to which De W. and Alf. object, but which still seems perfectly correct and admissible ; see Winer, Gr. § 66. 1, p. 546, Fritz, Rom. ii. 14, Vol. 1. p. 117, Liicke on 1 John v. 9. The insertion of rod Θεοῦ after υἱοί, in DEFG; Clarom., Demid., Tol., Goth., and Lat. Ff., seems an obvious explanatory addition. τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] ‘the Spirit of His Son,’ 5011. the Holy Spirit («Spiritus Christi quia per Christum obtinetur, Joh. xiv. 16,’ Grot.), here suitably thus designated in harmony with the preceding mention of our re- lation to God as sons (Ust.); compare Rom. viii. 9, where My. Θεοῦ and Πν. Χριστοῦ appear interchangeable. On the doctrinal significance of this passage —that it is the ‘substantia’ and ‘ per- sona’ of the Spirit which dwells in the hearts of believers (1 Cor. vi. 19), comp. Petav. Trin. νι. 4. 6, Vol. 1. p. 449, and on the heart as the seat of the in- working power of God, Beck, Seeleni. § 27, p. 107. In the following words Ree. reads ὑμῶν with BD°EJK ; mss.; several Vv. and Ff., but with slightly less probability than ἡμῶν, which GALATIANS. Cuap. IV. 6,7. 95 ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. ' ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός" εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ. 7. διὰ Θεοῦ] This reading, which Tisch. has adopted with ABC!(FG διὰ Oc d v) ; 17; Boern., Vulg., Copt.; Clem., Bas., Cyr., Did.; Ambr., Aug., Pel., Bed., Ambrst. (Lachm., Mey.), appears, on the whole, the most satisfactory. Fritz. (Opuse. p. 148) supports the Rec. on paradiplomatic considerations (Xp. and Oc, being confused with one another, hence omission of διὰ Χριστοῦ ; then διὰ Oe. by omission of Xp.), which seem somewhat precarious. In answer to the internal ob- jection of Usteri that the inheritance is never represented by St. Paul as coming διὰ Θεοῦ (compare, however, ver. 5), it may be remarked, that Θεοῦ may fairly be taken in its widest sense, as including the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, just separately mentioned ; see Windischm. in loc, is found in ACDIEG; many mss; Amit. (Flor.), Clarom., Ath. (2), and many Ff. and is adopted by the best recent editors. "ABBGa ὁ πατήρ]) ‘Abba father ;’ Mark xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 15. In this solemn expression 6 πατὴρ (nom. for vocat., Winer, Gr. § 29. 2, p. 164) does not seem appended to the Aramaic ’ABBa as a mere explanation of it, ‘ Abba, id est, Pater’ (Beza), nor yet united with it to indicate the union of Jews and Gentiles (Hebraum ver- bum ad Judzos, Graecum ad Gentes... pertinet,’ Aug. ; comp. Andrewes, Serm. 1v. Vol. 1. p. 60), but is appy. blended with it as making up the *solemnis for- mula’ of the early Christian prayers. The Aramaic title under which our Lord addressed his Heavenly Father was, probably, at a very early pe- riod (hence Mark Z. 6.) united to the Greek synonym in reverent and affec- tionate remembrance of Him who had taught and enabled us truly to call God Our Father; and thence used as a single form in all, more fervent addresses to God; compare Schoettg. Hor. Vol. 1. p- 252, where instances are given of addresses to God in which Hebrew and Greek words are somewhat simi- larly united. Whether there is any allusion to the fact that, among the Jews, a freedman might, by addressing any one with the title Abba, prepare the way for adoption by him (Selden, de Success. ch. 4. Vol. 11. p. 15), seems very doubtful. 7. ὥστε x. τ. A.] ‘So then,’ ‘Conse- quently ; conclusion from the statements in the two preceding verses, ὥστε with its usual and proper force denoting the ‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex antece- dentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 771. On the force of this particle with the indice. and infin., see notes on ch. ii. 13, and for its use with the imperative, notes on Phil. ii. 12. οὐκέτι εἴ ‘thou art no more, as thou wert when in bondage under rudiments of the world.’ Meyer finds a climax of per- son in ἀπολάβωμεν, ver. 6, ἐστέ, ver. 6, εἶ, ver. 7, the mode of address becoming more and more personal and individual- izing; for further exx. of this use the second person in more cogent addresses, see Rom. xi. 17; xii. 20, xiii. 4, xiv. 4, 1 Cor. iv. 7, al,, and comp. notes, ch, ii. 18. εἰ δὲ vids, καὶ KAn- povdmos] ‘but if a son (not a slave) then also an heir ;’ comp. Rom. viii. 17, εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι. Both these passages must appy. be explained on the principles of the Roman, and not of the Hebrew law. According to the latter, only sons (legitimate, ‘ex concubinis,’ or ‘ex incestu,’ but not ‘ex ancillis et Gentilibus,’ Seld. de Succ, ch. 3) suc- ceeded to the inheritance ; the first-born Crap. IV. 8. How then can ye now turn back again to the bondage of rudiments as, alas! ye are doing? having double ; according to the former all children, male or female; ‘nec inter- est utrum naturales sint an adoptivi,’ Gajus, Com. Inst. 11. § 2 (cited by Fritz.). It is scarcely necessary to ob- serve that vids is not to be pressed, being simply, as Fritz. observes, in antithesis to δοῦλος: women are distinctly in- cluded in ch. iii. 28. The whole sub- ject is ably investigated by Fritzsche, Fritzsch. Opuse. p. 143—149. 8. ἀλλά] ‘Howbeit ;’ appeal based on the preceding statements, and involving a strong contrast between their past and present states. The adversative ἀλλὰ has thus here no species of affirmative force (Ust.), —a meaning which, how- ever, may be justified, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. π΄. p. 14, — but introduces an ex- planation of the words οὐκέτι εἶ x. τ. A., by the very contrast which it states; ‘now ye are free children of God, — then (before the time of your viodecia) ye knew Him not, and were the bond- servants of demons.’ It need scarcely be added that τότε does not refer to ver. 3 (Winer, Schott.), still less is to be re- garded equivalent to πάλαι (Koppe), but merely marks the period when they were not, as they now are, sons; ‘ quasi digito intento designat omne tempus quod ante vocationem Galatarum exie- rat,’ Grot. ‘ignorantes, —an historic fact; con- trast 1 Thess. iv. ὅ, τὰ ph εἰδότα τὸν Θεὸν, where they are only so character- ized by the writer, and see Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, p. 428 sq. It may be observed that with certain participles οὐ regularly and formally coiilesces, so as to express one single idea; see Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 287. ἐδουλεύσατ εἾ ‘were slaves ;᾿ emphatic, and, as in ver. 9, in a bad sense. The proper force of the 13 οὐκ εἰδότες] GALATIANS. 97 8° Αλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες Θεὸν ἐδουλεύ- aorist, as marking an action that took place in and belongs wholly to the past, is here distinctly apparent; comp. the exx. in Kriiger, Sprachi. § 53. 5. 1, Scheuerl. Syné. § 32. 2, p. 331 sq., and for some excellent remarks on the use of the tense, Schmalf. Synt. d. Gr. Verb. § 60 sq., and esp. Fritz. de Aor. Vi, Frankf. 1837. This passage has been pressed into the controversy re- specting δουλεία and λατρεία, and is noticed in Forbes, Instruct. vu. 1, p. 331 sq. φύσει μὴ οὖσιν Seots| ‘which by nature are not gods ;’ φύσει being emphatic, and serving to convey an unconditioned de- nial of their being gods αὐ all; comp. 1 Cor. x. 20. The order in Rec. τοῖς ph φύσει οὖσι Scots [D®FGIK ; mss.; Syr.- Phil. ; Chrys., Theod., al.] is much less expressive, as implying that the false gods were thought to be true gods, though not naturally so, and is decidedly inferior in external authority to that adopted in the text, which has the sup- port of ABCD1E; 6 mss. ; Syr. (plural), Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Athan. (4), Nyss. (4), al., and is adopted by the best recent editors. On the meaning of φύσεε ‘substantially,’ ‘essentially,’ and the connection of the verse with the argu- ment for the divinity of Christ, see Waterl. Second Def. Qu. 24, Vol. 11. p. 722. μὴ οὖσι is a subjective negation, and states the view in which they were regarded by the yriter; see above, and comp. the numerous exx. cited by Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, p. 428. The student must be reminded that μὴ with participles is the prevailing usage- in the N. T., so that while od with par- ticiples may be pressed, it is well to be: cautious with regard to μή; see notes: on 1 Thess. ii. 15. Tots 98 GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 9, 10, cate τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν Yeois * viv δὲ γνόντες Θεὸν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσϑέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσϑϑενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωδεν δουλεύειν ϑέλετε; ” ἡμέρας 9. γνόντες Θεόν] ‘after having known God,’ temporal participle here expressing an action preceding that specified by the finite verb ; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 306, and notes on Eph, ii. 8, but transpose the accidentally in- terchanged words ‘subsequent to’ and * preceding.’ Olsh, finds a climax in εἰδότες, γνόντες, and yrwoSévtes; the first, merely outward knowledge that God is; the second, the inner essential knowledge in activity; the third, the passive knowledge of God in love. The distinction between the two latter (see below) seems correct, but that between «i5. and yy. very doubtful, especially after the instances cited by Meyer, viz. John vii. 27, viii. 55, 2 Cor. v. 16. μᾶλλον δέ] ‘imo vero,’ ‘vel potius,’ Rom. viii. 34; ‘ corrigentis est ut szepis- ‘ime,’ Stalb. Plat. Symp. 173 =: see exx. collected by Raphel, in loc, yvwosxévres| ‘being known; ‘cog- niti,’ Vulg., Clarom. [cognoti];. not “‘ approbati’ (Grot.), nor even acknowl- edged as His own’ (Ust., compare Ewald), still less ‘scire facti’ (Beza), -— but simply, in the usual and regular meaning of ‘the word in the N. Τὶ, ‘known,’ recognized ;’ see 1 Cor. viii. 8, xiii. 12, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 39. 3, p. 235. Before the time of their ‘conversion, the Galatians were not known by God, —had not become the objects of flis divine knowledge; now they were known by Him and endowed ‘with spiritual gifts; αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς ἐπεσπά- 'σατό, Chrys. The distinction drawn by ‘Olsh. (above) between γνόντες, cognitio activa, knowledge, which must be, if genuine, preceded by γνωσῶ., cognitio passiva, loye,— hence the corrective «μᾶλλον δέ, τ᾿ seems borne out by 1 Cor, 1. c. (on which see Beng.) ; comp. Neand. Plant. Vol. 1. p. 157, note (Bohn.). mas) ‘qui fit ut,’ ‘how cometh it that ;’ see ch. ii. 14, ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν] ‘turn back again;’ “ converti- > mini iterum’ Vulg., Clarom., 562 las [iterum conversiestis], Syr. ; πάλιν not being the Homeric and Hesi- odic ‘retro’ (an idea involved in ἐπι- στρέφετε, Matth. xii. 44, 2 Pet. 11, 22), but denuo, iterum, the more common meaning in the N. T.; see exx. in Bretsch. Lez. s. y. The lapse of the Galatians into Judaism is thus repre- sented as a relapse into those στοιχεῖα among which Judaism was included: “πάλιν non rem eandem respicit sed similem,’ Glass. ap. Pol. Syn. in loc. τὰ ἀσϑενῆ kK. τ. λ.}] ‘the weak and begyarly elements ;’ ἀσϑενῇ as having no power to justify or promote salvation, πτωχὰ as having no rich dowry of spir- itual gifts and blessings; compare Heb. yii. 18, and see Grot. in loc, πάλιν ἄνωϑ εν] ‘again anew,’ ‘aftra jupana,’ Goth.; not pleonastic like πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου (Matth. xxvi. 42), ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο (John xi. 7), but ex- pressive of two distinct ideas, relapse to bondage and recommencement of its prin- ciples. The Galatians had been slaves to the στοιχεῖα in the form of heathen- ism; now they were desiring to enslave themselves again to the στοιχεῖα, and to commence them anew in the form of Judaism ; comp. ‘rursum denuo,’ Plaut. Cas. Prol. 33 (Wetst.), and see Hand. Tursell. Vol. τι. p. 279. 10. ἡμέρα] ‘days,’ scil. Jewish Sab- baths, fasts, ete. (compare Rom. xiv. 5, 6, Col. ii, 16); appy. emphatic, and not Cnap. IV. 10, 11. GALATIANS. 99 a \ a \ \ Ae. ἃ 2 ΤΙ a -παρατηρεῖσνδε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς. φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μήπως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς. improbably placed forward as marking what they observed with most scrupu- losity ; see Alf. im Joc. It, however, can scarcely be considered exegetically exact to urge this verse against ‘any theory of a Christian Sabbath’ (AlIf.), when the Apostle is only speaking of legal and Judaizing observances; see on Col, ii, 16. παρατηρεῖσδ εἾ ‘Ye are studiously observing,’ compare ZEth, tetagabu [where the Conjug. (ut. 1, Dillm.) does not seem without its force] ; the force of the compound be- ing ΔΡΡΥ. ‘sedulo’ (Meyer), not ‘ super- stitiose observatis’ (Bretsch.) — a mean- ing which the passages adduced, e. g. Joseph. Ant. mt. 5. 5, παρατηρεῖν τὰς ἑβδομάδας, Cod. A. Relat. Tilat. (Thilo, Cod, Ap. p. 806), τὸ σάββατον παρατη- ρεῖσϑαι, do not substantiate. It may be observed that the primary use of mapa in this verb is: appy. Joca/, and by implication inéensive, scil. — ‘ standing close heside for the purpose of more effectually observing’ (compare Acts ix. 24, and see Rost u. Palm, Lez. 8. v. Vol. τι. p. 720): the secondary force is more distinctly ethical, but appy. re- stricted to the idea of hostile observation (Mark iii. 2, Luke vi. 7, xiv. 1); com- pare Polyb. Hist. xvu. 3. 2, ἐνεδρεύειν καὶ παρατηρεῖν, and see exx. in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb.s. y., and in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. vi. p. 410. The punctuation of this verse is doubtful. Tisch. Mey., Alf., al., place a mark of interrogation after ἐνιαυτούς, but appy. with some- what less contextual probability than the simple period (Lachm.); as in this latter case the verse supplies a natural verification of the statement implied in the preceding question, explaining τίς Tis δουλείας τρόπος (Theod.), and form- ing a natural transition to the sadder tone of ver. 11. To derive a hint merely from the use of the pres. tense that the Galatians were then celebrating a Sab- batical year (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p- 286, note) seems very precarious. καιρού 9] ‘seasons,’ ὃ. 6. of the festi- vals; comp. Chron. viii. 18, rod ἀναφέ- pew κατὰ Tas ἐντολὰς Μωῦσῇ ἐν τοῖς σαββάτοις, καὶ ἐν τοῖς μησί, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς, τρεῖς καιροὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, and Lev. xxiii. 4, ἐνιαντού 9] ‘years,’ — the sabbatical years, and (ac- cording to the usual explanation) the years of Jubilee. These latter, Meyer asserts on the authority of Kranold (de Anno Jubil. p. 79), were never really celebrated ; contrast, however, the direct command in Lev, xxv. 5, and compare the distinct allusions to it in other places (6. g. Isaiah, 1xi. 1, 2). Whether the year of Jubilee is here alluded to may be a matter of opinion; but that both before (opp. to Winer, RWB., Art. ‘Jubeljahr,’ Vol. 1. p. 626) and after the captivity it was fully observed, there seems no sufficient reason to doubt; see Kitto, Bibl. Cyclop. Art. ‘Jubilee,’ Vol, II. p. 162. 11, φοβοῦμαι buas| ‘I am appre- hensive of you,’ ‘res vestree mihi timo- rem incutiunt,’ Grot.; definite and independent statement receiving its fur- ther explanation from what follows; comp. Col. iv. 17, βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν .... ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς, and see notes in loc. ‘To regard this verse as an ex- ample of that kind of attraction, where a word, really belonging to the subordi- nate clause, is made the object of, and assimilated by the principal clause ( Ust., Winer, Gr. § 66. 5, p. 552), does not seem grammatically exact, as in such cases the object of the former clause is nearly always the subject of the latter 100 Treat me now with reci- procity: you once despised GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 1, 12. 13 Γίνεσθε ws ἐγώ, ὅτε Kayo ὡς ὑμεῖς, me not even in my infirmity, but evinced towards me the deepest reverence and warmest love, (Scheuerl. Synt. § 49. 2, p. 507) 6. ψ. Acts xv. 36, ἐπισκεψώμεϑα τοὺς ἀδελφούς .... πῶς ἔχουσι: see exx. in Winer, 1. c. and Kypke, 06s. Vol. 1. p. 375. It will be best then, with Lachm., Buttm., al. to place a comma after ὑμᾶς, and to regard μήπως κ. τ. A. aS ἃ Separate, ex- planatory clause. μήπως- -- κεκοπίακα) ‘lest haply I have (uctu- ally ) labored in vain :’ ‘wh etiam indica- tivum adjunctum habet, ubi rem a nobis pro vera haberi indicare volumus,’ Herm. Viger, No. 270; see also Winer, Gr. § 56. 2, p. 446, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 129, and notes on ch. ii. 2. Chrysost., not having appy. observed this idiom, has unduly pressed φοβοῦμαι and μήπως, and implied nearly a contrary sense ; οὐδέπω, φησίν, ἐξέβη τὸ ναυάγιον, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι τὸν χειμῶνα τοῦτο ὠδίνοντα βλέπω ; contrast Theod., μεμνημένος μὲν τῶν πό- νων, τὸν δὲ καρπὸν οὐχ ὁρῶν. εἰς bas] ‘upon you ;’ not ‘in vobis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Arm., but ‘ propter vos,’ A&th., or more exactly, ‘in vos, emphatica lo- cutio,’” Beng.; compare Rom. xvi. 6, ἐκοπίασεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. The meaning of εἰς {" Ἰοοκίπρ towards,’ Donalds. Crat. § 170) is thus not so much simply ethical, ‘in reference to,’ and hence ‘for you’ (De W.),—this being more naturally expressed by a dat. commodi (Ecclus. xxiv. 34),— as ethically-local, ‘upon you,’ Auth.; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 10, p. 217: the Apostle’s labor -was directed to the Galatians, actually reached them, and so had passed 6n to them. 12. γίνεσϑε ὡς ἐγώ] ‘Become as I am; affectionate appeal calling on them to treat their Apostle with reci- procity (see below), and reminding them of their former love and reverence for him. ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖ5] ‘since I have become as ye are ;’ dis- suasive from Judaism urged on the ground of his own dereliction of it; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 20, 21. The exact sentiment conveyed by these words has received several different explanations. Of these (a) that of the Greek expos- itors — ‘ I was once a zealot for Judaism, as ye now are’ (ταῦτα πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ Ἴου- δαίων, Chrys.) —is open to the objection that ἤμην (‘fui, nec amplius sum’) would have thus seemed almost a neces- sary insertion (Mey.); comp. Just, ad Grac. 5 (Wetst.), γίνεσϑε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ἤμην ὡς ὑμεῖς. Again (δ) that of Bengel, Fell, al., that it is only a scrip- tural mode of expressing warm affection (1 Kings xxii. 4), ὦ. 6. ‘love me as I love you,’ is certainly not in harmony with the use of γίνεσϑε, and still less with the context, where apprehension (φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς) rather than Jove is what is at present uppermost in the Apostle’s thoughts. It seems best then, (c) with Fritz., De W., and most modern expos- itors, to regard the clause as urging a course of reciprocity on the part of the Galatians corresponding to that which had been pursued by the Apostle; ‘ be- come free from Judaism like me, for I, though a native Jew, have become (and am) a Gentile like you,’ ‘I am τοῖς ἀνό- pots ὡς ἄνομος (1 Cor. ix. 21) now, though περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς κ. τ. A. (ch. i. 14) then ;’ see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 223 (Bohn), and Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 232 sq., where the passage is fully dis- cussed, ἀδελφοί δέομαι ὑ μῶ νἹ ‘brethren, I beseech you ;’ earnest entreaty (‘verba περιπαδῆ, Grot.) be- longing not to what follows, — though so taken by Chrys., al., and all the an- cient Vy.,— but with what precedes, as the δέησις is in the first and not in the last portion. This passage is curious as one in which the best ancient, and the (Crap. IV. 12, 138. aderdot, δέομαι ὑμῶν' GALATIANS. »*O/7 > / οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε' 101 15. οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι ᾽ fol a , δ doSévevay τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον, best modern interpreters, are, as happens but very rarely, in direct opposition to each other. οὐδέν we ἠδική- cate] ‘ye injured me in nothing ;’ al- lusion to their past behavior as a reason and motive why they should now accede to the entreaty just urged; ‘ye did not injure me formerly, do not injure me now by refusing to act as I beseech you to act.’ The connection is thus, as the parallel aorists ἡδικήσατε, ἐξουϑενήσατε, ἐξεπτύ- gate, seem distinctly to suggest, very close with what follows, ver. 13 and 14 (which really make up a single period) forming a sort of antithetical member (see below) to the present clause, and the aor. referring to the Apostle’s first visit. The usual interpretation ‘there is nothing personal between us’ (δηλῶν ὅτι od μίσους οὐδὲ ExSpas ἦν τὰ εἰρημένα, Chrys.) is both exegetically untenable (there was no ἔχῶρα in what he had said but the reverse), and gram- matically precarious as implying in ἠδικήσατε either the force of a present or perfect. ‘The interpr. reproduced by Rettig, Stud. uw. Krit. 1830, p. 109, ‘ye have not injured me, but Christ’ (¢ nihil me privatim lesistis,’ Grot.), implies an emphasis on μὲ which does not seem to exist (οὐδὲν is surely the emphatic word), and equally tends to infringe on the force of the aorist. 13. οἴδατε Se] ‘but ye know,’ ‘scitis potius ;’ opposition, not so much of clauses (this would be οὐκ — ἀλλά, compare Chrys.), as of the sentiments conveyed in the preceding clause and in the two verses which here follow: ‘when I first came among you, and that under trying circumstances to you, far from wronging me, ye received me as an angel of God.’ δὶ ἂἄσδὃ έ- νειαν τῆς gapKds] ‘on account of weakness of the flesh ; ὃ. e. on account of some sickness or bodily weakness, which caused the Apostle to stay longer with the Galatians than he had origi- nally intended, and of which we know nothing beyond the present allusion: see, as to lexical usage, Winer, Gr. § 49. c, p. 356, Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. I. p. 197, and, as to the historical proha- bility, Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 30, and Conyb, and Hows. δέ. Paw/, Vol. 1. p: 294 (ed. 1). Though, on the one hand, it may admitted, that the line of demarcation between διὰ with the gen. and with the accus. is occasion- ally so faint that, in some few passages (esp. with persons), an interchange seems really to have taken place (see exx. in Steph. Thes. 8. v., collected by Dindorf, and in Bretsch. Lez. 8. v., — but except Heb. v. 13, Rev. iv. 11, and appy- Rev. xii. 11), still in the present case there seems nothing so irreconcila- ble with the context (Peile, Bagge), or so improbable in itself as to lead us to adopt either of the two only possible (?) alternatives, (2) an enallage of case (Ust., al.), or (6) a temporal use of διά, scil. ‘during a period of sickness.’ To the first of these there is the great ob- jection that no certain instance has yet been adduced from the N. T., — neither John vi. 57 (see Liicke in Joc.) nor Phil. i. 15 (see notes im Joc.) being exx. in point; and to (4) the equally valid objection that this species of temporal, or, more correctly speaking, local mean- ing, 6. g. διὰ νύκτα, comp. διὰ πόντον, διὰ στόμα, etc., is only found in poetry, and that rarely Attic; compare Bernhardy, Synt. v. 18, p. 236, Madvig, Gr. § 69. We seem bound then to maintain the simple meaning of the words, and to refer to our ignorance of the circum~ GALATIANS. Cuap. IV. 14. u \ \ 2. . > a , > 2 ΄ καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξουδενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἄγγελον Θεοῦ ἐδέξασέ με, ὡς Χρισ- 14. ὑμῶν] So Lachm. and Tisch, (ed. 2) with AB(C? adds τὸν) ΠΙΕῸ ; 17, 89. 67** .... Vulg., Clarom., Copt.; Cyr., Hieron., Aug., Ambrst., Sedul. (Meyer, Bagge). Tischendorf (ed. 2) reads μου τὸν with DSEJK ; appy. great majority of mss.; Syr.-Phil. (appy. Syr., Goth.), Arm.; Chrys., Thdrt., Dam., GEcum. ( Ree., Scholz, Fritz. om. μου, Alf.). Independently of the preponderance of external authority, the change from the easier to the more difficult reading seems so very probable, that, in spite of the internal objections of Fritz. (Opuse. p. 245 sq.), we can here scarcely hesitate to adopt the reading, though not the punctuation (see note), of Lachmann, tinctly advocates ὑμῶν. stances (Green, Gr. p. 300) any diffi- culties the expression may appear to involve. τὸ πρότερον may be translated either ‘formerly’ (Deut. ii. 12, Josh. xi. 10, Joh. vi. 61, ix. 8), or ‘ the first time’ (πρότερον, Heb. iv. 6, vii. 27). The latter is preferable; for, as Meyer observes, the words would be surperfluous if St. Paul had been only once. Still no historical conclusions can safely be drawn from this expression alone; see Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 30, 277. 14. τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν] ‘your temptation, scil. ‘your trial, which arose, or might reasonably have arisen, from the bodily infirmity on account of which I ministered among you;’ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου coalescing with, and forming an explanatory addition to the otherwise seemingly ambiguous τὸν πειρασμ. ὑμῶν ;΄ comp. 2 Cor. x. 10, ἡ δὲ παρουσία τοῦ σώματος, ἀσϑενής, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἐξουϑενη- μένος, and see Mill (Append. to N. T.), p. 51. ‘The objection to this interpreta- tion, founded on the absence of the art. before ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου (Riick.), is here not valid, as πειράζειν ἔν τινι (compare Ecclus. xxvii. 5) is appy. an admissible construction ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123, and notes on Eph.i.15. Lachmann places a period after μοῦ, and connects τὸν πειρασμ. du. With ver. 13; but this does very little to remove the difficulty Mill (Append, p. 51) retracts his former opinion, and dis- in the former part of this verse, and makes the latter part intolerably harsh and abrupt. ν ἐξεπτύσατ εἶ ‘loathed,’ ‘respuistis,’ Vulg., Clarom., © arp) [abominati estis] Syr. : ‘ plus est ἐκπτύειν Quam éfouseveiv, hoc enim con- temptum, illud et abominationem sig- nificat,’ Grot.; see Kypke, Observ. Vol. τ. p. 280. Of the compounds of πτύω, those ἐν and ἐκ are only used in the natural, and not, aS καταπτ., διαπτ., ἀποπτ., in the metaphorical sense; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 15 sq. Probably, as Fritz. suggests, ἐκπτ was here used rather than the more common ἀποπτ. by a kind of alliteration after ἐ ξ ουὐϑενήσατε, ‘non reprobastis aut respuistis,’ more esp. as a repetition of the same prep. in com- position appears to be an occasional characteristic of the Apostle’s style; compare Rom. ii. 17, xi. 7. De Wette feels a difficulty in ἐξουϑ. and ἐξεπτ. be- ing applied to πειρασμὸς on the part of the Galatians. Yet surely, whether referred to St. Paul or to the Galat., the expression is equally elliptical, and must in either case imply despising that which formed or suggested the πειρασμός. ὡς Χριστὸν ‘Ingody] (yea) as Christ Jesus ;’ climactic, denoting the deep affection with which he was received; comp. 2 Cor. y. 20; the Galatians received the Apos- and _ veneration Cuap. IV. 15. GALATIANS. 103 % a a * a \ a τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. ™ τίς οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν ; μαρτυρῶ yap ὑμῖν tle not only as an angel, but as One higher and more glorious (Heb. i. 4), even as Him who was the Lord of angels. 15. τίς οὖν] ‘Of what kind then,’ scil. ἣν [inserted in DEK(nFG): mss. ; Chrys.]; ‘qualis (not quanta), h. 6. quam levis, quam inconstans, égztur erat,’ Fritz. ; sorrowful enquiry, expres- sive of the Apostle’s real estimate of the nature of their μακαρισμός ; οἴχεται, ἀπώ- λετο καλῶς οὐκ ἀποφηνάμενος, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἐρωτήσεως ἐνδειξάμενος, Theod. Mops. If ποῦ be adopted, for which there is greater external authority [ABCFG ; 6 mss.; Boern., Syr. Vulg., Copt., Arm, al.; Dam., Hier. al.], but which seems to bear every appearance of having been a correction (τὸ τίς ἀντὶ τοῦ ποῦ τέϑεικεν, Theod.), then ἐστὶν must be supplied, and οὖν taken in its ‘vis collectiva,’ whereas in the present case, what has been called the vis refleriva (‘takes up what has been said and continues it,’ Donalds. Crat, § 192) is more apparent ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 719, and notes on Phil, ii. 1. μακαρισ- μός ὑμῶν] ‘the boasting of your blessedness,’ ‘beatitatis vestre preedica- tio,’ Beza; the Galatians themselves being obviously both the μακαρίζοντες (not St. Paul and others, CEcum., comp. Theoph.) and the μακαριζόμενοι : see “Rom. iv. 6 (where λέγει τὸν μακαρισμόν = μακαρίζει), and compare Fritz. in Joc. The word is occasionally found in ear- lier writers (6. g. Plato, Rep. 1x. 59 Ὁ, Aristot. Rhet. 1. 9. 4) and is of common occurrence in the Greek liturgies; see Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 11. p. 290 sq. ὀφϑαλμοὺ-ς ‘your eyes,’ ‘oculos vestros,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; not ‘ your own eyes,’ Auth. (τοὺς ἰδίους δὀφϑαλμούΞς), as the article and pronoun are found in the N. T. constantly asso- ciated with 6p3., where no emphasis is \ ε ~ τοὺς ὑμῶν) intended; compare Joh. iv. 35, and see the numerous exx. in Bruder, Concord. s, v. p. 667. ΑἹ] inferences then from this passage that the ἀσϑένεια of the Apostle was a disease of the eyes, are in the highest degree precarious; see Alf. in loc. ἐξορύξαντε5]) ‘having plucked out,’ ‘eruissetis et de- dissetis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; participle ex- pressive of an act immediately prior to, and all but synchronous with that of the finite verb; comp. Hermann, Viger, No. 224. That the verb ἐξορύττειν (‘usgraban,’ Goth.) is a ‘verbum so- lemne’ (Mey.) for the extirpation of the eye (1 Sam. xi. 2, Herod. vir. 116, etc.) may perhaps be doubted, as ἐκκόπ- τειν ὀφϑαλμὸν Is used in cases apparently similar (Judges xvi. 21, comp. Lucian, Toxaris, 40), though more generally applicable to the simple destruction of the organ; see Demosth. 247. 11, Aris- toph. Nub. 24 (λίϑῳ), Plutarch, Lycurg. 11 (βακτηρία). The Greek vocabulary on this subject is very varied; see the numerous synonymns in Steph, Thes. S. V. ὀφϑαλμός. ἐδώκατε] ‘ye would have given;’ the ἂν [ Rec. with D°EJK; mss.] being rightly omitted with great preponderating evidence [ AB: CDIFG; 2 mss.]; comp. Jolin xv. 22, xix. 11. This omission of the article has a ‘rhetorical’ force (Herm)., and. differs from the past tense with ἂν, as marking more definitely the certainty that the event mentioned in the apodo- sis would have taken place, if the. re- striction expressed or implied in the protasis had not existed; see Herm. de Partie. ἄν, p. 58 sq., Schmalfeld, Syné: § 79, p. 185. Whether this distinction can always be maintained in the N. T. is perhaps doubtful, as the tendency to, omit ἂν in the apodosis (especially with the imperf.) is certainly a distinct fea-. ture of later Greek; see Winer, Gr. δ᾽ 104 a GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 16, 17. Ore εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ofSarpods ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἂν ἐδώκατέ μοι. ® ὥστε ἐχϑρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληδεύων ὑμῖν ; Your false teachers only court you for selfish ends: % Znrovow iuas οὐ Karas, ἀλλὰ and ye are fickle. Would that I were with you, and could alter my tone. 42.2, p. 273, and comp. Ellendt, Lez. Soph. 5. v. x. 1, Vol. 1. p. 126. 16. ὥστε] ‘So then?’ ‘Ergo?’ Vulg., Clarom., consequence (expressed interrogatively) from the present state of things as contrasted with the past, — ‘so then, as things now stand, am I become your enemy?’ of περιέποντες Kal ϑεραπεύοντες, καὶ τῶν ὀφϑαλμῶν τιμιώτερον ἄγοντες; Τί τοί- νυν γέγονε; πόϑεν ἡ ἔχϑρα, Chrys. The consecutive force οἵ ὥστε is more strongly pressed by Meyer, who accord- ingly connects the particle with the interrogation τίς οὖν μακαρ., of which it is to be conceived as expressing ihe special consequence, ‘is it in consequence of the unstable nature of your μακαρ., that,’ etc., — but this seems to involve the necessity of regarding μαρτυρῶ γὰρ κι τ. A. as parenthetical, and scems less in accordance with the context than the general and more abrupt reference to present circumstances; see De Wette in loc. The use of ὥστε with in- terrog. sentences is briefly noticed by Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 776. ἐχϑρὺς ὑμῶν γέγονα) ‘am I be- come your enemy,’ 2. 6. ‘hostile to you,’ $5,825 [dominus inimicitie] Syr. (both), ‘ inimicus vobis,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘ fijands’ [Feind], Goth., Copt., /th., Arm., — nearly all regarding ἐχϑρὸς as used substantively, and appy. actively, as in most of the languages above cited there are forms which would have distinctly conveyed the passive meaning. This latter meaning is adopted by Mey., Alf., al., and is not only grammatically ad- missible (ἔχϑρος, as the gen. shows, act- ing here as a substantive), but even οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστε contextually plausible, as the opposition between the former love of the Galatians and their present aversion would thus seem more fully displayed. Still as the active meaning yields a good sense, and is adopted by most of the ancient Vv., and as there is also some ground for believing that 6 ἐχϑρὸς ἄνϑρωπος (Clem. Recogn. τ. 70, 71, ‘ille inimicus homo’) was actually a name by which the Ju- daists designated the Apostle, the active meaning is to be preferred; see Hilgenf. Clem. Recogn., p. 78, note, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 277. ἀληδ εὐων] ‘by speaking the truth,’ scil. ‘because I speak the truth ;” οὐκ οἶδα ἀλλὴν αἰτίαν, Chrys. To what period does the par- ticiple refer? Certainly not (a) to the present Epistle, as the Apostle could not now know what the effect would be (Schott); nor (ὁ) to the first visit, when the state of feeling (ver. 15) was so very different, but (c) to the second (Acts xviii. 23), when Judaism had probably made rapid advances; see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 277. No objec- tion can be urged against this from the use of the present (imperf.) participle, as the action was still lasting; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 1, p. 304, Schmualreld, Synt. § 202, p. 406. 17. ζηλοῦσιν ὑμ.] ‘ they are pay- ing you court,’ scil. they are showing an anxious zeal in winning you over to their own party and opinions; con- trast between the honest truthfulness of the Apostle towards his converts, and the interested and self-seeking court paid to them by the Judaizing teachers. For an example of a similar use of (ηγλοῦν (‘sich eifrig um Jem. kiimmern, Rost. ἃ. Palm, Lez. 8, v.),—~ here Cnare. IV. 18. ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς neither exclusively in its better sense (2 Cor. xi. 2) nor yet in its worse (Acts vii. 9; compare Chrys.), but in the neutral meaning of ‘paying court to” (‘studiose ambire,’ Fritz.), —see Plut. vit. 762 (cited by Fritz.), ὑπὸ χρείας τὸ πρῶτον ἕπονται καὶ (ζηλοῦ- σιν, ὕστερον δὲ καὶ φιλούσιν. ἀλλὰ κι τ᾿ A.| ‘nay, they desire to exclude you; they not merely follow the positive and less dis- honorable course of ¢ncluding you among themselves [Syr. reads ἐγκλ., but appy. only from mistake] but the baser and more negative one of exclud- ing you from others to make you thus court them. The omission of a gen. after ἐκκλ. (see Kypke, Ods. τι. 181) makes it difficult to determine the ob- jects from which the false teachers sought to exclude those whom they affected, and has caused the ellipsis to be supplied in various ways; 6. 9. τῆς τελείας γνώσεως (Chrys.), ‘a Christo et fiducid ejus’ (Luther), ‘ab aliis omni- bus’ (Schott), ‘e circulis suis,’ 7. e. ‘by affecting exclusiveness to make you court them’ (Koppe, comp. Brown), — the last ingenious, but all more or less arbitrary. The only clue afforded by the context is the position of αὐτοὺς, which suggests a marked personal an- tithesis, and the use of ἐκκλεῖσαι, which seems more naturally to refer to num- bers or a community (Mey.) than to anything abstract or individual. Combining these two observations, we may perhaps with probability extend the reference from St. Paul (ed. 1, Fritz.) to that of the sounder portion of the Church with which he in thought associates himself, and from which he reverts back again to himself in ver. 18. The moment of thought, however, rests really on the verb, not on the objects to 14 ἐκκλεῖσαι GALATIANS. ϑέλουσιν, 105 iva αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε. which it may be thought to refer. ‘The Galatians were courted, and that οὐ καλῶς, in every way; direct proselytiz- ing on the part of these teachers (if they had been sincere in their convic- tions) might have worn a semblance of being καλόν ; their course, however, was rather (ἀλλὰ) indirect, it was to ésolate their victims, that in their isolation they might be forced to affect those who thus dishonestly affected them. ᾿Αλλὰ thus preserves its proper force, and becomes practically corrective ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 2, 3, Hartung, Partik. Vol. Il. p. 35. The reading ὑμᾶς which has still some few defenders (Scholef. Hints, p. 96, comp. De W.) appears to have been a conjecture of Beza. Though said to have been since found in a few mss., the assertion of Scholz, ‘ ἡμᾶς e codd. recent. fere omnibus’ is a com- plete mis-statement. ζηλοῦτε] ‘in order that ye may zealously affect them ;’ purpose of the ζηλοῦσιν οὐ καλῶς, ἵνα not being adverbial (‘ubi, quo in statu,’ Fritz., Mey.), but the simple conjunction, here as also in 1 Cor, iv. 6, associated with the indic., per solecis- mum; see, Winer, Gr. § 41. 5. p. 259, and Green, Gr. p. 73, who calls atten- tion to the fact that both solcecisms ap- pear in a contracted verb, where they might certainly have more easily oc- curred. Hilgenfeld cites as a parallel Clem. Hom. x1. 16 (read 6), ἵνα ὑπῆρχεν, but the preceding clause, εἰ ϑδέλετε αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι, seems, structurally considered, in effect equivalent to εἰ ἐποίησεν, and ὑπῆρχεν only the imperf. ‘in re irrité vel infecté,’-- a usage appy. not fa- miliar to this expositor (see p. 131, and comp. notes on ch. ii. 2), but perfectly regular and idiomatic; see Madvig, Synt. § 181, Schmalfeld, Syné. § 143, p. 294, It may be remarked that the 100 GALATIANS. Cuapr. IV. 18, 19. 15 καλὸν δὲ τὸ ξηλοῦσϑιαι ev καλῷ πάντοτε, Kal μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Mes. and mss. (219** [Ογλῶτε], only ex- cepted) are unanimous in the indic., and that all the ancient Vv. appear to have regarded ἵνα as a conjunction. 18. καλὺν δὲ τὸ ζηλοῦσϑαι κι τ᾿ λ.] ‘But it is good to be courted in a good way at all times;’ contrasted statement of what it is to be courted in a good and lasting manner. There is some little obscurity in this verse owing to the studied and characteristic mapovo- μασία (compare Winer, Gr. § 68. 1, p. 560) which marks the terms in which it is expressed. As the explanations of the verse are somewhat varied, we may perhaps advantageously premise the fol- lowing limitations : —(1) All interpre- tations which do not preserve one uni- form meaning of ζηλόω in both verses (e.g. Riick., and even De W. and Fritz.) may be rejected: from which it would seem to follow that ἐν καλῷ does not point to the sphere of the ζηλοῦσϑαι, in the sense of the virtues which called out the feeling (ἐπὶ τῇ τελειότητι, The- oph., compare De W.), — as this would practically cause ζηλοῦν to pass from its neutral meaning ‘ambire,’ to the more restricted ‘admirari,;— but is to be regarded as simply adverbial (compare Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8. Ὁ, p. 211), and perhaps as varied only from the preced- ing καλῶς to harmonize structurally with the following ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί. (2) ζηλοῦσϑαι must be regarded as pass. (comp. Syr.), not as a middle, equiv. in sense to active (Vulg., Clarom., Goth.), as no evidence of such a use of ζηλοῦσϑαι has yet been found. (3) The object of (ηγλοῦσϑαι must be the Galatians, as in ver. 17, and not (Ust.) St. Paul. (4) ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι is not to be trans- lated prospectively (Peile), but must mean simply ‘ when I am with you.’ ” rexvia pov ods πάλιν ὠδίνω ἄχρις Thus narrowed, then, the meaning would seem to be, ‘But it is a good thing to be courted, —to be the object of ζῆλος, in an honest way (as you are by me, though not by them) at all times, and not merely just when I happen to be with you.” Thus (Aododa ἐν καλῷ forms, as it were, a compound idea = (ηγλοῦσϑαι καλῶς (Peile), and is in strict antithesis to the act. (mA. οὐ καλῶς in the preceding verse; see Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 278. πρὸς ’ the primary idea of direction is frequently lost sight of, especially with persons; compare John i. 1, 1 Thess. iii. 4, 2 Thess. ii. 5, and see notes on ch. i. 18. 19. rexvia μου] ‘my little chil- dren ;’ appropriate introduction. to the tender and affectionate address which follows. Usteri, Scholz, Lachmann, and other expositors and editors connect these two words with ver. 18, putting a comma only after ὑμᾶς. By such a punctuation (suggested probably by a difficulty felt in the idiomatic δέ, ver. 20) the whole effect of the present ad- dress is lost, and the calm and semi- proverbial comment of ver. 18, to which it now forms such a sudden and tender contrast, weakened by the addition of an incongruous appeal. The appro- priate and affectionate réxvia (only here in St. Paul, but often in St. John) is changed by Lachm, into τέκνα [only with BFG], but rightly retained by the majority of recent editors. ὠδίνω] “1 am in travail; not ‘in utero gesto’ (Heinsius, Ezerc. p. 424, compare Alf.),—a meaning for which there is no satisfactory authcrity in the N. Τὶ or the LXX, but simply ‘ partu- rio” Vulg. Clarom., \WioiaSs [sum “ Δ ὑμ ἃ 5] ‘with you; Crap. IV. 20. οὗ μορφωδῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ™ GALATIANS. 107 ἤϑελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ” νυ. / \ / ee ᾽ le) > ee en ἄρτι καὶ ἀλλάξαι THY φωνὴν μου, OTL ἀποροῦμαιν EV ὑμίν. parturiens] Syr., with the idea, not so much of the pain, as of the long and continuous effort of travail; see exx. in Loesner, Obs. p. 333, and observe the tender touch in the πάλιν, scil. ὥστε τῶν παλαίων ὠδίνων ἀγαγεῖν εἰς μνήμην. The use of ὠδίνω in eccl. writers is illustrated by Suicer, Thes. τι. p. 1595. ἄχρις οὗ μορφωδῇ] ‘until Christ be, formed,’ ‘until the new man, Christ in us (ch. ii, 20, compare Eph. ii. 17) receive, as I doubt not he will (ἂν per- haps designedly omitted; see iii. 19, and Herm. de Partic. ἄν, p. 40), his completed and proper form ;’ the obvious meaning of this word (ἐξεικονίζεσϑαι, εἰδοποιεῖσϑαι, see Heinsius, Exerc. p. 424) seeming to show that the metaphor is continued, though in a changed ap- plication. The doctrinal meaning of μορφ. is alluded to by Ust. Lehrd. τι. 1. 3, p. 225 sq., but see esp. Waterland, on Tegen. Vol. tv. 445, who satisfac- torily shows that this passage cannot be urged in favor of a second regeneration. On the meaning of ἄχρι and its distinc- tion from μεχρί, see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 20. ἤϑελον δὲ] “1 could indeed wish ;’ imperf. without ἄν ; comp. Rom. ix. 3, Acts xxv. 22. In all such cases the simple imperf., which here appears in the true distinctive character.of the tense (Bernh. Synt. x. 3, 373), must be referred to a suppressed conditional clause, vellem sc. st possem, δὲ liceret (Fritz. Rom. 1x. 3, Vol. u. p. 246), but must be distinguished from the imperf. with ἄν, which involves a thought (‘ but I will not’) which is here not intended ; see Herm. de Partic. ἄν, p. 56, Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, p. 253. The distinction drawn by Schémann (Iseus x. 1, p. 435, cited by Win ) between ἤϑελον or ἐβουλόμην with ἄν (‘significat volunta- tem a conditione suspensam 80. vellem, st liceret’) and without ἄν (‘vere nos illud voluisse, etiam si omittenda fueret voluntas, scilicet, quod frustra nos velle cognovimus,’ — in such cases often with _a preparatory μὲν) is subtle, but appy. of limited application, even in earlier Greek; in later Greck it is still more The omission of ἂν in eases of ‘ objective necessity’ is well treated by Stalbaum on Plato, Sympos. 190 ς, p. 130. δὲ has caused some difficulty to be felt in this connection. Scholef. (Hints, p. 77) proposes to regard δὲ as redundant; Hilgentfeld commences with ἤϑελον δὲ a new clause, leaving ver. 20 an unfin- ished address. This is not necessary ; the present use of δὲ is analogous to its use with personal pronouns after vocatives or in answers (Bernhardy, Synt. 11. 5, p. 73, Pors. Orest. 614), the principle of explanation being the same, ‘adseveratio non sine oppositione ;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 365 sq. This ‘opposition’ Meyer traces in the tacit contrast between the subject of his wish, to be present with them, and his actual precarious; see notes on ver. 1d. absence and separation. ἄρτι) “now ;’ see notes on ch. i. 9. ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνήν pov] “ἴο change my voice,’ 5011. to a milder, not necessarily to a more mournful (Chrys.), still less to a more severe tone (Michael.), which would be wholly at variance with the preceding affvctionate address. There does not, however, ap- tone last 280, pear any historical allusion to the which the Apostle used at his visit (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. note), but only to the severity of tone adopted generally in this epistle. ‘The peculiar meanings of ἀλλάξαι adopted by Theodoret (τῶν μὲν τὴν ἐκτροπὴν 108 Ve understand not the deeper meanings of the law, as the allegory of Abraham's two sons, the one typical of the earthly, ϑρηνῆσαι τῶν δὲ τὸ βέβαιον ϑαυμάσαι; comp. also Theod. Mops.), Greg. Nyss. (μέλλων μετατιϑέναι τὴν ἱστορίαν εἰς Tpo- πικὴν ϑεωρίαν), Grotius (‘modo asperius _ modo lenius’ loqui’), Whitby (‘temper my voice’), al., — seem all artificial, and are certainly not confirmed by the two exx. cited by Wetst., viz. Artemidor. 11. 20, Dio Chrys. 59, p. 575, in both of which there are qualifications, which render the meaning more apparent. The change of tense παρεῖναι, ἀλλάξαι, must not be overpressed (Peile), such a change being only due to the essential difference of meaning between the two verbs, and even in the case of other verbs being far from common; see Jelf, Gr. § 401. 5, Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 238. ἀποροῦμαι) ‘I am perplexed, Arm., il bad - [obstupesco] Syr., ἀπορ. being a pass. in a deponent sense; com- pare John xiii. 22, Acts xxv. 20, 2 Cor. iv. 8. Fritz. (Opuse, p. 257) still adopts the pure pass. sense, ‘nam in vestro eetu de me trepidatur, 7. e. sum vobis suspectus’ (comp. Vulg., Clarom., ‘ con- fundor’), but this is at variance with the regular use of the verb in the N. T., and ill harmonizes with the wish which the Apostle has just expressed. He feels perplexed as to how he shall bring back the Galatians to the true faith; by ἀλη- Sevwv he had called out their aversion, perhaps a change of tone might work some good. ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘in you,’ scil, ‘about you ;’ ἐν, as usual, marking as it were the sphere in which, or substratum on which the action takes place; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, and comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16, ϑαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν. Other constructions of ἀπορ,. are found GALATIANS. Crap. IV. 21, 22. 0 / , \ Ἵ Aéyeré μοι, of ὑπὸ νόμον SYédovtes εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; 5 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ᾿Αβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης the other of the heavenly Jerusalem, will fully prove. in the N. T., 6. g. with περί, John xiii. 22, and with eis, Acts xxv. 20. 21. λέγετέ μοι x. τ. A.) Ilustra- tion of the real difference between the law and the promise as typified in the history of the two sons of Abraham; Sédrovtes] not without see notes on ver. 24. ‘are willing, desirous ;’ emphasis and significance; οὐ yap τῆς τῶν πραγμάτῶν ἀκολουϑίας, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐκείνων ἐκαίρου φιλονεικίας τὸ πρᾶγμα ἦν. τὸν νόμον οὐκ ae.) ‘do ye not hear the law ;’ ‘do ye not give ear to what it really says.’ Various shades of meaning have been given to this verb. Usteri and Meyer retain the simplest meaning with ref. to the custom of reading in the synagogues (Luke iv. 16),— an interp. to a certain degree countenanced by the ancient gloss ava- γινώσκετε [DEFG; 3 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., al.]. As however (1) it is fairly probable that the Jaw was not as commonly read in Christian communi- ties as in the Jewish [Justin Mart. Apol. τ. p. 83, only mentions τὰ ἀπομνη- μονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλῶν, ἢ Ta συγγράμ- ματα τῶν προφητῶν; but this must not be pressed, as the earliest congregations, probably to some extent, adopted the practice of the synagogue; see Bing- ham, Antig. x11. 4], and (2) as of Sé- λοντες refers rather to persons Judaically inclined than to confirmed Judaists, the meaning ‘ give ear to’ (scarcely so much as ‘attento animo percipere,’ Schott), seems most suitable in the present case ; comp. Matth. x. 14, Luke xvi. 29, 31. 22. γέγραπται γάρ] ‘For it is written ;’ explanatory proof from the law of the justice of the negation in- volved in the foregoing question. The Crap. IV. 23, 94. \ Ὁ > lel > J. καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευδ ἔῤας. “. GALATIANS., 109 Barra ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευϑέρας, διὰ τῆς ἐπαγγε- , 4 ὦ aR > , or ΄, ᾽ , a Alas. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα: αὕται yap εἰσιν δύο SiaS7j- particle yap has here the mixed argu- mentative and explicative force in which it is so often found in these Epp., and approaches somewhat in meaning to the more definite profecto; see Hartung, Partik. γάρ, 2. 2, Vol. 1. p. 464 sq., Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 234 sq., and comp. Hand, Twrsell. Vol. 11. p. 376. The Apostle explains by the citation the meaning of his question, while at the same time he slightly proves the justice of putting it; see notes on 1 Thess. 11..1.Ψ Tis παιδίσκη 5] ‘the bond-maid ; the well-known one, Ha- gar. The word, though here, is not always so restricted ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p- 239. 23. ἀλλὰ] ‘Howbett.’ The full force of this particle may be felt in the state- ment of the complete opposition of character and nature between the two sons, which it introduces; ‘ Abraham had two sons; though sprung from a common father, they were notwithstand- ing of essentially different characters.’ On the force of this particle, see the good article by Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p- 1 sq. κατὰ σάρκα] ‘ac- cording to the flesh,’ 501]. ‘after the reg- ular course of nature,’ Bloomf. κατά φύσεως ἀκολουδίαν, Chrys.; not per- haps without some idea of imperfection, weakness, etc., and, as the next clause seems to hint, some degree of latent op- position to πνεῦμα; see Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 355 (Clark), Tholuck, Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 487, and comp. notes on ch. iii. 3. διὰ τῆς ἐπαγγελία] ‘by means of, by virtue of (Hamm.) the promise,’ not ‘under the promise’ (Peile) ; the prep. here marking not merely the ‘ condition,’ ‘circumstances’ (δι᾽ ὑπομονῇς, Rom. viii. 25), but, as Usteri justly remarks, de- noting the causa medians of the birth of Isaac. Through the might and by virtue of the promise (see Gen. xviii. 10), Sarah conceived Isaac, even as the virgin conceived our Lord through the divine influence imparted at the Annun- ciation; see Chrys. in Joc., who, how- ever, reads κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν. 24. ἅτιν 4] ‘All which things viewed in their most general light ;’ (Col. ii. 23, ἅτινά ἐστι, λόγον μὲν ἔχονται It is very doubtful whether Usteri is correct in maintaining that ἅτινά is here simply equivalent tod. The difference between ὃς and ὕστις may not be always very distinctly marked in the N. T., but there are certainly grounds for asserting that in very many of the cases where ὅστις appears used for ὃς it will be found to be used either, —(1) Indefinitely ; ὃ. 6. where the antecedent is more or less indefinite, either (a) in its own nature, from involving some general notion (Pape, Lex. s. v. ὅστις, 2), or (6) from the way the subject is presented to the reader; 6, g. Phil. i. 28 (where the subj. is really a portion of a sentence) Col. ii. 23, al.; in such cases the relative frequently agrees with the consequent, see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 24. 3, p. 140. The present passage appears to fall un- der this head, as the subject is not merely the facts of the birth of the two sons, but all the circumstances viewed generally : — (2) Classijfically, ἐ. e. where the subject is represented as one of a class or category; e.g. ch, ii, 4, 1 Cor. iii. 17 (see Mey. in loc.) ; comp. Matth. Gr. § 483, Jelf, Gr. § 816. 4:—(3) Explicatively, 6. g. Eph. i. 23 (see Har- less ¢m Joc.) ; not. merely in a causal sense, as is commonly asserted; see . 110 GALATIANS. . Cuap. IV. 24: και, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. ν. 8, Vol. m. p. 385, comp. Herm. Gd, Rex. 688 : — or lastly (4) Differentially, i. e, where it denotes an attribute which essentially belongs to the nature of the antecedent ; see Jelf, Gr. § 816. 5, Kriiger, Sprachl. ᾧ 51. 8. 1 sq. Great difference of opinion, however, still exists among scholars upon this subject. After the instances cited by Struve (who has said all that can be said in favor of an occa- sional equivalence), Quest. Herod. τ. p. 2 sq., it seems best to adopt the opinion of Ellendt, 2. c., that though the equiv- alence of doris and ὃς has been far too generally applied, there are still a few instances even in classical Greek. In later Greek this permutation took place more often, see Rost. u. Palm, Lez. s. v. u. Bb. 2, Vol. πι. p. 547; still it must never be admitted unless none of the above distinctions can fairly be applied. ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα)] ‘are alle- gorized,’ ‘are allegorical,’ ‘by the which things another is meant,’ Genev. Transl., ἑτέρως μὲν λεγόμενα, ἑτέρως δὲ νοούμενα, Schol. ap. Matth.; ἀλληλορίαν ἐκάλεσε τὴν ἐκ παραϑέσεως τῶν ἤδη γεγονότων πρὺς τὰ παρόντα σύγκρισιν, Theod. Mops. As the simple meaning of the word in this passage has been somewhat obscured by exegetical glosses, it may be observed the ἀλληγορεῖν properly means to ‘ez- press or explain one thing under the image of another’ (comp. Plutarch, de Isid, et Osir. § 32, p. 363. Ἕλληνες Κρόνον ἀλληγοροῦσι τὸν χρόνον), and hence in the pass., ‘to be so expressed ΟΥ̓ explained ;’ comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, y. 11, p. 687, ἀλληγορεῖσϑαί τινα ἐκ τῶν ὀνομάτων ὁσιώτερον, ib. Protrept. 11, Ὁ. 86, ὄφις ἀλληγορεῖται ἡδονὴ ἐπὶ γαστέρα ἕρπουσα; Porphyr. Vit. Pythag. p. 185 (Cantabr. 1655), where ἀλληλορεῖσϑαι is in antithesis to κοινολογεῖσϑαι; see exx. Wetst. in loc., and in Kypke, Obs. Vol. π. p. 282. The explanation of Chrys. is thus perfectly clear and satis- factory; ob τοῦτο δὲ μόνον (4 ἱστορία) πραδηλοῖ ὕπερ φαίνεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλα τινα ἀναγορεύε. The remarks made above, ch. iii. 16, apply here with equal force to the late attempts of several modern expositors (e. g. Meyer, De Wette, Jowett) to represent this as a subjective, i. 6. to speak plainly, —an erroneous interpretation of St. Paul arising from his Rabbinical education, It would be well for such writers to re- member that St. Paul is here declaring, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, that the passage he has cited has a sec- ond anda deeper meaning than it ap- pears to have: that it has that meaning, then, is a positive, objective, and indis- putable truth; see Olshausen’s note in loc., Hofmann, Schrifth. Vol. 1. 2, p. 59, and the sound remarks of Waterland (Pref. to Script. Vol. rv. p. 159) on the general nature of an allegory. αὖται) ‘these women;’ τῶν παιδίων ἐκείνων αἱ μητέρες ἣ Σάῤῥα καὶ ἡ ΓΆγαρ, Chrys. The insertion of the art. before δύο ( Rec.) is opposed to the authority of all the uncial MSS., and is rejected by nearly all modern editors. μία μὲν κ΄ τ. λ.] ‘one indeed from Mount Sinai,’ scil. originating from, taking its rise from, ἀπό, with its usual force, marking the place or centre (AlIf.) whence the διαϑήκη emanated ; compare Kriiger, Sprachi. § 68. 16. 5. The μὲν has here no strictly correlative δέ, as that in ver. 26 refers to τῇ viv Ἱερουσ. in the verse immediately preceding; comp. Winer, Gr. § 63. 2. e, p. 507. εἰς δουλείαν γενν ὦ σα] ‘ bearing children unto bondage,’ ἃ. 6. to pass un- der and to inherit the lot of bondage; δούλη ἦν [’Ayap] καὶ εἰς δουλείαν ἐγέννα, Theoph. ἥτις ἐστὶν “Avyap] ‘and this is Hagar.’ The use of ὅστις Cuap. IV. 25. GALATIANS. 111 “Ayap. “ὁ τὸ γὰρ “Ayap Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Δραβίᾳ' 25. τὸ γὰρ “Ayap Σινᾶ ὄρος] The reading adopted by Lachm. viz. τὸ yap Suwa with CFG; 17; Boern., Vulg., A&th., Arm.; Cyr., Epiph., Dam.; Orig. (interpr.) Hieron., al. (Ust., De W., Griesb. ‘ forsitan τ᾿ see Hofm. Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2. p. 62) is plausible and gives a very satisfactory sense. Still Tisch. ed. 2 (see Mull, Mey., Scholz,) appears to have rightly returned to the Text. Rec., as the juxtaposition of γὰρ and ”Ayap would render (on paradiplomatic considerations, Pref. p. xvi.) the omission of the latter word very probable. The conversion of the former into δὲ [ Tisch. ed. 1 with ADE; 37. 73s 80, Copt. (Wilk., not Bott.), Cyr. 1.] was per- haps suggested by the μὲν in ver. 24. here seems to fall under (4): it is this covenant peculiarly, this one of which the differentia is, that it originates from Sinai, which is allegorically identical with Hagar; see above, and esp. Jelf, Gr. § 816. 4. 25.7d yap “Ayap x.7.A.] ‘For the word Hagar is Mount Sinai in Ara- bia,’ i.e. among the Arabians; τὸ δὲ Σινᾷ ὄρος οὕτω μεϑερμηνεύεται TH ἐπι- χωρίῳ αὐτῶν γλώττῃ, ΟἾΤΥΒ. : etymolog- ical reason, added almost parenthetically, for the foregoing statement of the alle- gorical identity of Mount Sinai and Hagar, τὸ not agreeing with “Ayap but referring to it in its abstract form (Jelf, Gr. § 457.1), and ἐν τῇ ᾿Αραβίᾳ not supplying a mere topographical state- ment (comp. Syr., Copt.), but serving to define the people by whom Sinai was so called; τοῦτο τῇ τῶν ᾿Αράβων γλώσσῃ “Ayap καλεῖται, Schol. ap. Matth. It is thus obvious that this interpreta- tion’ presupposes that “Ayap was a pro- vincial name of the mountain. Nor does this seem at all improbable, though we are bound to say that the corrobora- tive evidence from the modern appella- tions of the mountain, is less strong than the appeals to it (Bloomf. Forster, Geogr. of Arabia, Vol. τ. p. 182) would seem to imply. The best authority for the assertion seems to be the careful and diligent Biisching ( Erdbeschr. Vol. v. p. 535), who adduces the statement of Harant, that Sinai was still called ‘ Hadschar’ in his time (‘ Hadsch heisst bekanntlich auch Fels,’ -Ritter, Erd- kunde, Vol. Fart: 1p. 1086)5 though now it is commonly called either ‘Dschebel Musa’ (in a more limited reference), or ‘Dschebel et Tiir;’ see Ritter, Erdk. Vol. xtv. Part 1. p. 536, Martiniere, Dict. Geogr. et Crit. s. v. ‘Sinai.’ It must also be said that the evidence from etymology is also not very strong, as the Arabian word ‘ Hadjar’ (comp. Chald. 43> Gen. xxxi. 47), ap- pears certainly only to mean ‘a stone’ (see Freytag, Lex. Arab. 5. v. Vol. 1. p. 346), still, — even if we leave unnoticed the fact of there having been a town called Ἄγαρ in the vicinity (Ewald; compare Assemann, Bib/. Orient. Vol. ut. 2, p. 753), there are so many analo- gous instances of mountains bearing names in which the word ‘stone’ is incorporated (6. g. ‘ Weissestein’ al.), that there seems nothing unnatural in supposing that “Ayap actually was, and possibly may be now, the strictly pro- vincial name of the portion of the mountain now commonly called ‘ Dsche- bel Musa.’ This St. Paul might have learnt during his stay in that country. It must be admitted that we escape all this if we adopt the reading of Lach- mann: τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ. . . ᾿Αραβίᾳ will then form a parenthesis, and the emphasis will rest on ἐν τῇ ’ApaBia; ‘For Mount Sinai is in Arabia,’ — Arabia, the home of the bond-maid’s children, the υἱοὶ XVI. 119 GALATIANS. Cuap. IV. 25, 26. συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ viv 'Ιερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει yap μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. “Ayap, Baruch iii, 23; comp. Hofmann, Sch ifth. Vol. τι. 2. p. 62. In this case also διαϑήκη is the subject of συστοιχεῖ (opp. to Hofm.), without the grammati- cal distortion in making Hagar the sub- ject. Still there is a difficulty in the covenant being said συστοιχεῖν ; as δου- λεία (δουλεύει γάρ) is plainly the tertiwm comparationis between Hagar and Jeru- salem, and the assertion ἥτις ἐστὶν *A-yap is really not so much supported by the sentence which follows, as by the em- phasis which is assumed to rest on ἐν τῇ *ApafB., the last words of it. We have, therefore, nothing better to offer than the former interpretation. συστοι- χεῖ δέ) ‘she stands too in the same file _or rank with,’ ‘is conformable with,’ Arm., the nominative obviously being “Ayap (‘gue consonat,’ Clarom.) not Σινᾷ ὄρος (Vulg.), nor even μία dia- Shen (De W.), as there would thus be no point of comparison (δουλεία) bee tween the subject of συστοιχεῖ and 7 viv Ἵερουσ. (Mey.); see above. The δὲ (‘und zwar,’ Hilgenf.) appears to add a fresh explanatory characteristic, and re- tains its proper force in the latent contrast that the addition of a new fact brings with it; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 362. Συστοιχεῖν is best illustrated by Polyb. Hist. x. 21 (cited by Wetst.), συζυγοῦντας καὶ συστοιχοῦντας διαμένειν : where συζυγ. evidently refers to soldiers in the same rank, συστοιχ. to soldiers in the same jfile: see Fell in loc., where the two lists are drawn out; each name in which συστοιχεῖ with those in the same list, but ἀντιστοιχεῖ with those in the opposite list. The geographical gloss of Chrys. γειτνιάζει, ἅπτεται (‘qui conjunctus est,’ Vulg., ‘gamarko’ [comp. ‘marge’] Goth.), due probably to the assumption that Σινᾶ ὄρος is the nom. to * δὲ ἄνω “Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευδέρα ἐστιν, ἥτις ἐστὶν συστοιχεῖ, is not exegetically tenable, and has been rejected by nearly all modern expositors, τῇ νῦν ‘lep.] ‘the present Jerusalem,’ scil. τῇ ἐνταῦδϑα, τῇ ἐπὶ γῆς, Schol. ap. Matth. : ‘ antithe- ton superne ; nunc temporis est, supra loci,’ Bengel. δουλεύει yap] ‘for she is in bondage,’ scil. ταῖς νομικαῖς παρατηρήσεσιν, Schol. ap. Matth., comp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 61; the nom. being ἡ νῦν ‘Iep., and the γὰρ serving to confirm the justice of the as- sertion of συστοιχία. The reading δὲ [Rec. with DsEJK; al.; Syr.-Phil. (marg.), al.; Ff.] is rightly rejected by most recent editors with preponderant external evidence, viz. ABCD!FG ; many mss, and Vy. 26. ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ) ‘But the Jerusalem above ;’ contrast to the 7 νῦν ‘Iep. of the preceding verse: the cor- respondence of Sarah, ¢. e. the other covenant, with the heavenly Jerusalem is assumed as sufficiently obvious from the context. The meaning of ἄνω can scarcely be considered doubtful. It can- not be local (Mount Sion, ἡ ἄνω πόλις, Elsner, al.) as this is inconsistent with the foregoing νῦν, nor yet temporal (‘the ancient Jerus., the Salem of Melchize- dek,’ Michael. al.), as such a ref. is in- consistent with a context which only points to later periods, — but has sim- ply its usual ethical reference, ‘ above,’ ‘heavenly,’ ‘que sursum est,’ Vulg., Clarom., \WASx9 Syr.-Phil. ; compare Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος, Heb. xii. 22, Ἵερουσ. καινή, Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2; see the rabbinical quotations in Wetst., and comp. Ust. Lehrb. τι. 1.2, p. 182. As Jerusalem ἡ νῦν was the centre of Ju- daism and the ancient theocratic king- dom, so Jerusalem ἡ ἄνω is the typical GALA Cnap. IV. 27, 28. μήτηρ ἡμῶν' TIANS. 113 7 γέγραπται γάρ, Εὐφράνδητι στεῖρα ἡ ov τίκ- τουσα, ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα, ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς > / nr rn nw ἐρήμον μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα. “ἢ ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, representation of Christianity, and the Messianic kingdom. On the three- fold meaning of Ἵερουσ. in the N. ἽΝ, (scil. the heavenly community of the righteous, the Church on earth, the new Jerus. on the glorified earth), and the distinction observed by St. John between “Ἱερουσαλὴμ (the sacred name) and ‘Iepo- σόλυμα, see Hengstengb. on Apocal. Vol. τι. p. 319 (Clark) ; and on the general use and meaning of the expression, the learned treatise of Schoettgen, Hore Hebdr. Vol. τ. p. 1205—1248. ἥτις κ΄ τ. A.) Sand this one (this ἄνω Ἵερουσ.) is our mother ;’ ἥτις being used appy-, as in ver. 25, in its ‘ differential’ sense (see notes on ver. 24) and retain- ing the emphasis, which, as the order of the words seems to imply, does not rest on ἡμῶν ( Winer). The ad- dition of πάντων before ἡμῶν (Rec. [Lachm.], with AJK; mss.; Arab.- Pol., al.) is rightly rejected by Tisch. al., with BCDEFG; 5. 6, and majority of Vv. and Ff. 27. γέγραπται γάρ] ‘for τέ its written,’ proof of the clause immedi- ately preceding, ἥτις «. τ. A., from the prophetic consolation of Isaiah (ch. liv. 1), which though esp. addressed pri- marily to Israel and Jerusalem (Knobel, Jes. p. 380), was directed with a further and fuller reference to the Church of which they were the types. pitov] ‘break forth (into a ery). The ellipsis is usually supplied by φωνήν ; see Rost τι. Palm, 8. v. ῥηγν., and the numerous examples of ῥῆξον φωνὴν cited by Wetst. zz Joc. The critical accuracy of Schott leads him to supply εὐφροσύ- νην (Isaiah xlix. 13, lii. 9), reverting to εὐφράνϑητι, on the principle that the ellipsis is always to be supplied from the context ; compare ‘ erumpere gaudium,’ Terent. Eun. m1 5. 2. It is perhaps more simple to supply βοήν, derived from βόησον with which ῥῆξον is so closely, joined, or still more probably, to regard ῥῆξον as understood from long usage to be simply equivalent to κράξον ; ῥήξατο" κραξάτω, Hesych. μᾶλλον κ. 7.A.] ‘for many are the children of the desolate more than of her that hath the husband,’ ‘multi filii de- * sertae magis quam,’ etc. Vulg., Clarom., Goth. ; πολλὰ: μᾶλλον being not simply equivalent to πλείονα ἤ, but implying that both should have many, but the desolate one more than the other ( Mey.). The compound expression τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα answers to the simpler md>s3 (WASudo, Syr.; sim. A£th., Arm.) in the original, and is thus little more than ‘the married one,’ the force of the art. (τὸν ἄνδρα) being perhaps, as Alf. observes, too delicate to be expressed in English. This prophecy is some- what differently applied by Clem. ad Cor. τι. 2, and Orig. in Rom. vi. Vol. τι. p- 33 (ed. Lomm.), ἡ στεῖρα being re- ferred more peculiarly to the Gentile church as opposed to the Jewish church ὅτι πολλὰ (τῶν δοκούντων ἔχειν Θεόν) ; whereas. St. Paul understands under the image of Sarah (μήτηρ ἡμῶν) the church, as: composed both of Jews and Gentiles, and thus as in contradistinction to the children of the law, the bond-children. of the ancient theocracy. 28. ὑμεῖς δέ] ‘But ye;’ application of the foregoing allegory to the case of those whom the Apostle is now address-~ ing, the δὲ being here μεταβατικόν ( Har- tung, Partik. δέ, 2. 3. Vol. 1. p. 165, see notes on ch. i, 11, and marking a tran~ 15 114 GALATIANS. Cuap. IV. 28, 29. κατὰ ᾿Ισαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. “ ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ τοτε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηδεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ Πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν. sition to the readers while also hinting at their contrast to the children of rijs ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα. If the reading of Rec. ἡμ.-ἐσμέν be adopted, which, however, though well supported [AC D%E(?)JK ; mss.; Syr., Vulg., Copt., Goth., A&th.-Platt, Arm.; Chrys., Theod., Theodrt., al.], is opposed to good external evidence [BD!E(?)FG ; Clarom., Sah., mss.; ASth--Pol.; Orig., Iren. ;,Ambr., Ambrst., al.], and is sus- picious as appy. being a confirmation to ver. 31, then δὲ must be considered as indicating a resumption of ver. 26, after the parenthetical quotation in ver. 27; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 377, Hartung, Partik. δέ, 3. 1, Vol. 1. p. 173. κατὰ Ἰσαάκ] ‘af- ter the example of Isaac ;’ κατὰ pointing to the ‘norma’ or example which was furnished by Isaac; so 1 Pet. i. 16, κατὰ Toy καλέσαντα, Eph. iv. 24, Col. iii. 10: see Winer, Gr. § 49. ἃ, p. 358. Several exx. of this usage are cited by Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. 284, and Wetst. in loc. ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα) ‘children of promise.’ These words ‘admit of three interpretations ; — (a) ‘children who have God’s promise ;’ or (b) ‘children promised by God,’ 7. e. the ‘seed promised by God to Abraham}; or (c) ‘children of, ¢%. e. by virtue of, promise.” Both the emphasis, which appears from the order to rest on ἐπαγγ., -and the words διὰ τῆς ἐπαγγ., ver. 23, seem decisively in favor of the last in- terpretation ; compare Rom. ix. 8, and see Fritz. in loc. 29. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ] ‘Howbeit as;’ special notice of an instructive and suggestive comparison between the cir- cumstances of the types and of the an- titypes, ἀλλὰ with its usual adversative force directing the reader’s attention to a fresh statement, which involves a spe- cies of contrast to the former; ‘ye are children of promise it is true, howbeit ye must expect persecution ;’ see esp, Chrys. in loc., and comp. Klotz. Devar. Vol. m1. p. 29. ἐδίω κεν] *per- secuted,’ ‘persequebatur,) Vulg, Cla- rom., al.; imperf., as designating an action which still spiritually continues ; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 3, p. 240. Whether the reference is to be regarded as (a) exclusively to Genesis xxi. 9, m4 N31 pas an-7S-P8 (Alf., Ewald, al.), or (Ὁ) to an ancient, and therefore, as cited by St. Paul, true tradition of the Jewish Church (see below) will somewhat depend on the meaning as- signed to pos in Gen. fc. That it may mean ‘mocked’ (opp. to Knobel in loc.) seems certain from Gen. xxxix. 14, 17, and indeed from the command in Gen. xxi. 10. As however it does appear to mean no more than ‘ playing like a child,’ παίζοντα, LXX., ‘luden- tem,’ Vulg. (see Tisch. im loc., and Gesen. Lex. 8. v.), and as Joseph. (An- tig. τ. 12, 3), says only κακουργεῖν αὐτὸν duvduevwy, it seems on the whole best to adopt (δ) ; see Beresch. tut. 15 ( Wetst.), ‘Ismael tulit arcum et sagittas et jacu- latus est Isaacum, et pre se tulit ac si luderet,’ and Studer (in Ust.), who al- ludes to a similar rabbinical interpreta- tion founded on the cabalistic equiva- lence in numbers of the letters in ns and the explicit am ; comp. Hackspan, Notes on Script. Vol. 1. 220. τὸν κατὰ Πνεῦμα) ‘him that was according to the Spirit,’ scil. γεννηϑέντα, supplied from the preceding clause. The prep. it need scarcely be said does not here point to the cause or medium, ‘Dei opera’ (Vatabl.), but simply ‘ac- cording to,’ ὃ, 6. in accordance with the Cuar. IV. 30, 31. GALATIANS. 115 ” ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή ; "ExBare τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς" οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσῃ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ As ye are free, stand fast in your freedom, working by promise of the Holy Spirit ; compare Rom. iv. 19, 20. Κατὰ σάρκα refers to the natural laws according to which Ishmael was born; κατὰ Πνεῦμα, the supernatural laws according to which Isaac was conceived and born. οὕτως καὶ viv] ‘so also is it now;’ scil. those descended from Abraham κατὰ σάρκα (the Jews) still persecute the free children of promise (the Christians). The sentiment is expressed in general terms, but perhaps may here be con- ceived as pointed at the pernicious ef- forts of the Judaizers, which probably involved persecution both spiritual and material; comp. Meyer in Joc. A good sermon on this text, though with a somewhat special application, will be found in Farindon, Serm. x1. Vol. 1. p. 287 sq. (ed. 1849.) 30. @AAd] ‘Nevertheless ;’ strongly consolatory declaration (παραμυϑία ἱκανή, Chrys.) introducing a distinct contrast with the preceding declaration of the persecution, and calling away the thought of the reader to a totally fresh aspect ; ‘avocat mentem ab illis tristi- bus ad illam rem, quam jam opponit,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 6. n γραφή] ‘the Scripture. The fol- lowing words are really the words of Sarah to Abraham, but confirmed, ver. 12, by God Himself; «ejecta est Agar Sard postulante et Deo annuente,’ Est, The interrogative form which introduces the citation gives it force and vigor; comp. Rom. iv. 3, x. 8, xi. 4. οὐ κληρονομήσῃ] ‘shall in no wise be heir ;? emphatic: ‘liberi autem ex concubina conditionis servilis aut extra- nea seu gentili a successione plane apud Ebreos excludebantur,’ Selden, de Suc- 3688. cap. 3, Vol. u. p. 11, Hammond υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευϑέρας. at Ato, cites the instance of Jephthah, who was thrust out by his brethren, under the second condition of the law, as the son of a strange woman; Judges xi. 2. With regard to the use of οὐ μὴ with the subj. [κληρονομήσει BDE; mss.; Theoph.], it may be observed that the distinction drawn by Hermann (Ged. Col. 853) between οὐ μὴ with future indic. (duration or futurity) and with aor. subj. (speedy occurrence) is not ap- plicable to the N. T., on accouut of (1) the varyings (as here; (2) the decided violations of the rule where the MSS. are unanimous, e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 15: and (3) the obvious prevalence of the subjunctive over the future, both in the N. T. and ‘fatiscens Greecitas;’ see Lo- beck, Phryn. p. 722, Thiersch, Pentat. um. 15, p. 190, and exx. in Gayler, p. 433. On the general use of the united particles see Winer, Gr. § 56. 3, p. 450, and esp. Donalds. Craé. § 394, Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 405, exx. p. 430, and on the best mode of translation, notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15 ( Transt.) 31. 514] ‘Wherefore; commencement of a short semi-paragraph stating the consolatory application of what has pre- ceded (‘quamobrem; aptius duas res conjungit,’ Klotz. Devar. Vol. τι. p. 173), and passing into an exhortation in the following verse. It is very difficult to decide on the exact connection, as St. Paul’s use of διό does not appear to have been very fixed. Sometimes, as Rom. ii. 1, Eph. ii. 11, iii, 13, iv. 25, it begins a paragraph; sometimes (es- pecially with καὶ) it closely connects clauses, as Rom. i. 24, iv. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 13, v. 9, Phil. ii. 9; while in 2 Cor. xii, 10, 1 Thess. y. 11 (imperat.), it closes a paragraph, though not in a way 110 ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευϑέρας. GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 30— V. 1. V. "τῇ 1. τῇ ἐλευϑερίᾳ x. τ. A.] The difficulty of deciding on the true reading of this passage, owing to the great variation of MSS., is very great. The reading of Lachm., τῇ ἐλευϑερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευϑέρωσεν στήκετε οὖν, is plausible, and well supported, as ἦ is omitted by ABCD!; mss.; Copt., Damase., al.; still the doubt- ful meaning of the dat. éAevSep, (not the article, at which Riick. stumbles), and the abrupt character of the whole, make it, on internal grounds, very difficult to admit. Tisck. (so Matth., Scholz, Rinck, Riick., Olsh., al., though differing in other points) seems rightly to have retained 7 with D9EJK (FG ἡ éAeus. ἡμ. ; com- pare Vulg., Clarom.) ; mss. Syr. ; Chrys., ‘heod. (2), al., as the H is less likely to have arisen from a repetition of the first letter of HMAS (Mey.), than to have strictly similar to the present. On the whole, it seems most probable that St. Paul was about to pass on to an appli- cation, of, not a deduction from, the previous remarks and citation. He commences with διό, but the word ἐλευϑέρας suggesting a digression (see Davidson, Introd. Vol. τι. p. 148), he turns the application by means of τῇ ἐλευϑερίᾳ, into an inferential exhortation (Eth. erroneously makes the first clause a reason ‘quia Christus’), ver. 1, and recommences a new parallel train of thought with ἴδε ἐγώ. We thus put a slight pause after iv. 30, and a fuller one after v. 1. If ἡμεῖς δὲ be adopted [AC; mss.; Copt.; Cyr. (1), Damasc., al.] the connection will be more easy. Ver. 80 describes the fate of the bond- children ; ver. 31 will then form a sort of consolatory conclusion, deriving some force from the emphatic KAnpov.; ‘but we shall have a different fate; we shall be inheritors, for we are children, not of a bond-maid, but of a free-woman.’ This reading is, however, more than doubtful, as appearing to be only a repetition from ver. 28. For ἄρα (Rec. ), which would perhaps imply a little more decidedly than διὸ a continuance of what was said (Donalds. Crat, § 192), the external evidence [JK ὀ (ἄρα οὖν FG, Theodrt.] is very weak, and the proba- bility of correction not inconsiderable. παιδίσκη] ‘of a bond-maid,’ scil. ‘of any bond-maid.’ The omission of the article may be accounted for, — not by the negative form of the proposition (Middleton im loc.), but by the princi- ple of correlation, whereby when the governing article is anarthrous (here pos- sibly so after the predicative ἐσμέν, Middl. p. 43) the governed becomes anarthrous also; see Middl. Gr. Art. ut. 3. 7, p. 50 (ed. Rose), comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 2. Ὁ, p. 113 sq. As, however, παιδίσκη appears in every other place with the art. (even after the prep. in ver. 23), the present omission is perhaps ‘more probably regarded as intentional, and as designed to give a general char- acter to the Apostle’s conclusion; see Peile in loc. Τῆς ἐλευϑέρας cannot, however, be translated ‘ of a free woman.’ Cuarter V. 1. τῇ ἐλευϑερίᾳ k. τ. A.] ‘Stand firm, then, in the free- dom for which,’ ete.; inferential exhor- tation from the declaration immediately preceding. Of the many explanations which the expression τῇ ἐλευϑερίᾳ στή- κειν has received, the two following appear to be the most probable; (a) ‘ libertati stare, quam deserere est nefas,” Fritz. Rom. xii. 12, Vol. mt. p. 80, Winer, Gr. § 31. 3. obs. p. 244 (ed. 5; less distinctly p. 188, ed. 6) ; (8) ‘quod attinet ad libertatem, stare,’ Bretschn., Meyer on 2 Cor. i. 24. The objection to (a) is, that such expressions as τῇ % Cuap. V. 1. GALATIANS. 117 ἐλευϑερίᾳ ἣ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευϑέρωσεν στήκετε οὖν, Kal μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσϑ ε. been omitted from having been accidentally merged in it. His omission of οὖν, however, with DE; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (Philox.); Theodrt. (2) against ABC! FG; 10. 17. 31. 37, al.; Boern., Augiens., Goth., Copt., al.; Cyr., Aug., al. — does not seem tenable. The order Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ( Rec.) has but weak external support [CJK; mss.; appy. some Vv.; Chrys., Theod.], and is reversed by most recent editors. δλίψει ὑπομένειν are not strictly similar, as the idea of a hostile attitude (dat. incommodi) is involved in the dative, ‘calamitatem non subterfugientes,’ etc., 80 ὑποστῆναί τινι, μένειν τινι (Bernh. Synt. ut. 13. Ὁ, p. 98), and Hom. 17. xxI. 600, στῆναί τινι. The latter inter- pretation seems thus the most correct ; the dative, however, must not be trans- lated too laxly (‘as regards the free- dom’), as it serves to call attention to. the exact sphere in which, and to which, the action is limited, 6. g. ἔστη τῇ διανοίᾳ, Polyb. xxr. 9. 8; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. 2, p. 179, and notes on ch. i. 22. It may be remarked that we sometimes find an inserted ἐν (1 Cor. xvi. 13, compare Riick.) without much apparent difference of meaning, still it does not seem hypercritical to say that in this latter case the idea of the ‘sphere or element in which’ was designed by the writer to come more distinctly into view ; compare Winer, Gr. § 31. 8, p. 194. On the meaning of στήκειν, which per se is only ‘stare’ (Vulg., Clarom.), but which derives its fuller meaning from the context ; comp. Chrys., στήκετε εἰπών, Tov σάλον ἔδειξε, and see notes on Phil. i, 27. ἢ] ‘for which ;’ dat. commodi. The usual ad/atival explana- tion ‘qua nos liberavit’ (Vulg.), scil. ἣν ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν (so expressly Conyb.), may perhaps be justified by the common constructions χαίρειν χαρᾷ, εἴς.» but as it is very doubtful whether this con- struct. occurs in St. Paul’s Epp. (1 Thess. iii, 9 seems an instance of at- traction; see notes in loc.), it seems safer to adhere to the former explana- tion ; see Meyer in Joc. (obs.) For a good sermon on the notion of Chris- tian liberty, see Bp. Hall, Serm. xxv1. Vol. v. p. 339 sq. (Talboys). πάλιν refers to the previous subser- vience of the Galatians to heathenism; see notes on ch. iv. 9. ζυγῷ δουλείας] ‘the yoke of bondage,’ not ‘a yoke,’ etc., Copt., Ewald, al.; the anarthrous δουλεία (comp. Winer, Gr. §19. 1, p. 109) being appy. used some- what indefinitely to mark the general character of the ζυγόν, and by the principle of correlation causing the gov- erning noun to lose its article; see Mid- dleton, Gr. Art. m1. 3. 6, and compare notes on ch. v. 31. It will be observed that πάλιν is more easily explained on the hypothesis of ζυγῷ being taken in- definitely ; the present view, however, seems most in accordance with the defi- nite statement in ver. 2; ζυγὸν δὲ δου- λείας τὴν κατὰ νόμου ζωήν, Theod. On the use of the gen. as denoting the pre- dominant nature or quality inherent in the governing noun, see Scheuerl. Synt. § 16. 8, p. 115, and compare Soph. Aj. 944, οἷα δουλείας ζυγὰ, Aisch. Agam. 365, δουλείας γάγγαμον. χεσϑεῖ ‘be held fast;’ not exactly > , ενε- a ws Z “2 [mancipemini, subjiciatis vos], but simply ‘implicamini,’ Beza, with ref. perhaps to the tenacity of the hold, and the difficulty to shake it off; comp. Beng. For exx. of the use of 118 If ye submit to cireum- cision, ye are bound to the whole law, and your union with Christ is wholly void. ὃ μαρτύρομαι δὲ the verb both in a physical (Herod. 1. 121, évéxoua τῇ παγῇ)», and in an ethi- cal sense (Plutarch Symp. um. qu. 3. 1, ἐνέχεσϑαι δόγμασιν Πυϑαγαρικοῖς), see Kypke, Ods. Vol. u. p. 285, and Wetst. tn loc. 2, ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος] ‘Behold I Paul ;’ emphatic and warning declara- tion (τόση ἀπειλή, Chrys.) of the dan- gerous consequences, and worse than uselessness of undergoing circumcision, The Apostle’s introduction of his own name (compare 2 Cor. x. 1, Eph. iii. 1), prefaced by the arresting ἴδε (‘atten- tionem excitantis est,’ Grot.), has been differently explained. The most natu- ral view seems to be that it was to in- crease conviction (Sappodvros ἦν οἷς λέ- yet, Chrys., comp. Theod.) and to add to the assertion the weight of his Apos- tolic dignity; τῆς τοῦ προσώπου ἄξιο- πιστίας ἀρκούσης ἀντὶ πάσης ἀποδείξεως, Chrys. On the accentuation of ἴδε, which, according to the grammarians, is oxytone in Attic and paroxytone in non-Attic Greek, see Winer, Gr. § 6. 1, p. 47. ἐὰν περιτεμν.}] ‘if ye be circumcised ;’ ἃ. 6. if you continue to follow that rite,’ the present marking the action as one still going on. On the use of ἐὰν with pres. subj., compare notes on ch, i. 8, 9. οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει) ‘shall profit you nothing ;’ the fut., having no ref. whatever to the nearness of the Lord’s παρουσία (Mey.), but simply marking the certain result of such a course of practice; ‘Christ (as you will find) will never profit you any- thing ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 40. 6, p. 250, and compare Schmalf. Synt. § 57, p. 116 sq. ὃ 8. μαρτύρομαι δέ]! ‘yea I bear witness,’ testiticor autem,’ Vulg., Cla- GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 2, 3. ΞἼδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν πε- ριτέμνησθε Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει' πάλιν παντὶ ἀνὰ ρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφει- rom., not ‘enim,’ Beza; further and slightly contrasted statement; the δὲ not being merely connective, but as usual implying a certain degree of op- position between the clause it introduces and the preceding declaration; ‘not only will Christ prove no benefit to you, but you will in addition become debtors to the law;’ see Klotz, Devar. Vol. u p- 362, Hermann, Viger, No. 343. Ὁ, and for a notice of the similar use of ‘autem,’ Hand. Tursell, Vol. 1. p. 562. The verb μαρτύρομαι, a δὶς Aeydu., in St. Paul’s Epp. (Eph. iv. 24, compare. Acts xx, 26), is here used in the sense of μαρτυροῦμαι, appy. involving the idea of a solemn declaration, as if before witnesses ; comp. notes on Eph, iv. 24. That there is no ellipsis of Θεὸν (Hil. genf., Bretschn.) appears plainly from Eph ὦ. c., and from the similar usage of the word in classical Greek, e. g. Plata Phileb. 47 τ, ταῦτα δὲ τότε μὲν οὐκ ἐμαρτυράμεϑα, νῦν δὲ λεγόμεν. Dindorf in Steph. Thess. 8. ν. cites Eustath. 11, p. 1221. 33, ὡς af ἱστορίαι μαρτύρονται. πάλιν may refer to the preceding verse, or to a previous declaration of the same kind made by word of mouth. The former is more probable, as παντὶ ὰν- ϑυρώπῳ appears a more expanded applica- cation of ὑμῖν, ver. 2; οὐχ ὑμῖν λέγω μόνον, φησίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παντὶ ἀνϑρώπῳ περιτεμν., Chrys.; see Neander, Plant- ing, Vol. 1. p. 214 note (Bohn). περιτεμνομένῳ)] ‘submitting to be circumcised,’ ‘undergoing circumcision, ‘circumcidente se,’ Vulg., Clarom., or, more idiomatically ‘gui curat se cir- cumcidi,’ Beza,—but less accurately, as the participle is anarthrous, and what is called a tertiary predicate; see Don- alds. Crat. § 306, ib. Gr. § 495. Cuap. V. 4, 5. GALATIANS. 119 aA An > Ὲ- λέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. * κατηργῆδητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσϑε, τῆς χάῤυιτος ἐξεπέσατε. διε a Ν , 3 ! > ὃ, ὃ , > ὃ ΝΥ ἡμεῖς γὰρ Πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεδα. The tense περιτεμν.» ποῦ περιτμηϑέντι or περιτετμημένῳ, must not be overlooked : it was not the circumcised, as such, that had become in this strict sense ὀφειλέται ὕλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι, but he who was designedly undergoing the rite. “Ὅλον, as its position shows, is emphatic; ὅλην ἐφειλκύσω τὴν δεσποτείαν, Chrys. 4. κατηργήδητε ard τοῦ Χρ. ‘Ye were done away from Christ,’ ‘Your union with Christ became void,’ scil. ‘when you entered upon the course which now ye are pursuing;’ further and forcible explanation of Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει (ver. 2), the absence of all connecting particles serving to give the statement both vigor and emphasis. The construction is what is called ‘ praeg- nans’ (Rom. vii. 2, 6, see Winer, Gr. § 66. 2, p. 547); ἀπό, strictly considered, not belonging to κατηργέϑητε in the sense of ἠλευϑερώϑητε ἀπό, but to some word which can easily be supplied, e. g. κατηργήϑητε καὶ ἐχωρίσϑητε ἀπὸ Xp., ‘nulli estis redditi et a Christo avulsi ;’ comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3, φϑείρεσϑαι ἀπό, and Fritz. Rom. 1. c. Vol. τι. p. 8, 9. The verb katapyéw is a favorite word with St. Paul, being used in his Epp. (the Ep. to the Hebrews not being in- cluded) twenty-five times. In the rest of the N. T. it is used only twice, Luke xiii. 7, Heb. ii. 14, and in the whole LXX. only four times, all in Esdras. It is rare in ordinary Greek ; see Eurip. Pheniss. 753, and Polyb. Frag. Hist. 69. The τοῦ is omitted by Lachm. with BCDIFG; 2 mss.; Theoph., — but, as being less usual, esp. when pre- ceded by a prep., is more probably re- tained, with AD®EJK ; nearly all mss, ; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. ( Tisch. ). ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσϑ εἶ ‘are being 2 Justified in the law,’ ‘in lege,’ Vulg., Clarom.; ἐν not being instrumental (Ewald), but pointing to the sphere of the action; compare notes on ch. iii. 11. The pres. δικαιοῦσϑε is correctly referred by the principal ancient and modern commentators to the feelings of the sub- ject (ὡς ὑπολαμβάνετε, Theophyl., ‘ut vobis videtur,’ Fritz. Opuse. p. 156) ; compare Goth. ‘ garaihtans qiPib izvis’ [justos dicitis vos]. On this use of the subjective present (commonly employed to indicate certainty, prophetic confi- dence, expectation of speedy issue, etc.), see Bernh. Synt. x. 2, p. 371, Schmal- feld, Synt. § 54. 2, p. 91. χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε) ‘ye fell away from grace; the aor., as in the first clause, referring to the time when legal justification was admitted and put for- ward; see, however, notes to Transit. THIS On the meaning of ἐκπίπτειν τινος (‘al- iqua re excidere, scil. ejus jacturam facere’) see Winer, de Verb. Comp. Fasc. 1. ἢ. 11, and comp. Plato, Rep. νι. 496, ἐκπεσεῖν φιλοσοφίας, Polyb. xu. 14, 7, ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ καϑήκοντος. The Alex- andrian form of aor. ἐξεπέσατε is noticed! and illustrated by exx. in Winer, Gr. § 13. 1, p. 68 sq.; compare Lobeck, Phryn. p. 724. 5. ἡμεῖς γάρ] ‘For we;’ proof of the preceding assertion by a declaration e contrario of the attitude of hope and expectancy, not of legal reliance and self-confidence, which was the charac- teristic of the Apostle and of all true Christians. If δὲ had been used, the opposition between ἡμεῖς and οἵτινες: (ἡμεῖς) would have been more prominent: than would seem in harmony with the. context and with the conciliatory. char-- acter of the present address. 120 “ Πνεύματι] "ὃν the Spirit,’ ‘Spiritu,’ Vulg., Clarom., with an implied con-, trast to the σὰρξ which was the active principle of all legal righteousness ; comp. ch. iii. 3, and notes ir loc. The dative is not equivalent to ἐν Πνεύματι (Copt.), still less to be explained as merely adverbial, ‘spiritually’ (Middl. in loc.), but, as the context suggests, has its definite ablatival force and dis- tinct personal reference; our hope flows from faith, and that faith is imparted and quickened by the Holy Spirit. No objection can be urged against this in- terpr. founded on the absence of the article, as neither the canon of Middle- ton (Gr. Art. p. 126, ed. Rose), nor the similar one suggested by Harless ( Ephes. ii. 22.), — that τὸ Πνεῦμα is the personal Holy Spirit, πνεῦμα the indwelling in- fluence of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 5), can at all be considered of universal applica- tion; see ver. 16. It is much more natural to regard Πνεῦμα, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ as proper names, and to extend to them the same latitude in connection with the article; see Fritz. Rom, viii. 4, Vol. τι. p. 105. ἐκ πίστεω 5] ‘from faith, as the origin and source (comp. notes on ch. iii. 22), —in opposition to the ἐν νόμῳ of the preceding clause, which practically in- cludes the more regular antithesis ἐξ ἔργων. ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύ- νη 5] ‘the hope of righteousness.’ 'ΤῊΪ5 is one of those many passages in the N. T. (see Winer, Gr. § 30.1, p. 168) in which it is difficult to decide whether the genitive is subjecti or objecti; the ἐν διὰ δυοῖν, ‘spem et justitiam (zternam),’ suggested by Aquinas, being clearly in- admissible. If (a) the gen. be subjecti, ἐλπίδα δικαιοσ. must be ‘ipsum pre- mium quod speratur, sc. vitam :ter- nam’ (Grot.), ‘coronam gloriv que jus- tificatos manet’ (Beza), ἐλπὶς being used μετωνυμικῶς for the thing hoped for: GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 5. if (8) objecti, then simply ‘speratam justitiam,’ the hope which turns on δικαιοσύνη as its object, — fairly para- phrased by A2th., ‘we hope we may be justified ;’ sim. Tynd., Cran. Of these (8) seems clearly most in accordance with the context, as this turns not so much upon any adjunct to δικαιοσύνη as upon δικαιοσύνη itself; ‘Ye,’ says St. Paul, in ver. 4, ‘think that ye are al- ; ready in possession of δικαιοσ. (δικαι- ovade) , we on the contrary hope for it.’ There is no difficulty in δικαιοσύνη thus being represented future. For in the first place this view necessarily results from the contrast between Judaism and Christianity. The Jew regarded δικαιοσ. as something outward, present, realiza- ble; the Christian as something inward, future, and, save through faith in Christ, unattainable. And in the second place, δικαιοσύνη is one of those divine results which, as Neander beautifully expresses it, ‘stretch into eternity:’ it conveys with it and involves the idea of future blessedness and glorification ; obs ἐδικαί- woev τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν, Rom. viii. 30 ; see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 478 note (Bohn). ἐλπίδα ἀπεκ- δεχόμεδ α] ‘tarry for, ‘patiently wait for. This expressive compound has two meanings (a) local, with refer- ence either tothe place from which the expectation is directed to its object (‘in quo locatus aliquem expectes,’ Fritz.), or, more usually, the place whence the object is expected to come (‘unde quid expectaretur,’ Winer), — a decided trace of which meaning may be observed in Phil. iii, 20: (δ) ethical, with ref. to the assiduity of the expectation, ‘studi- ose constanter expectare,’ — the mean- ing in the present case and appy. in all the remaining passages in the N. T.; comp. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor. i. 7, Heb. ix, 28, 1 Pet. iii. 20 (Lachm., Tisch. ), and see Tittmann, Synon. p. 106, Fritz. Cuar. V. 6. 6 GALATIANS. 121 é \ x A is fal ” ᾿ς ἊΨ "ἢ Μ » 8 Vv yap ploT@ σου OUTE περίτομη Tb ἰσχύει OUTE akKpopuao- 4 > \ / > ee} , 5 , Tia, ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. Opuse. p. 156, Winer, Verb. Comp. Fase. tv. p. 14. It may be added that the expression ἐλπίδ. ἀπεκδ. is not pleonastic for éAm. dic. ἔχομεν (Ust., comp. A&th.), but, as Fritz. observes, forcible and almost poetical (Eur. Alcest. 130, ἐλπίδα προσδέχωμαι), ἐλπίδα being the cognate accus. ; comp. Acts. xxiv. 15, ἐλπίδα .. ται, Tit. ii. 18, προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακα- ‘he whole clause may be . ἣν καὶ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι προσδέχον- ρίαν ἐλπίδα. thus paraphrased : ‘ by the assistance of the Holy Spirit we are enabled to cher- ish the hope of being justified, and the source out of which that hope springs is faith ;’ comp. Ust. Lehkrd. τι. 1, p. 90 sq-, and for a fuller explanation of the verse, Chillingworth, Works, p. 402 sq. (Lond. 1704), Manton, Serm., Vol. rv. p. 927 sq. (Lond. 1698). 6. ἐν yap Χριστῷ Ἰησ.] ‘For in Christ Jesus ;’ confirmation of the pre- ceding statement that the ἀπεκδοχὴ was ἐκ πίστεως; When there is a union with Christ, neither circumcision or uncir- cumcision avails anything, but faith only ; it is clear, then, why we entertain the hope of righteousness from faith. The solemn formula ἐν Xp. "Inc. is not to be explained away, as ‘in Christi reeno, ecclesia’ (Pareeus), ‘ Christi re- ligione’ (Est.), ‘Christi lege’ (Grot.), —all of which fall utterly short of the true meaning, — but, as the regular use of ἐν Xp. and the addition of Ἰησοῦ distinctly suggest, conveys the deeper idea of ‘ union, fellowship, and incorpo- ration’ in Christ crucified : comp. notes on ch. 17. For an elaborate but wholly insufficient explanation of the vital expression ἐν Xp., comp. Fritz. Rom. viii. 1, Vol. τι. p. 82, and contrast with it the deep and spiritual illustrations of Bp. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 2, 3 ii. δ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη)] ‘ener- gizing, displaying its activity through love,’ ζῶσα δείκνυται Theoph., ‘ efficax est,’ Bull, Andrewes (Serm. vy. Vol. 111. p. 193); comp. 1 Thess. i. 3, τοῦ κόπου Tis ἀγάπης, Polye. ad Phil. § 3, πίστιν .. ἐπακολουϑούσης τῆς ἐλπίδος προαγούσης τῆς ἀγάπης, and see esp. Ust. Lehrd. 11. 1. 4, p. 236 sq., and reff. in notes on 1 Thess. 7. c. The verb ἐνεργεῖσϑαι may have two meanings, (a) passive, ‘7s made ρ ᾽ν mn perfect,’ {pion Atos [quae perficitur, Schaaf, but see Capell. in loc.] Syr., ‘adschueghyal, Arm., — maintained by the older Romanist divines, Bellarm. al. (see Petav. de Incarn. vit. 12. 15, Vol. v. p. 407), as well as several Protestant interpreters, Hammond, al., and even the recent editors of Steph. Thesaur. s. v.; or (5) active, ‘7s operative,’ Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Copt.,— as maintained by nearly all recent commentators. Of these (a) is perfectly lexically tenable (Polyb. Hist. τ. 13, 5, ἐνεργεῖται πόλε- μος), but distinctly at variance with the usage of the word in the N. T. (see Meyer, 2 Cor. i. 6, Bretsch. Lew. 8. v.), while (6) harmonizes with the prevail- ing usage, and can be correctly distin- guished from the active; ἐνεργεῖν being ‘vim exercere, and commonly applied to persons, ἐνεργεῖσϑαι ‘ex se (aut suam) vim exercere,’ a species of what has been called the ‘dynamic’ middle (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8), and commonly applied to things, see Fritz. Rom. Vol. τι. p. 17, Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231. Al- though the pass. meaning is not now maintained by the best critical scholars of the Church of Rome, the passage is no less strongly claimed as a testimony to the truth of the Tridentine doctrine (Sess. vi. c. 7) of jides formata; see 16 122 Who perverted νου * Whosoever they are they shall be punished, for their doctrine is not mine. Yea, Windischm. in Joc., and comp. Mohler, Symbolik, § 16, p. 131 note, § 17, p. 137. 7. ἐτρέχετε καλῶ] ‘Ye were running well ;’ forcible and yet natural transition from the brief statement of the characterizing principle of Christian life, once exemplified in the Galatians, but now lost sight of and perverted ; ἐπαινεῖ τὸν δρόμον καὶ Spnvet τοῦ δρόμου τὴν παῦλαν, Theod. τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν ‘who did hinder you;’ not without some expression of surprise, πῶς ὃ τοσοῦτος ἐνεκόπη δρόμος ; τίς ὃ τοσοῦτον ἰσχύσας, Chrys.; comp. ch. iii. 1. The primary meaning of the verb ἐγκόπτειν (Hesych. ἐνεκοπτόμην" ἐνεπο- διζόμην, Suid. ἀναχαιτίζει: ἀναποδίζει" ἐγκόπται) appears to be that of hinder- ing by breaking up a road (6. g. Greg. Nazianz. Or. xvi. p. 260, ἢ κακίας ἐγκοπ- τομένης δυσπαδείᾳ τῶν πονημῶν, ἢ ἀρετῆς ὁδοποιουμένης εὐπαδϑείᾳ τῶν βελτιόνων ; comp. “ intercidere,’ e.g. Cas. Bell. Gail. 11. 9, pontem, etc.) ; while that of ἀνακόπ- τειν (Rec.) is rather that of hindrance with the further idea of thrusting back ; compare Hom. Odyss. xxi. 47, ϑυρέων ἀνέκοπτεν ὀχῆσας. The reading of Mec. (ἀνέκοψεν) is, however, opposed to all the uncial MSS., and appy. to nearly all mss. and Ff., and neither on internal (opp. to Bloomf.) nor external grounds has any claim on attention. The accus. is similarly found with ἐγκόπτειν, Acts xxiv. 4, 1 Thess. ii. 18; see also The- mist. Or, xiv. p. 181 Ὁ. TH ἀλη. μὴ πείϑεσϑαι, ‘that ye should not obey the truth,’ infin. ex- pressive of the result or effect, with some trace of the purpose or end con- templated, this being one of those forms of the ‘consecutive’ sentence, which may GALATIANS. Cuar. V. 7, 8. Τ᾿ Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς: τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν τῇ ἀληδείᾳ μὴ πείδεσαι; " ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ I wish they would cease from all communion with you. be regarded as partly odjective and as partly jinal; see Donalds. Gr. § 602, The popular explanation that μὴ with the infin., after certain negative and prohibitive verbs, is pleonastic (Meyer compare Herm. Viger, No. 271), is now justly called in question (see esp. Klotz, Devar, Vol. 11. p. 668), the true expla- nation being that the μὴ is prefixed to the infinitive, whether in its more sim- ply objective form (Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.), or its more lax and general ref. to result (Bernh., Synt. 1x. 6. Ὁ, p. 364, Madvig, Synt. § 156. 4), to indicate the further idea of some latent purpose in- volved in the action which specially contemplated or tended to the effect expressed by the infinitive; see esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 181. 2, p. 359, and for an illustrative example compare Aristoph. Pax, 315, ἐμποδῶν ἡμῖν γένη- ται Thy Sedv μὴ ἐξελκύσαι ; see Madvig, Synt. § 210. The elliptical mode of explanation adopted by Gayler (de Par- tic. Neg. p. 359) in the parallel expres- sions ἀρνοῦμαι μὴ δρᾶσαι, sc. ‘nego, et dico me non fecisse’ is appy. doubtful in principle, and certainly is not here ap- plicable. Lachm. omits the article before ἀληϑ. but only with AB, and appy- a few mss. 8. ἡ τεισμον ἡ] ‘the persuasion,’ ‘suasio,’ Clarom., scil. ‘servandi lega- lia,’ Lyra; the subst. being regarded as. active, and the article (not ‘this pers.’ Arm., Auth.,—a most doubtful usage in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. § 18. 1, p. 97 sq.) marking the particular (coun- ter-) persuading of the false teachers implied in the τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν. Ow- ing to the apparent paronomasia, and the nature of the termination (compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 255) the meaning of Cuapr. V. 8, 9. GALATIANS. 123 Tod καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς. 3 μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ἕυμοῖ. πεισμονὴ is slightly doubtful. As the similar form πλησμονὴ means both sa- tietas (the state) and expletio (the act), Col. ii. 23, Plato, Symp. 186 ©, πλ. καὶ κένωσιν, ---- SO πεισμονὴ May mean (a) the state of being persuaded, 7, 6. " conviction’ (@cos τὰ καλεῖν τὸ δὲ πείϑεσϑαι τῶν ὑπα- κουόντων, Theod.), or (ὁ) the act of per- suading ‘ persuadendi sollertia,’ Schott. ; comp. Chrys. on 1 Thess. i. 4, οὐ πεισμονὴ avSpworivn... ἦν ἡ... πείδουσα. Οἵ these (a) has here the support of the Greek expositors τὸ πεισϑῆναι τοῖς λέγου- ow, Gcum., compare Chrys , Theoph.), and certainly on that account deserves consideration ; (6) however, is to be pre- ferred, as lexically defensible (see below), as in harmony with the active τοῦ καλοῦντος ; 7 πεισμ. pointing to a gra- cious act in which the human will is regarded more as subjected to the divine influence (John vi. 44), τοῦ kad. to one in which it is regarded more as free; comp. Meyer ἦγ loc. In three out of the four instances cited by Wetst. from Eustath. (ad 11. a, p. 21. 46; 99. 45, Il. 1, Ὁ. 637.5), the prevailing mean- ing appears to be ‘pervicacia;’ but in Justin Mart. Apol. τ, 53, αὐταρκεῖς eis πεισμονήν, Epiphan. Hares, xxx. 21, εἰς πεισμονὴν τῆς ἑαυτῶν πληροφορίας, Apol- lon. de Synt. p. 195. 10, τὴν ἐξ ἀλλήλων πρὸς ἀλλήλους πεισμονήν, the active meaning is sufficiently distinct. Ignat. Rom. 3, is commonly adduced, but here Cod. Colb. reads σιωπῆς. ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντο»κ) ‘is not from > OUK him who calleth you,’ i. 6. does not ema- nate, does not result from, see note, ch. ii. 16; not an answer to the preceding question, which is rather an expression of surprise than a mere interrogation, — but a warning declaration. ‘The ὁ κα- λῶν is obviously not’ St. Paul (Locke), not even Christ (Theoph.), but as usual, God; the act of calling in St. Paul’s Epp. (e.g. Rom. ix. 11, 24; 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, al.) being regularly ascribed to the Father; see notes and reff. on ch. 1.6. The tense of the participle need not be pressed either as a definite pres. (‘non desinit etiam nunc vocare,’ Beza), or, still less probably as an im- perf. (‘qui vos vocabat,’ Beng.), — ὁ κα- λῶν, as Chrys. appears to have felt (οὐκ ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς 6 καλῶν), being only the! common substantival participle; see the numerous exx. collected by Winer, Gr. § 45. 7, p. 316, comp. Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 23, p. 318, Madvig, Syntax, § 180. Ὁ, and notes on 1 Thess. v. 24. 9. μικρὰ ζύμη x. τ. Δ.) ‘a Little leaven leaveneth the whole lump ;’ pro- verbially expressed warning (compare 1 Cor. v. 7), forming a sort of antithetical continuation of what has preceded. It is somewhat doubtful whether ζύμη is to be considered as (a) having an abstract reference to the false teaching (τὸ μαιρὸν τοῦτο κακόν, Chrys. ; compare Theoph.), or as (6) pointing in the concrete (‘hi pauci,’ Parweus; compare Aug., Jerome) to those who disseminated it; see Clem. Hom. vu. 17 (cited by Hilgenf.), where the race of men living before the flood are characterized as a κακὴ Ciun. On the one hand, (a) yields a pertinent sense, and is appy. confirmed by Matth. xvi. 11, and by 1 Cor. ἢ. ὁ. (where ver. 8 seems distinctly to show that ζύμη does not mean the individual so much as his sin): on the other, the active meaning assigned to πεισμονή, and still more the seeming quantitative limitation hinted at in the use of the individualiz- ing singular in ver. 10 (compare Beng.) appears to preponderate in favor of (4). We adopt, therefore, the concrete refer- ence, and necessarily continue it to the following φύραμα; ‘vel pauci homines 191 GALATIANS. Crap. V. 10,11 ” ἐγὼ πέποιϑα els ὑμᾶς ἐν Κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε' ὁ δὲ -“ - 4 ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρῖμα, ὅστις ἂν ἡ. perperam docentes possent omnen [totum] cwtum corrumpere,’ Winer in loc. 10. ἐγώ] “1 for my part ;’ emphatic, and not without a reassuring contrast. The insertion of δὲ [C1FG ; a few mss, ; Demid., Aug., Syr.-Phil., al ] is due to the desire to make this contrast still more apparent. bas] ‘with regard to you;’ this more lax use of εἰς is noticed by Winer, Gr. § 53, p. 473, and Bernh. Synt. v. 11. p. 220. The addition of the words ἐν Κυρίῳ (sc. Ἰησοῦ, Rom. xiv. 14, compare Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, p. 113) serves to designate the ground of the hope, and to show that it was not an earthly and doubtful, but a heavenly (Phil. ii. 24) and certain assurance which St. Paul entertained ; compare 2 Thess, iii. 4, πεποίϑαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, where ἐπὶ is used in a sense little different from the present εἰς, to denote the objects about whom the hope was felt, ἐν Kup. the nature of that hope; see notes on 2 Thess. 1. c., where distinctions are drawn between the ethi- cal uses of eis, ἐπί, and πρός. οὐδὲν ἄλλο] ‘nothing else,’ — than what? Either specially,—than the subject and purport of the words jmme- diately preceding ; or, generally, — than the doctrines which St. Paul had pro- pounded. The latter accords best with the future φρονήσετε, Which seems more naturally used in reference to the general issue (ὅτι διορϑώσεσϑε, Chrys.), than merely to the time when the words would be read. ΑἸ, refers to Phil. iii. 15 (compare Usteri, ‘no novel*senti- ments’), but there the word is ἑτέρως ; see notes in loc. > eis ὁ δὲ ταράσ- σωνὶ ‘hut he that disturbeth you ;᾿ contrast, not with the preceding ἐγώ (Riick.), but generally with the expres- sion of confidence which has just pre- " ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδεὰλ- ceded; ὁ ταράσσ. not being used on the one hand, for of ταράσσοντες (Lrown), nor on the other, in ref. to some one par- ticular false teacher (Olsh.; contrast Davids. Introd, Vol. 11. p. 315), but in accordance with the exact sclective and definitive force of the article, to the one who, for the time being, comes under observation, Οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς (ch. i. 7) are the class generally, 6 ta- ράσσων is the individual of the class who may happen to call forth the Apos- tle’s censure ; ἐπῆρε τὸν λόγον, Chrys. ; compare Madvig, Synt. § 14. βαστάσει τὺ κρῖμα) ‘shell bear (‘ut grave onus,’ Beng.), the judgment (he deserves) ;’ κρῖμα not being equiva- lent to κατάκριμα, nor used as cause for effect, se. ‘ punishment’ (Schott, Olsh.), but retaining its proper meaning both here and Rom. ii. 3, al. and with app. ref. to the judgment which he will re- ceive from God ; δίκας ὀφείλουσι τῷ Θεῷ, Theod. The idea of “ punishment.’ or ‘condemnation,’ is conveyed by, and to be deduced from the context ; see Fritz. Rom. 1. ο. Vol. 1. p. 94. boris ἂν 7] ‘whoever he may be ;’ not with any reference to the dignity of the momentarily-selected individual (κἂν μεγάλοι τινες καὶ ἀξιόπιστοι, Theoph.), but simply with the ineluw- δοκῶσι sive reference of the formula; comp. Acts. iii. 23. 11. ἐγώ δέ ἀδελφοί] ‘But 1, brethren,’ —with abrupt reference to what might have been said of himself, The connection between this and the preceding verse is not perfectly clear. The use of the expression 6 ταράσσων appears to have suggested the remem- brance that he himself was open to the charge of being a subverter, inasmuch as he had circumcised Timothy. The Cuapr. V. 11. GALATIANS. 125 i ᾽ν» , oh oo, , oi, εἰ περιτομὴν ere κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; apa κατήργηται replication is final and decisive; ‘But if it be a fact that I really do still preach circumcision, what further ground is there for persecuting me?’ ὃ. 6. ‘the very fact of my persecution is a proof that I am not a preacher of circumci- sion;’ see esp. Theoph. zn loc. ei περιτ. κηρύσσω] ‘If I preach circumcision,’ ‘if, as is assumed to be a matter of fact (compare notes on ch. i. 9), circumcision is still what I preach ;’ the emphasis resting not on ἔτι κηρύσσω (τουτέστιν οὐκ οὕτο κελεύω πισ- τεύειν .. περιέτεμον μὴν γὰρ [τὸν Τιμό- Seor], οὐκ ἐκήρυξα δὲ περιτομήν, Chrys.), but*on the prominently placed περιτομήν. The ἔτι does not suggest any contrasted reference to the period before the coming of Christ (‘still—as in the ante-Chris- tian times,’ Olsh.), —a reference which would here be very pointless, nor again to any special change in the Apostle’s teaching since he had become a Chris- tian, — for which there is not the slight- est grounds, but simply to the period prior to his conversion, ‘ s¢¢//, in contrast to my former Judaism ;’ comp. Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 note. The Apostle might not have ‘ preached’ circumcision before his conversion, but he strenuously adyo- cated (περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων, ch. i. 14) all the principles of Judaism; comp. Neander, Planting, p. 304, note. The present tense is probably used, as Schott ob- serves, from his having the present ac- cusation of his adversaries in his mind. τί ἔτι διώκομαι) ‘why am 1 still persecuted? almost ‘why am I to be,’ etc. ; this second ἔτι being, as De Wette observes, logical; see Rom. iii. 7, τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὺς κρίνομαι, ‘what fur- ther ground is there for,’ etc., Rom. ix. 19, al. ἄρα] ‘then after all,’ ‘ergo,’ Vulg., Clarom. (see Hand, Tur- , sell, Vol. τι. p. 450 sq.) ; inference from what has preceded, not perhaps here without some tinge of ironical reference to a conclusion that could not have been expected. The fundamental idea of ἄρα is ‘distance or progression (to another step in the argument)’; from which the derivative meaning, — that at the advanced point at which we have ar- rived, our present view is different to our antecedent one, can easily be de- duced ;’ see esp. Donalds. Crat. § 192. That this, however, is the normal and primary idea of the particle (see Har- tung, Partik. ἄρα, 1.3, Vol. 1. p. 422) cannot now be maintained; see Klotz, Devar, Vol. τι. p. 160 sq., where the whole question is discussed at great length. According to this writer, ἄρα involves ‘ significationem levioris cujus- dam ratiocinationis, que indicat rebus ita comparatis, aliquid ita aut esse aut fieri,’ in Devar. p. 167. The inter- rogatory form (ἄρα), as adopted by Syr., Ust., al., seems here less forcible and appropriate. τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ] ‘the offence of the cross,’ ‘offendiculum crucis,’ Beza; the offence which the Jews took at Chris- tianity, because faith in a crucified Saviour, — faith without legal observ- ances, was alone offered as the means _of salvation; οὐδὲ yap οὕτως 6 σταυρὸς ἣν σκανδαλίζων τοὺς “lovdalous ὡς τὸ μὴ δεῖν πείϑεσϑαι τοῖς πατρῴοις νόμοις, Chrys. ; compare 1 Cor, i. 18, etc., see Brown, Galat. p. 278, Usteri, LeArb. 1. 2.1, p. 253. Σκάνδαλον, though occur- ring (quotations included) 15 times in the N. T. and 25 times in the LXX and Apocrypha, is scarcely ever found ‘ apud profanos.” SxavdddrnSpov τὸ ἐνιστάμε- νον ταῖς μυάγραις, Poll. Onomast. x. 34, occasionally occurs; 6. g. in a metaphor- ical sense, Aristoph. Acharn. 687. 120 GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 12. - rt a \ τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ. ™ ὄφελον Kal ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀνασ- τατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. 12. ὄφελον ‘I would that ;’ indig- nant wish called forth by the last deduction, and by the thought of the antagonism of circumcision to the cross of Christ; see Ewald in loc., and com- pare ch. ii, 21. This word is used purely as a particle, both in the N. T. (see 1 Cor, iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1), and in the LXX, ὁ. g. Exod. xvi. 3, Numb. xiy. 2, xx. 3, Psalm exviii. 5; see Winer, Gr. § 41. δ. 2, p. 270, Sturz, de Dialect, Maced. 8. v. § 12. Its construction, therefore, here with a future, though unusual and (appy. according to Lucian, Solec. 1) solecistic, need not have caused Bengel to alter the punctuation (τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ: dpeAov.), and to connect ὄφελον as ἃ kind of ex- clamation (‘velim ita sit!’) with what precedes. On the similar use of ὥφελον and ὥφελε in later writers, comp. Matth. Gr. § 513. obs. 3, and on the correct and classical use (‘ ὥφελον non nisi tum adhi- beri, quum quis optat, ut fuerit aliquid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit, aut est, aut futurum est’), see Herm. Viger, No. 190. καὶ ἀποκό- ψονται] ‘they would even cut themselves off (from you).’ The exact meaning of these words has been much discussed. The usual passive translation (‘ abscin- dantur,’ Vulg., Goth., appy. Syr. [Schaaf], /£th.-Platt, Arm.), cannot 4 be defended, as the N. T. furnishes no certain instance of a similar enallage. The most plausible is 1 Cor. x. 2, καὶ πάντες ἐβαπτίσαντο, but even here the middle voice (sc. ‘baptismum suscepe- runt,’ Beng.) may be correctly main- tained; see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4, p. 228, and exx. in Jelf, Gr. ᾧ 364.4.a. We have thus only two possible translations, (a) ‘I would that they would even cut themselves off (plane discedant) from communion with you,’ Bretschn.; or (8) ‘I would that. they would (not only. circumcise, but) even castrate them- selves ;’ μὴ περιτεμνέσϑωσαν μόμον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποκοπτέσϑωσαν, Chrys., ἀποκόπους ἑαυτοὺς ἐποίησαν, (ουτῃ. : see exx. in Wetst. in loc. ‘This latter reference to bodily mutilation is adopted by the prin- cipal patristic expositors, as well as by most modern writers; and it must be admitted that thus not only καὶ is more readily explained, and the expression of the wish (ὄφελον) more easily accounted for, but that there is also a species of parallelism in the use of κατατομήν, Phil. iii. 2. Still as there seems no cer- tain trace of this corporeal reference in any of the ancient Vvy.,—as in some (ZEth.-Platt, and perhaps Arm.) the reference seems plainly ethical, — as there is a seeming contrast in the καλεῖν ἐπὶ of the confirmatory clause which follows, and as this seems alone suited to the earnest gravity with which St, Paul is here addressing his converts, we adopt somewhat unhesitatingly the former in- terpretation. The Apostle’s deep in- sight into the exact spiritual state of the Galatians, and the true affection that throughout the Epistle tempers even his necessary severity, leads him here to ex- press as a wish, what he might have (as in 1 Cor. vy. 11) urged as a com- mand: comp. Waterl., Works, Vol. 11. p. 458. οἱ ἄἀναστατ. buas] ‘they who are unsettling you,’ Hamm., sc. * your subverters ;’ the participle with its case becoming by means of the arti- cle a kind of substantive; see notes and reff. on ch. i. 23. The verb ἀναστατοῦν (Hesych. ἀνατρέπειν) occurs three times in the Ν T. (Acts xvii. 6, xxi. 38) as an equivalent of the more usual ἀνάστα- τον ποιεῖν, but is of rare occurrence Cuar. V. 13, 14. Do not misuse your free- dom, but love one another. Love is the fulfilment of the law; hatred brings de- struction. λοις. (Wetst. on Acts xvii. 6), and is said to belong to that somewhat numerous class of words (Tittm. Synon. p. 266) which are referred to the Macedonian dialect; see Sturz, de Dial. Maced. § 9, p. 146. It has a stronger meaning than ταράσσω, and is admirably paraphrased by Chrys., ἀπὸ τῆς ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς ἐλευϑέ- ρας ἐκβαλόντες, βιαζόμενοι δὲ καϑάπερ αἰχμαλώτους καὶ μετανάστας πλανᾶσϑαι. γάρ] ‘For ye; com- mencement of a new paragraph, and according to Olsh., De W., al., of a new portion (the hortatory) of the Epis- 13. ὑμεῖς tle; ἐνταῦϑα λοιπὸν δοκεῖ μὲν εἰς τὸν ἠδικὸν ἐμβαίνειν Adyov, Chrys. St. Paul knew so well the human ‘heart, its ten- dencies and temptations, and saw so clearly how his own doctrine of Chris- tian liberty might be perverted and adulterated, that he at once hastens, with more than usual earnestness, to trace out the ineffaceable distinction be- tween true spiritual freedom, and a car- nal and antinomian license. There is, however, no marked or abrupt division, but one portion of the epistle passes in- sensibly into the other. γὰρ is thus not illative (Turner), nor a mere particle of transition (Brown), but stands in immediate connection with the pre- ceding words, which it serves to confirm and justify ; ‘and I may well wish that they would cut themselves off from your communion, for ye were called to a state with which they have nothing in com- mon.’ The reading δέ, found in FG; 80; Chrys., Aug., al., seems a very pal- pable correction. ἐπ᾿ é€A€ude- pla] ‘for freedom ;’ ἐπὶ here denoting the purpose or object for which they were called; compare 1 Thess. iv. 7, οὐ γὰρ GALATIANS. 127 1 «Ὑμεῖς yap ἐπ érevSepla ἐκλήϑητε, ader- φοί: μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευϑερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκΐ, adda διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλή- “6 γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν evil λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς 6 Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαϑαρσίᾳ, where see notes tm Joc. Further exx. will be found in Winer, Gr. § 48. c, p. 351, and in Rost. τι. Palm, Lez. 5. v. τι. 2. f, Vol. τὸ p. 1040. μὴ τὴν ἐλευϑερίαν ‘make not your liberty ;’ scil. ποιεῖτε, τρέπετε [not, however, used in N. T.], δῶτε (FG; Boern., al), or some similar verb. Instances of this very intelligible and idiomatic omission of the verb after μὴ are cited by Har- tung, Partik. μή, 6. Ὁ. 4, Vol. τι. p. 158, Klotz. Devar. Vol. u. p. 669, Winer, Gr. § 66. 1. 5, p. 663: compare Hor. Epist. 1.5.12, ‘Quo mihi fortunas, si non conceditur uti.’ Such ellipses must of course be common in every cultivated language. διὰ τῆς ayarns|] ‘by the love ye evince,’ ‘by your love ;’ not ‘in your love’ (Peile), with any reference to state or condition (compare Rom. iv. 11, δ ἀκροβυστίας, viii. 25, δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς, al.; Winer, Gr. § 47. i, p. 339), but simply ‘per caritatem,’ Vulg., - Armen. [instrumental case], Copt. ; love was to be the means by which their re- ciprocal δουλεία was to be shown. The reading τῇ ἀγάπῃ τοῦ Πνεύματος, found in DEFG; 81; Clarom., Goth., Copt. [Wilk., but not Bottich.]; Bas., al., is in addition suggested by the pre- ceding σαρκός. ‘be in bondage,’ ‘servite,’ Vulg., Cla- rom.; in antithesis to the preceding δουλεύετε), ἐλευϑερίαν : οὐκ εἶπεν ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ δουλεύετε, τὴν ἐπιτετα- μένην δηλῶν φιλίαν, Chrys. 14. ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος] ‘For the whole law ; confirmation from Scripture of the command immediately preceding, διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης κι τι A. A few instances of’ this order occur in the N. T.; see 128 , , ‘ , ig ’ “ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σον ὡς σεαυτόν. GALATIANS. Cuar. V. 14,15. 15 εἰ δὲ ἀλλήλους δάκ- νετε καὶ κατεσδϑίετε, βλέπετε μὴ ὑπὸ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωϊ)ῆτε. 14. σεαυτόν] Tisch. (ed. 2) here adopts the more difficult, though not wholly unusual reading ἑαυτὸν (see Winer, Gr, § 22. 5) too much in defiance of external authority. Σεαυτὸν is supported by ABCDEK; very many mss.; Mare. ap. Epiph., Theodoret, Dam. (Ree., Griesb., Scholz, Tisch. ed. Lachm.). Ἑαυτὸν ap- pears only in FGJ; appy. the majority of mss. ; Theophyl., Gicum., ( Mey., Tisch. ). Usteri very plausibly suggests the falling away of one of the contiguous sigmas in the course of transcription. Middl. Greek Art. ch. vi. p. 104, note where Rose cites Acts xx. 18, 1 Tim. i. 16 (sing.), Acts xix. 7 (plural); add Xxvii. 37. ἐν ἑνὶ λόγᾳ] ‘in one word,’ scil. in one declaration or commandment: comp. Rom. xiii. 9. πεπλήρωται ‘hath been (and is ) ful- Jilled.’ This reading is supported no less by external evidence [ABC; 6 mss.; Mare. in Epiph., Damase. (2), Aug.] than by internal probability. While πληροῦται (Rec.) would imply that the process of fulfilment was still going on, the perfect πεπλήρωται suita- bly points to the completed and perma- nent act; comp. Rom. xiii. 8, 6 ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, --- ἃ Mean- ing of the perf. which Marcion (accord- ing to Tertull. adv, Marc. v. 4) appears, either ignorantly or wilfully, to have misunderstood, ‘ adimpleta est, quasi jam non adimplenda.’ It may be ob- served that there is no discrepancy between this passage and Matth. xxii. 38, Mark xii. 29; for, as Meyer observes, St. Paul here takes a lofty spiritual eminence, from which, as it were, he sees all other commands so subordinated to the law of love, that he cannot con- sider the man who has fulfilled this in any other light than as having fulfilled the whole law: comp. Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1, 4, p. 242, Reuss, Théol. Chreét. 1v. 19. Vol. τι. p. 204 sq. The explanation of Vorstius and others πληροῦσϑαι = avaxe- φαλαιοῦσϑαι, Rom. xiii. 9, here falls far short of the full spiritual meaning ‘of the passage, and also is at variance with the regular meaning of πληρ. in the N. T.; see Matth. iii. 15, Rom. viii. 4, Kil, GeO. Ave kee ἀγαπή- aes} *Thou shalt love. The use of the imperatival future appears in the N. Ὁ, under three forms; (a) as a mild im- perative, in simple prohibition ; compare Matth. vi. 5, οὐκ ἔσῃ ὡς of ὑποκριταί; (5) as a strong imperative, including pro- hibition and reproof; compare Acts xiii. 10, ob παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς Ku- plov; (6) as a legislative imperative, — both negatively (Matth. v. 21, Rom. vii. 7, al ), and positively, as here, and Rom. xiii. 9. The two former usages (which in fact may be considered as one, varied only by the tone of the speaker) are common in classical Greek, see Jelf, Gr. § 413. 1, 2, Bernh. Synt. x..5, p. 578: the latter seems distinctly Hebraistic ; comp. Gayler, Part. Neg. τι. 3. 3, p. 74, Winer, Gr. § 43. 5, p. 282. The uses of the future in the LXX appear to be very varied, and serve to express, nega- tively, guod non convenit (Gen. xx. 9), quod non potest (Gen. xxxii. 12: comp. Matth. iv. 4, al.), and positively, quod licet (Numb, xxxii. 24), quod solet (Deut. ii. 11). These are almost purely Hebraistic ; see esp. Thiersch, de Pentat. πι. § 11 sq. 15. δάκνετε καὶ κατεσδϑίετε) ‘ bite and devour ;’ οὐκ εἶπε, δάκν ετε, μόνον ὅπερ ἐστὶ ϑυμουμένου, ἀλλὰ καὶ, κα- τεσϑίετε, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἐμμένοντος τῇ πο- νηρίᾳ. ὃ μὲν γὰρ δάκνων ὀργῆς ἐπλήρωσε Cnapr. V. 16. Walk according to the Spirit, whose fruits no GALATIANS. 120 © Λέγω δέ, Πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπι- law condemns; and not according to the flesh, the works of which exclude from the kingdom of God. πάϑος" ὁ δὲ κατεσϑίων ϑηριωδίας ἐσχάτης παρέσχεν ἀπόδειξιν, Chrys. Instances of a similar use of δάκνετε are cited by Kypke, Ods. Vol. τι. p. 287, Wetst. in loc. ἀναλωδῆτε)]Ί ‘be con- sumed,’ ‘consumamini,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; continuation of the metaphor, there being appy- a species of climax in the three verbs δάκνετε, κατεσϑίετε, and ἀναλωδϑῆτε. The meaning is sufficiently explained by Chrys., ἦ yap διάστασις καὶ ἡ μάχη φϑοροποιὸν καὶ ἀναλωτικὸν καὶ τῶν δεχομένων αὐτήν, καὶ εἰσαγόντων. 16. λέγω δέ] ‘Now I say. The Apostle now reverts to the first portion of the command in ver. 13, μὴ τὴν ἐλευ- Seplay εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί. Πνεύματι] “ὃν the Spirit ;’ not exactly ‘in (khen) the Spirit,’ Copt., still less ‘Spiritui vitam consecrate’ (dat. com- modi; Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 225), but simply ‘Spiritu,’ Vulg., Clarom., — the dative being here what is called the dat. norme, and indicating the metaphorical path, manner, or rule of the action; compare ch. vi. 16, Acts xy. 1, Phil. iii. 16, and see Hartung, Casus, p. 79, Winer, Gr. § 31. 6. b, p. 193, Bernh. Synt, m1. 14, p. 102, and exx. collected by Fritz. Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. m1. p. 142. It is necessary to obscrve that Πνεύματι is not ‘ after a heavenly or spiritual man- ner,’ Peile (κατὰ τὰς πνευματικὰς ἐντολάς, Schol. ap. Matth.), — a very insufficient paraphrase, nor even, ‘in accordance with indwelling grace’ (πνεῦμα δὲ τὴν χάριν, κρείττω ποδηγεῖ τὴν ψυχήν, Theod.), as all such cases tend to obscure the true nature of the contrast between Πνεῦμα and σάρξ. Whenever these two words stand thus opposed, it has been satisfae- torily shown by Miiller (On Sin, Vol. 1. p- 954. sq., Clark,) that the Πνεῦμα is not either the spiritual part of man (das ᾿ 17 > “ “ \ 4... Χ ενοικουσαν αὐτΏῇ yap επι τα Geistige), or the human spirit, if even always strengthened by the Holy Spirit, —the ‘divinized spiritual’ (das Geist- liche; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Vol. u. p. 54), but the Holy Spirit itself, in so far as it is conceived the governing principle in man, the active and ani- mating principle of Christian life, the Πνεῦμα τῆς (ζωῆς ἐν Xp. Ino. Rom. viii. 2, the Πν. Χριστοῦ, Πν. Θεοῦ, ἐδ. ver. 9; see also Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 467 (Bohn), and esp. Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τ. p. 254 sq. On the omission of the article, see notes on ver. 5, and on the meaning of περιπατεῖν as imply- ing life in its regular and _ practical manifestations, sce notes on Phil, iii. 12, and on 4 Thess. iv. 12. ἐπιδυμίαν σαρκός], "λ6 desire of the flesh; 5011. all the motions and desires of the merely natural man, all that tends to earth and_ earthiiness. The meaning of σὰρξ in this important and deeply suggestive passage deserves the reader’s careful consideration. The context seems clearly to show that here, as in many other passages in the N. T., σὰρξ is not merely the carnal as opposed to the spiritual, — the purely sensational part of man, but comprehends in a more gencral notion the whole ‘life and move- ment of man in the world of sense’ ( Miil- ler), or perhaps, to speak a little more precisely, the ‘ whole principle and realm. of earthliness and earthly relations’ (σάρκα ἐνταῦϑα τὸν λογισμὸν καλεῖ Toy γεώδη, Chrys.) ; selfishness, as Miiller- has well observed, ever appearing in the background. The. transition from this to the more definitely ethical notions of weakness, sin, and sensationalism, which. Miiller has too much lost sight of (see notes on Col, ii. 11), is thus easy and natural; see esp. the good article of Tholuck, Stud, u. Krit. for 1855, p. 130 GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 17. ϑυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε. ἢ ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπί υμεῖ κατὰ 17. ταῦτα γάρ] So Lachm. and Tisch, (ed. 1), with BDIEFG; 17; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm.; Latin Ff. (Mey., Alf., Bagge),-— and appy. correctly, as δέ, though strongly supported, viz., by ACD°JK; nearly all mss.; Syr. (both), Eth. (both) ; Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al. (Rec., Griesb., Scholz) is much more likely to have been a change from γὰρ (to avoid the seeming awkwardness of a repetition of the particle) than vic? versa. There is also some weight in the in- ternal evidence; the repetition of yap being so well-known a characteristic of the Apostle’s style. 485—488, Miiller, On Sin, Vol. 1. p. 350 sq. (Clark), and compare Beck, Seelenl, τι. 18, p. 53, Delitzsch, Β δέ, Psychol. v. 6, p. 325 sq. οὐ μὴ πελέσητε) ‘ye shall not accomplish ;’ ‘non perficietis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; comp. Matth. x, 23, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις. This clause may be translated either (a) imperatively ; καὶ being the simple copula joining two imperatival clauses, the first expressed affirmatively, the second negatively (Copt., Arm., A&th., and more recently Hamm., Mey., al.), -or (δ) as a future, in which case καὶ will be consecutive, and nearly equiv. to ‘ita fiet ut ;? compare notes on Phil. iv. 42. ‘Of these (a) is perfectly admissible on grammatical grounds; for the general ‘principle —that od μὴ with the 2nd ‘pers. fut. is prohibitive, and that, with ‘the other persons of the future and all spersons of the subj., it enounces a ne- gation, and not a prohibition (Hermann on Elms!. Med. 1120, p. 391) — includes ‘so many scarcely doubtful exceptions even in classical Greek (see exx. in Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 435), that it "may be sometimes doubted whether the first negative both in od μὴ and μὴ οὐ may not really be ‘oratorium magis ‘quam logicum’ (Gayler). Be this as it may, it seems certain that in the later Greek and esp. in the LXX, this use -of οὐ μὴ in nearly all combinations, but ‘esp. with subj., is so very abundant (see exx. in Gayler, p. 440), that no gram-,. unatical objections (opp. to Bloomf.) can be urged against the prohibitive usage. As, however, there is no distinct in- stance of such a construction in the N. T., and still more as the next verses seem more naturally to supply the rea- sons for the assertion than for the com- mand, it seems best with Vulg., Clarom., Syr., and appy. Goth, (see De Gabel. Gr. Goth. § 182. 1. Ὁ. 8) to adopt the future translation. On the use of the subj. aor. for the future in negative enunciations, see notes and reff. on ch, iv. 30; and on the subject of the verse as limited to religious contentions, see 2 sermons by Howe, Works, Vol. ut. p- 123 sq. (ed. Hewlett). 17. ἡ yap σὰρξ x. 7. λ. ‘for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit ;’ reason for the foregoing declaration that walk- ing after the Spirit will preclude the fulfilling the lusts of the flesh ; ‘ merito hoe addit cum in uno et eodem homine regenerato sit caro et Spiritus: cujus certamen copiosissime explicatur, Rom. vu. [15—20],’ Beza. In the following words the order ἀντίκ. ἀλλάλοις | Rec. with JK; mss.; ἘΠ] is rightly reversed with greatly preponderating authority. ἵνα μὴ] ‘to the end that ye may not ;’ not ‘so that ye cannot do,’ Auth. (οὐκ ἐπὶ αἰτίας εἶπεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀκόλουϑον κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἰδίωμα, ‘Theod.), but with the usual and proper (telic) force of ἵνα ‘ ut non quéecunque vultis illa (ista, Cl.) faciatis,’ Vulg., Clarom., compare Goth., Eth. ; the object and end of the τὸ ἀν- τικεῖσϑαι on the part of each Principle Cuap. V. 17, 18. . GALATIANS. 131 τοῦ Πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός: ταῦτα yap ἀλλή- λοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἂν ϑδέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε. is to prevent man doing what the other Principle would lead him to; ‘7d Πνεῦμα impedit vos, quo minus perficiatis:7a τῆς σαρκός, contra 7 σὰρξ adversatur vobis ubi τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος peragere studetis,’ Winer; see Fritz. Excurs. in Matth. p. 838, Baur, Paulus, p. 533 sq., and com- pare the very good remarks of Ham- mond, Serm. vit. Part 1. p. 123 (Angl. Cath., Libr.) where, although he quotes the eventual (ecbatic) sense of ἵνα in translation he almost appears to adopt the final sense in his remarks and de- ductions. On the use of ἵνα in the N. T., see notes on Eph. i. 17, Fritz. Excurs.t.c., and Winer, Gr. § 53. 6, p- 406, and for a notice and example of its secondary-telic, or sub-final use, notes on 1 Thess. v. 4. Neither this derivative sense, however, nor any as- sumed eventual force (opp. to Ust. and De W.) is here to be ascribed to the particle, both being appy. inconsistent with the probable meaning of ϑέλητε; see next note. ἃ ἂν ϑέλητεϊ) ‘whatsoever ye may wish.’ This latter clause will admit of three different ex- planations, according as SéAyre is re- ferred to (a) the carnal will; John. viii. 44, 1 Tim. v. 11; (6) the moral or better will, or (6) the free-will in its ordinary acceptation. Of these explanations, the first (a), though supported both by Chrys., Theod., and several distinguished mod- ern expositors (Bull, Harm. Ap. τι. 9. 25 sq., Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 468, ed. Bohn), must still be pronounced logically inconsistent with ταῦτα yap ἀλλ. avtix., Which seems rather to point to the opposition incurred than the vic- tory gained by the Spirit. The second (δ), though perhaps in a less degree, is open to the same objection, notwith- standing the support it may be thought 18. εἰ δὲ Πνεύ- to receive from Rom. vii. 15 sq., where SéAew seems to point to the imperfect though better will; see Calv., Schott, De W., who conceive that St. Paul is here expressing briefly what in Rom. il. c. he is stating more at length. The simple and logical connection of the words is, however, much better sup- ported by (6), subject only to this neces- sary and obvious limitation, that this ἰσόῤῥοπος μάχη must be only predicated, in its full extent, of the earlier und more imperfect stages of a Chrisvian course; see Olsh. ix Joc. The stave of the true believer is conflict, but with final victory, — atruth that was felt even by the Jews, among whom Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and more especially Joseph, were ever cited as instances of a victorious issue: Schoettg. de Luctd Carnis et Spiritus, m1. 10, 11 (Vol. 1. p. 1204.) 18. εἰ δὲ x. 7. A.] ‘But of ye be led by the Spirit ;’ contrasted state to the struggle described in the preceding verse ; ‘ubi vero Sp. vincit, acie res decernitur,” Beng. When the Spirit becomes truly the leading and guiding principle, then, indeed, the doubtful struggle has ceased ; there would be no fulfilling of the works of the flesh, and by consequence no longer any bondage to the law ; compare Maurice, Unity of N. T., p. 510, and Baur, Paulus, p. 534, note. Πνεύματι ἄγεσδ ε] ‘by the Spirit ;’ instrumental dative; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 6, ἀγόμενα ἐπιϑυμίαις ποικίλαις, and see Winer, Gr. § 31. 7, p. 194, and exx. collected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 172. Who can doubt, says Miiller (Doctr. Sin, Vol. 1. p. 355, Clark), that Mv. ἄγεσϑ. here entirely corresponds in the mind of the Apostle with Rom. viii. 14, Πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἄγονται; and that thus the fuller and deeper meaning of Πνεῦμα 192 ὡ ν ᾽ BJ A ‘ ’ ματι ἄγεσϑε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον. ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν must be maintained throughout this par- agraph. οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον] ‘ye are not under the law ;’ — not, on the one hand, because there is now no need of its beneficial influences (od δεῖται τῆς &rd τοῦ νόμον Bondelas, Chrys., al.), nor on the other, because it is now become an alien principle (Usteri, Lehrb. 1. 4. A, p. 57), but simply — " because it finds nothing in you to forbid or to condemn ;’ see ver. 23, The more obvious conclu- sion might have seemed, ‘ye are not under the influences of the flesh ;’ but as the law was confessedly the principle which was ordained against the influ- ences and ἔργα τῆς σαρκύς (Rom. vii 7 sq.), the Apostle (in accordance with the general direction of his argument) draws his conclusion relatively rather to the principle, than to the mere state and influences against which that principle was ordained. 19. φανερὰ δέ] ‘But, to explain and substantiate more fully the last as- sertion (οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον), the open difference between the works of the flesh (against which the law is ordained) and the fruit of the Spirit (against which there is no law) shall now be manifested by special examples.’ ariva ἐστι] ‘of which class are ;’ not quite so much as ‘quippe qua,’ De Wette, “ que quidem,’ Schott.,— but merely ‘such ;» 4 for instance as,’ ὅστις having appy. here its classifying force; see notes on ch. iv. 24. πορν εἰα] ‘ fornication.® Observe the prominence always given to condemnations of this deadly sin, it be- ing one of the things which the old pagan world deemed as merely ἀδιάφορα ; see Meyer on “Acts xv. 20. The insertion of μοιχεία [ Rec. with DE (FG eat) JK; Clarom., Goth., Syr.-Phil. ; Gr. and Lat. Ff.] and the change to GALATIANS. Cnarp. V. 19 ™ φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ / ’ / > U πορνεία, axayapola, ἀσέλγεια, plurals [ἘῸ ; Orig., al.] are rightly re- jected by the best recent editors with ABC; 3 mss., Vulg., Syr., Copt., A2th. (both); Clem., Mare. in Epiph.; Cyr., al, ἀκαϑαρσία, ἀσέλγεια) ‘uncleanness, wantonness ;’ comp. Rom. xiii. 18, 2 Cor. xii. 21 (where the same three words are in connection), Eph. iv. 19. The distinction between these words is thus drawn by Tittmann, Synonym, p. 151,— ἀκαῦ. (more generic) “ queli- bet vitee animique impuritas;’ ἀσέλγ., ‘protervitas et impudens petulantia hominis ἀσελγοῦς (qui nullam verecun- die pudorisque rationem habet), — non obsceenitas aut foeditas lubidinis ;” comp, Etym. Mag. ἀσέλγεια' ἑτοιμότης πρὸς πᾶσαν ἡδονήν, and Trench, Synon. § xvi. where this latter word is defined as ‘petulance or wanton insolence,’ and as somewhat stronger than ‘ protervitas,’ and more nearly approaching ‘ petulan- tia.” The derivation is very doubtful ; it does not seem from ϑέλγειν (Trench), but perhaps from ao. (satiety) and ἐλγ. connected with day. (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. τι. p. 15), or more probably (Don- alds.) from ἀ priv. and caday-[cadayéew, σέλας], the primary idea being “ dirti- ness,’ ‘ foulness.’ Winer observes that the vices here enumerated may be grouped into four classes,—(1) sen- suality ; (2) idolatry, not merely spir- itual, but actual, — amalgamation of Christianity and heathenism (1 Cor. viii. 7); comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 243 note (Bohn); (3) malice; (4) excesses. Beng. similarly divides them as ‘peccata commissa cum proximo, adver- sus Deum, adversus proximum, et circa se ipsum, cui ordini respondet enumeratio fructus Spiritus.’ There does not, how- ever, appear any studied precision in the classification ; St. Paul, as Aquinas re- Crap. Υ͂. 20. GALATIANS. 153 ” εἰδωλολατρεία, φαρμακεία, ἔχϑραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, Supol, épiSecar, marks, ‘non intendit enumerare omnia vitia ordinate et secundum artem, sed illa tantum in quibus abundant, et in quibus excedunt illi ad quos scribit.’ oy 20. φαρμακ εἰ α] ‘sorcery,’ Ἰζοι αι 8 [magia] Syr. This word, like the Lat. ‘veneficium’ (Vulg., Clarom.), may either imply (a) potsoning, as ASth., perhaps Goth., ‘lubjaleisei’ [compare Angl.-Sax. Uid.], al., or (8) sorcery, as Syr. (both), Copt. (appy.), Arm., al. The former is not improbable on account of its juxtaposition to éySpa: (see exx. in Schleusn. Lex. in LXX. 5. v., Exod. vii. 11, al.) ; the latter, however, seems here more probable, sorcery, as Meyer notices, being especially prevalent in Asia; see Acts xix. 19. On the subject generally, see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. tv. 17, p. 262, sq. Both in this and the fol- lowing words there is much variation - between the sing. and plural forms. Rec. commences the list of plurals with ἔχϑραι ; the singulars ἔρις [ABD!; mss.] and ζῆλος [Δ ὃ BDIE (FG (jaous) ; 17. Goth.] seem, however, to have the crit- ical preponderance and are adopted by Lachm. Tisch., and most modern ed- itors. ϑυμοί] ‘displcys of both this and the associated plurals serving to denote the various concrete forms of the abstract sins here specified; see exx. of ϑυμοὶ noticed by Lobeck, Ajax, 716, Bernhardy, Syné. τι. 6, p. 62, and esp. the good note of Hein- ichen on Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vu. 6, Vol. 1m. p. 18 sq. The meaning of ϑυμός, as its derivation implies [ϑύω, perhaps connected with Sanscr. dhu, ‘ agitare,’ Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 211], is not so much ‘inimicitia hominis acerbi et iracundi’ (Tittm. Synon. p. 133), as tracundia, or rather excandescentia, the principal idea being that of ‘eager mo- tion towards,’ ‘impulse ;’ see esp. Don- wrath ;” alds. Crat. § 473, — where, however, the derivation of ϑύω is plausibly reicrred to @E-, on the principle of ‘suggestion by contrast.’ It thus differs from ὀργή, both in its s%se, as more sudden (Luke iv. 28, Acts xix. 28), and its nature, as less lasting (compare Ecclus. xlviii. 10, κοπάσαι ὀργὴν πρὸ ϑυμοῦ) ; sce ‘Trench, Synon. § xxxvit, Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 105, and notes on Eph. iv. 31. ἐριδεῖαι) ‘caballings ;’ compare Syr. jaa [rebellio, calumnia]. The ac- curate meaning of the word épideia appears to have been missed by most of the older, and indecd most of the mod- ern expositors, by whom it is commonly connected with ἔρις (compare Cicum.), and understood to mean ‘contention ;’ comp. ‘rixa,’ Vulg. ‘inritationes,’ Cla- rom. Its true etymological connection, is, however, with the Homeric word ἔρτϑοσ, ‘a day-laborer,’ and _ thence either with ἔριον (τὴν ἐργαζομένην τὰ ἔρια, Phavor. Eclog. p. 201, ed. Dind.), or more probably with”EPQ, ἔρδω, ἐρέϑω ; compare Lobeck, Patholog. p. 365. Its meaning, then, is (a) Labor for hire; compare Suidas, s. v. δεκάζεσϑαι ; (B) Scheming or intriguing for office, ‘am- bitus :’ compare Aristot. Pol. v. 2. 3. p. 1302, (ed. Bekk.); (y) Party-spirit, a contentious spirit of faction ; compare Schol. ap. Matth. épid. ἐμφιλόνεικοι πράξεις, and Steph. Thes. 8. v. where there are also traces of a right perecp- tion of the true meaning. Of these (y) seems to be the prevailing meaning in the N. T., where épid. occurs no less than 7 times, and in the following com- binations ; in Rom. ii. 8, of ἐξ ἐριῶ. are coupled with of ἀπειϑοῦντες TH ἀληϑείᾳ, and in antithesis to of καϑ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔρ- you ayasod; in 2 Cor. xii. 20, ἐριϑεῖαι are enumerated between ϑυμοὶ and κατα- λαλίαι; -n Phil. i. 16, ἐριῶ- is in antithesis 154 GALATIANS. 7 Cuap. V. 21. fi διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, " φόνοι, φόνοι, μέδαι, κῶμοι, καὶ TA ὅμοια τούτοις" ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, καϑὼς καὶ προεῖπον, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα 21. φόνοι] Omitted by Tisch. with B; 17. 33. 35. 57. 73; Demid. Aug.* ; Clem., Marcion ap Epiph., Iren.; Cypr., Hieron. (distinctly), Ambrst., Aug. ({Lachm.|, approved by Mill). The authorities for the text are ACDEFGJK ; great majotity of mss.; Clarom., Boern., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., al.; Chrys., Theod., al. ( Rec., Griesb., Scholz, Mey., Alf., Bagge). These so decidedly prepon- derate, the characteristic paronomasia is so probable, and the omission in transcrip- tion, owing to the similarity in words, so very likely, that we do not hesitate to restore φόνοι. to ἀγάπη ; ib. ii. 3, it is connected with - κενοδοξία, and in James iii. 14. 16, with ὥλος. In Ignat. Phuad. 8, tpid. is opposed to χριστομάϑεια. It would thus seem that in all these passages, with the exception perhaps of Rom. 7. 6., and Phil. 2. c.,— where the context points less to party-spirit than to the conten- tiousness it gives rise to (see notes on Phil. i. 17, Transit) —the meaning of épid. is fairly covered by the definition of Fritz. as ‘summa invidia pectore in- clusa proclivitasque ad machinationes ;’ see Riickert on Rom, ii. 8, and esp. Fritz. Excursus on ἔριϑος, ἐριϑεία, épi- ϑεύομαι, Comm, on Rom. Vol. 1. p. 143 sq: « divisions, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσει 5] parties; the ‘standing apart’ (comp. ‘ tvisstasseis,’ Goth.) and divisions (Rom. xvi. 17) implied in the former word, leading naturally to the more determinate choice (‘electio pra- sertim disciplinee cujusdam’ Schott) exercised in the formation of the latter; comp. Theoph, and Bagge in loc. .:. 21. fii. cy ty revellings,’ κῶμοι] * drunkenness, ‘ebrietates, comessationes,’ Vulg., Clarom.; the latter being the more generic and inclusive, to which the former was the usual accompani- ment. On the nocturnal κῶμοι (τὰ ἀσελγῆ καὶ πορνικὰ ἄσματα, συμπόσια, Hesych.) of the ancients see Schwarz. de Comiss. Vet., Altdorf, 1744, Welcker in Jacobs, Philostr. τ. 2, p. 202 sq. and on the derivation of the word [appy. connected with κοιμάω, and from a root κι-Ἶ Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. τι. p. 150. ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν] ‘about which I tell you beforehand; either ‘ praeemoneo, priusquam veniat dies retributionis, sive judicii, quem hic res- picit,’ Est., or more simply, ‘predico, ante eventum,’ Beng.; comp. 1 Thess, iii. 4. It is not necessary to refer ἃ to πράσσοντες, aS an accus. derived by at- traction from the accus. objecti after that word (Schott, Olsh.); the ordinary ex- planation, ‘quod attinet ad ea que,’ ἡ (Camerar.), being perfectly satisfactory. In such cases, the relative is really gov- erned by the finite verb as a species of ‘quantitative’ accus.; its prominence in the sentence, and appy. absolute use being designed to call attention to that on which the thought or action princi- pally turns; comp. John. viii. 54, and see Scheuer]. Synt. § 8. 4, p. 55. Such sentences often involve a slight, but perfectly intelligible, anacoluthon ; see Fritz. Rom. vi. 10, Vol. 1. p. 393, and compare notes on ch, ii. 20. καϑὼς καὶ προεῖπον] ‘as I also told you beforehand,’ sc. when I was with you; the καὶ appy. reminding them that these were warnings not new to them. The particle is omitted in BFG ; Amit., Demid.; Chrys. (1), al, and bracketed by Lachm., but rightly re- tained as part of the text by most recent editors, the external evidence in its fa- vor [ACDEJK; nearly all mss., and Cuar. V. 22. GALATIANS. 135 πράσσοντες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. ™ ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ Πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη, χαρά, εἰρήνη, μακροδυμία, χρηστό- most Vv.; Clem., Chrys., Theod.] being so greatly preponderant. τοιαῦτα) ‘such things as these,’ ‘ all such things.’ The article with τοιοῦτος denotes a known person or thing, or the whole class of such, but not an unde- fined individual out of the class; as in that case τοιοῦτος is anarthrous; see Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. τ. 5. 2, and Kriiger, Sprachi. § 50. 4. 6. βασιλ. Θεοῦ od κληρον.] ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God ;’ comp. Eph. v. 5, where with equal pertinence the declaration is made of present time. On the meaning of the inclusive term βασιλείαν @cod, —that kingdom which was completely established at the ascen- sion (see Jackson, +Creed, x. 45. 2), of which Christ is the founder, and Christ (and God, Rev. xi. 15, xii, 10) the King, and of which the true Christian, even while here on earth, is a subject, see esp. Tholuck, Bergpred. p. 72 sq., Bauer, Comment. Theol. τι. Ὁ. 107 sq., Heemskerk, Notio τῆς Bac. k. τ. λ. (Amst. 1839), and the comments of Reuss, Théol. Chret. τι. 4, Vol. 1. p. 180 sq. On its distinction (whether ‘in sensu tndtiali or finali’) from the more collective and, so to say, localized ἐκκλησία, see Stier, Ephes., Vol. τι. p. 252 sq. τὰ 22. καρπός] ‘fruit;’ used appy. with a significant reference to the or- ganic development from their root, the Spirit (Olsh., Bloomf.) ; διὰ τί δὲ καρπὸν καλεῖ τοῦ Πν.; ὅτι τὰ μὲν πονηρὰ ἔργα ἐξ ἡμῶν γίγνεται μόνον: διὸ καὶ ἔργα καλεῖ: τὰ δὲ καλὰ οὐ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐπιμελείας δεῖται μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φι- AavSpwrias, Chrys. It is possible that no marked distinction may be intended (Mey.), still, as καρπὸς is nearly always used by St. Paul ‘in bonum partem’ (Rom. i. 13, vi. 22, xv. 28, Eph. v. 9, Phil. i. 11, 22, iv. 17), and as even in Rom. vi. 21, where it is used in ref. to evil works, the same meaning (‘ what fruit,’ ἐς e. ‘ what really beneficial result had ye,’ etc.) appears to be preserved, we may safely press the peculiar mean- ing and significance of the term; see an excellent sermon on this text by San- derson, Serm. xvu. (ad Aul.), p. 594 sq. (Lond. 1689). ἀγάπη» xapa] ‘love, joy ;’ ἀγάπη, as Mey. ob- serves, standing at the head, as the mov- ing principle of all the rest (compare 1 Cor. xiii. 1 sq.), and χαρὰ following, as that special gift of the Spirit (comp. 1 Thess. i. 6), which ought to be the pervading principle of Christian life (Phil. iv. 4); comp. Reuss. Théol. Chrét. Iv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 202. eipnyn| ‘peace ;? not so much here in ref. to peace with God (Phil. iv. 7, see notes a Joc.) as, in accordance with the associated and partially contrasted terms &ySpat k. τ. A. (ver. 20),— peace with one On the meaning of μακροϑυμία (clementia, qua ire temperans delictum non statim vindices,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p 98), see notes on Eph. iv. 2, and for its distinc- another; compare 1 Thess. v. 15. tion from ὑπομονή, notes on Col, i. 11, χρηστότης, ἀγαδωσύ νη] ‘dbeneva These words are: nearly synonymous, The former (de- fined in [Plato] Def. 412 8, as ἤϑους ἂπ- λαστία μετ᾽ εὐλογιστίᾳ5); may perhaps denote that benevolence and sweetness of disposition (‘benignity,’. Wicl., Rhem.) which finds: its sphere and exercise in our intercourse with one. another; comp. Tit. iii. 4, where it is. joined with φιλανϑρωπία, and see Tittm. Synon. p. 140, Planck, Comment. Theol. Part 1. p. 197, and the citation. from, olence, goodness.” 190 GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 23. της, ἀγα ϑωσύνη, πίστις, ” πραύὔτης, éyxpdTea’ κατὰ τῶν τοιού- Jerome in Trench, Synon. Append. p. 198 (ed. 1). The latter (ἀγαϑ.), a somewhat rare word (though occur- ring in three other places in St. Paul’s Epp. Rom. xv. 14, Eph. νυ. 9, 2 Thess. i. 11), seems more than ἡ ἀπηρτισμένη ἀρετή (Phavorinus, Zonaras) or even, ‘animi ad optima quaque propensio’ (Gom. on Rom, xv. 14), and may not improbably be extended to that ‘pro- pensio’ as exhibited in action, the pro- pension both to will and do what is good; see Stier, Ephes. Vol. 1. p. 265, and compare Suicer, Tes. Vol. 1. p. 16, The idea of ‘bountifulness,’ Nehem. ix. 25, is necessarily included. It may thus be distinguished from the some- what late word ἀγαϑότης (Lob, Phryn. p- 850), which rather denotes ‘ goodness in its essence,’ and is thus commonly used in reference to God. ris] ‘faith; not merely ‘fidelitas, veracitas in promissis’ (Men. ap. Pol. Syn.), i. e., ‘good faith’ (Matth. xxiii. 23; Tit. ii. 10, πίστις ἀγαϑή), but trust- Sulness (Conyb.), faith ta God's promises and mercies and loving trust towards men ; compare 1 Cor. xiii. 7, πάντα mo- πίσ- τεύει, Where, like μακροϑυμία and χρησ- τότης (ver. 4), it stands as one of the characteristics of ἀγάπη. 23. πραύτη 9] ‘meckness,’ ‘modes- tia,” Vulg. The mpais is defined by Tittmann, Synon. p. 140, as ‘mansue- tus, qui e2quo animo omnia fert (sanft- miithig),’ compare Aristot. Eth. 1v. 11. This, however, seems wholly insufficient ; the Christian grace of mpairns is not mere gentleness or ἀταραξία, (τὸ δυσκίνη- τον εἶναι πρὸς τὰς ὀργάς, Stob. Floril. 1. 18), but appy. denotes a submissiveness to God as well as man, and may be distinguished from ἐπιείκεια as having its seat in the inner spirit, while the latter seeks to embody itself in acts; see T'rench, Synon. § xLut. 16, and notes on Col. ili. 12. On the orthography πραότης (appy. the more Attic form, Phot. Lex. p. 386) or mpaitns, compare Lobeck, Phryn. p. 403. ‘temperance,’ ἐγκρά- reial the exercise of control over passions and desires; com- pare Acts xxiv. 25, 2 Pet. i. 6; ἐγκρ. δέ ἐστιν ἀρετὴ τοῦ ἐπιδυμητικοῦ Kay ἣν κατέχουσι τῷ λογισμῷ τὰς ἐπιϑυμίας dp- μώσα: ἐπὶ τὰς φαύλας ἡδονάς, Stob. Floril. 1. 18. It is distinguished by Diog. Laert. from σωφροσύνη as implying a control over the stronger passions, whereas the latter implies a self-restraint in what is less vehement; 7 σωφροσύνη ἡρεμαίας ἔχει τὰς ἐπιϑυμίας, ἡ δὲ ἐγκρά- re σφοδράς, Suid. Lex. 5. v. Vol. 1. p. 1138 (ed. Gaisf.). The addition of ἁγνεία (DIEFG); Clarom. Vulg. [not Aimit.; Bas., al.] is rightly rejected by appy- all recent editors. τοιούτων) ‘all such things ;’ not mase. (Theod.), but as seems much more nat- ural, and is perhaps suggested by the art. (Olsh.) newt. in reference to the pre- τῶν ceding virtues; compare the somewhat parallel passage, Stobreus, Floril. 18, fin., ἀκοχουδεῖ δὲ τῇ ἀρετῇ χρηστότης, ἐπιεί- κεια, εὐγνωμοσύνη, ἐλπὶς a&yadh, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. Brown's argument (p. 307) is certainly not convincing, “ τοι- ovrwy and τοιαύτων,᾽ --- ἃ curious over- sight. ‘ there is no (condemnatory) /avw.’ vdpmos] The explanation per meiosin, ‘tantum abest ut iis legis Mosaicie terrores sint metu- οὐκ ἔστι endi, ut potius Deo sint grati,’ tosenm, (cited by Brown), is not satisfactory. St. Paul draws a contrast between the legal judgment under which the former class lay, and the freedom from it which those who are led by the Spirit enjoy ; Cap. V. 24, 25. GALATIANS. 187 > » , 94 « \ lal a \ / ’ / τῶν οὐκ ἐστιν VOLOS. οι δὲ του Χριστοῦ THV σάρκα εσταυρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παϑδήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιδυμίαις. “ὃ εἰ ζῶμεν Πνεύματι, 24. τοῦ Χριστοῦ] Tisch. adds Ἰησοῦ with ABC; mss.; Copt., Sahid., Ath, (both) ; Cyr. (often), Doroth., Bas., Procop., Dam., al.; Aug. [Lachm.]. The external authorities for the omission are DEFGJK (FG add evtes, scil. ovtes) ; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), Goth, Arm.; Chrys., Theodoret, Pseud-Ath., al. ; very many Lat. Ff. (Ree., Griesb., Scholz, Alf.). Owing to the importance of ABC, the external evidence may perhaps be considered slightly in favor of the addition; the order, however, is so unusual (Eph. iii. 1, Col. ii. 6, but in both with var. readings), and external evidence for and against so nearly balanced, that we decide in favor of the shorter reading. compare Bull, Exam. Censure, xvu. 16, where, however, the masc. interpr. of τοιούτων is adopted. 24. of δέ] ‘Now they,’ slightly con- trasted application of the whole foregoing particulars to the special case of Chris- tians, δὲ not being simply continuative (Auth.), nor yet resumptive, in ref. to ver. 16 (De W.), or to ver. 18 (Beng.), but almost syllogistic, the application to Christians forming a sort of practical ‘ propositio minor’ to the foregoing group of verses. The connection of the whole paragraph, then, from ver. 16 appears to be as follows: —*The Spirit and the . flesh are contrary to each other; if the flesh prevail, man is given over to all sin, and excluded from the kingdom of God: if the Spirit be the leading principle, man brings forth good fruits, and is free from the curse of the law. Mow the distinguishing feature of the true Chris- tian is the crucifixion of the flesh; con- sequently, as must be obvious from what has been said, the living in and being led by the Spirit ;? see Riickert én Joc. ἐσταύρωσαν] ‘crucified, scil. when they became Christians, and by bap- tism were united with Christ in His death; compare Rom. vi. 3. Though this ethical crucifixion is here designated as an act past (compare Rom. vi. 6, 6 παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνϑρωπος συνεσταυρώϑη), it really is and must be a continuing act as well; compare Rom, viii. 13. This 18 however the aor., with its usual and proper force, leaves unnoticed ; it simply specifies, in the form of a general truth, the act as belonging to the past, without affirming or denying any reference to the present ; see Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17, notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, and compare Soph. Antig. 1318 (last line) ἐδίδαξαν, on which Wex remarks, ‘unum exem- plum, quod aliquando evenerit, tanquam norma proponitur:’ see also Schmalfeld, Synt. § 60. 2, p. 128. In all such cases the regular reference of the tense to the past may be fe/é in the kind of summary way in which the action is stated, — the sort of implied dismissal of the subject, and procedure to something fresh; com- pare Donalds. Gr. § 433. On the vital truth, that our crucifixion of the flesh is included and involved in that of Him with whom we are united, comp. Usteri, Lehrd. τι. 1. 8, p. 202 sq.; and on the whole verse read the good sermon of South, Serm. xxiu. Vol. Iv. p. 338 sq. (Lond. 1843). 25. εἰ ζῶμεν Πνεύματι] ‘If we live by the Spirit ; — ‘if, as a matter of fact (see notes on ch. i, 9), we dive (em- phatic) by the efficacy and operation of the Spirit; assumption naturally arising from the preceding declaration of cruci- fixion of the opposing principle, the flesh ; ‘enecatd in hominibus Christianis τῇ σαρκί, necesse est in iisdem vivat suamque vim libere exserat τὸ Πνεῦμα, 198 Πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. GALATIANS. Cuap. V. 26. * μὴ ywopeSa κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήχους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φ)ονοῦντες. Schott. The omission here of all illa- tive particles makes the exhortation more forcible and emphatic; comp, 1 Cor. iii. 17. There is some little difficulty in the explanation of the dative Πνεύ- ματι. It is certainly not (a) a dative of manner, scil. ‘spiritually’ Middl.; as thus not only the force of the verse, but the connection with what precedes, aris- ing from the opposition of the Πνεῦμα and the σάρξ, is completely lost. Nor again (4) is it a dative of relation, —‘ si vitam nostram ad Spiritum referimus, ad Spiritum etiam dirigamus vitam,’ Fritz. (Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. ut, p. 142) ; for though Rom. xiv. 6—8 supplies a somewhat parallel sentiment, the an- tithesis between the two clauses is thus obviously deprived of all force and per- tinence. On the whole, then, the or- dinary explanation (c) would seem to be most satisfactory, according to which Πνεύματι is to be regarded as a form of the instrumental or ablatival dative (Winer, Gr. § 31. 7, p. 194), and as here adopted rather than διὰ with the accus. (John vi. 57, compare Winer p. 356), as thus forming a sharper antithe- sis to the dative which follows, — ‘if we live by the Spirit (if the Spirit is our principle of life) by the Spirit let us also walk ;’ compare 2 Cor. iii. 6, τὸ δὲ Πνέῦμα ζωοποίει, and see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 469 sq. (Bohn), The second Πνεύματι is obviously the dat. norme, scil. κατὰ τοὺς ἐκείνου νόμους πολιτευόμε- vot, Chrys., see notes on ver. 106. Fritz (om. iv. 22, Vol. 1. p. 225) explains it as a dat. commodi, ‘ Spiritui vitam con- secrate;’ but this, on Rom. xiii. 13, he appears to have retracted. χῶμ εν] ‘let us walk.’ The hortatory imperative is not without some doctrinal significance (Ust.); the Apostle evi- στοῖ" dently assuming the union and coéxist- ence of the Divine and human powers in the heart of the true Christian; com- pare Beck, Seelen/. 1. 8, Ὁ. 29, τι. 13, p. 32 sq., Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 3, p. 218 note. The command is substantially the same as that in ver. 16, except perhaps that στοιχεῖν [otex-] may imply a more studied tollowing of a prescribed course, than the more general περιπατέω (notes — on Phil. iii, 18); compare Polyb. Hist, xxvill. 5. 6, στοιχεῖν TH τῆς συγκλήτου προϑέσει, Dion. Hal. Antig. vi. 65, στοιχεῖν ταῖς πλείοσι γνώμοις, and the somewhat unusual expression στοιχεῖν μιᾷ γυναικί, Schol. Arist. Plut. 773. 26. μή γινώμεδα x. τ. λ.] ‘Let us not become ;’ not ‘let us not be,’ Auth. (comp. Syr.), but ‘ne efficiamur’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘ vairbamma,’ Goth, there be- ing appy. no less in’ the verb than in the person an intentional mi/dness, which seems to imply that the sin of κενοδοξία had not yet taken root, though the very warning suggests that it was to be ex- pected. The verse thus forms a suitably concluding warning against those par- ticular sins of the Galatians to which the Apostle alluded in ver. 13—15 and at the close of ver. 20, and belongs to Chap. v.,. though it also serves very naturally to connect the doctrinal with the more directly admonitory portion of the Epistle, which begins with the next chapter. A close connection with Ch. vi. (Mey., al.) seems. clearly at variance with the introductory ἀδελφοί (compare ch. iv. 12), and the change of person. GAAHA. προκαλυύμενοι] ‘provok- ing each other ;’ scil. eis φιλονεικίας καὶ ἔρεις, Chrys. ‘calling one another out to the field of controversy,’ Brown; see Herodian, Hist. νι. 9 (Oxon., 1704), προκαλεῖται ἡμᾶς εἰς μάχην, and simply, Cnap. VI. 1. Ye who are. spiritual should bear and forbear; examine yourselves be- fure ye judge others. Polyb. Hist. τ. 46.11, προκαλούμενος τοὺς πολεμίους. The meaning of φϑονοῦντες has been modified by some commentators, ‘withholding out of envy’ (Olsh.), ‘hating’ (Brown). This is not necessary; φϑονεῖν is the correlative act on the part of the weak, to the προκαλεῖσϑαι on the part of the strong. The strong, vauntingly challenged their weaker brethren: the weak could only retaliate with envy. It may be remarked that poverty docs not occur elsewhere in N. T.; in James iv. 2, the correct reading is φονεύετε. Cuarter VI. 1. ἀδελφοί] ‘Breth- ven; conciliatory mode of address in- troducing the more directly admonitory portion ; ‘latet in hoc etiam uno verbo argumentum,’ Beza. ἐὰν καὶ προλημφϑῇ] ‘if aman be even sur- prised or caught ;’ preoccupatus fuerit,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr., “ gafauhaidan,’ Goth. The verb προλημφϑῇ has received several different interpretations, in ac- cordance with the different meanings assigned to πρό. ‘The more strict tem- poral meaning, ‘ antea,’ whether referred to the arrival of the Epistle (Grot.), to a recurrence of the offence (Winer), or to the attempt at restoration, — the λαμβάνεσϑαι taking place before the katapt. (Olsh.),— is unsatisfactory, as the emphatic position of mpoAnupdsy and the force of καὶ are thus both obscured. The common reference to the wnexpected- ness of the sin (‘notat improvisam oc- cupationem,’ Vorst., ouvapTayi, Chrys.), is also inconsistent with καί, as this meaning of mpd would tend to excuse and qualify, whereas καὶ seems to point out an aggravation of the of- fence. 2\ εαν If, however, πρὸ be referred to the power of escape, — ‘be caught before GALATIANS. 189 VI. ᾿Αδελφοί,. ἐὰν καὶ προλεμφϑῇ av Spo- lal e πος ἔν τινι παραπτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ he could escape,’ ‘flagrante delicto,’ — not only the intensive force of καί, but the emphatic position of mpoAnupdy and the general tenor of the exhortation is fully preserved. This meaning of προ- AauB., it must be admitted, is rare, but see exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 289, and esp. Wisdom, xvii. 17, προληφὺ εἰς, τὴν δυσάλυκτον ἔμενεν ἀνάγκην. On the Alexandrian form προλημφϑῇ; see Winer, Gr. § 5, 4, Tisch. Prolegom. p. xx., and on the difference between ἐὰν καὶ and καὶ ἐάν, see note, ch. i. 8, Herm. Viger, No. 307, Klotz, Devar. ΜΌΙ τ Ὁ: 510. ραπτώματι in any particular act of sin, esp. on the ἐν τινὶ Ta- ‘in any transgression,’ side of error, stumbling, or transgression of a command. On the between παράπτωμα (more particular), and ἁμαρτία (more general), see notes on Eph. ii. 1. ματικοί] ‘ye the spiritual ones,’ ‘ye The tenor of the exhortation, coupled with the similar distinctions which St. Paul seems else- where to have recognized in his converts distinction ὑμεῖς of πνευ- that are spiritual.’ (e. g., 1 Cor. iii. 1), appears in favor of the opinion that the Apostle is here designating not merely those who were subjectively πνευματικοί, t.e., who thought themselves so (comp. Windischm.), but those who were objectively mvevuar., those who had remained true to him and his doctrines; see Olsh. im loc. That the teachers are mainly addressed in ver. 1—6, and the hearers and laity in ver. 6—10, is also probable. ti Cere| ‘restore.’. The technical mean- καταρ- ing ἀπὸ τῶν eEapSpnudtwy ‘reponere in artu luxata membra,’ Steph. (Thes. Vol. Iv. p. 1218), adopted by Beza, Blooomf., Brown, al., does not appear here alluded to, as examples of the sim- 140 GALATIANS. Caar.: VI. 1, 2, : - , af καταρτίξετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι πραὕτητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτόν a ᾿ A μὴ Kal σὺ πειρασϊ)ῇς. * ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη BaorakeTe, καὶ οὕτως 2. ἀναπληρώσετε] Tisch. (ed. 2) reads ἀναπληρώσατε with ACDEJK; appy. nearly all mss. ; Syr.-Philox., perhaps Goth. [but conjunct. acts both for fut, and imper.; De Gabel. Gr. § 182, 186]; Clem., Ath., Chrys., ‘Theodoret, Dam., al. (Ree., Griesb., Scholz). ple ethical sense (διορϑοῦτε. Chrys.) are sufficiently common ; comp. Herodot. v. 28, καταρτίζειν (Μίλητον,) Stob. Florii. 1.85, καταρτ. φίλους διαφερομένους, Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxvi. Vol. 1. p. 443 B, πόϑεν οὖν ἄρξομαι καταρτίζειν ὑμᾶς ἀδελ- got (cited by Dindort). mpaitnros| ‘the spirit of meekness ;’ not merely ‘a meek spirit,’ —a wholly inadmissible dilution of the true meaning of the words,— but a πνεύ- ματι spirit of which the principal constituent (comp. Bernhardy, Syné. 11. 44, p. 161) or characterizing quality (Scheurl. Synt. § 16. 3, p. 115) is πραὔτης, compare Winer, Gr. § 34. 2. Ὁ, p. 212. The an- arthrous πνεῦμα (but after a prep.) refers ultimately, as Chrysostom felt, to the Holy Spirit, one of whose especial char- isms is ‘ gentleness ;’ see ch. v. 23. This reference, however, must not be over- stated, or expressed by the use of a cap- ital letter; for, as in 1 Cor. iv. 21 (where av. mpaiitntos is joined with ἀγάπη), so here mv. seems immediately to refer to the state of the inward spirit as wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, and ultimately to the Holy Spirit as. the inworking power; compare Rom. i. 4, my. ἁγιωσύνης, Vili. 15, mv. vioSecias, 2 Cor. iv. 13, rv. τῆς πίστεως, Eph. i. 17, mv. σοφίας, in all which cases πν. scems to indicate the Holy Spirit, and the abstract gen. the specific χάρισμα ; see Hamm. in /oc., and notes on 2 Tim, 1, ἡ, ing to thyself ;’ temporal clause stating the (proper) concomitants of the action σκοπῶν σεαυτόν) ‘look- The authorities for text are ΒΕῸ ; 2 mss.; Vulg., Cla- rom., Syr., Arm., Copt., Sahid., 22th. (both); Theodoret (mss.) Aster. Procl., . (‘considering all the time thy own case’), or perhaps with a secondary- causal force hinting at the reasons for it; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 12. 1, Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 615. For instances of the emphatic and individualizing enal- lage of number, see Bernhardy, Synt. xu. 5, p. 421. connects this clause with ver. 2, putting a full stop after mvevu. mpaitntos, and a comma after πειρασϑῇῆς, but thereby obviously weakens the whole force and point of Lachm. the address. The πνευματικοὶ were re- minded of their own liability to fall into temptation: why? Surely not to urge them merely generally to bear one an- other’s burdens, but particularly to evince their Christian spirit, by restoring one who had fallen, only after all, as they themselves might. μὴ κ. τ. A.) ‘lest thou also shouldst be tempted,’ scil. in a like case; subjunctive (‘ verentis,’ est ne quid nunc sit, simulque nes- cire se utrum sit neene significantis,’ Herm. Soph. Ajar, 272), and in the aor., in reference to an event still im- pending; see Winer, Gr. § 46. 2. p. 447, and the copious list of exx. of this and similar constructions in Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 326. 2. ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη) ‘the bur- dens of ONE ANOTHER; the ἀλλήλ,, as Meyer rightly observes, being emphatic, not however, with any oblique reference to the burden of the Law (Alf.), but simply in opposition te that selfish feel- ing which would leave each one to bear Cuar. VI. 9, 8. GALATIANS. 141 ἀναπληρώσετε Tov νομον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ὃ εἰ yap δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι Mare. erem.; Tert., Cypr., al. (Lachm., Tisch., ed 1, Meyer, De Wette, approved by Mill, Prolegom., p. 123). The preponderance of MSS, evidence is thus plainly in favor of the imper.; still the testimony of the Mv. joined with the extreme probability of a change from the future to the imperfect (see Mill, 1. ec.) seems sufficient to authorize the rejection of a reading g, which on strict grammatical principles may be pronounced somewhat suspicious. his own; contrast the Apostle’s own example, 2 Cor. xi. 29. The meaning of this expressive word must not be too -much circumscribed. It seems chosen, with inclusive ref. to all forms of weak- nesses (ἀσϑενήματα, Rom. xv. 1), suffer- ings, and, perhaps more especially, sins ; the purport of the command being φέ- pew τὰ τῶν πλησίον ἐλαττώματα, Chrys., or, with more exactness, ἐπικουφίζειν τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος συνειδή- σεως βεβαρημένην, Theod. Mops. p, 129. βαστάζετε) ‘bear,’ ἡ. 6. sustain as a superimposed burden. On the particular use and meaning of βαστάζειν in the important doctrinal statement, Matth. vili. 17, as exemplified by this pas- sage, see Magee, Atonement, No. xu. Vol. 1. 415 sq. kal οὕτως- ἀναπληρώσετε) ‘and thus shall ye fulfil, —thus, in this way, and no other, viz., by following the exhortation just given. Future after imperat., as in ch. y. 16. On the whole (see crit. note), the future seems the more proba- ble, as well as perhaps the more strictly grammatical reading; for though no opposing argument can be founded on the use of the imperfect aor. combined with the imperfect present (the former often stating the general command, the latter some of the details ; comp. Scho- mann, Iseus, Ὁ. 235), still in the case of this particular verb the use of the present (compare Barnab. Ep. ch. 21, ἀναπληροῦτε πᾶσαν ἐντολήν), is much more natural. The compound ἀναπλη- ροῦν is not simply synonymous with πληροῦν (Riick., al.), but appears in all cases to denote a complete filling up, and to point to a partial rather than an en- tire vacuum ; ‘hee demum erit perfecta legis impletio,’ Winer, Verd. Fase. m1. p. 11; compare Plat. Poplie. Comp. δ 11, ἀνεπλήρωσε τὴν βουλὴν ὀλιγανδροῦ- σαν (‘made up the full number of’), and see notes on Phil. iii. 30. The ex- planation.of Chrys., κοινῇ πάντες πλη- ρώσατε, is not satisfactory. τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χρ.] ‘the law of Christ ;’ not generally ‘le mobile des actes du Chretien’ (Reuss, Thdol. Chr. tv. 16, Vol. τι. p. 168), but definitely ‘the law of love’ (τὴν ἀγάπην φησίν, Theod. Mops.), which he gave (John xiii. 34, ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, va ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους; 1 John iii. 23, ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλ- λήλους καϑὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡμῖν), and which He so graciously exemplified, αὐτὸς γὰρ Tas ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἀνέλαβε καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν, Schol. ap. Matth. The peculiar term νόμος is perhaps here chosen with some reference to the case of the Galatians: they affected an ob- servance of the law of Moses, here was a law of Christ in which was included the fulfilment of the whole law; comp. ch. v. 14. This ‘novum praceptum Christi’ is illustrated and explained by Knapp, Script, Var, Arg. No. x. p. 369 86. 3. εἰ γάρ κ. τ. λ.] ‘For if any one thinks,’ οἵο. ; confirmation of the fore- going exhortation to gentleness and humility, by showing the evils of the opposite course. The best motive to indulgence towards others is, as Olsh, remarks, the sense of our own weakness. 142 \ v ‘ aA ΄ , 4 μηδὲν ὦν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν. μηδὲν ὥν] ‘when he is nothing,’ ‘be- ing all the time nothing ;’ temporal, or in the more accurate language of Schmal- feld, ‘temporal-concessive’ participle, stating what the man after all is, in spite of his opinion of himself; see the exx. in Schmalfeld, Synt. § 207. 2, p. 415. Alford finds in this use of the subjective μηδὲν rather than οὐδὲν (abso- lute) a fine irony, — ‘being if he would come to himself, and look on the real fact.’ This, however, is somewhat pre- carious, as the use of the subjective ne- gation with participles is the prevailing usage in the N. T.; see Green, Gr. p. 122. While, then, we may press ov when so connected, we must be careful in overpressing μή; see notes on 1 Thess. 115/15, ΤΣ, For illustrative exx. of the general form of expression, see Wetst. in loc., and Kypke Ods. Vol. m. p- 291; one of the most apposite is, Plato, Apol. p. 41 Ἑ, ἐὰν δοκῶσί τι εἶναι, μηδὲν ὄντες. φρεναπατᾷ] ‘de- ceiveth his own mind,’ ‘inwardlij de- ceiveth himself ;’ comp. Goth., ‘ frabja- marzeins ist,’ [intellectus deceptio est]. The verb is an ἅπαξ. Aey. in the N. T.; comp., however, φρεναπάτης, Tit. i. 10, and James i. 26, ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ. This last passage may perhaps enable us to draw a distinction between ἀπατᾷ ἑαυτὸν and φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν. ‘The for- mer may imply a deception which had something objective to rest upon; the latter a more studied inward-working, and purely subjective deception ; comp. notes on Tit. i. 10. Hence the force of the command which follows, τὸ ἔργον δοκιμαζέτω, put to the proof his out- ward acts, and form his judgment upon them. The gloss of Hesych. (χλευάζει), or even of Zonaras (διαπαίζει) does not, consequently, seem quite sufficient. The order ἑαυτὸν φρεναπ. [Rec. with GALATIANS. Cuar. VI. 3, 4. ‘\ ‘ μὰ ΄ r , τὸ δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω DEFGJK; al.] is well supported, but inferior in point of critical authority to that of the text (Lachm., Tisch., with ABC; 80, al.), and not improbably a correction to give ἑαυτόν studied promi- nence. 4. τὸ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμ. ‘prove his own work ;’ put to the test all that he is particularly engaged on; ‘rem non opinionem de se,’ Beng. The singular with the article is appy. here used collectively (De W., Mey.), scil. τὰς ἑαυτοῦ πράξεις, Vheophyl., τὰ BeBiw- μένα αὑτῷ, Cicum.; ‘universam agendi rationem complectitur,’ Schott: comp. Rom. ii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 17, and see Winer, Gr.§ 27.1, p. 157. On the meaning of δοκιμάζειν μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας ἐξετάζειν, Theoph.), see notes on Phil. i. 10, Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 936, and for a good practical sermon on this and the preceding verse, see Usher, Serm. 111. Vol. xm. p. 31 sq. (ed. Elrington). τὸ καύχημα κ. τ. λ.] ‘his ground of boasting.’ The true meaning of this passage has been somewhat obscured by a neglect of the exact meaning and force of the different words. (1) The con- crete καύχημα, gloriandi materies (Rom. iv. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 15, 16, al.), must not be confounded with καύχησις, gloriatio (Rom. iii. 27, al.), the distinction be- tween these words being appy. always observed in the N. T., — even in 2 Cor. v. 12, ix. 8, al. (2) The article is not used κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, but pronominally (Mid- dleton, ch. v. 3), ‘Ais ground of boast- ing,’ the καύχημα which properly belongs to him; compare 1 Cor. iv. 5, τότε ὃ ἔπαινος γενήσεται ἑκάστῳ. (3) The prep. eis must in each clause bear the same meaning (opp. to De Wette) ; the most simple and suitable appearing to be, ‘with regard to,’ ‘in relation to,’ not *contra,’ Schott (which can be justified, Cuap. VI.4, 5. GALATIANS. 148 -“ \ + > € \ / \ 4 . ef Ν bf > ἕκαστος, καὶ τότε εἰς ἑαυτὸν μόνον TO καύχημα ἕξει, Kal οὐκ εἰς / τὸν ἕτερον. ὅ ἕκαστος yap τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει. e.g. Luke xii. 10, but connected with éavt. would involve an artificial expla- nation) ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 10, 7 καύχησις αὕτη ov σφραγίσεται εἰς ἐμέ, Eph. iii. 16, κραταιωδῆναι . - -. εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνϑρωπονι ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 49. a, p. 354, Bernh. Synt. v. 11, p. 220. (4) The force of τὸν ἕτερον (not ἕτερον, as implied by Auth.) must not be overlooked, scil. ‘the one with whom he is contrasting himself ;’ «his neighbor,’ Copt., Arm. The meaning of the whole clause then will be, ‘If any one wishes to find mat- ter for boasting, let it be truly searched for in his own actions, and not derived from a contrast of his own fancied vir- tues with the faults of others ;’ compare Hammond in loc. True Christian καύ- xnua, like St. Paul’s, must be found either in a deep and thankful acknowl- edgment of blessings and successes (ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσϑω, 2 Cor. x. 17), or in afflictions and weakness (2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 5), which still more show forth both the mercy and the mighty power of the Lord; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. 5. ἕκαστος ydp| ‘For each man;’ confirmatory clause. standing in close connection-with the last words of ver. 4, and assigning a reason why a man would have little real ground or justice for claiming spiritual superiority over his neighbor; he had only to look at him- self, to see that he had his own burden to bear; καὶ σὺ κἀκεῖνος τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσετε, (οι. φορτίον] ‘load ;’ not identical with the preceding βάρος, ver. 2 (Vulg., Clarom., Arm., — but not any of the other Vv.), which perhaps is used as a more general term in reference to the community at large, while gopr. has a more individualizing reference to the particular ζοα of sins and infirmities which each one, like a wayfarer (comp. Wisdom xxi. 6, Xenoph. Mem. 11. 13. 6), had to carry: ‘alia sunt onera participand infirmitatis, alia reddende rationis Deo de actibus nos- tris: illa cum fratribus sustentanda com- municantur, hee propria ab unoquoque portantur,’ August. de Consens. Evang. τ. 30.72. The qualitative and hum- bling distinction of Chrys. (τοῖς ὀνόμασι τοῦ φορτίου καὶ τῆς ἀχϑυφορίας πιέζων αὐτῶν τὸ συτειδός), and the quantitative of Beng. (" φορτίον, par ferentis viribus ; βάρη que excedunt’) do not appear so natural or probable. The allusion which Conyb. here finds to Atsop’s well- known fable (the Πῆραι δύο" p. 164, ed. De Furia) is not very plausible, as the point of the fable and the tenor of this verse are far from being identical. βαστάσει) ‘shall bear,’ scil. ‘has to The future does not here refer to the day of judgment (Theod., al.; see ch. v. 10), nor even (like ἕξει) to the future period when the conviction is arrived at, ‘will find he has to bear’ (Windischm., al.), but is appy. used ethically, in ref. to what ac- cording to the nature of things must be the case; compare notes on Eph. v. 31, Thiersch, de Pent. 11. 11, p. 158, sq., and see exx. in Jelf, Gr. § 406. 3, and Bernhardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 377. It was not so much from a sense of future re- sponsibility, as from a consciousness of present wnavoidable ἀχϑοφορία, that a man would be led to think humbly of himself and kindly of his neigh- bor. The observation of Fritzsche on the use of the future is worthy of citation; ‘Futurum in sententid gen- erali recte ponitur, quandoquidem rei que in nullum tempus non convenire bear, ‘must bear,’ lit Be liberal to your teach- ers; as ye sow now, GALATIANS. Cuapr. VI. 6. ὁ Kowwveirw δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον whether it be to the flesh or to the Spirit, so shall ye reap, videatur, etiam futuro tempore locum futurum esse jure sumitur,’ on Tom, vii. &, Vol. 1. p. 9. 6. κοινωνείτω δὲ κ. τ. λ.] ‘but let him that is instructed share with,’ etc. ; exhortation to the duty of sharing temporal blessings with others, placed in contrast (δὲ) to the foregoing declara- tion of individual responsibility in spir- itual matters. With regard to the con- struction there is some little doubt whether κοινωνεῖν is here transitive (“ sit benignus in magistrum in omni bono- rum genere’ Fritz, Rom. J. ὁ. ; compare Chrys., πᾶσαν ἐπιδεικνύσϑω περὶ αὐτὸν δαψίλειαν) or intransitive. The verb has three constructions in the N. T.; (a) with gen. of the thing; only Heb. ii. 14; (Ὁ) with dat. of thing, the common construction, Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, 1 Tim.-v. 22, 1 Pet. 1v, 13, 2 Jobn 1: (c) dat. of person, the thing under the regimen of a prep., Phil. iv. 15. In all these instances (even in Rom, xii. 13) the meaning seems clearly intransitive. The same appears to be the meaning in the present case: for though the transi- tive constr. is lexically admissible (Thom. Mag. κοινωνῷ σοι dv ἔχω, avTl τοῦ μετα- δίδωμι), and yields a perfectly good sense, still the prevailing use of κοινωνεῖν in the N. T., the analogy of construction between this passage and Phil. iv. 15, οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως, and the general con- text supply arguments in favor of the intransitive meaning, which seem dis- tinctly to preponderate. ὁ κα- τηχούμ. λόγον] ‘he that is instructed in THE word,’ scil. in the Gos- τὸν pel (see Acts xv. 7, τὸν λόγον τοῦ εὐαγ- γελίου, and compare Luke i. 2), τὸν λόγον being the accus. of reference, or what is termed the ‘qualitative object’ (Hartung, Casus, p. 55, 61) after the pass. part. κατηχούμενος (Acts xviii, 25 ); see Winer, Gr. § 32. δ, p. 104, and esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 25, compared with δ 16, and fin. With regard to the mean- ing of karnxéw which has here been somewhat unduly pressed, we may ob- serve that the word appears to have four meanings; (a) sono; ἀντὶ τοῦ ἤχω, Sui- *das; (8) sono impleo ; compare Lucian, Jup. Trag. 39, κατάδουσι καὶ κατηχοῦσι; (y) vivd voce erugio, npotpémouct καὶ παραινῶ, Suid. ; compare Syr. \taas Δ 8" [qui audit], 7th., and see Joseph. Vit. § 69, where this meaning seems con- firmed by the context ἀλήϑειαν euap- τύρει; and lastly (δ), with a more general and unrestricted reference, edoceo (δι- δάσκω, Hesych., Zonaras),— appy. the meaning in the present case (‘sa laisida,’ Goth., 125 2ASo9 [qui institutt] Syr.- Ὁ 4 Des Phil.), and in the majority of the pas- sages in the N. T. (Luke i. 4, Acts xviii. 25, Rom. ii. 18, — perhaps even 1 Cor. xiv. 20, Acts xxi. 21, 24), in which it occurs ; the idea of oral teaching being merged in that of general instruc- tion however communicated. On the use of the word, esp. in Eccl. writers, see Suicer, Thesaur. 5. v. Vol. 1. p. 69 86.» where this word is fully explained. ἐν πᾶσιν ayasots| ‘in (sphere of the action of κοινωνεῖν) all good things,’ t. e. ‘all temporal blessings ;’ compare 1 Cor, ix. 11. There does not seem sufficient reason for leaving the ancient interpretation, κελεύει τοῖς πνευματικῶν ἀπολαύουσι μεταδιδόναι τῶν (cum.: see Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p- 152 note (Bohn). The usual objec. tions are based on the isolation of the verse from ver. 5 and ver. 7, which this interpretation is thought to cause. ‘This, however, does not appear to be the case. σαρκικῶν, Crap: V1.7, 8. lel io) “| La) a τῷ κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαδοῖς. τηρίζεται. The concluding words of ver. 5, if left without any further addition, might have been misconstrued into an implied declaration, that it was not right to be chargeable on anybody. This the Apos- tle specially, but almost parenthetically, obviates, indicating with δὲ (see above) the contrast between the spiritual and the temporal application. 7. μὴ πλανᾶσϑε! ‘Be not de- ceived ;’ continuation of the subject in a more general and extended way, though still not without reference to the subject of the special command. This solemn and emphatic mode of admonition is used by St. Paul in two other passages, 1 Cor. vi. 9, and xv. 33; in the former with reference to an evil act, in the lat- ter to an evil conclusion, just mentioned. In the present case the reference appears rather to what follows ; though a refer- ence to what precedes (‘ prestringit tenaces,’ Parzeus) need not be excluded. Ignatius uses the same form, Eph. 5, 10, Philad. 3, Smyrn. 5. μυκτηρίζεται) ‘ts not (actually or with impunity) mocked ;’ ‘non irridetur,’ Vulg. This emphatic word is used several times in the LXX, and occa- sionally in later classical writers: μυκ- > Ov τηρίζειν λέγομεν τοὺς ἐν τῷ διαπαίζειν τινὰς τοῦτό πως τὺ μέρος (μυκτῆρα) ἐπισ- πῶντας, Etym. M. s. v. μυκτήρ, p. 694 ed. Gaisf.). Elsner (Obs. Vol. 1. p. 199) has illustrated this meaning by a few examples, 6. g. Quintil. Inst. vit. 6. 59, Sueton. August. 4, Cicero, Epist. Fam. xv. 19. In Hippoe. p. 1240 p, it occurs in the sense of “ bleeding at the nose.’ ‘for whatsoever a man soweth ;’ con- firmation of the truth of the preceding assertion by means of a significant im- age (compare Matth. xiii. 39) derived & yap ἐὰν κ. τ. A.] GALATIANS. a \ ΕΑ / ” a ‘ / ὃ yap ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνδϑιρωπος, τοῦτο καὶ Yepicet 145 " μὴ πλανᾶσϑε, Θεὸς οὐ μυκ- 8 ὅτι τοῦτο καὶ ϑερίσει] ‘this—and nothing else than this — shall he also reap ;’ the καὶ with its ascensive force pointing to the regularly developed issues. Wetst. in loc. aptly cites Cic. de Orat. τι. 65, ‘ut sementem feceris ita metes.’ On this text see two sermons by Farindon, Serm. Lx1., uxt. Vol. τ. p. 52 sq. (Lond. 1849.) 8. ὅτι ὁ σπείρων] ‘because he that is sowing ;' reason for the concluding τοῦτο καὶ δερίσει, and exemplification, of it in spiritual things; he that is sow- ing one kind of seed (the Spirit) will reap the regular products and develop- ments of that seed; he that is sowing another (the flesh), those of that other: ὥσπερ yap ἐπὶ τῶν σπερμάτων οὐκ ἔνι from the natural world. σπείροντα ὀρόβους (vetches) σῖτον ἀμῆ- σαι: δεῖ γὰρ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους καὶ τὸν σπόρον εἶναι καὶ τὸν ἀμητόν, Chrys. εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ] ‘unto, or ‘for, his own flesh,’ not ‘in carne sua,’ Vulg., Clarom.; for though the flesh and the Spirit are represented under the image of two corn-fields, in which seed is sown, and from which the harvest is gathered, the meaning of εἰς is still not local (‘in, tanquam in agrum,’ Beng.), but, in accordance with its more usual meaning, ethical (" carni sue,’ Beza, com~ pare Copt.); the prepp. used in the N. T. in a strictly local sense being appy. ἐν and émi,—the former in reference to the inclosure im which the seed is sown (Matth. xiii. 24, 27, ib. 19, and: metaphorically, Mark iv. 15), — the lat- ter to the spot on which it is cast (Matth. xiii. 20, 23, Mark iv. 16, 20,31). In the expression εἰς: τὰς axdvSas (Matth. xiii. 22, Mark iv. 18) εἰς rather means. ‘among ;’ comp. Plato, Leg. vit. 839 a. The force of the pronoun ἑαυτοῦ must, 19 140 GALATIANS. Cuap. VL. 8, 9. s ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς Yepicer PYopay, ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος Sepicer ζωὴν αἰώνιον. " 7d δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν: καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ Sepicopev not be overlooked, selfishness being im- plied as well as carnality; ‘caro suitati dedita est,’ Beng.: compare Aquinas (cited by Windisch.), ‘sed nota quod cum agit de seminatione carnis dicit, in carne sud, quia caro est nobis, de natura nostra; sed cum loquitur de semine Spiritus non dicit swo, quia Spiritus non est nobis a nobis, sed a Deo.’ φϑ οράν] ‘corruption,’ —of the whole man, both body and soul; not merely in the narrower physical sense of ‘ decay’ (καὶ yap αὐτὰ φϑείρονται καὶ συμφϑείρει τὸ σῶμα, Chrys.) ; but also in the fuller ethical sense of ‘corruption of soul,’ in which of course eternal death and ‘ de- struction’ (Hesych. φϑορά: ὄλεϑρος) are involved and implied: see 2 Pet. i. 4, ii. 12, 19, and compare Rom. vi. 21, 22. The use, however, of φϑορὰ rather than ἀπωλεία (Phil. 111. 19),— though it possibly may be introduced as more applicable to σάρξ (Schott), — seems to preclude our adopting ‘ destruction’ as the primary meaning; see Stier, Ephes. Vol. π- p. 180. ζωὴν αἰώνιον) ‘eternal life ;’ (ζωήν, in contrast to the preceding φϑοράν (comp. Psalm ciii. 4, Jonah ii. 6), and that too, as the nature of the principle to which the sowing is made distinctly On the meaning of ‘the term αἰώνιος, comp. notes on 2 Thess. i. :9. 9. τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντε:ς] ‘But ‘in well-doing let us,’ etc. ; exhortation to perseverance in the form of sowing _just mentioned, the δὲ idiomatically in- troducing an address after foregoing de- tails (compare Eurip. Rhes. 165, ναί, καὶ δίκαια ταῦτα τάξαι δὲ μισϑὸν κ. τ. λ.), -and, though practically approaching in meaning .to οὖν (‘so let us not’), still “suggests, — αἰώνιον. preserving its proper force in the contrast between the corrupted class just promi- nently mentioned, and the better class which is now addressed: see exx. in Hartung, Partic. δέ, 2. π, Vol. τ. p. 166. On the general and inclusive meaning of τὸ καλόν, see notes on ver. 10. μὴ ἐγκακῶμ εν] ‘let us not lose heart.’ Both, here and in the other passages where the word occurs (Luke xviii. 1. 2 Cor. iv. 1, 16, Eph. iii. 13, 2 Thess. iii, 13) Lachm,. and Tisch. read éyxax. instead of ἐκκακ. (Rec., al.), and rightly ; as it seems very doubtful whether ἐκκακ. is a genuine word at all, and whether its occurrence in lexicons and use in later writers (see exx. collected by L. Dind. in Steph. Thes. 5. v. Vol. v. p- 430) is not, as Usteri thinks, entirely due to these doubtful readings. At any rate, if éxxax. exist, the difference will “be very slight; ἐκκακεῖν may perhaps mean, ‘to retire from fear out of any course of action,’ (nearly ἀποκακεῖν) ; éyxaxeiv, ‘to behave cowardly,’ ‘to lose heart,’ when in it. In Rost u. Palm, Lex. (Vol. τ. p. 833), Polyb. Hist. 1v, 19. 10 is cited in favor of ἐκκακεῖν. This is an oversight; the reading is évexdxnoev, and is actually so cited by Rost u. Palm under éyxaxéw ; see p. 762. καιρῳ ἰδίῳ) in due, proper time; ‘tempore prestituto’ (Beza), the time appointed by God for the reward to be given; compare καιροῖς ἰδίοις, 1 ‘Tim. ii. 6, vi. 15. On the present use of the dative to denote the space of time within which the action takes place, — more correctly expressed with an inserted ἐν (Rom. iii. 26, 2 Thess. ii. 6, al), see . notes on 1 Tim. ii. 16, and comp. Eph. 1. 12. μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι] ‘if (now) we faint not (in our well-doing’ ), Cuap. VI. 9, 10. μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι. ™ ἄρα οὖν, ὡς ‘ provided that we do not ;’ hypothetical use of the temporal participle, the pres- ent tense pointing to the state in which they must now be if they would reap hereafter: see Kriiger, Spruchi. § 56. 11, and exx. in Schmalfeld, Syné. § 207. 5, p. 415. The simple predicative con- nection with Sepicouer bel ye ΝΡ a= Ὁ = [et non erit molestum nobis] Syr., 4 or the more practically adverbial, ‘ with- out fainting’ (surely not ‘ unweigerlich,’ Ewald), scil. πόνου δίχα ϑερίσομεν (Theod., TRheoph. al., who thus draw a contrast between the toilsome nature of the earthly, and the unwearying nature of the heavenly harvest) does not seem satisfactory. For though this interpre- tation cannot be pronounced grammati- cally incorrect, on account of the use of the μὴ rather that οὐ (Riick., Schott), — the connection of μὴ with participles be- ing so distinctly the prevailing usage in the N. T. and later writers (see notes on ver. 3, and comp. exx. in Winer, Gr. § 55, 5, p. 428 sq., and in Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 36),— it still must be rejected on exegetical grounds, as adding no par- ticular force to the general exhortation; whereas the conditional meaning serves fully to bring out the mingled warning and encouragement (προτρέπει καὶ ἐφέλ- κεται, Chrys.), which seems to pervade the verse. The distinction drawn by Beng. between ἐκκακεῖν (in velle) and ἐκλύεσϑαι (in posse), the former referring to the faintness of heart, the latter to the wnstrung state, and the “ (interna) virium remissio’ seems fairly tenable: see exx. in Steph. Thesaur. 5. v., from which we may select (though with a more simply physical ref.), Plutarch, Moral. γι. 613, ἐκλελυμένος καὶ κεκμη- κῶς. A sensible sermon on this verse GALATIANS. 147 καιρὸν ἔχομεν, épyatéueSa τὸ will be found in Sherlock, Serm. xxxrx, Vol. 11. p. 275 sq. (ed. Hughes). 10. ἄρα οὖν) ‘Accordingly then,’ ‘So then ;’ collective and inferential ex- hortation arising immediately out of the preceding statements, and bringing toa natural close the group of verses begin- ning with ver. 6, and the more directly hortatory portion of the epistle. The proper meaning of &pw, rebus ita com- paratis, and its primary reference to simple ‘progression to another step in the argument’ (Donalds. Crat. § 192), is here distinctly apparent; its weaker ratiocinative force being supported by the collective power of οὖν : ‘as things are so, let us in consequence of their being so,’ ete. In Attic Greek this combination is only found in the case of the interrogative ἄρα; see Herm. Viger, No, 292, and on the general dis- tinction between ἄρα and οὖν, see Klotz, Devar, Vol. τι. p. 717, — but compare Donalds. Gr. § 604, and notes on ch. iii. 5. " ὡς καιρὸν ἔχο- μεν] ‘as we have opportunity,’ 7. e. ‘an appointed season for so doing;’ not merely ‘prout,’ 7, 6. quandocunque et quotiescunque occasio nascatur’ ( Wolf), but, ‘as, in accordance with the circum- stances ;’ see Meyer in loc. The parti- cle ὡς is thus rather causal, ‘quoniam’ (Ust., al.), nor temporal ‘dum’ (Vulg., Clarom., Syr.-Phil.), as appy. Ign. Smyrn. 9, ὡς ἔτι καιρὸν ἔχομεν (both, esp. the latter, very doubtful meanings in St. Paul’s Epp., though not uncom- mon in classical writers; see Klotz, Devar. Vol, τι. p. 759), but has only its simple relative force; the true link be- tween this and the preceding verse being supplied by καιρός (Brown, p. 348); ‘as there is a καιρὸς for τὸ ϑερίζειν, so is there one for πὸ σπείρειν. As we have it then, let us act accordingly and make 148 GALATIANS. Cnap. VI. 10, 11, ἀγαδὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς , πιστεως. Recapitulation. Your false teachers seek to have “"Tédere πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα you circumcised to avoid persecution and to boast of your submission. All true boasting, however, must be in Christ and His Cross. the most of it,;’ κατεπείγει καὶ συνωδεῖ, Chrys. Hammond (on Phil. iv. 10) translates καιρὸν ‘ ability,’ but the exx. cited by Wetst. in loc. will show this modification to be quite unnecessary. τὸ ayaddy] ‘that which is good ;’ ‘the thing which in each case is good,’ whether considered in a spiritual or temporal sense. The distinction between τὸ καλόν, as implying good in its highest sense, and τὸ ἀγαϑόν, as referring more particularly to kindness, etc. (Baum.- Crus.), does not seem tenable in the N. T.: as τὸ καλὸν includes what is beneficent (Matth. xii. 12), as well as what is morally good (1 Thess. v. 21), so τὸ ἀγαϑὸν includes what is morally and essentially good (Rom. ii. 10), as well as what is merciful (Philem. 14, compare Eph. iv. 28), — ἀγαϑωσύνην as well as εὐποιΐαν, Heb. xiii. 16 ; compare notes on 1 Thess. v. 21. The reading épya(éueda adopted by Lachm, ed. sterest. (but retracted in larger ed.) with AB2J and some mss., is rightly re- jected by recent editors on decidedly preponderant external evidence [B1CDE FGK (-σωμεϑα), and a great majority of mss. Vv, and Ff.] and not without some probability of the interchange of the o and w (though rare in such MSS. as B) being here accidental; comp. Scrivener, Collat, p. LXIx. sq. πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς mlor.] ‘unto them who belong unto the faith.’ The mean- ing of πρὸς is here not merely the gen- eral ethical one, with regard to, but the particular one, erga ; comp. Eph. vi. 9, 1 Thess. vy. 14 (notes), and exx. in Winer, Gr. § 49. ἢ, p. 361. ing erga, or contra (this latter rare if a hostile notion is not implied in the verb, The mean- Joseph. Apion. 1. 31) will result from the context. With regard to the pecu- liar phrase οἰκεῖοι τῆς πίστεως, it may be observed that it does not appear to in- volve any allusion to οἶκος in the pecu- liar sense of ‘ the house of God’ (Schott), or to any especial idea of composing a single family (Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1. p. 124), as the numerous exx. from lat- ter writers of this use of οἰκεῖος with an abstract subst. (6. 7. οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας, ὀλιγαρχίας, γεωγραφίας, τρυφῆΞ5) all seem to show that the adjective has lost its meaning of peculiar, and only retains that of general though close connection ; see Schweigheus. Lex. Polyb. 5. v., and Wetst. in foc. A sermon on this and the preceding verse, but of no particular character, will be found in Tillotson, Serm, txxxix. Vol. um. p. 592 (Lond. 1752). 11. πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα) ‘in what large letters I have written to you.’ The only possible way of arriving, even approximately, at the meaning of this much debated clause, is to adhere closely to the simple lexical meanings of the words. These it will be best to notice separately. πηλίκος strictly denotes geometrical magnitude, ‘how large’ (comp. Plato, Meno, 82, πολίκη tis ἔσται ἐπείνου 7 γραμμή ; so too Zachar. ii. 2. πηλίκον τὸ πλάτος... πηλίκον τὸ μῆκος) in contra- distinction to arithmetical magnitude, expressed by πόσος, ‘how many.’ This meaning and distinction appear to have been observed in the N. T., as in the only other passage in which πηλίκος occurs, Heb. vii. 4, πηλίκος οὗτος, the same primary idea of magnitude (though in an ethical sense) is distinctly recog- Cuar. VI. 11. nizable. To assume then in the present case (a) any confusion of πηλίκος with πόσος (Schott, Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 221, Bohn), when there is no trace of such a usage either in the N. T. or LXX, seems distinctly uncritical ; nor can (ὁ) any assumed equivalence with ποῖος (‘qualibus literis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Am., ‘wileikaim,’ Goth., compare Hesych. πηλίκον, οἷον, ὁποῖον, and see Tholuck, Anzeig. 1834, No. 32), and any reference to the ἀμορφία of the let- ters (Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., Theod. 2; comp. Zonar. Lex. 8. v. πηλίκον" τὸ ἐν ἀμορφίᾳ dv. ὧς παρὰ τῷ ᾿Αποστόλῳ: ἴδετε k. T. A., Vol. π΄. p. 1547) be pronounced otherwise than purely arbitrary; for magnitude does not mean shapelessness. We can have then no other correct trans- lation than simply, ‘how large ;’ ἄγαν μίζσιν ἔχρήσατο γράμμασιν, Theod., — who, however, appears to limit the au- tographic portion to what follows. γράμματο may be interpreted ‘an epistle;’ see Acts xxviii. 21, compare 1 Mace. v. 10, Ignat. Rom. 8: but (a) St. Paul in no other passage so uses it, though he has occasion to use a word denoting a letter (ἐπιστολή) seventeen times; and (4) this species of cognate dative γράψαι γράμμασιν (compare εἰπὲ λόγῳ, Matth. viii. 8) is not found in St, Paul’s Epp., nor has here any of the additional force which the usage implies (Bernh. Syné. m1. 16, p. 107), and which alone could account for the introduction of a third dative (instead of the natural accus.) in a sentence of eight words. We seem, therefore, forced to adhere to the simple meaning, ‘ letters, characters,’ as in Luke xxiii. 38, 2 Cor. iii. 7 ( Ree.) : so Copt. han-skhai, and appy. Arm. ; the other Vy. are ambiguous. ἔγραψα] ‘I wrote,’ or in idiomatic English, —‘I have written,’ in ref. to the whole foregoing epistle; not ‘I write’ (Scholef. Hints p- 197, Conyb., al.), epistolary aorist. The real diffi- GALATIANS. 149 culty lies in this word, owing to the different conclusions to which historical and grammatical considerations appear respectively to lead us. On the one hand it appears distinctly (Rom. xvi. ἢ 22, 24, 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii, 17), that St. Paul was in the habit of using an amanuensis, and of adding only the concluding words, From ver. 11 to end would seem, then, very probably such addition. But, on the other hand, it is very doubtful whether St. Paul or any of the writers of the N. T. ever use the epistolary aor. ἔγραψα exclusively in reference to what follows. The aorist in all cases appears to have its proper force, either (a) in reference to a former letter (1 Cor. v. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 8, iv. 9, vii. 12, 3 John 9 [see Liicke in Joc.]), or (6) in reference to an epistle now brought to its conclusion (Rom. xv, 15, 1 Pet. v. 12), or (6) toa foregoing portion of the epistle (1 Cor. ix. 15, 1 John ii. 21 [see Liicke and Huther in Joc.] ; compare Philem. 19), and even stands in a species of antithe- sis to γράψω in reference to what has already been written (1 John ii. 14, where see Huth.) ; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. 2, p. 249, and notes on Philem. 19. With this partially conflicting evidence it seems impossible to decide positively whether St. Paul wrote the whole epistle or only the concluding portion. On the whole, however, the use of ἔγραψα, es- pecially when contrasted with γράφω (2 Thess. iii. 17), inclines us to the former supposition, and we thus con- clude, that to prevent any possible mis- take as to the authorship of the epistle (Chrys. ; compare 2 Thess. ii. 2), — es- pecially as this was an encyclical mis- sive (ch, i. 2, where see Olsh.), — St. Paul here deviated from his usual cus- tom, and wrote the whole letter with his own hand (Chrysostom, ‘Theod., Theoph., Cicum.), and in characters, whether from design or inexpertness, 150 GALATIANS. Cuar. VI. 12, 13. τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί. " ὅσοι ϑέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκὶ οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσδαι, μόνον ἵνα τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χρισ- τοῦ μὴ διώκωνται. ™ οὐδὲ yap οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον 2. διώκωνται] Tisch, διώκονται, with ACFGJK: many mss.; few, however, will hesitate to consider this an improbable soloecism. The text is rightly adopted by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Alf., with B (Mai) DE, and appy. many mss. The transposition ἵνα μὴ (Rec. with FGJK ; mss.) is rightly rejected by nearly all recent editors. larger than those of the ordinary aman- uensis. 12. ὅσοι ϑέλουσιν) ‘as many as wish ;’ concluding warning against the false Teachers whose true motives are here exposed, and contrasted with those which influenced the Apostle (ver. 14). εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί ‘to make a fair show in the flesh,’ not so little as ‘placere,’ Vulg., Clarom., or even pore dad? (ut glorientur] x 4 aig Syr., but rather ‘pulchram faciem as- sumere’ [shi skenho] Copt., scil. ‘to wear a specious exterior in the earthly unspiritual element in which they move. The verb εὐπροσωπέω is not used by any earlier writer: but from the use of the adj. εὐπρόσωπος ‘fair and specious’ (Herod. vu. 168, Demosth. Coron. Ὁ. 277; see Elsner, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 200), and the similar compounds, σεμνοπροσωπέω ( Aris- toph. Nudb. 363), and φαινοπροσωπέω (Cic. Att. ναι. 21), cited by the commentators on this verse, the meaning would appear correctly stated by Chrys. as εὐδοκιμῷ, though not necessarily παρὰ ἀνϑρώποις ; see below. The appended words ἐν σαρκὶ are commonly explained, either (a) ‘in observatione rerum carnalium,’ with physical reference to circumcision; or’ (5) ‘apud homines,’ with reference to Judgment and opinions of others, — ἵνα ἀνϑρώποις ἀρέσωσι, Chrys. τήν παρὰ ἀν- ϑρώπων ϑηρώμενοι δόξαν, Theod. Both interpretations, however, seem distinctly insufficient, as they put out of sight that more profound and far-reaching meaning of σάρξ, ‘the earthly existence and con- ditions of man,’ ‘notio universa rerum externarum’ (Schott), which pervades this whole epistle; see notes ch. v. 16, and Miiller, on Sin, ch. τι. ad fin., Vol. 1. p. 353 (Clark). οὗτοι] ‘these ;’ it is this class and this preéminently, that are engaged in constraining you, etc. ; see notes ch, iii. 7. τῷ σταυρῷ] ‘on account of the cross ;’ not exactly ‘in cruce’ (Copt.), but ‘ob cru- cem’ (Beza), scil. ‘for preaching the doctrine of the cross of Christ.’ The dative points out the ground or cause of the persecution ; compare Rom. xi. 20, ἐξεκλάσϑησαν τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, and see Winer, Gr.§ 31. 6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Synt. ui. 14, p. 102. The ablatival explana- tion, that they may be persecuted with the cross of Christ (‘ perpessiones Christi,’ 2 Cor. i. 5, Grot., comp. Vulg. ‘ crusis Christi persecutionem’), either, on the one hand, involves an unsatisfactory ex- planation of ὁ σταυρός, --- which, as Brown (p. 359) rightly observes, in such expressions as the present always implies the fact of the atoning death of Christ, —or, on the other, causes a still more untenable meaning to be assigned to διώκωνται, Viz. ‘lest the doctrine of Christ wear a hostile aspect to them,’ as Neand. Planting, Vol. 1. p. 226 (Bohn). The meaning, ‘that they may not follow after, Arm. (comp. “2th. ‘ut non ad- hereatis’), is wholly untenable. 18. οὐδὲ γὰρ... αὐτοί! ‘For not - ΘΟΗΛΡΟΎΥΣΙ. 13, 14. GALATIANS. 151 φυλάσσουσιν, ἀλλὰ δέλουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσνϑναι ἵνα ἐν τῇ ὑμε- , \ , τὰν πεν L a SLY τέρᾳ σαρκὶ καυχήσωνται. "" ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο KavXaasau εἰ μὴ even they,’ ‘nam ne ipsi quidem,’ Beza, —they of whom it might reasonably have been expected ; confirmation of the preceding by a statement of the openly lax conduct of the Judaizers, and of the true motives by which they were influ- enced ; tantum abest, ut illorum intersit, a vobis legem observari,’ Beng. On the force of οὐδὲ---ἀλλά, see on ch. i. 17. οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι) ‘those who are having themselves circumcised,’ ‘ qui cir- cumciduntur,’ Vulg.; pres. part., with reference to the prevailing practice of the false teachers either in respect of themselves or others. The explanation of Peile, Hilgenfeld, al., according to which the pres. part. περίτεμν. loses its precise temporal reference (Winer, Gr. § 45. 7, p. 316) and combines with the article to form a kind of subst., ‘the party or advocates of the circumcision’ (comp. οὗτοι of περιτεμνόμενοι, Acta Pet. et Paul. § 68, cited by Hilgenfeld), is plausible, but perhaps not necessary ; as the use of the pres. may be fairly ex- plained on the ground that St. Paul includes in the idea not merely their conformity to the rite (which strictly becomes a past act), but their endeavor thereby to draw others into the same state, which is a present and continuing act. It must be admitted that the reading, περιτετμημένοι [Lachm., Scholz, Rinck, Mey., with BJ; 40 mss.; Clarom., al. ; Lat. Ff.] would give a more appropriate sense; the external authorities, however [ACDEK; Vulg., Syr. (both), al.; Marcion, ap. Epiph., Chrys., Theodoret, al.], are distinctly in favor of the more difficult reading, περιτεμνόμενοι. νόμον] ‘the law.’ Middleton here ex- plains the anarthrous νόμος as ‘moral obedience’ (‘the principle of Law,’ Peile), adducing the parallel passage, Rom. ii. 25; but there also, as here, νόμος is the Mosaic law: see Alford on Rom.i.c. The reason why these Ju- daizers did not keep the law is not to,be referred to their distance from Jerusalem (Theod.), nor to any similarly extenuat- ing circumstances, but, as the context seems to show, is to be attributed simply to their consummate hypocrisy ; Meyer tn loc. ἐν, τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκί) ‘in your flesh,’ — ‘your bodily and ritualistic mutilation ;’ i.e. ἐν τῷ see κατακόπτειν τὴν ὑμετέραν σάρκα, Theoph., — not their own observances of that law for which they are affecting so zealously to contend. There is no contradiction between the two motives assigned for their enforcement of the circumcision. The second, as Usteri observes, states positively what the first did negatively. They boasted that they had not only made Christian, but Jewish converts (‘quod vos Judaismo Beza), and thus sought to escape perse- cution at the hands of ghe more bigoted Jews. implicuerint,’ 14. ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γέν. kavx.] ‘But from me far be it that I boast ;’ con- trasted statement (δὲ) of the feelings of the Apostle and the substratum on which his καύχησις alone rested. For exx. of this use of γένοιτο with an infin., see Gen. xliv. 7, 17, Josh. xxii. 29, al., and Polyb. Hist. xv. 10. 4, μηδενὶ γέ- vowTo πεῖραν ὑμῶν λαβεῖν. ἐν τῷ: σταυρῷ] ‘in the cross.’ ἃ. 6. in the principle of the sufferings and death of Christ being the only means whereby- we are justified and reconciled unto God (Rom. v. 9, 10); καὶ τί ἐστι τὸ καύχημα τοῦ σταυροῦ; Ὅτι ὁ" Χριστὸς δι ἐμὲ τὸν δοῦλον, τὸν ἐχϑρόν, τὸν ἀγνώμονα: ἄλλ᾽" οὕτω με ἠγάπησεν ὡς καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἐκδοῦναι. ἀρᾷ, Chrys. See a sound sermon on this, 152° GALATIANS. Cuap. VI. 14, 15. ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσ- μος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ τῷ κόσμῷ' ἡ Ἃν \ , » οὔτε γὰρ περιτομὴ τι ἐστιν 1ὅ. οὔτε γάρ] So Tisch. with B; 17; Syr. (both), Goth., Sah., 2&th., Arm. ; Chrys., Syncell.; Hieron., Aug. (De. W., Mey., Bagge, Αἰ.) much commended by Griesb, ; approved by Mill (Prolegom. p. 85). The longer reading, ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is found in ACDEFGJK; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., AEth.-Platt, Syr.- text by Beveridge, Serm. xx. Vol. 1. p. 896 sq. A. Ὁ. Libr.). δι of] ‘by whom ;’ scil. by whose crucifixion.’ The relative may refer either to σταυρός (Theodoret), or to Ino. Χριστός. It is curious that Baumg. Crus. in adopting the latter reference, and Windischm. the former, should both urge that, on the contrary supposition, St. Paul would have writien ἐν ᾧ instead of δι᾽ of. As far as this argument goes, both are right (see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 346, 347), though probably the frequent use of ἐν in the N, T. with reference to Christ is slightly in favor of Windischm. comp. Eph. i. 7. The context, however, is a far surer guide, and here, as the impor- tant and indeed emphasized subject τοῦ Kup. 7. Ino. Xp. immediately precedes, the relative will more naturally seem to refer to those words, κόσμο!ϑ) ‘the world ;’ τὰ βιωτικὰ πράγματα, Chrys. ; not ‘res et religio Judaica,’ Schoettg. The full meaning has been well expressed by Calvin, ‘mundus procul dubio op- ponitur nove creature; quicquid ergo contrarium est spirituali Christi regno mundus est, quia ad veterem hominem pertinet. Mundus est quasi objectum et scopus veteris hominis’ (cited by Peile). The present omission of the article with κόσμος is very unusual, and only to be accounted for by the supposi- tion that κύσμος was sometimes prac- tically regarded in the light of a proper name: in all other places in the N. Τὶ, except the present, 2 Cor. v. 9, and, somewhat differently, 2 Pet. ii. 5, the omission is only found after a preposi- tion (1 Cor. viii. 4, Phil. ti. 14, Col. ii. 20), or when the noun is under the regi- men of a preceding substantive (John xvii, 24, Rom. i. 28, iv. 13, xi. 12, 15, Eph. i. 4, al); see Middl., Gr. Aré. p. 350 (ed. Rose), Winer, Gr. 19. p. 112. Whether in the concluding member the article is to be retained or rejected (Lachm.) is very doubtful. The exter- nal authority (ABC!DIFG; 17, Orig. (3), Ath., al.] for κόσμῳ is very strong ; still as an omission to conform with the preceding member seems highly pioba- ble, and the external authority [C°C°E JK; nearly all mss.; Clem., Orig. (7), and many Ff.] of considerable weight, we retain with Tisch, Mey., al., the longer reading τῷ κόσμῳ. ἐμοί ‘to me;’ dative of what is termed ‘ eth- ical relation, —a usage of this case which is more fully developed in the dat. commodi or incom. ; see Winer, Gr. § 31. 4, p. 190, Bernhardy, Synt. ut. 9, p. 85, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 5, This reciprocal crucifixion is a forcible mode of expressing the utter cessation of,all communion between the Apostle and world: as Schott well observes, ‘alter pro mortuo habet alterum ;’ compare John vi. 56, 2 Thess. i. 12, 1 Cor. vi. 13. On the profound significance of these expressions of union with Christ, comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 16, Vol. u. p. 164. 15. οὔτε γάρ] ‘For neither; ex- planatory confirmation of the preceding words δι᾽ οὗ x. τ. A., εἶδες σταυροῦ δύνα- POY AR Pa οὐ yap δὴ μόνον τὰ τοῦ κόσμου πράγματα ἐνέκρωσεν αὑτῷ πάντα, αλλὰ τὰ Crap. VI. 15, 16. GALA TIANS: 153 » bd , 3 \ \ , 16 Veo a I ΄ οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. καὶ OTOL τῷ KAVOVL τούτῳ Phil. with asterisk; Theod., Dam.; Ambrst., al. (Rec., Scholz, Lachm.). The external evidence is thus very strong; still, the probability that the longer reading is a gloss from ch. v. 6, seems so great that, supported as we are by ancient Vv., we do not hesitate in adhering to the shorter reading. The reading ἰσχύει (Ree. with D3JK ; mss. ; al.), has less claim on attention. τῆς πολιτείας τῆς παλαῖας ἀνώτερον πολ- AG κατέστησε, Chrys, On the reading, see critical note. ois] ‘a new creature.’ καίνὴ κτί- Κτισις has two meanings in the N. T.; active, ‘the act of creation’ (Rom. i. 20) passive, ‘the thing created,’ — whether personal and individual (2 Cor. v. 17), or impersonal and collective (Rom. viii. 19). Either meaning will suit the present passage ; the latter, perhaps (comp. 2 Cor. v. 17, εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις is most probable. The form of expression may possibly have originated from the use of the similar term τον πὶ m="2, to denote proselytes (Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. τ. p- 328); the meaning, however, and application, is here, of course, purely Christian. On these words see an ad- mirable sermon by Hammond, Sem. xxvil. Part. 1. p. 380 sq. (A. C. Libr.), comp. also Beveridge, Serm. x1x. Vol. 1. p. 842 sq. (A. C. Libr.), and five ser- mons by Tillotson, Serm. Vol. 111. p. 324 sq. (Lond. 1752). 16. καὶ ὅσοι walk ;’ prominent specification of the personal subjects in regard of whom the prayer is offered, the nominatival clause standing isolated, and passing κατ᾽ ava- see ‘and as many as κολουδίωαν into another structure; Jelf. Gr. § 477.1. The reading is doubtful. On the one hand, the fut. στοιχήσουσιν is fairly supported [B (Mai.) C*JK; mss.; Vulg.; Chrys., Theod.], and perhaps not quite so likely to have been changed from the pres. as vice versd. Still, on the other, as the ex- ternal evidence [AC!DEFG ; mss. ; Cla- : 20 rom.; Syr. (both), Goth., Copt. (appy.), Arm. ; Chrys., Jerome, Aug,, al.] is very strong, and a change to a future, as pointing out the course the Galatians were to follow, not wholly improbable, we adopt with Tisch., De W., al. the present στοιχοῦσιν. “ σῷ ka- vove ToUT«e| ‘according to this rule,’ 5011. of faith; κανόνα ἐκάλεσε τὴν προ- κειμένην διδασκαλίαν, Theod. It is per- haps slightly doubtful whether we are here to adopt the more literal meaning ‘directing line’ (Mey.), {Leo [Semitam] Syr.) or the more Ό = derivative meaning ‘maxim,’ ‘norma vivendi’ (garaideinai, Goth., heg [lex] Ath.) ; the former seems, at first sight, in better accordance with στοιχοῦσιν, but as this verb is used above (ch. v. 16), with but little tinge of its physical meaning (contrast Rom. iv. 12), and as κανὼν may very naturally be referred to the principle stated in ver. 15, the latter and metaphorical meaning (τῶ κανόνι of κανών, kal τῇ διδαχῆ ταύτῃ, GScum.) is here to be preferred. On the derivative mean- ing of κανών, see an article by Planck, in Comment. Theol. Vol. 1. 1, p. 209 sq. and for exx. Elsner, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 201. The dat. is obviously the dativus zorme ; see notes on ch. ν. 16, Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, p. 198, Fritz. Rom. xiii. 18, Vol. m1. p. 142. ‘peace be εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτού 5] upon them,’ illos,’ Vulg., Clarom., not perhaps without some idea of peace and mercy coming down wpon them from heaven (Mey.); comp. Acts xix. 6, 2 Cor. xii. 9, It has ‘ super 154 GALATIANS. Cuap. VI. 16, 17. - ae Vie bye ‘ 2, Ὶ > } ν oi δλ a στοίχουσιν, εἰρΜνἢ ἐπ αὑτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος, καὶ ἔπι TOV σραὴ του Θεοῦ. Trouble me not: Christ's accredited vant. I am ser- μου βαστάζω. been urged (De W.) that ἐστὶν or ἔσται (Syr. Ἰοσω comp. Chrys.) is here to be supplied rather than εἴη, and that the verse is to be regarded as declaratory, and not benedictory. Both the position of the verse, however, and the signifi- cant union of εἰρήνη and ἔλεος (1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, 2 John 3, Jude 2) seem in favor of the ordinary construction ; ἐπηύξατο τὸν ἔλεον καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην, Theod. ‘The order (contrast 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, Jude 2) may be due to the fact that the Apostle desires to put the effect before the ‘ causa efficiens’ (Mey.) as more in harmony with the reiissuring character of the benediction, or arises merely from the feeling that in the absence of χάρις, εἰρήνη formed the more natural commencement. Jude 2 is rather different, owing to the addition of ἀγάπη. On the meaning of ἔλεος, as involving not only “ misericordia’ (oik- tipuds), but ‘ipsum miseris succurrendi studium,’ see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69, sq. καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘and upon the Israel of God.’ It is doubtful whether καὶ is ex- plicative, ‘namely, upon the Israel of God,’ or simply copulative. The ex- planatory καί, though needlessly ob- truded on several passages of the N. T., is still distinctly found. in St. Paul's Epp. (contr. De Wette), see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. 1. p. 339, Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, p. 388. Still, as it is doubtful whether καὶ is ever used by St. Paul in so marked an explicative force as must here be as- signed (the exx. cited by Meyer, 1 Cor, lil. 5, viii. 11, xv. 38, do not seem con- clusive), and as it seems still more doubt- 17 fal rn / ὃ \ [4 τοῦ λοιποῦ κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω" ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί ful whether Christians generally could be called ‘the Israel of God’ (contrast Brown, p. 382), the simple copulative meaning seems most probable (Ps. Ambr., Grot., Est.). St. Paul includes all in his blessing, of whatever stock and kindred; and then, with his thoughts turning (as they ever did) to his own brethren after the flesh (Rom. ix. 3), he pauses to specify those who were once Israelites according to the flesh (1 Cor. x. 18), but now are the Israel of God (‘700 Θεοῦ auctorem in- nuit, quem Deus veluti peculium suum reddidit,’ Schott), — true spiritual chil- dren of Abraham. 17. τοῦ λοιποῦ] ‘Henceforth ; not for ἀπὸ τοῦ λοιποῦ (Bos, Ellips. p. 461, Brown), or for λοιπόν (Bloomf.), though commonly used both for it and τὸ λοιπὸν in later writers (Bernh. Synt. 111. 36, p. 145), but the correct temporal genitive, denoting ‘the time within which,’ or at some epoch of which the action is represented as taking place; compare - Madvig, Synt. § 66. ἃ, Thus, taken strictly, τοῦ λοιποῦ x. τ. A. is, ‘let no one at any time in the future,’ ete., τὸ λοιπὸν κ. τ. A., ‘let no one during the future,’ ete. ; comp. Herm. ad Vig. No. 26, ‘rd λοιπὸν dicitur et τοῦ λοιποῦ, hoc discrimine, quod τὸ λοιπὸν continuum et perpetuum tempus significat ; τοῦ λοιποῦ ©«autem repetitionem ejusdem facti reliquo tempore indicat.’ ‘The general ‘temporal genitive, it may be remarked, appears to be more correctly referred to the partitive force of that case, than to ideas either of origination or antecedence (Hartung, Casus, p. 34, Jelf, Gr. § 523), or of possession ( Alf.) ; Gap. Vi. 17, 18: Benediction. A A A δ ig a 2 ͵ τοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί: see Scheuerl. Synt. § 100, Donalds. Gr. § 451. κόπους παρεχέτω] ‘cause trouble ;’ surely not by obliging the Apostle to send further letters, but by troubling his spirit by their inability “ (σαλευόμενοι, CEcum.), and still more, as the next clause shows, by thwarting his apostolic authority. ἐγὼ γ ἀρ] ον 1 reason for the command ; the ἐγὼ being emphatic and in opposition to the false teachers, — not to μηδείς (De W.), un- less considered as one of them, — and the yap introducing the fact that he was a fully accredited servant of Christ: εἰς φόβον πλειόνα ἐμβάλλων καὶ πηγνὺς τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τεϑέντας νόμους, Chrys. τὰ στίγματα] ‘the marks ;’ the local addition ἐν τῷ σώματί μου necessarily referring the term to the wounds and scars and outward tokens of the persecu- tions and sufferings which the Apostle had undergone in the service of Christ ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 23 sq. There is appy. further a distinct allusion to the marks burnt on slaves to denote whom they belonged to; compare Herod. vu. 233, 155) p: ἔστιζον στίγμ. βασιλήϊα, Martial, Epigr. xu. 61, ‘stigmate non meo,’ and espe- cially Deyling, Odserv. Sacr. Vol. 111. No. 43, p. 423 sq., where the various classes of στιγματοφόροι are enumerated, and the Whole subject copiously illus- trated. The gen. Ἴη σο ὃ thus indicates, neither origin (‘ auctore Christo,’ Gom.), nor remote reference to (‘ propter Chris- tum,’ Pisc.; compare Olsh.,—a most doubtful translation both here and 2 Cor. i. 5), but simply the owner; the marks attested who the Apostle’s Master was ; and were the ‘ signa militiz Christi que me comprobant ejus esse,’ Gloss. Interl. GALATIANS. 188 15 Ἢ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Xpic- ἀμήν. (cited by Bagge). The insertion of Κυρίου before Ἰησοῦ (Rece.) is fairly supported [C®D®EJK; mss. Vulg., Cla- rom., Syr. (both), Goth., A%th.-Platt), but owing to the variations (D1FG, ἡμῶν "I. X.; Copt., Aith.-Pol., al., τοῦ. Xp.; al. aliter) rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch, [ABC1; mss.; Amit., — but not Eth., Arm., as Tisch., Alf.] in favor of the text. βαστάζω] ‘I bear ;’ either in the ‘sensus molestus’ of ch. v. 10, vi. 5, or perhaps, with some solem- nity, in ref. to the dignifying nature of his Master's marks: οὐκ εἶπεν, ἔχῳ, ἀλλά, βαστάζω, ὥσπερ τις ἐπὶ τροπαίοις μέγα φρονῶν ἢ σημείοις βασιλικοῖς, Chrys. ; compare Acts ix. 15, βαστάσαι τὸ ὄνομὰ pov, and Clem. Hom, ap. Coteler, Vol. I. p. 692, εἰκόνα Θεοῦ βαστάζειν. 18. ἡ χάρις x. 7.A.] On the varied nature of the Apostle’s concluding bene- dictions, see the exx. and illustrations in notes on 1 Thess. v. 28. μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν] ‘be with your spirit; not appy. with any allu- sion to the σάρξ (ἀπάγων αὐτοὺς τῶν cap- κικῶν, Chrys. ), but simply with reference to the πνεῦμα as the “ potior pars’ of man (‘hominem a potior; parte sic antiquis dici Theologis, nee novum nec inusita- tum est,’ Heinsius, Exerc. p. 429), and not improbably to the fact that it is in the spirit of man that the operations of grace make themselves felt ; τῇ ψυχῇ τὴν χάριν ἐπεύχεται γενέσϑαι, Cicum.; compare Philem. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 22, and notes in loc. ἀδελφοί) Here the un- usual position of the word seems to be intentional: they were indeed brethren, and though for a while severed from the Apostle, and the subjects of his censure, still brethren in their common Lord. TRANSLATION. Ὶ a uh; ἦϑ ed 6c ee τῷ as ¥ ἣν "-- ὌΝ ἃ, 7 s ἣν "2 Le —— ν ... a N OT ECHR. THE general principles on which this translation has been drawn up are explained in the Preface. I will here only again remind the reader that, as ἡ a general rule, I have not departed from the Authorized Version, unless it appears to be either incorrect, inexact, insufficient, obscure, or (see notice to Transl. of Past. Epp.) noticeably inconsistent in its translations of more im- portant expressions. These deviations are all stated in the notes, and if not there specially alluded to, or self-evident, will be found to depend on reasons assigned in the Commentary. I have also subjoined, in all the more impor- tant cases, citations from eight of the older versions, viz., those of Wiclif, Tyndale, Coverdale, (Bible), Coverdale (Testament), Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops’, and Rheims. For the citations from five of these (Wiclif’s, Tyn- dale’s, Cranmer’s, the Genevan and Rhemish Versions), I am indebted to Tue EneGiisu Hexarta, of Messrs. Bagster. Those from Coverdale have been taken respectively from the first edition of his Bible in 1535 (now made accessible to the general reader by the reprint of the same publishers), and from the same venerable translator’s Duglott Testament of 1538, which, though expressly taken from the Latin, still contains some interesting and suggestive translations. The citations from the Bishops’ Bible are derived from the second and slightly amended edition of 1572, a copy of the N. T. portion of which, in small portable quarto, appy. differing only from the folio edition in the modes of spelling, has been sometimes used for the sake of con- venience. All these extracts, though but of doubtful authority in disputed texts, will still be found frequently to suggest useful alternative renderings, and will also give the reader such a practical acquaintance with the princi- ples on which the Authorized Version was drawn up, as will tend to make him thankfully acknowledge, that it is truly, what Selden termed it, “ the best translation in the world.” The abbreviations in the notes will, I think, easily explain themselves. It may be only necessary to remark, that where an asterisk is affixed to a cita- tion from the Authorized Version, the deviation in the text has arisen from a different reading. In the text, the italics (which slightly differ from those 160 NOTICE. ; in the first edition of the Auth. Vers.) denote, as usual, words not in the original; the small capitals mark words which are emphatic in the original, but which could not occupy an emphatic position in the translation, without harsh inversions. In the present edition, a few emendations (especially in reference to the aorist) have been introduced into the translation, and a few additional com- ments, either on the reasons for the changes, or on general principles of translation, inserted in the notes: see Notice to Translation of the Epp. to the Thessalonians. p. 132.* As the subject of a revision of the Authorized Version is now becoming more and more one of the questions of the day, I again desire to remind the reader that the Revised Version which follows is only one designed for the closet (see Pref. to Pastoral Epp. p. xvi.), and that it isin no way to be con- sidered as a specimen of what might be thought a desirable form of an authoritative Revision. The more experience I gain in the difficult task of revising, the more convinced am I of the utter insufficiency and hopelessness of any single translator’s efforts to produce a Version for general purposes. The individual may sometimes suggest something more or less worthy of pass- ing consideration, but it is from the collective wisdom of the many that we must alone look for any hopeful specimen of a revision of the noble Version at present in use. * Encuisu EpITIon. THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. CHAPTER I. | aaa an apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from the dead, —/?’and ALL the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia. δ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,* who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of the present evil world, according to the will CuapTeR J, 1. From] ‘Of, Auth. and the other Vy. Though it does not seem desirable in every case to change the familiar ‘of,’ of Auth. into the now more usual ‘from,’ it is perhaps better to do so in most of the cases where it is used as a translation of ἀπό: where, on the other hand, ἐκ is used, ‘ of’ (‘out of’) will often be found a very convenient translation; see notes on chap. iii. 16. With regard to διά, it is nearly impossi- ble to lay down any fixed principles of translation: where the idea of medium is designed to be expressed with especial distinctness, we may adopt ‘through,’ but where this is not the case, the inclu- sive ‘hy’ (‘agent, instrument, cause, means, Johnson) will be found sutfii- ciently exact, and commonly much more idiomatic. 2. Which] It may be here observed that archaisms. as such, are not removed from the Authorized Version except where 21 a positive error is involved. Here there is none; ‘which’ is not merely the neu- ter of ‘who,’ but is a compound word ; Latham, Hngl. Lang. § 305. 4 (ed. 3). 3. And our] ‘And from our,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘of.’ It seems desirable to leave out the prep- osition in the second member, as more true to the original; see notes on Phil. i. 2 ( Transl.). 4. Out of | So Coverd (Test.) : ‘from,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. In the next words it seems better to retain Auth. (changing ‘this’ into ‘the’), as the transl. ‘world of evil’ (ed. 1), though betier preserving the unusual order of the Greek, might be thought to imply in the original the existence of a gen. of quality. tions, ‘ world,’ or ‘age’ (thouglt the for- mer perhaps more nearly) give the exact meaning of αἰών; the, best paraphrase seems, ‘spirit of the age;’ see notes on Neither of the usual transla- 102 GALATIANS. Cuar.I. 4.—9. of God and our Father: δ to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. 51 marvel that ye are so soon changed over from Him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different gospel: 7 which is NOT another; save that there are some who trouble you, and desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ. " Howbeit even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel unto you contrary to that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed. * As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth any gospel unto you contrary to that which ye received, let him be accursed. ™ For now am I making men my friends, or God? or Eph. ii. 2. God and our Father] Scholefield (Hints on 1 Cor. xv. 24), while fully admitting the reference of the gen. only to the latter noun, suggests the omission of the copula in translation (so Syr., ZEth.) as more conformable to the idiom of our language. As, how- ever, there are several cases where the copula is omitted in the Greek, and others, as here, where it is inserted, it seems best, in so solemn a designation, to preserve the distinction by a special and even peculiar translation: so Vulg., ‘Clarom., Copt., Arm., and Syr.-Philox. 5. The glory] ‘Glory,’ Auth. As the art. is appy. here used κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (see notes), and may be inserted in this pas- ‘sage without seriously violating English idiom, it seems best to follow here the usage of Auth. in Matth. vi. 13 (Mec.). 6. Changing over] ‘Removed,’ Auth.; ‘moved,’ Wirel.; ‘turned,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘transferred,’ Riem. By] So Cran.: ‘into,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘in,’ Tynd., Cov., Bish.; ‘unto,’ Cov. (Test.) Gen.: see notes. A different] ‘ Another,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 7. Save that] So Cov. (Test.): ‘but ‘there be some that,’ Auth.; ‘but that there be some,’ Wicl., Tynd., Cov., Cranmer, Gen., Bish.; ‘unless,’ Rhem. The present participle might at first sight seem to suggest the use of the auxiliary ‘are troubling ;’ as, however, of ταράσσοντες is equivalent to a kind of substantive, and serves to mark the characteristic of the false teachers, the (iterative) present is more appropriate ; comp. Latham, Engl. Lang., § 573 (ed. 3.). 8. Howbeit] Similarly Cov., Bish., ‘neuerthelesse :’ ‘ but,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vy. Even if | ‘ Though,’ Auth and the other Vv. except Lhem., ‘although,’ Should preach] ‘Preach,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. The idea of future contingency involved in the use of ἐὰν with subj. (Herm. Viger, No. 312), may here be suitably expressed by inserting should. Any gospel, etc.| ‘Any other gospel unto you than,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Bish.; ‘ other- waies than,’ Gen.; ‘beside that,’ Wiel., Rhem. Preached] ‘ Have preached,’ Auth. and the other Vy. 9. Have said] So Cov. (both), Rhem: ‘said,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Preacheth| ‘ Preach, Auth.; change to the indicative to preserve the opposition of moods in original; see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14. ( Transl.). Any gospel, etc.] ‘Other gospel unto you than that,’ Auth. Received] ‘ Have received, Auth. and the other Vy. except Wiel., ‘han undirfongen.’ 10. Now am I making, etc.] ‘Do I now παν. I. 10—15. GuLA TANS? 163 am I seeking to please men? if I were sTILL pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. “ Now I certify you, brethren, touching the gospel which was preached by me that it is not after man. ™” For neither did I re- ceive it from man, neither was I taught ¢t, but through revelation from Jesus Christ. ™ For ye heard of my conversation in time past in Judaism, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and was destroying it; “ and made advance in Judaism beyond many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceed- ingly zealous for the traditions persuade men,’ Auth., Bish.; Rhem.: ‘counceil,’ Weel.; ‘preach man’s doc- trine,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘ preach I men,’ Cov.; “speak fayre,’ Cov. ( Test.) ; ‘speak unto,’ Cran.; ‘use persuasion,’ Rhem. The change to the more definitely present, ‘am I making,’ seems required by the emphasis which evidently rests on ἄρτι. On the nature of the English present, comp. Latham, Engl. Lang. § 573, 579 (ed. 3). If] So Wiel., Tynd., Rhem.: ‘for if Auth, Cran., Gen. Am I seeking| ‘Do I seek,’ Auth., Wicl., Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘go I about,’ Tynd., and the remaining Vv. Were still pleasing] ‘ Yet pleased,’ Auth. A] ‘The,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicel., ‘ Christis servant.’ 11. Now] ‘But,’ Auth., Cov.; omitted in Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. Touching the Gospel, etc.] ‘ That the Gos- pel which was, ete. is not,’ Auth. Perhaps the text, which is more exactly in accordance with the order of the Greek, makes the denial a little more emphatic. By] ‘Of, Auth. and all the other Vy. 12. Did I receive] So Rhem.: “1 nei- ther received it,’ Auth., Cov., Cran.; ‘ne I took it of man, ne lerned,’ Wiel.; ‘ne- ther received I it,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘I did not receive it nor learned it,’ Cov. (Test.). There is here some little difficulty in both preserving the emphasis on ‘I,’ and also indicating that the first negative is not of my fathers. “ἢ But when it strictly correlative to the second. The insertion of the auxiliary perhaps par- tially effects this, as it places the ‘nei- ther’ a little further from the verb, and still leaves it in that prominence which ‘it seems most naturally to occupy. In ed. 1 (‘for I indeed received it not’), this latter point was perhaps too much sacrificed. From man] ‘ Of man,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., “bi man.’ Through rev. from] ‘By the rev. of,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wirel., ‘bi reuelacioun.’ 13. Ye heard] ‘Ye have heard,’ Auth. and the other Vy. Judaism | So Rhem.: ‘the Jews’ religion, Auth., Gen. (‘the Jewishe rel.’), Bish.; ‘the Ju- rie,’ Wicl.; ‘the Jews’ wayes,’ Tynd.; ‘the Jewshippe,’ Cov. > Was de- stroying it] ‘ Wasted it,’ Auth.; ‘faughte agen it,’ Wiel.; ‘spoyled it,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish; ‘drove them out,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘expugned it,’ Rhem. This change is in consequence of the strong meaning of πορϑέω, which it seems desirable to maintain. To resolve also the other imperfects would make the sentence heavy and cumbrous, and add but little to the sense. 14. Made advance, etc.] ‘Profited in (Wicel., Gen., Bish., Rhem.) the Jews’ religion above,’ Auth; ‘prevayled inj Tynd., Coverd., Cranmer. For] ‘Of, Auth. 15. Set me apart] ‘Separated me,’ 104 GALATIANS. Cuap. I. 15—23. pleased God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, ™ to reveal His Son within me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: ” neither went I away to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me ; but I went away into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. ™ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I tarried with him fifteen days. ™ But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the brother of the Lord. ” Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. * Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; * and remained unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: * but they were hearing only That he who was our persecutor in times past is now preach- Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘departid me,’ and Cov. (Test.), ‘sun- dered me.’ The change is made to pre- vent ‘from’ being understood as local : see notes. Through| ‘By,’ Auth. and the other Vv. In this passage, it seems desirable to adopt the more rigorous translation of did, as suggesting more distinctly the fact that χάρις was not the instrument, but the ‘causa medians ;” see notes. 16. Within] ‘In,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov., Bish., Rhem.; ‘by,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Cran.; ‘to,’ Gen., Rhem.: ‘heathen,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Con ferred] So Auth. This translation is not wholly adequate, but it is not easy to fix upon a The original word scems to involve two ideas, addressing more exact one. one’s self to (πρός, direction), and taking Most of the older transla- tions give prominence to the latter and more important idea, e. g. ‘I commened not of the matter,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Genev.; some of the moderns, e. g. Meyer, Lewin, express more. distinctly the for- mer. It seems difficult to combine both without paraphrasing. The singular translation in Cov. (Test.), ‘I did not graunt’ (comp. Rhem, ‘1 condescended not,’), results from the Vulg. ‘acquievi.’ counsel with. 17. Away (bis)]* ‘Up,’ Auth. In the concluding clause it seems better to maintain the order of Auth. ‘returned again,’ not as the Greek order might seem to suggest, ‘again returned’; for the πάλιν is only idiomatically added to’ the verb, and is appy. without any special emphasis ; comp. Acts xviii. 21, and see exx. in Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. τι. 4. 4. 18. Visit Cephas] ‘See *Peter,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 7 tarried| Sim. Lhem.: ‘abode,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘dwellid,’ Wiel. 19. The brother of the Lord] Sim. Rhem., ‘the brother of our Lord :’ ‘the Lord’s brother,’ Auth. and other Vv. This latter mode of translation is perhaps more appropriate when neither substan- tive has the article. 22. Remained] ‘ Was unknown,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 23. Were hearing] ‘Had heard,’ Auth., Cov., Rhem., Bish.; ‘hadden oonli an hearynge,’ Wiel.; ‘heard,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen. Conybeare and Howson have given a good paraphrase : ‘tidings only were brought them from time to time ;’ Erasm., ‘rumor apud illos erat. Who was our persecutor] ‘ Which perse- euted us,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., comp. ἘΩ͂Ν ΤΙ τ... GALATIANS. 165 ing the faith which once he destroyed. in me. * And they glorified God CHAP TEER iE THEN after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus also with me. * And I went up by reve- lation, and communicated unto them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputa- tion, lest by any means 1 might be running, or have run, in vain. 8 Howbeit not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: * and that, because of the false brethren craftily brought i, men who came in stealthily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: ὅ to whom we gave place by our sub- mission, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might Bish., Rhem.; ‘that pursued us,’ Wicl.; ‘that persecuted us,’ Cov.; ‘that did per- secute us,’ Cov. (Test.). Is now preaching] ‘ Now preacheth, Auth. Tynd., Cov. (‘pr. now’), Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘doth now preach,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘doth now evangelize, hem. The change is made to mark more definitely the present act ; comp. notes and ref. on ch. 1. 10. : Cuaprer II. 1. After fourteen years] So Rhem.: ‘fourteen years after,’ Auth. and the other Vy. (TZynd., Cov., ‘after that ;’ Cran., ‘ thereafter’). The change is perhaps desirable as it slightly tends to prevent the last-mentioned events being considered as the terminus a quo of the fourteen years. Titus also} So Rhem. * Titus with me also,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Gen; ‘Titus also beynge taken with me,’ Cov. (Test.); the rest omit καὶ in translation. 2. The Gospel] So all Vv. except Auth., ‘that Gospel.’ Might be running, etc.]. ‘Should (om. Wiel.) run or had run,’ Auth. and all Vv. The text seems to preserve more exactly, and per- haps also more grammatically, the con- trast between the pres. (subj.) and past tense. It may be observed that should ‘simpliciter futuritionem indicat’ might ‘de rei possibilitate dicitur;’ Wallis, Gram. Angl. p. 107. 3. Howbeit not even] Sim. Cov. (Test.), ‘neuerthelesse nother:’ ‘but neither,’ Auth., Rhem : ‘and neither, Wicl.; ‘also, Titus . .. yet, etc.’ Tynd., Crun., Gen. Though he was] ‘ Being,’ Auth. 4. The false, etc.| Similarly Rhem.: ‘false brethren unawares brought in, who,’ Auth.; ‘and that because of (‘ cer- tayne,’ Cov.) incommers beynge falce br.,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. Stealth- ily] ‘Privily,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) Cran., Gen., Bish ; Wicl. omits ; ‘ amonge other, Tynd., Cov.; ‘craftily,’ Rhem. Perhaps the change is desirable as avoiding repetition, and as harmonizing slightly better with the action described by the verb. 5. By our submission] ‘By subjection,’ Auth., Bish; ‘to subjeccioun ;’ ‘as con- cerning to be brought into subjection,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; ‘yelded not subjection,’ Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) omits. 166 GALATIANS. παρ, II. 6—9, continue with you. * But from those who were high in reputation, — whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accept- eth no man’s person, — to me certainly they who were of reputa- tion communicated nothing; * but contrariwise, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the circumcision, * (for He that wrought for Peter towards the apostleship of the circumcision, the same wrought for me also towards the Gentiles), *° and became aware of the grace that was given unto me, James, and Cephas, and John, who are accounted as pillars, gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship ; that we should be apostles unto the Gentiles, and 6. From] ‘Of,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘as to them;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘as for them.’ The change here scems necessary to prevent ‘of’ being considered a mere sign of the gen. case. Were high, etc.} ‘Seemed to be some- what,’ Arth., Cran., and sim. Cov. (Test.); ‘that seemed to be great,’ Cov., and sim. Tynd., Gen. The very slight distinction between δοκοῦντες and Sox. εἶναί τι, and the apparent ref. to the judgment of others (see notes) are appy. both conveyed more nearly by this translation than by the more literal rendering of Auth. To me certainly, etc.| ‘For they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me,’ Auth.; ‘added nothynge,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘taught me nothing,’ Cov; ‘avayled me nothing,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘dyd communicate nothing with me,’ Gen. 7. I was entrusted, ete.| ‘The gospel . . Was committed unto me as the Gos- pel of the circumcision was unto Peter,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vv. The change of order is made. for the sake of keeping the emphasis on πεπίστευμαι: see Meyer. Even as] ‘ As,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. On the translation of καϑώς, see notes on 1 Thess. i 5. 8. Wrought] So Wiel., Cov (Test.), Rhem.: ‘wrought effectually,’ Auth. ; ‘was mighty,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. The idea of effectual working, though to a considerable extent involved in ἐνεργεῖν, is perhaps scarcely sufficiently prominent to be expressed definitely ; see, however, notes on 1 Thess. ii. 13. For} Similarly Wicl., ‘to Peter:’ ‘in,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘with, Cov.; ‘by,’ Cov. (Test.), Gen. Towards| ‘To,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov., Bish., Rihem.; ‘in,’ Tynd. and the remaining Vv. Wrought] ‘Was mighty in me toward,’ Auth. All the other Vy. give the same translation to ἐνεργέω in the second clause that they adopt in the first. 9. And became aware, etc.] Similarly, as to order, Wicl., Tynd., Cran., Bish., Rhem., except that they repeat the idio- matic ‘when’ in the translation of the tem- poral participle γνόντες, but thus slightly impair the natural sequence of the ἔδοντες . καὶ γνόντες. Auth. inverts, ‘and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be,’ ete.; Cov. turns into a finite verb, ‘they perceived.’ And Cephas| Sim. Wicl., Rhem.: Auth. and the remaining Vv. omit ‘and, Are accounted as} ‘Seemed to be,’ Auth. and all the Vv. except Wrel., ‘weren seyn to be;’ Gen., ‘are taken to be.’ Right hands] *The right hands,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel, ‘right hond.’ Be apostles} So Cran., Bishs * should go,’ Auth.; ‘that we among Cuap. II. 9—15. GALATIANS. 167 they unto the circumcision. ” Only they would that we should remember THE POOR; which very thing I also was forward to do. 4 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he had been condemned. “ἢ For before that certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles ; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearmg them which were of the circumcision. ™ And the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with by their dissimulation. ὁ Howbeit when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how ἐ5 ἐξ that thou constrainest the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews? * WE truly are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles; the hethen,’ Wiel; ‘shuld preach,’ Tynd., ing Vv. Also dissembled| ‘ Dis- Cov. (both), Gen.; ‘that we unto,’ Rhem. Gentiles] So Gen., Rhem.: ‘heathen,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 10. Which very thing] ‘The same which,’ Auth.; ‘the whiche thing,’ Wicl., Cov. Test. (‘thing also’); ‘whiche thing also,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘wher in also,’ Cran., Bish.; ‘the which same thing also,’ Rhem. 11. Cephas] * ‘ Peter,’ Auth. Came] So Cov. (Test.): ‘was come,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Had been condemned| ‘Was to be blamed,’ Auth., Bish.; *was worthy to be blamed,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran, Gen., and similarly Wel., ‘to be undirnomen ;’ ‘ was blame- able,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘was reprehensible,’ Rhem. 12, Certain men came] ‘ Certain were come,’ Auth. Was eating] ‘Did eat,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran. Bish., Rhem.; ‘ete,’ Wicl., Tynd., Gen. Began to, ete | ‘ Withdrew and separated,’ Auth and all Vy. The imperf. denotes the commencement and continuance of the act, or as Bengel, ‘ subducebat paullatim.’ 13. The rest of the] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem: ‘the other,’ Auth and the remain- sembled likewise,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Bish.: the other Vv. omit the καὶ in translation. Even Barnabas} ‘Barnabas also,’ Auth. By their] Auth. omits ‘by ;’ ‘into,’ Wiel. and the remaining Vy. 14. Howbeit] ‘But,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. Were not walking] ‘Walked not,’ Auth. Cephas} ; ‘Peter,’ Auth. All] So: Cov. (both), and sim. Wirel., Tynd , Gen., ‘all! men :’ ‘them all,’ Auth., and the remain« ing Vv. How cometh it, ete. * ‘Why compellest thou,’ Auth., and sim. Riem., ‘dost thou compel;’ ‘hou con- streynest thou,’ Wic/.; ‘ why causest thou,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. Keep the customs, εἰς. “ΤῸ live as do the Jews,’ Auth., and sim. the other Vy. ex- cept Ehem., ‘ Judaize.’ 15. We (truly) are, etc.| Similarly Rhem: ‘we who are Jews by nature,’ Auth, Tynd, Cran., Gen.; ‘though we be, ete.’ Cov.; ‘we which are. . . know.” Bish. This address of St Paul to St. Peter involves so many difficulties both. in meaning and connection, that it will: be perhaps best to subjoin a free para-. 108 GALATIANS. Cuap. IL. 15—17. % but as we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save onlysthrough faith in Jesus Christ, — we too believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; since by the works of the law shall no. flesh be justified. " But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we are found ourselves also to be sinners, is Christ therefore a phrase of the whole. ‘We, I concede, are by birth Jews, not Gentiles, and con- sequently, from our point of view, sin- ners; but as we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, in fact is not justified at all, except through faith in Christ ;— even we, with all our privi- leges, believed in and into Christ, that we might be justified, ete. But what, if, while we are seeking to be justified in Christ, the result show that we, with all our privileges, are sinners like the Gen- tiles ; is Christ the minister of a dispen- sation that after all only leads to sin? God forbid! For if I (or you) build up again the system I pulled down, and set up nothing better in its place, it is thus, and not in seeking to be justified in Christ, that I show myself {vox horren- da!) a transgressor of the law; yes, a violator of its deeper principles. For I (to adduce a proof from my own spiritual experience) through the medium of the law, and in accordance with its higher principles, died unto it in regard to its claims and its curse: I have been and am crucified with Christ. Though I live then, it is no longer as my old self, but as refinimated by Christ; yes, the life which now I live, this earthly, mundane life, L live in the element of faith in Christ, who so loved me that He gave His own life for me. Thus I do not, like these Judaists, regard the grace of God as a principle that could be dispensed with ; for if, as they pretend, the law is suffi- cient to make men righteous, the obvious inference is, there was no object in the death of Christ. 16. But as we know] ‘ Knowing,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘we which ... knowe,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.. Bish; ‘ yet insomuche as we knowe,’ Cov. Sve only through, ete.| ‘ But by the faith of Jesus Christ,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov., ‘on J. C.;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘save by the faith by J. C.’ We too helieved| ‘Even we have believed in J. C.,’ Auth.; ‘and we bileuen,’ Wiel.; ‘we have believed also,’ Cov.; ‘we also beleue,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘and we have bel. on,’ Cran., Bish., Tynd; (‘and therfor’) ‘even we I say have bel. in,’ Gen. Faith in| ‘ The faith of, Auth. and all Vv. Since] ‘ For, Auth.; ‘because that,’ Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen.; ‘wherfor,’ Wicel.; ‘because,’ Bish ; ‘for the which cause,’ Rhem. 17. In Christ] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Khem: ‘vy Christ,’ Auth. and remaining Vv. We are found, etc.) ‘We ourselves also are found sinners,’ Auth. English idiom here, in consequence of the union with the pres. part., seems to require the pres. ‘are found” as the translation of εὑρέϑημεν. The aorist in the original has an idiomatic reference to a discovery past and done with, and about which no more need be said, which can- not be expressed without paraphrase ; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 433. 15 Christ, ete.] ‘Is therefore Christ the,’ Auth. God forbid| Auth. and all Vv. except Cov (Test.), ‘that be farre.’ On reconsideration it would seem best, and eyen practically most exact, that in a passage of the present nature, where the revulsion of feeling and thought is very decided, to retain the familiar and idiomatic translation of Auth, GALATIANS. Cuap. III. 1. DF 169 minister of sin? God forbid! 8 For if the things that I destroyed THESE again I build up, [ prove myself a transzressor. ™ For I through the law died to the law, that I might live unto God. ” I have been crucified with Christ: it is, however, no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me; yea the life which Now I live in the flesh I live in faith, — faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. ™ I do not make void the grace of God; for if righteousness come THROUGH THE LAW, then for nought did Christ die. CHAPTER: Itt. Q foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently set forth’ among you, CRUCIFIED. his only would I learn of you, Was it by the works of the law that ye 18. The things that I destroyed] ‘1 build again the things which I destroyed,’ Auth., Cran., Bish.; ‘that which,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘the same things againe which, Ahem. The inversion, though involving a slight irregularity in struc- ture, seems here needed, as serving both to keep the emphasis on the right words, and to exhibit the true point of the argu- ment. Prove myself | ‘Make myself,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 19. Died] ‘Am dead,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cran., ‘haue bene deed’ 20. Have been crucified] ‘Am cruci- fied,’ Auth., and sim., as to the auxiliary, all the other Vy. Of the two modes of expressing the Greek perfect (‘am’ and ‘have been’), the latter seems here most appropriate, as the associated aor. ren- ders the ref. to past time more prominent than one to present effects ; see notes on Col. i. 16 ( Transl.). ever, etc.| ‘ Nevertheless I live; yet not I, Auth., sim. Cov., Cran.; ‘I live verely, yet now not I,’ Tynd., Gen. Yea] ‘And,’ Auth., Gen., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; ‘for, Tynd., Cov.; ‘but,’ Wiel, Cor. (Test.). Now I] ‘I now,’ Auth, 22 It is, how- In faith, etc.| ‘ By (‘in,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.), the faith of,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. 21. Make void] ‘Frustrate,’ Auth. ; ‘east not awei,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘despyse not,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘do not ab- rogate,’ Gen.; ‘reject not,’ Bish. Through] So Wicl.: ‘by,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Rhem.; ‘of, Tynd., Gen., Cran.; Bish. For nought| ‘In vain,’ Auth., Tynd, Cov., Cran. Bish., Rhem ; ‘without cause,’ Wicl., Gen. (‘a cause.’) Did Christ die] ‘Christ is dead,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘died,’ Wicel., and the remaining Vy. The slight change in the text seems to give the due prominence to δωρεάν, and also to preserve a_ better rhythm than the unresolved ‘ died.’ Carter III. 1. Did bewitch] ‘Hath bewitched,’ Auth. and the other Vv. * Auth inserts after ‘you,’ ‘ that ye should not obey the truth.’ 2. Was it, etc.| Similarly Rhem., ‘by the workes of the law did you receiue ? ‘received ye the Spirit by the,’ ete. Auth., and sim. as to order all the remaining MNGi 170 GALATIANS. . Crap. ΠῚ. 3—10, received the Spirit, or by the hearing of faith? * Are ye so very foolish ? having begun with the Spirit are ye now being made per- fect with the flesh? ‘Did ye suffer so many things in vain, if indeed it really be in vain. ὅ He then, J say, that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh mighty powers within you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith ? δ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. ‘ Know ye then that THEY WHICH ARE OF FAITH, the same are the sons of Abraham. * Moreover the Scrip- ture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by FAITH, pro~ claimed beforehand the glad tidings unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations BE BLESSED. 5 So then they which be of faith are blessed together with the faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse: 3. So very] ‘So,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov., ‘ such fooles.’ Begun with| So Rhem.: ‘begun in’? Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov., ‘by.’ Being made perfect with| ‘ Made perfect by” Auth., Genev. (‘in’); ‘ben ended,’ Wicl.; ‘nowe ende,’ Tynd., Cov. (Test.); ‘ende now then,’ Cov.; ‘ende in,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘be consummate with,’ hem. 4. Did ye suffer] ‘Have ye suffered,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Bish, Rhem., and sim. the other Vv., except that they do not adopt the interrogative form. Indeed it really be] ‘It be yet,’ Auth., Bish; ‘if that be vayne,’ Tynd., Gen.; ‘yf it be also in vayne,’ Cran.; ‘if yet without cause,’ Rhem. 5. LHe then, etc.| ‘He therefore,’ Auth., Cov. (Test ), Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘more- over, he, ete.,’ Cran.; Wicl., Tynd., Cov. omit οὖν in translation. Mighty powers, etc.| ‘Miracles among you,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘vertues in you;’ Cov., ‘great actes.’ 7. Then] ‘Therefore’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov., ‘thus I know,’ and Gen., ‘so ye know.’ The only other version that takes γινώσκετε indicatively is that of Cranmer. Sons] So Wicl.: ‘children,’ Auth. and the remain- ing Vv. 8. Moreover] ‘And,’ Auth., Wiel., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘for,’ Tynd. and remain- ing Vv. (Cov. omits). Justificth] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘would justify,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen ; ‘jus- tifyed,’ Cov. The Gentiles] So Gen., Rhem.: ‘the heathen,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. By faith] So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and sim. Wiel., ‘of faith ’ ‘through faith,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Proclaimed be- forchand, etc.) Sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran.: ‘preached before the Gospel,’ Auth., Gen. _(‘before hand’); ‘told to for,’ Wiel.; ‘told,’ Cov. (Test); ‘shewed. . . before,’ Rhem. All the nations| Sim. Wicl., Cov., ‘alle the hethen:’ ‘all na- tions,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. ex- cept Gen., ‘all the Gentiles.’ The change in the translation of τὰ ἔϑνη in the same verse seems required by a kind of chron- ological propriety. 9. Together with] ‘ With,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. The faithful| So Bish., Rhem.: ‘faithful,’ Auth. and all the remaining Vy. 10. Curse] So Wicl., Rhem., and sim- Cuape. III. 11—17. GALATIANS. 171 for it is written, Cursed ¢s every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. ™ But further, that in the law no man is justified in the sight of God, 7 is evident ; because, The just shall live by Fartu. ™ Now the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them..... 15 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become A cursE for us,— because it is written, Cursed 7s every one that hangeth on a tree, —™ that unto the Gentiles the blessing of Abra- ham might come in Christ Jesus; that we might receive the prom- ise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but ὃ MAN’S covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no man annul- leth it, or addeth new conditions. ™ Now to Abraham were the promises made, AND TO HIS SEED. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 7 Now this I say, A covenant, that hath been before confirmed by ilarly Tynd., ‘under malediccion :’ ‘the curse,’ Auth., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen., Bish. _ 11. But further, etc.] ‘But that no man is justified by the law,’ Auth. Be- cause] So Rhem.: ‘for,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 12. Now] ‘And,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen., Bish.; Tynd., Cov., Cran., omit ; ‘but,’ Wiel, Rhem. He| * ‘The man,’ Auth. 13. Redeemed] Similarly Wiel., ‘ agen- bought’ ‘hath redeemed,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. except Cov., ‘hath de- lyuered.’ Having become] ‘ Be- ing made,’ Auth., Bish., Rhem.; ‘and was made,’ Wiel., Tynd.; ‘when he became,’ Cov; ‘beynge become,’ Cov. (Test.) ; ‘inasmoch.as he was made,’ Cran.; ‘when he was made,’ Gen. Be- cause] So Rhem: ‘ for, Auth. and the re- maining Vv. 14. Unto the Gentiles] ‘Come on the Gentiles,’ Auth. In Christ J | ‘Through ἈΦ. C.,’ Auth, Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘in,’ Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem. 15. Yet when it hath been] ‘Yet if it be, Auth. The temporal translation in the text is adopted by Tynd.. Cov.: the hypothetical by Auth. with Cran., Bish.: the remaining Vy. adopt purely particip- jal translations. Annulleth it, etc.| ‘Disannulleth or addeth thereto,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘ ordeyneth above,’ Wiel; ‘addeth anything thereto.” Tynd, Cov (sim. Test.), Cran., Gen.; ‘further disposeth,’ Rhem. 16. Were the promises, etc.] Sim. Rhem., Wicl.: ‘and his seed were the promises,’ ete., Auth. and the remaining Vv. 17. Now this] ‘ And this,’ Auth., Gen., Rhem.; ‘but,’ Wiel., Cov. (Test ); Tynd., Cov, Bish., omit 5€. The translation of δὲ is here somewhat difficult. Though ‘now’ has just preceded, it must appy. be adopted again as the only translation which seems to preserve the resumptive force. A covenant] ‘ The cove- nant,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wiel and Cov. (both), ‘ this.’ Huth been before confirmed| firmed before,’ Auth.. Tynd, Cov , Cran., Gen; ‘was given,’ Cov (Test.); ‘the Wiel. ‘Was con- test. being confirmed,’ Rhem.; 172 God [for Christ], the law, which was four hun ‘red nd thirty years after, doth not invalidate, that it should make void the promise. * For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but to Abraham God hath freely given it THROUGH PROMISE. ” What then is the object of the law? It was added because of the transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and was ordained by means of angels, in the hand of a mediator. * Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. — Js the law then against the promises of Gop ? God fo: bid! for if there had been given’a law which could have given life, verily by the law would righteousness have come. = But, on the contrary, the Scripture shut up all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that GALATIANS. Cuap. III. 17—23. believe. wholly inverts. By God, εἰς. “Οὐ God in Christ,’ Auth. Doth not, εἰς. Sim. Tynd, Cran., Bish.: ‘can- not disannul,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘makith not veyn, Wrel.; ‘is not disannulled,’ Cov.; ‘makith not void,’ Ihem.; Cov (Test.), confuses. Make void) Similarly Wic/. (‘to avoide away’) and Cov. (Test.): ‘make the promise of none effect,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘to frus- trate,’ Fthem. 18. But to Abraham, etc.| ‘But God gaye it to Abraham by promise, Ath, and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘gave freely ;’ Wicel., ‘ grauntide.’ Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. ς 19. What then, etc.| ‘Wherefore then serveth,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov. (sim. Test.), Cran , Gen, Bish ; “what thanne the law,’ Wicl.; ‘why was the law then,’ Rhem. The transgressions| Auth. and all the other Vy. omit the article; in a passage, how- ever, of this dogmatical importance, it ought appy. to be retained. Hath been made] ‘ Was made,’ Auth. Tynd., Cran, Gen.; ‘He hadde made behcest,’ Wicl.; ‘He had promised,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Auth. And was] ‘ And it was,’ By means of | * By,’ Auth. Ὁ Now before that faith came, we were kept in ward and the other Vv. except Cov., ‘of an- gels.’ 21. Given a law] ‘ A law given,’ Auth. Verily by the, etc.| * Verily ( Wiel.) right- eousness should have been by the law,’ Auth.; ‘then no doute, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen, Bish.; ‘shuld have come,’ Tynd., Gen. 22. But on the contrary] ‘But,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. The addition of the words “on the contrary” seem here required in translation to preserve the true force of ἀλλά, and to show clearly the nature of the reasoning. Shut up all] Similarly, as to the omission of ‘hath,’ Tynd., Cran., ‘concluded all things :’ ‘hath concluded all, Awh.. Bish; ‘hath concluded all things,’ Wrel., Gen., Rhem. Faith in) + Faith of, Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov., ‘faith on.’ 23. Now] ‘But,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wiel.,*and ;’ Tynd. and Cov. omit. Before that} So Tynd., Cran., and similarly Wiel., ‘to for that;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘afore that τ ‘ before, Auth. and the remaining Vv. Kept in ward, etc.] ‘ Kept under the law shut up,’ Auth; ‘kept under the lawe, en- Cuap. IIT. 23—29. GALATIANS. 178 shut up under the law for the faith which afterwards was to be revealed. * So then the law hath been our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we may be justified BY FAITH. 35 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a school- master. * For ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus. ™” For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ. 8 There is among swch neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male and female: for ye all are one in Christ Jesus. *® But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye ABRA- HAM’S SEED, heirs according to promise. closid,’ Wicl.; ‘kept and shut up, etc.,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘kept under the law and were shut up,’ Cran., Bish. For] ‘ Unto,’ Auth. Afterwards was, etc.| ‘Which should aft. be rev.,’ Auth., Gen., Bish.; sim. Tynd., Cov., Cran. (‘be declared’). _ 24. So then] ‘ Wherefore,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘and so,’ Wiel. ; ‘thus,’ Cov.; ‘therefore,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Hath been our school- master unto] ‘Was our schoolmaster to bring us unto,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘undir mais- ter in Christ,’ Wiel.; ‘scolemaster unto the time of,’ Tynd.; ‘scolemaster unto,’ Cov. (both), Cran., Bish.; ‘pedag. in,’ Rhem. There is much difficulty in fix- ing on the most suitable translation of this word. The term ‘schoolmaster’ certainly tends to introduce an idea (that of teaching) not in the original, and also serves to obscure the idea of custodia (‘ custos incorruptissimus,’ Hor. Sat. 1. 6. 81), which seems the prevailing one of the passage. Still as the same objection applies in a greater or less degree to ‘pedagogue’ (ed. 1) and ‘tutor,’ it will be perhaps better, in so familiar a pas- sage, to return to Auth. May be] ‘ Might be,’ Auth.: change to preserve what is called the succession of tenses, Latham, Engl. Lang. § 616 (ed. 3). 25. Now that] ‘So Cov.: ‘after that,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘whan the fayth did come;’ Rhem., ‘when the faith came.’ 26. Sons] So Tynd., Gen: Auth. and the remaining Vv., ‘the children.’ Through the fuith] ‘By faith, Auth., Gen., Bish., Rhem.; ‘thorugh bileue,’ Wiel.; ‘by the fayth which is in,’ Zynd., Cov. (Test.) ; ‘because ye believe in,’ Cran. » 27. Were baptized] ‘Have been bap- tized,’ Auth. ‘are baptized,’ Tynd. ( Wicl., ‘ben’) and all the remaining Vy. Put on] ‘Have put on,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel, ‘ben clothid.’ 28. There is among such, etc.| ‘There is neither, etc.,’ Auth. No male and female] ‘Neither male nor female,’ Auth. None of the other Vy. seem to have marked the change. All are] ‘ Are all,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Rhem., ‘al you are.’ 29, But] So Cov. (Test.): ‘and,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem. The rest omit the particle. Heirs] So Rhem.: * ‘and heirs,’ Auth. 114 GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 1s. CHAPTER IV Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth in nothing from a bond-servant, though he be lord of all; * but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed of the father. * Even so we, when we were children, were kept in bondage under the rudiments of the world: * but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, ° that He might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. ° And to show that ye ARB sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, erying, Abba Father. 7 So then thou art no more a servant, but a son ; and if a son, an heir also through God. 8 Howbeit, at that time, truly, not knowing God, ye were in Cuarrer IV. 1. Jn nothing] ‘ Noth- ing,’ Auth., Wiel., Cov. (Test), Bish, Rhem.; ‘ differeth not,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen; ‘there is no diff.,’ Cov. Bond- servant] ‘Servant,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Itseems desirable to keep up the idea of ‘bondage’ and ‘slavery’ which pervades the whole simile. 2. Guardians] ‘ Tutors,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘kepers ;’ Cov., ‘rulers.’ It seems desirable to make a change in translation to preserve a dis- tinction between ἐπίτροπος here and παι- daywyds in the preceding chapter. Stewards] ‘Governors, Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘kepers and tutores.’ 3. Kept in bondage] ‘ Were in bondage under,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov. (Test.), Rhem., " were seruynge under.’ Rudiments| So Gen., Bish.: ‘elements,’ Auth., Wiel, Rhem.; ‘ ordinances,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘tradicions, Cov. (both). 4. Came] So Wiel, Rhem.: ‘was come,’ Wiel., ‘serueden undir ;’ Auth. and sim. the remaining Vy. Born ...born| ‘Made... made, Auth., Wiel , Rhem., Bish. (‘and made under’) ; ‘born... made bonde unto, 7ynd., Cran.; «borne and put under,’ Cov.; ‘made... made bonde unto,’ Gen. The meaning preferred by Scholef. (Hints, p. 96), ‘made subject to the law,’ involves a change of meaning in γενόμενον, which does not appear necessary or natural. 5. That he might] So Rhem., and sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.): ‘to redeem,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. Here as in ch. iii. 14 it seems most exact to indicate the repeated ἵνα by the same form of trans- lation. 6. To show that] ‘Because,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘for ye ben; Cov., ‘forsomuche then as.’ Sent forth] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), ‘sente:’ ‘hath sent forth,’ Auth; ‘hath sent,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Rhem.; ‘hath sent out,’ Gen. Our hearts] ‘* Your hearts,’ Auth. 7. So then] ‘ Wherefore,’ Auth., Gen., Bish.; ‘and so,’ Wicl.; ‘wherefore now,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘therefore,’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem. An heir, εἰς. ‘Then an heir * of God through Christ,” Auth. 8. At that time, etc.] ‘Then when ye know (sic in Bagst.) not,’ Auth.; ‘thanne ye unknowynge,’ Wiel.; ‘when ye knewe not,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘but then truely not knowynge,’ Cov. Cuap. IV. 8—15. GALATIANS. 175 bondage to them which by nature are not gods. ἥ But now that ye have come to know God, or rather have been known by God, how ts ἐξ that ye turn back again to the weak and beggarly rudi- ments, whereunto ye desire to be again anew in bondage. ™ Ye are carefully observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. ™ T am apprehensive of you, lest haply I have bestowed upon you labor in vain. “ Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as ye are. Ye injured me in nothing: ” yea ye know that it was on account of weakness of my flesh that I preached the gospel unto you the first time; "ἢ and your temptation in my flesh ye despised not, nor loathed, but received me as an angel of God, yea as Christ Jesus. (Test.) ; ‘then in deede knowing,’ Rhem. The change in the translation of τότε is to prevent ‘then’ being mistaken for the inferential particle. * Were in bond- age| ‘ Ye did service,’ Auth. Not gods| ** No gods,’ Auth. 9. Now that ye have come to know| ‘Now, after that ye have known,’ Auth. Have been known] ‘Are known,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Gen., ‘are taught.’ By God\| ‘Of God,’ Auth., and all the other Vy. How is it that] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen-: ‘how,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Bish., Rhem. Ye turn back| So Cov.: ‘turn ye,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Gen., ‘are turned backward unto.’ Rudiments} So Bish.: ‘elements,’ Auth., Wicl., Rhem.; ‘cerimonies,’ Tynd, Gen.; ‘tradicions,’ Cov. (both); ‘ ordinaunces,’ Cran. Cov., Cran., Bish., ‘againe afresshe :’ Cov. (Test), Rhem.; ‘as from the begynnyng ye wil be in bondage backwardly,’ Gen. 10. Carefully observiny| * Observe,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘taken kepe to.’ Again anew| Sim. Tynd g ynd , ‘again,’ Auth., and sim Seasons] * Times,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. 11. Am apprehensive] ‘Am afraid,’ Auth; ‘Tdrede, Wiel.; ‘am in feare of,’ * Of what nature then was the boasting of Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. Bish. ‘feare me.’ Cov. (Test.); ‘fear,’ Rhem. 12. Become as, etc.| ‘Be as 1 am; for Iam as ye are: ye have not injured me at al,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘ye have not hurte me wt all,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 13. Yea ye know, etc.| ‘Ye know how through infirmity, ete.,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘bi in- firmyte;’ Cov., ‘in weakness.’ The slight changes made by substituting the simpler word ‘ weakness’ for ‘ infirmity,’ and ‘my’ for ‘the,’ seem to make the reference of the Apostle to some bodily affliction or illness slightly more appar- ent. The first time] ‘ At the first,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except JWicl., ‘now bifor ;’ Cov. (‘Test.), ‘a whyle ago ? this translation leaves the meaning am- biguous ; see notes. 14. Your] *‘My,’ Auth; see notes. In my flish] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘which was,’ Auth., Cran. Gen., Bish., and sim. Tynd. Loathed| ‘Rejected,’ Auth., Rhem.; ‘forsaken,’ Wicl.; ‘abhorred,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. Yea] So Tynd., Cov. (Test.), Gen.: ‘even,’ Auth., Cov., Cran., Bish.; Wicl., Rhem. omit. 15. Of what nature, etc.| ‘ Where* is then the blessedness ye spake of,’ Auth.; 176 : GALATIANS. Cuar. IV. 15—24. your blessedness ? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possi- ble, ye would have plucked out your éyes, and have given them to me. ™ So then, am I become your enemy, by speaking to you the truth ? “ They pay you court in no honest way; yea, they desire to exclude you, that ye may pay THEM court. ™ But it is good to be courted in honesty AT ALL TIMES, and not only when I am present with you... ™ My little children, of whom I am again in travail, until Christ be formed in you, ” I could indeed wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone, for 1 am perplexed about you. 4 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? * For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; one by the bond-maid, and one by the free-woman. * Howbeit, he who was of the bond-maid was born after the flesh; but he of the free-maid was through the promise. *™ All which things are allegorical ; for ‘your blessynge,’ Wicl.; ‘how happy were ye then,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘your hap- pynesse,’ Cov. (Test); ‘your felicitie,’ Cran., Bish; ‘ boasting of your fel.,’ Gen ; ‘vour blessedness,’ Rhem. Your] So Wiel, Cov. (Test.), Rhem.: ‘your own,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. 16. So then] ‘Am I therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘thanne.’ By speaking] ‘ Because I tell,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., ‘seiynge;’ Cov. (Test.), Rhem., ‘telling.’ 17. Pay you court, etc.] ‘Zealously affect you, but not well,’ Auth.; ‘gelous over you amysse,’ Tynd. and other Vv. except Wicl., ‘louen you not well ;’ Them., ‘emulate.’ Desi to] ‘Would,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov., Rhem.; ‘intende to,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘wyll,’ Cov. (Test.). May pay them court] ‘ Might affect them,’ Auth. 18. To be courted, etc.] ‘To be zeal- ously affected always in a good thing,’ Auth.; ‘to be fervent,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘to love earnestly,’ Gen.; ‘to be zelous,’ Bish. 19. Am again] " Travail in birth again,’ Auth. 20. I could indeed wish] ‘I desire,’ Auth.; ‘but I desire,’ Bish.; ‘I wolde I were,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., and similarly the remaining Vv. Tone] * Voice,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. Am perplered, εἰς. ‘I stand in doubt of you,’ Auth., and similarly Tynd., Cor., Cran., Gen., Bish ; ‘am ashamed of you,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘am confoundid,’ Wiel., Rhem. 22. One—and one] So Wicl., Rhem: “the one — the other,’ Auth. and the re- maining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘the one —and one.’ The bond-maid .... the free-woman] Sim. Rhem.: ‘A bond-maid . . . a free-woman,’ Auth., and sim. the remaining Vv. 23. Howlbeit] ‘But,’ Auth., Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘yee and,’ Tynd., Cran., Gen.; Cov. omits. Bond-maid] ‘Bond-woman,’ Auth. Through] ‘ By,’ Auth., and sim. remaining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘after.’ 24. All which, etc.] ‘Which things are an allegory,’ Auth.; ‘ben seide bi anothir Σ — —_ Cuap. IV. 24—31. GALATIANS. Tit these women are two covenants,— the one from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondaye ; and this is Agar. * For the word Agar signifieth in Arabia Mount Sinai;—and she ranketh with Jerusalem which now is, for she is in bondage with her children. * But Jerusalem which is above is free, AND SHE is our mother. ” For it is written, Rejoice thow barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many children hath the desolate one more than she which hath an husband. * But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. ™ Still as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so its now. Ὁ Nevertheless what saith the scripture ὃ Cast out the bond-maid and her son: for the son of the bond-maid shall in no wise BE HEIR with the son of the free-woman. * Where- fore, brethren, we are not children of a bond-maid, but of the free- woman. understondinge,’ Wiel.; ‘betoken mys- tery, Zynd.; ‘betoken somewhat,’ Cov.; ‘are spoken by an allegory,’ Cran., and sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; ‘by the which thinges another thing is ment,’ Gen., Bish. Two] * ‘The two,’ Auth. These women] So Tynd., Cov.; ‘these,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Gen., ‘these mothers.’ Bearing children, ete.| ‘ Which gendereth to,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., ‘gendrynge ;’ Cov. (Test.), ‘engendrynge.’ And this| ‘Which,’ Auth. 25. The word, etc.| ‘This Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,’ Auth., Bish. (‘the mount’); ‘for mounte S. is called A. in Arab.,’? Tynd.; ‘for Agar is called in Arabia the Mount Sin.,’ Cov.; ‘for Sin. is a mountaine in Ar.,’ Gen., Cov. (Test.), Rhem. Ranketh with] ‘Answereth to,’ Auth., Gen. ‘is joyned to it,’ Wiel., Cov. (Test.); ‘bordereth upon,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. (see notes) ; ‘reacheth unto,’ Cov.; ‘hath affinitie to,’ Rhem. For she] *< And she,’ Auth. 26. And she, etc.] mother of us all,’ Auth, ‘Which zs the 23 Cuap. V. Stand fast then in the liberty for which 27. For many more, etc.] Sim. Rhem.: ‘for the desolate hath many more chil- dren than she which hath,’ Auth. An husband| So Auth. and all the other Vy. Idiom seems to require this less accurate translation. 28. But ye] ‘Now * we,’ Auth. Children] So Tynd., Gen: ‘the children,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Wicl., ‘sones.’ 29. Still] ‘But,’ Auth.,and all the other Vv. 30. Bond-maid (bis)| ‘Bondwoman,’ Auth. Shall in no wise] So Bish. (ed. 2): ‘shall not,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. This seems one of the cases in which we may press the translation of οὐ μή : see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15. 81. Wherefore] *‘So then,’ Auth. A bond-maid| ‘The bondwoman,’ Auth. and all the other Vy. ‘Free,’ Auth. Free-woman] CuarTEeR V. 1. Then] ‘ Therefore,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., Rhem., which omit. For which] ‘Wherewith,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Bish.: Wicel., Gen., follow different readings.. GALATIANS. Cuar. V. 1—7, 178 Christ made us free, and be not held fast again in a yoke of borfdage. * Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, caRIst will profit you nothing. -* Yea I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the WHOLE law. * Ye have been done away with from Christ, whosoever of you are being justified in the law; ye are fallen away from grace. ὅ For we, by the Spirit, are tarrying for the hope of righteousness from faith. ° For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avyaileth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. ‘ Ye were running well; who did hinder you that ye should not Made us| ‘ Hath made,’ Auth. Held Jast, ete.] ‘Entangled again with a,’ Auth., “wrappe not yourselves in the,’ Tynd., Cran., and sim. Cov., Gen.; ‘be not holden with (in the,’ Wiel.), Cov. (Test.) Rhem. 2. Will] ‘Shall,’ Auth. and the. other Vy. except Cov. (present) ; simple predi- cation of result: ‘in primis personis shall simpliciter preedicentis est, will quasi promittentis aut minantis; in secundis et tertiis personis shall promittentis est aut minantis, will simpliciter praedicen- tis,’ Wallis, Gr. Angl. p. 106. 3. Yea] ‘For, Auth., Gen., Bish.; ‘and,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; Tynd., Cov., Cran. omit. Who has him- self, etc.| ‘That is circumcised,’ Auth., and similarly Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘circumcidith hym silf,’ Wiel.; sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 4. Ye have, etc.| ‘ Christ is become of no cffect unto you,’ Auth.; ‘and ye ben voidid aweie fro,’ Wiel.; ‘are gone quyte from,’ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; ‘Christ is be- come but in veyne unto,’ Cran., Bish. ; ‘are evacuated from,’ hem. Here idiom seems to require the English perfect: the pure aoristic translation, ‘ye were done away with from Christ,’ stands in too marked a contrast with the following present, and to the English reader too completely transfers the action to what is purely past; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16 (Transl.). Are being justified] ‘Are justified,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov., ‘wyll be made ryghteous ;’ Cov. (Test ), ‘are made ryghteous.’ In the] So Wicel., Rhem.: ‘in the,’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. Fallen away] ‘Fallen,’ Auth. 5. By the Spirit, etc.] ‘Through the Spirit wait for the hope of right, by faith,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘we loke for and hope in the sprite to be justified thorow,’ Tynd., Cran; ‘in the sprite of hope to be made ryght- uous by faith,’ Cov.; ‘in sprite by faythe we wayte for,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘we wayt for (by the Spirit through faith) the hope of,’ Gen. Are tarrying for] ‘Wait for,’ Auth. Cov. (Test.), Gen.- Bish.; ‘abiden,’ Wicel.; ‘loke for,’ Tynd., Cran.; Swayte,’ Cov.; ‘expect,’ Rhem. 6. Working] ‘Which worketh,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., Rhem., ‘that worketh ;’ Cov., ‘which by loue is mighty.’ The practice of inserting the relative before the anarthrous participle, even when idiom can scarcely be urged in its favor, is an inaccuracy that is not un- commonly found in the older Vy. Per- haps even in Eph. ii. 1, Col. ii. 13, it might seem better to adopt the concessive trans- lation, ‘ though, ete.’: see, however, notes in loce. (Transl.). Through] ‘By,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. 7. Were running] ‘Did run,’ Auth., Cuar. V. 8—16. GALATIANS. 17% obey the truth? ὃ The persuasion cometh not of Him that calleth you. ° A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. ” I, for my part, have confidence in you in the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded ; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judg- ment, whosoever he bes ™ But I, brethren, if I still preach crr- cumcIsIoNn, why do I still suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross done away with. © T would that they who are unset- tling you would even cut themselves off from you. 18 For ye were called unto liberty, brethren; only wse not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by your love serve. one another. 4 For the whole law is fulfilled in one saying, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ” But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 6 Now I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye shall in no wise fulfil Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. ; ‘run- nen,’ Wicel.; ‘ranne,’ Cov. (both), Rhem.. 8. The] Cran., Rhem.; ‘this,’ Wiel., Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen.; ‘that,’ Tynd.; ‘such,’ Cov. That calleth| So rightly Auth.: not ‘called, Tynd., Gen., or ‘is calling,’ as the iterative force involved in the English present more nearly ap- proaches to the idiomatic use of the par- ticiple than either the past tense or the resolved present; comp. notes on Phil. iii. 14, (TZrans/.), and Latham, Engl. Lang. § 578 (ed. 3). 10. I for my part] ‘I,’ Auth. and all the other Vv. In| So the other Vy. except Auth., Gen., ‘through the.’ . 11. But I] So Cov. (Test.): ‘and I,’ Auth. Still (bis)] ‘Yet,’ Auth. Done away with| ‘ Ceased,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘ voidid ;’? Rhem., ‘evacuated.’ 12. Are unsettling] ‘Trouble,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicel., ‘ dis- turblen ;’ Gen., ‘do disquiet.’ Would even, etc.| ‘I would they were even cut off which trouble you,’ Auth. and similarly Zthem.; ‘kutte aweie,’ Wicl., Cov. (Test.); ‘were seperated,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘were roted out,’ Cov.; ‘were cut off from you,’ Gen. 13. For ye, etc.] ‘For brethren ye have been,’ ete., Auth, and sim. all the other Vy. as to the forward position of ‘brethren.’ The aor. ἐκλήϑητε is trans- lated by different auxiliaries, ‘ye are,’ Wicel., Cov. (both), Rhem.,; ‘were,’ Tynd., Cran.; ‘have been,’ Gen., Bish., Auth. Your liberty] So Tynd., Cov. (both), Cran., Gen.: ‘liberty,’ Auth., Bish.; ‘fredom,’ Wicl.; ‘this liberty,’ hem. Your love] ‘Love,’ Auth., and the other Vy. except Wicl., Rhem., charite; Cov., ‘the loue.’ . 14. The whole] ‘ All the, Auth. and the other Vv. except Weel., ‘everi lawe.’ Saying] ‘Word,’ Auth. and the other Vv. 16. Now I say] ‘ This I say then,’ Auth; ‘Lsaye,’ Tynd., Cov, Cran.; ‘then (‘and,’ Wicl.) ‘I say,’ Gen., Bish. By| ‘In the,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel. Cov. (Test.), which omit the article. Shall in no wise] ‘Shall not,’ Auth., Cov. (Test.) Gen. Bish. ‘ye schalen not parfourme,’ Wiel ; GALATIANS. Cnap. V. 17—24. 180 the lust of the flesh. ” For. the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are opposed the one to the other, that ye may not do the things ye may wish. ™ But, if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. ™ Now the works of the flesh are manifest, of which kind are, — fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, ἢ idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jeal- ousy, deeds of wrath, caballings, dissensions, factions, ” envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you beforehand, as I also told you beforehand, that they which do all such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. * But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, benevo- lence, goodness, trustfulness, ” meekness, temperance: against all such things there is no law. ™ Now they that are Christ’s have ‘and fulfill not’ (imper.), Tynd., Cran.; ‘so shall ye not fulfyll,’ Cov.; ‘shal not accomplish,’ Rhem. 17. Are opposed] ‘Are contrary,’ Auth. and all Vy. except Wicl., them., ‘ben adversaries togidre.’ That ye may not] Comp. Wiel.: ‘so that ye cannot do, etc.,”’ Auth. and the remaining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), ‘that the thynges that ye will, ye do not the same;’ Jthem., ‘that not what things soever you wil, these you doe.’ For| **And,’ Auth. Ye may wish] ‘ The things that ye would, Auth., Gen. (‘the same’); ‘that ye wyl- len,’ Wicl.; ‘that which ye wolde,’ Tynd., Cov.; ‘the thynges that ye wyll,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘whatsoever ye wolde,’ Cran; “what ye wolde,’ Bish.; ‘what soever -you will,’ Rhem. 18. By] So Wiel, Cov. (Test ), Rhem.: ‘of,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. 19. Of which kind are] ‘Which are these,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., and Cov. (Test.), ‘which are.’ Fornication| ** Adultery, fornication,’ Auth. ness,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., Cov. (Test.), Rhem ‘leecherie.’ 20. Sorcery, etc.] ‘ Witchcraft, hatred, * variance, *emulations, wrath, strife, -seditions, heresies,’ Auth , Gen.; ‘ witche- Wauntonness| ‘ Lascivious- craft. . . variance, zele. . . sectes,’ Tynd., Cran., Bish. 21. Tell you beforehand| ‘Tell you before,” Auth. and the other Vy. (Cov. Test., ‘afore’) except Wicl., ‘seie;’ ‘foretell you,’ Phem. Told you beforehand | ‘ Have also told you in time past,” Auth; ‘haue told you to for, Wicl.; ‘haue tolde you in tyme past,’ Tynd., Cov., Cran.; ‘haue tolde you,’ Gen., Bish. ; ‘haue foretold you,’ Rhem. All such things] ‘Such things,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Cov. (both), ‘such.’ 22. Benevolence] ‘Gentleness,’ Auth., Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘benyng- nite,’ Wiel., Rhem. Trustfulness} ‘Faith, Auth. and the other Vv. except Tynd., Cov., Cran., ‘ faithfulness.’ 23. All such things] ‘Such,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicl., ‘suche thingis.’ 24. Now they] ‘And they,’ Auth., Wiel., Rhem.; ‘but,’ Cov. (both); ‘for,’ Gen.; ‘ they truly,’ Bishz Tynd and Cran. omit. Lave crucified] So Auth. and all the other Vv. Here again it seems desirable to preserve the perfect in translation, as the English aor. tends to refer the crucifixion too exclusively to the past; see notes on verse 4, Cuar. VI. 1—7. GALATIANS. 181 crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. ” If we Live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. * Let us not become vain-glorious, provoking one another, envying one another. Cis P TE Revel. * BreTHREN, if aman should be even surprised in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. * Bear ye one another’s burdens, and thus shall ye fulfil the law of Christ. * For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth his own mind. * But let each man prove his own work, and then shall he have his ground of boasting only in what con- cerneth himself, and not in what concerneth the other. ° For each man must bear his own load. 6 But let him that is taught in the word share with him that teacheth in all good things. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. * For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap 25. By the... by the] So Wiel. (‘bi. Spirit’): Auth. and the remaining Vv. “inthe οὖν . in the.’ 26. Become] So Cov. (Test.): ‘be,’ Auth., Tynd, Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘be made,’ Wiel., Rhem. Vain- glorious] So Tynd., Cov.: ‘desirous of vain glory,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. except Wicl , ‘ coueitous of veyne glory.’ Cuarrer VI. 1. Should be even sur- prised] ‘Be overtaken.’ Auth., Cov. (both) ; ‘be occupied,’ Wiel.; ‘be fallen by chance,’ Tynd.; ‘be taken,’ Cran. ; ‘by occasion,’ Gen., Bish. ; ‘be predccu- pated,’ Rhem. 2. Thus shall ye, ete.] *‘So fulfil,’ Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen. 3. Deceiveth his own mind| So Cran. ; ‘deceiveth himself,’ Auth., Cov. (both) ; ‘bigilith hym silf,’ ‘Wiel. ; ‘deceaveth hym silfe in his ymaginacion,’ Tynd., Gen. ; ‘in his own fansie,’ Bish. ; ‘se- duceth himself,’ Rhem. 4. Each] So Wicl. ; ‘every,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. His ground ὦ of boasting ete.] ‘Rejoicing in himself alone and not in another,’ Auth., and similarly, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; ‘haue glorie,’ Wicl. ; ‘so shall he rejoice only in himself,’ Cov. (Test.); ‘have the glorie,’ Rhem. 5. Each] So Wicl.; ‘every, Auth. and all the remaining Vy. Must bear] ‘Shall bear, Auth. and all the other Vy. Load] ‘ Burden,’ Auth. and the other Vv. except Wiel., ‘charge.’ 6. But let him] So Cov. (both) : ‘let him,’ Auth. and the remaining Vy. ex- cept Rhem., ‘and let him’ 8. Unto his own flesh] ‘To his flesh,’ Auth., Gen.; ‘inhis fleisch,’ Wiel., Tynd., Coverd. (Test.), Cran., Rhem.; ‘upon the fleshe,’ Cov. Unto the Sp.] ‘To the Spirit,’ Auth. Eternal life] ‘ Life everlasting,’ Auth. and the other Vy. except Wicel., Cov., (Test.), which pre- serve the more correct order ‘everlasting GALATIANS.,. Cuar. VI. 9—15. 182 corruption ; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life. ° But let us not lose heart in well-doing ; for in due season we shall reap, if now we faint not. " Accordingly, then, as we have opportunity, let us do what is good unto all men, but especially unto them who are of the househald of faith. 1 See in what large letters I have written unto you with mine own hand. ” As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, THEY constrain you to be circumcised ; only that they should not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. ™ For not even do they, who are being circumcised, themselves keep the law; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 7 But far be it from ΜῈ to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. life.’ It is not desirable to invert the or- der in English except when the adjective in the original occupies the emphatic, 7. e. the first place; comp. Winer, Gr. ὁ 59, 2, p. 464. On the translation of αἰώνιος, comp. notes on 2 Thess. i. 9 (Transl.). 9. But] ‘And, Ὧ Υ 4- ‘¢ Ψ " μ “ Ὁ i‘ ‘os - ᾿ : ἜΝ A ie ; - ἐν . a*s. eT. . Ε ν ΄ Ἂ «ὦ My > “Ὁ ‘ ᾿ Η O20 Ta a ἄν - " . . ἢ